Where can you get married if you are gay?

Answer 1

I think MA, CA

Answer 2

Vermont was the first state to allow two people of the same gender to enter a legalized union. It's called a civil union.

"Such couples would be entitled to all the rights and responsibilities under Vermont law that are available to married couples -- among them, inheriting a partner's estate without paying extra taxes, making medical decisions for each other and filing joint income tax returns."

I know other states have adopted civil unions but I'm not sure which ones.

Good Luck!! :o)

Answer 3

I believe you can get a civil union in Massachusetts or Vermont.

Answer 4

Mars and California...

Answer 5

My guess is HELL! Good luck with that!

Answer 6

TEXAS

Answer 7

State-Level
Outside of Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal, Vermont, California, New Jersey, District of Columbia and Connecticut are the only U.S. states to offer same-sex couples all or some of the state-level rights and benefits of marriage. They do not use the word "marriage", however, but call such unions civil union or domestic partnership.

Hawaii and Maine's domestic partnership and reciprocal benefit laws provide similar benefits, but both stop short of full equality on a state level.

Federal-Level
In 1996, the United States Congress passed and President Clinton signed Public Law 106-199, the Defense of Marriage Act.

The Act defines "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of federal law.

The impact of the second part of the Act is less clear. Traditionally, states have been allowed to regulate the marital status of their own citizens. A narrow interpretation of the Act only codifies this policy. The Act was arguably passed out of concern that same-sex couples from all over the U.S. would fly to Hawaii, get married, and demand recognition in their home states (although Hawaii ultimately never allowed same-sex marriage).

Alaska
February 27, 1998: The Alaska Superior Court judge Peter Michalski rules in favor of plaintiffs Jay Brause and Gene Dugan, saying that choosing a marital partner is a fundamental right that cannot be denied by the state without a compelling reason.

November 3, 1998: The state's voters amend their constitution to require that all marriages be between a man and a woman.

[edit]
Arizona
1975: Two men from Phoenix, Arizona are granted a marriage license by a county clerk on January 7. The Arizona Supreme Court, citing the Bible, voided and revoked the marriage licence. The state legislature passed a bill specifically defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.[8]

September 2006: The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a proposition that would amend the state constitution defining marriage would be allowed on the ballot. [9]

[edit]
California
Main article: Same-sex marriage in California

[edit]
Colorado
1975: Clela Rorex, county clerk of Boulder County, Colorado, allowed six same-sex couples to wed, after receiving an advisory opinion from the district attorney's office indicating that the state's laws did not explicitly prohibit it. [10]A law was quickly pushed through to prohibit gay marriages.

[edit]
Connecticut
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Connecticut

[edit]
District of Columbia
1987: The American Civil Liberties Union commits to eliminating legal barriers against same-sex marriage. 2,000 gay and lesbian couples are "married" in a mass mock wedding outside the Internal Revenue Service building in Washington. [11]

[edit]
Georgia
6 July 2006 Ban upheld: The state Supreme Court reversed a lower court's ruling, deciding unanimously that the ban did not violate Georgia's single-subject rule for ballot measures. The ban had been approved by 76 percent of voters in 2004. [12]

[edit]
Hawaii
1996: The Hawaii State Supreme Court rules that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying may violate Hawaii's constitutional equal protection clause and can only be upheld if prohibition is justified by a compelling reason. (Baehr v. Miike, 80 Hawai`i 341) [13]

1998: Hawaii's voters amend their Constitution to allow state legislature to restrict marriage to men and women only -- an invitation that the Hawaiian legislature immediately accepted -- rendering the equal protection clause moot. [14]

[edit]
Maryland
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Maryland

Minnesota
1971: The Minnesota Supreme Court rules against the contention of plaintiffs Jack Baker and Mike McConnell that absence of a specific prohibition on same-sex marriage signified a legislative intent to recognize them. The court found that "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis". [15] This decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court (see Baker v. Nelson), but was dismissed for failure to present a federal question. Such a dismissal constitutes a holding that the claimed Federal right-- a Constitutional mandate to treat same-sex and opposite-sex couples identically-- does not exist.

[edit]
Nebraska
May 12, 2005: A federal judge in Omaha struck down Nebraska's sweeping ban on same-sex marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other same-sex relationships.

July 14, 2006: The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the ban [16].

