webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

LGBT marriage

---

see homophobe and 2AND THREE

NO MERRI

primary 6 22 as target

see transgender

gay marriage fast win tipping point after decades as wedge issue to energize esp evangelicals. [// BLM2 geo f?]

was it a soc move?

progress has been mostly in courts? (in fact state even CA 208, negated by courts); DOMA undone by ct.  hence big xian lawyer ctr-attack?

---

---

rww

05/14/2026

by

Kyle Mantyla

---

---

MMA

5 26

PBS dominated broadcast TV news coverage of LGBTQ issues in 2025 | Media Matters for America

---

RWW

05/08/2026

by

Kyle Mantyla

The Virginia Supreme Court on Friday struck down a voter-approved Democratic congressional redistricting plan, delivering another major setback to the party in a nationwide battle against Republicans for an edge in this year’s midterm elections.

Former Georgia representative Marjorie Taylor Greene's journalist fiancé, Brian Glenn, is also quitting Washington.

The president himself called into the ceremony to thank the religious leader and guests in attendance.

Former Fox News contributor Sean Duffy revealed that he spent seven months making a reality show while serving the country as Secretary of Transportation.

Vivek Ramaswamy built a political brand casting racism as an obsession of Democrats. As a Republican running for Ohio governor, he’s facing racism on the right.

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) suggested during an appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast that the CIA could be behind would-be assassins targeting President Donald Trump.

On Jan. 28, the anti-LGBTQ+ hate group Them Before Us led the announcement of the “Greater Than” campaign, an effort to repeal marriage equality. The campaign represents an alliance of at least a dozen anti-LGBTQ+ hate groups and other allied organizations to promote the debunked claim that “gay marriage resulted in child victimization.”

---

rww

02/03/2026

by

Peter Montgomery

Katy Faust, the anti-marriage-equality activist who has organized a new religious-right coalition to overturn the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling, has been making the rounds of right-wing podcasts and revealing more details about the coalition’s strategy since last week’s campaign launch.

Faust told far-right Christian nationalist podcaster Steve Deace, who she identified as part of the campaign’s influencer network, that the launch was “a real success.” The fact that Faust has chosen to partner with Deace, who has repeatedly called for violence against his political opponents, surely says something about the win-at-all-costs values she is bringing to the campaign.

So does the fact that the campaign’s website falsely implies that former President Barack Obama is backing the campaign. The website features a photo of Obama alongside anti-equality advocates Charlie Kirk, Allie Beth Stuckey, and Seth Dillon, and quotes Obama saying, “We know that children benefit not just from loving mothers and loving fathers, but from strong and loving marriages as well.” The quote comes from a 2010 event promoting responsible fatherhood; Obama has been a supporter of marriage equality since 2012.

Central to Faust’s argument is her claim that children are terribly harmed by any family configuration other than being raised by their forever-married biological father and mother. That is certainly a contested claim, to say the least. Even the conservative Washington Times recognized that the research is not as one-sided as Faust pretends, linking to a Cornell University review showing that 75 out of 79 studies “concluded that children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children.”

Faust says she supports the dignity and equality of LGBTQ people—except for marriage—but she is partnering with groups that have a long record of demeaning LGBTQ people and opposing every advance toward legal equality. And she herself uses language that evokes historic smears of LGBTQ people as predators, saying the campaign’s message will be, “Don’t touch the kids.”

“We have ten years of receipts of how gay marriage has victimized children,” she told the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins. She talked about “the carnage that has been inflicted on children” by marriage equality, and claimed, “There is a direct connection between gay marriage and child victimization.”

Central to the campaign’s messaging is that gay couples, single people who want to be parents, and some infertile married couples are just being selfish when they choose to parent or use IVF technology in ways that deprive children of what Faust calls a fundamental right to their mother and father. In a “just society” grounded in a “biblical worldview,” Faust told American Family Radio host Jenna Ellis, some of those adults will just have to live with not getting what they want. In an interview with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, Faust sneered at gay couples’ “acquisition of a child that doesn’t belong to them.”

The campaign’s “Greater Than” name and logo (a direct aim at the Human Rights Campaign’s well-known equal sign) points to a messaging strategy grounded in the idea that children’s interests in being raised by their biological parents in traditional married-forever families trumps selfish adult “desires” and longings.”

During her appearances and interviews, Faust has identified a three-prong campaign strategy that is also outlined on the campaign’s website.

Faust heads her own anti-marriage-equality group, Them Before Us, which is also the name of the weekend show she hosts on American Family Radio, the network of the Christian nationalist American Family Association. AFA and Them Before Us are listed as “core allies” of the campaign, along with Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, and the Colson Center. In her interview with Ellis, Faust said that the campaign has already grown from the 47 groups identified at the launch.

In an interview with Luke Martin on the UnBelievable podcast, Faust discussed her belief in male “headship” in church and family, saying that “egalitarian mindsets in essence make men optional in the two places where human formation takes place the most seriously and dramatically.” She described what she called “self-evident” gender roles of women as nurturers and men as protectors and other differences between men and women as “the biological design of our species.”

Faust decried the “feminization” of universities and the law, saying “in both of those spheres, when women become the heads, what you see is a deprioritization of truth and justice and an elevation of ‘can’t we all just get along.’”

Faust told Martin that sexual fulfillment has become the top “cultural god,” adding that “when sex becomes a God, children are the required sacrifice.” She mocked women who leave unhappy marriages where there is no abuse. “You have to get yourself a new God,” she said, adding that “the Christian, the biblical narrative” is the only overarching narrative that will lead to flourishing for children and adults.

In the same interview, Faust revealed that her parents divorced when she was growing up and that her mother entered what is now a 40-year relationship with another woman. Faust said she loves them both “so much” and considers her mother’s partner a friend. Faust is married to a pastor; she gave birth to three children and then adopted a fourth from China.

“And then the gay marriage debate arrived on the door of my state,” she said, and she began her anti-marriage-equality work as an anonymous blogger before starting her nonprofit in 2018.

RWW

Right Wing Watch reported in November that right-wing activist Katy Faust had appeared on the Family Research Council's "Washington Watch" program to promote the End Obergefell movement she was organizing. Today her anti-equality coalition officially launched its campaign to get the Supreme Court to overturn its 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that the Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry.

The coalition of 47 right-wing groups is calling their campaign “Greater Than” and using the tagline, “Children are greater than equal.” The basic message is that same-sex couples who want to get married and become parents are selfishly putting adult “fantasies” and “desires” over the wellbeing of children. A number of religious-right figures are featured in a campaign launch video. Influencer Allie Beth Stuckey, for example, mocks equality advocates’ use of the phrase “love makes a family.”

In an interview about the campaign with American Family Radio, Faust made it clear that the campaign will continue a long and dishonorable legacy of anti-LGBTQ forces smearing gay people and couples as threats to children. She called parenting by same-sex couples a “destructive state-sanctioned gaslighting experiment on children.” Faust names a few of the religious-right leaders involved in the campaign, saying, “We’re all going to speak with one voice, and it is ‘don’t touch the kids.’”

The campaign announcement was made through the Heritage Foundation’s “Daily Signal,” which was not surprising given that the Heritage Foundation responded to the Obergefell ruling by insisting that it was not legitimate and publishing a road map to overturning it.

Last year, as equality advocates celebrated the tenth anniversary of Obergefelland the supermajority support for marriage equality among the American public, Right Wing Watch reported that anti-LGBTQ religious-right groups were determined to overturn it. And in November, when the Supreme Court rejected Liberty Counsel’s request to overturn marriage equality, the religious-right legal group insisted that “it’s not if, but when, Obergefell will be overturned.”

rww

11/12/2025

by

Peter Montgomery

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected Liberty Counsel’s petition to overturn the court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling in Obergefell. Mat Staver, who heads the anti-LGBTQ group, insisted the next day that “it’s not if, but when, Obergefell will be overturned.”

While large majorities of Americans support marriage equality, religious-right groups are determined to destroy it. Staver has called the marriage equality ruling a “cancer” on the Constitution.

Liberty Counsel has spent the past decade representing Kim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk who refused to allow her office to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the Supreme Court overturned state marriage bans.

The case that Liberty Counsel asked the Supreme Court to hear was about the specific question of whether Davis could be held personally liable for damages for denying a gay couple the license to which they were entitled. A federal judge ruled against Davis, awarding the couple damages and attorney fees, and an appeals court upheld that ruling.

Liberty Counsel appealed and asked the Supreme Court to go well beyond the legal question at hand and take the opportunity to overturn marriage equality altogether. The Court declined.

It’s good news that the Court rejected Liberty Counsel’s appeal. But Liberty Counsel and other religious-right groups are certainly not going to drop their efforts to overturn marriage equality.

“I have no doubt that Davis’ resolve will serve as a catalyst to raise up many more challenges to the wrongly decided Obergefellopinion,” Staver wrote. He vowed that his group “will continue working with state legislators and individuals to overturn Obergefell and to return the issue of marriage to the states.”

Liberty Counsel has powerful allies who want to see marriage equality eliminated.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, the anti-equality legal giant that led the legal effort to overturnRoe v. Wade,views reversing marriage equality as another of its “generational wins” goals. ADF drafted the state law that the Supreme Court used to overturn Roe, and it's nearly certain that ADF is working on a similar strategy to undo Obergefell. ADF was not involved in Kim Davis’s case, but it is active at the Supreme Court this term.

The Ethics and Public Policy Center is headed by Ryan Anderson, who published a road map for overturning marriage equality when he was still at the Heritage Foundation. EPPC fellow Nathanael Blake wrote earlier this year that same-sex couples' ability to get legally married reflects liberalism’s “hatred for human nature.” Another EPPC fellow, Andrew Walker, wrote that same-sex marriage reflects “moral lawlessness.” He mocked gay parents and their families, writing, “If you’re anything like me, the sight of gay and lesbian couples and small children cosplaying in idyllic family settings is proving to be too much.”

:{---

REMEMBER CLARENCE THREAt?

RWW

08/11/2025

by

Kyle Mantyla

Ten years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide, the justices this fall will consider for the first time whether to take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn that decision.

Republicans raged against the conspiracy theorist after she targeted a former U.S. Army captain.

In June, Rep. Eric Burlison, a Missouri Republican serving on the House Oversight Committee, appeared on BlazeTV’s Prime Time with Alex Stein, where he discussed his belief that giants once existed. Burlison told Stein he was scheduled to be at “NephCon 2025,” a conference focused on fringe topics including the biblical Nephilim —figures in Genesis that some interpret as the giant offspring of angels and human women.

Daniel Boone, burial plots and no birthright citizen: Welcome to the MAGA world of “Heritage America.”

If crime rates in the nation’s capital are already at their lowest levels in decades, why is the White House launching yet another power grab?

MAGA influencer Charlie Kirk encouraged President Donald Trump to deploy tanks and Marines onto the streets of Washington, D.C.

Donald Trump has seized control of the Washington Metropolitan Police Department.

---

---

rww

06/26/2025

by

Kyle Mantyla

The Republican justices just nuked much of federal Medicaid law, in order to spite Planned Parenthood.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attempted to bully journalists for covering the leaked Iran strikes report.

Perhaps the most dire prediction right-wingers made in the first 15 years of this century was that legalizing marriage between two people of the same sex would end civilization. No less than the pope warned that humankind was in peril because of countries legalizing marriage.

Kenneth Chesebro, an attorney who plotted to use fake electors to overturn the 2020 presidential election on behalf of President Donald Trump, was disbarred in the state of New York this week.

Once it became apparent that New York state Rep. Zohran Mamdani was the presumptive winner of New York City’s mayoral primary, right-wing figures went into full-blown hysterics. But few could top the meltdown from self-proclaimed “proud Islamophobe” Laura Loomer, who claimed that Mamdani will support firebombing synagogues and murdering the rich — including President Trump.

The U.S. appeals court nominee claimed it is “political” to say Biden got the majority of votes and Electoral College votes to become president.

New York judge refuses to marry same-sex couple 'because of her religious beliefs': report

AN 12 24

wow 12 23

:{:{Pope declares same-sex unions can be blessed by the Church in 'radical change': report -:(style="background-color:#ffbb16ff"):}: Alternet.org}:

---

How the Supreme Court could make same-sex marriage into second-class marriage - Alternet.org

---

bipart bill to protect passed house/ 11 22

---

https://www.mediamatters.org/ben-shapiro/complaining-about-marriage-equality-ben-shapiro-claims-lgbtq-people-are-plotting-impose

https://www.mediamatters.org/one-america-news-network/oan-guest-unofficially-respect-marriage-act-codifies-slavery-red-states

---

an 12 22

new right-wing anti-LGBTQ+ dating app struggling to perform for its users

Daniel Villarreal The New Civil Rights Movement

The Right Stuff, a conservative dating app funded by gay billionaire Peter Thiel, is showing signs of failure barely three months after its launch...

---

hypothetical website? not based on her xian? whataboutism? KKK not = white ppl?

hayes commenter mystal? said in past scotus except alito wd try to hide ideology

https://www.alternet.org/Frontpage-videos/good-grief-samuel-alito-kkk/

but now

https://www.alternet.org/gorsuch-2658835299/

atty refused to use term educ camp

---

---

mma 12 22  // beck

https://www.mediamatters.org/ben-shapiro/ben-shapiro-says-republican-party-needs-overhaul-very-very-serious-way-after-passage

---

https://www.alternet.org/2022/10/ben-shapiro-kanye-west-defenders/

---

---

rww

02/20/2025

by

Kyle Mantyla

From the moment the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that the right of same-sex couples to marry was guaranteed by the Constitution, right-wing anti-LGBTQ activists have insisted that the ruling is illegitimate and must be overturned. Their effort to bring that about kicked into high gear after President Donald Trump used his first term in office to fill the Supreme Court with far-right ideologues who subsequently overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.

For nearly a decade now, right-wing activists have been plotting to get cases before the Supreme Court that the court's right-wing justices can use to overturn its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, and appearing on a World Prayer Network call Wednesday night, religious-right attorney Mat Staver declared that the time is now "ripe" for that to happen.

"There is no so-called constitutional right in the Constitution to same-sex marriage. That's ridiculous," Staver said. "Obergefell will be overturned. It's not an if, it's just a matter of when."

Video URL

IFrame Content

Along the same lines, Christian nationalist Oklahoma state Sen. David Bullard appeared on "Jenna Ellis In The Morning" on Thursday to discuss a bill he has introduced to provide tax credits to married couples who have "natural" children.

This bill was written explicitly to exclude LGBTQ couples, which Bullard explained is designed to "push back on Obergefell."

"The reality is we have to push back on Obergefell," Bullard said. "If we wait too long on that Obergefell ruling to start actually sending things back up and challenging that stance that somehow we have to all get along and say that same-sex marriage is okay, it's going to be too late at some point for us to push back."

"So, really what we want to do is challenge that concept and see if we can get to Obergefell," Bullard added. "And I think that's kind of what we're pushing at all the way around the board with a bill like this is to actually go straight at Obergefell and say, 'No, the Constitution protects my right, my freedom of speech, my freedom of expression, my freedom of religion to disagree with same-sex marriage.' And we can do that by moving ourselves to a point where we create fairness amongst God's design for traditional marriage in bills kind of similar to what we're talking about here."

