Oklahoma gay marriage has been banned from the state. The citizens of Oklahoma believe they are protecting the integrity of Oklahoma marriage. The people there appear to be against gay marriage and gay civil-unions that they are trying to make the DOMA law a federal law. Some Oklahoma gays have fought against the Oklahoma law on marraige in court. They explain how they have been together for years and were even married in Canada. 

They just want to be treated like every other couple but there are too many people who do not think their relationship is worthy of an Oklahoma marriage. The couple does not want to leave Oklahoma because it has been their home for the last 12 years and they love almost everything about it, except one thing, they are not accepted as a couple. They need and rely on the state benefits just like straight couples, but do not get a chance to receive them because too many voters are out to get them for no reason aside from the fact that they do not support Oklahoma gays.

From an outsiders perspective, views on Oklahoma marriage regarding Oklahoma gays could be viewed as hate for all gay people. Even the federal government is in the cross hairs of anti-gay marriage advocates. A nation wide ban on gay marriage would devastate millions of Americans and it would be done for no good reason except discrimination.

Oklahoma marriage is not the only thing under fire. There is no chance for Oklahoma gay couples to adopt a child who needs a loving family because of the anti-gay parenting act. The anti-gay parenting act is another attack at those gays who are trying to build a family but there are too many people creating road blocks. If the whole country followed the ways of Oklahoma regarding gay Oklahoma marriage then the world would be moving back in time. 

If Oklahoma somehow got the federal government to pass the act banning gay unions and gay adoptions everywhere it would be like segregation and old Jim Crow laws coming back into everyday life. Gays and their supporters will have to do their best to make sure Oklahoma changed it's ways and and starts to become progressive.

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.

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.

In Maine,
gay marriage is not currently legal. Although a bill was passed in April 2009,
that would have legalized gay marriage, the bill was overturned. However,
domestic partnership is legal in Maine. While Maine has enacted the Defense of
Marriage Act, a state constitutional amendment that would have banned gay
marriage failed to pass. However, registering as domestic partners, remains
legal.