OSU Navigation Bar

The Ohio State University

Moritz College of Law

Moritz Home Page

Moritz College of Law

Moritz College of Law


Law Library

 

Moritz Law  /  Law Library  /  Research Guides  /  Same-Sex Marriage Laws

 

Research Guides: Same-Sex Marriage Laws

State-by-State Summary

This chart summarizes U.S. state laws related to same-sex marriages.

 

State Statutes Limiting Marriage Constitutional Amendments Limiting Marriage Constitutional Amendments Limiting Other Unions States Recognizing Marriage Statutes Recognizing Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships State Supreme Court Decisions
Alabama

Ala. Code § 30-1-19

Ala. Const.  art. I, amend. 774 Ala. Const.  art. I, amend. 774      
Alaska Alaska Stat. § 25.05.011. 25.05.013 Alaska Const. art. I, § 25       State v. Alaska Civil Liberties Union, 122 P.3d 781 (Alaska 2005) (domestic partners of homosexual public employees entitled to same benefits as spouses of heterosexual public employees).
Arizona Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 25-101 Ariz.  Const. art. XXX (passed in 2008)        
Arkansas

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-11-109; but see Wright v. Arkansas, 60CV-13-2662, Pulaski County Circuit Court (May 9, 2014) and clarifying order, (finding that Act violates federal constitution) - stayed by Arkansas Supreme Court Case No. CV-14-427

Ark. Const. amend. 83, § 1; but see Wright v. Arkansas, 60CV-13-2662, Pulaski County Circuit Court (May 9, 2014) and clarifying order, (finding that amendment violates federal constitution) - stayed by Arkansas Supreme Court Case No. CV-14-427

Ark. Const. amend. 83, § 2; but see Wright v. Arkansas, 60CV-13-2662, Pulaski County Circuit Court (May 9, 2014) and clarifying order, (finding that amendment violates federal constitution) - stayed by Arkansas Supreme Court Case No. CV-14-427

     
California Cal. Fam. Code § 308.5 (Voided by In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008)) Cal. Const. art. 1, § 7.5 (initiative measure approved Nov. 4, 2008)   Yes. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp.2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (constitutional amendment restricting marriage to heterosexual couples found to violate due process and equal protection clauses of federal constitution); see also Hollingsworth v. Perry (U.S. Sup. Ct., decided 6/26/13) (petitioners challenging ruling on appeal did not have standing) Cal. Fam. Code § 297 et seq. (domestic partnership)

In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008) (statutory provision limiting marriage to heterosexual couples found unconstitutional). Decision voided by Cal. Const. art. 1, § 7.5, approved Nov. 4, 2008.

Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009) (constitutional amendment found valid); but see Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp.2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (constitutional amendment found to violate due process and equal protection clauses of federal constitution)

Perry v. Brown (9th Cir., decided 2/7/12)(affirming district court's decision)

Hollingsworth v. Perry (U.S. Sup. Ct., decided 6/26/13)(holding that petitioners did not have standing to appeal, leaving the district court judgment to stand)

Colorado

Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. 14-2-104 - ruled unconstitutional by Adams County District Court judge in Brinkman v. Long, Case No. 13-CV-32572 (July 9, 2014)

Colo. Const. art. I, 31 - ruled unconstitutional by Adams County District Court judge in Brinkman v. Long, Case No. 13-CV-32572 (July 9, 2014)

    SB 13-011 (civil union - enacted)  
Connecticut

 

 

   

Yes. Kerrigan vs. Comm'r of Pub.Health, 957 A.2d 407 (Conn. 2008)

Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 46b-20

  Kerrigan vs. Comm'r of Pub.Health, 957 A.2d 407 (Conn. 2008).
D.C.       Yes. D.C. Act 18-248; 57 D.C. Reg. 27 (Jan. 1, 2010) D.C. Code 32-702 (domestic partnership) Dean v. D.C., 653 A.2d 307 (D.C. 1995) (marriage statute prohibits issuance of marriage license to same sex couples)
Delaware Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 101     Yes. 2013 HB 75 Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 201 et seq.(civil union)  
Florida

Fla. Stat. Ann. 741.212; Fla. Stat. Ann 741.04(found unconstitutional in Huntsman v. Heavilin, Monroe County Circuit Court, No. 2014-CA-305-K (July 17, 2014)

Fla. Const. art. 1, § 27 (passed in 2008) (found unconstitutional in Huntsman v. Heavilin, Monroe County Circuit Court, No. 2014-CA-305-K (July 17, 2014)        
Georgia Ga. Code Ann. § 19-3-3.1 Ga. Const. art. I, § 4, ¶ I

Ga. Const. art. I, § 4, ¶ I

     
Hawaii Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 572-1 No, but Haw. Const. art. I, § 23 authorizes legislature to ban same sex marriage.  

