User:Mimich/Sandbox 2

= WEST region =

Hawaii (HI)
Hawaii Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law HRC monitors a wide range of laws that affect GLBT people and their families. Below you will find a review of the laws regarding marriage and relationship recognition for same-sex couples in Hawaii. You can also learn about the Hawaii D.C Reciprocal Benefi-ciaries Law and legislative activity in the states by using the state legislation database. Hawaii law states: “The marriage contract … shall be only between a man and a woman. … Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to render unlawful, or otherwise affirma-tively punishable at law, the solemnization of same-sex relationships by religious organi-zations; provided that nothing in this section shall be construed to confer any of the bene-fits, burdens, or obligations of marriage under the laws of Hawaii. … The Legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.” In 1997 the Hawaii Legislature passed a law that allows same-sex couples to enter into a reciprocal beneficiary relationship. Couples secure the following benefits from a recipro-cal beneficiary relationship: inheritance without a will, ability to sue for the wrongful death of their reciprocal beneficiary, hospital visitation and health care decisions, consent to postmortem exams, loan * Eligibility, property rights (including joint tenancy), tort li-ability and protection under Hawaii domestic violence laws. Hawaii Domestic Partners The Hawaii Reciprocal Beneficiaries law was enacted July 8, 1997. The law provides lim-ited state rights to same-sex couples, relatives and friends. The law "represents a commit-ment to provide substantially similar government rights to those couples who are barred by law from marriage." Among the benefits extended to non-married reciprocal beneficiaries under the law are: property rights, including joint tenancy; the right to visit your partner in a hospital and make health care decisions for her or him; ability to inherit property without a will; and protection under Hawaii's domestic violence laws. To be eligible for these and other benefits under the Hawaii law, a couple must file a nota-rized Registration of Reciprocal Beneficiary and pay an $8 filing fee with the Hawaii De-partment of Health. Applicants must also be:
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? Yes.
 * Citations: HAW. REV. STAT. § 572-1; HRS § 572-1.6; HAW. CONST. Art. I, § 23.; HAW. REV. STAT. §572C-1 – C-7.
 * Benefits
 * Eligibility
 * at least 18 years old;
 * unmarried or not part of another reciprocal beneficiary relationship; and
 * legally prohibited from marrying the other person under Hawaii marriage law.
 * There are no state residency or U.S. citizenship requirements.

Alaska (AK)
Alaska law states: “To be valid or recognized in this state, a marriage may exist only be-tween one man and one woman.” Citation: ALASKA CONST. Art. I § 25, adopted 1998.
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.

Washington (WA)
Washington Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law HRC monitors a wide range of laws that affect GLBT people and their families. Below you will find a review of the laws regarding marriage and relationship recognition for same-sex couples in Washington. You can also follow recent developments and legislative activity in the states by using the state legislation database. Washington law states: “Marriage is a civil contract between a male and a female who have each attained the age of 18 years, and who are otherwise capable. … Marriages in the following cases are prohibited: when the parties are persons other than a male and a female. … A marriage between two persons that is recognized as valid in another jurisdic-tion is valid in this state only if the marriage is not prohibited or made unlawful under subsection 1(c) of this section.” This law was upheld by the state Supreme Court in July 2006. Recent Developments in Washington Court cases. On July 26, 2006, the Supreme Court of Washington ruled 5-4 that the state's ban on marriage for same-sex couples did not violate the state constitution. The case is Andersen v. King County.
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.
 * Citations: REV. CODE WASH. §26.04.010(1); REV. CODE WASH. §26.04.020(1)(c); REV. CODE WASH. §26.04.020(3); Andersen v. King County, 2006 Wash. LEXIS 598 (Wash. 2006).

Oregon (OR)
Oregon Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law HRC monitors a wide range of laws that affect GLBT people and their families. Below you will find a review of the laws regarding marriage and relationship recognition for same-sex couples in Oregon. You can also follow recent developments and legislative ac-tivity in the states by using the state legislation database. For a period in 2004, licenses were issued to same-sex couples in Multnomah County. However, a judge issued an injunction prohibiting any additional licenses from being is-sued and told the state to register the more than 3,000 marriages that had occurred. The Oregon Court of Appeal affirmed this judgment in July 2004 and directed that these mar-riages be registered. Oregon law states: “Marriage is a civil contract entered into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age, who are otherwise capable, and solem-nized in accordance with ORS 106.150.” The Oregon Constitution states: "It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage." Citation: OR. REV. STAT. §106.010 (2001).
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.

