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.

In Oregon,
gay marriage has been close to being legalized in recent years. Many believe
Oregon could be the next state to allow gay Oregon marriages. Due to a number
of court battles and reversed decisions, the Oregon gay community has seen the
legalization of gay Oregon marriages be given and taken right back away from
them. Currently, Oregon allows domestic partnerships. 

The right to have
domestic partnerships comes after a bill set would have allowed civil-unions
did not become a law. Oregon gay couples can thank Gov. Kulongoski for pushing
for the bill that allowed domestic partnerships. The bill came out of the
Oregon Family Fairness act and it gave Oregon gay couples many of the same
rights that Oregon marriages offer. Some of the rights part of the domestic
partnership include, filing joint custody of insurance forms, hospital
visitation rights, and certain rights given to you if your partner passes away.
A court challenge almost stopped the domestic partnership from being passed,
however after a delay the law finally took effect in early February 2008.

Oregon marriage licenses were given to Oregon gay couples in
the county of Multnomah. As soon as the county started issuing marriage
licenses to Oregon gays there were hundreds a day being requested. It was first
ruled that the state had no right to block the marriage licenses by the state’s
legislature, legislative counsel. Also,  the judge is the first hearing on
the issue refused to place an injunction on the gay Oregon marriage licenses. 

After more court decisions favored the right for Oregon gay couples to marry,
those for the DOMA act argued all the gay marriage licenses went against the
state constitution. They argued that Multnomah did not have the right to issue
gay marriage licenses. The act that was put into action was called ballot
measure 36. It banned Oregon gay marriages. It was also a retro active ban so
it made all the Oregon marriages between gays invalid even though they had take
place already. The supreme court made the decision final that gay marriage
would not be allowed in the state of Oregon.

    Gay couples in Oregon have will not stop fighting for more
rights. The people were so close to having gay marriages allowed that they were
giving out hundreds of licenses a day. Numerous court battles were ruled in
favor of gay marriage but ultimately the defense of marriage act won out. 

Many
believe Oregon will soon allow gay marriages again, but for now the will have
to settle for domestic partnerships and the benefits that come along with that.
Census numbers show that there are thousands of registered gay couples in
Multnomah alone and someday they may even get a chance to marry in their home
state.

The
current Pennsylvania marriage laws do not allow gay marriage. Pennsylvania gay
couples are blocked from being married by the Defense of Marriage Act,
otherwise known as DOMA. Right now some anti-gay marriage activists are in an
uproar that Pennsylvania may soon allow gay marriage.

Even though there is not
even a civil-union law allowing Pennsylvania gay couples to get married, some
religious people in the region feel they need to make sure that the gay
marriage laws are not passed. The Pennsylvania for Marriage organization is
looking to recruit people to protect Pennsylvania marriage from being tainted
by Pennsylvania’s gay community. They believe in the sanctity of marriage and
believe and their religious liberty to protect the sanctity of marriage.

The Pennsylvania for Marriage organization strongly feel
marriage should only be between one man and one woman. They believe anything
else would damage the state, children, and the meaning of a Pennsylvania
marriage. They are looking to block HB 300, which would become part of the
Human Relations act. HB 300, if passed, would allow for no gender or sexual
orientation discrimination when it comes to Pennsylvania marriage.

They have
listed on their web site some of the prominent names that support HB 300 which
would allow Pennsylvania gay couples to either marry or form a civil union.
They even asked everyone to use their civil action center and contact their
local state representatives in an effort to block the Pennsylvania gay
movement. Those against gay Pennsylvania marriage are looking to amend the
state constitution to completely ban all Pennsylvania gay marriages,
civil-unions, or any other type of legal bond that would have the gay couples
enjoying the benefits of marriage.

The amendment to the constitution may be added banning gay
marriage and unions. Gays argue that the language of the amendment is so sloppy
and unclear that it seems as if the amendment would take away rights that gays
have now, not regarding marriage. The amendment banning gays from joining
together as a married couple is in place in Pennsylvania as it was voted in the
senate. If the gay couples would like to form a union they will have to go to a
state that will accommodate them. 

The state has spoken and claimed that it will
not recognize any union or marriage between 2 people of the same gender.
Therefore,the forming of any union outside of Pennsylvania will not be valid or
recognized under Pennsylvania marriage laws. Any couples that are hoping to
claim benefits because they have a union or marriage formed somewhere else,
while living in Pennsylvania, will not be granted those benefits.

Like
most other states, South Carolina adopted DOMA. The Defense of Marriage Act was
enacted by many states to clearly define marriage as to prohibit legalizing gay
marriages. In South Carolina, gay marriage is legally forbidden. In addition,
South Carolina approved a constitutional amendment that explicitly forbids same
sex marriages and civil unions, in addition to the enactment of DOMA. In fact,
seventy eight percent of voters supported the measure.  In South Carolina,
gay marriage, domestic partnerships and civil unions are banned outright.

In South Carolina, gay marriages and other same sex relationships are forbidden
from being legally recognized by Article XVII. In other words, no same sex
relationship shall be recognized by the state, no matter what it is called, and
no matter if it is recognized by another state. In fact, Title 20 states that a
marriage between same sex couples is forbidden and against the public policies
of the state of South Carolina. Marriages are forbidden in several
circumstances, such as between relatives and in the case of a same sex couples. 