---

---

an 11 22

...Respect for Marriage Act itself is both narrow and incredible in that it changes nothing in the U.S. unless the Supreme Court overturns landmark rulings in cases like Obergefell, which found same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, or Lawrence v. Texas, which found a constitutional right to sexual intimacy.

READ MORE: Franklin Graham’s Extremely False Claims About the Senate’s Same-Sex Marriage Protection Bill Are Riling Up His Base

Should that happen, states and the federal government, if the bill becomes law, would merely be required to recognize legal marriages of same-sex couples. That’s it. All the religious protections that people of faith currently enjoy would be unchanged, contrary to numerous false claims of far right extremists and religious extremists.

And yet, 37 Republicans decided that in spite of same-sex marriage enjoying a favorability rating of 70% (per Gallup) and 61% of Americans saying legalization of same-sex marriage is good for society (Pew), the newly-re-elected Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, and 36 of his fellow GOP Senators voted to block the bill.

The bill is expected to receive a final vote this week, possibly as early as Thursday. Should it pass as expected, the bill will head back to the House for a final vote since it has been altered from their version. It is expected to pass there again. Afterwards, it will head to President Joe Biden’s desk, where he will sign it into law.

The 37 Senate Republicans who voted against the bill, according to the Senate’s roll call vote list include: Mitch McConnell (R-KY), John Barrasso (R-WY), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), John Boozman (R-AR), Mike Braun (R-IN), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), John Cornyn (R-TX), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Steve Daines (R-MT), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Bill Hagerty (R-TN), Josh Hawley (R-MO), John Hoeven (R-ND), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Ron Johnson (R-WI), John Kennedy (R-LA), James Lankford (R-OK), Mike Lee (R-UT), Roger Marshall (R-KS), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Rand Paul (R-KY), James Risch (R-ID), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Rick Scott (R-FL), Tim Scott (R-SC), Richard Shelby (R-AL), John Thune (R-SD), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), and Roger Wicker (R-MS).

READ MORE: In Tight Election Race Ron Johnson Said He Would Not Oppose Same-Sex Marriage Bill – He Will Vote Against It Today: Report

Of note, U.S. Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) did not vote, but in July he unleashed an exceptionally angry attack on Speaker Nancy Pelosi after the bill passed the House.

“Is there a single case about it?” Sen. Sasse, often wrongly considered to be a moderate, said. “I’m not not answering questions that are about hypotheticals that are just Pelosi trying to divide America with culture wars. I think it’s just the same bullshit. She’s not an adult.”

---

https://www.alternet.org/2022/11/ron-johnson-same-sex-marriage/

broke promise

10 22

"Last Week Tonight" host John Oliver focused his main story Sunday on "problems" that Republicans create so that they have something to solve.

Republicans are desperately trying to take over the House, Senate and a slew of offices that allow them to control elections in an effort to usher in restrictive election laws to put in more Republicans and eliminate any policy delivered by a Democrat for the past century.

Republicans pledged for almost ten years that Obamacare must be repealed and replaced, only to be outed for being unable to come up with the replacement. They have placed judges in top posts to eliminate the personal freedoms and medical privacy of women. They invented an idea that Kindergarteners are being taught they are evil for slavery and were convinced that any mention of LGBTQ should be banned from schools in Florida and other states that have followed.

Oliver focused on another top issue for the GOP: transgender sports. While there are many, many issues facing Americans, indeed the world, Republicans are concerned that one or two transgender people could bring down sports.

He began with South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, who ran a campaign ad claiming that she personally saved girls' sports in the state. There was one trans student about ten years ago in South Dakota, but Noem zeroed in on the possibility that one person ten years ago could one day be millions of trans students in the sparsely populated state.

Oliver pointed out that there were more girls playing sports in the Noem ad than there were trans kids in all of South Dakota sports. So, while Republicans like Noem complain about failures around inflation, healthcare and other problems they blame on Democrats, their solutions are focused on transgender sports.

Noem isn't the only one. A whopping 18 U.S. states have spent the past few years passing legislation to regulate who can urinate in a stall next to each other. While most people simply enter a bathroom, do their business and get out, in the mind of Republicans, restrooms are nefarious places where liberals are ushering in a plot to bring down society. They have yet to find any evidence of it, but they can't stop their minds from turning to anarchy as a result of a kid using the restroom.

The positive piece of Oliver's report is that he first reported on transgender rights nearly a decade ago and things have gotten a lot better. The crisis for the right-wing is that the American public has decided that they are accepting of same-sex marriage, eliminating a key issue that they have desperately clung to for years. Trans rights have now taken over that same desperate attempt to create a villain, make people afraid of him and then pass laws to protect children from him.

See Oliver's full segment in the video below:

YIKES

rww 10 22

vid

Far-right activist and so-called “Stop the Steal” founder Ali Alexander went on a manic rant during his podcast Monday in which openly advocated for Christian fascism and “a violent Christian crusade” against his perceived political opponents.

Buoyed by reports that Elon Musk will purchase Twitter and that Kanye West was photographed wearing a “White Lives Matter” shirt, Alexander expressed his conviction that his far-right worldview is gaining power and popularity, prompting him to lay out his vision for afascist Christian nationalist theocracy.

“I refuse to walk into a future where it is commonplace to have sexual perversion in public,” Alexanderdeclared. “It’s just not going to be the norm, not where we’re going. OK? You can call that whatever the hell you want. You can call that Americana, you can call that America First, you could call it fascism, you could call it a theocracy, you could call it Christian nationalism. You could call it age appropriate. How about that’s what we call it?I don’t give a crap what you call it.”

“We will not live in a future where violence doesn’t meet widespread perversion. Period,” he continued. “I am aligned with God that we will not march quietly into a future where you got all kinds of things hanging out at public eateries, restaurants, libraries, with or without children. It’s just not acceptable. That’s over. And I will train tens of millions of Americans to not denounce, to not flinch, when they see evil coming upon evil, destruction coming upon evil.”

“All the good faith that we have allowed our oppressorsto be assigned, it’s gone,” Alexander said. “I’m not gonna bomb an abortion clinic, but if somebody did, I’m not denouncing it. I’m not calling for violence. I’m not calling for death. I’m explicitly saying, ‘Don’t do that,’ but if it happens, c’est la [vie]. OK? C’est la [vie]. You know, if they can poll a bunch of moderate Muslims and they don’t feel the urge to denounce radical Islam, guess what? This guy—Ali Alexander and Ali Alexander alone—but guess what? I’m going to be joined by tens of millions, maybe a couple hundred million Americans; we’re done. I’m going to finally teach people what is the moral allowable line that we can walk up to? What does the Bible allow us to get away with? ‘Oh, no. Ali’s going to show them the loopholes.’ You’re damn right I am.”

“I’m not gonna get beatified for this,” Alexander asserted. “I’m not going to reach sainthood, but I am here to say, ‘Fuck them.’ Fuck their nuclear war. Fuck their World War III. Fuck their rejection of peace. And if they don’t deal with the middle—the Elons and the Kanyes—then they should meet—I’m talking about the whole world—they should meet a violent Christian crusade. I mean it,100 percent. … And we’ve got to start conditioning each other for these mental models.”

https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/targeting-pride-events-follow-months-escalating-anti-lgbtq-rhetoric-right-wing-media

cops get death threats

https://www.alternet.org/2022/06/patriot-front-2657499955/

no lnx pix twt

on Saturday, June 11, 31 members of the white nationalist group Patriot Front were arrested in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho for allegedly planning to attack a local gay pride event. Historian Thomas Lecaque, in an article published by the conservative website The Bulwark on May 13, stresses that this alleged plot shouldn’t be viewed as an isolated incident, but as one example of the far right’s campaign for “overturning democracy.”

“The arrest of dozens of members of extremist group Patriot Front over the weekend shines a light on the new agenda for the militant factions of the far right,” Lecaque explains. “Their energies are now being focused on another goal: prosecuting a renewed culture war against sexual minorities. Packed tightly into the back of a rented U-Haul truck with their flags and weapons, members of the accelerationist fascist groupwere en route to the Coeur d’Alene Pride rally when they were pulled over and arrested.”

:{

}:

The historian adds, “Police made the stop on the basis of a tip from local residents. Images of the men, kneeling and zip tied in a field next to their truck, spread quickly on social media.”

Lecaque, a professor at Grand View University in Des Moines, Iowa, describes Patriot Front as part of the openly violent wing of the far right; other examples include the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers.

“As has been the case at other times in history when political instability has drawn extremist groups into open street-fighting — a Proud Boys calling card — these groups represent the sharp end of the ax that the far right is driving into American society,” Lecaque warns. “On January 6, 2021, their goal was to overturn the results of the recent presidential election. In June 2022, however, their goals have shifted.”

:{

}:

Lecaque notes thatPatriot Front was founded in 2017 by Thomas Rousseau, who is among the members charged with conspiracy to riot. Rousseau had been a member of Vanguard America, one of the white supremacist and white nationalist groups that was part of the infamous Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia that year. But after that event, where activist Heather Heyer was murdered, Rousseau left Vanguard America to start his own group.

“Patriot Front members believe themselves to be the ruling heirs to the continent by dint of their racial connection to its European colonizers and consider their racial identity essential to American identity more broadly,” Lecaque observes. “Of course, this is just the sort of blood genealogy nonsense one expects from Nazis…. What makes them significant, however, is their media savvy.”

Lecaque stresses that Patriot Front should be viewed as part of a broader far-right anti-democracy movement.

“Patriot Front is just one distinctive group of many,” Lecaque warns. “Other extremist groups gathered in Coeur d’Alene to watch and harass the pride march, including Three Percenters, Ammon’s Army, PDX Liberation, Proud Boys, and Atomwaffen. These groups have their own ideologies, own brands of violence, and many of them — Atomwaffen being an incredibly clear example — are much readier to engage in violence first, foremost, and often.”

Lecaque adds, “The Coeur d’Alene pride event was not the only target. Christian fascists in Dallas protested at an LGBTQ bar at the beginning of the month as part of a coordinated far-right assault on Pride Month. American Nationalist Initiative, a neo-fascist group, planned to link up with Proud Boys to flash mob outside of a Planned Parenthood in Plano, Texas this weekend, while other planned to harass a Pride Drag event in Arlington.”

The push for anti-gay violence, according to Lecaque, “goes beyond the White supremacists and militias” — and he cites far-right evangelical pastor Dillon Awes as an example. During a June 5 sermon, Awes called for murdering gays.

“Violent fantasies about murdering marginalized communities and overturning democracy are not new,” Lecaque writes. “We have seen them before.”

https://www.alternet.org/2022/05/samuel-alito-just-laid-out-an-argument-for-rolling-back-a-variety-of-20th-century-progress-journalist/

https://www.alternet.org/2022/05/ben-shapiro-unwind-gay-marriage/

https://www.alternet.org/2022/05/three-civil-liberties-after-abortion/

https://www.alternet.org/2021/05/maga-lgbtq/ maga kids

// blexit?

https://www.alternet.org/2020/10/the-trump-campaigns-bizarre-attempt-to-hold-pride/

https://www.alternet.org/2020/10/why-the-right-wing-has-put-marriage-equality-and-lgbtq-rights-on-the-ballot/

same-sex marriage advocates expressed concern Monday after rightwing Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito issued a fresh attack on a landmark 2015 decision that had been hailed as a "transformative triumph'" for marriage equality and LGBTQ rights.

The attack came when the top court declined to hear an appeal from Kim Davis, a former county clerk in the Kentucky who refused, after the Obergefell v. Hodges et. al. decision, to issue same-sex marriage certificates citing her religious beliefs.

In a statement (pdf) accompanying the denial of Davis's appeal, written by Thomas and joined by Alito, the justices say "Davis may have been one of the first victims of this court's cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision, but she will not be the last."

The "petition provides a stark reminder of the consequences of Obergefell," they added.

"By choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment," Thomas and Alito wrote, "the court has created a problem that only it can fix. Until then, Obergefell will continue to have 'ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'"

The opinion drew sharp rebuke from James Esseks, director of the American Civil Liberties Union LGBT and HIV Project.

"It is appalling that five years after the historic decision in Obergefell, two justices still consider same-sex couples less worthy of marriage than other couples," said Esseks.

"When you do a job on behalf of the government—as an employee or a contractor—there is no license to discriminate or turn people away because they do not meet religious criteria. Our government could not function if everyone doing the government's business got to pick their own rules," Esseks said.

Attorney and trans rights activist Chase Strangio warned the comments from Alito and Thomas could signal a broad attack on the LGBTQ community.

First day of the SCOTUS term and Alito & Thomas call for the overturning of Obergefell. https://t.co/IwejJL6dGX

— Chase Strangio (@Chase Strangio)1601905370.0

"The attack on marriage equality will be part of a larger wave that also includes the criminalization of trans healthcare, the formulation of a constitutional right for cis people not to share space with trans people, the attack on our very existence," said Strangio, adding, "We must fight."

According to Tim Holbrook, a professor at Emory University School of Law, the choice of words in the opinion by Thomas and Alito sends "a signal to state legislatures to challenge Obergefell, at least on religious liberty grounds."

In his op-ed at CNN, Holbrook warned, "Such efforts could be successful," and continued:

Does this mean marriage equality will be overruled? It may not. Instead, the justices, with Justice Thomas's and Alito's statement as a preview, may carve out sweeping religious liberty exceptions to marriage equality. The court may also chip away at attendant rights, like adoption and allowing same-sex couples to be named as parents on birth certificates. It also would be problematic, if not impossible, for the court to eliminate existing marriages between same-sex couples. That may stay the court's hand to some extent.

"Nevertheless," added Holbrook, "marriage equality may be at risk."

Amplifying concerns is the fact that the Republican-controlled Senate is set to move " full steam ahead"—Capitol Hill Covid-19 infections be damned—with confirmation hearings next week for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whom progressive activists say poses a threat to healthcare, reproductive justice, and LGBTQ rights.

"Amy Coney Barrett has openly claimed to hold similar views to [late Supreme Court Justice Antonin] Scalia, who Thomas and Alito channel with this opinion," HRC president Alphonso David said in a statement Monday.

"That fact, along with Barrett's ties to anti-equality extremist groups who aim to criminalize LGBTQ relationships in the United States and abroad," said David, "shows that Barrett will only embolden these anti-equality extremist views on the court."

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/gay-gaslighter-rick-grenells-dishonest-attack-on-joe-biden-and-absurd-claim-about-pro-gay-trump/

richard Grenell, the former U.S. ​ambassador to Germany and former acting director of national intelligence, is scheduled to speak at the Republican National Convention ​Wednesday night. The Log Cabin Republicans recently promoted a video with Grenell attacking Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s record andclaiming that Donald Trump is “the most pro-gay president in American history”—an “absurd claim” that earned four Pinocchios from the Washington Post’s fact-checker.

