Editing Same-sex marriage in the United States

{{Short description|none}}
{{pp-pc}}
[[File:Jack Baker and Michael McConnell at home, Minneapolis, Minnesota LCCN2017648764 (cropped).jpg|thumb|[[Jack Baker and Michael McConnell]] (r), the first same-sex couple ever legally married in the United States (in 1971), at their Minneapolis home, 1970]] 
{{Same-sex unions|marriage}}
{{Use American English|date=July 2015}} 
{{Use mdy dates|date=February 2021}}
The availability of legally recognized [[same-sex marriage]] in the United States expanded from one state ([[Massachusetts]]) in 2004 to all [[U.S. state|fifty states]] in 2015 through various court rulings, state legislation, and direct popular votes. States each have separate [[marriage law]]s, which must adhere to rulings by the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] that recognize [[marriage]] as a [[Fundamental rights in the United States|fundamental right]] guaranteed by both the [[Due Process Clause]] and the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution]], as first established in the 1967 [[List of landmark court decisions in the United States|landmark]] [[civil rights]] case of ''[[Loving v. Virginia]]''.

Civil rights campaigning in support of marriage without distinction as to sex or sexual orientation began in the 1970s.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Same-Sex Couple Who Got a Marriage License in 1971|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/us/the-same-sex-couple-who-got-a-marriage-license-in-1971.html|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=May 16, 2015|access-date=April 6, 2018}}</ref> In 1972, the now overturned ''[[Baker v. Nelson]]'' saw the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] decline to become involved.<ref name="Andrew Gumbel">{{cite news|title=The Great Undoing?|url=http://www.advocate.com/news/2009/06/20/great-undoing|work=[[The Advocate (LGBT magazine)|The Advocate]]|author=Andrew Gumbel|access-date=July 9, 2012}}</ref> The issue became prominent from around 1993, when the [[Supreme Court of Hawaii]] ruled in ''[[Baehr v. Miike|Baehr v. Lewin]]'' that it was unconstitutional under the [[Constitution of Hawaii]] for the state to abridge marriage on the basis of sex. That ruling led to federal and state actions to explicitly abridge marriage on the basis of sex in order to prevent the marriages of same-sex couples from being recognized by law, the most prominent of which was the 1996 federal [[Defense of Marriage Act]] (DOMA). In 2003, the [[Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court]] ruled in ''[[Goodridge v. Department of Public Health]]'' that it was unconstitutional under the [[Constitution of Massachusetts]] for the state to abridge marriage on the basis of sex. From 2004 through to 2015, as [[Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States|the tide of public opinion]] continued to move towards support of same-sex marriage, various state court rulings, state legislation, direct popular votes ([[referendum]]s and [[initiative]]s), and federal court rulings established same-sex marriage in thirty-six of the fifty states.

The most prominent supporters of same-sex marriage are [[human rights]] and [[civil rights]] organizations, while the most prominent opponents are religious groups, though some religious organizations support marriage equality.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/north-carolina | title=North Carolina &#124; Freedom to Marry }}</ref> The first two decades of the 21st century saw same-sex marriage receive support from prominent figures in the [[civil rights movement]], including [[Coretta Scott King]], [[John Lewis]], [[Julian Bond]], and [[Mildred Loving]].<ref name="civil rights">{{cite web|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-g-long/coretta-scott-king_b_2592049.html|title=Coretta's Big Dream: Coretta Scott King on Gay Rights|work=[[HuffPost]]|author=Michael Long|date=January 31, 2013|access-date=July 18, 2018}}{{indent}}{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/03/coretta-scott-king-extract|title='I am not a symbol, I am an activist': the untold story of Coretta Scott King|work=[[The Guardian]]|author=Jeanne Theoharis|author-link=Jeanne Theoharis|date=February 3, 2018|access-date=July 18, 2018}}{{indent}}{{cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2007/06/mildred-loving-40-years-later/227582/|title=Mildred Loving, 40 Years Later|work=[[The Atlantic]]|author=Douglas Martin|date=June 18, 2007|access-date=March 11, 2015}}{{indent}}{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/us/06loving.html|title=Mildred Loving, Who Battled Ban on Mixed-Race Marriage, Dies at 68|work=[[The New York Times]]|author=Douglas Martin|date=May 6, 2008|access-date=July 14, 2018}}{{indent}}{{cite news|url=http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2009/12/gay_marriage_naacp_chairman_ju.html|title=Gay marriage: NAACP chairman Julian Bond says gay rights are civil rights|work=[[NJ.com]]|author=Star-Ledger Editorial Board|date=December 9, 2009|access-date=December 12, 2018}}{{indent}}{{Cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/2015/08/17/432541992/civil-rights-community-mourns-death-of-julian-bond|title=Civil Rights Community Mourns Death Of Julian Bond|publisher=[[NPR]]|date=August 17, 2015|access-date=December 12, 2018}}{{indent}}{{cite web|url=https://www.ajc.com/blog/news/georgia-congressman-john-lewis-reacts-gay-marriage-ruling/XTUyxBIQerIoWjw98ftebK/|title=Georgia Congressman John Lewis reacts to gay marriage ruling|work=[[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]]|date=June 26, 2015|access-date=December 12, 2018}}{{indent}}{{Cite news|url=https://johnlewis.house.gov/issues/lgbt-rights|title=LGBT RIGHTS|website=[[House.gov]]|author=Office of [[Member of Congress|Congressman]] [[John Lewis]]|access-date=December 12, 2018|archive-date=April 29, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190429011047/https://johnlewis.house.gov/issues/lgbt-rights|url-status=dead}}</ref> In May 2012, the [[NAACP]], the leading African-American civil rights organization, declared its support for same-sex marriage and stated that it is a [[civil right]].<ref name="NAACP">{{cite web|url=http://www.naacp.org/latest/naacp-passes-resolution-in-support-of-marriage-equality/|title=NAACP Passes Resolution In Support Of Marriage Equality|publisher=[[NAACP]]|date=May 20, 2018|access-date=April 11, 2018|archive-date=April 29, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190429011232/http://www.naacp.org/latest/naacp-passes-resolution-in-support-of-marriage-equality/|url-status=dead}}{{indent}}{{cite web|url=https://www.naacp.org/latest/naacp-speaks-out-for-marriage-equality/|title=NAACP Speaks Out For Marriage Equality|publisher=[[NAACP]]|date=April 2, 2013|access-date=July 14, 2018|archive-date=April 29, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190429010817/https://www.naacp.org/latest/naacp-speaks-out-for-marriage-equality/|url-status=dead}}{{indent}}{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/us/politics/naacp-endorses-same-sex-marriage.html|title=In Largely Symbolic Move, N.A.A.C.P. Votes to Endorse Same-Sex Marriage|work=[[The New York Times]]|author=Michael Barbaro|date=May 19, 2012|access-date=July 14, 2018}}</ref>

In June 2013, the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] struck down [[Defense of Marriage Act|DOMA]] for violating the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution]] in the landmark civil rights case of ''[[United States v. Windsor]]'', leading to federal recognition of same-sex marriage, with federal benefits for married couples connected to either the state of residence or the state in which the marriage was solemnized. In June 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in the landmark civil rights case of ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'' that the [[Fundamental rights in the United States|fundamental right]] of same-sex couples to marry on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities, is guaranteed by both the [[Due Process Clause]] and the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution]]. On December 13, 2022, DOMA was repealed and replaced by the [[Respect for Marriage Act]], which recognizes and protects same-sex and interracial marriages under federal law and in interstate relations.

Gallup found that [[Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States|nationwide public support for same-sex marriage]] reached 50% in 2011,<ref name="news.gallup.com">{{cite web |last=Newport |first=Frank |date=20 May 2011 |title=For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage |url=http://news.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx |access-date=20 July 2022 |website=[[Gallup (company)|Gallup]]}}</ref> 60% in 2015,<ref name="https">{{cite web |last=McCarthy |first=Justin |date=May 19, 2015 |title=Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage |url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/183272/record-high-americans-support-sex-marriage.aspx |access-date=20 July 2022 |website=[[Gallup (company)|Gallup]]}}</ref> and 70% in 2021.<ref name=":4" /> In the [[2020 United States census]], same-sex married couples accounted for 0.5% of all U.S. households while unmarried same-sex couples accounted for 0.4% of all U.S. households.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Overberg|first1=Paul|last2=DeBarros|first2=Anthony|date=May 25, 2023|title=Same-Sex Couples Accounted for 1% of Households in 2020, Census Shows|work=The Wall Street Journal|publisher=News Corp|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/same-sex-couples-accounted-for-1-of-households-in-2020-census-shows-6bc23e58|access-date=September 5, 2023}}</ref>

A [[#Adolescent attempted suicide|study of nationwide data from January 1999 to December 2015]] revealed that the establishment of same-sex marriage is associated with a significant reduction in the rate of attempted suicide among teens, with the effect being concentrated among teens of a minority sexual orientation, resulting in approximately 134,000 fewer teens attempting suicide each year in the United States.

==History==
{{Main|History of same-sex marriage in the United States}}
{{For timeline}}
[[File:Wedding in New Orleans, November 11, 2017.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|A newlywed same-sex couple celebrate their marriage in [[New Orleans]] in 2017.]]
The history of same-sex marriage in the United States dates from the early 1970s, when the first lawsuits seeking legal recognition of same-sex relationships brought the question of [[Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States|civil marriage rights]] and benefits for same-sex couples to public attention, though they proved unsuccessful.<ref>{{cite web|last=Gumbel|first=Andrew|title=The Great Undoing?|url=http://www.advocate.com/news/2009/06/20/great-undoing|work=[[The Advocate (LGBT magazine)|The Advocate]]|date=June 20, 2009|access-date=July 9, 2012}}</ref> The subject became increasingly prominent in U.S. politics following the 1993 [[Supreme Court of Hawaii|Hawaii Supreme Court]] decision in ''[[Baehr v. Miike]]'' that suggested the possibility that the state's prohibition might be unconstitutional. That decision was met by actions at both the federal and state level to restrict marriage to male-female couples, notably the enactment at the federal level of the ''[[Defense of Marriage Act]]'' (DOMA).

On May 17, 2004, [[Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts|Massachusetts]] became the first U.S. state and the sixth jurisdiction in the world to legalize same-sex marriage following the [[Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court|Supreme Judicial Court]]'s decision in ''[[Goodridge v. Department of Public Health]]'' six months earlier. Just as with the Hawaii decision, the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts provoked a reaction from opponents that resulted in further legal restrictions being written into state statutes and constitutions. The movement to obtain marriage rights for same-sex couples expanded steadily from that time until, in late 2014, lawsuits had been brought in every state that still denied marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

By late 2014, same-sex marriage had become legal in states that contained more than 70% of the [[United States]] population. In some jurisdictions, legalization came through the action of state courts or the enactment of state legislation. More frequently, it came as the result of the decisions of federal courts. On November 6, 2012, [[Maine Question 1, 2012|Maine]], [[Maryland Question 6|Maryland]], and [[Washington Referendum 74|Washington]] became the first states to legalize same-sex marriage through popular vote. Same-sex marriage had been legalized in the [[Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia|District of Columbia]] and 21 [[Same-sex marriage in tribal nations in the United States|Native American tribal nations]] as well.

The June 2013 decision of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in ''[[United States v. Windsor]]'' striking down the law barring federal recognition of same-sex marriage gave significant impetus to the progress of lawsuits that challenged state bans on same-sex marriage in federal court.<ref>{{Cite web |date=October 2012 |title=UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf |access-date=2022-08-28 |website=supremecourt.gov}}</ref> Since that decision, with only a few exceptions, U.S. District Courts and Courts of Appeals have found state bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, as have several state courts. The exceptions have been a state court in Tennessee, U.S. district courts in Louisiana and Puerto Rico, and the [[Same-sex marriage in the Sixth Circuit|U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit]]. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear appeals from that [[Same-sex marriage by Circuit Court|circuit's]] decision.

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all state bans on same-sex marriage, legalized it in all fifty states, and required states to honor out-of-state same-sex marriage licenses in the case ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=OBERGEFELL v. HODGES |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-556 |access-date=2022-08-29 |website=LII / Legal Information Institute |language=en}}</ref> The United States was the [[Legal status of same-sex marriage|seventeenth country in the world]] and the second in [[North America]] after [[Canada]], to allow same-sex couples to marry nationwide.<ref>{{cite web |date=17 May 2019 |title=Same-Sex Marriage Around the World |url=https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/gay-marriage-around-the-world/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170630034000/http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/26/gay-marriage-around-the-world-2013/ |archive-date=30 June 2017 |access-date=23 May 2019 |work=Pew Research Center}}</ref>

==Legal issues==
{{See also|Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States}}
[[File:Same-sex marriage in San Francisco City Hall 20080617.jpg|thumb|right|The wedding of a same-sex couple being performed in [[San Francisco City Hall]] in June 2008.]]

The legal issues surrounding [[same-sex marriage]] in the United States are determined by the nation's [[federalism|federal]] system of government, in which the [[Status (law)|status]] of a person, including marital status, is determined in large measure by the individual states. Prior to 1996, the [[Federal government of the United States|federal government]] did not define marriage; any marriage recognized by a [[U.S. state|state]] was recognized, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more states, as was the case until 1967 with [[Interracial marriage in the United States|interracial marriage]], which some states [[anti-miscegenation laws|banned by statute]].

Prior to 2004, [[same-sex marriage]] was not performed or recognized in any [[List of states and territories of the United States|U.S. jurisdiction]], but subsequently began to be performed and recognized by law in different jurisdictions through legislation, court rulings,<ref name="Adams & Crary March 11, 2009">Glenn Adams and David Crary, [https://www.theguardian.com/world/feedarticle/8789627 "Maine voters reject gay-marriage law"], November 4, 2009</ref> tribal council rulings,<ref name="LittleTraverseBayBand">{{cite news|last=Houston|first=Sonya|title=Tribe marries same-sex couple but state won't recognize it|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/17/politics/michigan-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_c5|access-date=March 18, 2013|newspaper=CNN|date=March 17, 2013}}</ref> and popular referendums.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/07/14978747-for-first-time-voters-back-gay-marriage-in-statewide-votes?lite|title=For first time, voters back gay marriage in statewide votes|publisher=NBC News|access-date=November 7, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/01/10294578-washington-state-senate-approves-same-sex-marriage-bill|title=Washington State Senate approves same-sex marriage|publisher=MSNBC|date=February 1, 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120202041745/http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/01/10294578-washington-state-senate-approves-same-sex-marriage-bill|archive-date=February 2, 2012}}</ref><ref name="The Keweenaw Report">{{cite web|url=http://www.keweenawreport.com/news/kbic-council-shake-up-casino-plan-rejected/|title=KBIC Council Shake-Up; Casino Plan Rejected |publisher=The Keweenaw Report |date=December 14, 2014 |access-date=December 14, 2014}}</ref>

The Supreme Court's ruling in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'' ended all inter-state legal complications surrounding same-sex marriage, as it orders states to both perform the marriages of same-sex couples and to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples performed in other states.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-supreme-court-decision-119463.html|title=Supreme Court gay marriage decision: Full text of Obergefell ruling|newspaper=Politico|date=June 26, 2015}}</ref>

===Federal law===
{{Map of same-sex marriage in the United States}}According to the [[Government Accountability Office]] (GAO) in 2004, [[Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States|1,138 federal rights and protections]] are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage; areas affected include [[Social Security (United States)|Social Security]] benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, [[Medicaid]], hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, [[family leave]], and immigration law.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf|title=2004 updated report of the GAO|date=January 23, 2004|publisher=GAO|access-date=December 20, 2011}}</ref>

Since July 9, 2015, married same-sex couples throughout the United States have had equal access to all the federal benefits that married opposite-sex couples have.<ref name="lynch">{{cite web|url=https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-lynch-announces-federal-marriage-benefits-available-same-sex-couples|title=Attorney General Lynch Announces Federal Marriage Benefits Available to Same-Sex Couples Nationwide|date=July 9, 2015|publisher=Department of Justice|author=Loretta Lynch|author-link=Loretta Lynch|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161110003040/https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-lynch-announces-federal-marriage-benefits-available-same-sex-couples|archive-date=November 10, 2016}}</ref>

The ''[[Defense of Marriage Act]]'' (DOMA) was enacted in 1996. DOMA's Section 2 says that no state needs to recognize the legal validity of a same-sex relationship even if recognized as marriage by another state. It purports to relieve a state of its reciprocal obligation to honor the laws of other states as required by the Constitution's [[Full Faith and Credit Clause]].<ref>{{cite news|last1=Wermiel|first1=Stephen|author1-link=Stephen Wermiel|title=SCOTUS for law students: The Defense of Marriage Act and the Constitution|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/03/scotus-for-law-students-the-defense-of-marriage-act-and-the-constitution-sponsored-by-bloomberg-law/|access-date=September 23, 2014|publisher=SCOTUSblog |date=March 23, 2012}}</ref> Even before DOMA, however, states sometimes refused to recognize a marriage from another jurisdiction if it was counter to its "strongly held public policies".<ref>{{cite news |last1=Wolff|first1=Tobias Barrington|author1-link=Tobias Barrington Wolff|title=DOMA Repeal and the Truth About Full Faith & Credit |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tobias-barrington-wolff/doma-repeal-and-the-truth_b_905484.html |access-date=September 23, 2014|work=The Huffington Post|date=July 21, 2011}}</ref> Most lawsuits that sought to require a state to recognize a marriage established in another jurisdiction argue on the basis of [[Equal Protection Clause|equal protection]] and [[Due Process Clause|due process]], not the Full Faith and Credit Clause.{{efn|Among many examples: (1) the U.S. District Court ruling in ''[[Bourke v. Beshear]]'', which required Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages from Canada and several U.S. states, was decided on equal protection grounds alone. The plaintiffs claimed that Kentucky's ban violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but the court found it unnecessary to address that argument,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/206724639/GREGORY-BOURKE-et-al-V-STEVE-BESHEAR-et-al |title=Memorandum Opinion, ''Bouke v. Beshear''|publisher= U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky |date=February 12, 2014}}</ref> and (2) the plaintiffs in ''[[Robicheaux v. Caldwell]]'', who sought Louisiana's recognition of their out-of-state marriages, argued only on the basis of equal protection and due process. One of the Louisiana statutes they challenged made clear the state's assertion of its right to deny recognition to the legal act of another state: "A purported marriage between persons of the same sex violates a ''strong public policy'' of the state of Louisiana". (emphasis added).<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/238549858/2-13-cv-05090-131 |title=Order and Reasons, ''Robicheaux v. Caldwell''|publisher= U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana |date=September 3, 2014}}</ref>}}