Yes. 2013 SB 1

Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 572C-1 et seq. (domestic partnership)

HI 2011 SB 232 (civil union - enacted)

Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993) (Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 572-1 restricts marriage to a male and a female)
Idaho

Idaho Statutes 32-201 et seq - ruled to violate Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of 14th Amendment to U.S. Constitution in Latta v. Otter, Case No. 1:13-cv-00482-CWD (D. Idaho, May 13, 2014) - stayed by 9th Circuit

Idaho Const. art. III, § 28 - ruled to violate Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of 14th Amendment to U.S. Constitution in Latta v. Otter, Case No. 1:13-cv-00482-CWD (D. Idaho, May 13, 2014) - stayed by 9th Circuit Idaho Const. art. III, § 28 - ruled to violate Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of 14th Amendment to U.S. Constitution in Latta v. Otter, Case No. 1:13-cv-00482-CWD (D. Idaho, May 13, 2014) - stayed by 9th Circuit      
Illinois

750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/212; 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/213.1

 

   

Yes. 2013 SB 10

750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 75/1 et seq. (civil union)  
Indiana Ind. Code Ann. § 31-11-1-1 (found unconstitutional in Baskin v. Bogan, Case No. 1:14-cv-00355 (S.D. Indiana June 25, 2014), but order stayed by 7th Circuit pending resolution of the appeal) 2014 HJR 3 passed by House and Senate - before effective, amendment must be passed again by subsequently elected House and Senate, and approved by voters in 2016 at the earliest        
Iowa Iowa Code Ann. § 595.2 (found unconstitutional by Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009))
    Yes. Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009)   Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009) (statute limiting marriage to heterosexual couple found unconstitutional)
Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. § 23-101 Kan. Const. art. 15, § 16

Kan. Const. art. 15, § 16

     
Kentucky

Ky. Rev, Stat. ann. § 402.005; Ky. Rev. Stat. ann. § 402.020 (found unconstitutional in Love v. Beshear, Case No. 3:13-cv-00750 (W.D. Kentucky July 1, 2014)

Ky. Const. § 233A (found unconstitutional in Love v. Beshear, Case No. 3:13-cv-00750 (W.D. Kentucky July 1, 2014) Ky. Const. § 233A (found unconstitutional in Love v. Beshear, Case No. 3:13-cv-00750 (W.D. Kentucky July 1, 2014)      
Louisiana La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 89 La. Const. art. XII, § 15 La. Const. art. XII, § 15     Forum for Equality PAC v. McKeithen, 893 So.2d 715 (La. 2005) (constitutional amendment did not violate single object rule of state constitution)
Maine       Yes. Referendum approved by voters in Nov. 2012. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 2710 et seq. (domestic partnership)  
Maryland Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 2-201    

Yes. Maryland Annotated Code, Family Law § 2-201 (effective January 1, 2013)

  Conaway v. Deane, 932 A.2d 571 (Md. 2007) (Upheld statute prohibiting same-sex marriage)
Massachusetts       Yes. Goodridge v. Dept. Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003)  

Goodridge v. Dept. Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003)(Limitation of benefits of marriage to heterosexuals violated state constitutional equal protection principles)

In re Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, 802 N.E.2d 565 (Mass. 2004) (Proposed bill granting same sex couples status under a civil union but not marriage found to violate state constitutional due process and equal protection provisions)

Michigan Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 551.1

Mich. Const. art. I, § 25 - found to violate Equal Protection and Due Process in DeBoer v. Snyder, E.D. Michigan (Mar. 21, 2014); order temporarily stayed by Sixth Circuit