In a nice bit of timing, Grenell’s video appeared at about the same time the U.S. Agency for International Development was caught purging references to LGBTQ people from a policy on gender equality and women’s empowerment, the latest in a long list of Trump administration moves to reverse Obama-era policies protecting the rights of ​LGBTQ people.

In the video, Grenell cites decades-old statements by Biden to portray him as hostile to equality—when in fact, ​Biden played a crucial role in advancing support for marriage equality within the Obama administration and the Democratic Party.

“President Trump has done more to advance the rights of gays and lesbians in three years than Joe Biden did in 40 plus years in Washington,” Grenell says, offering almost no evidence beyond his own appointment to high-level positions.

Grenell does tout one of the projects he undertook as ambassador. “President Trump began a historic campaign to decriminalize homosexuality around the world,” Grenell claimed. In reality, Grenell himself announced that “campaign” in February 2019​, and a day after he announced it, Trump appeared not to have even heard about it.

“Also unclear was whether the decriminalization effort was, in fact, new,” the New York Times reported at the time. “A State Department spokesman in Washington, Robert Palladino, queried after the NBC report on the effort was broadcast, said: ‘This really is not a big policy departure. This is longstanding and it’s bipartisan.’”

Grenell did host some activist gatherings in Germany and a December 2019 event at the United Nations, and Trump did include a line about decriminalization in a United Nations speech. But the thrust of administration’s foreign policy initiatives has been headed strongly in the opposite direction of protecting or promoting LGBTQ equality.

In February 2020, when Grenell took his job as acting director of national intelligence, NBC suggested that the campaign had little to show for it, and the Human Rights Campaign said it had seen “no meaningful efforts by this administration to decriminalize homosexuality around the world.”HRC spokesperson Charlotte Clymer called it “another case of the Trump-Pence White House making promises to LGBTQ people, even while they enable discrimination and violence against us at home and abroad.” The Council for Global Equality’s Julie Dorf calls the campaign a “sham.”

But in his Log Cabin video, Grenell asks, “Why did Biden fail to make this a priority in his more than 40 years in Washington?”

The question itself is a breathtakingly dishonest insinuation. In fact, the Obama-Biden administration elevated the protection of LGBTQ human rights​, making it an unprecedented priority in U.S. foreign policy, something that so outraged religious-right leaders that they embraced Russia’s anti-gay and anti-democratic strongman Vladimir Putin as the savior of Western civilization. ​Religious-right leaders were thrilled that the election of Trump would mean an end to LGBTQ equality playing a major role in U.S. foreign policy.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar spent last year fomenting backlash to Obama-era policies and United Nations initiatives in favor of mobilizing a new “pro-family” coalition of nations and arguing for the supremacy of “traditional” religious and cultural views. The administration has embraced anti-equality regimes in Brazil, Hungary, and Poland.

In parallel, Pompeo’s Commission on Unalienable Rights created a platform for conservative academics to provide justification for his desire to resist human rights “inflation” and elevate religious liberty above other human rights commitments.

And Pompeo has opened doors in other countries so that anti-LGBTQ Bible study leader Ralph Drollinger could recruit high-level officials to join his “ministry,” which teaches that the Bible requires public officials to support right-wing policies on sexuality and family as well as economic, environmental, and criminal justice issues.

In his video, Grenell disingenuously suggests that the Trump administration’s foreign policy toward Iran had something to do with that regime’s hostility toward gay people. It’s not the first time that anti-Muslim sentiment has been used by right-wing politicians to gain gay support. During the 2016 Republican National Convention, Milo Yiannopoulos and anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller hosted a “Gays for Trump” party whose featured speaker was a Dutch politician who said Islam has “no place in a free society.”

The misleading video ends with Grenell saying, “Gay people don’t have to vote Democrat,” a sign thatTurning Point USA’s Benny Johnson may be behind the video. Johnson’s video for Democrat-bashing congressional candidate Kimberly Klacik, aso an RNC speaker, ended with, “Black people don’t have to vote Democrat.”

Tags: Benny Johnson Donald TrumpMike PompeoRichard Grenell Anti-GayAnti-LGBTAnti-LGBTQElection 2020InternationalLog Cabin RepublicansTurning Point USA

==

mind you, human rights violations in ICE covid, baby jails and secret police in portland

https://www.alternet.org/2020/07/pompeo-panels-human-rights-report-pushes-radical-isolationist-anti-rights-anti-scientific-religious-agenda/

~ Amnesty int'l

Human rights advocates denounced as “dangerous” a draft report released Thursday by the U.S. State Department’s controversial Commission on Unalienable Rights that paintsproperty rightsand religious liberty as “foremost among the unalienable rights that government is established to secure” while casting doubt on other liberties, including reproductive freedom.

“Make no mistake: this report was not designed with principles of equality, justice, and rights in mind. Instead, it serves as another stepping stone in the White House’s radical, isolationist, anti-rights, anti-scientific, religious agenda,” Serra Sippel, president of the Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE), said in a statement.

“The Commission on Unalienable Rights is a thinly veiled religious fundamentalist panel, and the people on it should have absolutely no say about the human rights of people all over the world,” Sippel declared, calling the panel “a dangerous distraction from the fact that this administration does not believe that all people are equal and entitled to human rights."

[twt]

"This administration has shown time and time again that their concern with human rights is not about defining rights; it has to do with whose rights are being protected,” she added. “And when it comes to women and girls, and LGBTQI persons, equal protection of our human rights is not guaranteed under this administration, and this commission is just another attempt to deny women and others their rights.”

Critics of the commission, including CHANGE, have soughtto disband it with a lawsuit arguing that the biased views of its members could advance discrimination against certain groups. The panel was announced in July 2019 by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who unveiled its new report in a speech in Philadelphia Thursday, introduced by Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, who chairs the commission.

The commissioners write in the report that they, “like our fellow Americans, are not of one mind on many issues where there are conflicting interpretations of human rights claims—abortion, affirmative action, and capital punishment, to name a few.”

The panel’s treatment of reproductive rights in the report drew a rebuke from Planned Parenthood Action on Twitter Friday:...

==

==

https://www.alternet.org/2020/06/cry-me-a-river-head-of-right-wing-group-that-spent-millions-on-gorsuch-mocked-for-fury-over-lgbtq-rights-opinion/

head of a far right wing activist group is furious conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote Monday’s majority Supreme Court opinion that finds discriminating against LGBTQ workers is illegal.

Judicial Crisis Network, a “powerful dark money group pushing [the] court to right,” ran a $10 million campaign in 2017 to force Gorsuch onto the bench. He is President Donald Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee. The group also spent $1 million to block President Barack Obama from putting Merrick Garland on the bench.

In a series of tweets **Carrie Severino** blasted Justice Gorsuch and the five others who sided with his opinion. She even claims they are merely trying to appeal to college students by finding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBTQ workers from discrimination.

Gorsuch, a textualist who replaced Justice Antonin Scalia on the bench, decided that as written, the actual words of the Civil Rights Act make clear that discriminating on the basis of sex is illegal.

severino, who also happens to be married to the **Roger Severino**, a far right wing religious activist who heads the Dept. of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights under Trump, is furious....

https://www.alternet.org/2020/06/conservatives-including-justice-alito-melt-down-over-supreme-court-decision-protecting-lgbtq-americans-against-workplace-discrimination/

==

When lesbians led the women’s suffrage movement

Anya Jabour, The University of Montana

In 1911, lesbians led the nation’s largest feminist organization. They promoted a diverse and inclusive women’s rights movement.

an 919

Arizona Supreme Court hands major pro-discrimination decision to anti-gay Christian wedding invitation companyDavid Badash / The New Civil Rights Movement

==

https://www.alternet.org/2019/08/trumps-new-labor-rule-would-allow-massive-discrimination-by-for-profit-companies-broadest-protection-of-religious-exercise/

no lnx

Trump’s new labor rule would allow massive discrimination by for-profit companies: ‘Broadest protection of religious exercise’

Written by David Badash / The New Civil Rights Movement August 15, 2019

President Donald Trump’s Labor Department on Wednesday announced a new rule that not only would codify the “right” to discriminate into practice, but would help corporations do so. The new rule applies to federal contractors, who employ up to one quarter of all employees. As NCRM reported earlier, it would allow any company, corporation, or organization with a federal contract that claims it is either religious or faith-based or follows any sort of belief system – so-called “religion-exercising organizations” – to discriminate based on those beliefs.

The word “religion” appears 241 times in the 46-page draft document.

The draft rule says “religious employers can condition employment on acceptance of or adherence

to religious tenets,” and “should be construed to provide the broadest protection of religious exercise permitted by the Constitution and other laws.”

The ACLU calls it ” taxpayer-funded discrimination in the name of religion. Period.”

Buzzfeed calls it “Trump’s latest move to let religious people sidestep civil rights policies,” and says it allows federal contractors to “cite religious objections as a valid reason to discriminate against their workers on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, LGBTQ status, and other characteristics.”

The new rule would not apply only to, say, churches, Catholic hospitals, or even a privately-held company like Hobby Lobby – if Hobby Lobby were a federal contractor. It would allow discrimination at literally any federal contractor that can show it has a “religious purpose,” but makes clear: “This need not be the contractor’s only purpose.”

The National Center for Transgender Equalitysays the new rule “would allow federal contractors to apply for broad exemptions to civil rights law after engaging in discriminatory behavior, including firing or refusing to hire someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. It could also lead to federal contractors refusing to hire women or unmarried workers who are pregnant or parents, or even discrimination on the basis of race.”

==

==

619

https://www.democracynow.org/2019/6/3/headlines/report_disappearance_and_murder_of_1000s_of_indigenous_women_a_canadian_genocide

In Canada, a national inquiry found that the disappearance and murder of thousands of indigenous women and girls over decades amounts to a “Canadian genocide.” The report, which was obtained by CBC News ahead of its official release today, says that “We do know that thousands of Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA (two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex and asexual) have been lost to the Canadian genocide to date” and are the result of “state actions and inactions rooted in colonialism and colonial ideologies.”

TOPICS:

==

==

liberty counsel staver sp?

Kim Davis ordered to pay $222,000 in couples’ legal fees because of her ‘conduct that violates civil rights’

==

A conservative Christian running for Wisconsin Supreme Court just said he thinks homosexuality equates to ‘bestiality’

==

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/trumps-religious-right-team-schemes-to-legally-erase-trans-identity

New York Times reported on Sunday that the Trump administration is considering a proposal by one of the administration’s highest-ranking Religious Right activists to virtually erase transgender people from legal recognition and protection by the federal government. The memo proposing the change is just the latest indication of just how completely the Religious Right has come to dominate policy-making in the administration of Donald Trump.

The push by the Department of Health and Human Services to impose a trans-denying definition of “sex” onto federal civil rights law “would essentially eradicate federal recognition” of an estimated 1.4 million transgender Americans, according to the Times story.

The effort is being led by Roger Severino, who has taken the anti-LGBT agenda of his former employer, the Heritage Foundation, into the Trump administration as director of the civil rights division at HHS. When he was named to that position, a dozen U.S. senators objected, citing Severino’s “long history of making bigoted statements toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and attacking women’s access to health care services and reproductive rights.”

One of Severino’s former colleagues at the Heritage Foundation, Ryan Anderson, is at the forefront of the Religious Right’s anti-trans crusade. Anderson’s latest book is “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment.” Anderson argues that gender cannot be severed from biological sex, and that “taking our sexual embodiment seriously in public policy is not discriminatory.”

That language is strikingly similar to Anderson’s approach to sexual orientation, suggesting that if Religious Right activists in the Trump administration are successful in wiping out legal recognition based on gender identity, they may be willing to try the same with regard to sexual orientation.

Anderson is not a conservative willing to seek “compromise” in the form of religious exemptions to non-discrimination laws. He says that “sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) laws” are “bad public policy” and argues against legal protection for LGBTQ people from discrimination:

Sexual orientation and gender identity refers not only to thoughts and inclinations, but also to behavior, and it is reasonable for citizens to make distinctions based on actions. However, SOGI laws would prohibit reasonable decisions made in response to behaviors that are fraught with moral weight.

Indeed, Religious Right groups like the Family Research Council, which has also placed staff in positions in the Trump administration, deny the very existence of gay identity as well as transgender identity.

The Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg argues that the idea of a gay identity is “empirically false” and urges religious conservatives not to use terms like gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender, preferring constructs like “people who engage in homosexual conduct” or “people who identify as homosexual.” This echoes the practice of the Catholic and Mormon hierarchies, which use terms such as “people with same-sex attractions.” Sprigg and FRC similarly argue that transgender identity is “an objective falsehood—which no law should force others to affirm.”

Sprigg was one of the speakers in a session on “gender ideology” at the World Congress of Families global summit held in Moldova in September. His talking points included a denial that discrimination on the basis of gender identity is a form of sex discrimination. The session was moderated by Australian Patrick Byrne, author of a new book, “Transgender: One Shade of Gray.” Byrne said that laws against anti-trans discrimination are “authoritarian” and said the solution is to write the definition of man and woman into law, saying, “if you do that, you block the whole agenda.” That is precisely what Severino seems to be trying to accomplish via executive action.

The National Center for Transgender Equality denounced the “terrifying memo” being circulated within the Trump administration, calling it “a direct attack on trans people.” But Severino cannot unilaterally reverse federal court precedents, noted NCTE:

You should know that this rule will not eliminate the precedents set by dozens of federal courts over the last two decades affirming the full rights and identities of transgender people. It will not undo the consensus of the medical providers and scientists across the globe who see transgender people, know transgender people, and urge everyone to accept us for who we are. And no rule—no administration—can erase the experiences of transgender people and our families.

As a presidential candidate, Trump once held up a rainbow flag, and some of his apologists claimed that he would be the most pro-gay president ever. In truth, the anti-LGBTQ writing was on the wall once Trump decided that his route to the White House depended on a strategic alliance with the Religious Right. In return for his promises to give them the Supreme Court of their dreams and make them more politically powerful by removing legal restrictions on politicking by churches, Religious Right leaders helped generate a massive pro-Trump vote among white evangelicals. Since his election Trump has been returning the favor, giving the Religious Right whatever it wants, and reversing Obama administration pro-LGBTQ policies. In return, religious conservatives have remained his most ferocious defenders, regularly denouncing his opponents as evil, even Satanic.

Tags: Roger SeverinoRyan AndersonAnti-GayAnti-LGBTtransgender rightsTrump Administration

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_Legal

Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, better known as Lambda Legal. is an American civil rights organization that focuses on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities as well as people living with HIV/AIDS (PWAs) through impact litigation, societal education, and public policy work....

History

Lambda's founder William J. Thom, Esq. submitted incorporation papers for approval to the New York Courts in 1971, but his application was denied on the grounds that its proposed activities would be contrary to public policy. That decision was overturned in 1973 by the New York Court of Appeals, which is the highest court of New York State.[1] (In re Thom, 301 N.E.2d 542 (N.Y. 1973).).