[edit]
New Jersey
Main article: Same-sex marriage in New Jersey

[edit]
New Mexico
February 20, 2004: Victoria Dunlap, county clerk of Sandoval County, New Mexico, announces that she would begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses because New Mexico marriage law does not mention gender.[17] The first same-sex marriages in Sandoval County are performed later the same day. By the end of the day, however, New Mexico state attorney general Patricia Madrid issued an opinion stating that the licenses were "invalid under state law," and the Sandoval County clerk's office stops issuing them. In the interim, 26 such licenses had been issued.

The state governor, Bill Richardson, has requested that the state legislature enact a civil union bill.

[edit]
New York
Main article: Same-sex marriage in New York

[edit]
Ohio
March 24, 2005: Two judges rule that Ohio's 25-year-old domestic violence law cannot be used against unmarried heterosexual couples because of Ohio's new constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

[edit]
Oklahoma
May 13, 2004: A lesbian couple from Tulsa obtained a marriage application in the Cherokee tribal headquarters in Tahlequah, Oklahoma. The Cherokee Nation issues marriage applications, rather than licenses. Couples obtaining a license have it signed by the individual performing the ceremony before returning to tribal court to have the application certified. Cherokee Principal Chief Chad 'Corntassel' Smith stated that he believes that same-sex marriages are not allowed under Cherokee law, and the Cherokee Nation Tribal Council unanimously approved language that defined a union as between one man and one woman.

July, 2005: The tribe's Judicial Appeals Tribunal upheld the couple's right to marry, confirming that if they should refile for certification, it would be granted. [18] Although Oklahoma does not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, Oklahoma does recognize all Cherokee marriages. It is unclear how Oklahoma would react if the Cherokee tribal courts decide that this marriage is valid.

[edit]
Oregon
Puerto Rico
1998: The island territory of Puerto Rico ratified a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1998.

[edit]
Rhode Island
May 17, 2004: Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch issues an advisory opinion that Rhode Island would recognize any legal marriage performed in another state, as long as the marriage is not contrary to the "strong public policy" of Rhode Island. He said that the legislature and courts should decide which types of marriages fall within that category, while adding that same-sex marriages are not included among the types of marriages currently proscribed. While his opinion does not have the force of law, it appears to indicate that Rhode Island would, in fact, recognize valid same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts or elsewhere.

[edit]
Tennessee
In November, 2006, a vote will be held on the Tennessee Marriage Protection Amendment, which would render same-sex marriages unconstitutional in Tennessee. It is expected to pass by a wide margin.[22]

[edit]
Utah
2005:

Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. proposed reciprocal benefits for all same-sex couples living in the state. The measure was defeated in the state Senate by 8 votes and he has promised to revisit the issue in 2006. In the meantime Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, a same-sex marriage supporter, has created domestic partnerships for city employees.

Previously in 2004, a constitutional amendment was passed defining civil marriage to be limited to opposite-sex couples. It was approved by 66% of voters, a much lower than expected number in what analysts had thought would be a more socially conservative state. Two counties: Grand County and Summitt County rejected it outright while the state's most populated county with 1,000,000 residents, Salt Lake County narrowly approved it by less than 4%.

The amendment defines marriage as "... the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect." Many believe that the second part of the amendment is the reason why only 66% of voters approved the amendment. Nonetheless, other states with similar language such as Louisiana had 78% of the voters vote in favor of the bans. In the aftermath when the state governor introduced legislation creating reciprocal benefits some national religious conservative groups called on members nationwide to e-mail the Utah state legislature against the proposal. Polls conducted by the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News, the two major daily Utah newspapers found a simple majority of Utah residents support some form of legal recognition for same-sex couples, but not same-sex marriage.

The U.S. Census found that same-sex couples in Utah have among the highest percentage in the U.S. raising children together.

In 2006 the LDS Church stepped up its campaign against same-sex marriage by mailing letters to congregations asking them to lobby Congress for the Federal Marriage Amendment.

[edit]
Vermont
1999: Vermont Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples are entitled, under the state's constitution, to all of the protections and benefits provided through marriage.

2000: The legislature passes a law creating civil unions for same-sex couples, giving them all rights and benefits of marriage under Vermont law.

[edit]
Washington
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Washington

[edit]
Wisconsin
March 5, 2004: The Wisconsin State Assembly approved, by a vote of 68-27, a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages or civil unions, and to counter efforts elsewhere to legalize such partnerships.

