In Vermont,
gay marriage is currently legal. In fact, Vermont was the first state to
legally recognize civil unions and they did so without a court ruling in 2000.
In Vermont, gay marriages and civil unions are both afforded the same rights as
marriage. In 1999, the state Supreme Court ruled that the right to marry, was an
entitlement offered to all individuals, regardless of gender. 

In Virginia,
marriage is strictly defined as a union between one man and one woman.There is
no legal recognition of gay marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships in
Virginia. Marriage attorneys are set to challenge the constitutionality of the
the state’s legal definition of marriage in Virginia. 

Currently,
Washington state offers no legal recognition for gay marriage. The state
enacted the Defense of Marriage  in 1998 and the act was upheld by the
courts. In fact, the State’s Supreme Court decided that the state did indeed,
have the power to limit marriage to opposite sex couples. Yet, the language of
the law only forbid same sex marriage, not recognition of other same sex
relationships in Washington. 

West Virginia marriage laws only allow for one man and one woman to enter into marriage. In, West Virginia marriage was clearly defined with the enactment of the Defense of Marriage act. However, a bill that would have amended the constitution to ban same sex marriage, was voted down in 2009. In fact the amendment was reintroduced and voted down again. Yet, there are no laws preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

In West Virginia, marriage laws are the only laws that currently apply to the LGBT community. They are prevented form getting married, but unable to legally protect themselves from discrimination. Perhaps, discrimination laws would be utilized to fight the ban on gay marriage and that is why there are none in place.

West Virginia law on marriage explicitly forbid the legal recognition of same sex marriage. However, the state's constitution is without an amendment that bans gay marriage. In fact, a proposed amendment that would ban gay marriage, was voted down twice. 

Law makers have claimed that there are much more pressing issues that should be dealt with before they decide on the legality of gay marriage in West Virginia. Marriage is already defined by the Defense of Marriage Act and lawmakers feel that it deserves no further protection.

Conversely, there are no legal protections against discrimination in the LGBT community. However, the state's laws regarding domestic violence, protect all couples, regardless of gender in West Virginia. Marriage laws however, do not allow for any legal recognition for same sex couples. In fact, same sex couples are not entitled to any of the rights, benefits or responsibilities afforded to married couples in West Virginia. 

Marriage is seen as a unique relationship, that is entitled to special rights and protections, that are not afforded to any other relationship, same sex or otherwise. However,many law makers in West Virginia, believe that banning gay marriage in the constitution, would be akin to making discrimination legal. Therefore, there does not seem to be a rush to ban gay marriage in West Virginia. 

Marriage should not be banned for the LGBT community because it is a form of discrimination by preventing equal access to the benefits of marriage. Perhaps, that is why the state offers no legal protection form discrimination in West Virginia. Marriage laws should be changed to offer some legal recognition for same sex couples, so that they can enjoy equal rights.

Currently, Wisconsin marriage laws forbid the legal recognition of same sex marriages. However, the state has not yet enacted the Defense of Marriage Act. Yet statutes define marriage as a union between a man and a woman in Wisconsin. Marriage was defined in early statues and in a constitutional amendment in 2006. 

However, as of August 2009,  domestic partnerships are legally allowed in Wisconsin. Marriage laws prevent domestic partners from having the designation of marriage, but they are entitled to the rights of marriage in Wisconsin. Marriage rights are granted equally to couples in the state. In fact, the state also allows for a legal termination of a domestic partnerships in the same way that it allows for divorce.

Domestic partners are entitled to all of the rights and responsibilities, normally reserved for marriage. In fact, domestic partners are covered under the state's family leave act. In many states, same sex couples are not afforded the right to take leave from work in order to care for each other. However, Wisconsin law on marriage mirror the laws that domestic partnerships abide by, and therefore, partners can take paid leave from work. 

In addition, domestic partners are entitled to shared property and assets, as well as the right to inherit said property, in the absence of a will in Wisconsin. Marriages and Domestic partnerships also entitle partners to visit each other in the hospital and in prison. Domestic partners can also be entitled to make any medical decisions regarding their partner in Wisconsin.

Marriage laws generally reserve those rights for spouses and relatives in other states.  This can be an important designation, because without the domestic partnership, there would be no recognition of the relationship and partners would not be considered family. 

In addition, domestic partners are able to dissolve the relationship in the same way that a divorce takes place. In order to dissolve the relationship, couples must get certification from the state that says the relationship has ended. In Wisconsin, marriage and domestic partnerships, receive equal legal consideration.

