Same-sex marriage in the federal courts

The following is a comprehensive collection of rulings involving same-sex marriage across the federal courts. Cases that are filed in the federal courts but have no ruling are not depicted on this page. The Fourteenth Amendment, which grants equal rights and due process, is the most commonly cited reason for the overturning of same-sex marriage bans. The only federal judge to uphold a state ban is Robert C. Jones of the District of Nevada. Four states with rulings have attorneys general who chose not to defend the relevant law in their state: Kathleen Kane of Pennsylvania; Mark Herring of Virginia; Jack Conway of Kentucky; and Ellen Rosenblum of Oregon.

History of the issue

Although same-sex marriages may be legally consummated in 20 U.S. jurisdictions, including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois (law took effect June 1, 2014), Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Washington, D.C., litigation over marriage equality has been especially active in the courts since the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional on June 26, 2013, in the United States v. Windsor case. Prior to the Windsor case, DOMA barred same-sex married couples from being recognized as spouses in the eyes of the federal government.

Since the Windsor case was decided, much of the litigation regarding same-sex marriage rights has focused on marriage-related ballot measures which seek to amend state constitutions to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. These ballot measures are often referred to as Defense of Marriage Amendments. Twenty-eight states enforce voter-approved state constitutional amendments that ban same-sex marriage by using such a definition, including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Three states, including Indiana, West Virginia, and Wyoming, ban same-sex marriage solely via state law, without a voter-approved constitutional amendment.

Oregon's voter-approved ban was struck down by Michael McShane and Pennsylvania's statutory ban was struck down by John E. Jones III.

For easy reference, here is a list of voter-approved Defense of Marriage Amendments which define marriage as between one man and one woman:

• Alabama Sanctity of Marriage, Constitutional Amendment 774 (June 2006)
• Alaska Marriage Amendment, Measure 2 (1998)
• Arizona Marriage Protection, Proposition 102 (2008)
• Arkansas Marriage Amendment, Proposal 3 (2004)
• California Proposition 8, the "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" Initiative (2008) - Ruled unconstitutional.
• Colorado Definition of Marriage, Initiative 43 (2006)
• Florida Definition of Marriage, Amendment 2 (2008)
• Georgia Marriage Amendment, Question 1 (2004)
• Idaho Marriage Amendment, H.J.R. 2 (2006)
• Kansas Marriage Amendment (2005)
• Kentucky Marriage Amendment (2004)
• Louisiana Marriage Amendment, Question 1 (September 2004)
• Michigan Marriage Amendment, Proposal 2 (2004)
• Mississippi Marriage Definition, Amendment 1 (2004)
• Missouri Marriage Definition, Amendment 2 (August 2004)
• Montana Marriage Verification, Measure CI-96 (2004)
• Nebraska Marriage Definition Amendment, Initiative 416 (2000)
• Nevada Marriage Amendment, Question 2 (2002)
• North Carolina Same-Sex Marriage, Amendment 1 (May 2012)
• North Dakota Definition of Marriage, Amendment 1 (2004)
• Ohio Issue 1, the Marriage Amendment (2004)
• Oklahoma Marriage Question 711 (2004)
• Oregon Marriage Measure 36 (2004) - Ruled unconstitutional.
• South Carolina Amendment 1, the Marriage Act (2006)
• South Dakota Marriage Amendment (2006)
• Tennessee Same-Sex Marriage Ban, Amendment 1 (2006)
• Texas Definition of Marriage Act, Proposition 2 (2005)
• Utah Same-Sex Marriage Ban, Amendment 3 (2004)
• Virginia Question 1, Marriage Amendment (2006)
• Wisconsin Marriage Amendment, Question 1 (2006)

On November 6, 2012, Maine, Maryland, and Washington became the first states to legalize same-sex civil marriage through popular vote.

Map of same-sex marriage laws and cases

This is a map of the U.S. depicting cases and laws on same-sex marriage as of September 8, 2014.

Federal cases

The cases found in this section are listed numerically by the circuit in which they occurred and then alphabetically by state.

Middle District of Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania same-sex marriage challenge (2013-2014)

See also: United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Whitewood, et al v. Wolf, et al, Case 1:2013cv01861)

On July 9, 2013, in the wake of the United States Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Windsor, the Pennsylvania ACLU filed suit on behalf of 23 plaintiffs in an attempt to strike the state's ban on gay marriage, alleging that it violated the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. In May 2014, Judge John E. Jones permanently barred the State of Pennsylvania from denying same-sex couples marriage licenses. Judge Jones did not issue a stay on his ruling pending appeal, instead writing:

“	By virtue of this ruling, same-sex couples who seek to marry in Pennsylvania may do so, and already married same-sex couples will be recognized as such in the Commonwealth.	”
—John E. Jones

Attorney General Kathleen Kane notably refused to defend the state's law, leaving Pennsylvania Governor Thomas Corbett to step in to handle the task. A motion to dismiss was filed where the state argued that under the United States Supreme Court's decision in Baker v. Nelson, a federal court lacked jurisdiction over the state's law. On November 15, 2013, Judge Jones denied the motion, rejecting the notion that the 1972 decision cited by the state left federal courts powerless. On December 9, 2013, the state requested permission to file an interlocutory appeal on the question of law to the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, and Judge Jones denied that request on December 17, 2013.