The original incorporators, in addition to Bill Thom, were E. Carrington Boggan,[2] and Michael J. Lavery. At their first meeting on November 10, 1973, they elected to the newly constituted board of directors Rodney L. Eubanks, Shepherd Raimi and D. Nicholas Russo.[3]

Because of the scarcity of openly gay lawyers in 1973, Lambda Legal formed a Board of Advisors of eminent New Yorkers sympathetic to the cause of gay rights. They included US Congressperson Bella Abzug, NY State Senator Carol Bellamy, Association of the Bar President Merrell E. Clark, Rev. John Corn of Trinity Church and Martin Duberman, Distinguished Professor at City University of New York.[3] Also on the Board of Advisors were two lawyers who later became New York State Supreme Court Justices: Phyllis Gangel-Jacob and Shirley Fingerhood.

From its inception, Lambda Legal sought diversity on its board of directors. Initially it could find no lesbian lawyers who were willing or able to be openly associated with a gay activist organization. Nathalie Rockhill, a major figure in the early post-Stonewall days of Gay Liberation, was the first woman elected to the board in 1974. She was soon followed by lesbian law students and, in time, by lesbian lawyers. By the 1980s, men and women were equally represented on Lambda's board.[4]

Lambda's growth paralleled the growth of the gay movement. By the 1980s, with the advent of AIDS, gay awareness and activism had grown significantly. Thomas B. Stoddard, who was executive director from 1986 to 1992, helped to author a bill passed in 1986 by the New York City Council to protect gays against bias in housing, employment, and public accommodations. Mayor Ed Koch, who signed the bill enacting it into law said: "The legislation drafted by Tom Stoddard was perfect." In 1993, Stoddard and other national gay leaders met with president Bill Clinton, the first such delegation to meet inside the Oval Office.[5]

In 2013 Lambda Legal - Midwest Regional Office was inducted into the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame.[6]

Its national headquarters remain in New York City, but today it has regional offices in Atlanta, Georgia, Chicago, Illinois, Dallas, Texas, Los Angeles, California, and Washington D.C..[7]

The current CEO is Rachel B. Tiven.

Work

Lambda Legal has played a role in many legal cases pertaining to gay rights, including the 6-3 United States Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated sodomy laws in the United States.

Lambda Legal carries out its legal work principally through test cases selected for the likelihood of their success in establishing positive legal precedents that will affect lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those affected by HIV. Lambda Legal's staff of attorneys works on a wide range of cases, with their docket averaging more than 50 cases at any given time.

Lambda Legal also maintains a national network of volunteer Cooperating Attorneys, which widens the scope of their legal work and allows attorneys, legal workers and law students to become involved in the program by working with Lambda Legal's legal staff.[8]

Lambda Legal pursues litigation in all parts of the country, in every area of the law that affects communities they represent, such as discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and the military; HIV/AIDS-related discrimination and public policy issues; parenting and relationship issues; equal marriage rights; equal employment and domestic partnership benefits;[9] "sodomy" law challenges; immigration issues; anti-gay initiatives; and free speech and equal protection rights.[10]

Before taking on legal work on behalf of same-sex marriage rights, Lambda Legal had to resolve an internal debate over the significance of marriage for its constituency and the strategic wisdom of taking on the issue. In 1990, it declined to represent the plaintiffs in the initial challenge to Hawaii's denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It filed an amicus brief in that case at a later stage and another in Dean v. District of Columbia, its first advocacy for same-sex marriage.[11]

Lambda Legal publishes the "Little Black Book," which contains information regarding the possible consequences of gay men "cruising" for sex in public places.[12] The "Little Black Book" includes the following material: "If you cruise in parks, bathrooms or other spaces open to public view, trust your instincts, be aware of your surroundings -- and know your rights. While Lambda Legal and other groups are fighting against the ways police target men who have sex with men, having sex where others might see you and take offense can subject you to arrest, publicity and other serious consequences. If you feel unsafe, you should leave."[12] The "Little Black Book" goes on to advise as follows: "If you’re cruising for sex and an undercover cop hits on you, what you do can still be a crime."[12]

In July 2012, Lambda founder Bill Thom was interviewed at his nursing home in Manhattan, and gave afirst-hand account of the early years of Lambda Legal. This resulted in a letter[13] from the current co-chair of Lambda Legal to Bill Thom dated September 25, 2012 in which he says "The world is a vastly better place for LGBT people than when I started practice 20 years ago and is almost unrecognizable from the world in which you took on the heroic and unprecedented task of fighting back."

Following a presidential order to ban transgender troops from the US military, Lambda indicated that they would be taking action to challenge the legality of the order.[14]

See also

Notes

==

==

https://kpfa.org/episode/against-the-grain-july-23-2018/

Jeremiah Garretson discusses his new book “The Path to Gay Rights: How Activism and Coming Out Changed Public Opinion.”

:{

}:

2 std models: elite signal effect (leaders we trust , we follow them

:{

}:

2) framing; he sez facts don't follw these 2; ppl who watcgh TV least changed most (eg young ppl); tho leaders being more pro gay allowed them to come out (snowball?)

:{

}:

outsider aND insider tracks (lobbying, coercsion, novel PR techniques) eg act up; AIDS activist esp NYC got press, led to pos media portrayals: hank philly, ellen, seinfeld, roseanne

:{

}:

spike off ppl out in 80's, age of coming out dropped fast in 90's (at end, HS) now MS

==

Religious Right activist and right-wing commentator Star Parker appeared on the “Vocal Point” radio program today to discuss a recent column she wrote in which she declared that “Gay Pride Month has become a time for LGBTQ storm troopers to pursue political enemies. Not much different from the infamous Kristallnacht in Nazi Germany, when Nazi brown shirts took to the streets to smash windows of shops owned by Jews.”

During the interview, Parker absurdly claimed that the “B” in “LGBTQ” stands not for “bisexual” but rather for “bestiality.”

“They keep pushing out this idea, LGBTQ,” she said. “We did the ‘L’ and the ‘G,’ they legalized marriage for themselves. We doing the ‘T’ now—the trans—and this is a big, big challenge in our society right now. They did the ‘Q’ where they’re changing all the textbooks, even as low as kindergarten, to reflect that you don’t know what you are, you’re questioning. But notice they skipped over the ‘B,’ and there are some that say this ‘B’ is going to bombard us with real vileness in our society if they get what they want because it’s not about bisexuality, it’s about bestiality.”

When the host, Jerry Newcombe, asked Parker to clarify her comment, she insisted that since the LGBTQ movement is constantly changing the meaning of terms and pushing an increasingly radical agenda, “we’re not sure what they mean by ‘B.'”

“We do know that there is an agenda and we do know that there have been discussions about bestiality in their closed doors,” she said. “I’m just saying don’t be surprised if we find out that that ‘B’ is not what they said publicly—that we just love each other—that it may, in law, show up as something else.”

==

https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/6/4/17425294/supreme-court-masterpiece-cakeshop-gay-wedding-cake-baker-ruling

Why you shouldn’t freak out about the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling

The ruling is far from ideal for LGBTQ advocates, but the worst was avoided.

If f you need to know anything about the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of the baker who refused to make a same-sex wedding cake, it’s this: It could have been much worse.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who handed down the 7-2 ruling in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, was explicit about this. As he wrote in the decision’s most important paragraph:

The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.

What this means, in short, is that the Supreme Court has punted on the broader issues involved, narrowing its ruling to the specific circumstances of this individual case, and that what it said should not be interpreted as giving other businesses carte blanche to do what Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, did.

The basic facts of the case

Let’s back up a bit. Prior to the ruling, LGBTQ advocates were seriously worried about the potential repercussions of this case — what it meant not just for Masterpiece Cakeshop’s practices but for other businesses like it.

Phillips said that he’s allowed to cite his sincerely held religious beliefs to discriminate against same-sex couples looking for a wedding cake because he genuinely opposes same-sex marriage. He pointed to the First Amendment as his shield.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission and lower courts ruled against Phillips, finding that he had illegally discriminated when he refused to make a wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a same-sex couple. Phillips appealed those lower rulings to the Supreme Court.

LGBTQ advocates worried that if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Phillips, it could give businesses a “license to discriminate” — because, in effect, any business could cite its religious beliefs to discriminate against LGBTQ people. That would open a hole in laws that ban anti-LGBTQ discrimination in the workplace, housing, public accommodations (which include businesses open to the public, like Phillips’s), and schools.

If that proved true, it’d be a huge blow to LGBTQ advocates. It’s already the case that most states and the federal government do not explicitly ban anti-LGBTQ discrimination in these settings. So if the Supreme Court weakened the existing laws further, it’d make a national landscape that’s already unfriendly to LGBTQ people even worse.

The Supreme Court’s narrow ruling

The Supreme Court, however, by and large avoided these issues. Instead of looking at the broader debate, the Court focused on the facts of how Masterpiece Cakeshop was treated by the Colorado government and particularly by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

...

==

ctr-attack on gay marriage:  religious rights/freedom [hobby lobby]

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-christian-legal-army-behind-masterpiece-cakeshop/

The Christian Legal Army Behind ‘Masterpiece Cakeshop’

A special investigation into the rise of Alliance Defending Freedom.

By Sarah Posner

September,Representative Vicky Hartzler, a Missouri Republican, held a press conference with four of her congressional colleagues to announce their support for Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker. The conservative Christian and “cake artist” had been found in violation of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law when he refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Phillips is now the plaintiff in one of the most closely watched cases on the Supreme Court’s docket this term, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

This article was reported in partnership with the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute. Additional research by Eli Clifton, Queen Arsem-O’Malley, Evan Malmgren, and Jake Bittle.

Hartzler had just spent a good part of her summer pressing for a ban on transgender people in the military because she believes they constitute a “domestic threat.” She was one of 86 Republican lawmakers who had just signed onto an amicus brief supporting Phillips’s novel claim that baking and decorating a wedding cake is constitutionally protected artistic expression. Phillips has also argued that he should not be required to deploy his creative talents on behalf of a same-sex couple, because doing so would violate his religious beliefs.

“A government that tells you what you must say and what you must do, and punishes you if you don’t, is frightening,” Hartzler said. “That kind of state power should scare all of us.”

Nearby, Phillips stood quietly with his attorney, Kristen Waggoner of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which has mushroomed over the past few years into a Christian-right powerhouse. Founded 24 years ago because, as its longtime president Alan Sears once put it, “the homosexual agenda threatens religious freedom,” ADF now rivals some of the nation’s top private law firms in Supreme Court activity. It has trained thousands of lawyers, many of whom have gone on to government service at the federal, state, and local levels. The organization has helped shape “religious freedom” legislation; provides grants to other Christian-right organizations; and presses school districts to adopt its model policies on issues like transgender facility access. ADF now exerts far more influence than other legal organizations that litigate religious-freedom cases, such as the American Center for Law and Justice, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and Liberty Counsel. As the courts have ruled in favor of marriage equality over the past decade, ADF has positioned itself at the very center of the efforts to curtail LGBTQ rights under the guise of religious freedom.

The preparation of the congressional amicus brief was led by Ted Cruz, the Texas senator and former GOP presidential contender; Senator Mike Lee, a Utah Republican once rumored to be under consideration by Donald Trump for a Supreme Court seat; andRepresentative Mike Johnson, a freshman Republican from Louisiana and a rising conservative star. Johnson is one of dozens of former ADF attorneys around the country who were trained in the organization’s “Christ-centered” legal principles and now serve in government or the judiciary. As an ADF staff attorney, he led many of its legal fights against marriage equality.

In just one year, Trump has nominated at least four federal judges who have ties to ADF.

The involvement of Cruz, Lee, Johnson, and other congressional leaders is just one mark of ADF’s remarkable ascent. The organization, which once aspired to be merely a Christian antidote to the secular ACLU, has fast become a training ground for future legislators, judges, prosecutors, attorneys general, and other government lawyers—including, notably, in the Trump administration. Noel Francisco, Trump’s solicitor general, is an ADF-allied attorney, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions consulted with ADF when drafting Department of Justice guidance on religious-freedom issues. At the state level, at least 18 ADF-affiliated lawyers now work in 10 attorney-general offices; all of them were appointed or elected in the past five years. And in just one year, Trump has nominated at least four federal judges who have ties to ADF—Amy Coney Barrett, recently confirmed to the Seventh Circuit; Kyle Duncan, nominated to the Fifth Circuit; and Jeff Mateer and Michael Joseph Juneau, both nominated to district courts.

At the press conference, Johnson enthused about the potential impact of Phillips’s case, calling it “seismic.” Before quickly departing for a vote on the House floor, he explained that he and his colleagues were only seeking “a very careful balance” in the wake of Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 decision enshrining marriage equality. “We have to figure out how everyone can coexist,” Johnson said. “An essential component of that is allowing everyone to live out their deepest convictions.”

At the core of Masterpiece Cakeshop is a radically revisionist idea: that laws protecting the civil rights of historically marginalized groups can violate the free-speech rights of the people who refuse to serve them. Although ADF has also charged that the Colorado law violates Phillips’s right to the free exercise of religion, a shadow looms over that claim, cast by the Supreme Court’s 1968 decision in Newman v. Piggie Park. There, the owner of a South Carolina barbecue chain claimed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “contravene[d] the will of God” and infringed on his right to the free exercise of religion, because his beliefs “compel him to oppose any integration of the races.” The Supreme Court rejected these claims as “patently frivolous.” Notably, ADF has put its free-speech claim, rather than the free-exercise-of-religion claim, front and center in its brief, casting Phillips as an artist whose freedom of expression has been violated.

An ADF victory on either claim in Masterpiece Cakeshop, which will be argued before the Supreme Court on December 5, could not only create new precedent but also erode advances in LGBTQ rights, ushering in enduring consequences for LGBTQ people and other protected classes. “We know the possible hurtful effects from the endless examples of how same-sex couples and LGBT individuals have been refused service or turned away in the cases that we’ve litigated,” said Jenny Pizer, law and policy director at Lambda Legal, a national LGBTQ-rights organization.

Pizer said that discrimination occurs in a multitude of public accommodations, including medical, legal, lodging, retail, even access to schools. In its Masterpiece Cakeshop amicus brief, Lambda documented more than 1,000 incidents of LGBTQ people being refused service. According to the brief, these incidents expose “an ugly truth: with disturbing frequency, LGBT people are confronted by ‘we don’t serve your kind’ refusals and other unequal treatment in a wide range of public accommodations contexts.” Those refusals, Lambda argued, “wrongfully diminish lives that should have equal dignity under our laws and in our public spheres.”

If the Supreme Court were to accept ADF’s religious-infringement claim, Pizer said, “the vulnerability to arbitrary rejection” experienced by LGBTQ people would be present at “any moment during the day when we go through our daily lives—we work, we have to buy food, we have to live somewhere, we have to be able to access medical care, we have to be able to ride transportation services.” And if the Court were to accept ADF’s free-speech claim, Pizer continued, any vendor could simply claim that his or her work is “part of my living my faith, and my faith says I must not make this for you because if I make this for you, I am accepting you, and there’s something about you to which I object on religious grounds.” A ruling supporting either argument would leave “such an enormous hole in the civil-rights laws, there’s really nothing left.”

ADF’s dubious accomplishment, according to Greg Lipper, a First Amendment attorney, has been to “take an extreme position” and mainstream it so thoroughly that it has become “a viable theory at the Supreme Court.”

