The trial is the second time a federal court heard expert testimony on the issue of marriage for gay and lesbian couples. In January 2010, AFER’s attorneys led by Ted Olson and David Boies presented 17 witnesses in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (later Hollingsworth v. Perry), which became known as a “truth commission” on marriage equality.

Lawyers representing two nurses, April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, echoed the same arguments put forth in the Perry trial:

“There is a well-emerged awareness that denial of the right to marry is a form of discrimination that our society can no longer tolerate…The right to marry is a fundamental right. It should apply regardless of sexual orientation.”

Witnesses representing the State, which is defending the ban, used the same, tired arguments we’ve seen in the past:

“The voters made a decision to define [marriage] as between a man and woman. Moms and dads are important, and children benefit from having both.”

Assistant state attorney Kristin Heyse argued on behalf of the State that the 2004 voter-approved amendment is the will of the people, and that the court would be unjust in overturning the law.

A February 2014 poll conducted by Equality Michigan shows 59% of adults in the state support the freedom to marry.

Since Judge Bernard Friedman scheduled the trial in October of last year, District Court decisions in Virginia, Utah, Oklahoma, and Texas have ruled laws prohibiting loving gay and lesbian couples from marrying are unconstitutional. Additionally, a District Court decision in Kentucky ordered the state to recognize out-of-state marriages.

“If all men and women truly have the inalienable right to pursue happiness, and if all people are created equal, then by extension of law, logic, and love, every adult couple should also have the freedom to join in marriage.”

The declaration comes on the heels of his call to action in the 2012 State of the State address for the Legislature to pass civil unions, which went into effect on January 1, 2013.

Gov. Hickenlooper’s support was echoed by both Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet and Congressmembers Jared Polis, Diana DeGette and Ed Perlmutter as part of the launch of “Why Marriage Matters Colorado,” a joint effort by the groups One Colorado, Freedom to Marry, and the ACLU of Colorado to build support for marriage equality in the Centennial State.

U.S. Federal District Judge Orlando L. Garcia released his 48-page decision today in Perry v. DeLeon, the Texas case seeking marriage equality and recognition of out-of-state marriages, ruling unconstitutional Texas’ marriage ban as violating the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Today’s Court decision is not made in defiance of the great people of Texas or the Texas Legislature, but in compliance with the United States Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution.

This is the fifth time a federal court has ruled laws prohibiting gay and lesbian couples from marrying unconstitutional and follows Judge Allen’s ruling in AFER’s case, Bostic v. Rainey, in Virginia just two weeks ago.

Following the Supreme Court’s 2013 decisions in DOMA and Perry v. Hollingsworth,  every federal court ruling on marriage equality has struck down discriminatory laws prohibiting the freedom to marry.

Perry v. DeLeon was filed by two couples – one wished to marry in the state they love, Texas, and the other wanted their Massachusetts marriage recognized in the Lone Star State.

The decision is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans.

Read the decision:

Judge John G. Heyburn II, appointed to the bench by George H. W. Bush, ruled that laws enumerated in the Kentucky Constitution “deny validly married same-sex couples equal recognition and benefits under Kentucky and federal law.” The ruling did not address whether the State must allow gay and lesbian couples to get married.

He stated that such laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. A hearing will be set in the near future to determine when the court’s order will take effect. The State will likely appeal today’s decision.

Read the order below.

The Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1 of 2004 which states only a marriage between one man and woman shall be valid or recognized in Kentucky  was approved by 75% of voters. Since 2004, the percentage of Kentucky voters who do not support marriage equality has seen a sharp decline from 72% to 55%.

The suit against the amendment, Bourke & Deleon v. Beshear, was filed on behalf of four married same-sex couples and their children.

Currently, there are 17 states, as well as the District of Columbia, that recognize marriage equality. Arguments are being heard today in District Court in a Texas case, and a decision is expected “very soon” in AFER’s federal court case in Virginia.

Greg Bourke, right, and Michael Deleon, two of the plaintiffs. Photo: Scott Utterback/The Courier-Journal

A federal judge in Oklahoma today found that the state’s ban on marriage for gay and lesbian couples is unconstitutional, ruling:

The Court holds that Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Couples won’t be lining up to get married just yet, however. The judge stayed his decision pending appeal.

This is the second federal judge in as many months to rule that laws preventing gay and lesbian couples from getting married violate the U.S. Constitution.

The case has seen little movement since it was originally filed in 2004 by two couples, Mary Bishop & Sharon Baldwin, who wish to get a marriage license in Oklahoma, and Susan Barton & Gay Phillips, who have a civil union from Vermont and want it to be recognized in their home state.

The historic U.S. Supreme Court decisions last summer on the Defense of Marriage Act and AFER’s challenge to California’s Prop. 8 added momentum to this and other cases throughout the country. There are now over 30 marriage equality-related lawsuits on the state or federal level in 22 states.