California (CA)
California Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law HRC monitors a wide range of laws that affect GLBT people and their families. Below you will find a review of the laws regarding marriage and relationship recognition for same-sex couples in California. You can also learn about the California Domestic Partner Law, follow recent developments and legislative activity in the states by using the state legislation database. San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sec couples in February 2004. Since that time 4,037 licenses have been issued to same-sex couples. The state Supreme Court invalidated those licenses Aug. 12, 2004, but did not rule on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage under the state constitution. There are also pending lawsuits filed on behalf of same-sex couples challenging the constitutionality of denying them marriage rights. California law states: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” California has passed three pieces of legislation that provide rights and responsibilities to registered domestic partners (same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples over the age of 62 are eligible to register). Assembly Bill 26 passed in 1999 established the statewide do-mestic partner registry and conferred a handful of rights which included hospital visitation and the right of state and local employers the ability to offer health care coverage to the domestic partners of their employees. Assembly Bill 25 was passed in 2001 and extended the rights of domestic partners to include the right to make medical decisions, the right to inherit when partner dies without a will, the right to use state step-parent adoption proce-dures, the right to use sick leave to care for a domestic partner and the right to be ap-pointed as administrator of estate. In 2003 Assembly Bill 205 was passed, basically ex-tending all of the state-level rights and responsibilities of marriage to domestic partners. The rights and responsibilities associated with Assembly Bill 205 went into effect on Jan. 1, 2005. Recent Developments in California On March 14, 2005, in a ruling on several pending cases related to same-sex marriage, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding mar-riage licenses from same-sex couples was unconstitutional. “It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners,” Kramer said in the ruling. On March 30, however, Kramer announced that the ruling would be stayed for at least one year — meaning that no same-sex couples could be married in California during that time. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has announced that the state will appeal the rul-ing. Two anti-gay organizations, the Campaign for California Families and the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education, have also said they will appeal. The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit March 12, 2004, in state court, Woo v. Lockyer. The suit, filed on behalf of 10 same-sex couples along with the San Francisco-based Our Family Coalition and Equality California, a state GLBT-rights group, challenges Proposition 22. This state law, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, was championed by the late state Sen. Pete Knight, R-Palmdale, and passed by voters in 2000. San Fran-cisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera has also filed a suit challenging the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage, which was consolidated with Woo v. Lockyer. History. On Feb. 12, 2004, the county clerk in San Francisco began issuing marriage li-censes to same-sex couples, following a directive from Mayor Gavin Newsom. Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Del Martin, 83, longtime lesbian-rights activists who had been partners for 51 years, were the first same-sex couple to be married. As the news broke, couples flocked to San Francisco City Hall, lining up around the block to wait their turn to be mar-ried. That first weekend, 2,340 couples were married, and over the following month, that number grew to more than 4,000. The state Supreme Court ruled Aug. 12, 2004, that the city of San Francisco did not have the authority to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It also ruled that the 4,037 marriage licenses that had been issued to same-sex couples were void and without any le-gal effect. The California Supreme Court did not rule on whether California marriage law, which excludes same-sex couples from marrying, violates the California constitution. Opposition. Two lawsuits were filed by anti-GLBT rights groups Feb. 13, 2004, asking California Superior Court to call an immediate halt to the marriages. Two judges declined the requests and, instead, scheduled hearings late in March. Another judge denied a simi-lar suit Feb. 20, 2004, saying the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the marriages caused “imminent irreparable harm.” Attorney General Bill Lockyer also asked the courts to stop the marriages and invalidate those already performed, but the state Supreme Court rejected his request Feb. 27, 2004. The state Supreme Court temporarily halted the San Francisco marriages on March 11, 2004, but did not rule on whether denying same-sex marriage violates the state constitution. In addition, anti-gay activist groups have filed three separate proposed constitutional amendments with the California Secretary of State’s Office to begin gathering signatures to put one or more of these amendments on the ballot in 2006. All of these amendments would prohibit marriage for same-sex couples. The most broadly written of the three also takes away nearly all of the rights, benefits and responsibilities currently available under California’s comprehensive domestic partner registry program. Equality for All campaign. While our opponents are working diligently to enshrine dis-crimination in the California state constitution, national, state and local GLBT organiza-tions are united in the fight to oppose any discriminatory amendment. A campaign named “Equality for All” has been launched to fight possible ballot measures on these amend-ments (or any other discriminatory marriage-related ballot measure in California). The board for this campaign includes Equality California; the Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego GLBT Community Centers; HRC; the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; Lambda Legal and other allied groups in California. HRC and the Task Force started the campaign off strong with a $200,000 challenge grant to help defeat the amendments. Read HRC’s news release on this grant. Statewide marriage bill. Equality California and California Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, advanced the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, A.B. 19, to a vote on the Assembly floor in June. In the end, the bill fell just short of the 41 votes it needed to pass, with 37 “aye” votes and 36 “no” votes. Seven members of the As-sembly did not vote. While the votes came up short, this was a significant step toward GLBT equality — it was the first time in history that a state legislative body took a vote on a bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry. View the end roll call vote for As-sembly Bill 19. The California Assemby approved legislation on Sept. 5 that would legalize same-sex marriages in the state. The bill, which was approved by the state Senate on Sept. 1, will now go to the governor's desk. More information Thinking About Getting Married: Get Advice First National Center for Lesbian Rights Equality California Woo v. Lockyer Case Summary Full Text of Kramer's Decision in Woo v. Lockyer California Domestic Partners Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat, signed a bill Oct. 14, 2001, that enhances the state's domes-tic partner law by extending health care, estate planning and adoption benefits to unmar-ried couples who have registered as domestic partners. The law gives same-sex couples some of the essential resources necessary to protect their families and their relationships. Among the benefits available to California domestic partners as a result of the new law are: access to the same adoption procedures used by stepparents; improved sick leave; disability coverage; expanded employer-sponsored health care coverage; medical decision-making authority for partners; and certain key state tax breaks. Davis signed another domestic partner bill into law on Sept. 10, 2002. The law provides inheritance rights for surviving domestic partners of California residents who die without a will or other estate plan. The new law creates parity between domestic partners and spouses for the purposes of "intestate succession," or inheritance in the absence of a will. To be eligible for these and other benefits under California law, a couple must file a nota-rized Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the secretary of state's office along with a $10 filing fee. In this declaration, they must declare that they: share a common residence; agree to be jointly responsible for each other's basic living expenses during the domestic partnership; are not married or in another domestic partnership; are not related by blood in a way that would prevent them from being married; are at least 18 years old; are the same sex (or one or both are over 62 years old and meet the * Eligibility require-ments for old age benefits under the Social Security Act); are capable of consenting to a domestic partnership; and have not previously filed a Declaration of Domestic Partnership that has not been termi-nated. To obtain the Declaration of Domestic Partnership form, visit a local county registrar's of-fice or the California secretary of state's office - or download a copy. More information California secretary of state's office Equality California
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? Unclear.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? Yes.
 * Citations: CAL. FAM. CODE § 308.5; Assembly Bill 26, Assembly Bill 25, Assembly Bill 205.
 * Benefits
 * Eligibility

Idaho (ID)
Idaho Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Idaho law states: “All marriages contracted without this state, which would be valid by the laws of the state or country in which the same were contracted, are valid in this state, unless they violate the public policy of this state. Marriages that violate the public policy of this state include, but are not limited to, same-sex marriages, and marriages entered into under the laws of another state or country with the intent to evade the prohibitions of the marriage laws of this state.” The state constitution declares: “A marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.” Citation: IDAHO CODE § 32-209; IDAHO CONST. Art. III, §28.
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.

Montana (MT)
Montana Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.

Texts : MONTANA CONSTITUTION Art.XIII §7: Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. MONTANA CODE ANNOTATED 40-1-103 : General Provisions --- Formalities. ''Marriage is a personal relationship between a man and a woman arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of the parties is essential. A marriage licensed, solemnized, and registered as provided in this chapter is valid in this state. A marriage may be contracted, maintained, invalidated, or dissolved only as provided by the law of this state.'' MONTANA CODE ANNOTATED § 40-1-401 : Prohibited marriages -- contracts. ''(1) The following marriages are prohibited: ... (d) a marriage between persons of the same sex. ''

No marriages licenses or recognition, nor any relationship recognition for same-sex couples

Generalities : MONTANA CONSTITUTION / MONTANA CODE ANNOTATED - [http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca_toc/index.htm Title 40. FAMILY LAW]

Wyoming (WY)
Wyoming Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Wyoming law states: “Marriage is a civil contract between a male and a female person to which the consent of the parties capable of contracting is essential.” Citation: WYO. STAT. ANN. §20-1-101 (2003).
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.

Nevada (NV)
Nevada Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Nevada law states: “Only a marriage between a male and female person shall be recog-nized and given effect in this state.” Citation: NEV. CONST. art I, Sec. 21.
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.

Utah (UT)
Utah Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Utah law states: “The following marriages are prohibited and declared void: … between persons of the same sex. … It is the policy of this state to recognize as marriage only the legal union of a man and a woman as provided in this chapter. Except for the relationship of marriage between a man and a woman recognized pursuant to this chapter, this state will not recognize, enforce, or give legal effect to any law creating any legal status, rights, benefits, or duties that are substantially equivalent to those provided under Utah law to a man and a woman because they are married.” The Utah Constitution states: “Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic status or union, however denominated, between persons is valid or recognized or may be authorized, sanctioned or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect as a marriage.”
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.
 * Citations: UTAH CODE ANN. §30-1-2(5); UTAH CODE ANN. 30-1-4.1; UTAH CONST. Art. I, §29.

Colorado (CO)
Colorado Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Colorado law states: “Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3) of this section, a marriage is valid in this state if it is licensed, solemnized, and registered as provided in this part 1; and it is only between one man and one woman. Notwithstanding the provi-sions of section 14-2-112, any marriage contracted within or outside this state that does not satisfy paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall not be recognized as valid in this state.” The state constitution declares, “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.” Citation: COLO. REV. STAT. §14-2-104; COLO. CONST., Art. II, §31.
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.