A CHRISTIAN “LEGAL ARMY”

The Masterpiece Cakeshop case, with its Colorado plaintiff, brings ADF full circle. The organization was founded in 1993 by a group of Christian-right heavyweights, including Sears, James Dobson, and evangelist D. James Kennedy, in the midst of a conservative panic over a gay-rights movement that was just beginning to score some legal victories. Colorado, home to Dobson’s Focus on the Family and its sprawling campus, was ground zero for the backlash. Voters there had just passed Amendment 2, a ballot referendum that amended the state constitution to block state or local officials from recognizing gay men, lesbians, or bisexuals as a protected class. Such protections—known in conservative circles as “SOGI laws,” short for “sexual orientation and gender identity”—remain a prime ADF target. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have passed laws protecting LGBTQ people in public accommodations; two more states prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. The statute that Phillips was found to have violated when he refused to serve a same-sex couple at his business was one such law.

After Colorado voters approved Amendment 2 in November 1992, gay-rights activists mobilized to protest the law and challenge it in court, ultimately prevailing in 1996 in Romer v. Evans, in which the Supreme Court ruled that Amendment 2 violated the US Constitution’s equal-protection clause.

RELATED ARTICLE

The Nation

THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT HELPED PUT TRUMP IN OFFICE—NOW HE OWES THEM BIG

Katha Pollitt

For Sears, Dobson, and ADF’s other co-founders, these battles represented an existential threat to conservative Christians. The campaign marshaled to oppose Amendment 2, Sears wrote in his 2003 book, TheHomosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today, was proof that “radical homosexual activists and their allies are looking for any opportunity to attack and silence any church that takes a biblical stand with regard to homosexual behavior.” The persecution that churches faced due to the “wrath of angry homosexual activists,” Sears argued, “is a snapshot of what will happen to the church in America.” Sears’s book, along with his 2005 The ACLU vs. America, has long been on the reading list for the Blackstone Legal Fellowship, ADF’s summer program for law students.

Over the past 24 years, ADF has experienced remarkable growth, today receiving contributions of more than $50 million a year—up from $14 million in 2002—and boasting 58 staff attorneys based in its headquarters in Arizona and in offices in Washington, DC, and elsewhere. It also has an international presence, including opposing LGBTQ equality in courts in the European Union and advising anti-LGBTQ parliamentarians in Romania.

ADF’s funding comes from individual donations, which by law are kept secret, as well as from charitable foundations, which by law must be disclosed on the donors’ tax returns. But much of ADF’s foundation funding—$77.6 million between 2008 and 2015, more than a quarter of the organization’s total donations during this period—comes through the National Christian Charitable Foundation, a conservative donor-advised fund that allows contributors to shield their identities from public view.

ADF's ranks include more than 3,000 allied attorneys who litigate ADF cases pro bono, as well as 1,800 graduates of the Blackstone Legal Fellowship.

One of the most prominent of ADF’s known donors is the family of Betsy DeVos, Trump’s secretary of education. The Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation, which in its tax filings lists DeVos as vice president, has donated more than $1 million to ADF since 2002. When questioned at her confirmation hearings about the foundation, DeVos denied having any role in determining its grants, calling the listing of her name as an officer a “clerical error.” Another ADF donor is the family foundation of Representative Greg Gianforte, the Montana Republican who was elected despite having assaulted a reporter on the eve of the vote.

With this swelling war chest, ADF has been able to assemble what its founder Sears has called a “legal army.” Its ranks include more than 3,000 allied attorneys who litigate ADF cases pro bono, as well as 1,800 graduates of the Blackstone Legal Fellowship. Through these networks, ADF has exerted its influence throughout the conservative legal world, across law firms, state and federal governments, and the judiciary.

To become an “allied attorney,” one must agree with ADF’s 11-point statement of faith, which includes a commitment to believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ, that God designed marriage for one man and one woman, and that homosexual behavior is “sinful and offensive to God.” ADF states that its allied attorneys have so far donated more than 1 million hours of pro bono work, worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Trenton Garmon, the attorney representing Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, is among the allied attorneys who have been inducted into ADF’s “Honor Corps” for donating more than 450 pro bono hours to the organization.

The Blackstone Legal Fellowship trains law students on how to apply ADF’s principles to the public realm, offering “the highest level training in Christian worldview and constitutional law to help break the stranglehold the ACLU and its allies have on our nation’s law schools and judicial system.” Fellows become integrated into the conservative legal ecosystem through seminars and talks from senior staffers from Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, and other influential conservative organizations.They have also been addressed by two attorneys Trump has since nominated to federal judgeships: Amy Coney Barrett, of the Seventh Circuit, and Kyle Duncan, an ADF-allied attorney who has also received grant money from the organization, awaiting confirmation to the Fifth Circuit. (Citing his pending hearing, Duncan declined to comment for this article, referring all questions to the Department of Justice, which did not respond to an interview request.) Blackstone Fellows are also placed in internships with prestigious law firms and think tanks.

Although they have since been removed from ADF’s website, testimonials from Blackstone Fellows available as recently as 2014 hint at an ideology firmly opposed to secular government and law. One fellow praised the program for its focus on hewing to the “orthodoxy of our Christendom in order to win back the rule of law.” Another said it “unveiled the scale of the attack against truth, and through awesome presenters, also gave the battle plan and weapons necessary to fight back.” One fellow spoke of being encouraged that “Christ’s Truth will never fail or be defeated. It is these attitudes and practices that I will use in recovering the rule of law in America.”

As ADF has built up its cadre of conservative Christian attorneys, it has also sought to shield them from the profession’s own prohibitions against bias. ADF campaigned against the implementation of a model antidiscrimination rule, added last year by the American Bar Association to prohibit discrimination based on, among other things, sexual orientation and gender identity, claiming that it would “censor” attorneys’ speech. This year, ADF provided a grant to the Foundation for Moral Law, the conservative legal-advocacy nonprofit founded byMoore, to study the issue and produce a report.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM—FOR CHRISTIANS ONLY

This burgeoning “legal army” has helped ADF advance its foundational narrative: that conservative Christians, in particular, face persecution in the United States. It was the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty that represented the arts-and-crafts chain Hobby Lobby in its successful lawsuit to gain a religious exemption to the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to provide a contraception-coverage benefit. And it was the American Center for Law and Justice that won a major case in 2009 regarding the display of the Ten Commandments on public property. But no organization has played a more pivotal role than ADF in shaping and testing “religious freedom” as the Christian right’s latest legal strategy in the culture wars. And while the Federalist Society has positioned itself as the right’s screening agency for the federal judiciary, no other conservative Christian legal organization has propelled so many attorneys into state and federal government, where they are now in positions to oversee the restructuring of civil-rights and First Amendment law in ADF’s mold.

Although the organization pays lip service to supporting religious freedom for all people, a review of 146 of ADF’s appellate and Supreme Court briefs shows that its attorneys are focused almost exclusively on the religious rights of Christians. ADF filed 23 lawsuits challenging Obamacare’s contraception-coverage benefit, three of which reached the Supreme Court on the merits, including Conestoga Wood, which was consolidated with Hobby Lobby. ADF also took part in 22 cases advocating bans on same-sex marriage, including representing county clerks who objected to marriage equality in Virginia and Oklahoma.

We found just five instances in which ADF’s lawyers weighed in on appellate cases involving religious plaintiffs who were not Christian.

Other cases included the defense of prayer or evangelizing in public schools in New York, Michigan, and California, and the defense of Christian prayers during legislative sessions in Florida, Michigan, Indiana, California, and New York, including an important Supreme Court victory in 2014.ADF has also been an active litigant in the anti-choice movement, defending protesters outside abortion clinics in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, including another Supreme Court victory in 2014. The organization has defendedrestrictions on abortion like Arizona’s ban on the procedure after 20 weeks of pregnancy; an “informed consent” law in South Dakota; a late-term abortion ban in Nebraska; and Texas’s HB2, which was struck down by the Supreme Court last year. Lately, ADF has also waded into the campus free-speech wars, claiming, for example, that a student counselor at Eastern Michigan University had the right to refuse to counsel LGBTQ clients. The Supreme Court has just agreed to review another ADF case, this one challenging a California law that requires crisis pregnancy centers to inform patients about state programs offering free or low-cost access to abortion, contraception, and prenatal care.

An ADF spokeswoman said the organization “has an extensive record of representing and advocating for non-Christian parties,” including cities, counties, school districts, veteran organizations, and student groups like the College Republicans and Students for Life.

Yet we found just five instances in which ADF’s lawyers weighed in on appellate cases involving religious plaintiffs who were not Christian. In only two of them did ADF express support for the religious-minority plaintiff—once in a case in which a rabbinical organization challenged a public-health regulation on circumcision, and once in support of an Orthodox Jewish day school claiming that a local permitting process violated its religious rights. ADF also weighed in on two cases in support of Muslim prisoners who claimed their religious rights had been violated, but in neither did it address the particular facts of the case, making only arguments about what it considered to be a proper interpretation of the relevant statute and, in one case, how that interpretation would affect Christian organizations.

Most striking was ADF’s amicus brief filed in the challenge to Trump’s second Muslim ban. That brief effectively supported the ban by laying out a case for why the courts should not consider Trump’s own anti-Muslim statements in determining whether the ban violated the US Constitution’s establishment clause, criticizing the district court for inappropriately “combing through a government actor’s tweets.”

The overarching story highlighted in this substantial body of ADF’s briefs—most of which are available in public databases—is the organization’s painstaking construction, case by case and argument by argument, of a legal narrative asserting that Christians are under threat of persecution from the advance of LGBTQ and reproductive rights, as well as from secular schools and universities, and that the law must allow Christians to disregard, disobey, or even dismantle laws protecting those rights in order to protect their own rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion.

THE “CHRIST-CENTERED” LAWYER

If one law firm in the country embodies the American establishment, it is arguablyJones Day. A powerhouse in Washington, and with thousands of lawyers around the world, including more than 40 former Supreme Court clerks, Jones Day has already funneled at least 14 attorneys into top posts or nominations in the Trump administration. Noel Francisco, Trump’s solicitor general, is a former partner there—and an ADF-affiliated attorney. In September, the firm opened up its expansive seventh-floor conference room, with its unobstructed view of the Capitol, to ADF for a briefing on the Supreme Court’s upcoming term.

ADF’s Kristen Waggoner made use of the occasion to rehearse the arguments she will soon present before the Court. She depicted Phillips, the Colorado baker, as a well-intentioned, pious artist whose rights are being trampled by a government that refuses to privilege the depth of his religious commitments. For Phillips, a cake is a means of artistic expression that carries “spiritual significance to him and to millions of others.” Waggoner insisted that Phillips had not discriminated against LGBTQ people, but rather that creating a cake for the wedding of Charlie Craig and David Mullins would have violated his religious convictions. The case, she said, isn’t “about the who, it’s about the what.”

Waggoner, who practiced law in Seattle for 17 years before joining ADF in 2013, is a graduate of theRegent University School of Law, founded by televangelist Pat Robertson to provide a “Christ-centered” legal education. In an interview with The Nation, Waggoner said that Regent offered her “unique” teaching and an opportunity to study “an originalist perspective on the Constitution” as well as “concepts like religious freedom.” Regent, she said, has produced many of ADF’s “best lawyers.”

While in private practice, Waggoner litigated a protracted case in which she represented a pharmacist who had refused, on religious grounds, to fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives like Plan B. She has also long represented Barronelle Stutzman, a florist (or “floral artist”) in Richland, Washington, who was sued for violating the state’s antidiscrimination law when she refused to provide flowers for a gay customer’s wedding. ADF has asked the Supreme Court to review the case.

Waggoner worked alongside ADF on multiple cases, but she only joined its legal staff after she began to witness, in her words, “a government that is becoming far more coercive and less pluralistic.” Not long after she made that decision, in 2014, she told a Southern Baptist Convention conference that nondiscrimination laws were actually being used “to silence Christians, to force them to not live out their convictions” and “instead to cower in silence.”

Waggoner was chosen to argue Masterpiece Cakeshop by ADF’s new president, Michael Farris, a founder of the evangelical Patrick Henry College and the Home School Legal Defense Association, a conservative Christian advocacy group. Farris replaced the retiring Sears as ADF’s president in January. In an appearance on Hugh Hewitt’s conservative radio program, Farris described Waggoner as “just dynamite” and expressed confidence that she “will present the argument with real, real aplomb.” Hewitt called Waggoner “an amazing woman” and encouraged his listeners to donate money to ADF.

AN ABOMINATION BEFORE GOD

In the context of Phillips’s claim that he objects to the wedding—and not to the gay customers themselves—it is striking that more than a quarter of the 146 ADF appellate briefs we reviewed are arguments for restricting LGBTQ rights. Until very recently, ADF routinely trafficked in slurs against the LGBTQ community, consistently depicting LGBTQ people as promiscuous, uncommitted, and unfit to parent in dozens of its briefs opposing marriage equality.

In a 2006 case in Maryland, ADF maintained that “sexual fidelity is rare among homosexual men” and that “the average homosexual relationship is short.” In a 2009 case in West Virginia, arguing against a lesbian couple’s adoption of a baby they had fostered, ADF noted that the couple had insisted that the court be “forced to treat their home as just as good as any other.” But, ADF wrote, “this cannot be.” Although the organization had long opposed allowing same-sex couples to marry, in another parenting case, this one in Arkansas in 2010, it used the fact that the couple could not marry as an argument against allowing them to adopt. “It is logical to prevent children’s exposure to the illicit sexual conduct and revolving-door of adult sexual partners that often accompany cohabitation,” ADF argued.

The Religious Right

THE VALUES VOTERS SUMMIT PROPS UP OUR WHITE-SUPREMACIST CORPORATE OLIGARCHY

Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II

TO THE REPUBLIC, FOR WHICH IT STANDS

Chris Lehmann

RELIGIOUS RIGHT LEADERS BLAST TRUMP’S ORDER AS A BETRAYAL

Sarah Posner

Our review of ADF’s briefs also found that the organization repeatedly argued in court that sexual orientation is not a suspect class, and as such that laws denying LGBTQ rights should not be subject to strict scrutiny. That argument is based partly on ADF’s contention, common on the Christian right, that sexual orientation and gender identity, unlike race, are matters of choice.

In a 2012 case before the Montana Supreme Court, for example, Tim Fox—then counsel for an ADF-allied organization, the Montana Family Foundation, and now the state’s attorney general—filed a brief on behalf of ADF. In it, Fox argued that sexual orientation and gender identity should not be considered a suspect class like race because LGBTQ people are not marginalized by society and indeed possess significant political power, as evidenced by the “zealous political advocacy” that then-President Obama engaged in on their behalf. In a New Mexico case the following year, ADF argued that “citizens advocating to redefine marriage are among the most influential groups in modern politics; they have attained more legislative victories, political power, and popular favor in less time than virtually any other group in American history.”

Over the past 14 years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected many of these arguments. In 2003, the Court struck down laws criminalizing sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas. In 2013, in United States v. Windsor, the Court struck down a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act, which restricted access to federal benefits. Two years later, it formalized marriage equality with Obergefell.