Fourth Circuit

Supreme Court puts hold on same-sex marriages in Virginia (2014)

See also: Supreme Court of the United States (McQuigg, Michele v. Bostic, Timothy B., et al, 14A196)

The U.S. Supreme Court stayed the decision of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which found Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. The order handed down on August 20, 2014, prevents same-sex couples from getting married in Virginia, pending a high court ruling on the issue. Attorney General Mark Herring stated:

“

A stay is warranted in light of the negative impact on Virginia children, families, and businesses if the Supreme Court eventually rules against marriage equality and forces an unwinding of Virginians' marriages, adoptions, inheritances, or workplace benefits.

”

Challenge to Virginia ban on same-sex marriage appeal (2014)

See also: United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (Bostic v. Rainey, et al, No. 14-1173)

Judge Henry Floyd wrote the 2-1 opinion affirming the Eastern District of Virginia's ruling that found a ban on same-sex marriages to be unconstitutional. Judge Roger Gregory joined the majority opinion and Paul Niemeyer wrote the dissent. The majority found the defendants arguments that the law protected responsible procreation, proper child-rearing and the tradition of marriage, to be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Judge Floyd wrote in conclusion:

“

We recognize that same-sex marriage makes some people deeply uncomfortable. However, inertia and apprehension are not legitimate bases for denying same-sex couples due process and equal protection of the laws. Civil marriage is one of the cornerstones of our way of life. It allows individuals to celebrate and publicly declare their intentions to form lifelong partnerships, which provide unparalleled intimacy, companionship, emotional support, and security. The choice of whether and who to marry is an intensely personal decision that alters that course of an individual's life. Denying same-sex couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance.

”

In dissent, Judge Paul Niemeyer wrote that the United States Constitution does not explicitly define fundamental right for same-sex marriages it should be left to the States to decided if it should be recognized or not. He wrote:

“

The U.S. Constitution does not, in my judgement, restrict the States' policy choices on this issue. If given the choice, some States will surely recognize same-sex marriage and some will surely not. But that is, to be sure, the beauty of federalism.

”

Eastern District of Virginia

Challenge to Virginia ban on same-sex marriage (2014)

See also: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Bostic v. Rainey, et al, 2:13-cv-00395-AWA-LRL)

On February 13, 2014, Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen struck down Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage, based on the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. In her 41-page opinion, Wright Allen wrote that "[g]ay and lesbian individuals share the same capacity as heterosexual individuals to form, preserve and celebrate loving, intimate and lasting relationships," and that "[s]uch relationships are created through the exercise of sacred, personal choices -- choices, like the choices made by every other citizen, that must be free from unwarranted government interference." The ban was approved by voters by 57% in 2006.

In the underlying case, Timothy Bostic and Tony London, a committed gay couple, applied for a marriage license on July 1, 2013, but were denied because they were a same-sex couple. Bostic and London filed suit on July 18, 2013, alleging that their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection had been violated by Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage, as enacted through state statute and constitutional amendment. In September 2013, Carol Schall and Mary Townley, a lesbian couple married in California whose marriage was unrecognized by Virginia, were added to the case as plaintiffs. Later that month, on September 30, 2013, the American Foundation for Equal Rights joined the case, with David Boies and Ted Olson, the same lawyers who argued California's Proposition 8 case before the Supreme Court, signing on to represent the plaintiffs.

In January 2014, Virginia's Attorney General Mark Herring announced that he would refuse to defend the state's ban, having concluded that it was unconstitutional. Wright Allen heard oral arguments on the case on February 4, 2014, where Olson argued that Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage was "excluding [gay and lesbian citizens] from the most important relation in life,” while lawyer Austin R. Nimocks, arguing for the defense, claimed the law "celebrate[d] the diversity of the sexes."

Eastern District of Louisiana

Upholding of Louisiana's same-sex marriage ban (2014)

See also: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Jonathan P. Robicheaus, Et al. v. James D. Caldwell, Louisiana Attorney General, Et al., 13-5090)

Judge Martin Feldman was the presiding judge in the case of Robicheaux v. Caldwell. On September 3, 2014, Feldman ruled that Louisiana's ban on same-sex marriage was constitutional. The judge found that public opinion does not establish a fundamental right to same-sex marriage. He went on to dismiss the argument that the law violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He stated:

“

Even ignoring the obvious difference between this case and Loving, no analogy can defeat the plain reality that Louisiana's laws apply evenhandedly to both genders--whether between two men or two women.