In 1982, Wisconsin became the first state to forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation. In fact, it would be almost a decade before any other state took such action and almost thirty years before a federal law addressed the issue.In addition, Wisconsin marriage laws did not explicitly forbid legal recognition of same sex relationships. 

Therefore, domestic partnerships became legally recognized, providing equal access to the rights normally reserved for marriage. By allowing domestic partnerships, Wisconsin marriage laws avoid discriminating against individuals based on their sexual orientation.

Although almost half of Michigan’s
residents support the idea of allowing full marital rights and benefits for Michigan
gay, lesbian, and transgender couples, Michigan marriage unions between
same-sex relationships are still heavily banned within the state of Michigan.
Gay partnerships were dealt a very disappointing verdict in 2004, when nearly
60% of voters approved the Michigan State Proposal- 04-02, which legally
prohibits same-sex Michigan marriages and civil unions, as well as domestic
partnership benefits. 

Although the Michigan gay community and Michigan gay
marriage supporters are persistently lobbying for this ban to be lifted, or, at
least, for limited homosexual
partnership rights, the conservative politics of the state are awfully strong
in their belief that Michigan marriage unions are intended for heterosexual
couples only. It was only in 2003, after all, that the U.S. Supreme Court
struck down Michigan’s sodomy laws, which criminalized same-sex sexual acts in
general.

Progress towards equal rights is slow, but surely, on the
horizon. On June 13, 2009, during a gay and lesbian rights rally, Democrat Pam
Byrnes, Michigan’s House Speaker, said that she had brought forth certain
measures that would help in the eventual change of the current Michigan
marriage laws. “I think we definitely see a change in attitude and it’s
time to revisit this,” she said.

The “measures” Byrne was referring to was the following set of bills:

        
 A
repeal of of the Constitutional amendment, which will require a two-thirds vote
of both chambers of the legislature

        
 A
bill to legalize same-sex marriage in Michigan

        
A
bill to remove state law restrictions which prevent Michigan from recognizing
same-sex marriages performed in another state

Although the proposal does indeed show that there is some effort being made to
change the current Michigan marriage laws, a two-thirds majority in the
Republican-controlled Senate proves to be a very serious setback in bringing
these measures to voters.

On March 11, 2010, a school board in the town of Fulton, Mississippi, announced that its upcoming high school prom would have to be canceled. The cause for concern? The notice came shortly after a gay student challenged a school policy and requested to bring her girlfriend to the event, naturally, as her date. She also wanted to wear a tuxedo, which was also against school policy. This seemingly minor decision, however, should give onlookers a general idea of where the state majority stands on Mississippi gay rights, and more specifically, on the same-sex Mississippi marriage debate.

In Mississippi, marriage for same-sex partnerships was officially banned in a constitutional amendment on November 2, 2004. Mississippi was joined by ten other predominantly conservative Midwestern states that day, and any hopes that the Mississippi gay community had for same-sex partnership rights, quickly came to a standstill when the bill was passed, as predicted, by a shocking 86% majority vote.

The decision came just a few months after the state of Massachusetts made history by being the first in the nation to allow gay, lesbian, and transgender couples to legally marry and receive marital rights. Although Mississippi already had an anti-gay marriage statute enacted almost a decade beforehand in 1997, conservatives wanted the institution of Mississippi marriage to be defined as a strictly heterosexual institution yet again, and they wanted it clearly stated, this time around, in their constitution. Although the amendment does not necessarily ban civil unions, or any other legal protections for that matter, a Mississippi marriage for same-sex couples is temporarily out of the question.

Despite the hardships that the Mississippi gay community is forced to face for the present time, there is at least some rights given to the homosexual residents of the state by allowing Mississippi gay singles to adopt a child within its borders. Adoption by Mississippi gay couples, however, is still not permitted. If you need legal advice and assistance, contact Mississippi lawyers.

On December 25, 2009, in Missouri, gay highway state trooper Dennis Engelhard was struck and killed by an oncoming vehicle when he stepped out of his patrol car to set up flares for the scene of another accident. The 10-year veteran left behind a life partner of fifteen years, as well as a son. Due to anti-gay Missouri marriage laws, however, which refuse to recognize same-sex domestic partnerships, no benefits will be provided to his partner. If Engelhard had been married, though, or, if his relationship had been legally recognized in the state of Missouri, his partner would have been entitled to benefits from the state pension system, totalling more than $28,000 a year. Benefits, which would have undoubtedly helped the widowed man in raising the son of Engelhard.