Since Windsor, seeing the handwriting on the wall, ADF has pivoted away from arguments that LGBTQ people aren’t worthy of marriage equality to arguments that marriage equality violates the rights of Christians. By making this argument in Masterpiece Cakeshop, ADF is bringing its foundational fear—that the advance of rights for LGBTQ people turns Christians into their victims—to the Supreme Court. In The Homosexual Agenda, Sears opined that churches would be forced to abandon their faith; once it became clear that the law does not force churches to perform or condone same-sex marriages, ADF expanded its universe of victimized Christians.

Now the organization aggressively seeks to limit the scope of Obergefell, trying to restrict LGBTQ couples from equal access to public accommodations by framing bakers, florists, county clerks, and website designers as persecuted by the application of civil-rights laws. ADF’s brief in Masterpiece Cakeshop, for example, argues that the law “must respect Phillips’s freedom to part ways with the current majority view on marriage” and asserts that true freedom “does not crush those who hold unpopular views, pushing them from the public square.”

But back in 2004, when court clerks in California, with the blessing of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, ADF challenged that action directly to the California Supreme Court. The organization argued there was no legal justification whatsoever for the clerks to violate state law by issuing such licenses. In its brief, ADF claimed that “the Clerk has ignored the law—an improper action regardless of motives or reasons.” The “real and only issue” in the case, the brief continued, was that “public officials must follow the laws—even laws with which they disagree.”

Apparently, in ADF’s view, only conservative Christians have the right to resist.

Increasingly wary of being called discriminatory in the wake of a decision last year by the Southern Poverty Law Center to label it a hate group, ADF has redoubled its efforts to portray its views as mainstream. ADF attorneys have adamantly rejected any comparison of the organization’s stance to that of segregationists. At the Jones Day briefing in September, Waggoner declared it “offensive” to compare opponents of same-sex marriage to “those who are engaged in racial bigotry.” The following month, ADF promoted and took part in a press conference in front of the US Supreme Court, featuring several African-American conservatives who championed the ADF line that race is an immutable characteristic but homosexuality is a choice.

However, speaker after speaker attacked homosexuality itself, using language that would have been right at home in ADF’s earlier briefs. The Rev. William Keen spoke of “some sins that are considered an abomination before God,” and Janet Boynes, an “ex-lesbian” activist, called homosexuality a “false identity that is rooted in sexual or emotional brokenness,” a “disorder,” and a “rebellion against God’s plan.”

ADF IN POWER—IN WASHINGTON AND IN THE STATES

In 2007, a scandal engulfed then-Senator Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican, after he was arrested for soliciting sex in a men’s public bathroom. ADF attorney Austin Nimocks responded by writing a column for the conservative website Townhall. “Those pushing the homosexual agenda, including their accomplices in the media, typically portray presentable and socially successful persons who have purportedly made a lifelong and stable commitment to another person of the same sex,” Nimocks wrote. But the Craig scandal, he continued, “is the true story of homosexual behavior. When the advocates of homosexual expression attempt to sell us the all-American pictures of lifelong, committed same-sex couples, who participate in intimate behavior only in their bedrooms, it is important to know that this is the exception—not the rule.”

At the time, Nimocks had been on staff at ADF for just four months. His eight-year career there—litigating on the front lines of ADF’s long battle against marriage equality; arguing cases defending same-sex-marriage bans before the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the Wisconsin Supreme Court; testifying before legislative bodies against “SOGI laws” and arguing for religious exemptions—had just begun. He would go on to become one of the organization’s leading attorneys, as ADF’s director of legal advocacy for marriage and family.

Today, Nimocks is a top litigator in the office of the Texas attorney general, along with two other former ADF attorneys, David Hacker and Heather Hacker. There, Nimocks has played a leading role in two legal challenges to Obama-era rules protecting transgender rights, in which the Texas AG’s office led a consortium of attorneys general from other states. Each time, Nimocks’s team won nationwide injunctions: one against a Department of Education guidance protecting transgender students’ rights in public schools, and the other against an Affordable Care Act rule prohibiting discrimination against transgender people in health care. The education ruling represented a significant victory for ADF, which had been fighting both the Obama guidance and the school districts that adopted it, claiming that it “[put] the privacy and safety of children at risk.”

MORE FROM SARAH POSNER

SOUTH CAROLINA SOUGHT AN EXEMPTION TO ALLOW A FOSTER-CARE AGENCY TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST NON-CHRISTIANS

June 15, 2018

THE ‘MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP’ DECISION IS NOT AS HARMLESS AS YOU THINK

June 4, 2018

JUSTICE KENNEDY APPEARS READY TO UNDO HIS OWN LEGACY ON LGBTQ RIGHTS

December 5, 2017

Author page

Kenneth Upton, senior counsel in Lambda Legal’s Dallas office, noted that Nimocks has become “a very powerful person in Texas.” Upton has encountered him in litigation since Nimocks’s days at ADF, and now again in his role in the Texas AG’s Office of Special Litigation. Like other attorneys who have gone up against Nimocks, Upton described him as smart, personable, and courteous. Even so, Upton said, “his views are very extreme”; Nimocks seems to believe “that LGBT people either don’t exist or shouldn’t exist.”

To Upton, Nimocks is “the poster child for what ADF has become. Everything he does is textbook what their mission would be and how they would hope to execute it.” (Nimocks declined to comment for this article.)

And Nimocks is hardly alone. In the past five years, state attorneys general in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin have hired former ADF staff attorneys, allied attorneys, and Blackstone Fellows. Still others in recent years have brought on ADF attorneys to act as special counsel for the state in cases involving touchstone issues for social conservatives. The Nebraska attorney general, Doug Peterson, has spoken at an ADF conference and called its lawyers “some of the best at what they do.” Attorneys general in Arizona and Oklahoma have brought on ADF staff and allied attorneys to assist in major litigation over abortion and LGBTQ rights. In Mississippi, the governor retained an ADF attorney to represent the state in defending a legal challenge to an anti-LGBTQ law that the organization had helped champion, after the state attorney general declined to defend it.

ADF and Blackstone alumni also serve in staff positions in the US Congress and as attorneys in the United States military, the Department of Justice, and other federal agencies. Others serve as state legislators, City Council members, district attorneys, and judges. Brian Hagedorn, a Blackstone Fellow who went on to serve as counsel to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, is now an appellate judge in Wisconsin.

Trump’s election signaled the start of a new phase in ADF’s political reach. So far, Trump has nominated three members of the organization’s “legal army” of allied attorneys to federal judgeships: Kyle Duncan; Jeff Mateer, currently with the Texas attorney general’s office; and Michael Joseph Juneau, a Louisiana attorney. Mateer and Duncan “were both involved in many cases where ADF also played a role,” an ADF spokesperson said. In addition, Steven Grasz, whom Trump nominated to serve on the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit despite Grasz’s having been rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Association, serves on the board of the Nebraska Family Alliance, which has worked with ADF—including in a successful effort to defeat a bill introduced in the Nebraska Legislature this year that would have provided civil-rights protections to LGBTQ people. (The DOJ did not respond to interview requests for any of these nominees.)

During the presidential transition, Trump tapped Ken Klukowski, the senior legal editor for Breitbart and a vocal ADF supporter, to advise on constitutional issues. Klukowski has said that he attended ADF legal trainings, and he also authored a rosy profile of the organization for Breitbart in 2012, in which he lauded its “massive and growing impact in courtrooms across America.”

As Trump’s nominations, appointments, and actions unfolded, ADF was everywhere. DeVos, whose family has long funded ADF, became the new secretary of education. Ben Carson, who had given at least one speech to an ADF gathering in 2014, came in as Trump’s secretary of housing and urban development. Matthew Bowman, one of ADF’s top litigators on abortion issues and an architect of its opposition to the contraception-coverage benefit under Obamacare, was named deputy general counsel at the Department of Health and Human Services. The department almost immediately made moves to repeal the requirement. (Bowman did not respond to a request for comment.)

ADF has enjoyed access to other Trump officials. In July, Attorney General Sessions gave a closed-door speech to the organization, promising that he would issue guidance ensuring that “religious Americans will be treated neither as an afterthought nor as a problem to be managed.” When Sessions issued that guidance in October, ADF praised specific aspects of its language—“Americans do not give up their freedom of religion by participating in the marketplace, partaking of the public square, or interacting with government”; “free exercise of religion includes the right to act or abstain from action in accordance with one’s religious beliefs”—an indication that core ADF arguments had been enshrined in official US policy.

In September, the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in Masterpiece Cakeshop that legal observers described as unprecedented. In a move that First Amendment attorney Greg Lipper called “quite irregular,” Sessions’s DOJ argued for the restriction of a state civil-rights law—possibly telegraphing an intention to restrict federal civil-rights laws as well. Lipper sees the intervention as a sign of “how influential ADF’s view of things is, even at the highest level of the Justice Department.”

Masterpiece Cakeshop isn’t the only ADF case that the DOJ has gotten involved in since Sessions became attorney general. The department has moved to intervene in a case in which ADF is representing a college student who claims that his rights of free speech and free exercise of religion were violated when Georgia Gwinnett College asked him to stop preaching outside of the school’s designated free-speech zones. Citing two landmark ADF cases, the DOJ urged the court not to dismiss the case, arguing that it was in the government’s interest to “lend its voice” because the student’s “First Amendment claims are intertwined with allegations of disparate treatment based on religion.”

Casey Mattox, the director of ADF’s Center for Academic Freedom, said in an interview that the organization has been in communication with the Department of Justice about this and other cases. Mattox refused to identify the DOJ officials with whom ADF had communicated but said, “We’ve provided information to people in the administration; people in the administration asked for information about our cases.” In response to a query, a DOJ official would say only that it was common in “any possible civil-rights violation” for the department to use “preexisting relationships with outside organizations to determine if there is a predicate for an investigation.”

When Waggoner argues Masterpiece Cakeshop before the Supreme Court on December 5, she will have support from the highest levels of the federal government. Francisco, Trump’s solicitor general, asked for argument time in the case, noting that “the United States has a particular interest in the scope of such rights in the context of the Colorado statute here, which shares certain features with federal public accommodations laws.” Until recently a partner at Jones Day, Francisco also has ties to ADF: The organization identified him as one of its allied attorneys in an establishment-clause case that Francisco helped ADF litigate in 2016. It is not a relationship that he has made public; Francisco did not mention the organization by name in the questionnaire he submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee in advance of his May confirmation hearing. Francisco’s only acknowledgment of his ADF ties was a mention, on a list of speaking engagements, of his participation on a 2015 panel on law-firm recruiting hosted by the Blackstone Legal Fellowship.

Kathleen Clark, a professor at Washington University Law School and an expert on government ethics, suggests that “if [Francisco] had a particularly close relationship” with ADF, “a question would arise as to whether he could provide independent, professional judgment to his new client,” the federal government—in other words, whether he could be impartial in a case being argued by ADF. The Department of Justice declined to comment on whether Francisco’s participation in the case had undergone an ethics review. While at Jones Day, Francisco gave a speech at the Heritage Foundation in which he called for lawyers representing religious groups to “build powerful cases” with “sympathetic plaintiffs” and to “focus on the florist, on the baker, the sincere small businessmen under attack.”

On December 5, with the full force of the United States government behind it, ADF will be asking the Supreme Court to carve out yawning exemptions from civil-rights laws for conservative Christians. Yet in another case seven years ago, in which several families charged that their public school’s use of a church for graduation ceremonies violated the Constitution’s establishment clause, ADF filed an amicus brief that made a very different argument. At the time, the organization casually dismissed the possible religious objections of Jewish and Muslim students, whose faiths may have prohibitions against entering a church. The state, ADF argued, “cannot possibly organize its affairs to comport with the subjective views of all potentially religious groups.”

Editor’s note: This article was edited after publication to clarify ADF’s role in a press conference before the Supreme Court.

Update 11/29/17: In this article, we reported that Alliance Defending Freedom identified Noel Francisco, Trump’s solicitor general, as an ADF allied attorney. We based this identification on an August 16, 2016, press release on the ADF website about an establishment-clause case, Davis v. Shade, in which Francisco was co-counsel with ADF [see screenshot here]. ADF also had also identified Francisco as an allied attorney in a previous press release about that same case, dated June 27, 2016 [see screenshot here].

After publication, ADF contacted The Nation, claiming that Francisco has never been an allied attorney. Moments later, ADF wrote again, saying “it’s our mistake. It’s from this press release that we put out—unfortunately, our media dept. got it wrong, and I didn’t know it until now. Our media dept. is fixing it as we speak.” As of now, both press releases have been rewritten and no longer identify Francisco as an ADF-allied attorney. As we reported, the Department of Justice declined to comment on whether Francisco had undergone an ethics review in order to present arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop given his apparent relationship with ADF, one that the DOJ neither confirmed nor denied.

ADF also claimed, in the same e-mail, that its allied attorneys are not required to agree to the statement of faith we found linked to within ADF’s FAQs about applying to the program, saying that they do not have to agree to the same statement of faith as employees. That statement of faith includes a commitment to believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ, that God designed marriage for one man and one woman, and that homosexual behavior is “sinful and offensive to God.” Later in the day, that FAQ page, too, was changed. It had read, “The application requires affirmation of agreement with our statement of faith,” linking to the statement we quoted in the story [see screenshot here]. ADF’s website now omits that clause, reading only, “You become a part of the ADF Attorney Network by formally applying and being accepted as an Allied Attorney.” But the link on the web page, before it was changed yesterday, took one to the same statement of faith that employees must agree to.

Sarah PosnerTWITTERSarah Posner is a Reporting Fellow with the Investigative Fund and expert on the intersection of religion and politics.

no lnx

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/03/26/how-proposition-8-passed-in-california-and-why-it-wouldnt-today

 Chris Cillizza and Sean SullivanMarch 26, 2013

Lost amid today's Supreme Court oral arguments on California's Proposition 8is a simple question: How did a gay marriage ban pass in one of the most liberal states in the country just four years ago?

...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996,1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) was a United States federal law that, prior to being ruled unconstitutional, defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. Until Section 3 of the Act was struck down in 2013 (United States v. Windsor), DOMA, in conjunction with other statutes, had barred same-sex married couples from being recognized as "spouses" for purposes of federal laws, effectively barring them from receiving federal marriage benefits. DOMA's passage did not prevent individual states from recognizing same-sex marriage, but it imposed constraints on the benefits received by all legally married same-sex couples.

Initially introduced in May 1996, DOMA passed both houses of Congress by large, veto-proof majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in September 1996. By defining "spouse" and its related terms to signify a heterosexual couple in a recognized marriage, Section 3 codified non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, social security survivors' benefits, immigration, bankruptcy, and the filing of joint tax returns, as well as excluding same-sex spouses from the scope of laws protecting families of federal officers (18 U. S. C. §115), laws evaluating financial aid eligibility, and federal ethics laws applicable to opposite-sex spouses.[1]:23–24

InUnited States v. Windsor (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) struck down the act's provisions disallowing same-sex marriages to be performed under federal jurisdiction.