”

Feldman drew heavily on tradition in his ruling, often referring to the definition of marriage as thousands of years old and the idea of same-sex marriage cannot be considered a fundamental right due to its relative newness. The plaintiffs plan to appeal the ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Western District of Texas

Challenge to Texas ban on same-sex marriage found unconstitutional (2014)

See also: United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (De Leon, et al v. Perry, et al, 5:13-cv-00982-OLG)

On February 26, 2014, Judge Orlando Garcia struck down the Texas ban on same-sex marriage and issued an injunction as to the enforcement of the state statute, ruling that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment rights of same-sex couples to equal protection and due process of the law. The underlying case stems from a November 2005 voter-approved amendment to the Texas Constitution which banned same-sex marriage, as well as provisions of the Texas Family Code enacted in 1997 and 2003, which prohibited the issuance of marriage licenses to persons of the same gender and prohibited recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages, respectively.

The plaintiffs, Mark Phariss and Victor Holmes and Cleopatra De Leon and Nicole Dimetmen, filed suit against Texas Governor Rick Perry, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, Bexar County Clerk Gerard Rickhoff, and Commissioner David Lakey of the Texas Department of State Health Services, seeking the ability to marry as a same-sex couple within Texas (Phariss and Holmes) and the ability to have their out-of-state, same-sex marriage recognized by the Texas government (De Leon and Dimetmen). Judge Garcia found for the plaintiffs in his ruling, writing:

“

Today's Court decision is not made in defiance of the great people of Texas or the Texas Legislature, but in compliance with the United States Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution.

”

Garcia stayed his decision pending any appeal to the Fifth Circuit. The defendants filed a notice of appeal the day after Garcia's ruling was made public.

Sixth Circuit

Same-sex marriage ban upheld in Sixth Circuit (2014)

See also: United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit (DeBoer, et al v. Snyder, et al, Case 2:12-cv-10285)

Judge Jeffrey Sutton was the opinion writing judge in DeBoer et al v. Snyder, et al, a case upholding the bans on same-sex marriage in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. In the court's opinion upholding the ban, Sutton based the reversal on allowing states the ability to govern themselves through the democratic process without the fear of select few judges overruling a majority made decision. Sutton stated in his conclusion:

“

Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political process, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way.

”

Judge Deborah Cook joined Sutton's opinion.

The dissenting opinion in the 2-1 ruling was written by Martha Daughtrey. She expressed that the three branches of government are equal, and the legislative branch should not be given higher authority over the judicial branch. In her counterargument, Daughtrey stated:

“

Today, my colleagues seem to have fallen prey to the misguided notion that the intent of the framers of the United States Constitution can be effectuated only by cleaving to the legislative will and ignoring and demonizing an independent judiciary. Of course, the framers presciently recognized that two of the three co-equal branches of government were representative in nature and necessarily would be guided by self-interest and the pull of popular opinion. To restrain those natural, human impulses, the framers crafted Article III to ensure that rights, liberties, and duties need not be held hostage by popular whims.

”

The American Civil Liberties Union expressed its intent to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Western District of Kentucky

Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states (2014)

See also: United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky (Bourke, et al v. Beshear, et al, 3:13-cv-00750-JGH)

In February 2014, Judge John Heyburn issued a preliminary ruling, determining that the State of Kentucky must recognize the marriages of four couples who were married in different states and in Canada. In the ruling, Heyburn wrote:

“

It is clear that Kentucky's laws treat gay and lesbian persons differently in a way that demeans them.

”

This ruling voids in part Kentucky's Marriage Amendment, which identified marriage as between one man and one woman. That ballot measure passed in 2004.

Judge Heyburn also pointed out that every federal judge who has heard challenges to state recognition of same-sex marriage bans since the passage of Windsor v. United States has found them to be unconstitutional.

After the ruling was announced, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, who argued the case on behalf of the state, plainly said that he "did his duty" in defending the law. At that time, both Attorney General Conway and Governor Steve Beshear said it was too soon to comment on the next steps in the case. Two weeks later, Judge Heyburn issued a final order, requiring state officials to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages. Attorney General Conway and Governor Beshear immediately filed a motion with Judge Heyburn seeking a 90-day stay of the ruling to determine whether an appeal would be filed.

On March 4, 2014, Attorney General Conway announced that he would not continue to defend Kentucky's ban on the recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages:

“

Judge Heyburn got it right. The United States Constitution is designed to protect everyone’s rights, both the majority and the minority groups.