DOMA's Section 3 defined marriage for the purposes of federal law as a union of one man and one woman.<ref>{{usc|1|7}}.</ref> It was challenged in the [[United States federal courts|federal courts]]. On July 8, 2010, Judge [[Joseph Louis Tauro|Joseph Tauro]] of the [[United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts|District Court of Massachusetts]] held that the denial of federal rights and benefits to lawfully married Massachusetts same-sex couples is unconstitutional under the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[United States Constitution|U.S. Constitution]].<ref name="hrc.org">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/us/09marriage.html|title=Judge Topples U.S. Rejection of Gay Unions|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=July 8, 2010|access-date=June 2, 2011|first1=Abby |last1=Goodnough |first2=John|last2=Schwartz}}</ref> Beginning in 2010, eight federal courts found DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional in cases involving bankruptcy, public employee benefits, estate taxes, and immigration.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/entry/c/doma|title=The Defense of Marriage Act|publisher=Freedom to Marry |access-date=July 19, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/doma-unconstitutional-ruling-appeals-court-boston_n_1559031.html|title=DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional By Federal Appeals Court |last=Lavoie |first=Denise |date=May 31, 2012|work=The Huffington Post|access-date=July 19, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/defense-of-marriage-act-discriminates-against-gays-federal-court-rules-85899424320|title=Defense of Marriage Act Discriminates Against Gays, Federal Court Rules|last=Malewitz|first=Jim|date=October 18, 2012 |publisher=Pewstates.org|access-date=October 20, 2012}}</ref> On October 18, 2012, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|Second Circuit Court of Appeals]] became the first court to hold sexual orientation to be a [[suspect classification|quasi-suspect classification]] and applied [[intermediate scrutiny]] to strike down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional in ''[[Windsor v. United States]]''.<ref>{{cite web|last=Tiven|first=Rachel|title=Edie Wins! Another Ruling Against DOMA, What It Means|url=http://www.immigrationequality.org/2012/10/edie-wins-another-ruling-against-doma-what-it-means/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121027051854/http://www.immigrationequality.org/2012/10/edie-wins-another-ruling-against-doma-what-it-means/|url-status=dead|archive-date=October 27, 2012|publisher=[[Immigration Equality (organization)]]|access-date=October 23, 2012}}</ref> The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in ''Windsor'' on June 26, 2013, that Section 3 violated the Fifth Amendment.<ref>{{cite news|title=Live Analysis of the Supreme Court Decisions on Gay Marriage |url=http://projects.nytimes.com/live-dashboard/2013-06-26-supreme-court-gay-marriage|access-date=June 26, 2013|newspaper=New York Times|date=June 26, 2013}}</ref>{{efn|Other cases that sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court were ''[[Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management]]'', ''[[Gill v. Office of Personnel Management]]'', ''[[Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services]]'', and ''[[Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management]]''.}}

As a result of the ''Windsor'' decision, married same-sex couples—regardless of domicile—have federal tax benefits (including the ability to file joint federal income tax returns), military benefits, federal employment benefits, and immigration benefits.<ref>{{cite web|title=After DOMA: Military Spousal Benefits|url=https://www.lambdalegal.org/publications/after-doma-military-spouses|website=Lambda Legal|access-date=December 19, 2017|date=November 15, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Condon|first1=Stephanie|title=One year after DOMA ruling, same-sex couples still face benefits gaps|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/one-year-after-doma-ruling-same-sex-couples-still-face-benefits-gaps/|access-date=December 19, 2017|publisher=CBS News|date=June 26, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Wolf|first1=Richard|title=Veterans' same-sex spouses eligible for federal benefits|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/04/same-sex-veterans-obama-benefits/2764197/|access-date=September 4, 2013|newspaper=USA Today|date=September 4, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=John Kerry Announces Visa Changes for Same-Sex Couples|url=http://blogs.usembassy.gov/malaysia/2013/08/05/john-kerry-announces-visa-changes-for-same-sex-couples/|publisher=U.S. Embassy Kuala Lumpur|access-date=July 26, 2014|date=August 2, 2013|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140322114025/http://blogs.usembassy.gov/malaysia/2013/08/05/john-kerry-announces-visa-changes-for-same-sex-couples/|archive-date=March 22, 2014}}</ref> In February 2014, the [[United States Department of Justice|Justice Department]] expanded federal recognition of same-sex marriages to include bankruptcies, prison visits, survivor benefits and refusing to testify against a spouse.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Perez |first1=Evan|title=U.S. expands legal benefits, services for same-sex marriages|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/08/politics/holder-same-sex-marriage-rights/|publisher=CNN|access-date=July 26, 2014|date=February 10, 2014}}</ref> Likewise in June 2014, family [[medical leave]] benefits under the ''Family Medical Leave Act 1975'' were extended to married same-sex couples.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Chappell |first1=Bill|title=Married Same-Sex Couples To Receive More Federal Benefits |url=https://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/06/20/323855724/same-sex-couples-across-u-s-to-receive-broader-benefits |access-date=July 26, 2014 |publisher=NPR |date=June 20, 2014}}</ref> With respect to [[social security]] and veterans benefits, same-sex married couples are eligible for full benefits from the [[United States Department of Veterans Affairs|Veterans Affairs]] (VA) and the [[Social Security Administration]] (SSA). Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'' on June 26, 2015, the VA and SSA could provide only limited benefits to married same-sex couples living in states where same-sex marriage was not legal.<ref name="Guardian20140620">{{cite news|last1=Glenza|first1=Jessica|title=Federal agencies roll out benefits for married same-sex couples|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/20/same-sex-couples-benefits-expanded-obama-administration |access-date=July 26, 2014 |newspaper=The Guardian|date=June 20, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Capehart|first1=Jonathan|title=Fix the Social Security discrepancy DOMA left behind |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/05/09/fix-the-social-security-discrepancy-doma-left-behind/ |access-date=July 26, 2014|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=May 9, 2014}}</ref> Effective March 27, 2015, the definition of spouse under the ''[[Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993]]'' includes employees in a same-sex marriage regardless of state of residence.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Forman|first1=Shira|title=DOL Issues Final Rule Amending FMLA Definition of "Spouse" to Include Same-Sex Marriages|url=http://www.natlawreview.com/article/dol-issues-final-rule-amending-fmla-definition-spouse-to-include-same-sex-marriages|access-date=February 28, 2015|publisher=Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP|date=February 27, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Trotier|first1=Geoffrey S.|title=FMLA "Spouse" Definition Now Includes Same-Sex Spouses and Common-Law Spouses|journal=The National Law Review|date=February 24, 2015|url=http://www.natlawreview.com/article/fmla-spouse-definition-now-includes-same-sex-spouses-and-common-law-spouses|access-date=February 28, 2015|publisher=von Briesen & Roper, s.c}}</ref> Following the ''Obergefell'' decision, the Justice Department extended all federal marriage benefits to married same-sex couples nationwide.<ref name="lynch"/>

The [[Federal government of the United States|federal government]] recognizes the marriages of same-sex couples who married in certain states in which same-sex marriage was legal for brief periods between the time a court order allowed such couples to marry and that court order was stayed, including [[DeBoer v. Snyder|Michigan]]. It also recognized marriages performed in [[Kitchen v. Herbert|Utah]] from December 20, 2013, to January 6, 2014, even while the state didn't. Under similar circumstances, it never took a position on [[Baskin v. Bogan|Indiana]] or [[Wolf v. Walker|Wisconsin]]'s marriages performed in brief periods, though it did recognize them once the respective states announced they would do so. It had not taken a position with respect to similar marriages in [[Wright v. Arkansas|Arkansas]] prior to the ''Obergefell'' decision legalizing and recognizing same-sex marriages in all fifty states.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Johnson|first1=Chris|title=DOJ pressured to recognize same-sex marriages in 3 states|url=http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/09/19/doj-pressured-recognize-sex-marriages-3-states/|access-date=September 24, 2014|work=Washington Blade|date=September 19, 2014}}</ref> The [[State Marriage Defense Act]] was proposed in Congress to force the federal government to follow individual state laws regarding same-sex marriage although it never passed either chamber.<ref name="washingtonpost.com2">{{cite news |date=February 2014 |title=Cruz, Lee introduce 'State Marriage Defense Act' |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |publisher= |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/02/13/cruz-lee-introduce-state-marriage-defense-act/}}</ref>

Opponents of same-sex marriage have worked to prevent individual states from recognizing same-sex unions by attempting to amend the United States Constitution to restrict marriage to heterosexual unions. In 2006, the ''[[Federal Marriage Amendment]]'', which would have prohibited states from recognizing same-sex marriages, was approved by the [[United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary|Senate Judiciary Committee]] on a party-line vote and was debated by the full [[United States Senate|Senate]], but was ultimately defeated in both houses of Congress.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/same.sex.marriage/index.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080511145406/http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/same.sex.marriage/index.html|title=Senate blocks same-sex marriage ban|publisher=CNN|date=June 7, 2006|archive-date=May 11, 2008|access-date=July 5, 2006}}</ref>  On April 2, 2014, the [[Alabama House of Representatives]] adopted a resolution calling for a [[Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution|constitutional convention]] to propose an amendment to ban same-sex marriage nationwide.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20140402/NEWS/304020079/Alabama-House-approves-call-put-same-sex-marriage-ban-U-S-Constitution |title=Alabama House approves call to put same-sex marriage ban in U.S. Constitution |work=Montgomery Advertiser |date=April 2, 2014 |access-date=April 3, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140412171146/http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20140402/NEWS/304020079/Alabama-House-approves-call-put-same-sex-marriage-ban-U-S-Constitution |archive-date=April 12, 2014 }}</ref>

In 2022, Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] named ''Obergefell v. Hodges'' as a case that should be revisited in his concurrence of ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]'', which had overturned ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' and ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'' on the basis that abortion protection was not a "deeply rooted" right in the Constitution. To prevent the loss of the right to same-sex marriage, the House of Representatives passed the [[Respect for Marriage Act]] which would nullify DOMA and protect existing same-sex and interracial marriage licenses. In July, the bill passed 267–157, with 47 Republican representatives joining the Democrats.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/19/politics/house-vote-same-sex-marriage-protections-supreme-court/index.html | title = House passes bill to protect same-sex marriage in effort to counter Supreme Court | first1 = Clare | last1 = Foran |first2 = Kristin | last2 = Wilson | date = July 19, 2022 | accessdate = July 19, 2022 | work = [[CNN]] }}</ref> In December, the Senate passed the bill 61–36, and the House again voted 258–169 to pass it.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Wang |first=Amy |date=8 December 2022 |title=House passes landmark legislation to protect same-sex, interracial marriages |newspaper=Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/12/08/respect-for-marriage-act-house-vote/ |access-date=8 December 2022}}</ref> President [[Joe Biden]] signed it into law on December 13, 2022.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Shear|first=Michael D.|date=2022-12-13|title=Biden Signs Bill to Protect Same-Sex Marriage Rights |language=en-US |work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/13/us/politics/biden-same-sex-marriage-bill.html|access-date=2022-12-13|issn=0362-4331}}</ref>

===State and territorial recognition===
{{Further|Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state}}
Same-sex marriages are licensed in and recognized by all U.S. states and the [[Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia|District of Columbia]], as well as all U.S. territories except [[LGBTQ rights in American Samoa|American Samoa]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/samesex-marriage-american-samoa-may-be-the-only-territory-in-the-us-where-the-historic-supreme-court-ruling-does-not-apply-10379804.html|title=Same-sex marriage: American Samoa may be the only territory in the US where the historic Supreme Court ruling does not apply|work=The Independent|date=July 10, 2015|access-date=September 2, 2015}}</ref> However, under the [[Respect for Marriage Act]], American Samoa must recognize all marriages between two people that were legally performed in another jurisdiction.

On January 6, 2016, Alabama's Chief Justice, [[Roy Moore]], issued a ruling forbidding state officials from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.<ref name="RoyMoore">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alabama-chief-justice-orders-halt-gay-marriage-n491521|title=Alabama Chief Justice Orders Halt to Gay Marriage|first=Pete|last=Williams|date=January 6, 2016|access-date=January 6, 2016|publisher=NBC News}}</ref> The ruling had no effect as all Alabama counties continued either issuing marriage licenses to all couples or not issuing licenses at all. In May 2016, Moore was charged with ethics violations by the state Judicial Inquiry Commission for the ruling,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alabama-gaymarriage-idUSKCN0XY042|title=Alabama's top judge faces ethics charges over gay-marriage order|work=Reuters|date=May 7, 2016}}</ref> subsequently being suspended from the bench for the remainder of his term on September 30 of that year.<ref name="almedgrp">{{Cite news|url=http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2016/09/alabama_supreme_court_chief_ju.html|title=Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore suspended for rest of term|publisher=Alabama Media Group|first=Kent|last=Faulk|date=September 30, 2016|access-date=September 30, 2016}}</ref>

====Counties not issuing marriage licenses====
As of 2020, there are apparently no counties in the United States that do not (or would not) register the marriages of same-sex couple. 
* Officials of one [[Same-sex marriage in Texas|Texas]] county, [[Irion County, Texas|Irion]], issued marriage licenses, but claimed they would refuse same-sex couples.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-04-21 |title=Is Gay Marriage Legal in Texas? |url=https://texasdivorcelaws.org/gay-marriage-legal-in-texas/ |access-date=2022-08-29 |website=texasdivorcelaws.org |language=en-US}}</ref> Starting in 2017, they refused to comment on what they would do if a same-sex couple were to apply for license.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/texas-senate-votes-to-allow-county-clerks-to-refuse-issuing-same-sex-marriage-permits-9362348|title=Texas Senate Approves Recusals For County Clerks Opposed to Same-Sex Marriage|work=Dallas Observer|last=Young|first=Stephen|date=April 12, 2017}}</ref> However, as of March 2020, the Irion County clerk stated she would issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and the form available on the office's website was not gender specific and stated no restrictions as to the genders of the applicants.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Irion County Clerk|url=http://www.co.irion.tx.us/page/irion.County.Clerk}}</ref>
* Officials in several [[Same-sex marriage in Alabama|Alabama]] counties initially stopped issuing any marriage licenses rather than issue them to same-sex couples. By 2017, the number of counties doing this to avoid issuing them to same-sex couples dropped to eight.<ref name=":1">{{Cite news|url=http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2016/10/at_least_8_alabama_counties_st.html|title=Eight Alabama counties still refuse to issue marriage licenses despite gay marriage ruling|newspaper=AL.com|access-date=October 21, 2016}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite news|url=http://altoday.com/archives/17555-two-years-later-7-alabama-counties-still-not-issuing-marriage-licences-sex-couples|title=2yrs later, 7co. still not issuing same-sex marriage licenses|date=June 29, 2017|work=Alabama Today|access-date=July 7, 2017|language=en-US}}</ref> This was in accordance with a state law, which was passed in 1961 to preserve racial segregation by making it optional for county clerks to issue marriage licenses.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/10/alabama_judges_use_segregation.html|title=Alabama judges use segregation-era law to avoid gay marriage|newspaper=AL.com|access-date=October 21, 2016}}</ref> The [[Alabama Legislature]] passed a bill replacing marriage licenses with marriage certificates in May 2019.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.fox10tv.com/news/here-s-how-getting-married-in-alabama-will-change-with/article_6766168e-87de-11e9-bead-8f16dc6c173a.html|title=Here's how getting married in Alabama will change with no marriage licenses|last=Kirby|first=Brendan|website=FOX10 News|language=en|access-date=August 29, 2019}}</ref> These final eight counties resumed allowing couples to marry on August 29, 2019.
* Several [[Same-sex marriage in Kentucky|Kentucky]] counties initially refused to marry same-sex couples. In response, Kentucky reformed its marriage license forms and removed the name of the county clerk from the licenses. As of June 2016, Chris Hartmann, director of the Kentucky-based Fairness Campaign, said that to his knowledge "there are no counties where marriage licenses are being denied" in his state.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=http://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/06/22/one-year-after-supreme-court-ruling-pockets-of-marriage-inequality-remain/|title=One year after marriage ruling, pockets of defiance remain|date=June 22, 2016|website=Washington Blade: Gay News, Politics, LGBT Rights|access-date=July 17, 2016}}</ref>

====Parental rights====
{{main|LGBTQ adoption in the United States}}
Post-''Obergefell'', six states have, on occasion, attempted to deny same-sex couples full adoption rights to varying degrees. In [[Arkansas]], [[Florida]], [[Indiana]], and [[Wisconsin]], same-sex couples have been met with rejection when trying to get both parents' names listed on the birth certificate. In ''[[V.L. v. E.L.]]'', Alabama's highest court attempted to void an adoption decree obtained by a same-sex couple in Georgia, but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed, restoring joint custody to the adoptive mother on March 7, 2016. [[Mississippi]] had once banned same-sex couples from adopting, but the law requiring this was ruled unconstitutional by the [[United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi]] on March 31, 2016. With that ruling, adoption by same-sex couples became legal in all fifty states.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/mississippi-same-sex-adoption_us_56fdb1a3e4b083f5c607567f?section=australia|title=Same-Sex Couples Can Now Adopt Children In All 50 States|work=The Huffington Post|date=March 31, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/04/01/mississippi_same_sex_adoption_ban_overturned_spelling_trouble_for_hb_1523.html|title=Judge Invalidates Mississippi's Same-Sex Adoption Ban, the Last of Its Kind in America|magazine=Slate|date=March 31, 2016}}</ref>