March 12, 2004: The Wisconsin State Senate voted 20-13 to pass that state's amendment, which must still be passed again in next year's legislature, and be voted on in a state-wide referendum. [19]

December 6, 2005: The Wisconsin State Senate voted a second time in favor of the amendment. The vote is 19-14 and is along party lines.

February 28, 2006: The Wisconsin State Assembly voted for the second time in favor of the amendment. The question will appear on the November 7, 2006 ballot.

July 2006: The amendment is in a dead-heat, with the latest poll showing only a slight advantage for amendment supporters [20].

[edit]

A broad reading of the Act would allow states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages of non-citizens, as well. For example, a same-sex couple from Massachusetts might get married in Massachusetts, and later move to another state, where the state would have no obligation to recognize the marriage. The Act may also mean that the state could refuse to recognize the marriage even if the couple were only passing through transiently (relevant, for example, in emergency medical decision-making), and not moving permanently. Either of these broader readings would be an exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause.



There are also bills in both chambers of the New York State legislature that would extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. These bills were introduced in early 2003 and are currently still in committee.

In all cases, no rights that originate with the federal government attach to civil union, domestic partnership, etc., because the several states do not have jurisdiction over the Government of the United States.

Same-sex marriage, often called gay marriage, is a marriage between two persons of the same gender. The issue is a divisive political issue in the United States and elsewhere.

The social movement to obtain the legal protections of civil marriage for same-sex couples began in the early 1970s. Currently in the United States, Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriage, Connecticut and Vermont offer equal rights through civil unions, California, Maine, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia offer varying levels of rights with domestic partnerships, and Hawaii has a reciprocal beneficiary law.

Nineteen states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Forty-three states have statutes defining marriage to two persons of the opposite-sex. On May 18, 2006, the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on the Federal Marriage Amendment, a proposed Constitutional amendment that would prohibit states to recognize same-sex marriages. The measure passed in committee by a party line vote. The measure was subsequently debated by the full United States Senate, but defeated in a 49-48 vote on June 7, 2006. [1]. It was also defeated in the House the following month.

The legal implications of the debate extend beyond the lesbian and gay population in that that some self-identified heterosexual couples have been found to be legally of the same-sex in court due to genetics as the result of birth defect, intersex status or a previous sex reassignment surgery. In Texas, Florida, Ohio and and Kansas, couples where one partner was a post-operative transsexual have hadIn the 2004 presidential election campaign, legal recognition of same-sex unions became a major issue. Incumbent George W. Bush, the Republican Party candidate supported banning marriages between those of the same-sex on a federal level, through the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), while supporting state-sanctioned civil unions, reciprocal benefits, or domestic partnerships. However, this amendment would have nulled state-recognized marriages in Massachusetts. Challenger John F. Kerry, the Democratic Party candidate took a similar position supporting the ban of marriages between same-sex couples on a state level while supporting civil unions, reciprocal benefits, and domestic partnerships. However, Kerry opposed the FMA. It should be noted that many legal scholars believe that the FMA would render civil unions unconstitutional as well.[citation needed]

President George W. Bush disagrees with that specific part of the party platform, calling it “wrong.”. During the 2004 Republican National Convention GOP platform called for a ban on all forms of legal recognition of same-sex unions. After his re-election, President Bush indicated to the Washington Post that he saw little prospect for Congressional passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment to the federal Constitution banning marriages between same-sex couples unless the Defense of Marriage Act were ruled unconstitutional.

Strong opposition to gay marriage was likely a major factor in helping Bush get re-elected, especially since Kerry was from Massachusetts, the state where gay marriage had just been legalized. Several states passed constitutional amendments against gay marriage on election day, most notably Ohio, which was the deciding state in the presidential race. The gay marriage issue probably either swung enough undecided voters in favor of Bush to secure his victory, or enhanced turnout among conservative voters who were encouraged to go to the polls to vote against gay marriage. When they did so, they also cast a vote for Bush. This is contested by some as there was not complete correlation between Bush voters and opposers of gay marriage. In some states Bush got more votes than the ban on same-sex marriage, indicating some of those who voted for him also voted against banning same-sex marriage. And the number of voters citing moral values as a deciding issue in their vote remained the same as in the 2000 according to exit polls.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States
http://www.lmaw.org