”

Shortly thereafter, Governor Beshear publicly stated that Kentucky would appeal Judge Heyburn's ruling, but without Conway's assistance.

Kentucky same-sex ban found unconstitutional (2014)

See also: United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky (Love et al. v. Beshear, 3:13-CV-750-H)

On July 1, 2014, Judge John Heyburn ruled that Kentucky's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Similar to the 20 plus cases that had found same-sex marriage bans to be unconstitutional, Judge Heyburn found that the ban was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Heyburn chided Kentucky's argument that the exclusion of same-sex marriages held interests in the states economic security:

“

The state’s attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in “ensuring humanity’s continued existence” are at best illogical and even bewildering. These arguments fail for the precise reasons that Defendant’s procreation argument fails.

”

Heyburn stayed the order until the Sixth Circuit could hear and rule on the appeal.

The United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit will hear oral arguments of the appeal on August 6, 2014.

Eastern District of Michigan

Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage challenged (2014)

See also: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ((dead link) DeBoer v. Snyder, 12-CV-10285)

On February 25, 2014, a case challenging Michigan's same-sex marriage ban was brought in the Eastern District of Michigan. Judge Bernard Friedman presided over the case, which was brought by April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, two women in the state. They challenged Michigan's Marriage Amendment, Proposal 2, a constitutional amendment approved by 58.6% of voters in 2004. The case was initiated in 2012 after DeBoer and Rowse were denied the ability to adopt one another's children. Judge Friedman allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to challenge the state's ban on same-sex marriage in August 2012. The law was defended in court by the Michigan State Attorney General's Office.

On March 21, 2014, after a two-week trial Judge Friedman struck down Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage as an unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, writing:

“

In attempting to define this case as a challenge to “the will of the people,” state defendants lost sight of what this case is truly about: people. No court record of this proceeding could ever fully convey the personal sacrifice of these two plaintiffs who seek to ensure that the state may no longer impair the rights of their children and the thousands of others now being raised by same-sex couples.

”

Judge Friedman further noted that his decision "affirmed the enduring principle that . . . the guarantee of equal protection must prevail." Since the federal ruling in U.S. v. Windsor, federal judges have struck down same-sex marriage bans in a number of states, including Virginia, Utah, and Oklahoma. In those cases, judges have opted to stay their rulings pending appeal. Here, Judge Friedman notably made no mention of such a delay, meaning that same-sex couples in Michigan could potentially obtain marriage licenses on the next business day.

On the same day Judge Friedman's ruling was announced publicly, Michigan's attorney general filed an emergency appeal with the Sixth Circuit, requesting that the ruling be stayed and reconsidered.

Southern District of Ohio

Ohio ordered to recognize same-sex marriages from other states (2014)

See also: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Henry v. Himes, 1:14-cv-129)

On April 14, 2014, Judge Black released his anticipated ruling which ordered Ohio's officials to recognize legal same-sex marriages performed in other states. However, two days later, Black stayed his own ruling upon the result of the appeal filed in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. As such, Monday's ruling will have no immediate ramifications for anyone in the state besides the four married lesbian couples who brought suit. Black ordered Ohio to provide new birth certificates to the children of the four couples, recognizing that the parents were wed legally.

Same-sex marriage must be recognized on death certificates in Ohio (2013)

See also: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Barrett, et al v. Claycomb, et al, 1:13-cv-501)

On December 23, 2013, Judge Timothy S. Black ruled that Ohio authorities must recognize same-sex marriages on death certificates. Ohio law prohibits recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states, and in the underlying case, two gay men who were married in states allowing such unions wanted to be recognized on the death certificates of their recently deceased spouses. Black had previously issued temporary restraining orders preventing the state from accepting death certificates unless they reflected the decedents’ status as “married,” with their male partners listed as “surviving spouse.” Black ruled that to treat same-sex marriages differently than opposite-sex marriages would be a violation of American citizens’ constitutionally guaranteed equal protection rights. He went on to compare the many different types of marriages that are legally recognized in Ohio, even if not authorized in Ohio, such as marriages between cousins and between minors. Pursuant to Black’s order, “once you get married lawfully in one state, another state cannot summarily take your marriage away,” regardless of whether it is a same-sex marriage. Black’s ruling was limited only to death certificates, but the language he used was so sweeping that it may be applied to other Ohio same-sex marriage litigation proceedings in the future. On the same day Black handed down his ruling, Ohio's Attorney General said he would file an appeal with the Sixth Circuit.