Arizona (AZ)
Arizona Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Arizona law states: “Marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited. … Marriage valid by laws of the place where contracted are valid in this state, except mar-riages that are void and prohibited by section 25-101. Marriages solemnized in another state or country by parties intending at the time to reside in this state shall have the same legal consequences and effect as if solemnized in this state, except marriages that are void and prohibited by section 25-101. Parties residing in this state may not evade the laws of this state relating to marriage by going to another state or country for solemnization of the marriage.”
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.
 * Citations: ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 25-101; ARIZ. REV. STAT § 25-112.

New Mexico (NM)
New Mexico Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law HRC monitors a wide range of laws that affect GLBT people and their families. Below you will find a review of the laws regarding marriage and relationship recognition for same-sex couples in New Mexico. You can also follow recent develop-ments and legislative activity in the states by using the state legislation database. For a period in 2004, 66 marriage licenses were issued to same-sex couples in Sandoval County. The state attorney general, however, declared the ensuing marriages to be invalid. The Sandoval County Clerk then brought a motion before the state Supreme Court to re-sume issuing licenses to same-sex couples. On July 8, 2004, the state Supreme Court re-jected the motion. explicit prohibition. New Mexico law states: “All marriages celebrated beyond the limits of this state, which are valid according to the laws of the country wherein they were cele-brated or contracted, shall be likewise valid in this state, and shall have the same force as if they had been celebrated in accordance with the laws in force in this state.” Citation: N.M. STAT. ANN. §40-1-4. Recent Developments in New Mexico Sixty-six same-sex couples received marriage licenses in Sandoval County, N.M., Feb. 20, 2004, after a county clerk announced that morning that her office would begin accepting applications for licenses from same-sex couples. State Attorney General Patricia Madrid, however, issued an order that afternoon declaring the marriages “invalid under state law.” The Sandoval County clerk’s office stopped issu-ing licenses at 4:15 p.m. Madrid sought to halt the granting of licenses to same-sex couples until the state Supreme Court or Legislature could address the issue. The Sandoval County clerk, Victoria Dunlap, tried repeatedly to start issuing licenses again, saying New Mexico’s marriage laws are not gender specific. A district court judge then issued a temporary restraining order against Dunlap that prevented her from issuing licenses. Since February, no same-sex couples have obtained marriage licenses in New Mexico. New Mexico is one of ten states and the District of Columbia without laws explicitly ban-ning marriage between same-sex couples. Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson has said he opposes marriage rights for same-sex couples. More Information: Coalition for Equality in New Mexico. = MIDWEST region =
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.

North Dakota (ND)
North Dakota Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law North Dakota law states: “Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract be-tween one man and one woman to which the consent of the parties is essential. The mar-riage relation may be entered into, maintained, annulled or dissolved only as provided by law. A spouse refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” North Dakota law states: “Except when residents of this state contract a marriage in an-other state which is prohibited under the laws of this state, all marriages contracted outside this state, which are valid according to the laws of the state or country where contracted, are valid in this state. This section applies only to a marriage contracted in another state or country which is between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” The North Dakota Constitution states: “Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent effect."
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.
 * Citations: N.D. CENT. CODE §14-03-01; N.D. CENT. CODE §14-03-08.

South Dakota (SD)
South Dakota Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law South Dakota law states: “Any marriage contracted outside the jurisdiction of this state, except a marriage contracted between two persons of the same gender, which is valid by the laws of the jurisdiction which such marriage was contracted, is valid in this state. … Marriage is a personal relation, between a man and a woman, arising out of a civil con-tract to which the consent of parties capable of making it is necessary.” The state constitu-tion declares: “Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in South Dakota. The uniting of two or more persons in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other quasi-marital relationship shall not be valid or recognized in South Dakota.”
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.
 * Citations: S.D. CODIFIED LAWS §25-1-38; S.D. CODIFIED LAWS §25-1-1; S.D. CONST Art. XX1; §9.

Minnesota (MN)
Minnesota Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Minnesota law states: “The following marriages are prohibited:. . . a marriage between persons of the same sex. A marriage entered into by persons of the same sex, either under common law or statute, that is recognized by another state or foreign jurisdiction is void in this state and contractual rights granted by virtue of the marriage of its termination are un-enforceable in this state. … All marriages which are prohibited by section 517.03 shall be absolutely void, without any decree of dissolution or other legal proceedings.”
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.
 * Citations: MINN. STAT. § 517.03; MINN. STAT. § 518.01.

Nebraska (NE)
Nebraska Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law The Nebraska Constitution states: “Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil un-ion, domestic partnership or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or rec-ognized in Nebraska.” In May 2005, a federal court declared the constitutional amend-ment unconstitutional. A federal appeals court then reinstated the amendment in July 2006. Citation: NEB. CONST. art. I, sec. 29; Citizens for Equal Protection, Inc. vs. Attorney General Jon C. Bruning, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 17723 (8th Cir. 2006).
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.

Iowa (IA)
Iowa Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Iowa law states: “Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.” Citation: IOWA CODE § 595.
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.

Kansas (KS)
Kansas Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Kansas law states: “The marriage contract is to be considered in law as a civil contract be-tween two parties who are of opposite sex. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void. … All marriages contracted without this state, which would be valid by the laws of the country in which the same were contracted, shall be valid in all courts and places in this state. It is the strong public policy of this state only to recognize as valid marriages from other states that are between a man and a woman.” The state constitution was amended in 2005 to read, “[t]he marriage contract is to be con-sidered in law as a civil contract. Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void. No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.”
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.
 * Citations: KAN. STAT. ANN. § 23-101(a); KAN. STAT. ANN. § 23-115. KAN. CONST. Art. 15, §16.

Missouri (MO)
Missouri Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Missouri law states: “It is the public policy of this state to recognize marriage only be-tween a man and a woman. … A marriage between persons of the same sex will not be recognized for any purpose in this state even when valid when contracted.” The Missouri Constitution states: “That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.” Citation: MO. REV. STAT. 451.022; MO. CONST., Art. I, Sect. 33.
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.

Wisconsin (WI)
Wisconsin Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Wisconsin law states: “Under the laws of this state, marriage is a legal relationship be-tween two equal persons, a husband and wife, who owe to each other mutual responsibil-ity and support. … Marriage, so far as its validity at law is concerned, is a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable in law of contracting is essential, and which creates the legal status of husband and wife. … If any person residing and intending to continue to reside in this state who is disabled or prohibited from contracting marriage under the laws of this state goes into another state or country and there contracts a mar-riage prohibited or declared void under the laws of this state, such marriage shall be void for all purposes in this state with the same effect as though it had been entered into in this state. … The following may be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than nine months or both: Penalty for marriage outside the state to circumvent the laws. Any person residing and intending to continue to reside in this state who goes outside the state and there contracts a marriage prohibited or declared void under the laws of this state.” The state constitution declares: “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substan-tially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.”
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.
 * Citations: WIS. STAT. §765.001(2); WIS. STAT. §765.01; WIS. STAT. §765.04(1); WIS. STAT. §76530(1)(a); WIS. CONST. Art. III, §13.