Background

Main article: Same-sex marriage in the United States

The issue of legal recognition of same-sex marriage attracted mainstream attention infrequently until the 1980s. A sympathetic reporter heard several gay men raise the issue in 1967 and described it as "high among the deviate's hopes".[2] In one early incident, gay activist Jack Baker brought suit against the state of Minnesota in 1970 after being denied a marriage license to marry another man; the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled (in Baker v. Nelson) that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples did not violate the Constitution. Baker later changed his legal name to Pat Lynn McConnell and married his male partner in 1971, but the marriage was not legally recognized.[3][4] A 1972 off-Broadway play, Nightride, depicted "a black–white homosexual marriage".[5][n 1] In 1979, IntegrityUSA, an organization of gay Episcopalians, raised the issue when the U.S. Episcopal Church considered a ban on the ordination of homosexuals as priests.[6][n 2]

The New York Times said the question was "all but dormant" until the late 1980s when, according to gay activists, "the AIDS epidemic... brought questions of inheritance and death benefits to many people's minds."[7] In May 1989, Denmark established registered partnerships that granted same-sex couples many of the rights associated with marriage.[7] In the same year, New York's highest court ruled that two homosexual men qualified as a family for the purposes of New York City's rent-control regulations.[7] Within the movement for gay and lesbian rights, a debate between advocates of sexual liberation and of social integration was taking shape, with Andrew Sullivan publishing an essay "Here Comes the Groom" in The New Republic in August 1989 arguing for same-sex marriage: "A need to rebel has quietly ceded to a desire to belong."[4] In September 1989, the State Bar Association of California urged recognition of marriages between homosexuals even before gay rights advocates adopted the issue.[7]

Gary Bauer, head of the socially conservative Family Research Council, predicted the issue would be "a major battleground in the 1990s".[7] In 1991, Georgia Attorney General Michael J. Bowers withdrew a job offer to a lesbian who planned to marry another woman in a Jewish wedding ceremony.[8] In 1993, a committee of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America released a report asking Lutherans to consider blessing same-sex marriages and stating that lifelong abstinence was harmful to same-sex couples. The Conference of Bishops responded, "There is basis neither in Scripture nor tradition for the establishment of an official ceremony by this church for the blessing of a homosexual relationship."[9] In a critique of radicalism in the gay liberation movement, Bruce Bawer's A Place at the Table (1993) advocated the legalization of same-sex marriage.[10]

In Baehr v. Miike (1993), the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled that the state must show a compelling interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage.[11] This finding prompted concern among opponents of same-sex marriage, who feared that same-sex marriage might become legal in Hawaii and that other states would recognize or be compelled to recognize those marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. The House Judiciary Committee's 1996 Report called for DOMA as a response to Baehr, because "a redefinition of marriage in Hawaii to include homosexual couples could make such couples eligible for a whole range of federal rights and benefits".[12]

Text

...

While his stated position was against same-sex marriage, Clinton criticized DOMA as "unnecessary and divisive",[26] and his press-secretary called it "gay baiting, plain and simple".[27][28] However, after Congress had passed the bill with enough votes to override a presidential veto,[28] Clinton signed DOMA. Years later, he said that he did so reluctantly in view of the veto-proof majority, both to avoid associating himself politically with the then-unpopular cause of same-sex marriage and to defuse momentum for a proposed Federal Amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage.[28][29] Clinton, who was traveling when Congress acted, signed it into law promptly upon returning to Washington, D.C., on September 21, 1996;[30] no signing ceremony was held for DOMA and no photographs were taken of him signing it into law.[citation needed] The White House released a statement in which Clinton said "that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation".[30]

In 2013, Mike McCurry, the White House press secretary at the time, recalled that Clinton's "posture was quite frankly driven by the political realities of an election year in 1996."[28] James Hormel, who was appointed by Clinton as the first openly gay U.S. Ambassador, described the reaction from the gay community to Clinton signing DOMA as shock and anger.[31] On Hormel's account, Clinton had been the first President to advocate gay rights, push for AIDS funding, support gay and lesbian civil rights legislation, and appoint open LGBT people to his Administration. Thus his signing of DOMA was viewed by much of the community as a great betrayal.

Clinton did not mention DOMA in his 2004 autobiography.[32] Over time, Clinton's public position on same-sex marriage shifted. He spoke out against the passage of California's Proposition 8 and recorded robocalls urging Californians to vote against it.[33] In July 2009, he officially came out in support for same-sex marriage.[34][35]

On August 13, 2009, during Netroots Nation, when confronted by LGBT activist Lane Hudson, Clinton explained that he had to sign DOMA in order to prevent a constitutional amendment that would proscribe same-sex marriage: "We were attempting at the time, in a very reactionary Congress, to head off an attempt to send a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the states. And if you look at the eleven referenda much later—in 2004, in the election—which the Republicans put on the ballot to try to get the base vote for President Bush up, I think it's obvious that something had to be done to try to keep the Republican Congress from presenting that."[36][37]

In an op-ed written on March 7, 2013, for The Washington Post, Clinton again suggested that DOMA was necessary in order to preclude, at that time, the passage of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and urged the Supreme Court, which would shortly hear arguments on United States v. Windsor, to overturn DOMA.[38][39]

Clinton's explanation for signing DOMA has been disputed by gay rights activist Elizabeth Birch: "In 1996, I was President of the Human Rights Campaign, and there was no real threat of a Federal Marriage Amendment. That battle would explode about eight years later, in 2004, when President Bush announced it was a central policy goal of his administration to pass such an amendment."[40]

Evan Wolfson, who, in 1996, ran the National Freedom to Marry Coalition, while an attorney at Lambda Legal, has also criticized the suggestion that DOMA was stopping something worse: "That's complete nonsense. There was no conversation about something 'worse' until eight years later. There was no talk of a constitutional amendment, and no one even thought it was possible—and, of course, it turned out it wasn't really possible to happen. So, the idea that people were swallowing DOMA in order to prevent a constitutional amendment is really just historic revisionism and not true. That was never an argument made in the '90s."[41]

However, political discussion of the possibility of using a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage rights was not unheard of in the 1990s. In January 1996, for example, the House Judiciary Committee for the state of Hawaii voted 12-1 in favor of passing bill HB 117, which was aimed at amending the constitution of Hawaii to define marriage as involving one man and one woman.[42] In 1998, the first anti-same-sex marriage amendment was added to the constitution of a U.S. state,[43] though it was not until 2002 that a federal marriage amendment was first introduced in the U.S. Congress.

Impact

The General Accounting Office issued a report in 1997 identifying "1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor".[44] In updating its report in 2004, the GAO found that this number had risen to 1,138 as of December 31, 2003.[45] With respect to Social Security, housing, and food stamps, the GAO found that "recognition of the marital relationship is integral to the design of the program[s]." The report also noted several other major program categories that were affected—veterans' benefits, including pensions and survivor benefits; taxes on income, estates, gifts, and property sales; and benefits due federal employees, both civilian and military—and identified specifics such as the rights of the surviving spouse of a creator of copyrighted work and the financial disclosure requirements of spouses of Congress members and certain officers of the federal government. Education loan programs and agriculture price support and loan programs also implicate spouses. Financial aid to "family farms" for example, is restricted to those in which "a majority interest is held by individuals related by marriage or blood."[44]

Because the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) controls most employee benefits provided by private employers, DOMA removed some tax breaks for employers and employees in the private sector when it comes to health care, pension, and disability benefits to same-sex spouses on an equal footing with opposite-sex spouses. ERISA does not affect employees of state and local government or churches, nor does it extend to such benefits as employee leave and vacation.[46]

Under DOMA, persons in same-sex marriages were not considered married for immigration purposes. U.S. citizens and permanent residents in same-sex marriages could not petition for their spouses, nor could they be accompanied by their spouses into the U.S. on the basis of a family or employment-based visa. A non-citizen in such a marriage could not use it as the basis for obtaining a waiver or relief from removal from the U.S.[47]

Following the end of the U.S. military's ban on service by open gays and lesbians, "Don't ask, don't tell," in September 2011, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted that DOMA limited the military's ability to extend the same benefits to military personnel in same-sex marriages as their peers in opposite-sex marriages received, notably health benefits.[48] Same-sex spouses of military personnel were denied the same access to military bases, legal counseling, and housing allowances provided to different-sex spouses.[49]

Political debate

The 2000 Republican Party platform endorsed DOMA in general terms and indicated concern about judicial activism: "We support the traditional definition of 'marriage' as the legal union of one man and one woman, and we believe that federal judges and bureaucrats should not force states to recognize other living arrangements as marriages."[50] The Democratic Party platform that year did not mention DOMA or marriage in this context.[51]

Bush administration

In 2004, President George W. Bush endorsed a proposed constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples because he thought DOMA vulnerable: "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."[52] In January 2005, however, he said he would not lobby on its behalf, since too many U.S. senators thought DOMA would survive a constitutional challenge.[53]

Obama administration

President Barack Obama's 2008 political platform endorsed the repeal of DOMA.[54][55] On June 12, 2009, the Justice Department issued a brief defending the constitutionality of DOMA in the case of Smelt v. United States, continuing its longstanding practice of defending all federal laws challenged in court.[56] On June 15, 2009, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese wrote an open letter to Obama that asked for actions to balance the DOJ's courtroom position: "We call on you to put your principles into action and send legislation repealing DOMA to Congress."[57] A representative of Lambda Legal, an LGBT impact litigation and advocacy organization, noted that the Obama administration's legal arguments omitted the Bush administration's assertion that households headed by opposite-sex spouses were better at raising children than those headed by same-sex spouses.[56]

On February 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder released a statement regarding lawsuits challenging DOMA Section 3. He wrote:[58]

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases.

He also announced that although it was no longer defending Section 3 in court, the administration intended to continue to enforce the law "unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law's constitutionality."[58]

In a separate letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner, Holder noted that Congress could participate in these lawsuits.[59]

On February 24, the Department of Justice notified the First Circuit Court of Appeals that it would "cease to defend" Gill and Massachusetts as well.[60] On July 1, 2011, the DOJ, with a filing in Golinski, intervened for the first time on behalf of a plaintiff seeking to have DOMA Section 3 ruled unconstitutional, arguing that laws that use sexual orientation as a classification need to pass the court's intermediate scrutiny standard of review.[61]The DOJ made similar arguments in a filing in Gill on July 7.[62]

In June 2012, filing an amicus brief in Golinski, two former Republican Attorneys General, Edwin Meese and John Ashcroft, called the DOJ's decision not to defend DOMA Section 3 "an unprecedented and ill-advised departure from over two centuries of Executive Branch practice" and "an extreme and unprecedented deviation from the historical norm".[63]

Congressional intervention

On March 4, 2011, Boehner announced that the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) would convene to consider whether the House of Representatives should defend DOMA Section 3 in place of the Department of Justice,[64][65] and on March 9 the committee voted 3–2 to do so.[66]

On April 18, 2011, House leaders announced the selection of former United States Solicitor General Paul Clement to represent BLAG.[67] Clement, without opposition from other parties to the case, filed a motion to be allowed to intervene in the suit "for the limited purpose of defending the constitutionality of Section III" of DOMA.[68][69] On April 25, 2011, King & Spalding, the law firm through which Clement was handling the case, announced it was dropping the case. On the same day, Clement resigned from King & Spalding in protest and joined Bancroft PLLC, which took on the case.[70] The House's initial contract with Clement capped legal fees at $500,000,[71] but on September 30 a revised contract raised the cap to $1.5 million.[72] A spokesman for Boehner explained that BLAG would not appeal in all cases, citing bankruptcy cases that are "unlikely to provide the path to the Supreme Court....[E]ffectively defending [DOMA] does not require the House to intervene in every case, especially when doing so would be prohibitively expensive."[73]

Repeal proposals

Further information: Respect for Marriage

==

Legal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unionsLegal status of same-sex unions
hideMarriage
Performed

Argentina

Australia

Austria*

Belgium

Brazil

Canada

Colombia

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Iceland

Ireland

Luxembourg

Malta

Mexico:

· 12 states & CDMX

Netherlands1

New Zealand2

Norway

Portugal

South Africa

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom3

United States4

Uruguay

Recognized

showCivil unions and 

registered partnerships

showLimited or partial recognition
showSee also

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not performed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Aruba,_Cura%C3%A7ao_and_Sint_Maarten" title="Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_of_New_Zealand" title="Realm of New Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Niue, Tokelau and the Cook Islands</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Northern_Ireland" title="Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Northern Ireland</a>, the dependency of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guernsey#Sark" title="Same-sex marriage in Guernsey" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Sark</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_British_Overseas_Territories" title="Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">six of the fourteen overseas territories</a></font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither performed nor recognized in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_American_Samoa" title="LGBT rights in American Samoa" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">American Samoa</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions" title="Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">many tribal jurisdictions</a> with the exception of federal recognition benefits</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When performed in the Netherlands proper</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If performed before 1 June 2018</font></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Registration schemes open in all jurisdictions except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualien_County" title="Hualien County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Hualien County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penghu" title="Penghu" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Penghu County</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taitung_County" title="Taitung County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Taitung County</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunlin_County" title="Yunlin County" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Yunlin County</a></font></li></ol>

* Not yet in effect

LGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portalLGBT portal

Same-sex marriage in the United States was initially established on a state-by-state basis, expanding from 1 state in 2004 to 36 states in 2015, when, on June 26, 2015, same-sex marriage was established in all 50 states as a result of a landmark civil rights ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States. Same-sex marriage is also referred to as gay marriage, while the equal recognition in law of the marriages of same-sex couples and the marriages of opposite-sex couples is referred to as marriage equality.

Civil rights campaigning in favor of marriage without distinction as to sex or sexual orientation began in the 1970s.[1] In 1972, the now overturned Baker v. Nelson saw the U.S. Supreme Court decline to become involved.[2] The issue became prominent from around 1993, when the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled in Baehr v. Lewin it was unconstitutional for the state to abridge marriage on the basis of sex. The ruling led to federal and state actions to explicitly abridge marriage on the basis of sex in order to prevent the marriages of same-sex couples from being recognized, the most prominent of which was DOMA. In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional for the state to abridge marriage on the basis of sex. From 2004 to 2015, as the tide of public opinioncontinued to move forward towards support of same-sex marriage, various state court rulings, state legislation, popular referendums, and federal court rulings established same-sex marriage in 36 states. In 2007, Mildred Loving, one of the co-plaintiffs in the 1967 landmark civil rights case of Loving v. Virginia (in which the Supreme Court of United States struck down all state bans on inter-racial marriage) voiced her support for same-sex marriage. In 2011, national public support for same-sex marriage rose above 50% for the first time.[3] In 2012, the NAACP, the veteran African-American civil rights organization, voiced its support for same-sex marriage. In 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down DOMA, declaring it to be a violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution in the landmark civil rights case of United States v. Windsor, leading to federal recognition of same-sex marriage, with federal benefits for married couples connected to either the state of residence or the state in which the marriage was solemnized. In 2015, national public support for same-sex marriage rose to 60% for the first time.[4] In 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the landmark civil rights case of Obergefell v. Hodges that the right of same-sex couples to marry on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities, is guaranteed by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The most prominent supporters of same-sex marriage are human rights and civil rights organizations as well as the medical and scientific communities, while the most prominent opponents are religious groups. The ruling of the Supreme Court in Obergefell occurred following decades of consistently rising national public support for same-sex marriage in the United States, with support continuing to rise thereafter.