Judge Black rules for cross-state recognition of same-sex marriage (2013)

See also: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Obergefell v. Kasich, 1:13-cv-501)

In July 2013, Judge Timothy S. Black ruled that the marriage of a same-sex couple married in Maryland should be recognized by the State of Ohio on a death certificate. James Obergefell, husband of John Arthur, sought to be listed as the surviving spouse on Arthur's death certificate. At the time of the ruling, Arthur was suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease. Because of the stipulation that only direct descendants and spouses could be buried in the Arthur family plot, without legal recognition on the marriage certificate the two would not be able to be buried next to one another. Judge Black stated that the ruling only applied to the couple who brought suit, saying:

“

The uncertainty around this issue during Mr. Arthur's final illness is the cause of extreme emotional hardship to the couple. Dying with an incorrect death certificate that prohibits Mr. Arthur from being buried with dignity constitutes irreparable harm.

”

Same-sex marriages were outlawed in Ohio in 2004 when a ballot measure prohibiting the unions passed. While proponents for marriage equality saw this as a victory in overturning the 2004 ballot measure, the Attorney General's Office said:

“

...[T]his is a temporary ruling at a preliminary stage under sad circumstances.

”

The office also stood by the right of Ohioans to determine whether these unions should be legal.

Reaction to ruling

In response to this ruling, Ohio Representative John Becker asked U.S. Representative Brad Wenstrup to initiate impeachment proceedings against Judge Black. In the request, Rep. Becker said:

“

I am writing you today to express my concerns about the federal government's ever growing propensity to violate state sovereignty. Although this has been a trend since the early 19th century, it has accelerated exponentially in recent decades.

”

Rep. Wenstrup, who represents Ohio's 2nd congressional district, responded:

“

While Judge Black’s ruling violated the Ohio Constitution and the will of Ohio voters, the question of whether this decision also violated the U.S. Constitution remains before a higher court. I will watch those appellate proceedings closely to see if Judge Black’s decision is upheld and I have full confidence in the Ohio’s office of the Attorney General during the appeals process.

”

Middle District of Tennessee

Challenge to Tennessee's laws against recognition of same-sex marriage (2014)

See also: United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Tanco, et al v. Haslam, et al, 3:13-cv-01159)

On March 14, 2014, Judge Aleta Trauger ruled that Tennessee must recognize the same-sex marriages of three couples that were legally married out-of-state, issuing an injunction against the state's ban on such recognition in favor of only those three couples. In the underlying case, the plaintiff couples challenged Tennessee's Same-Sex Marriage Ban, Amendment 1, a constitutional amendment approved by 81.3% of voters in 2006. The plaintiffs did not challenge the state's constitutional amendment in its totality, but rather focused on its refusal to recognize same-sex marriages legally consummated in other states. In her opinion, Judge Trauger noted that the state's anti-recognition laws failed to pass constitutional muster, writing:

“

At this point, all signs indicate that, in the eyes of the United States Constitution, the plaintiffs’ marriages will be placed on an equal footing with those of heterosexual couples and that proscriptions against same-sex marriage will soon become a footnote in the annals of American history.

”

On March 18, 2014, Tennessee's attorney general filed an appeal with the Sixth Circuit, requesting that Judge Trauger's decision be stayed pending the case's resolution in the court system.

Seventh Circuit

Confirming district court rulings on same-sex marriages (2014)

See also: United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit (Baskin v. Bogan and Wolf v. Walker, 14-2386, 14-2388 and 14-2526)

Judge Richard Posner was the opinion writing judge on a Seventh Circuit panel that heard the cases of Baskin v. Bogan and Wolf v. Walker, which involved same-sex marriage in Indiana and Wisconsin. The other members of the panel were David Hamilton and Ann Williams. During the oral arguments, both Wisconsin and Indiana attorney's argued that their respective states' ban on same-sex marriage was to dissuade "accidental births" that led to children being raised by a single parent or in the foster system. This argument was dismissed by the panel during oral arguments as well as in Judge Posner's written opinion. Posner wrote:

“

Overlooked by this argument is that many of those abandoned children are adopted by homosexual couples, and those children would be better off both emotionally and economically if their adoptive parents were married.

”

On the point of Indiana's defense, that their only purpose for marriage is for the betterment of children, Posner found that if this was the sole purpose for marriage, allowing heterosexual couples who cannot conceive wouldn't be allowed in the state.

Posner continues on in his dismantling of the defenses arguments, dismissing Wisconsin's argument of tradition being a basis for their ban on same-sex marriage. This argument was found be flawed since interracial marriage was defended on the same principle and does not establish the legality of discrimination.