On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court ruled by a 6–3 vote in the case of ''[[Pavan v. Smith]]'' that under their decision in ''Obergefell'', same-sex couples must be treated equally to opposite-sex couples in the issuance of birth certificates. In December 2016, the Supreme Court of Arkansas upheld a state law only allowing opposite-sex couples to be automatically listed as parents on their children's birth certificates, while prohibiting same-sex couples from being allowed the same on an equal basis. The Supreme Court summarily reversed the Arkansas Supreme Court, finding that the disparity in treatment violated their decision in ''Obergefell''.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/gay-couples-entitled-to-equal-treatment-on-birth-certificates-justices-rule.html Gay Couples Entitled to Equal Treatment on Birth Certificates, Justice Rule] ''The New York Times'', June 26, 2017</ref>

===Tribal law===
{{main|Same-sex marriage in tribal nations in the United States}}
The Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the states and territories did not legalize same-sex marriage in Native American tribal nations. In the United States, Congress (not the federal courts) has legal authority over Native reservations. Thus, unless Congress passes a law regarding same-sex marriage on such reservations, federally recognized Native American tribes have the legal right to form their own marriage laws.<ref>{{cite news|author=[[Julian Brave NoiseCat]] |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/02/navajo-marriage-equality_n_7709016.html |title=Fight For Marriage Equality Not Over On Navajo Nation |work=The Huffington Post |date=July 2, 2015 |access-date=July 2, 2015}}</ref> As of the time of the ''Obergefell'' ruling, [[Same-sex marriage in tribal nations in the United States|25 tribal nations]] legally recognized same-sex marriage. Some tribes have passed legislation specifically addressing same-sex relationships and some specify that state law and jurisdiction govern tribal marriages. As of April 2022, same-sex marriage is legally recognized in at least 47 tribal nations.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2021-09-30 |title=Here's How Same-Sex Marriage Laws Differ On Tribal Lands |url=https://www.bpr.org/news/2021-09-30/heres-how-same-sex-marriage-laws-differ-on-tribal-lands |access-date=2022-08-29 |website=BPR |language=en}}</ref>

===Local laws prior to ''Obergefell v. Hodges''===
{{Map of same-sex marriage in the United States prior to Obergefell|align=left}}
Prior to ''Obergefell'', [[same-sex marriage]] was legal to at least some degree in thirty-eight states, one territory ([[Same-sex marriage in Guam|Guam]]) and the [[Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia|District of Columbia]]; of the states, [[Same-sex marriage in Missouri|Missouri]], [[Same-sex marriage in Kansas|Kansas]], and [[Same-sex marriage in Alabama|Alabama]] had restrictions. Until ''[[United States v. Windsor]]'', it was only legal in 12 states and the [[District of Columbia]]. Beginning in July 2013, over forty federal and state courts cited ''Windsor'' to strike down state bans on the licensing or recognition of same-sex marriage. [[Same-sex marriage in Missouri|Missouri]] recognized same-sex marriages from out of state and same-sex marriages licensed by the [[St. Louis|City of St. Louis]] under two separate [[Same-sex marriage in Missouri|state court orders]]; two other jurisdictions issued such licenses as well. In [[Same-sex marriage in Kansas|Kansas]], marriage licenses were available to same-sex couples in most counties, but the state did not recognize their validity. Some counties in [[Same-sex marriage in Alabama|Alabama]] issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples for three weeks until the [[Supreme Court of Alabama|state Supreme Court]] ordered probate judges to stop doing so. That court's ruling did not address the recognition of same-sex marriages already licensed in Alabama, but referred to them as "purported 'marriage licenses{{' "}}.<ref>{{cite web|title=Petition Granted|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/257589071/1140460-Petition-Granted|website=Scribd.com|publisher=Supreme Court of Alabama|access-date=March 24, 2015|page=27}}</ref> In two additional states, same-sex marriages were previously legal between the time their bans were struck down and then [[Stay of proceedings#United States|stayed]]. [[Same-sex marriage in Michigan|Michigan]] recognized the validity of more than 300 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples and those marriages. [[Same-sex marriage in Arkansas|Arkansas]] recognized the more than 500 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples there,<ref>{{cite news|last1=DeMillo|first1=Andrew|title=Judge: Arkansas Must Recognize in-State Same-Sex Marriages|url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-arkansas-recognize-state-sex-marriages-31648493|access-date=June 9, 2015|agency=Associated Press|publisher=ABC News|date=June 9, 2015}}</ref> and the [[Federal government of the United States|Federal Government]] had not taken a position on Arkansas's marriage licenses.
{{clear}}
{|class="wikitable sortable"
|-
|+ States and territories with same-sex marriage before ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]''
|-
! State or territory !! Population<ref name="Census">U.S. Census estimate, 2014: {{cite web|work=Annual Population Estimates|url=https://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2014/index.html|title=State Totals: Vintage 2014|publisher=United States Census Bureau|access-date=December 26, 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141225191038/http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2014/index.html|archive-date=December 25, 2014}} The Census Bureau population estimate for 2014 was 318,857,056 for the states and the District of Columbia.</ref>!! Date of Enactment/Ruling!! Date Effective !! Legalization method !! Details
|-
| {{nowrap|{{flagdeco|Alaska}} [[Same-sex marriage in Alaska|Alaska]]}}
| style="text-align:right"| 736,732
| {{dts|2014|10|12}}
| {{dts|2014|10|17}}
| Federal court decision
| [[U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska]] ruling in ''[[Same-sex marriage in Alaska|Hamby v. Parnell]]''.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.adn.com/article/20141012/federal-judge-rules-alaskas-same-sex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional |agency=Alaska Dispatch|title=Federal judge rules Alaska's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional |date=October 12, 2014 |access-date=October 12, 2014}}</ref>
|-
| {{nowrap|{{flagdeco|Arizona}} [[Same-sex marriage in Arizona|Arizona]]}}
| style="text-align:right"|6,731,484
| {{dts|2014|10|17}}
| {{dts|2014|10|17}}
| | Federal court decision
| [[U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona]] ruling in ''[[Same-sex marriage in Arizona|Connolly v. Jeanes]]'' and in ''[[Same-sex marriage in Arizona|Majors v. Horne]]''.<ref>{{cite web|title=Connoly v. Jeanes, order and opinion|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/243343079/2-14-cv-00024-88|publisher=United States District Court for the District of Arizona|access-date=October 17, 2014}}</ref>
|-
| rowspan="2"|{{flagdeco|California}} [[Same-sex marriage in California|California]]
| rowspan="2" style="text-align:right"| 38,802,500
| {{dts|2008|5|15}}
| {{dts|2008|6|16}}
| State court decision → overturned by constitutional ban
| [[California Supreme Court]] ruling in ''[[In re Marriage Cases]]''. Ceased via state constitutional amendment after [[Proposition 8]] passed on November 5, 2008.
|-
| {{dts|2010|8|4}}
| {{dts|2013|6|28}}
| Federal court decision → legislative statute
| [[U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California]] ruling in ''[[Perry v. Schwarzenegger]]'', finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Stayed during appeal, affirmed by the [[Same-sex marriage in the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]] as ''Perry v. Brown''. Certiorari granted and appealed as ''Hollingsworth v. Perry'' to the U.S. Supreme Court; the high court dismissed ''Hollingsworth'' for [[standing (law)|lack of standing]] and [[vacatur|vacated]] the Ninth Circuit decision below, resulting with the original decision in ''Perry'' left intact.<ref name="blog.sfgate.com">{{cite news|url=http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2013/06/28/prop-8-officially-out-sf-weddings-begin/|title=Prop. 8 officially out — SF weddings begin|work=San Francisco Chronicle |access-date=June 28, 2013}}</ref> Gender-neutral marriage bill passed by the [[California State Legislature]] and signed into law by the [[Governor of California]] took effect on January 1, 2015.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2014/07/07/california-removes-husband-wife-from-marriage-statutes/ |title=California removes 'husband' 'wife' from marriage statutes |first=Melody |last=Gutierrez |date=July 7, 2014 |access-date=October 6, 2014 |work=San Francisco Chronicle|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140711172151/http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2014/07/07/california-removes-husband-wife-from-marriage-statutes/|archive-date=July 11, 2014}}</ref>
|-
| rowspan="2"| {{nowrap|{{flagdeco|Colorado}} [[Same-sex marriage in Colorado|Colorado]]}}
| rowspan="2" style="text-align:right"| 5,355,866
| {{dts|2014|7|9}}
| rowspan="2"| {{dts|2014|10|7}}
| State court decision → legislative statute
| [[Colorado district courts|Colorado district court]] ruling in ''[[Brinkman v. Long]]'' and statutorily codified since August 2, 2019.
|-
| {{dts|2014|7|23}}
| Federal court decision → legislative statute
| [[U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado]] ruling in ''[[Burns v. Hickenlooper]]'' and statutorily codified since August 2, 2019. 
|-
| {{flagdeco|Connecticut}} [[Same-sex marriage in Connecticut|Connecticut]]
|style="text-align:right"| 3,596,677
| {{dts|2008|10|10}}
| {{dts|2008|11|12}}
| State court decision → legislative statute
| [[Connecticut Supreme Court]] ruling in ''[[Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health]]'' and statutorily codified since October 1, 2010.
|-
| {{flagdeco|Delaware}} [[Same-sex marriage in Delaware|Delaware]]
|style="text-align:right"| 935,614
| {{dts|2013|5|7}}
| {{dts|2013|7|1}}
| Legislative statute
| Passed by the [[Delaware General Assembly]] and signed into law by the [[Governor of Delaware]].
|- style="background:#f5f5e4;"
| {{flagdeco|District of Columbia}} [[Same-sex marriage in District of Columbia|District of Columbia]]
|style="text-align:right"| 658,893
| {{dts|2009|12|18}}
| {{dts|2010|3|9}}
| Legislative statute
| Passed by the [[Council of the District of Columbia]].
|-
| {{nowrap|{{flagdeco|Florida}} [[Same-sex marriage in Florida|Florida]]}}
|style="text-align:right;"| 19,893,297
| {{dts|2014|08|21}}
| {{dts|2015|01|06}}
| Federal court decision
| [[U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida]] ruling in ''[[Brenner v. Scott]]''.
|- style="background:#f5f5d3;"
| {{nowrap|{{flagdeco|Guam}} [[Same-sex marriage in Guam|Guam]]}}
| style="text-align:right"| 165,124 (not included in population total)
| {{dts|2015|06|05}}
| {{dts|2015|06|09}}
| Binding federal court precedent → actions of territorial officials → federal court decision → legislative statute
| Attorney General [[Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson]] deferred to the controlling precedent set by the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]] in ''[[Latta v. Otter]]'', ordering that marriage licenses for same-sex couples be processed immediately beginning on April 15, 2015.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/marriage-equality-comes-to-guam|agency=BuzzFeed|title=Marriage Equality Comes To Guam|first=Chris|last=Geidner|date=April 14, 2015|access-date=April 14, 2015}}</ref> [[District Court of Guam]] ruling in ''[[Same-sex marriage in Guam#licensing same-sex marriage|Aguero v. Calvo]]'' upholding the earlier decision by the Ninth Circuit and statutorily codified since August 27, 2015.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.guampdn.com/story/news/2015/06/04/guam-court-issues-ruling-on-same-sex-marriage/28511013/|agency=Pacific Daily News|title=Court strikes down Guam's same-sex marriage ban|first=Cameron|last=Miculka|date=June 5, 2015|access-date=June 29, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.metroweekly.com/2015/08/guam-passes-marriage-equality-and-employment-nondiscrimination-acts/|title=Guam passes marriage equality and employment nondiscrimination acts|work=Metro Weekly|date=August 12, 2015|access-date=September 2, 2015}}</ref>
|-
| {{flagdeco|Hawaii}} [[Same-sex marriage in Hawaii|Hawaii]]
|style="text-align:right"| 1,419,561
| {{dts|2013|11|13}}
| {{dts|2013|12|2}}
| Legislative statute
| ''[[Hawaii Marriage Equality Act]]'' passed by the [[Hawaii State Legislature]] and signed into law by the [[Governor of Hawaii]].
|-
| {{nowrap|{{flagdeco|Idaho}} [[Same-sex marriage in Idaho|Idaho]]}}
| style="text-align:right"| 1,634,464
| {{dts|2014|10|7}}
| {{dts|2014|10|15}}
| Federal court decision
| [[U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho]] ruling in ''[[Latta v. Otter]]'',<ref>{{cite news |title=Judge rules Idaho gay marriage ban unconstitutional |url=http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/05/13/3183291/judge-rules-idaho-gay-marriage.html?sp=/99/1687/&ihp=1 |archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20140516095403/http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/05/13/3183291/judge-rules-idaho-gay-marriage.html?sp=/99/1687/&ihp=1 |url-status=dead |archive-date=May 16, 2014 |access-date=May 13, 2014 |newspaper=Idaho Statesman |date=May 13, 2014  }}</ref> upheld by the Ninth Circuit.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Geidner|first1=Chris|title=Idaho And Nevada Marriage Bans Are Unconstitutional, Federal Appeals Court Rules|url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/idaho-and-nevado-marriage-bans-are-unconstitutional-federal#3qn1tx0 |access-date=October 7, 2014|publisher=BuzzFeed News|date=October 7, 2014}}</ref>
|-
| {{nowrap|{{flagdeco|Illinois}} [[Same-sex marriage in Illinois|Illinois]]}}
|style="text-align:right"| 12,880,580
| {{dts|2013|11|20}}
| {{dts|2014|6|1}}
| Legislative statute
| Passed by the [[Illinois General Assembly]] and signed into law by the [[Governor of Illinois]].
|-
|{{nowrap|{{flagdeco|Indiana}} [[Same-sex marriage in Indiana|Indiana]]}}
| style="text-align:right"| 6,596,855
| {{dts|2014|9|4}}
| {{dts|2014|10|6}}
| Federal court decision
|[[U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana]] ruling in ''[[Baskin v. Bogan]]''. The [[Same-sex marriage in the Seventh Circuit|Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals]] affirmed the district court's ruling.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Johnson |first1=Chris|title=7th Circuit stays decision on Indiana same-sex marriage|url=http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/09/15/7th-circuit-stays-decision-indiana-sex-marriage/ |access-date=September 15, 2014|work=Washington Blade |date=September 15, 2014}}</ref>
|-
| {{flagdeco|Iowa}} [[Same-sex marriage in Iowa|Iowa]]
|style="text-align:right"| 3,107,126
| {{dts|2009|4|3}}
| {{dts|2009|4|27}}
| State court decision
| [[Iowa Supreme Court]] ruling in ''[[Varnum v. Brien]]''. One same-sex couple obtained a marriage licensed and married before initial ruling was stayed.<ref>{{cite news |first=Kyle |last=Miller |title=A window of opportunity |url=http://www.iowastatedaily.com/news/article_35fcb33a-fcf6-5492-a0bd-bada2270e343.html |date=September 4, 2007 |access-date=April 5, 2013 |work=[[Iowa State Daily]] |archive-date=January 8, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180108233519/http://www.iowastatedaily.com/news/article_35fcb33a-fcf6-5492-a0bd-bada2270e343.html |url-status=dead }}</ref>
|-
| {{flagdeco|Maine}} [[Same-sex marriage in Maine|Maine]]
|style="text-align:right"| 1,330,089
| {{dts|2012|11|6}}
| {{dts|2012|12|29}}
| Initiative statute
| Proposed by initiative as referendum [[Maine Question 1, 2012|Question 1]], approved.
|-
| {{flagdeco|Maryland}} [[Same-sex marriage in Maryland|Maryland]]
|style="text-align:right"| 5,976,407
| {{dts|2012|11|6}}
| {{dts|2013|1|1}}
| Legislative statute → referendum
| ''[[Civil Marriage Protection Act]]'' passed by the [[Maryland General Assembly]]; petitioned to referendum [[Maryland Question 6|Question 6]], upheld.
|-
| {{nowrap|{{flagdeco|Massachusetts}} [[Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts|Massachusetts]]}}
|style="text-align:right"| 6,745,408
| {{dts|2003|11|18}}
| {{dts|2004|5|17}}
| State court decision
| [[Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court]] ruling in ''[[Goodridge v. Department of Public Health]]''.
|-
| {{flagdeco|Minnesota}} [[Same-sex marriage in Minnesota|Minnesota]]
|style="text-align:right"| 5,457,173
| {{dts|2013|5|14}}
| {{dts|2013|8|1}}
| Legislative statute
| Passed by the [[Minnesota Legislature]] and signed into law by the [[Governor of Minnesota]].
|-
| {{nowrap|{{flagdeco|Montana}} [[Same-sex marriage in Montana|Montana]]}}
|style="text-align:right;"| 1,023,579
| {{dts|2014|11|19}}
| {{dts|2014|11|19}}
| Federal court decision
| [[U.S. District Court for the District of Montana]] ruling in ''[[Rolando v. Fox]]''.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Johnson|first1=Chris|title=Judge strikes down Montana ban on same-sex marriage|url=http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/11/19/judge-strikes-montana-ban-sex-marriage/|access-date=November 19, 2014|work=Washington Blade|date=November 19, 2014}}</ref>
|-
| {{nowrap|{{flagdeco|Nevada}} [[Same-sex marriage in Nevada|Nevada]]}}
| style="text-align:right"| 2,839,099
| {{dts|2014|10|7}}
| {{dts|2014|10|9}}
| Federal court decision → legislative statute
| [[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]] ruling in ''[[Sevcik v. Sandoval]]''. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the [[U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada]]'s ruling and statutorily codified since July 1, 2017.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Geidner|first1=Chris|title=Idaho And Nevada Marriage Bans Are Unconstitutional, Federal Appeals Court Rules|url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/idaho-and-nevado-marriage-bans-are-unconstitutional-federal#3qn1tx0|access-date=October 7, 2014|publisher=BuzzFeed News|date=October 7, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Duffy|first1=Nick|title=Nevada amends laws to formally recognise same-sex marriage|url=http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/05/29/nevada-amends-laws-to-formally-recognise-same-sex-marriage/|access-date=July 3, 2017|newspaper=PinkNews|date=October 7, 2014}}</ref><ref>[https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/79th2017/Reports/history.cfm?DocumentType=1&BillNo=229 ''Nevada Bill AB229''.] Nevada Legislature. Retrieved July 3, 2017.</ref>
|-
| {{flagdeco|New Hampshire}} [[Same-sex marriage in New Hampshire|New Hampshire]]
|style="text-align:right"| 1,326,813
| {{dts|2009|6|3}}
| {{dts|2010|1|1}}
| Legislative statute
| Passed by the [[New Hampshire General Court]] and signed into law by the [[Governor of New Hampshire]].
|-
| {{flagdeco|New Jersey}} [[Same-sex marriage in New Jersey|New Jersey]]
|style="text-align:right"| 8,938,175
| {{dts|2013|9|27}}
| {{dts|2013|10|21}}
| State court decision → legislative statute
| [[New Jersey Superior Court]] ruling in ''[[Garden State Equality v. Dow]]'' and statutorily codified since January 10, 2022.
|-
| {{nowrap|{{flagdeco|New Mexico}} [[Same-sex marriage in New Mexico|New Mexico]]}}
|style="text-align:right"| 2,085,572
| {{dts|2013|12|19}}
| {{dts|2013|12|19}}
| State court decision → legislative statute
| [[New Mexico Supreme Court]] ruling in ''[[Griego v. Oliver]]'' and statutorily codified since July 1, 2019.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nmlegis.gov/Legislation/Legislation?chamber=S&legtype=B&legno=503&year=19|title=SB 503|website=www.nmlegis.gov}}</ref>
|-
| {{flagdeco|New York}} [[Same-sex marriage in New York|New York]]
|style="text-align:right"| 19,746,227
| {{dts|2011|6|24}}
| {{dts|2011|7|24}}
| Legislative statute
| ''[[Marriage Equality Act (New York)|Marriage Equality Act]]'' passed by the [[New York State Legislature]] and signed into law by the [[Governor of New York]].
|-
| {{nowrap|{{flagdeco|North Carolina}} [[Same-sex marriage in North Carolina|North Carolina]]}}
| style="text-align:right"| 9,943,964
| {{dts|2014|10|10}}
| {{dts|2014|10|10}}
| Federal court decision → legislative statute
| [[U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina]] ruling in ''[[Same-sex marriage in North Carolina#General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Cooper|General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Cooper]]'' and statutorily codified since July 12, 2017.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Gordon|first1=Michael|title=Gay marriage is now legal in North Carolina|url=http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/10/10/5232525/nc-gop-leaders-given-until-noon.html#.VDhUdmddWHU|access-date=October 10, 2014|work=Charlotte Observer|date=October 10, 2014}}</ref>
|-
| {{nowrap|{{flagdeco|Oklahoma}} [[Same-sex marriage in Oklahoma|Oklahoma]]}}
|style="text-align:right"| 3,878,051
| {{dts|2014|7|18}}
| {{dts|2014|10|6}}
| Federal court decision
| | [[U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma]] ruling in ''[[Same-sex marriage in Oklahoma|Bishop v. Oklahoma]]''. The [[Same-sex marriage in the Tenth Circuit|Tenth Circuit]] affirmed the ruling in ''Bishop v. Smith''.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-5003.pdf |title=Opinion of the Court in Nos. 14–5003 & 14–5006, Bishop, et al v. Smith, et al |publisher=United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit |access-date=July 18, 2014 |archive-date=July 25, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140725223512/https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-5003.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>
|-
| {{nowrap|{{flagdeco|Oregon}} [[Same-sex marriage in Oregon|Oregon]]}}
|style="text-align:right"| 3,970,239
| {{dts|2014|5|19}}
| {{dts|2014|5|19}}
| Federal court decision → legislative statute
| [[U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon]] ruling in ''[[Geiger v. Kitzhaber]]'' and statutorily codified since January 1, 2016.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2015/HB2478/|title=HB 2478|publisher=Oregon Legislature Bill Tracker|newspaper=The Oregonian|access-date=September 2, 2015}}</ref>
|-
| {{nowrap|{{flagdeco|Pennsylvania}} [[Same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania|Pennsylvania]]}}
|style="text-align:right"| 12,787,209
| {{dts|2014|5|20}}
| {{dts|2014|5|20}}
| Federal court decision
| [[U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania]] ruling in ''[[Whitewood v. Wolf]]''.
|-
| {{flagdeco|Rhode Island}} [[Same-sex marriage in Rhode Island|Rhode Island]]
|style="text-align:right"| 1,055,173
| {{dts|2013|5|2}}
| {{dts|2013|8|1}}
| Legislative statute
| Passed by the [[Rhode Island General Assembly]] and signed into law by the [[Governor of Rhode Island]].
|-
| {{nowrap|{{flagdeco|South Carolina}} [[Same-sex marriage in South Carolina|South Carolina]]}}
|style="text-align:right;"| 4,832,482
| {{dts|2014|11|12}}
| {{dts|2014|11|20}}
| Federal court decision
| [[U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina]] ruling in ''[[Condon v. Haley]]''.<ref>{{cite news|title=Order|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/246361322/2-14-cv-04010-37-South-Carolina-Order|author=United States District Court for the District of South Carolina|publisher=Equality Case Files|access-date=November 12, 2014|date=November 12, 2014}}</ref>
|-
| {{nowrap|{{flagdeco|Utah}} [[Same-sex marriage in Utah|Utah]]}}
| style="text-align:right"| 2,942,902
| {{dts|2014|6|25}}
| {{dts|2014|10|6}}
| Federal court decision
| [[U.S. District Court for the District of Utah]] ruling in ''[[Kitchen v. Herbert]]''. Marriages licensed between December 20, 2013, and January 6, 2014. The [[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals]] affirmed the district court ruling in ''[[Kitchen v. Herbert]]''.
|-
| {{flagdeco|Vermont}} [[Same-sex marriage in Vermont|Vermont]]
|style="text-align:right"| 626,562
| {{dts|2009|4|7}}
| {{dts|2009|9|1}}
| Legislative statute
| Passed by the [[Vermont General Assembly]], overriding Governor [[Jim Douglas]]' veto.
|-
|{{flagdeco|Virginia}} [[Same-sex marriage in Virginia|Virginia]]
| style="text-align:right"| 8,326,289
| {{dts|2014|7|28}}
| {{dts|2014|10|6}} 
| Federal court decision → Legislative statute
| [[U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia]] ruling in ''[[Bostic v. Rainey]]''.<ref>{{cite web|last=Mimica |first=Mila |url=http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Federal-Judge-Rules-Va-Gay-Marriage-Ban-Unconstitutional-245473531.html |title=Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional |publisher=NBC News |date=February 14, 2014 |access-date=February 27, 2014}}</ref> The [[Same-sex marriage in the Fourth Circuit|Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals]] affirmed the U.S. district court ruling in ''Bostic v. Schaefer'' and statutorily codified since July 1, 2020.<ref name="washingtonpost.com">{{cite web|last=Carpenter |first=Dale |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/28/fourth-circuit-strikes-down-virginia-ban-on-same-sex-marriage/ |title=Fourth Circuit strikes down Virginia ban on same-sex marriage |website=The Volokh Conspiracy |date=July 28, 2014 |access-date=August 21, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Virginia ban on same-sex marriage, civil unions repealed |url=https://augustafreepress.com/virginia-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-civil-unions-repealed/|last=Graham|first=Chris|publisher=Augusta Free Press|date=March 3, 2020|access-date=March 7, 2020}}</ref>
|-
| {{flagicon|Washington}} [[Same-sex marriage in Washington state|Washington]]
|style="text-align:right"| 7,061,530
| {{dts|2012|11|6}}
| {{dts|2012|12|6}}
| Legislative statute → referendum
| Passed by the [[Washington State Legislature]]; suspended by petition and referred to [[Washington Referendum 74|Referendum 74]], approved.
|-
| {{nowrap|{{flagdeco|West Virginia}} [[Same-sex marriage in West Virginia|West Virginia]]}}
| style="text-align:right"| 1,850,326
| {{dts|2014|10|9}}
| {{dts|2014|10|9}}
| Binding federal court precedent → actions of state officials → federal court decision
| Governor [[Earl Ray Tomblin]] and state Attorney General [[Patrick Morrisey]], recognizing the precedent established by the [[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|Fourth Circuit]] ruling in ''[[Bostic v. Schaefer]]'', dropped their defense of the state's same-sex marriage ban.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/10/west-virginia-ag-says-state-will-no-longer-defend-same-sex-marriage-ban/|title=West Virginia begins issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples|date=October 9, 2014 |publisher=LGBTQ Nation|access-date=October 14, 2014}}</ref> The [[U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia]] in ''[[McGee v. Cole]]'' overturned West Virginia's statutory ban on same-sex marriage on November 7, 2014.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sdgln.com/news/2014/11/07/west-virginia-gay-marriage-ban-officially-dead#sthash.Y1r98X1y.dpbs|agency=San Diego Gay & Lesbian News|title=West Virginia gay-marriage ban "officially" dead|date=November 7, 2014|access-date=November 14, 2014}}</ref>
|-
|{{nowrap|{{flagdeco|Wisconsin}} [[Same-sex marriage in Wisconsin|Wisconsin]]}}
| style="text-align:right"| 5,757,564
| {{dts|2014|9|4}}
| {{dts|2014|10|6}}
| Federal court decision
| [[U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin]] ruling in ''[[Wolf v. Walker]]''. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling.<ref name="WB20140904">{{cite news|first=Chris|last=Johnson |url=http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/09/04/7th-circuit-rules-marriage-bans-wisconsin-indiana/ |newspaper=Washington Blade| date=September 4, 2014| access-date=September 4, 2014 |title=7th Circuit rules against marriage bans in Wisconsin, Indiana}}</ref>
|-
| {{nowrap|{{flagdeco|Wyoming}} [[Same-sex marriage in Wyoming|Wyoming]]}}
|style="text-align:right;"| 584,153
| {{dts|2014|10|17}}
| {{dts|2014|10|21}}
| | Federal court decision
| [[U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming]] ruling in ''[[Same-sex marriage in Wyoming|Guzzo v. Mead]]''.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/wyoming-prepares-legalize-sex-marriage-26336559|title=Wyoming Becomes Latest to Legalize Gay Marriage |publisher=ABC News |author=Bob Moen |agency=Associated Press|date=October 21, 2014 |access-date=October 21, 2014}}</ref>
|- class="sortbottom" style="background:#bcccbc;"
|colspan=1|'''Total'''
| colspan=5|'''221,434,635 ({{percentage|221434635|318857056|1|pad=y}} of the U.S. population<!--; Guam's excluded from population total-->)'''
|}

