ed that prohibiting same-gender couples from civil marriage violated the state's constitution. After the ruling, the state senate requested from the court an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of a proposed law that would ban same-gender civil marriage but would create civil unions as a parallel institution with all the same state benefits, protections, rights, and responsibilities as civil marriage. On February 4, 2004, the court answered, “segregating same-sex unions from opposite-sex unions cannot possibly be held rationally to advance or preserve” the governmental aim of encouraging “stable adult relationships for the good of the individual and of the community, especially its children.” As a result of the ruling, Massachusetts began issuing marriage licenses to same-gender couples on May 20, 2004. It is important to note that the Massachusetts marriage law is not recognized by the federal government and does not entitle same-gender married couples to any federal rights, benefits, or protections.
A small number of states have recently considered legislation to legalize same-gender civil marriages and domestic partnerships.
In 2005 the California legislature became the first in the country to pass a bill that would legalize same-gender civil marriage. However, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the measure, noting that he preferred that the state supreme court decide the matter rather than legislators.
Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich, Jr vetoed a domestic partnership registry approved by the state legislature in 2005.
Also in 2005, bills allowing for same-gender civil marriage were introduced in Maine and Rhode Island; however, they did not advance.
To date, 19 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit civil marriage by persons of the same gender. A number of these states already had enacted DOMA-like laws. Efforts to amend the constitutions of these states were undertaken in an effort to prohibit judges from overturning these statutory bans on the grounds that they violate state constitutions.
In Alaska, Hawaii, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, and Oregon, civil marriage for same-gender couples is prohibited by the state constitutions.
Constitutional amendments banning same-gender civil marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships and related benefits have been adopted in Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah. Some of these constitutional amendments also ban civil unions and domestic partnerships and related benefits for opposite-gender couples. A federal judge struck down Nebraska's amendment in 2005.
States continue to consider constitutional amendments to prohibit same-gender civil marriage and other legal forms of relationship recognition.
Amendments to ban same-gender civil marriage in Alabama, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee await consideration by the voters of those states during the 2006 elections.
In early 2006, the Virginia legislature approved a measure to amend the state's 230-year-old bill of rights to prohibit same-gender civil marriage, thereby ensuring its position on the November 2006 ballot. Amendment bills await second votes by lawmakers in Washington in 2006 and Indiana in 2007.
In March 2006, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted 201 to 125 to defeat a proposal to amend the state's bill of rights with a constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage.
Efforts are underway in Arizona, California, and Florida to add amendments banning same-gender civil marriage to their respective ballots.
Legal challenges, interpretation questions, and scope of applicability of the amendments signal a growing trend in the public-policy arena.
On May 12, 2005, a federal judge struck down Nebraska's constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage. Judge Joseph F. Bataillon ruled that the ban violated the US Constitution because it went “far beyond merely defining marriage as between a man and a woman,” noting that the “broad proscriptions could also interfere with or prevent arrangeme