The Seventh Circuit upheld the Wisconsin and Indiana rulings that struck down the ban on same-sex marriages. Indiana and Wisconsin appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Northern District of Illinois

Allowing same-sex marriages early in Cook County (2014)

See also: United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Lee v. Orr, 13-cv-8719)

Judge Sharon Coleman was the presiding judge in a case where a Cook County couple sued to be married before the law allowing same-sex marriage in Illinois took effect on June 1, 2014. In November 2013, the Illinois General Assembly passed a law that allowed same-sex couples to marry in the state of Illinois. Illinois law states that any law passed after May 31 does not go into effect until June 1 of the following year. The plaintiffs in the case, Brenda Lee and Lee Edwards, initially sued the Cook County clerk's office to be able to marry in cases where one or both partners were terminally ill prior to the June 1, 2014 date. After being granted the right to marry if terminally ill, the plaintiffs brought another case before the court asking that all gay and lesbian couples be afforded the right to marry before the June 1, 2014, enactment date. Their case focused on the unconstitutionality of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, and if that right can be afforded early for terminally ill couples, then it should be afforded to all gay and lesbian couples. On February 21, 2014, Judge Coleman ruled in favor of the couple, allowing same-sex marriages to proceed immediately in Cook County, Illinois. Since it was not covered in the ruling, couples wishing to convert their civil union into a marriage had to wait until the June 1, 2014 enactment date.

Southern District of Indiana

Judge rules that Indiana must recognize same-sex marriages from other states

See also: United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (Bowling v Pence, 1:14-cv-00405-RLY-TAB)

Judge Richard Young's ruling on August 19, 2014, held that Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. This was not the judge's first decision to allow such marriages in the state. A couple months prior, he made a similar decision (see below). However, his rulings have been stayed pending appeal.

At issue in Bowling v. Pence was whether Indiana would recognize same-sex marriages that occurred in other states.

Young also touched on the issue of whether Governor Mike Pence should be included in the same-sex marriage lawsuits. Pence had previously argued that he had no authority to enforce the state's same-sex marriage laws. However, after Young first struck down the state's ban on such marriages in June, Gov. Pence issued a memo saying that the ban was still effective and that the judge's ruling should be disregarded. Young responded, writing in the Bowling order:

“

The court, after witnessing the Governor do what he claimed he could not do, reverses course and finds him to be a proper party to such lawsuits. The court wishes to reiterate that it finds the Governor's prior representations contradicting such authority to be, at a minimum, troubling.

”

Indiana must recognize out of state same-sex marriage (2014)

See also: United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (BASKIN V. BOGAN, 1:14-cv-00355-RLY-TAB)

Judge Richard Young was the presiding judge in a case where same-sex couples wanted their marriages to be recognized in Indiana. Judge Young expedited a ruling for one of the couples in the case, the couple of Amy Sandler and Niki Quasney. In 2009, Quasney was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She and her spouse Sandler were legally married in Massachusetts and sued to have their marriage recognized in Indiana so that, upon Quasney's death, they could have an accurate death certificate that would allow Sandler to take care of their children and assets. Judge Young issued a 28-day injunction on April 10, 2014, allowing only their marriage to be recognized during that time. The other couples in the case will have their cases heard at the non-expedited pace.

Indiana must perform and recognize same-sex marriages (2014)

See also: United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (BASKIN V. BOGAN, 1:14-cv-00406-RLY-MJD)

Judge Richard Young ruled on June 25, 2014, that Indiana must recognized and allow same-sex marriage. Young issued a permanent injunction requiring the state to immediately start performing same-sex marriages. Similar to the other same-sex marriage rulings, Judge Young found the state in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment:

“

The court agrees with Plaintiffs. “Fundamental rights, once recognized, cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that these groups have historically been denied those rights.”

”

Judge Young consolidated two other Indiana cases, Lee v. Pence and Midori Fujii v. State of Indiana, in to the Baskin v. Bogan on June 27, 2014. He chose not to stay his ruling pending an appeal but the Seventh Circuit issued a stay on late on June 27, 2014.

Western District of Wisconsin

Same-sex marriage in Wisconsin (2014)

See also: United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Wolf and Schumacher et. al. v. Walker et. al., 14-cv-64-bbc)

Judge Barbara Crabb ruled that Wisconsin's ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional on June 6, 2014. Crabb found the ban to be unconstitutional, writing in her decision:

“

Quite simply, this case is about liberty and equality, the two cornerstones of the rights protected by the United States Constitution.

”

However, the ruling did not remove the ban, it simply stated that the law was unconstitutional. It did give plaintiffs and defendants until June 16th to file proposals as to what actions should be taken in regards to this ruling of constitutionality.

Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen filed motion to have the order stayed by Judge Crabb, while he begins the appeal process to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The motion to stay was filed in response to some county clerks issuing same-sex couples marriage licenses. The motion to stay was denied by Judge Crabb on June, 9, 2014. In the hearing Crabb restated the fact that she ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, she had not issued an injunction allowing marriage licenses to be issued.