''Note: This table shows only states that licensed and recognized same-sex marriages or had legalized them, before Obergefell v. Hodges. It does not include states that recognized same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions but did not license them.''

==Debate==
===Support===
[[File:Garden State Equality May 2011 protest (5694200900).jpg|upright=1.5|thumb|left|2011 protest in [[New Jersey]] by [[Garden State Equality]] in support of same-sex marriage and against [[deportation]] of LGBTQ spouses.]]
In the United States and Canada, professional organizations including the [[American Anthropological Association]], the [[American Counseling Association]], the [[American Academy of Pediatrics]], the [[American Medical Association]], the [[American Academy of Nursing]], the [[American Psychological Association]], the [[American Psychiatric Association]], the [[Canadian Psychological Association]], the [[American Sociological Association]], the [[National Association of Social Workers]], the [[American Psychoanalytic Association]], the [[American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy]], and the [[American Academy of Family Physicians]] have stated that the scientific evidence supports the following conclusions: homosexuality is a natural and normal human sexuality, sexual orientation is not a choice, gay people form stable and committed relationships that are essentially equivalent to the relationships of heterosexuals, same-sex parents are no less capable than opposite-sex parents to raise children, no civilization or viable social order depends on restricting marriage to heterosexuals, and the children of same-sex couples fare just as well or even better than the children of opposite-sex couples.<ref name="science">{{cite web|author=Andy Coghlan|url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex|title=Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex|work=[[New Scientist]]|date=June 16, 2008|access-date=April 5, 2018}}{{indent}}{{cite web|url=https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2602|title=Statement on Marriage and the Family|publisher=[[American Anthropological Association]]|access-date=June 9, 2015}}{{indent}}{{cite book|author1=Mary Ann Lamanna|author2=Agnes Riedmann|author3=Susan D Stewart|title=Marriages, Families, and Relationships: Making Choices in a Diverse Society|publisher=[[Cengage Learning]]|isbn=978-1305176898|year=2014|page=82|access-date=February 11, 2016|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fofaAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA82|quote=[T]he APA says that sexual orientation is not a choice [...]. ([[American Psychological Association]], 2010).}}{{indent}}{{cite journal|url=http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/349.full|title=The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children|publisher=[[American Academy of Pediatrics]]|journal=[[Pediatrics (journal)|Pediatrics]]|year=2006|doi=10.1542/peds.2006-1279|access-date=November 2, 2013|last1=Pawelski|first1=J. G.|last2=Perrin|first2=E. C.|last3=Foy|first3=J. M.|last4=Allen|first4=C. E.|last5=Crawford|first5=J. E.|last6=Del Monte|first6=M.|last7=Kaufman|first7=M.|last8=Klein|first8=J. D.|last9=Smith|first9=K.|last10=Springer|first10=S.|last11=Tanner|first11=J. L.|last12=Vickers|first12=D. L.|volume=118|issue=1|pages=349–364|pmid=16818585|doi-access=|s2cid=219194821  | issn = 0031-4005 }}{{indent}}{{cite web|author=[[American Medical Association]], [[American Academy of Pediatrics]], [[American Psychological Association]], [[American Psychiatric Association]], [[American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy]], [[National Association of Social Workers]], [[American Psychoanalytic Association]], [[American Academy of Family Physicians]]|display-authors=etal|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/ObergefellHodges/AmicusBriefs/14-556_American_Psychological_Association.pdf|title=Brief of [medical organizations] as ''Amici Curiae'' in Support of Petitioners|website=[[supremecourt.gov]]|access-date=April 5, 2018|archive-date=April 12, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190412074914/https://www.supremecourt.gov/ObergefellHodges/AmicusBriefs/14-556_American_Psychological_Association.pdf|url-status=dead}}{{indent}}{{cite news|first=Annie|last=Davis|url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/23/children-raised-by-same-sex-parents-do-as-well-as-their-peers-study-shows|title=Children raised by same-sex parents do as well as their peers, study shows|work=[[The Guardian]]|date=October 22, 2017|access-date=March 28, 2018}}{{indent}}{{cite news|first=Lindsey|last=Bever|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/07/children-of-same-sex-couples-are-happier-and-healthier-than-peers-research-shows|title=Children of same-sex couples are happier and healthier than peers, research shows|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|date=July 7, 2014|access-date=December 12, 2018}}</ref>

Prominent figures in the [[civil rights movement]] have expressed their support for same-sex marriage. In 2004, [[Coretta Scott King]], a leader of the civil rights movement and the widow of [[Martin Luther King Jr.]], expressed her support for same-sex marriage and publicly denounced attempts to define marriage as the "union of a man and a woman" as a form of "gay bashing".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-g-long/coretta-scott-king_b_2592049.html|title=Coretta's Big Dream: Coretta Scott King on Gay Rights|work=[[HuffPost]]|author=Michael Long|date=January 31, 2013|access-date=July 18, 2018}}{{indent}}{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/03/coretta-scott-king-extract|title='I am not a symbol, I am an activist': the untold story of Coretta Scott King|work=[[The Guardian]]|author=Jeanne Theoharis|author-link=Jeanne Theoharis|date=February 3, 2018|access-date=July 18, 2018}}</ref> In 2007, [[Mildred Loving]], the joint plaintiff alongside her husband [[Richard Loving]] in the [[List of landmark court decisions in the United States|landmark]] [[civil rights]] case of ''[[Loving v. Virginia]]'' in 1967, in which the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] struck down all state bans on [[Interracial marriage in the United States|inter-racial marriage]], issued a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in which she expressed her support for same-sex marriage and described it as a [[civil right]] akin to inter-racial marriage, stating that "I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2007/06/mildred-loving-40-years-later/227582/|title=Mildred Loving, 40 Years Later|work=[[The Atlantic]]|author=Douglas Martin|date=June 18, 2007|access-date=March 11, 2015}}{{indent}}{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/us/06loving.html|title=Mildred Loving, Who Battled Ban on Mixed-Race Marriage, Dies at 68|work=[[The New York Times]]|author=Douglas Martin|date=May 6, 2008|access-date=July 14, 2018}}</ref> In 2009, [[Julian Bond]], a leader of the civil rights movement and a chairman of the [[NAACP]], expressed his support for same-sex marriage and stated that "gay rights are civil rights".<ref>{{cite news|url=http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2009/12/gay_marriage_naacp_chairman_ju.html|title=Gay marriage: NAACP chairman Julian Bond says gay rights are civil rights|work=[[NJ.com]]|author=Star-Ledger Editorial Board|date=December 9, 2009|access-date=December 12, 2018}}{{indent}}{{Cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/2015/08/17/432541992/civil-rights-community-mourns-death-of-julian-bond|title=Civil Rights Community Mourns Death Of Julian Bond|publisher=[[NPR]]|date=August 17, 2015|access-date=December 12, 2018}}</ref> In 2015, [[John Lewis]], a leader of the civil rights movement and a chairman of the [[Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee|SNCC]], welcomed the outcome of the [[List of landmark court decisions in the United States|landmark]] [[civil rights]] case of ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'' in which the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] struck down all state bans on same-sex marriage, stating that "races don't fall in love, genders don't fall in love—people fall in love".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ajc.com/blog/news/georgia-congressman-john-lewis-reacts-gay-marriage-ruling/XTUyxBIQerIoWjw98ftebK/|title=Georgia Congressman John Lewis reacts to gay marriage ruling|work=[[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]]|date=June 26, 2015|access-date=December 12, 2018}}{{indent}}{{Cite news|url=https://johnlewis.house.gov/issues/lgbt-rights|title=LGBT RIGHTS|website=[[House.gov]]|author=Office of [[Member of Congress|Congressman]] [[John Lewis]]|access-date=December 12, 2018|archive-date=April 29, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190429011047/https://johnlewis.house.gov/issues/lgbt-rights|url-status=dead}}</ref>

