States with gay marriage protection
MAP Report: The National Patchwork of Marriage Laws Underneath Obergefell
Rebecca Farmer, Movement Advancement Project
rebecca@ | ext
As the Respect for Marriage Perform moves through Congress, MAP’s March report on the landscape of varying state marriage laws around the country is a resource. MAP researchers are available to answer questions and our infographics are available for use.
MAP’s report, Underneath Obergefell, explores the patchwork of marriage laws around the country. The notify highlights the fact that a majority of states still have existing laws on the books that would ban marriage for same-sex couples – even though those laws are currently unenforceable under the U.S. Supreme Court verdict in Obergefell.
If the U.S. Supreme Court were to revisit the Obergefell ruling, the ability of homosexual couples to marry could again fall to the states, where a majority of states still contain in place both bans in the law and in state constitutions.
The policy landscape for declare marriage laws can be broken into four major categories (shown in the image abov
Marriage & Relationship Recognition Laws
States with the freedom to marry undertake not ban same-sex couples from entering into legal marriages. Some states also offer comprehensive relationship recognition, such as domestic partnerships or civil unions, to same- and different-sex couples. However, most states still have constitutional amendments, statutes, or both banning marriage for same-sex couples, even after the Supreme Court case Obergefell extended marriage equality nationwide. For more on the current status of state marriage laws, see MAP's report: Underneath Obergefell: A National Patchwork of Marriage Laws.
Marriage equality for same-sex couples(50 states , 5 territories + D.C.)
Comprehensive civil union or domestic partnership commandment (9 states + D.C.)
State has targeted religious exemption law (see note)
Citations & More Information
Movement Advancement Project. "Equality Maps: Marriage & Bond Recognition Laws." Accessed 07/23/
NOTE: Kansas permits faith-based organizations to deny services to married same-sex couples. North Carolina permits
Three states passed ballot initiatives aimed at protecting gay marriage
WASHINGTON - Voters in three states passed ballot measures that would amend language in their state’s Constitution to protect gay marriage.
Same-sex marriage is currently legal in all states and the District of Columbia through the landmark ruling Obergefell v. Hodges.
But activists, concerned about the power of the Supreme Court after the collapse of Roe v. Wade in , have taken proactive measures at the polls this year.
In California, voters weighed in on a measure that would repeal a previous proposition defining marriage as a union between a dude and a woman. It would recognize the fundamental right to marry in the Constitution.
Colorado had similar measures on the ballot aimed at removing antiquated language in the state’s Constitution that prohibits lgbtq+ marriage.
And voters in Hawaii passed a measure that would amend the mention Constitution to repeal the legislature's authority to "reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples."
Before same-sex marriage became legalized nationally, efforts to legalize the practice popped up in the ’s, according to Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ advocacy
Ballot initiatives protecting marriage equality advancing in some states
An increasing number of states are taking steps to enshrine protections for gay marriage in their constitutions following a successful rotund of ballot initiatives in the elections.
Voters in Hawaii, Colorado and California all voted last year to support ballot initiatives that changed their state constitutions to give same-sex couples the right to commit. But now, the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing gay marriage is being actively targeted by some conservative lawmakers. The Idaho Home passed a resolution in late January by a vote of calling on the Supreme Court to reconsider its past marriage equality decision.
The Idaho resolution comes after Associate Justice Clarence Thomas expressed interest in revisiting the Obergefell v. Hodges same-sex marriage decision, should a future related court case arise, in his concurring notion on the court's landmark decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Nonprofit that overturned the federal right to abortion. He argued that any past "substantive due process conclusion is 'demonstrably erroneous'" and would need to be
.