A study of nationwide data from across the United States from January 1999 to December 2015 revealed that the establishment of same-sex marriage is associated with a significant reduction in the rate of attempted suicide among children, with the effect being concentrated among children of a minority sexual orientation.

The United States of America is the most populous country in the world to have established same-sex marriage nationwide.

History

Main article: History of same-sex marriage in the United States

See also: Timeline of same-sex marriage in the United States

Two men celebrate their marriage in the United States.

Civil rights campaigning in favor of marriage without distinction as to sex or sexual orientation began in the 1970s.[2] In the 1971 case Baker v. Nelson, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples did not violate the U.S. Constitution. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court denied to hear the case, establishing it as a federal precedent as it came from a mandatory appellate review. The issue did not become prominent in U.S. politics until the 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court decision in Baehr v. Lewin that declared that state's prohibition to be unconstitutional.[5]

During the 21st century, while several countries elsewhere in the world were reforming marriage to be an institution without distinction as to sex or sexual orientation, public support in the U.S. for same-sex marriage has grown considerably,[6][7] and national polls conducted since 2011 show that a majority of Americans support establishing it. However at the same time, many states also passed bans against same-sex marriage, either legislatively or by referendum.[8] On May 17, 2004, Massachusetts became the first U.S. state and the sixth jurisdiction in the world to legalize same-sex marriage following the Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health six months earlier.[9] On May 9, 2012, Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. President to publicly declare support for the legalization of same-sex marriage.[10] On November 6, 2012, Maine, Maryland and Washington became the first states to legalize same-sex marriage through popular vote.

In June 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Windsor that federal law could not treat as unequal, marriages that individual states had created as equally valid, when it overturned a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), thus forcing federal recognition of same-sex marriage and marriage-related benefits when related to a same-sex marriage performed by a state that sanctioned such marriages. In the two years following Windsor, U.S. district courts in 27 states[a] and state courts in six states,[b] plus one state court ruling addressing only the recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions,[c] found that same-sex marriage bans violate the U.S. Constitution, while two U.S. district courts[d] and one state court[e] found that they did not. The flow of federal appeal cases rejecting same-sex marriage bans was finally interrupted in November 2014. In contrast to all other circuits that had ruled at the time, the Sixth Circuit ruled such bans to be constitutional. The panel ruling reversed six U.S. district court rulings that had found bans on same-sex marriage or its recognition to be unconstitutional, reinstating State bans in the four states served by that circuit (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee).[f][45]

The crowd assembled in front of the Supreme Court shortly before same-sex marriage bans were struck down nationwide in *Obergefell v. Hodges*.

On January 16, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear four cases, on appeal from the Sixth Circuit, on whether states may constitutionally ban same-sex marriages or refuse to recognize such marriages legally performed in another state. The cases were:Obergefell v. Hodges (Ohio), Tanco v. Haslam (Tennessee), DeBoer v. Snyder (Michigan), and Bourke v. Beshear (Kentucky). Decided by the court under the heading of Obergefell on June 26, 2015, in a judgement authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit's upholding of state bans, overturned Baker, and declared that the Court's rulings must evolve in the light of better understanding of discrimination and the constitutional protections available to protect individuals of a minority sexual orientation, and that same-sex couples have the constitutional rights to marry and to have their marriages recognized.[46][47]

Public opinion

Main article: Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States

A CNN poll conducted on February 19, 2015 found that 63% of Americans believed gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, up from 49% in August 2010.[48] A *Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted from April 16 to 20, 2015 found that 61% of Americans supported allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally.[49]*

A *Washington Post-ABC News poll from February–March 2014 found a record high of 59% of Americans approved of same-sex marriage, with only 34% opposed and 7% with no opinion.[50] In May 2013, a Gallup poll showed that 53% of Americans would vote to establish same-sex marriage in all 50 states. Three previous readings over the course of a year consistently showed support at 50% or above. Gallup noted: "Just three years ago, support for gay marriage was 44%. The current 53% level of support is essentially double the 27% in Gallup's initial measurement on gay marriage, in 1996."[51]*

By 2011-2013, public support for same-sex marriage in the United States had solidified above 50%.[52][53][54] Public support for same-sex marriage has grown at an increasing pace since the 1990s.[6] In 1996, just 25% of Americans supported the legalization of same-sex marriage. Polls have shown that support is identical among whites and Hispanics, while support for same-sex marriage trails among blacks.[55] Polling trends in 2010 and 2011 showed support for same-sex marriage gaining a majority, although the difference is within the error limit of the analysis.[56] On May 20, 2011, Gallup reported majority support for same-sex marriage for the first time in the country.[57] In June 2011, two prominent polling organizations released an analysis of the changing trend in public opinion about same-sex marriage in the United States, concluding that "public support for the freedom to marry has increased, at an accelerating rate, with most polls showing that a majority of Americans now support full marriage rights for all Americans."[58]

In 2017, according to a Public Religion Research Institute state-by-state poll, there was majority support for same-sex marriage in 44 states, plurality support in 4 states, plurality opposition in 1 state, and majority opposition in 1 state.[59]

Continuous polling by Gallup has shown that support for same-sex marriage has grown rapidly, while opposition has collapsed. In 1996, 68% of Americans opposed same-sex marriage, while only 27% supported. In 2018, 67% of Americans supported same-sex marriage, while only 31% opposed.[60]

Debate

...

==

unions do not appear to be stalking horse to marriage? maybe hawaii?

Same-sex unions in the United States are available in various forms in all states and territories, except American Samoa. All states have legal same-sex marriage, while others have the options of civil unions, domestic partnerships, or reciprocal beneficiary relationships. The federal government only recognizes marriage and no other legal union for same-sex couples.

Hawaii was the first state to recognize limited legal same-sex unions, doing so in 1997 in the form of reciprocal beneficiary partnerships.

Federal law

The legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage in the United States are complicated by the nation's federal system of government. Traditionally, the federal government does not attempt to establish its own definition of marriage. Instead, any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967 due to anti-miscegenation laws). According to the federal General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,138 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage by the federal government; areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, prompted by fears of an adverse result in Hawaii's lawsuit Baehr v. Miike,defined a marriage explicitly as a union of one man and one woman for the purposes of all federal laws (See 1 U.S.C. § 7), which was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor on June 26, 2013. As a result, shortly after Windsor was decided, a number of federal areas ranging from veteran benefits to immigration were clarified as applying equally to same-sex couples.

Marriage

See also: Same-sex marriage in the United States, Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state, Same-sex marriage status in the United States by state, and Timeline of same-sex marriage in the United States

The movement to obtain civil marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples in the United States began in the 1970s but remained unsuccessful for over forty years. On May 17, 2004, Massachusetts became the first U.S. state and the sixth jurisdiction in the world to legalize same-sex marriage following the Supreme Judicial Court's decision six months earlier.[1] Before nationwide legalization same-sex marriage became legal in 37 states; 25 states by court order, 10 by legislative action, and 3 by referendum. Some states had legalized same-sex marriage by more than one of the three actions.

On June 26, 2015 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that states must license and recognize same-sex marriages. Consequently, same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands and Northern Mariana Islands. Officials in American Samoa are discussing whether the ruling applies to the territory; currently same-sex marriages are neither licensed nor recognized there.

Native American Tribal Jurisdictions

Main article: Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions

The Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the states and territories did not legalize same-sex marriage on Indian lands. In the United States, Congress (not the federal courts) have legal authority over Indian country. Thus, unless Congress passes a law imposing same-sex marriage on Indian tribes, federally recognized American Indian tribes have the legal right to form their own marriage laws.[2] As of the time of the Obergefell ruling, 24 tribal jurisdictions legally recognize same-sex marriage. Some tribes have passed legislation specifically addressing same-sex relationships and some specify that state law and jurisdiction govern tribal marriages.

Civil unions

*1^Not recognized by the federal government. However,(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Same-sex_unions_in_the_United_States.svg "Enlarge")same-sex marriage is legal nationwide (excluding American Samoa and some Native American tribal jurisdictions) and is recognized by the federal government.

2Domestic partnerships in Washington are only available when at least one of the partners is 62 years of age or older.*

Civil unions are a means of establishing kinship in a manner similar to that of marriage. The formalities for entering a civil union and the benefits and responsibilities of the parties tend to be similar or identical to those relating to marriage. Various names are used for similar relationships in other countries, but civil union was first applied in Vermont.

The Supreme Court's invalidation of DOMA Section 3 in 2013 heightened the difference between marriage and civil unions; while marriage provides federal benefits, civil unions do not.

Following the legalization of same-sex marriage in their jurisdiction Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Delaware, ceased to offer civil unions.

Civil unions are still legal in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Colorado; civil unions are also still legal in six municipalities of Arizona.[3]

Domestic partnerships

Main articles: Domestic partnership in the United States and Cities and counties in the United States offering a domestic partnership registry

Domestic partnerships are any of a variety of relationships recognized by employers or state or local government. The benefits of domestic relationships range from very limited rights to all the rights afforded to married people by the state, except where federal law makes providing benefits impossible. While most domestic partnership schemes grant those partners limited, enumerated rights, the Oregon, Washington, and Nevada schemes provide substantially the same rights as marriage and are therefore, essentially, civil unions. In Oregon, same-sex couples can access domestic partnerships or marriage, as of May 19, 2014.

Example of California domestic partnership certificate.

Some U.S. cities, including New York, San Francisco, and Toledo, offer domestic partnership registries. These registries afford registered partner specified rights otherwise reserved to married couples. The rights afforded include access to city services and rights created by city ordinances. Some private employers within such cities use the domestic partnership registries for the purpose of determining employee eligibility for domestic partner benefits.[4]

Six U.S. states and the District of Columbia have some form of domestic partnership. One of these, Hawaii, calls its scheme a "reciprocal beneficiary" registry. Domestic partnership benefits vary widely, ranging from enumerated lists of benefits similar to municipal domestic partnerships to benefits equal to marriage.

===

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-gay-marriage-sg-storygallery.html

===

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commi...

:{:(style="text-align:left;border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

1.

:{:{Masterpiece Cakeshop:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States that deals with whether ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

The Press Is Wrong on Masterpiece Cakeshop. The Baker Lost.

prospect.org/article/press-wrong-on-masterpiece-cakeshop-baker-lost

:{:(style="text-align:left;border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

1.

:{Jun 5, 2018 - Charlie Craig and David Mullins visited the :{Masterpiece bakery:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: and looked through a photo album of custom-designed cakes. When the owner ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

The Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling, Explained - The Atlantic

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/...a...masterpiece-cakeshop/561986/

:{:(style="text-align:left;border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

1.

:{Jun 4, 2018 - When the Supreme Court opened its October term last year, :{Masterpiece Cakeshop:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission—the “gay wedding ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

Supreme Court rules in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop in gay rights ...

https://www.vox.com/.../masterpiece-cakeshop-supreme-court-baker-ruling-gay-wedd...

:{:(style="text-align:left;border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

1.

:{Jun 4, 2018 - The US Supreme Court on Monday issued a narrow ruling in favor of :{Masterpiece Cakeshop:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, the bakery that refused service to a same-sex ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

The Christian Legal Army Behind 'Masterpiece Cakeshop' | The Nation

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-christian-legal-army-behind-masterpiece-cakeshop/

Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, is at the center of a case that will be considered by the Supreme Court on December 5.

Supreme Court hears same-sex marriage cake case - CNNPolitics

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/05/politics/supreme...masterpiece-cakeshop/index.html

Read oral arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. ... same sex marriage was not yet legal in Colorado, but two men walked into the bakery.

The key principle in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case was litigated in ...

www.slate.com/.../the_key_principle_in_the_masterpiece_cakeshop_case_was_litigated_...

Judging from the coverage surrounding this week's blockbuster case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, it might ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 California state elections. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance[2] of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage (Proposition 22, 2000) unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court (on different grounds) in 2010,although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.

Proposition 8 countermanded the 2008 ruling by adding the same provision as in Proposition 22 to the California Constitution, providing that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," thereby superseding the 2008 ruling.[3][4][5] As an amendment, it was ruled constitutional by the California Supreme Court in Strauss v. Horton, in 2009, on the grounds that it "carved out a limited [or 'narrow'] exception to the state equal protection clause"; Justice Moreno dissented that exceptions to the equal protection clause could not be made by any majority since its whole purpose was to protect minorities against the will of a majority.

Following affirmation by the state courts, two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit against the initiative in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger (later Hollingsworth v. Perry). In August 2010, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the amendment was unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,[6] since it purported to re-removerights from a disfavored class only, with no rational basis. The official proponents' justifications for the measure were analyzed in over fifty pages covering eighty findings of fact. The state government supported the ruling and refused to defend the law.[7] The ruling was stayed pending appeal by the proponents of the initiative. On February 7, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, reached the same conclusion as the district court, but on narrower grounds. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional for California to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples, only to take them away shortly after. The ruling was stayed pending appeal to the United States Supreme Court.[8]

On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision on the appeal in the case Hollingsworth v. Perry, ruling that proponents of initiatives such as Proposition 8 did not possess legal standing in their own right to defend the resulting law in federal court, either to the Supreme Court or (previously) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Therefore, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Ninth Circuit, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The decision left the district court's 2010 ruling intact.[9][10][11] On June 28, 2013, the Ninth Circuit, on remand, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and dissolved their previous stay of the district court's ruling, enabling Governor Jerry Brown to order same-sex marriages to resume.[12]

Overview

In 2000, the State of California adopted Proposition 22 which, as an ordinary statute, forbade recognition or licensing of same-sex marriages in the state. During February and March 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom directed the licensing of same-sex marriage marriages on the basis of the state's equal protection clause, prompted also by recent events including George W. Bush's proposed constitutional ban, a possible legal case by Campaign for California Families (CCF), and a Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruling deeming same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional and permitting them from May 2004. While only lasting a month before being overruled, this was supported by other cities such as San Jose,[13] gained global attention, and led to the case In re Marriage Cases, in which Proposition 22 was found (San Francisco County Superior Court, March 14, 2005) and confirmed upon appeal (California Supreme Court, May 15, 2008) to be unconstitutional.

Proposition 8 was created by opponents of same-sex marriage prior to the final ruling on In re Marriage Cases as a voter ballot initiative, and voted on at the time of theNovember 2008 elections. Its wording was precisely the same as Proposition 22, which as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated in 2008, but by re-positioning it as a State constitutional amendment rather than a legislative statute, it was able to circumvent the ruling from In re Marriage Cases.[14] The proposition did not affectdomestic partnerships in California,[15] nor (following subsequent legal rulings) did it reverse same-sex marriages that had been performed during the interim periodMay to November 2008 (i.e. after In re Marriage Cases but before Proposition 8).[16][17][18]

==