The [[NAACP]], the leading African-American civil rights organization, has pledged its support for gay rights and same-sex marriage, stating that they "support marriage equality consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution", and has declared that same-sex marriage is a [[civil right]].<ref name="NAACP" />

The [[Human Rights Campaign]], the largest [[LGBTQ rights]] organization in the United States, states that "many same-sex couples want the right to legally marry because they are in love — many, in fact, have spent the last 10, 20 or 50 years with that person — and they want to honor their relationship in the greatest way our society has to offer, by making a public commitment to stand together in good times and bad, through all the joys and challenges family life brings."<ref>[http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/answers-to-questions-about-marriage-equality Human Rights Campaign website] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120206134235/http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/answers-to-questions-about-marriage-equality |date=February 6, 2012 }}. Retrieved November 1, 2010.</ref>

Journalist [[Mark Mathabane|Gail Mathabane]] likens prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past prohibitions on [[interracial marriage in the United States]].<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-01-25-couples_x.htm | work=[[USA Today]] | title=Gays face same battle interracial couples fought | first=Gail | last=Mathabane | date=January 25, 2004 | access-date=May 23, 2010}}</ref> Author [[Fernando Espuelas]] argues that same-sex marriage should be allowed because it recognizes the civil right of a minority.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/espuelas.prop.eight/ | publisher=[[CNN]] | title=Commentary: Latinos should see gay marriage a civil right - CNN.com | date=November 7, 2008 | access-date=May 23, 2010}}</ref> Historian [[Nancy Cott]] rejects alternatives to same-sex marriage (such as [[civil union]]s), reasoning that "there really is no comparison, because there is nothing that is like marriage except marriage."<ref name="cott">[http://www.afer.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Perry-Vol-1-1-11-10.pdf Direct Examination of Nancy Cott], p. 208. ''Perry v. Schwarzenegger'', No. 09-2292 (N.D. Cal. January 11, 2010). Retrieved December 20, 2011.</ref>

====Role of social media====
Supporters of same-sex marriage successfully utilized [[social media]] websites such as [[Facebook]] to help achieve their aims.<ref>Switzer, Cody. [http://philanthropy.com/article/Inside-the-Human-Rights/138423/ Inside the Human Rights Campaign's Social-Media Success] Philanthropy. April 9, 2013. Retrieved April 14, 2013.{{indent}}Lipp, Murray. [http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/29/comment-the-power-of-online-activism-social-media-in-the-fight-for-lgbt-equality/ The power of online activism and social media in the fight for LGBT equality] Pink News. January 29, 2013. Accessed, April 14, 2013.{{indent}}Royal, Denis. [http://southfloridagaynews.com/articles/facebook-page-gay-marriage-usa-pushes-for-equality/111659 Facebook Page 'Gay Marriage USA' Pushes for Equality] South Florida Gay News. April 10, 2013. Retrieved April 14, 2013.</ref> Some have argued that the successful use of social media by [[LGBTQ rights]] organizations played a key role in the defeat of religion-based opposition.<ref>Ferenstein, Gregory [https://techcrunch.com/2013/03/21/how-the-internet-is-erasing-the-religious-rights-political-power/ How The Internet Is Erasing The Religious Right's Political Power] Tech Crunch. March 21, 2013. Retrieved April 14, 2013.</ref>

One of the largest scale uses of social media to mobilize support for same-sex marriage preceded and coincided with the arrival at the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] of high-profile legal cases for [[California Proposition 8 (2008)|Proposition 8]] and [[Defense of Marriage Act|DOMA]] in March 2013. The "red equal sign" project started by the [[Human Rights Campaign]] was an electronic campaign primarily based on Facebook that encouraged users to change their profile images to a red equal sign to express support for same-sex marriage.<ref>[http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/slideshow-hrc-logo-memes HRC Logo Memes] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130408223009/http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/slideshow-hrc-logo-memes |date=April 8, 2013 }} Retrieved April 14, 2013.</ref> At the time of the court hearings, an estimated 2.5&nbsp;million Facebook users changed their profile images to a red equal sign.<ref>Kleinman, Alexis [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/29/red-equal-sign-facebook_n_2980489.html How The Red Equal Sign Took Over Facebook, According To Facebook's Own Data] ''[[HuffPost]]''. March 30, 2013. Retrieved April 14, 2013.</ref>

===Opposition===
Opposition to same-sex marriage is based on claims such as the beliefs that homosexuality is unnatural and abnormal, that the recognition of same-sex unions will promote homosexuality in society, and that children are better off when raised by opposite-sex couples.<ref name="thoughtco">{{cite web | url=https://www.thoughtco.com/moral-and-religious-arguments-250095 | title=Common Arguments Against Gay Marriage | date=July 16, 2017 | access-date=September 26, 2017 | author=Cline, Austin}}</ref> While some researchers question the definitiveness of the evidence, others assert that science has shown that homosexuality is a natural and normal human sexuality, that sexual orientation cannot be chosen, and that the children of same-sex couples fare just as well as children of opposite sex couples.<ref name="science" />

Others argue that the word "marriage" has always had a very specific meaning, ''i.e.'' the union of a man and a woman. By this argument, calling same-sex unions "marriages" is not a question of law but an example of [[Newspeak]]: same-sex unions are an inherently different entity than a marriage, and that entity has only gained legitimacy through [[Orwellian]] [[brainwashing]].<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.rgj.com/story/opinion/voices/2015/10/07/op-ed-courts-redefinition-marriage-orwellian/73549132 | title=Op-ed: Court's redefinition of marriage is Orwellian | date=October 7, 2015 | access-date=November 15, 2022 | author=Hamel, Jon}}</ref> Critics of this position counter that historical changes in marriage traditions negate any fixed definition, so the word "marriage" can be infinitely redefined according to the needs of the culture.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.believeoutloud.com/voices/article/biblical-marriage-unmasked | title='Biblical' Marriage Unmasked | access-date=November 15, 2022 | author=De La Torre, Miguel}}</ref>

Some of the opponents of same-sex marriage are religious groups such as the [[Catholic Church]] and the [[Southern Baptist Convention]] which desire for marriage to remain restricted to opposite-sex marriages.<ref name="religion">{{cite news|title=Bishops discuss religious liberty, marriage, finances at annual meeting|url=http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1104473.htm|archive-url=http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20120513011821/http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1104473.htm|url-status=dead|archive-date=May 13, 2012|work=Catholic New Service|location=Baltimore|access-date=July 24, 2012}}{{indent}}{{cite news|url=http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=23282|work=Baptist Press|title=Marriage Protection Sunday: Churches encouraged to address 'gay marriage'|date=May 19, 2006|access-date=September 30, 2011|archive-date=July 26, 2014|archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/6RMM7eFRS?url=http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=23282|url-status=dead}}</ref> However, there are faith-based supporters of same-sex marriage, and homosexual people of faith, within every faith group.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.prri.org/research/americans-views-discrimination-immigrants-blacks-lgbt-sex-marriage-immigration-reform|title=Who Sees Discrimination? Attitudes on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Race, and Immigration Status {{!}} Findings from PRRI's American Values Atlas|website=www.ppri.org|date=June 21, 2017}}</ref> [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage<ref name="LDSChurch">{{cite web |date=August 13, 2008 |title=The Divine Institution of Marriage |url=https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/the-divine-institution-of-marriage |access-date=November 15, 2022 |publisher=[[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] |quote=Where same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, it inevitably conflicts with the rights of believers, and religious freedom is diminished.}}{{indent}}</ref> but in 2022, endorsed a federal bill<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/KIN22420_1114.pdf | title=House Resolution 8404 (2021–2022) | access-date=November 18, 2022}}</ref> requiring states and territories to honor same-sex marriages solemnized in other states (though it reiterated that church doctrine would not change).<ref>{{Cite news |last=Pietsch |first=Bryan |date=16 November 2022 |title=Mormon Church voices support for U.S. same-sex marriage bill |newspaper=Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2022/11/16/mormon-church-gay-marriage-lds/ |access-date=17 November 2022}}</ref>

Political donations in opposition of same-sex marriage have been an issue of great dispute. Both judges and the IRS have ruled that it is either questionable or illegal for campaign contributions to be shielded by anonymity.<ref name="boston">[http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/01/news/state/anti-gay-marriage-group-loses-maine-list-appeal/ Anti-gay marriage group loses Maine appeal to prevent release of its donor list]. David Sharp, Associated Press, January 31, 2012.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://jurist.org/forum/2012/01/joshua-douglas-citizens-united.php|title=Campaign Finance After Two Years of Citizens United|author1-link=Joshua Douglas|last1=Douglas|first1=Joshua|publisher=Jurist.org|date=January 21, 2012|access-date=May 19, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/business/13gift.html |title=I.R.S. Moves to Tax Gifts to Groups Active in Politics |work=The New York Times |author=Stephanie Strom |date=May 12, 2011}}</ref>

===Politicians and media figures===
[[File:Robin Roberts interviewing Barack Obama.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|President [[Barack Obama]] interviewed by [[Robin Roberts (newscaster)|Robin Roberts]] of [[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]]'s ''[[Good Morning America]]'', at the [[White House]], May 9, 2012.]]
[[File:Celebrating a new America -lovewins 58242 (18588276403).jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|The [[White House]], illuminated in rainbow colors, on the evening of the ''Obergefell'' ruling, June 26, 2015.]]
[[Social policy of the Barack Obama administration#Same-sex marriage|President Barack Obama's views on same-sex marriage]] varied over the course of his political career and became more consistently supportive of it over time. In the 1990s, he had supported same-sex marriage while campaigning for the [[Illinois Senate]].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/15/report-obama-changed-view-gay-marriage/|title=Report: Obama Changed His View on Gay Marriage |publisher=Fox News |date=April 7, 2010|access-date=June 27, 2010}}</ref><ref name="huffingtonpost.com">{{cite news |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/13/obama-once-supported-same_n_157656.html|title=Obama Once Supported Same-Sex Marriage 'Unequivocally'|work=The Huffington Post |date= January 13, 2009|access-date=December 20, 2011|first=Jason |last=Linkins}}</ref> During the 2008 presidential campaign, he was opposed to same-sex marriage,<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2009/0512/obama-and-miss-california-aligned-on-same-sex-marriage |title=Obama and Miss California aligned on same-sex marriage?|work=[[The Christian Science Monitor]]|date=May 12, 2009 |access-date=January 28, 2011}}</ref> but he also opposed the 2008 [[California Proposition 8 (2008)|California referendum]] that aimed at reversing a court ruling establishing same-sex marriage there.<ref>{{cite news|first=Michael D.|last=Shear|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/05/AR2010080502211.html|title=President Obama's beliefs meet his policy|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|date=August 5, 2010|access-date=January 28, 2011}}</ref> In 2009, he opposed two opposing federal legislative proposals that would have banned or established same-sex marriage nationally, stating that each state had to decide the issue.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.independent.com/news/2009/jan/13/gay-supporters-petition-obama-repeal-doma/|title=Gay Supporters Petition Obama to Repeal DOMA|date=January 13, 2009|access-date=June 24, 2009|first=Penny|last=Paterson|newspaper=[[Santa Barbara Independent]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|last=Eleveld|first=Kerry |title=White House Responds to Iowa|magazine=[[The Advocate (LGBT magazine)|The Advocate]]|date=April 3, 2009|url=http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid77464.asp|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090407050658/http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid77464.asp|archive-date=April 7, 2009|url-status=dead|access-date=October 16, 2022}}{{cbignore}}</ref> In December 2010, he expressed support for [[civil union]]s with rights equivalent to marriage and for federal recognition of same-sex relationships. He opposed a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.<ref name=whitehouse>{{cite web|title= Civil Rights|url = https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/civil-rights/|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20091026043205/http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/civil-rights|url-status= dead|archive-date= October 26, 2009|publisher= The White House|access-date= October 3, 2009|df= mdy-all}}</ref> He also stated that his position on same-sex marriage was "evolving" and that he recognized that civil unions from the perspective of same-sex couples was "not enough".<ref name="wapo">{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/23/AR2010122301859.html|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|title=Obama says his views on same-sex marriage are evolving|access-date=January 5, 2011|first=Perry Jr.|last=Bacon|date=December 23, 2010}}</ref> On May 9, 2012, President Obama became the first sitting president to support same-sex marriage. He still said the legal question belonged to the states.<!---<ref name="obamasupport-ABCNews" />---><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/2012/05/09/same-sex-couples-should-be-able-to-marry-obama/ |title=Same-sex couples should be able to marry: Obama|first=Jeff|last=Mason |work=Chicago Tribune|date=May 9, 2012|access-date=March 20, 2013}}</ref> In October 2014, Obama told an interviewer that his view had changed:
{{blockquote|text=Ultimately, I think the [[Equal Protection Clause]] does guarantee same-sex marriage in all fifty states. But, as you know, courts have always been strategic. There have been times where the stars were aligned and the Court, like a thunderbolt, issues a ruling like ''[[Brown v. Board of Education]]'' [1954], but that's pretty rare. And, given the direction of society, for the Court to have allowed the process to play out the way it has may make the shift less controversial and more lasting.<ref>{{cite magazine|last1=Toobin|first1=Jeffrey|author1-link=Jeffrey Toobin|title=The Obama Brief|url=http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/27/obama-brief |magazine=The New Yorker|access-date=October 20, 2014|date=October 27, 2014}}</ref>}}

Shortly after winning the [[2016 United States presidential election|2016 election]], President [[Donald Trump]] said he's "fine" with same-sex marriage and believes it to be settled law: "It's law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean, it's done."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-president-elect-donald-trump-sex-marriage-settled/story?id=43513067 |title=GOP President-Elect Donald Trump Says Same-Sex Marriage Is 'Settled' Law |publisher=ABC News |date=November 13, 2016}}</ref> This somewhat contrasted with a previous statement he made in June 2015, after ''Obergefell v. Hodges'', in which he said he's personally for "traditional marriage" and that he believed same-sex marriage should be left to the states.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2015/07/05/donald-trump-punching-back.html|title=Donald Trump punching back|website=[[Fox News]] |date=July 5, 2015}}</ref> In that same statement, however, Trump admitted that overturning ''Obergefell'' is not realistic. Several of his federal appointments have also, subsequently, announced they will uphold same-sex marriage and enforce the Supreme Court ruling, while still being personally against same-sex marriage,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sessions-says-he-will-enforce-gay-marriage-decision/article/2611387|title=Sessions says he will enforce gay-marriage decision|first=Susan|last=Crabtree|date=January 10, 2017 }}</ref> namely Attorney General [[Jeff Sessions]] and Secretary of Education [[Betsy DeVos]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/mollyhensleyclancy/betsy-devos-supports-same-sex-marriage-spokesman-says|title=Betsy DeVos Supports Same-Sex Marriage, Spokesman Says|website=[[BuzzFeed]] |date=January 24, 2017 }}</ref>