Michigan (MI)
Michigan Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Michigan law states: “Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, sup-porting, and protecting that unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between indi-viduals of the same sex is invalid in this state. … Except as otherwise provided in this act, a marriage contracted between a man and a woman who are residents of this state and who were, at the time of the marriage, legally competent to contract marriage according to the laws of this state, which marriage is solemnized in another state within the United States by a clergyman, magistrate, or other person legally authorized to solemnize marriages within that state, is a valid and binding marriage under the laws of this state to the same effect and extent as if solemnized within this state and according to its laws. This section does not apply to a marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex, which mar-riage is invalid in this state unclear.” The Michigan Constitution states: "To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.
 * Citations: MICH. COMP. LAWS § 551.1; MICH. COMP. LAWS § 551.271.

Illinois (IL)
Illinois Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Illinois law states: “A marriage between a man and a woman licensed, solemnized and registered as provided in this act is valid in this state. … The following marriages are pro-hibited: … a marriage between two individuals of the same sex. … A marriage between two individuals of the same sex is contrary to the public policy of this state.”
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.
 * Citations: ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/201; ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/212; ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/213.1.

Indiana (IN)
Indiana Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law HRC monitors a wide range of laws that affect GLBT people and their families. Below you will find a review of the laws regarding marriage and relationship recognition for same-sex couples in Indiana. You can also follow recent developments and legislative ac-tivity in the states by using the state legislation database. Indiana law states: “Only a female may marry a male. Only a male may marry a female. A marriage between persons of the same gender is void in Indiana even if the marriage is lawful in the place where it is solemnized.” Citation: IND. CODE ANN. § 31-11-1-1. Recent Developments in Indiana Three same-sex couples filed a lawsuit seeking the right to marry Aug. 22, 2002, in Marion County Superior Court. The three couples had all entered into civil unions in Vermont, which weren’t recognized by the state of Indiana. They then applied for mar-riage licenses in Indiana and were denied. The case, Morrison v. O’Bannon, was argued by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union. The ICLU argued that denying same-sex couples the right to marriage violated the provision in the state constitution guaranteeing Indiana resi-dents the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A Marion County Superior Court judge dismissed the case in May 2003, citing that the state’s exclusive recognition of marriage between opposite-sex couples was justifiable be-cause it "promote[d] the state’s interest in encouraging procreation to occur in a context where both biological parents are present to raise the child." The ICLU appealed, and the Indiana Court of Appeals heard arguments in the case in January 2004. The case is still under consideration. Indiana is one of 40 states with laws that explicitly define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. For more information, visit Indiana Equality. More Information: Thinking About Getting Married? Get Advice First
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.

Ohio (OH)
Ohio Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Ohio law states: “A marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman. … Any marriage between persons of the same sex is against the strong public policy of this state. Any marriage between persons of the same sex shall have no legal force or effect in this state and, if attempted to be entered into in this state, is void ab initio [null from the beginning] and shall not be recognized by this state. Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state. The recognition or extension by the state of the specific statutory benefits of a legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is against the strong public policy of this state. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of this state, as defined in section 9.82 of the Revised Code, that extends the specific statutory benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is void ab initio. Nothing in division (C)(3) of this section shall be con-strued to do either of the following: (a) Prohibit the extension of specific benefits other-wise enjoyed by all persons, married or unmarried, to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes, including the extension of benefits conferred by any statute that is not expressly limited to married persons, which includes but is not limited to benefits available under Chapter 4117 of the Revised Code; (b) Affect the valid-ity of private agreements that are otherwise valid under the laws of this state. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state, country, or other jurisdiction outside this state that extends the specific benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state.” The Ohio Constitution states: “Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or ef-fect of marriage." Citation: OHIO REV. CODE ANN. §3101.01. = SOUTH region =
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.

Oklahoma (OK)
Oklahoma Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Oklahoma law states: “A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in an-other state shall not be recognized as valid and binding in this state as of the date of the marriage.” The Oklahoma Constitution states: “Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. Neither this constitution nor any other provision of law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another state shall not be recognized as valid and binding in this state as of the date of the marriage. Any person knowingly issuing a marriage license in violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” Citation: OKLA. STAT. tit 43, §3.1 (2002); OKLA. CONST. Art. II, §35.
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.

Arkansas (AR)
Arkansas Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Arkansas law states: “It shall be declared the public policy of the state of Arkansas to rec-ognize the martial union only of man and woman. No license shall be issued to persons to marry another person of the same sex and no same-sex marriage shall be recognized as en-titled to the benefits of marriage.” Arkansas law states: “All marriages contracted outside this state which would be valid by the laws of the state or country in which the marriages were consummated and in which the parties then actually resided shall be valid in all courts in this state. This section shall not apply to a marriage between persons of the same sex. … Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state. Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex, where a marriage license is issued by another state or by a foreign jurisdiction, shall be void in Arkansas and any contractual or other rights granted by virtue of that li-cense, including its termination, shall be unenforceable in the Arkansas courts.” The Arkansas Constitution states: “Marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman. Legal status for unmarried persons which is identical or substantially similar to marital status shall not be valid or recognized in Arkansas, except that the Legislature may recognize a common law marriage from another state between a man and a woman. The Legislature has the power to determine the capacity of persons to marry, subject to this amendment, and the legal rights, obligations, privileges and immunities of marriage.”
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.
 * Citations: ARK. CODE ANN. § 9-11-208 (b); ARK. CODE ANN. § 9-11-107; ARK. CODE ANN. § 9-11-208 (c).

Texas (TX)
Texas Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Texas law states: “A license may not be issued for the marriage of persons of the same sex.” Texas law states: “In this section, ‘civil union’ means any relationship status other than marriage that is intended as an alternative to marriage or applies primarily to cohabitating persons; and grants to the parties of the relationship legal protections, benefits, or respon-sibilities granted to the spouses of a marriage. A marriage between persons of the same sex or a civil union is contrary to the public policy of this state and is void in this state. The state or an agency or political subdivision of the state may not give effect to a: public act, record, or judicial proceeding that creates, recognizes, or validates a marriage between persons of the same sex or a civil union in this state or in any other jurisdiction; or right or claim to any legal protection, benefit, or responsibility asserted as a result of a marriage between persons of the same sex or a civil union in this state or in any other jurisdiction.” The state constitution was amended in 2005 to read, “Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.
 * Citations: TEX. FAM. CODE §2.001; TEX. FAM. CODE §6.204; TEX. CONST. Art. I,§ 32.

Louisiana (LA)
Louisiana Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Louisiana law states: “A purported marriage between parties of the same sex does not produce any civil effects. … A purported marriage between persons of the same sex vio-lates a strong public policy of the state of Louisiana and such a marriage contracted in an-other state shall not be recognized in this state for any purpose, including the assertion of any right or claim as a result of the purported marriage.” The Louisiana Constitution states: “Marriage in the state of Louisiana shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall construe this constitution or any state law to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any member of a union other than the union of one man and one woman. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall recognize any marriage contracted in any other jurisdiction which is not the union of one man and one woman to the state constitution.”
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.
 * Citations: LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 96; LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 3520(B); LA CONST. Art. XII, §15.

