Marriage or liberation?: Reflections on two strategies in the struggle for lesbian and gay rights and relationship recognition

Rutgers Law Review

Volumn 61, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 567-593

  Stein, Edward ^a  

^a YESHIVA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 68249120532     PISSN: 00360465     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (220)

1. Thomas Stoddard, Why Gay People Should Seek the Right to Marry, OUT/LOOK, Fall 1989, at 9, reprinted in WILLIAM B. RUBENSTEIN, CARLOS A. BALL & JANE S. SCHACTER, CASES AND MATERIALS ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND THE LAW 678 (3d ed. 2008);
2. Paula Ettelbrick, Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation?, OUT/LOOK, Fall 1989, at 14, reprinted in RUBENSTEIN ET AL., supra, at 683. Both essays are also reprinted in WILLIAM N. ESKRIDGE, JR. & NAN D. HUNTER, SEXUALITY, GENDER, AND THE LAW 1098 (2d ed. 2004).
3. See Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U. S. 186, 193-94(1986) (citing Yao Apasu-Gbotsu et al., Survey on the Constitutional Right to Privacy in the Context of Homosexual Activity, 40 U. MIAMI L. REV. 521, 524 n. 9(1986)).
4. Id. at 194.
5. The three exceptions were the District of Columbia, see D. C. CODE § 1-2501(1977) (replaced by § 2-1401.01(2009)), Wisconsin, see WIS. STAT. § 101.22(1982) (replaced by § 106.50(2008)), and Massachusetts, see MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 151B, § 4(1989).
6. See, e.g., WILLIAM N. ESKRIDGE, JR., THE CASE FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE 59(1996).
7. See, e.g., Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982);
8. Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S. W.2d 588 (Ky. Ct. App. 1973);
9. Baker v. Nelson, 191 N. W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971);
10. Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974).
11. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 578(2003);
12. see also id. at 579 (O'Connor, J., concurring) (agreeing with the result in Lawrence without overruling Bowers).
13. The states that ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression are Minnesota, Rhode Island, New Mexico, California, Illinois, Maine, Hawaii, New Jersey, Washington, Iowa, Oregon, Vermont, Colorado, and the District of Columbia. NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE, STATE NONDISCRIMINATION LAWS IN THE U. S. (2008), http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/issue-maps/non-discrimination-7- 08-color.pdf. The states that ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation-but not gender identity/expression-are Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Nevada, Maryland, and New York. Id.
14. States providing some legal recognition for same-sex relationships include Massachusetts (marriage), Connecticut (marriage), Iowa (marriage), Maine (marriageas this Article was going to press, opponents of same-sex marriage have started attempting to obtain enough signatures to put a repeal of Maine's newly passed marriage law on the ballot; if they obtain enough signatures, the marriage law will not go into effect unless the majority of Maine voters vote in favor of it in a referendum), Vermont (marriage, starting September 1, 2009), New Jersey (civil union), New Hampshire (civil union-as this Article was going to press, the governor of New Hampshire was poised to sign a law legalizing same-sex marriage), California (domestic partnership; from May to November 2008, California allowed same-sex marriages, see In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008)), Oregon (domestic partnership), Washington (domestic partnership), District of Columbia (domestic partnership), Maryland (limited domestic partnership), Hawaii (reciprocal beneficiary, which is the same as a limited domestic partnership), Colorado (designated beneficiary, which is the same as a limited domestic partnership). NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE, RELATIONSHIP RECOGNITION FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES IN THE U. S. (2009), http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/issue-maps/ relationship-recognition-05-09-color.pdf. New York and Rhode Island, while they do not allow same-sex couples to marry (or to obtain a civil union or other such legal recognition), both recognize valid same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. Id. The District of Columbia also recognizes same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. Id.
15. In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d at 399;
16. Kerrigan v. Comm'r of Pub. Health, 957 A.2d 407, 481-82 (Conn. 2008);
17. Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 64 (Haw. 1993);
18. *906-07 (Iowa Apr. 3, 2009);
19. Goodridge v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 798 N. E.2d 941, 975 (Mass. 2003);
20. Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.2d 196, 220-21 (N. J. 2006);
21. Baker v. State, 744 A.2d 864, 889 (Vt. 1999).
22. See, e.g., JOHN D'EMILIO, SEXUAL POLITICS, SEXUAL COMMUNITIES: THE MAKING OF A HOMOSEXUAL MINORITY IN THE UNITED STATES, 1940-1970 (2d ed. 1983).