Former presidents [[Bill Clinton]],<ref>{{cite news|date=May 5, 2011|url=http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/05/bill-clinton-endorses-gay-marriage-in-new-york-/|title=Bill Clinton endorses gay marriage in New York|work=[[USA Today]]|access-date=June 26, 2012}}</ref> [[Jimmy Carter]],<ref>{{cite news|date=March 19, 2012|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/19/president-jimmy-carter-bible-book_n_1349570.html|title=President Jimmy Carter Authors New Bible Book, Answers Hard Biblical Questions|work=The Huffington Post|access-date=June 26, 2012|first=Paul|last=Raushenbush}}</ref> and Barack Obama, former vice presidents [[Dick Cheney]],<ref>{{cite news|date=September 13, 2011|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/13/dick-cheney-gay-marriage_n_960874.html|title=Dick Cheney On Gay Marriage: "I Certainly Don't Have Any Problem With It|work=The Huffington Post|access-date=June 26, 2012|first=Timothy|last=Stenovec}}</ref> [[Al Gore]],<ref>{{cite web|date=January 17, 2008|url=http://current.com/items/88817757_gay-men-and-women-should-have-the-same-rights.htm|title=Al Gore: 'Gay men and women should have the same rights{{'-}}|publisher=[[Current TV]]|access-date=July 8, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091129220957/http://current.com/items/88817757_gay-men-and-women-should-have-the-same-rights.htm|archive-date=November 29, 2009|url-status=dead}}</ref> [[Walter Mondale]],<ref name="Mondale">{{cite web|last=Mondale|first=Walter|title=Mondale and Dukakis Back Marriage Equality|website=[[ThinkProgress]]|date=May 16, 2013|url=http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/05/16/2021841/mondale-dukakis-back-marriage-equality/?mobile=nc|access-date=June 20, 2013}}</ref> and [[Joe Biden]] have voiced their support for same-sex marriage, as have former first ladies [[Laura Bush]],<ref>Wing, Nick. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/13/laura-bush-gay-marriage-s_n_574731.html Laura Bush: Gay Marriage Should Be Legal, Abortion Should Remain Legal (VIDEO)]. ''The Huffington Post''. May 13, 2011. Retrieved March 27, 2013.</ref> [[Hillary Clinton]],<ref>Wing, Nick. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/hillary-clinton-gay-marriage_n_2900557.html Hillary Clinton Announces Support For Gay Marriage] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130322020800/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/hillary-clinton-gay-marriage_n_2900557.html |date=March 22, 2013 }}. ''The Huffington Post''. March 18, 2013. Retrieved March 27, 2013.</ref> [[Michelle Obama]],<ref>[https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/us-first-lady-michelle-obama-why-she-supports-gay-marriage010612/ US First Lady Michelle Obama on why she supports gay marriage] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190404072505/https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/us-first-lady-michelle-obama-why-she-supports-gay-marriage010612/ |date=April 4, 2019 }} ''Gay Star News''</ref> and [[Nancy Reagan]].<ref>[http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/04/17/nancy-reagan-supports-same-sex-marriage-says-daughter-patti-davis/ Nancy Reagan supports same-sex marriage says daughter Patti Davis] ''Pink News''</ref> Former President [[George H. W. Bush]] and his wife former First Lady [[Barbara Bush]] served as witnesses to a same-sex wedding, but neither publicly affirmed support for same-sex marriage in general;<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/wp/2013/09/25/george-h-w-bush-is-witness-at-same-sex-marriage-in-maine/ |date=September 25, 2013|access-date=March 17, 2014|title=George H.W. Bush is Witness at Same-Sex Marriage in Maine}}</ref> [[George W. Bush]] reportedly offered to officiate the same wedding,<ref>Johnson, Chris. "[http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/05/24/george-w-bush-sought-to-officiate-same-sex-wedding-report/ George W. Bush sought to officiate same-sex wedding: report]." Washington Blade. May 24, 2015. Retrieved May 25, 2015.</ref> but has similarly not made a public statement regarding his position on the issue (as president, he was opposed). Fifteen [[List of current United States senators|U.S. senators]] announced their support in the spring of 2013.<ref>Wilson, Chris. [https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/same-sex-marriage-senate-endorsement-tracker-154748412--politics.html The same-sex marriage Senate endorsement tracker]. Yahoo! News. Updated June 19, 2013. Retrieved June 27, 2013.</ref> By April 2013, a majority of the Senate had expressed support for same-sex marriage.<ref name="Majority of Senators">{{cite news|last=Miller|first=Sunlen|title=Majority of Senate Supports Same Sex Marriage |url=https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/another-gop-senator-endorses-same-sex-marriage/|access-date=June 26, 2013|newspaper=ABC News|date=April 2, 2013}}</ref> Senator [[Rob Portman]] of Ohio became the first sitting [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] senator to endorse same-sex marriage in March 2013,<ref>Stein, Sam. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/25/rob-portman-gay-marriage_n_2947796.html Rob Portman's Gay Marriage Conversion Explained By His Son]. ''The Huffington Post''. March 25, 2013. Retrieved June 26, 2013.</ref> followed by Senator [[Mark Kirk]] of Illinois in April,<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/republican-sen-mark-kirk-endorses-marriage-equality |first=Andrew|last= Kaczynski |access-date=September 28, 2014|title=Republican Sen. Mark Kirk Endorses Marriage Equality |date=April 2, 2013 |publisher=Buzzfeed}}</ref> Senator [[Lisa Murkowski]] of Alaska in June,<ref name="Murkowski">{{cite news|last=Burgess|first=Everett |title=Lisa Murkowski Endorses Same Sex Marriage|url=http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/lisa-murkowski-gay-marriage-stance-93047.html|access-date=June 26, 2013|newspaper=Politico|date=June 19, 2013}}</ref> and Senator [[Susan Collins]] of Maine a year later.<ref>{{cite web|last=Moretto|first=Mario|title=Susan Collins becomes fourth GOP senator to publicly support same-sex marriage|url=http://bangordailynews.com/2014/06/25/politics/elections/susan-collins-i-support-same-sex-marriage/|work=Bangor Daily News|access-date=June 25, 2014|date=June 25, 2014}}</ref>

Politicians who have notably opposed same-sex marriage have included [[Rick Santorum]], [[Mike Huckabee]], and [[Sarah Palin]].

Prominent politicians who have shifted from opposing to supporting same-sex marriage include Republican Senator [[Rob Portman]], and Republican Representative [[Bob Barr]] (the author of the 1996 ''[[Defense of Marriage Act]]'').

In an interview on ''[[The O'Reilly Factor]]'' in August 2010, when [[Glenn Beck]] was asked if he "believe(s) that gay marriage is a threat to [this] country in any way", he stated, "No I don't. ... I believe that [[Thomas Jefferson]] said: 'If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket what difference is it to me?{{' "}}<ref>Elizabeth Tenety, "[https://web.archive.org/web/20100814132033/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2010/08/glenn_beck_gay_marriage_advocate.html Glenn Beck, Gay Marriage Advocate?]", ''[[The Washington Post]]'', August 12, 2010. Retrieved October 31, 2010.</ref><ref>''Talkers Magazine'', {{cite web |url=http://talkers.com/online/?p=3774 |title=2010 Talkers 250 |access-date=January 31, 2011 |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110130043748/http://talkers.com/online/?p=3774 |archive-date=January 30, 2011  }}. Retrieved November 30, 2010.</ref>

==Studies==
The overall effects of legal access to same-sex marriage have been summarized by Badgett and co-authors.<ref>{{Cite journal |doi = 10.1002/pam.22587|title = A review of the effects of legal access to same-sex marriage |journal = Journal of Policy Analysis and Management|year = 2024|last1=Badgett|first1=M.V. Lee|last2=Carpenter|first2=Christopher S.|last3=Lee|first3=Maxine J.|last4=Sansone|first4 = Dario|doi-access=free|hdl=10871/135707|hdl-access=free}}</ref> The review found that sexual minority individuals took-up legal marriage when it became available to them (but at lower rates than different-sex couples). There is instead no evidence that same-sex marriage legalization affected different-sex marriages. On the health side, same-sex marriage legalization increased health insurance coverage for individuals in same-sex couples in the US, and it led to improvements in sexual health among men who have sex with men, while there is mixed evidence on mental health effects among sexual minorities. In addition, the study found mixed evidence on a range of downstream social outcomes such as attitudes toward LGBTQ+ people and employment choices of sexual minorities.

===Adolescent attempted suicide===
The establishment of same-sex marriage is associated with a significant reduction in the rate of attempted suicide among teenagers, with the effect being concentrated among teens of a minority sexual orientation. A study of nationwide data from across the United States from January 1999 to December 2015 revealed that the rate of attempted suicide among all students in grades 9–12 declined by 7% and the rate of attempted suicide among those of a minority sexual orientation in grades 9–12 declined by 14% in states which established same-sex marriage, resulting in approximately 134,000 fewer teens attempting suicide each year in the United States. The researchers took advantage of the gradual manner in which same-sex marriage was established in the United States (expanding from one state in 2004 to all fifty states in 2015) to compare the rate of attempted suicide among teens in each state over the time period studied. Once same-sex marriage was established in a particular state, the reduction in the rate of attempted suicide among teens in that state became permanent. No reduction in the rate of attempted suicide among teens occurred in a particular state until that state recognized same-sex marriage. The lead researcher of the study observed that "laws that have the greatest impact on gay adults may make gay kids feel more hopeful for the future".<ref>{{cite journal|title=Difference-in-Differences Analysis of the Association Between State Same-Sex Marriage Policies and Adolescent Suicide Attempts|url=https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2604258|journal= JAMA Pediatrics|year=2017 |doi=10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.4529 |last1=Raifman |first1=Julia |last2=Moscoe |first2=Ellen |last3=Austin |first3=S. Bryn |last4=McConnell |first4=Margaret |volume=171 |issue=4 |pages=350–356 |pmid=28241285 |pmc=5848493 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Same-Sex Marriage Legalization Linked to Reduction in Suicide Attempts Among High School Students|url=https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2017/same-sex-marriage-legalization-linked-to-reduction-in-suicide-attempts-among-high-school-students.html|website=[[Johns Hopkins University]]|date=February 20, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Study: Teen suicide attempts fell as same-sex marriage was legalized|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/02/20/teen-suicide-down-as-same-sex-marriage-legalized-study/98179684/|website=[[USA Today]]|date=February 20, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Same-sex marriage laws linked to fewer youth suicide attempts, new study says|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/same-sex-marriage-fewer-youth-suicide|website=[[PBS]]|date=February 20, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Same-sex marriage laws tied to fewer teen suicide attempts|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-pediatrics-suicide-lgbt/same-sex-marriage-laws-tied-to-fewer-teen-suicide-attempts-idUSKBN1612SP|website=[[Reuters]]|date=February 23, 2017}}</ref>

===Economic impact on same-sex couples===
Until the Supreme Court's June 2013 ruling in ''[[United States v. Windsor]]'' required the [[Federal government of the United States|Federal Government]] to treat lawfully married same-sex couples on an equal basis with lawfully married opposite-sex couples, same-sex married couples faced severe disadvantages. The Federal Government did not recognize those marriages for any purpose. According to a 1997 [[General Accounting Office]] study, at least 1,049 U.S. federal laws and regulations include references to marital status.<ref>Dang, Alain, and M. Somjen Frazer. "Black Same-Sex Couple Households in the 2000 U.S. Census: Implications in the Debate Over Same-Sex Marriage." Western Journal of Black Studies 29.1 (Spring2005 2005): 521–530. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. September 30, 2009</ref> A 2004 study by the [[Congressional Budget Office]] found 1,138 statutory provisions "in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving 'benefits, rights, and privileges.{{' "}}<ref name="cbo1">{{cite web |url=http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5559 |title=The Potential Budgetary Impact of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages|publisher=Congressional Budget Office|date=June 21, 2004|access-date=May 31, 2021}}</ref> Many of these laws govern property rights, benefits, and taxation. Same-sex couples whose marriages were not recognized by the Federal Government were ineligible for spousal and survivor [[Social Security (United States)|Social Security]] benefits and were ineligible for the benefits of the spouse of a federal government employee.<ref name="cbo1" /> One study found that the difference in Social Security income for same-sex couples compared to opposite-sex married couples was US$5,588 per year.<ref name="Badgett">{{cite book|last=Badgett |first=M.V. Lee|title=Money, Myths, and Change: The Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay Men|publisher=University Of Chicago Press |location=Chicago|year=2003|isbn=0-226-03401-1}}</ref>

Compared to similarly situated opposite-sex married couples, same-sex couples faced the following financial and legal disadvantages:
* Legal costs associated with obtaining domestic partner documents to gain legal abilities granted automatically by legal marriage, including power of attorney, health care decision-making, and inheritance<ref name="Badgett" />
* A person can inherit an unlimited amount from a deceased spouse without incurring an estate tax, but was subject to taxes if inheriting from a same-sex partner<ref name="cbo1" />
* Same-sex couples were not eligible to file jointly as a married couple and thus could not take the advantages of lower tax rates when the individual income of the partners differs significantly<ref name="cbo1" />{{efn|In early 2013, the IRS recognized the community property and income of same-sex partners in community property states.<ref name="IRS">{{cite web|title=IRS Provides Answers to Community Property Filers|url=https://www.irs.gov/uac/IRS-Provides-Answers-to-Community-Property-Filers|publisher=United States Internal Revenue Service|access-date=February 6, 2013}}</ref>}}
* Employer-provided health insurance coverage for a same-sex partner incurred federal income tax<ref name="cbo1" />
* Higher health costs associated with lack of insurance and preventive care: 20% of same-sex couples had a member who was uninsured compared to 10% of married opposite-sex couples<ref name="Badgett" />
* Inability to protect jointly owned home from loss due to costs of potential medical catastrophe<ref name="Badgett" />
* Inability of a U.S. citizen to [[Same-sex immigration policy in the United States|sponsor a same-sex spouse for citizenship]]<ref name="Badgett" />

Some 7,400 companies were offering spousal benefits to same-sex couples as of 2008. In states that recognized same-sex marriages, same-sex couples could continue to receive those same benefits only if they married.<ref>Barkacs, L. L. (2008). "Same sex marriage, civil unions, and employee benefits: Unequal protection under the law – when will society catch up with the business community?", ''Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 11(2)'', 33–44.</ref> Only 18% of private employers offered domestic partner health care benefits.<ref name="Badgett" />

Same-sex couples face the same financial constraints of legal marriage as opposite-sex married couples, including the [[marriage penalty]] in taxation.<ref name="cbo1" /> While social service providers usually do not count one partner's assets toward the income means test for welfare and disability assistance for the other partner, a legally married couple's joint assets are normally used in calculating whether a married individual qualifies for assistance.<ref name="cbo1" />

A 2019 study found an increase in employment among same-sex couples after the legalization of same-sex marriage. The author of the study provided additional evidence suggesting that this change in employment was driven by a decline in discrimination.<ref>{{Cite journal |doi = 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2019.104086|title = Pink work: Same-sex marriage, employment and discrimination|journal = Journal of Public Economics|volume = 180|pages = 104086|year = 2019|last1 = Sansone|first1 = Dario|arxiv = 1807.06698}}</ref>

===Economic impact on the state and federal governments===
The 2004 [[Congressional Budget Office]] study, working from an assumption "that about 0.6 percent of adults would enter into same-sex marriages if they had the opportunity" (an assumption in which they admitted "significant uncertainty") estimated that legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the United States "would improve the budget's bottom line to a small extent: by less than $1&nbsp;billion in each of the next 10 years". This result reflects an increase in net government revenues (increased income taxes due to marriage penalties more than offsetting decreased tax revenues arising from postponed estate taxes). Marriage recognition would increase the government expenses for [[Social Security (United States)|Social Security]] and [[Federal Employees Health Benefits Program|Federal Employee Health Benefits]] but that increase would be more than made up for by decreased expenses for [[Medicaid]], [[Medicare (United States)|Medicare]], and [[Supplemental Security Income]].<ref name="cbo1" />

According to a study published in May 2020 by the [[Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law and Public Policy]], the legalization of same-sex marriage boosted state and local economies by an estimated 3.8&nbsp;billion [[United States dollar|dollars]]. The Williams Institute estimated that the 300,000 same-sex couples who married in the U.S. since 2015 generated about $3.2&nbsp;billion for local and state economies. In addition, traveling wedding guests spent an additional $544&nbsp;million, and about 45,000 jobs were supported by same-sex weddings. $244&nbsp;million was generated in state and local taxes.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://thegavoice.com/news/same-sex-weddings-have-boosted-economy-by-3-8-billion/|title=Same-sex Weddings Have Boosted Economy by $3.8 Billion|website=The Georgia Voice|date=May 31, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2020/05/sex-marriages-contributed-3-8-billion-us-economy/|title=Same-sex marriages have contributed $3.8 billion to the US economy|website=LGBTQ Nation|date=May 31, 2020}}</ref>

===Mental health===
Based in part on research that has been conducted on the adverse effects of stigmatization of gays and lesbians, numerous prominent social science organizations have issued position statements supporting same-sex marriage and opposing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; these organizations include the [[American Psychoanalytic Association]] and the [[American Psychological Association]].<ref name="amici2011">{{cite web|url=http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/gill.pdf|title=Brief of the American Psychological Association, the Massachusetts Psychological Association, The National Association of Social Workers and its Massachusetts Chapter, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees and in Support of Affirmance – Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts Civil Action Nos. 1:09-cv-11156-JLT, 1:09-cv-10309-JLT (Honorable Joseph L. Tauro)|access-date=December 20, 2011}}</ref>

Several psychological studies have shown that an increase in exposure to negative conversations, media messages, and negative reactions among peers about same-sex marriage creates a harmful environment for LGBTQ people that may affect their health and well-being, especially among its younger members.<ref name="autogenerated5">Price, M. [http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/01/marriage-bans.html "Upfront—Research uncovers the stress created by same-sex marriage bans"] in ''Monitor on Psychology'', Volume 40, No. 1, page 10, January 2009. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.</ref><ref>Potoczniak, Daniel J.; Aldea, Mirela A.; DeBlaere, Cirleen "Ego identity, social anxiety, social support, and self-concealment in lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals." ''Journal of Counseling Psychology,'' Vol 54(4), October 2007, 447–457.</ref><ref>Balsam, Kimberly F.; Mohr, Jonathan J. "Adaptation to sexual orientation stigma: A comparison of bisexual and lesbian/gay adults." ''Journal of Counseling Psychology,'' Vol 54(3), July 2007, 306–319.</ref>

One study surveyed more than 1,500 lesbian, gay and bisexual adults across the nation and found that respondents from the 25 states that have outlawed same-sex marriage had the highest reports of "[[minority stress]]"—the chronic social stress that results from minority-group stigmatization—as well as general psychological distress. According to the study, the negative campaigning that comes with a ban is directly responsible for the increased stress. Past research has shown that [[minority stress]] is linked to health risks such as [[risky sexual behavior]] and substance abuse.<ref name="autogenerated4">Rostosky, Sharon Scales; Riggle, Ellen D. B.; Gray, Barry E.; Hatton, Roxanna L. "Minority stress experiences in committed same-sex couple relationships." ''Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,'' Vol 38(4), August 2007, 392–400.</ref>

Two other studies examined personal reports from LGBTQ adults and their families living in [[Memphis, Tennessee]], immediately after a successful [[Tennessee Marriage Protection Amendment|2006 ballot campaign]] banned same-sex marriage. Most respondents reported feeling alienated from their communities. The studies also found that families experienced a kind of secondary minority stress, says Jennifer Arm, a counseling graduate student at the [[University of Memphis]].<ref>Szymanski, Dawn M.; Carr, Erika R. "The roles of gender role conflict and internalized heterosexism in gay and bisexual men's psychological distress: Testing two mediation models." ''Psychology of Men & Masculinity,'' Vol 9(1), January 2008, 40–54.</ref>

At the ''[[Perry v. Schwarzenegger]]'' trial, expert witness [[Ilan Meyer]] testified that the mental health outcomes for gays and lesbians would improve if laws such as Proposition 8 did not exist because "when people are exposed to more stress...they are more likely to get sick..." and that particular situation is consistent with laws that say to gay people "you are not welcome here, your relationships are not valued." Such laws have "significant power", he said.<ref name="testimony2">{{cite web|title=''Perry v. Schwarzenegger'' Transcript of Proceedings: pp.670–990 (Meyer testimony begins on p.806) |url=http://www.afer.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Perry-Vol-4-1-14-10.pdf|publisher=U.S. District Court of Northern California |access-date=March 8, 2012}}</ref>

===Physical health===
In 2009, a pair of economists at [[Emory University]] tied the passage of state bans on same-sex marriage in the US to an increase in the rates of [[HIV/AIDS]] infection.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sovo.com/2009/6-12/news/localnews/10213.cfm |title=Emory researchers: Gay marriage bans increase HIV infections |publisher=Webcitation.org |access-date=February 8, 2012 |url-status=unfit |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090818065609/http://www.sovo.com/2009/6-12/news/localnews/10213.cfm |archive-date=August 18, 2009 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Elaine Justice|url=http://shared.web.emory.edu/emory/news/releases/2009/06/study-links-gay-marriage-bans-to-rise-in-hiv-rate.html|title=Study Links Gay Marriage Bans to Rise in HIV infections|publisher=Emory.edu|access-date=June 27, 2010}}</ref> The study linked the passage of same-sex marriage ban in a state to an increase in the annual HIV rate within that state of roughly 4 cases per 100,000 population.

