Support groups

The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal. The ruling was narrow and likely to be limited to California. The ruling upheld a decision by retired Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who struck down the ballot measure in 2010 after holding an unprecedented trial on the nature of sexual orientation and the history of marriage.  In a separate decision, the appeals court refused to invalidate Walker's ruling on the grounds that he should have disclosed he was in a long term same-sex relationship. Walker, a Republican appointee who is openly gay, said after his ruling that he had been in a relationship with another man for 10 years. He has never said whether he and partner wished to marry.

The crux of the Ninth Circuit's decision was that Proposition 8 violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment by creating a situation where "a privilege or protection is withdrawn without a legitimate reason from a class of disfavored individuals, even if that right may not have been required by the Constitution in the first place." It cited the 1996 Supreme Court case of Romer v. Evans to support this proposition. In that decision, the court invalidated an initiative passed in Colorado that prohibited the state, and any jurisdiction therein, from passing a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. This meant, in the Ninth Circuit's view, that once California had allowed same-sex couples to marry, it could not then rescind that allowance through Proposition 8.

The Governor of Maryland signed into law the equality in marriage for same-sex couples on March 2, 2012.  Prior to that, there had been two significant amendments to the Maryland marriage bill, both intended to insure no same-sex couples in the state can be married until all legal challenges are exhausted. The first amendment, which changed the effective date of the legislation from Oct. 1 to Jan. 1, induced Wade Kach, a conservative Republican from Baltimore's outer suburbs, to back the bill. The change in date ensured that there was no possibility of same-sex marriages occurring before a possible voter referendum on the bill. The second amendment, from Tiffany Alston, a Democrat from Prince Georges County, an African-American majority jurisdiction just outside of Washington, D.C., suspends the law from coming into force until all legal challenges have been heard and would also invalidate the law should any of its protections for religious institutions be overturned in court. Alston, who is currently under indictment for theft, had flip-flopped on same-sex marriage last year, co-sponsoring the bill but then voting against it in committee. Both amendments have significant consequences in the aftermath of Perry v. Brown. Their inclusion in the final bill means that no gay marriage can be performed in Maryland until all legal and political remedies to prevent it have been exhausted. This language will likely become boilerplate in future statewide efforts to pass same-sex marriage, just as language allowing conscience-based exemptions for religious institutions has become a legislative staple. It forecloses any rush to the courthouse for same-sex couples, as occurred in California in 2008 when many gays and lesbians hurried to wed before the Election Day referendum. The earliest that any same-sex couple could be wed in Maryland is January 2013, and even that date may prove optimistic. These changes to the Maryland bill are not epochal. In fact, they are dry and procedural enough that it is unlikely they will spark significant outrage. But they will have real practical effects. Perry v. Brown's ultimate consequences will be to drag out the state-by-state legal battles after legislative approval. The Ninth Circuit's reasoning was elegantly crafted to invalidate Proposition 8 on the narrowest possible legal grounds. But that reasoning, intended to aid same-sex couples in California, will likely force gays and lesbians in Maryland and other states that pass similar legislation in the future to wait even longer to be married.

The Washington State legislature was the ninth state to have approved marriage equality —either through the legislature (five states), the courts (two), or both (two). Two of those states (California and Maine) had their laws reversed by voters, so Washington—if it rejects the expected repeal effort— will become the seventh state, plus the District of Columbia, to provide marriage equality. (California's law was reversed after being in effect only six months. Enactment of Maine's law was delayed pending the referendum vote.)  The marriage equality bill passed the Washington House February 8 on a 55 to 43 vote, overturning an existing law to ban same-sex marriage. It passed the Senate 28 to 21 on February 1.  According to the Washington Secretary of State's office, the law is due to take effect on June 7, but opponents of the law have until June 6 to turn in more than 120,000 signatures. If they do turn in signatures, the law will be suspended until either voters can weigh in on the measure in November or until the Secretary of State certifies that too few signatures passed the validation process. If the latter occurs, the law would take effect immediately (probably sometime in July).

Gov. Chris Christie has followed through on his promise to reject a bill allowing same-sex marriage in New Jersey by quickly vetoing the measure Friday and renewing his call for a ballot question to decide the issue. The veto came a day after the state Assembly passed the bill. The state Senate had passed it on Monday. Christie, a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage, had vowed "very swift action" once the measure reached his desk. In returning the bill to the Legislature, Christie reaffirmed his view that voters should decide whether to change the definition of marriage in New Jersey. His veto also proposed creating an ombudsman to oversee compliance with the state's civil union law, which same-sex couples have said is flawed and promotes discrimination."It's unfortunate that the governor would let his own personal ideology infringe on the rights of thousands of New Jerseyans," said Reed Gusciora, one of two openly gay New Jersey lawmakers and a sponsor of the bill. "For all those who oppose marriage equality, their lives would have been completely unchanged by this bill, but for same-sex couples, their lives would have been radically transformed. Unfortunately, the governor couldn't see past his own personal ambitions to honor this truth."