Mich. Const. art. I, § 25 - found to violate Equal Protection and Due Process in DeBoer v. Snyder, E.D. Michigan (Mar. 21, 2014); order temporarily stayed by Sixth Circuit

    National Pride at Work, Inc. v. Governor, 748 N.W.2d 524 (Mich 2008) (Constitutional amendment on marriage prohibits public employers from providing health insurance benefits to non-married couples)
Minnesota

Minn. Stat. § 517.01

Minn. Stat. § 517.03

No. 2011 SB 1308 was passed by House and Senate for appearance on Nov. 2012 ballot, but voters rejected  

Yes. 2013 HF 1054

  Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971) (Marriage statute does not authorize marriage between same sex couples)
Mississippi Miss. Code. Ann. § 93-1-1 Miss. Const. art. XIV, § 263A        
Missouri Mo. Rev. Stat. § 451.022 Mo. Const. art. I, § 33        
Montana Mont. Code Ann. § 40-1-401 Mont. Const. art. XIII, § 7        
Nebraska   Neb. Const. art. I, § 29; But Citizens for Equal Protection, Inc. v. Bruning, 368 F.Supp.2d 980 (2005) (Held art. I, § 29 unconstitutional) Neb. Const. art. I, § 29      
Nevada

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 122.020

Nev. Const. art. I, § 21     Nev. Rev. Stat. § 122A.010 et seq. (domestic partnership)  
New Hampshire       Yes. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 457:1-a    
New Jersey      

Yes. See Garden State Equality v. Dow, No. L-1729-11 (Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County Sept. 27, 2013); the Supreme Court of New Jersey denied a motion for stay on Oct. 18, 2013; the state withdrew its appeal on Oct. 21, 2013.

Prior legislative activity: 2012 NJ SB 1 (proposed - passed Senate and House, but vetoed by governor)

N.J. Stat. Ann. § 37:1-28 et seq. (civil union)

Garden State Equality v. Dow, No. A-21-13 (Oct. 18, 2013) (denying state's motion for stay of trial court decision and ordering state officials to permit marriage of same-sex couples beginning Oct. 21, 2013)

Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.2d 196 (N.J. 2005) (Requires legislature to provide same-sex couples the same rights and benefits enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples)

New Mexico           Griego v. Oliver, __ P.3d __ (issued 12-19-13)
New York      

Yes. A8354-2011

  Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006) (found interpretation of marriage statute as prohibiting same sex marriage valid and constitutional)
North Carolina N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 51-1; N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 51-1.2

2011 SB 514 (approved by NC voters in May 2012)

       
North Dakota N.D. Cent. Code § 14-03-01 N.D. Const. art. XI, § 28 N.D. Const. art. XI, § 28      
Ohio Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3101.01 Ohio Const. art. XV, § 11 (held unconstitutional by Phelps v. Johnson, No. DV05 305642, 2005 WL 4651081 (Ohio Com.Pl. 2005) Ohio Const. art. XV, § 11      
Oklahoma Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 43, § 3.1

Okla. Const. art. 2, § 35 (found unconstitutional in Bishop v. U.S. No. 04-CV-848 (N.D. Oklahoma, Jan. 1, 2014) - affirmed by 10th Circuit)

Okla. Const. art. 2, § 35 (found unconstitutional in Bishop v. U.S. No. 04-CV-848 (N.D. Oklahoma, Jan. 1, 2014) - affirmed by 10th Circuit)

     
Oregon  

Or. Const. art. XV, §5a ; but see Geiger v. Kitzhaber, Case No. 6:13-cv-01834-MC (D. Oregon May 19, 2014) (finding that the section violates the federal Constitution) - application for stay denied by U.S. Supreme Court 6-4-14

  Yes. Geiger v. Kitzhaber, Case No. 6:13-cv-01834-MC (D. Oregon May 19, 2014) (finding that the section violates the federal Constitution) - application for stay denied by U.S. Supreme Court 6-4-14; state has not appealed Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. 107.615(domestic partnership) Li v. State, 110 P.3d 91 (Or. 2005) (Marriage limited to opposite sex couples)
Pennsylvania

23 Pa Cons. Stat. § 1704 ; But see Whitewood v. Wolf, Case no. 1:13-cv-1861 (M.D. Pa. May 20, 2014) (finding that the statute violates the federal Constitution)

