Other pending marriage rulings Court decisions are awaited in three other cases seeking marriage equality for same-sex couples.
California What’s pending: Six cases at the state’s high court
What’s happened: After officials in San Francisco decide in February 2004 that withholding marriage licenses from same-sex couples violates the state constitution, they license and marry about 4,000 such couples. The state’s high court intervenes, ordering the licensing to stop while courts review the matter. Six cases are filed and gathered into one judicial proceeding. A trial court rules in March 2005 that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry.
An appeals court reverses that decision in October 2006. A decision is pending at the state’s high court.
Connecticut What’s pending: Kerrigan v. State of Connecticut
What’s happened: Several same-sex couples are denied marriage licenses and file their case in August 2004. Soon thereafter, state lawmakers pass a law enacting civil unions. In a ruling against the couples in July 2006, the trial court judge says the couples are guaranteed “equal protection,” not “equivalent nomenclature.” The case is appealed directly to the state’s highest court. New arguments are made casting civil unions as an inadequate remedy. A decision is pending at the state’s high court.
Maryland What’s pending: Conaway v. Deane
What’s happened: A group of gay and lesbian couples, along with a gay widower, sue in 2004 after they are denied marriage licenses. A trial court judge rules in January 2006 that excluding same-sex couples from marriage discriminates on the basis of sex. The state appeals the ruling to Maryland’s highest court. The Maryland Court of Appeals hears arguments in December 2006. The court’s seven judges appear divided in court on the issue and experts deem the outcome difficult to predict. A decision is pending at the state’s high court.
For
two
days
last
week,
things
got
pretty
hectic
for
Sean
Fritz
and
Tim
McQuillan.
In
less
than
24
hours,
the
two
Iowa
State
students
got
engaged,
secured
their
marriage
license
and
found
a
pastor
to
officiate
at
Iowa’s
first
gay
wedding.
But
even
at
that
hurried
pace,
Fritz,
24,
and
McQuillan,
21,
almost
missed
their
opportunity.
They
were
married
shortly
before
a
judge
suspended
his
decision
that
Iowa
must
allow
same-sex
marriage.
“The
ceremony
was
rushed
because
of
obvious
reasons,”
Fritz
told
the
Blade.
“We
exchanged
rings
and
signed
the
legal
documents.”
No
other
couples
made
it.
Fritz
and
McQuillan,
who
met
on
Facebook
and
have
known
each
other
for
one
year,
were
the
only
gay
couple
to
wed
before
local
officials
put
a
stop
to
the
process.
Fritz
said
he
was
relieved
that
he
and
McQuillan
achieved
the
goal
they
pursued
in
such
haste.
“We
both
felt
the
time
was
right
in
our
relationship
to
get
married,”
Fritz
said.
“We
are
committed
to
sharing
the
rest
of
our
lives
together
and
love
each
other
deeply.”
It’s
unclear,
though,
when
or
if
other
gay
couples
will
be
allowed
to
marry
in
Iowa.
The
decision
by
Polk
County
Judge
Robert
Hanson
to
suspend
his
ruling
ensures
no
more
marriage
licenses
will
be
issued
to
same-sex
couples
until
the
Iowa
Supreme
Court
reviews
the
case
that
triggered
his
decision.
Hanson
ruled
Aug.
30
that
Iowa’s
1998
Defense
of
Marriage
Act,
which
allowed
marriage
only
between
a
man
and
a
woman,
violated
the
constitutional
rights
of
due
process
and
equal
protection
of
six
gay
couples
who
had
sued.
If
the
high
court
backs
Hanson’s
ruling,
that
would
clear
the
way
for
gay
marriage
across
the
state.
But
a
move
to
overturn
his
ruling
could
preclude
any
further
weddings
and
call
the
union
of
Fritz
and
McQuillan
into
question.
David
Buckel,
director
of
Lambda
Legal’s
marriage
project,
said
no
timetable
has
been
set
for
the
case’s
review,
but
he’s
hopeful
the
decision
will
stand.
“It
shows
the
law
means
something,”
he
said.
“It
was
a
day
when
we
didn’t
see
the
gay
exception
to
the
law.”
Reactions
to
Hanson’s
ruling
and
its
repercussions
were
strong
and
mixed.
Human
Rights
Campaign,
National
Gay
&
Lesbian
Task
Force
and
other
gay
groups
were
quick
to
praise
the
decision.
“We
recognize
that
this
ruling
simply
validates
the
freedom
that
all
Americans
should
enjoy
to
marry,
commit
to
responsibility,
secure
their
families
and
seek
full
participation
in
citizenship,”
said
Steve
Driscoll,
co-chair
of
National
Stonewall
Democrats.
Gay
marriage
is
legal
in
Massachusetts,
and
nine
other
states
have
approved
spousal
rights
in
some
form
for
same-sex
couples.
Nearly
all
states
define
marriage
as
being
solely
between
a
man
and
a
woman,
and
27
states
have
such
definitions
in
their
constitutions.
But
not
all
supported
the
decision.
Republican
presidential
candidate
Mitt
Romney,
who
faced
the
issue
as
governor
of
Massachusetts,
criticized
the
ruling.
“The
ruling
in
Iowa
today
is
another
example
of
an
activist
court
and
unelected
judges
trying
to
define
marriage
and
disregard
the
will
of
the
people
as
expressed
through
Iowa’s
Defense
of
Marriage
Act,”
he
said.
“This
once
again
highlights
the
need
for
a
Federal
Marriage
Amendment
to
protect
the
traditional
definition
of
marriage
as
between
one
man
and
one
woman.”
Meanwhile,
the
Iowa
Family
Policy
Center
launched
a
petition
that
calls
on
state
legislators
to
constitutionally
define
marriage
as
the
exclusive
domain
of
opposite-sex
couples.
“The
fact
that
one
district
judge
usurped
the
authority
of
the
legislature
and
the
will
of
Iowans
to
make
law
from
the
bench
is
outrageous,”
said
Chuck
Hurley,
the
organization’s
president.
Gay
activists
in
Iowa,
however,
said
Hurley’s
petition
could
net
an
underwhelming
response.
Jessica
Brackett,
a
lesbian
and
director
of
One
Iowa’s
marriage
initiative,
said
most
Iowans
support
Hanson’s
decision.
“I
think
that
the
majority
of
Iowans
believe
that
same-sex
couples
should
be
treated
equally
under
the
law,”
she
said.
“I
believe
this
ruling
to
be
an
example
of
Iowa
values,
plain
and
simple.”
Brackett
said
although
it
has
been
suspended
and
appealed,
last
week’s
ruling
was
a
crucial
step
toward
full
equality
for
gays
not
only
in
Iowa
but
elsewhere.
“I
believe
this
is
a
very
historic
day
in
Iowa
and
in
the
country,”
she
said.
“I
think
because
we
are
a
Midwestern
state,
this
will
show
the
rest
of
the
country
that
...
The
following comments were posted by our readers and were
not edited by SOVO. We ask that you
treat others with respect; any post deemed offensive will
be removed.