In his decision, Judge Terence Kern cited the arguments of AFER’s lead co-counsel Ted Olson at the U.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Olson responded with the rhetorical question [from Justice Scalia] of when did it become unconstitutional “to prohibit interracial marriage” or “assign children to separate schools.” Id. at 38. As demonstrated by Mr. Olson’s response, the mere fact that an exclusion has occurred in the past (without constitutional problem) does not mean that such exclusion is constitutional when challenged at a particular moment in history. This Court has an obligation to consider whether an exclusion, although historical, violates the constitutional rights of Oklahoma citizens.  Pg. 57

Read the full decision:

“Many Missourians, including myself, are thinking about these issues of equality in new ways and reflecting on what constitutes discrimination. To me, that process has led to the belief that we shouldn’t treat folks differently just because of who they are,” he said at a news conference.

A 2004 state constitutional amendment prevents  gay and lesbian couples from getting married in the state, and the state from recognizing the out of state marriages of gay couples.  Because of this, married same-sex couples will not be able to take advantage state tax benefits given to other married couples.

This will be the first tax-filing since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. All couples who are legally married will be able to file joint tax-returns, regardless of whether their home state recognizes their marriage. Married couples can also amend up to three years of tax returns to seek an additional refund.  This does not apply to couples with a civil union, domestic partnership, or other relationship status.

While emphasizing that his executive order dealt only with tax filing status, Nixon said he would like to see state voters take another look at recognizing same-sex marriage.

“I think if folks want to get married, they should be able to get married,” he said.

The New Civil Rights Movement gives a great recap of the first weddings:

Forty-five minutes past the stroke of midnight today, six couples became Hawaii’s first same-sex couples to marry.

The couples are Donna Gedge and Monica Montgomery (35 years), Paul Perry and Gary Bradley (11 years), Saralyn and Isajah Morales (four years), Shaun Campbell and Tony Singh (five years), Richard J. Rosehill and Shawna P. Okami (32 years) and Keola Akana and Ethan Wung (six years). They share a total of 93 years together, an average of over 15 years per couple.

Ten years ago today, a historic decision was issued which brought marriage equality to the first state in the nation.  The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled:

“The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens.”

And:

“We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution.”

The historic decision, authored by Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, was the final result of a case brought by seven gay and lesbian couples who lived in the state. They were represented by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, an organization that has played a critical role in securing marriage equality in the Northeast and dismantling the so-called Defense of Marriage Act in federal court. The organization’s Mary Bunato argued the case.

As the Associate Press notes today, because it was first state with marriage equality, Massachusetts set in motion the historic gains we’ve seen in recent years:

In the decade since the highest court in Massachusetts issued its landmark ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, 14 other states and the District of Columbia have legalized it, with Illinois poised to become the 16th in a few days.

Such gains were considered almost impossible before Massachusetts opened the door on Nov. 18, 2003, with a Supreme Judicial Court ruling that declared a ban on gay marriages unconstitutional. Opponents made doomsday predictions about how gay marriage would damage traditional marriage and lead to problems with children raised in same-sex households.

The state’s legislature just approved marriage equality legislation and Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie is expected to sign it into law. Gay and lesbian couples will be able to get married in the state starting December 2.

This is the third state in two months—and sixth state this year—to recognize the freedom to marry for all. Last week, the Illinois Legislature approved marriage equality legislation. Starting last month, gay and lesbian couples are able to get married in New Jersey. The State Supreme Court ruled that “Same-sex couples who cannot marry are not treated equally under the law today. The harm to them is real, not abstract or speculative.”

The vote puts an end to a long and twisting path for marriage equality in the Aloha State. In the 1990s, Hawaii could have been the first state that recognized the right to marry for gay and lesbian couples. During a lengthy court case, voters in 1998 passed a constitutional amendment that gave the authority to define marriage to the legislature, which passed a ban that year.

With today’s vote, however, the Hawaii Legislature has demonstrated that all couples should have the freedom to marry.

Today marks the anniversary of a momentous milestone in the marriage equality movement.

One year ago today, on Election Day 2012, voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington went to the polls and voted in favor of the freedom to marry for their gay and lesbian family, friends and neighbors, marking the first time marriage equality had been legalized via the ballot.  That same day, voters in Minnesota voted down Amendment 1, an amendment to the state’s constitution that would have defined marriage as being a union solely between a man and a woman. The state became the first in the country to vote against such an amendment on the ballot.

The clean sweep broke a 32-state streak, dating back to 1998, in which marriage equality had been vetoed by voters.  But more importantly, these victories marked a historic turning point in the quest for marriage equality, and are representative of American’s shifting attitudes around the freedom of to marry for gay and lesbian couples.

Since that historic day, 6 states—Rhode Island, Delaware, Minnesota, California, New Jersey and Illinois—have also opened their doors to marriage equality.  The momentum is on our side.  We are on the cusp of seeing the list of 15 states with marriage equality grow further.