A study by the [[Columbia Mailman School of Public Health]] found that gay men in Massachusetts visited health clinics significantly less often following the legalization of same-sex marriage in that state.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16203621|title=Gay marriage 'improves health'|work=BBC News |date=December 16, 2011|access-date=December 20, 2011}}</ref>

==In popular culture==
The Fox sitcom ''[[Roc (TV series)|Roc]]'' was the first sitcom to feature a same-sex marriage in 1991.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.eonline.com/photos/14090/remember-these-lgbtq-firsts-on-tv/428610|title=1991: Roc from Remember These LGBTQ Firsts on TV?|website=E! Online}}</ref> Since then, several shows and series have featured same-sex marriages, including amongst others ''[[Married...With Children|Married...with Children]]'', ''[[Roseanne]]'' ("[[December Bride (Roseanne)|December Bride]]"), ''[[Glee (TV series)|Glee]]'', ''[[Friends]]'' ("[[The One with the Lesbian Wedding]]"), ''[[Brooklyn Nine-Nine]]'', ''[[Modern Family]]'', ''[[The Simpsons]]'' ("[[There's Something About Marrying]]"), ''[[The Ellen DeGeneres Show]]'', ''[[Brothers & Sisters (2006 TV series)|Brothers & Sisters]]'', ''[[Grey's Anatomy]]'', ''[[Will & Grace]]'', ''[[Conan (talk show)|Conan]]'', ''[[Steven Universe]]'', ''[[Shameless (American TV series)|Shameless]]'', ''[[The Fosters (American TV series)|The Fosters]]'', etc.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bustle.com/articles/92027-8-tv-marriages-that-changed-the-conversation-about-same-sex-marriage-for-the-better|title=8 TV Marriages That Changed The Conversation About Same-Sex Marriage For The Better|website=Bustle|date=June 26, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Dance Show |url=https://www.gayestepisodeever.com/episodes/married-with-children-gay-episoide |website=Gayest Episode Ever}}</ref>

The 22nd season premier of the [[PBS]] animated-show ''[[Arthur (TV series)|Arthur]]'' featured the marriage of teacher Mr. Ratburn and his male partner.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/arthur-character-mr-ratburn-comes-out-gay-gets-married-season-n1005436|title='Arthur' character Mr. Ratburn comes out as gay, gets married in season premiere|website=NBC News|date=May 14, 2019 }}</ref> Alabama's public television channel refused to air the episode.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/21/arthur-gay-wedding-banned-alabama-public-tv-same-sex-union|title=Arthur: Alabama bans episode of kids' show featuring same-sex wedding|first=Luke|last=O'Neil|newspaper=The Guardian |date=May 21, 2019|via=www.theguardian.com}}</ref>

==Marriage statistics==
There is no complete data on the number of same-sex marriages conducted in the United States. Marriages and divorces are recorded by states, counties, and territories, plus New York City and the District of Columbia, but not by the [[Federal Government of the United States|Federal Government]]. States such as [[Oregon]] do not distinguish between opposite-sex and same-sex marriages in their official records. The legal records on marriage and divorce belong to the states.<ref>{{cite news |last1=National Academy of Sciences |title=The U.S. Vital Statistics System: A National Perspective |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219884/ |access-date=May 30, 2018 |agency=National Center for Health Statistics |issue=Bookshelf ID: NBK219884 |publisher=National Center for Biotechnology Information |date=2009}}</ref>

In August 2016, the [[United States Department of the Treasury|Treasury Department]] estimated the number of same-sex marriages by linking the tax returns of same-sex couples who had filed jointly in 2014 with their Social Security records. (Although this method excluded couples who file singly, these are small in number; of all married couples who file taxes, 97.5% file jointly.) This research showed that in 2014 there were about 183,280 married same-sex couples in the country, or "roughly a third of 1 percent of all marriages" according to ''The New York Times''.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Bui |first1=Quoctrung |title=The Most Detailed Map of Gay Marriage in America |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/upshot/the-most-detailed-map-of-gay-marriage-in-america.html |access-date=May 30, 2018 |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=September 12, 2016}}</ref> Numbers from 2015 showed a large increase to 250,450 marriages.<ref name="newyorktimes" /> According to Census Bureau data, heterosexual marriages still accounted for about 98 percent of marriages for people under 35 in 2021.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Stone |first1=Lyman |title=Now Political Polarization Comes for Marriage Prospects |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/06/us-marriage-rate-different-political-views/674358/ |agency=The Atlantic |date=2023}}</ref>

According to the 2015 statistics, female couples were four times more likely to have children than male couples. Additionally, male couples earned a pretax average of $165,960 per year, while lesbian couples earned $118,415 and straight couples earned $115,210. The highest rates of female same-sex marriage were found in [[Oakland, California|Oakland]] (2.1% of all marriages), [[Seattle]], [[San Francisco]], [[Springfield, Massachusetts|Springfield (MA)]] and [[Portland, Oregon|Portland (OR)]], whereas gay male marriages were most frequent in San Francisco (3.2%), [[Washington D.C.]], [[New York City]], Seattle and [[Fort Lauderdale, Florida|Fort Lauderdale]].<ref name="newyorktimes">[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/upshot/the-most-detailed-map-of-gay-marriage-in-america.html The Most Detailed Map of Gay Marriage in America] ''The New York Times''</ref>

The [[United States Census Bureau]] has collected data on unmarried same-sex households since 2005. Since 2013 following ''United States v. Windsor'', the Bureau began recording married same-sex households in its ''Same-Sex Couples'' report.<ref name=":5" /> 
{| class="wikitable"
|+
! colspan="5" |Percent of same-sex households with children
U.S. Census Bureau<ref name=":5" />
|-
!
! colspan="2" |Married
! colspan="2" |Unmarried
|-
!Year
!male
couple
!female
couple
!male
couple
!female
couple
|-
|2005
|34.8%
|39.0%
|10.6%
|24.7%
|-
|2006
|37.0%
|35.7%
|10.2%
|24.8%
|-
|2007
|32.4%
|38.6%
|10.1%
|24.6%
|-
|2008
|33.9%
|27.9%
|7.4%
|25.9%
|-
|2009
|28.6%
|28.9%
|6.6%
|21.9%
|-
|2010
|25.2%
|26.2%
|6.2%
|23.0%
|-
|2011
|26.1%
|26.2%
|6.1%
|21.9%
|-
|2012
|25.3%
|27.7%
|6.4%
|22.8%
|-
|2013
|18.8%
|27.0%
|5.2%
|20.5%
|-
|2014
|16.2%
|26.2%
|6.0%
|21.9%
|-
|2015
|13.6%
|26.0%
|6.0%
|22.1%
|-
|2016
|12.8%
|25.5%
|5.6%
|20.4%
|-
|2017
|11.2%
|25.5%
|4.7%
|21.2%
|-
|2018
|12.4%
|25.5%
|4.9%
|19.3%
|-
|2019
|9.6%
|27.0%
|3.9%
|19.7%
|-
|2020
| colspan="4" |Not available
|-
|2021
|8.9%
|26.2%
|3.5%
|17.6%
|-
|2022
|8.1%
|27.1%
|2.6%
|16.2%
|}
It recorded about 252,000 same-sex ''spouses'' in 2013; 335,000 in 2014; 425,000 in 2015; 487,000 in 2016; 555,000 in 2017; 593,000 in 2018. In 2018, the states of California, Texas and New York had the highest total number of same-sex households, whereas Wyoming, Vermont, South Dakota and Connecticut had the most married same-sex households in comparison to unmarried households (92.4% of Wyoming same-sex households were married, followed by Vermont at 79.3%, South Dakota at 77.8% and Connecticut at 70.7%). Nationally, 59.5% of cohabiting same-sex couples were married.<ref name=":5">{{cite web|url=https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/same-sex-couples/ssc-house-characteristics.html?#|title=Characteristics of Same-Sex Couple Households: 2005 to Present|website=census.gov}}</ref>

The [[Population Reference Bureau]] reported that by October 2015 approximately 486,000 same-sex marriages had taken place in the United States. It estimated that 45% of all same-sex couples in the country were married at that time.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.prb.org/increase-in-married-same-sex-us-couples/|title=Existing Data Show Increase in Married Same-Sex U.S. Couples – Population Reference Bureau}}</ref>

According to [[Gallup (company)|Gallup]], the percent of cohabiting same-sex couples who are married rose from 38% in 2015 to 49% in 2016 and to 61% in 2017.<ref name="GN-20170622">{{cite web |last=Jones |first=Jeffrey M. |title=In U.S., 10.2% of LGBT Adults Now Married to Same-Sex Spouse |url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/212702/lgbt-adults-married-sex-spouse.aspx |date=June 22, 2017 |work=[[Gallup (company)|Gallup News]] |access-date=July 25, 2018 }}</ref>

==Case law==
{{see also|Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States#Lawsuits seeking to overturn statutory bans}}
United States federal and state [[case law]] regarding same-sex marriage:

===1970s===
* ''Anonymous v. Anonymous'', 67 Misc.2d 982 (N.Y. 1971). The law makes no provision for a "marriage" between persons of the same sex.
* ''[[Baker v. Nelson]]'', 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971). Upholds a Minnesota law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.  (Overruled by ''Obergefell v. Hodges'' in 2015; see below)
* ''[[Jones v. Hallahan]]'', 501 S.W.2d 588 (Ky. 1973). Upholds the denial of a marriage license to two women in Kentucky based on dictionary definitions of marriage, despite the fact that state statutes do not specify the gender of marriage partners.<ref>{{cite book|last=Cantor |display-authors=etal |first=Donald J.|title=Same-Sex Marriage: The Legal and Psychological Evolution in America|year=2006|publisher=Wesleyan University Press|location=Middletown, CT|pages=117–8|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lydHmmrHB8QC&pg=PA117|isbn=9780819568120}}</ref>
* ''Frances B. v. Mark B.'', 78 Misc.2d 112 (1974). Marriage is and always has been a contract between a man and a woman.
* ''[[Singer v. Hara]]'', 522 P.2d 1187 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974). The historical definition of marriage is between one man and one woman, and same-sex couples are inherently ineligible to marry. This ban does not constitute sex discrimination.

===1980s===
* ''[[Adams v. Howerton]]'', 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982), ''cert. denied'', 458 U.S. 1111. A same-sex marriage does not make one a "spouse" under the ''Immigration and Nationality Act''.
* ''De Santo v. Barnsley'', 476 A.2d 952 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984). Same-sex couples cannot divorce because they cannot form a common law marriage.<ref>[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12528764226087213713&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr De Santo v. Barnsley, May 11, 1984], retrieved January 19, 2013</ref>

===1990s===
* ''In re Estate of Cooper'', 149 Misc.2d 282 (Sur. Ct. Kings Co. 1990). The state has a compelling interest in fostering the traditional institution of marriage and prohibiting same-sex marriage.
* ''[[Baehr v. Lewin]]'', 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993). A statute limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the Hawaii Constitution's equal protection clause unless the state can show that the statute is both justified by compelling state interests and also narrowly tailored. This ruling prompted the adoption of Hawaii's [[Hawaii Constitutional Amendment 2 (1998)|constitutional amendment]] allowing the State Legislature to restrict marriage to different-sex couples and the federal ''[[Defense of Marriage Act]]''.
* ''[[Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia#Dean v. District of Columbia|Dean v. District of Columbia]]'', 653 A.2d 307 (D.C. 1995). DC does not authorise same-sex marriage; denial of a marriage license does not violate the [[Due Process Clause]] of the [[United States Constitution]].
* ''Storrs v. Holcomb'', 645 N.Y.S.2d 286 (App. Div. 1996). New York does not recognize or authorize same-sex marriage. Overturned in part by ''Martinez v. County of Monroe'' in 2008.
* ''In re Estate of Hall'', 707 N.E.2d 201, 206 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). Illinois does not recognize a same-sex marriage. The petitioner's claim to be in a same-sex marriage was not in a marriage recognized by law.
* ''[[Baker v. Vermont]]'', 170 Vt. 194; 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999). The Common Benefits Clause of the [[Constitution of Vermont]] requires that same-sex couples be granted the same legal rights as married persons, though it need not be called ''marriage''.

===2000s===
* ''Frandsen v. County of Brevard'', 828 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 2001). The [[Constitution of Florida|Florida Constitution]] will not be construed to recognize same-sex marriage; sex classifications not subject to strict scrutiny under the Constitution.
* ''Burns v. Burns'', 560 S.E.2d 47 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). Marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
* ''[[In re Estate of Gardiner]]'', 42 P.3d 120 (Kan. 2002). A post-operative male-to-female transsexual is not a woman within the meaning of the statutes and cannot validly marry a man.
* ''Rosengarten v. Downes'', 806 A.2d 1066 (Conn. Ct. App. 2002). Connecticut will not dissolve a Vermont civil union.
* ''Standhardt v. Superior Court ex rel. County of Maricopa'', 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). The [[Constitution of Arizona]] does not provide the right to same-sex marriage.
* ''[[Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health]]'', 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003). The denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated provisions of the [[Constitution of Massachusetts|Massachusetts State Constitution]] guaranteeing individual liberty and equality, and it was not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
* ''[[Same-sex marriage in Indiana#Lawsuits|Morrison v. Sadler]]'', 821 N.E.2d 15 (Ind. Super. Ct. 2005). Indiana's ''Defense of Marriage Act'' is valid.
* ''[[Langan v. St. Vincent's Hospital]]'', 802 N.Y.S.2d 476 (App. Div. 2005). For the purposes of New York's wrongful death statute, the survivor partner from a Vermont civil union lacks standing as a "spouse".
* ''[[Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning]]'', 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006). Nebraska's [[Nebraska Initiative Measure 416 (2000)|Initiative Measure 416]] does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, was not a bill of attainder, and does not violate the First Amendment.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf |title=Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006) opinion |access-date=December 20, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111213233153/http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf |archive-date=December 13, 2011 |url-status=dead  }}</ref>
* ''[[Lewis v. Harris]]'', 908 A.2d 196 (N.J. 2006). Prohibiting same-sex ''marriage'' does not violate the [[Constitution of New Jersey|New Jersey Constitution]], but the state must extend all the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples. The [[New Jersey Legislature]] had 180 days to amend the marriage laws or create a "parallel structure".
* ''[[Andersen v. King County]]'', 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006). Washington's ''Defense of Marriage Act'' does not violate the [[Constitution of Washington|State Constitution]].
* ''Hernandez v. Robles'', 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006). The [[New York Constitution]] does not require that marriage rights be extended to same-sex couples.<ref>[http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_05239.htm Opinion of the Court, ''Hernandez v Robles''], accessed September 24, 2014</ref>
* ''[[Same-sex marriage in Maryland#Conaway v. Deane & Polyak|Conaway v. Deane]]'', 932 A.2d 571 (Md. 2007). Upholds a Maryland law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
* ''[[Martinez v. County of Monroe]]'', 850 N.Y.S.2d 740 (App. Div. 2008). Because New York recognizes the marriages of opposite-sex couples from other jurisdictions, it must do the same for same-sex couples.<ref>{{cite web|last=Louis| first=Tim |url=http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/news/articles/2008/05/GAY-MARRIAGE-Technicality-delays|title=Gay Marriage: Technicality delays county's appeal|location=Rochester, N.Y. |newspaper=City Newspaper|access-date=June 27, 2010}}</ref>
* ''[[In re Marriage Cases]]'', 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008). Limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is invalid under the equal protection clause of the [[Constitution of California|California Constitution]]. Full marriage rights, not merely domestic partnership, must be offered to same-sex couples.<ref>[http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/S147999.pdf 'In re Marriage Cases], 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008).</ref>
* ''[[Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health]]'', 957 A.2d 407 (Conn. 2008). The availability of civil unions but not marriage to same-sex partners is a violation of the equality and liberty provisions of the [[Constitution of Connecticut|Connecticut Constitution]].
* ''[[Strauss v. Horton]]'', 207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009). [[Proposition 8 (2008)|Proposition 8]] was validly adopted, and marriages contracted before its adoption remain valid.<ref>[http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/S168047.pdf ''Strauss v. Horton''], 207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009).</ref>
* ''[[Varnum v. Brien]]'', 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009). Barring same-sex couples from marriage violates the equal protection provisions of the [[Iowa Constitution]]. Equal protection requires full marriage, rather than civil unions or some other substitute, for same-sex couples.