23. For a history of this event, see MARTIN DUBERMAN, STONEWALL (1993). For questioning of the conventional wisdom that Stonewall was a "founding event" of the LGBT rights movement in the United States, see D'EMILIO, supra note 11, at 231-33.
24. TOBY MAROTTA, THE POLITICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY 77(1981).
25. See supra notes 8-10 and accompanying text.
26. See U. S. Department of Defense, DOD 101: An Introductory Overview of the Department of Defense, http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/dod101/(last visited Apr. 1, 2009);
27. United States Postal Service, Postal Facts, http://www.usps.com/ communications/newsroom/postalfacts.htm (last visited Apr. 1, 2009);
28. Wal-Mart, Corporate Facts: Wal-Mart by the Numbers, http://walmartstores. com/download/2230.pdf.
29. The military's official policy and the regulations that implement them include 10 U. S. C. § 654(2006);
30. U. S. DEP'T OF DEF., DIRECTIVE NO. 1332.30, SEPARATION OF REGULAR AND RESERVE COMMISSIONED OFFICERS (1997);
31. U. S. DEP'T OF DEF., DIRECTIVE NO. 1304.26, QUALIFICATION STANDARDS FOR ENLISTMENT, APPOINTMENT, AND INDUCTION (1994);
32. U. S. DEP'T OF DEF., DIRECTIVE NO. 1332.14, ENLISTED ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATIONS (1994). For discussion, see JANET HALLEY, DON'T: A READER'S GUIDE TO THE MILITARY'S ANTI- GAY POLICY (1999).
33. Forty states have either a law or a constitutional amendment (or both) explicitly restricting marriage in that state to one man and one woman. NPR, State by State: The Legal Battle over Gay Marriage, http://www.npr.org/news/ specials/gaymarriage/map/(last visited May 9, 2009). The list of such states includes every state but Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Id. Almost all of the states that restrict marriage to different-sex couples also deny recognition to same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. See NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE, supra note 9.
34. Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419(1996) (codified at 1 U. S. C. § 7 and 28 U. S. C. § 1738C (2006)).
35. In 2007, 1,265 of the 7,624 reported incidents of hate crimes were motivated by sexual orientation; of these, ninety-eight percent were directed at lesbians, gay men, or bisexuals. See Fed. Bureau of Investigation, Hate Crime Statistics 2007, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table-01.htm (last visited May 8, 2009). Additionally, in 2007, while the number of reported bias incidents nationwide decreased, there was a more than five percent increase in reported hate crimes based on the victim's sexual orientation. Hate Crimes: Good News on Bias Incidents Based on Race and Religion; Bad News on Those Based on Sexual Orientation, WASH. POST, Nov. 5, 2008, at A22.
36. EMILY A. GREYTAK, JOSEPH G. KOSCIW & ELIZABETH M. DIAZ, HARSH REALITIES: THE EXPERIENCES OF TRANSGENDER YOUTH IN OUR NATION'S SCHOOLS 9-24(2009), http://www.glsen. org/binary-data/GLSEN-ATTACHMENTS/file/000/001/1375-1.pdf.
37. AMNESTY INT'L, STONEWALLED: POLICE ABUSE AND MISCONDUCT AGAINST LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER PEOPLE IN THE U. S. 39(2005), http://www.amnestyusa.org/outfront/stonewalled/report.pdf.
38. See Lydia Saad, Americans Evenly Divided on Morality of Homosexuality, GALLUP, June 18, 2008, http://www.gallup.com/poll/ 108115/Americans-Evenly-Divided-Morality-Homosexuality.aspx (finding only 57% of those polled consider homosexuality an "acceptable alternative lifestyle" and 48% consider homosexuality "morally wrong").
39. Stoddard, supra note 1, at 679.
40. Ettelbrick, supra note 1, at 684.
41. Id.
42. Id. at 688.
43. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12(1967).
44. Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78(1987) (holding a prison regulation restricting inmates' right to marry unconstitutional);
45. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374(1978) (upholding the right to marry among noncustodial fathers owing child support).
46. Steven Epstein, Gay Politics, Ethnic Identity: The Limits of Social Construction, in FORMS OF DESIRE: SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST CONTROVERSY 239, 256 (Edward Stein ed., 1990).
47. Carl Wittman, A Gay Manifesto (1970), reprinted in WE ARE EVERYWHERE: A HISTORICAL SOURCEBOOK OF GAY AND LESBIAN POLITICS 380, 383 (Mark Blasius & Shane Phelan eds., 1997).