    Yes. Whitewood v. Wolf, Case no. 1:13-cv-1861 (M.D. Pa. May 20, 2014) (finding that the statute violates the federal Constitution) - state did not appeal    
Rhode Island       Yes. 2013 HB 5015 R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-3.1-1 et seq. (civil union)  
South Carolina S.C. Code Ann. § 20-1-15 S.C. Const. art. XVII, § 15 S.C. Const. art. XVII, § 15      
South Dakota S.D. Codified Laws § 25-1-38 S.D. Const. art. XXI, § 9 S.D. Const. art. XXI, § 9      
Tennessee Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-113 Tenn. Const. art. XI, § 18        
Texas

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.001 (ruled unconstitutional in De Leon v. Perry, W.D. Tex., Feb. 26, 2014 - final disposition stayed pending appeal)

Tex. Const. art. I, § 32 (ruled unconstitutional in De Leon v. Perry, W.D. Tex., Feb. 26, 2014 - final disposition stayed pending appeal)

Tex. Const. art. I, § 32 (ruled unconstitutional in De Leon v. Perry, W.D. Tex., Feb. 26, 2014 - final disposition stayed pending appeal)      
Utah

Utah Code Ann. § 30-1-4.1; Utah Code Ann. § 30-1-2 - state enjoined from enforcing both sections as stated in Kitchen v. Herbert (D. Utah, issued 12-20-13), but application for stay granted 1-6-14 by U.S. Supreme Court; District Court decision affirmed on 6-25-14 by 10th Circuit, Case No. 13-4178; stay granted by U.S. Supreme Court on 7-18-14

Utah Const. art. I, § 29 - ruled to violate 14th Amendment in Kitchen v. Herbert (D. Utah, issued 12-20-13), but application for stay granted 1-6-14 by U.S. Supreme Court; District Court decision affirmed on 6-25-14 by 10th Circuit, Case No. 13-4178; stay granted by U.S. Supreme Court on 7-18-14

Utah Const. art. I, § 29 - ruled to violate 14th Amendment in Kitchen v. Herbert (D. Utah, issued 12-20-13), but application for stay granted 1-6-14 by U.S. Supreme Court; District Court decision affirmed 6-25-14 by 10th Circuit, Case No. 13-4178; stay granted by U.S. Supreme Court on 7-18-14

     
Vermont      

Yes. Vt. Stat. Ann. tit 15, § 8

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 1201 et seq.; Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, § 5160 et seq.

(civil union)

Baker v. State, 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999) (Exclusion of same-sex couples from benefits of marriage violated state constitution's common benefits clause)
Virginia

Va. Code Ann. § 20-45.2; Va. Code Ann. § 20-45.3

(both sections ruled to violate Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of U.S. Constitution in Bostic v. Rainey (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2014) - order stayed pending appeal

Va. Const. art. I, § 15-A

(ruled to violate Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of U.S. Constitution in Bostic v. Rainey (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2014) - order stayed pending appeal

Va. Const. art. I, § 15-A

(ruled to violate Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of U.S. Constitution in Bostic v. Rainey (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2014) - order stayed pending appeal

     
Washington

Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 26.04.020

 

   

Yes. SB 6239

(approved by referendum in Nov. 2012)

Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 26.60.010 et seq. (domestic partnership)

Anderson v. King Cnty, 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006) (Upheld statute prohibiting same-sex marriage)
West Virginia W. Va. Code Ann. § 48-2-603          
Wisconsin

Wis. Stat. ann. § 765.04 (found unconstitutional in Wolf v. Walker, Case No. 14-cv-64-bbc (W.D. Wisc. June 6, 2014) - order stayed pending resolution of appeal

Wis. Const. art. XIII, § 13 (found unconstitutional in Wolf v. Walker, Case No. 14-cv-64-bbc (W.D. Wisc. June 6, 2014) - order stayed pending resolution of appeal

Wis. Const. art. XIII, § 13 (found unconstitutional in Wolf v. Walker, Case No. 14-cv-64-bbc (W.D. Wisc. June 6, 2014) - order stayed pending resolution of appeal

 

     
Wyoming Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-1-101 2011 SJ 0005 (proposed - passed by senate)