Kentucky (KY)
Kentucky Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Kentucky law states: “As used and recognized in the law of the commonwealth, ‘mar-riage’ refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties le-gally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex. … Marriage is prohibited and void: … Between members of the same sex. … A marriage be-tween members of the same sex is against Kentucky public policy and shall be subject to the prohibitions established in KRS 402.045. … A marriage between members of same sex which occurs in another jurisdiction shall be void in Kentucky. Any rights granted by virtue of the marriage, or its termination, shall be unenforceable in Kentucky courts.” The Kentucky Constitution states: “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substan-tially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recog-nized.”
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.
 * Citations: KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 402.005; KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 402.20; KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 402.040; KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 402.045; KY. CONST. §233A.

Tennessee (TN)
Tennessee Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Tennessee law states: “Tennessee's marriage licensing laws reinforce, carry forward, and make explicit the longstanding public policy of this state to recognize the family as essen-tial to social and economic order and the common good and as the fundamental building block of our society. To that end, it is further the public policy of this state that the histori-cal institution and legal contract solemnizing the relationship of one man and one woman shall be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state in order to provide the unique and exclusive rights and privileges to marriage. The legal union in matrimony of only one man and one woman shall be the only recognized marriage in this state. Any pol-icy, law or judicial interpretation that purports to define marriage as anything other than the historical institution and legal contract between one man and one woman is contrary to the public policy of Tennessee. If another state or foreign jurisdiction issues a license for persons to marry which marriages are prohibited in this state, any such marriage shall be void and unenforceable in this state.” The state constitution declares: “The historical institution and legal contract solemnizing the relationship of one man and one woman shall be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state. Any policy or law or judicial interpretation, purporting to define marriage as anything other than the historical institution and legal contract between one man and one woman, is contrary to the public policy of this state and shall be void and unenforceable in Tennessee. If another state or foreign jurisdiction issues a license for persons to marry and if such marriage is prohibited in this state by the provisions of this section, then the marriage shall be void and unenforceable in this state.” Citation: TENN. CODE ANN. §36-3-113; TENN. CONST. Art. XI, §18.
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.

Mississippi (MS)
Mississippi Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Mississippi law states: “Any marriage between persons of the same gender is prohibited and null and void from the beginning. Any marriage between persons of the same gender that is valid in another jurisdiction does not constitute a legal or valid marriage in Missis-sippi. Any attempt to evade section 93-1-1 by marrying out of this state and returning to it shall be within the prohibitions of said section.” The Mississippi Constitution states: “Marriage may take place and may be valid under the laws of this state only between a man and a woman. A marriage in another state or foreign jurisdiction between persons of the same gender, regardless of when the marriage took place, may not be recognized in this state and is void and unenforceable under the laws of this state.” Citation: MISS. CODE ANN. § 93-1-1, 3; MISS. CONST. §263-A.
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.

Alabama (AL)
Alabama Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Alabama law and the state constitution both state: “No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex.” Alabama law states: “The state of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued.” The state consti-tution declares, “A union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex in the state of Alabama or in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all re-spects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state as a marriage or other union replicating marriage.”
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.
 * Citations: ALA. CODE § 30-1-19; ALA. CONST. Art. I, §36.03.

Florida (FL)
Florida Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Florida law states: “No county court judge or clerk of the circuit court in this state shall is-sue a license for the marriage of any person … unless one party is a male and the other party is a female.” There are currently two pending lawsuits challenging the denial of mar-riage licenses to same-sex couples. Florida law states: “Marriages between persons of the same sex entered into in any juris-diction, whether within or outside of the state of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location, or relationships be-tween persons of the same sex which are treated as marriages in any jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location, are not recognized for any purpose in this state. The state, its agencies, and its political subdivisions may not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any state, territory, possession, or tribe of the United States or of any jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or loca-tion respecting either a marriage or relationship not recognized under subsection (1) or a claim arising from such a marriage or relationship. For purposes of interpreting any state statute or rule, the term ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the term ‘spouse’ applies only to a member of such a un-ion.”
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.
 * Citations: FLA. STAT. §741.04; FLA. STAT. § 741.212.

Georgia (GA)
Georgia Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Georgia law states: “It is declared to be the public policy of this state to recognize the un-ion only of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state. No marriage between persons of the same sex shall be recognized as entitled to the benefits of marriage. Any marriages entered into by persons of the same sex pursuant to a marriage license issued by another state or foreign jurisdiction or otherwise shall be void in this state. Any contractual rights granted by virtue of such license shall be unen-forceable in the courts of this state and the courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction whatsoever under any circumstances to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with re-spect to such marriage or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties’ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such marriage.” The Georgia Constitution states: “This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state. No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record or judi-cial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdic-tion. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate main-tenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties’ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship." This amendment was struck down by a trial court in May 2006, but then upheld by the state supreme court in July 2006. Citation: GA. CODE ANN. § 19-3-3.1; GA. CONST. Art. I., §IV.
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.

South Carolina (SC)
South Carolina Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law South Carolina law states: “A marriage between persons of the same sex is void ab initio and against the public policy of this state.” The South Carolina constitution declares: “A marriage between one man and one woman is the only lawful domestic union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This State and its political subdivisions shall not create a legal status, right or claim respecting any other domestic union, however denominated. This State and its political subdivisions shall not recognize or give effect to a legal status, right or claim created by another jurisdiction respecting any other domestic union, how-ever denominated. Nothing in this section shall impair any right or benefit extended by the State or its political subdivisions other than a right or benefit arising from a domestic un-ion that is not valid or recognized in this State. This section shall not prohibit or limit par-ties, other than the State or its political subdivisions, from entering into contracts or other legal instruments.” Citation: S.C. CODE ANN. §20-1-15; S.C. CONST. Art. XVII, §15.
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.

North Carolina (NC)
North Carolina Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law North Carolina law states: “Marriages, whether created by common law, contracted, or performed of North Carolina, between individuals of the same gender are not valid in North Carolina.” Citation: N.C. GEN. STAT. §51-1.2.
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.

West Virginia (WV)
West Virginia Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law West Virginia law states: “A public act, record or judicial proceeding of any other state, territory, possession or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of the other state, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right of claim arising from such a relationship, shall no be given effect by this state.” Citation: W. VA. CODE §48-2-603 (2003).
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.

Virginia (VA)
Virginia Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Virginia law states: “Marriage is the legally recognized union of one man and one woman. … A marriage between persons of the same sex is prohibited. Any marriage en-tered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all re-spects in Virginia and any contractual rights created by such marriage shall be void and unenforceable. … A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between per-sons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is pro-hibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Vir-ginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.” The state constitution declares: “That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth a "that only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivi-sions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is as-signed the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.
 * Citations: VA. CODE ANN. §15-8; VA. CODE ANN. §20-45.2; VA. CODE ANN. §20-45.3; VA. CONST. Art. I, §15-A.

