In the United States, same-sex marriage is not legally permitted, although Vermont provides a parallel institution by authorizing "civil unions" between same-sex couples. On November 18 2003, Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court ruled 4 to 3 in Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health that the state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and gave the state Legislature 180 days to change the law. The court found that Massachusetts may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry" because of a clause in the state's constitution that forbids "the creation of second-class citizens."
Various groups have battled over the legal issue since the late twentieth century. A July 2003 Pew Research poll found opposition to same-sex marriage at 53 percent of respondents, while 38 percent said that they backed them, [1] while an October 2003 poll by the same group found opposition had risen to 59 percent and support fallen to 32 percent. Opposition continues to be centered among the religious community. On the other hand, a Massachusetts poll conducted in October 2003 found that 64 percent of voters in the state would agree, and only 34 percent would disagree with a court ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts if the court ruled that couples of the same sex have a constitutional right to marry.[1] It also found that 59 percent of Massachusetts voters said same-sex couples should have the right to enter into civil marriage, while 35 percent disagreed.
In 1996, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. This bill defines marriage as a "legal union between one man and one woman", refuses federal recognition to same-sex marriages, and allows U.S. states to not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other U.S. states (although no state currently offers same-sex marriage as an option) or other countries. Since then, various states have passed a law or changed their constitution to assert that they do not recognize same-sex unions, nor will they recognize such unions legally recognized in other states. These laws are sometimes referred to as "Mini-DOMAs". Some opponents of same-sex marriage, fearing that such laws might be invalidated by the courts because of the "full faith and credit" clause, have proposed a Federal Marriage Amendment to the United States Constitution that would explicitly define marriages as joining "one man and one woman". A December 2003 national CBS/New York Times poll indicated 55 percent national support for this amendment [1]. However, the validity of this study and the accuracy of the reporting of its results by The New York Times has been questioned [1].
There are also many groups actively fighting for and against legal recognition of same-sex marriage, proponents including traditional LGBT groups such as HRC, Lambda Legal and NGLTF, as well as groups that have been created around this single issue, such as Marriage Equality and Freedom to Marry.
Vermont is the only U.S. state to offer same-sex couples all of the state-level rights and benefits of heterosexual couples. Vermont does not use the word marriage, but calls such unions civil unions. Civil unions do not, however, provide the federal-level rights, benefits and protections that come with a civil marriage license. The history of the civil union law in Vermont is given in the civil union article.
California's domestic partnership law provides similar benefits, but again stops short of full same-sex marriage.
There are also bills in both chambers of the New York State legislature that would extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. These bills were introduced in early 2003 and are currently still in committee.
The legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada has raised questions about US law, due to Canada's proximity to the US and the fact that Canada has no citizenship or residency requirement to receive a marriage certificate (unlike the Netherlands and Belgium). Canada and the US have a history of respecting marriages contracted in either country.
Also, in the United States, proponents of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples observe that there are over 1,049 federal rights and benefits denied same-sex couples by excluding them from participating in marriage. A legal denial of rights or benefits, they say, directly contradicts the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution which provides for equal protection and substantive due process under the law. Meaning that rights conferred to one group cannot be denied to another. In the 2003 case before the Supreme Court titled Lawrence v. Texas, the court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Many proponents of same-sex marriage believe that this ruling paves the way for a subsequent decision invalidating state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. This raises the possibility of a challenge to the DOMAs under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Also in 2003, lesbian comedian Rosie O'Donnell's court case with ex-colleagues raised another new issue when O'Donnell's life partner, Kelli, was forced to testify against O'Donnell. Under United States law, spouses cannot be forced to testify against each other; but because same-sex couples are not allowed to marry, they are denied this courtroom right.
A number of American couples immediately headed or planned to head to Ontario in order to get married. A coalition of American national gay rights groups has issued a statement asking couples to contact them before attempting legal challenges, so that they might be coordinated as part of the same-sex marriage movement in the United States.