48. Ettelbrick, supra note 1, at 684.
49. Of course, civil rights litigation is not always controlled by national or regional civil rights organizations; sometimes individuals bring litigation even when civil rights organizations advise against doing so. The same is true for LGBT rights litigation. For discussion, see Edward Stein, The Story of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health: The Bumpy Road to Marriage for Same-Sex Couples, in FAMILY LAW STORIES 27, 31 (Carol Sanger ed., 2008), and William B. Rubenstein, Divided We Litigate: Addressing Disputes Among Group Members and Lawyers in Civil Rights Campaigns, 106 YALE L. J. 1623, 1635-44(1997).
50. As this essay was being written, GLAD, the organization that represented the plaintiffs in the victories for the recognition of same-sex relationships in Vermont and Massachusetts, filed a federal constitutional challenge against certain applications of DOMA. See Abby Goodnough & Katie Zezima, Suit Seeks to Force Government to Extend Benefits to Same-Sex Couples, N. Y. TIMES, March 3, 2009, at A12. The complaint is available at http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-complaint-03-03-09.pdf.
51. Stoddard, supra note 1, at 679.
52. Id. at 683.
53. Goodridge v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 798 N. E.2d 941, 948 (Mass. 2003).
54. 852 P.2d 44, 68 (Haw. 1993).
55. Id.
56. *22 (Haw. Cir. Ct. Dec. 3, 1996).
57. Id.
58. *6 (Haw. Dec. 9, 1999).
59. HAW. CONST. art. I., § 23.
60. HAW. REV. STAT. § 572-1(2005).
61. Id. § 572C-1.
62. *8.
63. See Andrew Koppelman, Same-Sex Marriage and Public Policy: The Miscegenation Precedents, 16 QUINNIPIAC L. REV. 105, 106(1996) (Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee).
64. See Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419(1996) (codified at 1 U. S. C. § 7 and 28 U. S. C. § 1738C (2006)).
65. See, e.g., ARK. CONST. amend. 83;
66. COLO. CONST. art. II, § 31;
67. MONT. CONST. art. XIII, § 7. At one time Minnesota's marriage law did not explicitly say that marriage is between one man and one woman. See MINN. STAT. § 517.02(1967) ("Every male person who had attained the full age of twenty-one years, and every female person who has attained the full age of eighteen years, is capable in law of contracting marriage, if otherwise competent."). In 1997, Minnesota specifically amended its marriage law to exclude same-sex couples from marrying. MINN. STAT. § 517.03 (a) (4) (2008).
68. For a discussion of the various state DOMAs and their constitutionality, see ANDREW KOPPELMAN, SAME SEX, DIFFERENT STATES: WHEN SAME-SEX MARRIAGES CROSS STATE LINES (2006).
69. As of this writing, the Hawaii state legislature is currently debating whether to pass a civil union law. See Hawaii Debates Same-Sex Unions, N. Y. TIMES, Feb. 23, 2009, at A17.
70. 744 A.2d 864, 888-89(1999).
71. VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 15, §§ 1201-1207(2009).
72. See, e.g., Marc R. Poirier, Piecemeal and Wholesale Approaches Towards Marriage Equality in New Jersey: Is Lewis v. Harris a Dead End or Just a Detour?, 59 RUTGERS L. REV. 291(2007);
73. Alison Leigh Cowan, Gay Couples Say Civil Unions Aren't Enough, N. Y. TIMES, Mar. 17, 2008, at B1. As this paper was in its final stages, the Vermont legislature passed-over the governor's veto-a law that allows same-sex couples to marry starting September 1, 2009, making Vermont the first state to embrace full marriage equality for same-sex couples without being ordered to do so by a court. Jessica Garrison, Vermont Seals the Deal on Gay Marriage, L. A. TIMES, Apr. 8, 2009, at A14.
74. Goodridge v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 798 N. E.2d 941, 948 (Mass. 2003).
75. Id. at 969-70.
76. Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, 802 N. E.2d 565, 572 (Mass. 2004).
77. See, e.g., Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.2d 196, 219 (N. J. 2006).
78. See, e.g., In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384, 399 (Cal. 2008);
79. Kerrigan v. Comm'r of Pub. Health, 957 A.2d 407, 418 (Conn. 2008);
80. *30 (Iowa Apr. 3, 2009).