===2010s===
;Challenges to DOMA Section 3
* ''[[Gill v. Office of Personnel Management]]'' (2009–2013). Section 3 of the federal ''Defense of Marriage Act'' is found unconstitutional in U.S. district court. The [[United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit|First Circuit Court of Appeals]] affirms that ruling and stays implementation pending appeal. ''Windsor'' finds Section 3 unconstitutional and appeal of ''Gill'' is denied by the Supreme Court.
* ''[[Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services]]'' (2009–2013). Decided alongside ''Gill'' with the same outcome.
* ''[[Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management]]'' (2010–2013). Section 3 of the federal ''Defense of Marriage Act'' is found unconstitutional in U.S. district court, which determines that sexual orientation is a [[suspect classification|quasi-suspect classification]] requiring the court to apply [[intermediate scrutiny]], that is, to determine whether Section 3 relates to an important government interest. On appeal, the case is held in abeyance pending the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in ''Windsor'', which settles the issues raised in ''Golinski'', the appeal of which to the Supreme Court is then denied.
* ''[[United States v. Windsor]]'' (2010–2013). Section 3 of the federal ''Defense of Marriage Act'' is found unconstitutional in U.S. district court. The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|Second Circuit Court of Appeals]] affirms that ruling, as does the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Government began implementing the decision the same week.<ref>{{cite web|last=Kaplan|first=Elaine|title=Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: Guidance on the Extension of Benefits to Married Gay and Lesbian Federal Employees, Annuitants, and Their Families – (OPM Benefits memo)|agency=United States Office of Personnel Management|publisher=Scribd.com|access-date=March 31, 2014|date=June 28, 2013|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/150591306/OPM-Benefits-Memo}}</ref>
;California Proposition 8
* ''[[Hollingsworth v. Perry]]'' (2009–2013). California's Proposition 8, a voter-endorsed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, is found unconstitutional in U.S. district court in ''Perry v. Schwarzenegger''. The proposition's backers appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upholds the district court's finding of unconstitutionality in ''Perry v. Brown''. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the proposition's backers lacked standing to appeal and left the district court ruling intact.<ref>{{cite news|last=Dolan|first=Maura|title=Prop 8: Gay marriages can resume in California, court rules |url=http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-prop-8-gay-marriage-20130628,0,1889039.story|access-date=June 28, 2013 |newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]]|date=June 28, 2013}}</ref>
;Same-sex marriage rights
* ''[[Same-sex marriage in Wyoming#Christiansen v. Christiansen|Christiansen v. Christiansen]]''. On June 6, 2011, the [[Supreme Court of Wyoming]] grants a divorce to two women who married in Canada, but says its decision does not apply "in any context other than divorce".<ref>{{cite news|last=Barron|first=Joan|title=Wyoming Supreme Court reverses same-sex divorce ruling|url=http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_56d136c9-ea3c-54c6-b5db-39bf9fb28a48.html |access-date=January 16, 2013|newspaper=Caspar Star Tribune|date=June 7, 2011}}</ref>
* ''[[Port v. Cowan]]'' (2010–2012). Maryland must recognize valid out-of-state same-sex marriages under doctrine of [[comity]].<ref name="cowan">{{cite web|title=Port v. Cowan, No. 69, September Term, 2011. (May 18, 2012) |url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/md-court-of-appeals/1601252.html|work=[[Findlaw]]|access-date=July 17, 2012}}</ref>
* ''[[Garden State Equality v. Dow]]'' (2011–2013), New Jersey's civil unions violate due process guarantees; denying same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional in state superior court. The N.J. Supreme Court refuses to stay the ruling and the state defendants drop their appeal.
* ''[[Griego v. Oliver]]'', 316 P.3d 865 (N.M. 2013). The New Mexico Supreme Court rules that the [[Constitution of New Mexico|State Constitution]] requires marriage rights to be extended to same-sex couples.
* ''[[Kitchen v. Herbert]]'', 961 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (2013). U.S. district court rules Utah's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds that ruling on June 25, 2014. All parties support review by the U.S. Supreme Court, and that court denied review on October 6.<ref name=scotusdenied/>
* ''[[Whitewood v. Wolf]]'' (Pennsylvania). On May 20, 2014, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] rules that Pennsylvania's same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Denniston|first1=Lyle|author1-link=Lyle Denniston|title=Pennsylvania: Same-sex marriage ban struck down|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/05/pennsylvania-same-sex-marriage-ban-struck-down/|access-date=October 20, 2014|publisher=SCOTUSblog|date=May 20, 2014}}</ref>
* ''[[Geiger v. Kitzhaber]]'' and ''[[Rummell v. Kitzhaber]]'' (Oregon). On May 19, 2014, district judge [[Michael J. McShane]] declares Oregon's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite news |last=Marshall |first=Cathy |url=http://www.kgw.com/news/Oregon-gay-couples-line-up-for-potential-marriage-licenses-259815911.html |title=Gay couples immediately occurring after ruling |publisher=Kgw.com |date=May 20, 2014 |access-date=June 29, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140530080731/http://www.kgw.com/news/Oregon-gay-couples-line-up-for-potential-marriage-licenses-259815911.html |archive-date=May 30, 2014  }}</ref>
* ''[[Bostic v. Schaefer]]'' (Virginia). The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|Fourth Circuit]] on July 28, 2014, in a 2–1 decision, affirms a district court ruling that Virginia's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples is unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Carpenter |first1=Dale|title=Fourth Circuit strikes down Virginia ban on same-sex marriage|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/28/fourth-circuit-strikes-down-virginia-ban-on-same-sex-marriage/|website=The Volokh Conspiracy |date=July 28, 2014}}</ref> The Supreme Court denied review on October 6.<ref name=scotusdenied/>
* ''[[Baskin v. Bogan]]'' (Indiana) and ''[[Wolf v. Walker]]'' (Wisconsin). The Seventh Circuit consolidated these cases and on September 4, 2014, upheld two district court rulings that had found Indiana's and Wisconsin's bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite news|first=Chris|last=Johnson |url=http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/09/04/7th-circuit-rules-marriage-bans-wisconsin-indiana/ |work=Washington Blade| date=September 4, 2014| access-date=September 4, 2014|title=7th Circuit rules against marriage bans in Wisconsin, Indiana}}</ref> The U.S. Supreme Court denied review on October 6.<ref name=scotusdenied>{{cite news |last1=Howe|first1=Amy|title=Today's orders: Same-sex marriage petitions denied|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/todays-orders-same-sex-marriage-petitins-denied/|access-date=October 6, 2014|publisher=SCOTUSblog|date=October 6, 2014}}</ref>
* ''[[Bishop v. United States|Bishop v. Smith]]'' (Oklahoma). On July 18, 2014, the Tenth Circuit upholds the district court ruling that Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite news|title=US Appeals Court Tosses Oklahoma Gay Marriage Ban |url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/court-rules-gay-marriage-oklahoma-case-24618411|access-date=July 18, 2014|date=July 18, 2014}}</ref> The Supreme Court denied review on October 6.<ref name=scotusdenied/>
* ''[[Barrier v. Vasterling]]'' (Missouri). State circuit judge J. Dale Youngs rules on October 3, 2014, that Missouri's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions violates the plaintiff same-sex couples' right to equal protection under both the state and federal constitutions.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Johnson|first1=Chris |title=Judge orders Missouri to recognize same-sex marriages|url=http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/10/03/judge-orders-missouri-recognize-sex-marriages/|access-date=October 20, 2014|work=Washington Blade|date=October 3, 2014}}</ref>
* ''[[Caspar v. Snyder]]'' (Michigan). On January 15, 2015, U.S. district judge [[Mark A. Goldsmith]] ruled that the state must recognize the validity of "window marriages" established on March 21 and 22, 2014, before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed a district court ruling in ''DeBoer v. Snyder'' that found Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, despite the fact that ''DeBoer'' was later reversed.<ref>{{cite web|title=Caspar v. Snyder - Freedom to Marry in Michigan|url=https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/caspar-v-snyder-freedom-marry-michigan|publisher=ACLU|access-date=November 18, 2014}}</ref> The state chose not to appeal.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Brand-Williams|first1=Oralandar|title=No appeal on marriages 'an early Valentine's Day gift'|url=http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/04/michigan-will-challenge-gay-marriages/22870829/|access-date=February 4, 2015|work=Detroit News|date=February 4, 2015}}</ref>
* ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'' (2013-2015). U.S. Supreme Court case finding state bans on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional under the [[Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution|14th Amendment]]. (Overturned ''Baker v. Nelson'')

==Public opinion==
{{Main|Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States}}
{{Public opinion SSM in US}}

Americans began to be polled occasionally on the topic in the 1980s and more regularly in the 1990s. From 1988 to 2009, support for same-sex marriage increased between 1% and 1.5% per year. In the 2010s, it increased more quickly.<ref>{{cite web |date=May 19, 2016 |title=Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage Appears to Shift at Accelerated Pace |url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/opinion-on-same-sex-marriage-appears-to/ |website=[[FiveThirtyEight]]}}</ref>

Gallup found that nationwide public support reached 50% in May 2011,<ref name="news.gallup.com" /> 60% in May 2015,<ref name="https" /> and 70% in May 2021.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=McCarthy |first=Justin |date=2021-06-08 |title=Record-High 70% in U.S. Support Same-Sex Marriage |url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx |access-date=2022-07-19 |website=Gallup.com |language=en}}</ref>

The [[Pew Research Center]] similarly found 40% in 2010, 50% in 2013 and 61% in 2019.<ref name="Staff">{{Cite web|url=https://www.people-press.org/2019/05/14/majority-of-public-favors-same-sex-marriage-but-divisions-persist/|title=Majority of Public Favors Same-Sex Marriage, but Divisions Persist|last=Staff|date=May 14, 2019|website=[[Pew Research Center]]|access-date=June 25, 2019}}</ref>

{{As of|2016|post=,}} 83% of Americans aged 18–29 supported same-sex marriage.<ref>{{cite news|title=Americans' Support for Gay Marriage Remains High, at 61%|url=http://news.gallup.com/poll/191645/americans-support-gay-marriage-remains-high.aspx|website=[[Gallup (company)|Gallup]]|date=May 19, 2016}}</ref>

{{As of|2021|post=,}} there was majority support for same-sex marriage in 47 states, ranging from 50% in [[South Carolina]] to 85% in [[Massachusetts]]. There was plurality support in [[Alabama]], with 49% supporting and 47% opposing. Only [[Mississippi]] and [[Arkansas]] had majority opposition to same-sex marriage; in Mississippi, 55% opposed and 44% supported, while in Arkansas, 52% opposed and 47% supported same-sex marriage.<ref name=":3" />

{{As of|2018|post=,}} 60% of Americans said they would not mind if their child married someone of the same gender.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/21/republicans-would-least-like-their-kids-marry-transgender-person-democrats-republican/|title=Republicans would least like their kids to marry a transgender person. For Democrats? A Republican.|last=Bump|first=Philip|date=February 21, 2019|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|access-date=February 22, 2019}}</ref>

Annual polling conducted by [[Gallup poll|Gallup]] each May in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 has found support for same-sex marriage stable, with two-thirds of Americans indicating that same-sex marriage should be recognized as valid under law (a range of 63% to 67% was recorded).<ref name="auto">{{cite web|url=http://news.gallup.com/poll/234866/two-three-americans-support-sex-marriage.aspx|title=Two in Three Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage|work=[[Gallup (company)|Gallup]]|date=May 23, 2018}}</ref><ref name="Gallup 2019">{{cite web |last1=McCarthy |first1=Justin |title=U.S. Support for Gay Marriage Stable, at 63% |url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/257705/support-gay-marriage-stable.aspx |publisher=Gallup |access-date=July 15, 2019 |date=May 22, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/311672/support-sex-marriage-matches-record-high.aspx|title=U.S. Support for Same-Sex Marriage Matches Record High|website=Gallup|date=June 1, 2020}}</ref> In 2022, a new record high of 71% of respondents stated that same-sex marriage should be legally recognized as valid under the law.<ref>{{cite web |last1=McCarthy |first1=Justin |title=Same-Sex Marriage Support Inches Up to New High of 71% |url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/393197/same-sex-marriage-support-inches-new-high.aspx |website=Gallup |date=June 2022 |access-date=14 December 2022}}</ref> A 2024 ''Gallup'' poll found that support has decreased to 69% of Americans (83% of Democrats, 74% of independents and 46% of Republicans) supported same-sex marriage, while 29% opposed it.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Megan Brenan |first=Gallup |date=June 24, 2024 |title=Same-Sex Relations, Marriage Still Supported by Most in U.S. |url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/646202/sex-relations-marriage-supported.aspx |access-date=July 19, 2024 |website=Gallup.com |language=en}}</ref>

A [[Grinnell College]] National Poll in September 2022 indicated that 74% of Americans thought that same-sex marriage should be a guaranteed right – 13% thought it should be left to elected officials, and 13% were unsure.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Majority of Americans Believe Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage Should be Guaranteed Rights {{!}} Grinnell College |url=https://www.grinnell.edu/poll/guaranteed-rights |access-date=2023-01-08 |website=www.grinnell.edu}}</ref>

==See also==
{{Portal|LGBTQ|United States}}
* [[Divorce of same-sex couples]]
* [[History of same-sex marriage in the United States]]
* [[LGBT employment discrimination in the United States]]
* [[LGBTQ rights in the United States]]
* [[Recognition of same-sex unions in the Americas]]
* [[Same-sex unions and military policy#United States]]
* [[Status of same-sex marriage]]
* [[Timeline of same-sex marriage in the United States]]
* [[Timeline of same-sex marriage]]

===Legislation===
* [[Domestic partnership in the United States]]
* [[Federal Marriage Amendment]]
* [[Respect for Marriage Act]]
* [[Former U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions]]
* [[Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state]]
* [[Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States]]
* [[Same-sex marriage status in the United States by state]]
* [[Same-sex unions in the United States]]

===Miscellaneous===
* ''[[A Union in Wait]]'' (documentary film)

==Notes==
{{Notelist}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==Bibliography==
* {{Cite book |last=Chauncey |first=George |url=https://archive.org/details/whymarriagehisto0000chau |title=Why Marriage? The History Shaping Today's Debate over Gay Equality |publisher=Basic Books |year=2004 |isbn=0-465-00957-3 |location=New York |author-link=George Chauncey |url-access=registration}}
* {{Cite book |last1=Corvino |first1=John |title=Debating Same-Sex Marriage |last2=Gallagher |first2=Maggie |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2012 |isbn=978-0-19-975631-5 |location=New York |author-link=John Corvino |author-link2=Maggie Gallagher}}
* {{Cite book |last=Dobson |first=James C. |title=Marriage under Fire: Why We Must Win This War |title-link=Marriage Under Fire |publisher=Multnomah |year=2004 |isbn=1-59052-431-4 |location=Sisters, OR |author-link=James Dobson}}
* {{Cite book |last1=Murdoch |first1=Joyce |title=Courting Justice: Gay Men and Lesbians v. the Supreme Court |last2=Price |first2=Deb |publisher=Basic Books |year=2001 |isbn=0-465-01513-1 |location=New York}}
* {{Cite journal |last=NeJaime |first=Douglas |date=October 2012 |title=Marriage Inequality: Same-Sex Relationships, Religious Exemptions, and the Production of Sexual Orientation Discrimination |journal=California Law Review |volume=100 |issue=5 |pages=1169–1238 |jstor=23408736}}
* {{Cite book |last=Rauch |first=Jonathan |title=Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America |title-link=Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America |publisher=Times Books |year=2004 |isbn=0805076336 |location=New York |author-link=Jonathan Rauch}}
* {{Cite magazine |last=Sullivan |first=Andrew |author-link=Andrew Sullivan |date=November 9, 2012 |orig-date=1989, [[The New Republic]] |title=Here Comes the Groom: A (Conservative) Case for Gay Marriage |url=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/11/gay_marriage_votes_and_andrew_sullivan_his_landmark_1989_essay_making_a.single.html |magazine=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]}}
* {{Cite book |title=Same-Sex Marriage Pro & Con: A Reader |publisher=Vintage |year=2004 |isbn=1-4000-7866-0 |editor-last=Sullivan |editor-first=Andrew |edition=2nd}}
* {{Cite book |last=Wolfson |first=Evan |url=https://archive.org/details/whymarriagematte00wolf |title=Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry |publisher=Simon & Schuster |year=2004 |isbn=0-7432-6459-2 |location=New York |author-link=Evan Wolfson |url-access=registration}}

==External links==
* {{Wikinews inline|US Supreme Court declares same-sex marriage legal}}
* [http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.May2008.pdf American Courts on Marriage: Is Marriage Discriminatory? 1998–2008], Joshua Baker, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, May 2008.
* [https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2012/may/08/gay-rights-united-states Gay rights in the US, state by state] ''[[The Guardian]]''
* {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080417023217/http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/california-supreme-court-set-to-consider-gay-marriage/18429/ |date=April 17, 2008 |title=''LA Weekly'' feature, "California Supreme Court Set to Consider Gay Marriage," February 2008 by Matthew Fleischer }}
* [http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm PollingReport.com Law and Civil Rights] compendium
* [http://timelines.latimes.com/gay-marriage/ Timeline: Gay Marriage, ''Los Angeles Times'', October 6, 2014]
* [https://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2013-03-25/supreme-court-weighs-same-sex-marriage.html The Shifting Landscape of State Same-Sex Marriage Laws] as of February 26, 2014, by the [[Bloomberg L.P.|Bloomberg]] Visual Data Center showing various charts with respect to the development of same-sex marriage in the United States

{{Same-sex marriage in the United States}}
{{LGBT rights in the United States}}
{{Americas topic|Recognition of same-sex unions in}}
{{Status of same-sex unions}}
{{United States topics}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Same-Sex Marriage In The United States}}
[[Category:Same-sex marriage in the United States| ]]
[[Category:2015 in LGBTQ history]]