Moritz Law Library
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. 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 | Ark. Const. amend. 83, § 1 | Ark. Const. amend. 83, § 2 | |||
| 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) | No. In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008) (statutory provision limiting marriage to heterosexual couples found unconstitutional) voided by Cal. Const. art. 1, § 7.5, approved Nov. 4, 2008; but see Perry v. Brown (9th Cir., decided 2/7/12, affirming district court's decision finding that Cal. Const. art. 1, § 7.5 violates the U.S. Constitution) - Perry v. Brown order not in effect until court issues its mandate (once further appellate activity is complete) | 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) and Perry v. Brown (9th Cir., decided 2/7/12)(affirming district court's decision) - order not in effect until court issues mandate, once further appellate activity is complete) |
|
| Colorado | Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-104 | Colo. Const. art. I, § 31 | SB 13-011 (civil union - enacted) | |||
| Connecticut |
|
Yes. Kerrigan vs. Comm'r of Pub.Health, 957 A.2d 407 (Conn. 2008) |
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. Const. art. 1, § 27 (passed in 2008) | ||||
| Georgia | Ga. Code Ann. § 19-3-3.1 | 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. | (proposed legislation allowing same sex marriage: HI 2009-2010 HB 878) | 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 Code Ann. § 32-201 | Idaho Const. art. III, § 28 | Idaho Const. art. III, § 28 | |||
| Illinois | 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/212; 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/213.1
|
(proposed legislation allowing same sex marriage: IL 2009 HB 178) | 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 75/1 et seq. (civil union) | |||
| Indiana | Ind. Code Ann. § 31-11-1-1 | 2011 HJR 6 passed by House and Senate - before effective, amendment must be passed again by subsequently elected House and Senate, and approved by voters in 2014 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 | ||||
| Kentucky | Ky. Rev. Stat. ann. § 402.020; Ky. Rev. Stat. ann. § 402.045 | Ky. Const. § 233A | Ky. Const. § 233A | |||
| 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 | Mich. Const. art. I, § 25 | 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 | 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. 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 | 2012 NJ SB 1 (proposed - passed Senate and House, but vetoed by governor) | N.J. Stat. Ann. § 37:1-28 et seq. (civil union) | 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 | ||||||
| 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 | Okla. Const. art. 2, § 35 | |||
| Oregon | Or. Const. art. XV, §5a | 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 | |||||
| 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 | Tex. Const. art. I, § 32 | Tex. Const. art. I, § 32 | |||
| Utah | Utah Code Ann. § 30-1-4.1; Utah Code Ann. § 30-1-2 | Utah Const. art. I, § 29 | Utah Const. art. I, § 29 | |||
| Vermont | 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 | Va. Const. art. I, § 15-A | Va. Const. art. I, § 15-A | |||
| 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) (Proposed legislation repealing domestic partnership: 2009 WA HB 1980) |
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 | Wis. Const. art. XIII, § 13 | Wis. Const. art. XIII, § 13 | |||
| Wyoming | Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-1-101 | 2011 SJ 0005 (proposed - passed by senate) |