81. See CONN. GEN. STAT. § 46b-38aa (2008).
82. Kerrigan, 957 A.2d at 411-12.
83. The exceptions are New York, Rhode Island, and, perhaps, New Mexico. See Martinez v. County of Monroe, 850 N. Y. S.2d 740 (App. Div. 2008) (recognizing the validity of a same-sex marriage of a couple married in Canada);
84. Letter from Patrick C. Lynch, Att'y Gen., State of R. I., to Jack R. Warner, Comm'r, R. I. Bd. of Governers for Higher Educ. (Feb. 20, 2007), http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/ri-agstatement.pdf ("[W]hether based on Full Faith and Credit or on principles of Comity, Rhode Island will recognize same sex marriages lawfully performed in Massachusetts as marriages in Rhode Island.");
85. David Abel, Same-Sex Couples from N. M. Allowed to Marry in Mass.-Bay State Agency Clarifies Ruling, BOSTON GLOBE, July 27, 2007, at B3 (discussing Massachusetts determination that same-sex marriage does not violate New Mexico law). These states will recognize valid same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. Some other states may recognize valid same-sex marriages from other jurisdiction for limited purposes. See, e.g., Hammond v. Hammond, No. FM-11-905-08-B (N. J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. Feb. 6, 2009) (deciding to use New Jersey divorce law rather than civil union dissolution law with respect to a Canadian same-sex marriage). Some jurisdictions have granted divorce to couples who had civil unions. See, e.g., In re K. J. B. & J. S. O., No. CDCD-119660 (Iowa Dist. Ct. Nov. 14, 2003);
86. In re M. G. & S. G., No. 02-D-292 (W. Va. Fam. Ct. Jan. 3, 2003). Presumably, these jurisdictions would take the same approach to same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. Other courts have refused to grant divorces to couples in civil unions or same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Rosengarten v. Downes, 802 A.2d 170 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002);
87. Lane v. Albanese, No. FA-04-4002128-S, 2005 WL 896129 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2005).
88. Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d at 453. Prior to this decision, California had a strong domestic partnership law.
89. *1 (Cal. Feb. 26, 2009).
90. The national LGBT rights organizations did not get involved in the Hawaii marriage litigation until later in the case. See Rubenstein, supra note 32, at 1637-38. Similarly, the plaintiffs in Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307 (D. C. 1995), initially represented themselves but were eventually represented by Professor William Eskridge; Lambda and the local affiliate of the ACLU filed amicus briefs before D. C.'s highest court. See ESKRIDGE, supra note 5, at 100;
91. Rubenstein, supra note 32, at 1638 n. 72.
92. See Edward Stein, Past and Present Proposed Amendments to the United States Constitution Regarding Marriage, 82 WASH. U. L. Q. 611, 662(2004).
93. See Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d 17, 18 (Cal. 1948).
94. See Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 2(1967). For an interactive map that shows when the various states got rid of their laws against interracial marriage, see Loving Day, Legal Map, http://www.lovingday.org/legal-map (last visited May 8, 2009).
95. Sex classifications and classifications associated with birth status (that is, whether or not a person's birth parents were married to each other, sometimes referred to as legitimacy) receive intermediate scrutiny in contrast to the strict scrutiny that racial, ethnic, and nationality classifications receive. See, e.g., Clark v. Jeter, 486 U. S. 456, 461(1988) ("Between these extremes of rational basis review and strict scrutiny lies a level of intermediate scrutiny, which generally has been applied to discriminatory classifications based on sex or illegitimacy.").
96. See, e.g., Thomasson v. Perry, 80 F.3d 915, 928 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (refusing to grant heightened scrutiny for sexual-orientation classifications in the context of military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy);
97. Ben-Shalom v. Marsh, 881 F.2d 454, 464 (7th Cir. 1989) (same in the context of military's policy on homosexuality);
98. Woodward v. United States, 871 F.2d 1068, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (same);
99. Padula v. Webster, 822 F.2d 97, 103 (D. C. Cir. 1987) (same in the context of the FBI);
100. Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N. E.2d 1, 9 (N. Y. 2006) (plurality opinion) (same in the context of challenge to the constitutionality of New York's marriage laws).
