• DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:  Washington, D.C. just became the sixth jurisdiction in the country to allow same-sex marriages. In December 2009, the D.C. council approved the legalization of same-sex unions, and D.C. mayor Adrien Fenty(D) immediately signed the bill into law.  However, D.C. legislation is subject to a 30-day congressional review period, and a Utah congressman attempted to block same-sex marriages from becoming legal. On March 2, 2010, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. of the U.S. Supreme Court rejected requests to delay the law’s implementation. 

• HAWAII:  In late January 2010, the Hawaii Senate passed the state Civil Unions bill (House Bill 444), which would have allowed individuals in registered civil unions the same rights and responsibilities as married heterosexual couples.  When the bill reached the Hawaii House of Representatives, however, the bill was shelved indefinitely by a voice vote -- effectively killing the bill for the entire legislative session.  Gay rights advocates characterized the voice vote as a “cowardly move” in part because it avoided having to record the specific vote of each legislator. 

• INDIANA:  The Indiana Senate recently revived a measure to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriages (Senate Joint Resolution 13). S.J.R. 13 now moves to the House, where it is expected to meet a quick death. This is the fourth time the Senate has approved such an amendment, which must be passed by two separately elected legislatures and voters before being placed into the state’s constitution.  Indiana law already bans same-sex marriages by statute, but conservatives have argued that the amendment is necessary to prevent activist judges from overturning the law. 

• MARYLAND:  Although it is expected to draw legal challenges, Maryland’s attorney general recently announced that state agencies should recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions until the state legislature or courts decide otherwise. The attorney general’s legal opinion was issued in response to the District of Columbia’s acceptance of same-sex unions. State law currently defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, but is silent on the validity of same-sex marriages from other states.  Maryland also has extended certain protections for same-sex couples, including: domestic partners who own homes together are exempt from the state inheritance tax, and same-sex couples are permitted to make medical and burial decisions for each other and are eligible for tax benefits that married people get when transferring property.  

• NEW HAMPSHIRE:  New Hampshire began permitting same-sex marriages on January 1, 2010, but it did not take long for opponents to take action by introducing House Bill 1590, which sought to repeal same-sex marriage, and by moving to amend the state constitution through CACR 28 to define marriage in the state as being between one man and one woman. However, in mid-February, members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives decisively rejected both attempts to repeal the state’s gay marriage law.  The constitutional amendment was defeated by a vote of 201-135 (and so can not advance to the Senate), while H.B. 1590 was defeated by a vote of 210-109. 

• NEW JERSEY:  Following in the New York Legislature’s footsteps, which defeated a similar measure in December 2009, the New Jersey State Senate rejected a proposal to allow same-sex couples to marry on January 7, 2010. This vote signals the end of the effort to win legislative approval, but gay marriage supporters are prepared for a new battle before the New Jersey Supreme Court, which in 2006 ordered lawmakers to give same-sex couples the same rights as other couples. The Legislature responded by enacting a civil unions law; however, gay rights activists claim that the measure leaves them subject to discrimination in such things as applying for health insurance or visiting partners in the hospital. 

• VIRGINIA: Prior to his departure, former Governor Timothy Kaine(D) proposed permitting insured state workers to include domestic partners, adult children and other relatives living in their households in their state health benefits.  On the advice of Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R), the proposed regulatory change has been withdrawn from consideration. Even if the proposed regulation had not been withdrawn, one lawmaker had submitted a budget amendment to define only children and blood relatives in addition to heterosexual spouses as eligible for health benefits through a state worker, thus excluding same-sex domestic partners.

This entry was written by Nancy L. Ober.