District of Arizona

Arizona recognition of out of state same-sex marriage (2014)

See also: United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Majors v. Jeanes, 2:14-cv-00518 JWS)

Judge John Sedwick, acting as a visiting judge for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, was the presiding judge in the case of Majors v. Jeanes. The case involved the State of Arizona and Fred McQuire and his same-sex partner George Martinez, who were married in California. After Martinez's death, Fred McQuire wished their California marriage to be recognized on an Arizona death certificate. On September 12, 2014, Judge Sedwick ordered Arizona to recognize the marriage of McQuire and the late Martinez and to issue a death certificate with McQuire listed as the spouse. The defense's argument against issuing the death certificate was that Arizona's law defining marriage as between one man and one woman was not intended to discriminate against same-sex marriages. The judge ruled that the law did discriminate, making the defense's argument invalid.The judge opted to apply his ruling only to this case.

District of Idaho

Same-sex marriage in Idaho (2014)

See also: United States District Court for the District of Idaho (Latta v. Otter, 1:13-cv-00482-CWD)

In May 2014, Judge Candy Dale ruled in favor of four same-sex couples challenging Idaho's 2006 Marriage Definition Amendment. In the ruling, Judge Dale noted:

“

Idaho’s Marriage Laws withhold from them a profound and personal choice, one that most can take for granted. By doing so, Idaho’s Marriage Laws deny same-sex couples the economic, practical, emotional, and spiritual benefits of marriage, relegating each couple to a stigmatized, second-class status. Plaintiffs suffer these injuries not because they are unqualified to marry, start a family, or grow old together, but because of who they are and whom they love.

”

The full ruling can be read here.

District of Nevada

Nevada’s ban on same-sex marriage (2012-2013)

See also: United States District Court for the District of Nevada (Sevcik v. Sandoval, 2:12-cv-00578-RCJ-PAL)

In November 2012, Judge Robert C. Jones upheld Nevada’s ban on same sex marriage. The civil rights organization which brought the case, Lambda Legal, appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2012. Jones wrote in the decision:

“

Human beings are created through the conjugation of one man and one woman. The percentage of human beings conceived through non-traditional methods is minuscule and adoption, the form of child-rearing in which same-sex couples may typically participate together, is not an alternative means of creating children, but rather a social backstop for when traditional biological families fail. The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women. The institution developed in our society, its predecessor societies, and by nearly all societies on Earth throughout history to solidify, standardize, and legalize the relationship between a man, a woman, and their offspring, is civil marriage between one man and one woman.

”

The case's stay expired on July 19, 2013.

District of Oregon

Marriage ban struck down in Oregon (2014)

See also: United States District Court for the District of Oregon (Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 6:13-cv-01834-MC)

On May 19, 2014, Judge Michael McShane ruled that Oregon's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The case involved four couples that sued the State of Oregon to end the ban on same-sex marriage. The state of Oregon opted to not defend the law as both the state's Attorney General, Ellen Rosenblum, and Governor John Kitzhaber believed the law to be unconstitutional. This left the defense of the law to be handled by McShane, an openly gay judge. When the state chose to not defend the law, pro-traditional marriage group the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) attempted to join the case in its defense. The National Organization for Marriage's cause for joining the case involved interests of members of their organization and questions about the impartiality of Judge McShane. McShane dismissed their request to join stating that he hasn't contributed to the promotion of the same-sex cause in a way that would affect his impartiality and that NOM admitted to having less than 100 members in the state.

In the ruling Judge Michael McShane quoted the Fourteenth Amendment:

“

The Constitution commands that no state may "deny to any person ... the equal protection of the laws."

”

McShane's ruling allowed same-sex marriages to be recognized and be performed in the state of Oregon.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the National Organization for Marriage's request to block McShane's ruling.

Tenth Circuit

Utah same-sex marriage ruling upheld (2014)

See also: United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit (Kitchen v. Herbert, 13-4178)

Judge Carlos Lucero was opinion writing judge, with Jerome Holmes concurring, in the appeal of Kitchen v. Herbert, a case that involved a same-sex marriages in Utah. The Tenth Circuit ruled 2-1 in favor of District of Utah's ruling ending the ban on the grounds that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. Judge Lucero wrote:

“

In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

”

Judge Paul Kelly dissented on the point that marriage is a fundamental right, stating:

“

If the States are the laboratories of democracy, requiring every state to recognize same-gender unions—contrary to the views of its electorate and representatives—turns the notion of a limited national government on its head. Marriage is an important social institution commonly understood to protect this and future generations. That states sincerely differ about the best way to do this (including whether to extend marriage to same-gender couples) is inevitable.