101. See, e.g., Watkins v. U. S. Army, 847 F.2d 1329 (9th Cir. 1988), vacated and aff'd on other grounds, 875 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1989) (en banc);
102. Equal. Found. of Greater Cincinnati, Inc. v. Cincinnati, 860 F. Supp. 417, 437 (S. D. Ohio 1994), rev'd, 54 F.3d 261 (6th Cir. 1995), vacated, 518 U. S. 1001(1996), reinstated on reh'g, 128 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 1997);
103. Jantz v. Muci, 759 F. Supp. 1543, 1546 (D. Kan. 1991), rev'd, 976 F.2d 623 (10th Cir. 1992);
104. High Tech Gays v. Def. Indus. Sec. Clearance Office, 668 F. Supp. 1361 (N. D. Cal. 1987), rev'd, 895 F.2d 563 (9th Cir. 1990);
105. Tanner v. Or. Health Scis. Univ., 971 P.2d 435 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
106. In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384, 401 (Cal. 2008) (holding that sexualorientation classifications warrant strict scrutiny);
107. Kerrigan v. Comm'r of Pub. Health, 957 A.2d 407, 432 (Conn. 2008) (holding that sexual-orientation classifications warrant intermediate scrutiny);
108. *20 (Iowa Apr. 3, 2009).
109. See supra notes 62-63 and accompanying text.
110. Tanner, 971 P.2d at 448 (holding that a state university's refusal to give domestic partner benefits to three lesbian employees violated state constitution).
111. See supra note 9 and accompanying text.
112. Act of Dec. 21, 2006, 2006 N. J. Laws ch. 103 (codified in part at N. J. STAT. ANN. §§ 37:1-28 to -36) (New Jersey civil union law enacted after Lewis);
113. VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 15, §§ 1201-1207(2009) (Vermont civil union law enacted after Baker).
114. See, e.g., Act of May 22, 2008, 2008 Md. Laws ch. 590 (conferring a number of rights regarding hospital visitation, medical decisions, and funeral arrangements to domestic partners);
115. Act of May 22, 2008, 2008 Md. Laws ch. 599 (allowing for the addition or removal of a domestic partner from property deeds without incurring recordation and transfer taxes) (both acts enacted after Conaway v. Deane, 932 A.2d 571 (Md. 2007));
116. Act of Apr. 21, 2007, 2007 Wash. Sess. Laws ch. 156 (granting domestic partners a number of rights and benefits related to hospital visitation and healthcare decisions);
117. Act of Mar. 12, 2008, 2008 Wash. Sess. Laws ch. 6 (expanding rights and responsibilities of domestic partners) (both acts enacted after Andersen v. King County, 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006)). For somewhat similar scenarios, see Oregon Family Fairness Act, 2007 Or. Laws ch. 99 (enacted after the adoption of OR. CONST. art. XV, § 5A (2004) and Li v. State, 110 P.3d 91 (Or. 2005)), and HAW. REV. STAT. §§ 572-1, 572C-1(2005) (enacted after the adoption of HAW. CONST. art. 1, § 23(1998)).
118. See Stein, supra note 32, at 42.
119. *12 (Wash. Super. Ct. Aug. 4, 2004), rev'd, 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006).
120. 539 U. S. 558, 567(2003).
121. Id. at 578.
122. Goodridge v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 798 N. E.2d 941, 948 (Mass. 2003).
123. Ettelbrick, supra note 1, at 683-88.
124. For a particular attempt to apply a functional approach to a specific benefit of marriage, see Edward Stein, A Functional Approach to the Spousal Evidentiary Privilege, 5 EPISTEME 374, 380-85(2008).
125. Braschi v. Stahl Assocs. Co., 543 N. E.2d 49, 50-51 (N. Y. 1989).
126. Id. at 54-55.
127. In re Guardianship of Kowalski, 478 N. W.2d 790, 791-92 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
128. Id.
129. Id. at 791.
130. Id. at 797.
131. See Gormley v. Robertson, 83 P.3d 1042 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004) (holding that property accumulations of an unmarried same-sex couple should be equitably distributed as such property of a married couple would be).
132. 476 A.2d 952 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984).
133. Id. at 956.
134. 237 Cal. Rptr. 873 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987).
135. Id. at 874.
136. Id. at 876.
137. See supra note 9 and accompanying text.
138. WILLIAM ESKRIDGE & DARREN SPEDALE, GAY MARRIAGE: FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE? WHAT WE'VE LEARNED FROM THE EVIDENCE 252(2006) (emphasis omitted).