District of Columbia (DC)
District of Columbia Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law HRC monitors a wide range of laws that affect GLBT people and their families. Below you will find a review of the laws regarding marriage and relationship recognition for same-sex couples in District of Columbia. You can also learn about the D.C. Domestic Partner Law and legislative activity in the states by using the state legislation database. In 1992 the District of Columbia City Council passed a law that allows unmarried couples to register as domestic partners. Since that time, several rights have been added, including hospital visitation, the right to make medical decisions, the right to control the remains of a deceased partner, the right to take sick leave to take care of a partner and the right to sue for the wrongful death of a partner. District of Columbia Domestic Partners After a 10-year battle, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed a law July 8, 2002, that established a domestic partner registry for unmarried couples and extended benefits to district government employees and their domestic partners, including health in-surance coverage. To take advantage of the benefits, a couple must first register their domestic partnership with the District of Columbia Department of Health before completing the relevant affi-davit from the Office of Tax and Revenue Recorder of Deeds. Applicants must: be 18 years old or older; be unmarried; share a permanent residence; be competent to enter into a domestic partnership; and not be in another domestic partnership. To register as domestic partners, both partners must go in person to the District of Colum-bia Department of Health, Vital Records Division, at 825 North Capitol St., N.E., Wash-ington, D.C. 20002. To establish proof of your shared residence, bring one of the following documents: a current residential lease or rental agreement naming both applicants as occupants; a current residential mortgage that names both applicants as mortgagors; a deed for residential property stating that both applicants share title to the premises; a current residential property utility bill naming both partners; or an affidavit executed within the previous six months in which both parties state, under penalty of perjury, that they share the same residence. The fee is $45. More Information District of Columbia Department of Health
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No explicit prohibi-tion.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? Yes.
 * Citations: D.C. Code §1-307.68; §1-612.31, 32(b); §3-413; §16-1001; §5-113.31, 33; §21-2210; §32-501, 701, 704, 705(a), 705(b), 705(c), 705(d), 706; §42-1102, 3404.02(b)(c), 3651.05(c)(3); §47-858.03; §47-902; §50-1501.02(e)(4) and various other section of the D.C. Code.
 * Benefits
 * Eligibility

Maryland (MD)
Maryland Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law HRC monitors a wide range of laws that affect GLBT people and their families. Below you will find a review of the laws regarding marriage and relationship recognition for same-sex couples in Maryland. You can also follow recent developments and legislative activity in the states by using the state legislation database. On Jan. 20, 2006, a trial court ruled that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples violates the Maryland Constitution. This ruling is stayed (on hold) pending an appeal. Maryland law states: “Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this state.” Citation: MD. CODE ANN., [Family Law] §2-201. Recent Developments Court cases. After nine same-sex couples requested and were denied marriage licenses, the American Civil Liberties Union, in partnership with Equality Maryland, filed suit on behalf of the couples on July 12, 2004. Oral arguments on merits of the case were heard before the Baltimore City Circuit Court in August 2005 and a ruling was issued on Jan. 20, 2006. The Circuit Court ruled that the state’s statutory ban on marriage for same-sex couples violated the state constitution’s equal rights amendment, which prohibits sex dis-crimination. The case, Deane and Polyak v. Conway, will almost certainly be appealed by the state to the Court of Special Appeals, Maryland’s intermediate appellate court. The case could potentially be fast-tracked to the Court of Appeals, Maryland’s highest court, either by one of the parties or by the Court of Appeals itself. A final ruling from the Mary-land high court is not expected until 2007 or later. More Information: Thinking About Getting Married? Get Advice First
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No explicit prohibi-tion.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.

Delaware (DE)
Delaware Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Delaware law states: “A marriage is prohibited and void … between persons of the same gender. … A marriage obtained or recognized outside the state between persons prohib-ited by subsection (a) of this section shall not constitute a legal or valid marriage within the state.” Citation: DEL. CODE ANN. § 101. = NORTH-EAST region =
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.

Pennsylvania (PA)
Pennsylvania Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law Pennsylvania law states: “It is hereby declared to be the strong and longstanding public policy of this commonwealth that marriage shall be between one man and one woman. A marriage between person of the same sex which was entered into in another state or for-eign jurisdiction, even if valid where entered into, shall be void in this commonwealth.” Citation: 23 PA. CONS. STAT. §1704.
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.

New Jersey (NJ)
New Jersey Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law HRC monitors a wide range of laws that affect GLBT people and their families. Below you will find a review of the laws regarding marriage and relationship recognition for same-sex couples in New Jersey. You can also learn about the New Jersey civil union law, follow recent developments and legislative activity in the states by using the state legisla-tion database. There is a case pending before the state Supreme Court challenging the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples: Lewis et. al. v. Harris. In 2006, the state Legislature passed a civil unions bill, which confers all state-level spousal rights for parties in a civil unions. This law will take effect in early 2007. Citation: N.J. STAT. ANN. §37:1; §37:2; §26:8; and several other provisions in state law. Recent Developments in New Jersey Court cases. In October 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities of marriage. The court deferred to the New Jersey Legislature on the question of how to extend these rights and responsibili-ties to same-sex couples. In December 2006 the Legislature passed a measure establishing civil unions for same-sex couples. Asbury Park. On March 8, 2004, Asbury Park became the first city in New Jersey to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples when Deputy Mayor James Bruno performed a wed-ding ceremony for two men. The next day, a city clerk began accepting marriage license applications from other same-sex couples. On March 10, state Attorney General Peter Harvey said he would seek an injunction to halt the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in New Jersey. As a result, the same-sex couples who had already applied for licenses were unable to hold marriage ceremonies. Harvey also deemed invalid the one marriage that had been performed. New Jersey Civil Unions Same-sex couples in New Jersey will be able to enter into civil unions beginning in Feb-ruary 2007. Civil unions offer same-sex couples state-level spousal rights and responsi-bilities, but none of the federal protections (such as Social Security survivor benefits), and there is no guarantee that the unions will be recognized by other states or the federal gov-ernment. The domestic partnership law that was passed in 2004 will be available only to opposite-sex couples over the age of 62.
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No explicit prohibi-tion.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? Yes.

New York (NY)
New York Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law HRC monitors a wide range of laws that affect GLBT people and their families. Below you will find a review of the laws regarding marriage and relationship recognition for same-sex couples in New York. You can also follow recent developments and legislative activity in the states by using the state legislation database. For a period in 2004, the mayor of New Paltz solemnized some marriages between same-sex couples. No licenses were issued and the attorney general ordered the marriages to stop until the matter could be resolved in the courts. In July 2006, the state’s highest court ruled that it was not a violation of the state constitution to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The state attorney general issued an informal opinion stating, “New York law presump-tively requires that parties to such unions [marriages between same-sex couples] must be treated as spouses for purposes of New York law.” However, in July 2006, a state trial court ruled that out-of-state marriages between same-sex couples would not be honored by the state. That decision is being appealed. Although New York does not have a statewide registry for same-sex couples, domestic partners can visit one another in the hospital and have priority in disposing of each other remains (funeral arrangements). Recent Developments in New York In the courts. The New York Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court) ruled on July 6, 2006, that the state constitution does not compel the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This ruling was the combination of four cases seeking marriage equal-ity for same-sex couples. Out-of-state marriages. In March 2004, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer issued an informal opinion saying that same-sex couples who had legally married in San Francisco; Portland, Ore.; Canada or elsewhere are also married under New York law and must be given all the rights and protection of marriage. Spitzer recommended, however, that state officials only honor those licenses given to same-sex couples who have married out of state. New York courts, he said, would not support any cases because state law does not specifically authorize the issuance of licenses to same-sex couples in the state. (In contrast, the Bar Association of the City of New York has argued that New York law did not prohibit the state's issuance of same-sex mar-riage licenses. Like the attorney general, however, it says state law allows for recognition of same-sex marriages carried out in other states.) However, on July 13, 2006, a state court ruled that, in light of the Court of Appeals ruling that marriage for same-sex couples was banned by the state (and that the ban was constitu-tional), out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples were not recognized by the state. The decision is being appealed. The case is Funderburke v. Uniondale School District. Local action. On Feb. 27, 2004, the mayor of New Paltz, a town outside Manhattan, be-gan marrying couples without licenses. Mayor Jason West pleaded not guilty March 3 af-ter the local county district attorney charged him with 19 criminal counts. A day later, John Shields, mayor of Nyack, N.Y., said he would lead a group of same-sex couples to the clerk's office to apply for marriage licenses. In Ithaca, Mayor Carolyn K. Peterson said March 2 that while the city will not issue same-sex marriage licenses, it will accept appli-cations and forward them to the state's health department for individual determinations. More Information: Thinking About Getting Married: Get Advice First Freedom to Marry
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? Uncertain.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.
 * Citations: N.Y. [PUB. HEALTH] LAW §2805-q; N.Y. [PUB. HEALTH] LAW §4201; Hernandez. v. Robles, 2006 N.Y. LEXIS 1836 (N.Y. 2006); 1 Inf. Op. N.Y. Attorney Gen. (2004); Funderburke v. Uniondale School District, 2006 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1865 (Sup. Ct. Nassau County 2006).