”

Northern District of Oklahoma

Same-sex marriage ban ruled unconstitutional (2014)

See also: United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Bishop v. United States, 4:04-cv-00848-TCK-TLW)

On January 14, 2014, Judge Terence Kern struck down State Question No. 711, Oklahoma's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, issuing a stay on his ruling pending the resolution of any appeal filed. In the underlying case, two lesbian couples filed suit in November 2004, challenging both the Oklahoma constitutional amendment which prohibited same-sex couples from being married, as well as the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). A trial in the Bishop case was originally scheduled for May 2012, but the matter was delayed while landmark same-sex marriage cases, including United States v. Windsor, were ongoing. In the Windsor case, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of DOMA, where marriage was defined as between one man and one woman, was unconstitutional. Accordingly, Kern's opinion fully addressed only Oklahoma's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, noting that the provision of DOMA the plaintiffs sought to invalidate had "already been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court." In striking down Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage, Kern observed that it conflicted with the plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, describing the law as "an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit." Kern issued a stay of his opinion pending the resolution of any state government appeal to the Tenth Circuit. An appeal was filed on January 16, 2014, two days after Kern released his opinion.

District of Utah

Utah's ban on same-sex marriage overturned (2013)

See also: United States District Court for the District of Utah (Kitchen, et al v. Herbert, et al, 2:13-cv-217)

On December 20, 2013, Judge Robert Shelby struck down Utah's ban on same-sex marriage, declaring the statute unconstitutional. In the underlying case, three gay and lesbian couples filed suit on March 23, 2013, claiming that the state's voter-approved ballot referendum prohibiting same-sex marriage, as well as the state's failure to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside its boundaries, infringed upon their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. On December 4, 2013, Shelby heard oral arguments on the case, where attorneys for the state defended its ban on same-sex marriage by offering evidence of Utah's interest in "responsible procreation" and an "optimal mode of child-rearing." Attorneys for the plaintiffs countered by arguing that choice of marriage partner is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. Two weeks later, Shelby struck down Utah's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, finding that it "demean[ed] the dignity of ... same-sex couples for no rational reason."

On December 22, 2013, Utah filed an appeal of Shelby's ruling with the Tenth Circuit, along with a request for an emergency stay of Shelby's ruling to halt same-sex marriages pending the appeal. On December 24, 2013, the Tenth Circuit denied the stay. On December 31, 2013, Utah filed an emergency application for a stay of Shelby's ruling with the Supreme Court, where Justice Sonia Sotomayor is designated to handle such requests from states within the Tenth Circuit's jurisdiction. Same-sex marriage supporters asked that Sotomayor refuse to uphold Utah's ban, but on January 6, 2014, after she referred the matter to all nine justices of the high court, the Supreme Court blocked Shelby's decision pending the resolution of Utah's appeal. The Supreme Court's order is available here. On January 8, 2014, Utah announced that it would not recognize any of the same-sex marriages that were performed prior to the date the Supreme Court issued its stay, thus putting the unions into legal limbo.

Southern District of Alabama

Judge Granade rules Alabama same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional (2015)

Judge Callie Granade ruled on January 23, 2015, that Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, striking down the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment passed by voters in 2006. The judge did stay her ruling for two weeks to allow the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to review the case.

Articles:

• AL.com, "Alabama gay marriage ruling put on hold: No same-sex wedding licenses for 2 weeks," January 25, 2015
• Reuters, "Judge puts Alabama same-sex marriages on hold after striking down ban," January 26, 2015

Northern District of Florida

Judge says Florida's ban on same-sex marriage is discrimination (2014)

See also: United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Brenner v. Scott and Grimsley v. Scott, 4:14cv107-RH/CAS and 4:14cv138-RH/CAS)

Following a number of similar, county-level decisions across the state, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle ruled on August 21, 2014, that Florida's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage that was passed in 2008 is unconstitutional. In the ruling, the judge compared the issue of same-sex marriage to that of interracial marriage in the past, writing:

“

When observers look back 50 years from now, the arguments supporting Florida's ban on same-sex marriage, though just as sincerely held, will again seem an obvious pretext for discrimination. Observers who are not now of age will wonder just how those views could have been held.

”

Hinkle stayed his ruling, pending appeal, meaning that same-sex marriages were not immediately allowed in the state. The underlying cases involved 22 people--eight same-sex couples, as well as members of an LGBT-focused group called SAVE--who sued the state in order to obtain marriage licenses.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) praised the ruling, while the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops said they were disappointed by it. The bishops had filed a friend-of-the-court brief expressing their "strong interest in protecting the traditional institution of husband-wife marriage because of the religious beliefs of its members and due to this institution's benefits to children, families and society."

The ruling followed four local-level decisions by judges in the counties of Monroe, Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach, that ruled similarly against the ban in July and August of 2014.

See also

• United States federal courts
• DOMA Key Provision Struck Down

External links

• Search Google News for this topic
• Marriage Equality USA, "Lawsuits Pending,"
• Infographic World, "LGBT Rights Around the World"

Footnotes