Although Missouri may be known as the "Show Me" state, as one can see from such examples, it certainly shows no support whatsoever of equal rights for it's homosexual residents. The Missouri gay community faces an uphill battle in trying to change the discriminatory Missouri law on marriage, especially after a constitutional amendment was enacted on November 2, 2004, which officially bans the marriage of same-sex partnerships.

The state's vote regarding the Missouri marriage laws and Missouri gay rights was the first chance that voters anywhere in the country, had to voice their opinions on the matter since the state of Massachusetts made history months earlier by being the first in the nation to allow gay, lesbian, and transgender couples to legally marry and receive marital rights. Although a majority vote in favor of the Missouri gay marriage ban was indeed expected, the turnout was roughly 400,000 more than anyone expected, especially for a primary election. Roughly 1.5 million residents of Missouri, gay and straight, stepped up to cast their vote on various issues, but the most controversial being the anti-gay Missouri marriage laws.

Since the 2004 passing of the constitutional amendment, Missouri Marriage Laws currently state the following:

It is public policy of the state of Missouri to only acknowledge marriage between between a man and a woman.

Any marriage not between a man and a woman is invalid.

No recorder can issue a marriage license, except to a man and a woman.

A marriage between two people of the same sex will not be acknowledged, for any purpose, in this state of Missouri, even if it is valid where contracted. 

In Montana, marriage for same-sex partnerships was officially banned in a constitutional amendment on November 2, 2004. Montana was joined by ten other predominantly conservative Midwestern states that day, and any hopes that the Montana gay community had for same-sex Montana marriage rights quickly came to a standstill when the bill was passed, as predicted, by a 67% majority vote.

Known as Initiative 96, the change to the Montana Constitution includes the addition of a formal definition of a legal Montana marriage, one which states that "only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state." This can be found in Article XIII, Section 7 of the state's constitution.

The decision for the ban came just a few months after the state of Massachusetts made history by being the first in the nation to allow gay, lesbian, and transgender couples to legally marry and receive marital rights. Although Montana already had a strong anti-gay marriage outlook and never recognized same-sex marriages or civil unions to begin with, conservatives wanted Montana marriage to be defined as a strictly heterosexual institution in their constitution. The amendment, however, does not necessarily ban civil unions, or, any other legal protections, for that matter.

 And so, in 2009, a domestic partnership bill was proposed that aimed to take certain measures to protect against discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. If passed, the bill would have included basic rights such as hospital visitation and joint property ownership. However, all bills were shot down when they were brought to the state legislature. And so, for now, Montana marriage for same-sex couples is seems to be out of the question, rights for those in same-sex partnerships remain extremely limited.

Despite the hardships that the Montana gay community is forced to face at the present time, there are at least some rights given to the homosexual residents of the state by allowing Montana gay singles to adopt a child within its borders. Adoption by Montana gay couples, however, is still not permitted. If you need legal advice and assistance, contact Montana lawyers.

Although there has yet to be an actual legal advancement made for the Nebraska gay community, at least in regards to homosexual relationships being granted the same privileges as heterosexual Nebraska marriages, there is proof of a decent fight being put up against the state's anti-gay laws. Up until 2005, a federal judge had never struck down a constitutional amendment set on limiting Nebraska marriages to heterosexual couples, especially not one that an overwhelming 70% of Nebraskan voters approved. U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon, however, changed all of that. 

On May 12, 2005, after being challenged by the groups Lambda Legal, a gay rights organization, and the Lesbian and Gay Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, who strongly urged the judge to reconsider the provision of the Nebraska constitution, Section 29, which defined marriage as solely being between a man and a woman and prohibited all types of state recognized same-sex partnerships and civil unions (as well as same-sex foster parents), Judge Bataillon voided the same-sex Nebraska marriages ban which was signed in the year 2000, stating that it interfered with the rights of those in the Nebraska gay community. 

He further supported his decision with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and said that the ban deprived Nebraska gay and lesbian partnerships of participation in the political process. It was the first time that a state constitutional amendment of the kind, that is one which banned Nebraska marriages for same-sex partners, had been so clearly struck down by a court.

In a way, it can be said that the Nebraska gay marriage debate made history on this judge's decision alone. However, it was a verdict that the majority of Nebraskans were clearly not pleased with, and it did not last long. And so the controversial issue was brought to a higher court, yet again, and due to a very evident popular demand, a U.S. federal appeals court reversed Bataillon's ruling and reinstated the Nebraska gay marriage ban on July 14, 2006. The issue continues to be challenged by equal rights activists, Nebraska gay marriage supporters, and those who question if judicial power can, indeed, be so quickly overturned. If you need legal advice and assistance, contact Nebraska lawyers.