Vermont (VT)
Vermont Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law HRC monitors a wide range of laws that affect GLBT people and their families. Below you will find a review of the laws regarding marriage and relationship recognition for same-sex couples in Vermont. You can also learn about the Vermont Civil Unions Law and follow legislative activity in the states by using the state legislation database. Vermont law states: “‘Marriage’ means the legally recognized union of one man and one woman.” In 1999 the Legislature passed a law that created the legal status of civil unions. Parties to a civil union are entitled to all of the state-level spousal rights and responsibilities. These rights and responsibilities are only for couples who live in the state of Vermont.
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? Yes.
 * Citations: VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 15, §1201(4)(2003); VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 15 §23.

Vermont Civil Unions Same-sex couples who are Vermont residents can receive the same state protections, bene-fits and responsibilities that are granted to married opposite-sex couples by entering into a civil union. Civil unions do not, however, grant any of the more than 1,100 federal benefits of mar-riage.

Among the rights and responsibilities available to Vermont residents who enter into a civil union are: Responsibility for supporting each other “to the same degree and in the same manner as prescribed under law for married persons”; State tax benefits; Improved access to family health insurance policies and joint credit; The right to leave work to care for an ill partner; Co-parenting privileges and responsibilities for any child who becomes the child of one or both partners during the civil union; Automatic preference for the guardianship of, and medical decision making for, a partner should he or she become incapacitated; Inheritance rights (even without a will); and Equal access to state separation, divorce, child custody, child support and property divi-sion laws if the civil union ends.
 * Benefits

To be eligible for a civil union, both partners must be: At least 18 years old; Of the same sex; Of sound mind; Not closely related; and Not already in another marriage or civil union. What If You Live Outside Vermont? You can live in any state in the nation and, if you choose, travel to Vermont to obtain a civil union certificate. In fact, about 75 percent of the couples who obtained civil union certificates in the first year they were available came from out of state. But civil unions will not necessarily carry any legal weight outside Vermont. Getting a Civil Union License To obtain a civil union license, visit the Vermont Secretary of State's office in The Ver-mont Guide to Civil Unions. The Human Rights Campaign recommends consulting an attorney to discuss your specific situation before deciding to enter a civil union. More Information: Dissolving a Civil Union How the Vermont Civil Union Law Came About
 * Eligibility

New Hampshire (NH)
New Hampshire Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law New Hampshire law states: “No man shall marry … any other man. … No woman shall marry … any other woman. … Marriages legally contracted outside the state of New Hampshire which would be prohibited under RSA 457:1 or RSA 457:2 if contracted in New Hampshire shall not be legally recognized in this state. … If any person residing and intending to continue to reside in this state is prohibited from contracting marriage under the laws of this state and goes into another jurisdiction and there contracts a marriage pro-hibited and declared void by the laws of this state, such marriage shall be null and void for all purposes in this state, with the same effect as though such prohibited marriage had been entered into in this state.”
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.
 * Citations: N.H. REV. STAT. ANN 457:1; N.H. REV. STAT. ANN 457:2; N.H. REV. STAT. ANN 457:3; N.H. REV. STAT. ANN 457:43.

Maine (ME)
Maine Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law HRC monitors a wide range of laws that affect GLBT people and their families. Below you will find a review of the laws regarding marriage and relationship recognition for same-sex couples in Maine. You can also learn about the Maine domestic partner law and legislative activity in the states by using the state legislation database. Maine law states, “Persons of the same sex may not contract marriage.” In 2004 the state Legislature passed a law establishing a domestic partner registry. Regis-tered couples can inherit a deceased partner’s property if he or she dies without a will, make funeral and burial arrangements, be named a guardian or conservator if their partner becomes incapacitated, be named a representative to administer a deceased partner’s es-tate and  make organ and tissue donations. Same-sex partners are also explicitly protected in the state’s domestic violence laws. Citation: ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 19 § 701; tit. 15, §321; tit. 18-A, §1-201, 2-202, 3-203, 5-311, 5-410; tit. 19-A, §4002; tit. 22, §2710, 2843, 2846. Maine Domestic Partners Maine’s domestic partner registry law went into effect July 30, 2004. benefits Registered domestic partners are eligible for limited rights, including: Inheritance without a will Making funeral and burial arrangements Entitlement to be named a guardian or conservator if partner becomes incapacitated or to be named a representative to administer a deceased partner’s estate Entitlement to make organ and tissue donation Explicit protection in the state’s domestic violence laws State law requires that to register as domestic partners, both partners must: have been living together in Maine for at least a year; not already be married or in a registered domestic partnership with someone else and be mentally competent, according to the state’s standards.
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? Yes.
 * Eligibility

To obtain the Declaration of Domestic Partnership form, visit a local municipal office or download a copy from the state website.

More Information: State of Maine: Domestic Partner Registry

Massachusetts (MA)
Massachusetts Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law HRC monitors a wide range of laws that affect GLBT people and their families. Below you will find a review of the laws regarding marriage and relationship recognition for same-sex couples in Massachusetts. You can also follow recent develop-ments and legislative activity in the states by using the state legislation database. On May 17, 2004 Massachusetts began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? Yes.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No explicit prohibi-tion.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? Yes.

Recent Developments in Massachusetts One Year of Marriage Equality. On May 17, 2005, our community celebrated one year of marriage equality in the state of Massachusetts. To date, more than 6,000 same-sex cou-ples have been legally married under Massachusetts law and are safer and more secure as a result of the Goodridge v. Department of Public Health decision.

First American state to issue marriage licenses. On May 17, 2004, Massachusetts be-came the first state to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in accordance with a landmark Massachusetts Superior Court ruling, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. More than 600 couples applied for marriage licenses that day alone.