In fact, Title 20 explains in detail, which marriages are forbidden by the
state of South Carolina. Marriages are not allowed between specific
individuals, such as a woman and her father, son, grandson etc., and another
woman. Likewise, a man may not marry his mother, stepmother, sister or another
man. This Title equates same sex marriage with an individual marrying a
relative.

However, South Carolina’s gay population appears to be in consideration by some
state senators. In fact, The Civil Union Equality Act was introduced to the
state Senate in 2009.  The bill was meant to establish the legality of
civil unions for same sex couples in South Carolina. Marriages would still be
explicitly forbidden for same sex couples but same sex unions would be legally
recognized in South Carolina. Gay couples would be afforded all rights and
responsibilities usually afforded to married couples in South Carolina. 

Marriage provides certain rights such as, the right to share health insurance,
the right to assign a a partner as a health care proxy and the right to own
property jointly. If the bill were to become law, it would be active
immediately upon the signature of the governor of South Carolina. Marriage’s definition
would remain unchanged as the bill would only legally allow for civil unions
for same sex couples. The bill has not moved and currently awaits review and
the voting procedure of the state.

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.

Although there are no gay marriage laws granting full marital rights for homosexual couples in Nevada, marriage-minded gay partnerships received at least some good news when, in 2009, they were granted legal recognition of same-sex unions in Nevada. Marriage it is not recognized, but at least it's monumental progress in the right direction. 

In Nevada, marriage for same-sex couples was actually legally banned with an astonishing 67% majority vote in 2002, in an amendment to the Constitution of Nevada entitled Question 2. However, despite the ban, the Senate Bill (283) creates a domestic partnership registry that allows those in same-sex relationships to have the same rights as Nevada's heterosexual married couples. The bill makes Nevada the 17th state to legally recognize residents which are in homosexual relationships. 

Although those rights are not nearly the same as those in other states' gay marriage laws, because it does not recognize the partnership as an actual legal marriage. The new bill, similar to California's historic domestic partnership law, does allow gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender couples to receive the exact same rights, responsibilities, entitlements, and benefits as those with a Nevada marriage license, such as health care decision–making, insurance rights, information–access rights, and inheritance rights, without actually having a legal Nevada marriage license.

Although the bill was vetoed, as promised, on May 26, 2009, by Republican Governor Jim Gibbons, who opposes the idea of gay marriage laws and has previously said, "I just don't believe in" domestic partnerships, the veto was successfully overturned by both the Senate, in a 14-7 vote, and finally, on May 31, 2009, by The Assembly, in a 28-14 vote. And despite the outlook of the Governor, who was assured that the majority of Nevadans, who were so strongly against gay marriage laws at the beginning of the decade, would likewise not support the new domestic partnership bill, there was indeed, no major opposition or overwhelming outcry from the public, and the law took effect on October 1, 2009. If you need legal advice and assistance, contact Nevada lawyers.

In a lot of ways, it was bound to happen. After being one
of the first states to pass a civil unions bill in 2007, providing rights, such
as the same state benefits accorded to married couples, to those in same-sex
partnerships within the New Hampshire gay community, New Hampshire followed the
lead of four other fellow New England states in furthering equal rights for
all, by legalizing same-sex New Hampshire marriages. 

That action made it the
sixth U.S. state to do so. On June 3, 2009, despite opposing the idea of
legalized New Hampshire marriage rights for homosexual couples in the past,
Governor John Lynch signed a new marriage equality bill (House Bill 436) in
support of New Hampshire gay marriage unions, after changes were made and two
other bills were approved to give religious institutions and clergy greater
protections in relation to gay marriage, such as performing the marriages. The
bills became effective on January 1, 2010.

In the months building up to the official signing, the
House of Representatives had technically already approved the New Hampshire
marriage equality bill in question weeks beforehand, but it would not pass
due to certain sensitive issues relating to religious institutions. And so
while the Senate changed the language of the bill, on insistence of the
Governor, two addition bills (HB73 and HB310) were also signed, which affirm
religious freedom protections with regard to marriage. 

These additions state
that religious organizations and societies have “exclusive control”
over religious “doctrines, teachings and beliefs.” Simply put, the
newly adapted New Hampshire marriage laws for same-sex couples are separate
from the laws of marriage in respective religious communities. So if your
religious leader wants to deny you the right to marry within the religion, they
can. Other than attempting to convince a religious leader with valid arguments, by law, couples can’t do anything else about it.

The New Hampshire gay marriage law also recognizes
same-sex marriages from other states, as well as civil unions in New Hampshire.
Gay couples who have such civil unions in New Hampshire, will automatically be
considered  married, as of January 1, 2011.

Although there have been measures taken to try and topple
down these New Hampshire gay rights advancements, including a proposal to
repeal same-sex marriage and civil unions, and another to create a
constitutional amendment that bans same-sex New Hampshire marriage unions, all
proposals were defeated on February 17, 2010. For now, marriage equality for
all in New Hampshire,  gay and straight, remains, and the successful New
England Marriage Equality movement continues to set an example for other areas
of the United States.