Marriage licenses granted to same-sex couples who are residents of the state will give couples all the state benefits of marriage, such as spousal rights to hospital visitation and the ability to file joint state tax returns. But due to the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which declares that the federal government will not recognize the marriage of any same-sex couples, they are ineligible for the more than 1,100 federal benefits of marriage, such as Social Security survivor benefits. It is also uncertain whether other states will rec-ognize these marriages when couples travel or move to their state.

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, which was brought by Gay & Lesbian Advo-cates & Defenders, was handed down Nov. 18, 2003. The court concluded that “the mar-riage ban does not meet the rational basis test for either due process or equal protection,” and marriage in Massachusetts means "the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others." It gave the Legislature six months to change state marriage statutes to comply with the decision, which is how the first marriage licenses came to be issued on May 17. Anti-gay advocates tried to have the ruling overturned, but in Novem-ber 2004 the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, and same-sex couples in Mas-sachusetts continued to enjoy full marriage equality.

Out-of-state residents. Republican Gov. Mitt Romney has ordered local town and city hall clerks to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples who live outside Massachusetts. He based the order on an obscure 1913 state law that was originally intended to restrict inter-racial marriages. It had been decades since the law was last enforced. Legislators, there-fore, changed the state marriage application form to include a new question asking where the couple planned to reside. Going one step further, on April 24, Romney instructed clerks to require documented proof of Massachusetts residency from couples filling out marriage license applications. Local officials protested and Romney relaxed the order May 4, saying clerks did not have to demand physical proof of residency. Instead, couples would have to swear that they planned to live in Massachusetts. Officials in Provincetown, Somerville, Springfield and Worcester responded to the gover-nor’s order by announcing that they still planned to issue licenses to out-of-state couples. When marriage became legal for same-sex couples May 17, several out-of-state couples did apply for licenses in those jurisdictions. Romney responded by ordering clerks to send copies of all applications filed by out-of-state couples to his office, leading many to believe he intended to take legal action against the clerks or the couples.

On May 20, Romney announced that he would not allow the state to record marriages be-tween out-of-state same-sex couples. And Attorney General Reilly sent "cease and desist" letters to the four jurisdictions May 21 asking the clerks to stop issuing licenses to out-of-state couples.

Same-sex couples who are not residents of Massachusetts should be extremely cautious about seeking marriage licenses there. State officials in New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut have indicated that they may recognize marriages performed in Massachu-setts between same-sex residents of their states. Much still, however, remains to be seen about the legal ramifications of marriages between out-of-state couples. Residents of states that already have laws banning marriage for same-sex couples are unlikely to re-ceive any benefits from marriages performed in Massachusetts. Pending constitutional amendment. Gov. Romney and other officials made several other attempts to evade compliance with the Supreme Judicial Court ruling. On March 29, 2004, the state Legislature narrowly passed a state constitutional amendment ballot measure that would reverse the Goodridge decision by defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

The pending amendment would also establish civil unions, instead of marriage, for same-sex couples. Civil unions provide none of the more than 1,100 federal protections of mar-riage, and there is no guarantee that a civil union granted in one state would be honored in another. To go into effect, the amendment would have to be approved a second time by lawmakers during the 2005-2006 legislative session and by voters in November 2006.

Anti-gay groups have conceded that the proposed constitutional amendment may be de-feated by the state Legislature. Voters in Massachusetts have repeatedly elected state leg-islators who support the right of same-sex couples to marry and oppose discriminatory amendments to the state constitution. These groups have begun collecting signatures for a citizen-initiated ballot initiative that would ban both marriage and civil unions. If enough signatures are gathered, the earliest this amendment could go to the ballot is in 2008. Recent polls show that a majority of voters in Massachusetts supports the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Connecticut (CT)
Connecticut Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law HRC monitors a wide range of laws that affect GLBT people and their families. Below you will find a review of the laws regarding marriage and relationship recognition for same-sex couples in Connecticut. You can also learn about Connecticut Civil Unions, fol-low recent developments and legislative activity in the states by using the state legislation database. Connecticut law defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Citation: Connecticut Substitute Senate Bill 963 (2005) In 2005, the Legislature approved Substitute Senate Bill 963 and it will become effective on October 1, 2005. The law creates civil unions for same-sex couples and confers all of the state-level spousal rights and responsibilities on parties to a civil union. Citation: Connecticut Substitute Senate Bill 963 (2005) Civil unions. Same-sex couples in Connecticut are able to enter into civil unions thanks to a law that went into effect Oct. 1, 2005. Civil unions offer same-sex couples some of the benefits of marriage under state law, but none of the federal protections (such as Social Security survivor benefits), and there is no guarantee that the unions will be recognized by other states or the federal government. The civil unions bill was approved by the Connecticut Legislature in April 2005 and signed by Gov. M. Jodi Rell. Before passing it, however, the state House of Representa-tives attached an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Connecticut was the first state to establish civil unions voluntarily, without having been ordered to do so by a court. For more information on civil unions in Connecticut, visit the Love Makes a Family website. In the courts. A lawsuit was filed in August 2004 in New Haven Superior Court arguing that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated the state constitution. The suit was filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders on behalf of seven same-sex couples who had been refused marriage licenses in Madison, Conn. The trial court ruled in July 2006 that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples did not violate the state constitution. The ruling will be appealed. According to GLAD, it may be several years before a final decision is reached in the case. The case will probably be ultimately decided by the Connecticut Supreme Court. GLAD, a Boston-based legal group, was previously successful in winning marriage rights for same-sex couples in Massachusetts and civil union protections in Vermont. Thinking About Getting Married? Seek Advice First
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions?
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples?
 * Connecticut Civil Unions
 * Recent Developments in Connecticut
 * More Information:

Rhode Island (RI)
Rhode Island Marriage/Relationship Recognition Law The state attorney general issued a statement in May 2004 that stated “the office [of the at-torney general]’s review of Rhode Island law suggests that Rhode Island would recognize any marriage validly performed in another state unless doing so would run contrary to the strong public policy of this state. Public policy can be determined by statute, legal prece-dent, and common law.” This is not a binding opinion and the attorney general noted that this question will most likely be answered by the courts. Although Rhode Island does not have a statewide registry for same-sex couples, the Leg-islature has extended limited rights to same-sex couples. These rights include the right of the surviving domestic partner of a police officer, fire fighter or correctional officer to re-ceive a death benefit and the right for health insurance to be offered (for purchase) to the domestic partner of a former employee [COBRA], and the right to deduct the cost of in-surance premiums for a domestic partner from your federal adjusted gross income for state tax purposes.
 * Licenses marriages for same-sex couples? No explicit prohibition.
 * Honors marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions? No explicit prohibi-tion.
 * Any form of statewide relationship recognition for same-sex couples? No.
 * Citations: R.I. GEN. LAWS §28-48-1, 36-12-4, 44-30-12, 45-49-4.3.

Mariage not celebrated but recognized Civil unions (without marriage ban) Domestic partnership (without marriage ban) No state law banning same sex marriage (however, judicial or executive rulings prevent same sex marriage) Civil Union when same sex marriage not allowed Domestic partnership when same sex marriage not allowed State law banning same sex marriage State law banning same sex marriage and civil unions Amendment bans same-sex marriage Amendment bans same-sex marriage and civil unions Bans gay marriage, civil unions, and any marriage-like contract between unmarried persons]]