139. HAW. REV. STAT. §§ 572C-1 to -7(2005).
140. See ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 22, § 2710(2008);
141. MD. CODE ANN., HEALTH-GEN. §§ 6-101, 202-203 (LexisNexis 2008).
142. See ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 25-901 to -906(2000);
143. ARK. CODE ANN. §§ 9-11-803 to -811(2002);
144. LA. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 9:275, 9:307(2000).
145. See ESKRIDGE & SPEDALE, supra note 97, at 252-57;
146. WILLIAM N. ESKRIDGE, JR., EQUALITY PRACTICE: CIVIL UNIONS AND THE FUTURE OF GAY RIGHTS 121-26(2002).
147. See ESKRIDGE & SPEDALE, supra note 97, at 255.
148. See id.
149. N. J. STAT. ANN. § 26:8A-4.1 (West 2008) (limiting domestic partnership law to couples consisting of two people sixty-two years or older after New Jersey established civil unions for same-sex couple).
150. VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 25, §§1301- 1305(2009).
151. ESKRIDGE, supra note 101, at 121.
152. Id.
153. N. J. STAT. ANN. § 26:8A (West 2008).
154. Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.2d 196, 220-21 (N. J. 2006).
155. See §37:1-28.
156. See § 26:8A-4 (b) (5).
157. See Kimberly Blanton, Unmarried Gay Couples Lose Health Benefits, BOSTON GLOBE, Dec. 8, 2004, at A1.
158. Id.
159. Ettelbrick, supra note 1, at 688.
160. See In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008);
161. Kerrigan v. Comm'r of Pub. Health, 957 A.2d 407 (Conn. 2008);
162. Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, 802 N. E.2d 565 (Mass. 2004);
163. *30 (Iowa Apr. 3, 2009).
164. Four states have laws that specifically authorize second-parent adoption (California, Colorado, Connecticut, and Vermont);
165. appellate courts in seven states and the District of Columbia have interpreted their state adoption law so as to allow second-parent adoption (California, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania);
166. and trial courts in sixteen states have interpreted their state adoption law so as to allow second-parent adoption (Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, West Virginia). RUBENSTEIN ET AL., supra note 1, at 787-88. On the other hand, appellate courts in three states have held that their adoption law does not allow for second-parent adoption (Nebraska, Ohio, Wisconsin), and four states have laws that prohibit second-parent adoption (Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, and Utah). Id.
167. See, e.g., Lofton v. Sec'y of the Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir. 2004) (adoption);
168. Ex parte D. W. W., 717 So. 2d 793 (Ala. 1998) (visitation);
169. Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Cox, 627 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993) (adoption);
170. In re Marriage of Martins, 645 N. E.2d 567 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995) (custody);
171. Marlow v. Marlow, 702 N. E.2d 733 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (visitation);
172. Weigand v. Houghton, 730 So. 2d 581 (Miss. 1999) (visitation);
173. S. B. v. L. W., 793 So. 2d 656 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (custody);
174. In re Opinion of the Justices, 530 A.2d 21 (N. H. 1987) (adoption and foster care).
175. See, e.g., Jacoby v. Jacoby, 763 So. 2d 410 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000) (custody);
176. Hollon v. Hollon, 784 So. 2d 943 (Miss. 2001) (custody);
177. V. C. v. M. J. B., 748 A.2d 539 (N. J. 2000) (visitation).
178. See, e.g., Citizens for Equal Prot. v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859, 867 (8th Cir. 2006);
179. Morrison v. Sadler, 821 N. E.2d 15, 24-25 (Ind. App. 2005);
180. Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N. E.2d 1, 7 (N. Y. 2006) (plurality opinion);
181. id. at 17 (Graffeo, J., concurring);
182. Andersen v. King County, 138 P.3d 963, 1002 (Wash. 2006).
183. See, e.g., Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d at 431-32; Hernandez, 855 N. E.2d at 30 (Kaye, C. J., dissenting);
184. see also Kerry Abrams & Peter Brooks, Marriage as a Message: Same-Sex Couples and the Rhetoric of Accidental Procreation, 21 YALE J. L. & HUMAN, (forthcoming 2009);
185. Edward Stein, The "Accidental Procreation" Argument for Withholding Legal Recognition for Same-Sex Relationships, 84 CHI.-KENT L. REV. (forthcoming 2009).
186. Lewis v. Harris, 875 A.2d 259, 285 (N. J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2005) (Collester, J., dissenting) ("[R]eproductive science and technology [now enable] some persons in committed same-sex relationships [to] legally and functionally procreate."), aff'd in part and modified in part, 908 A.2d 196 (N. J. 2006);
187. see also Baker v. State, 744 A.2d 864, 881 (Vt. 1999) ("[C]hildren are being conceived by [same-sex couples] through a variety of assisted-reproductive techniques.");
188. *14 (Wash. Super. Ct. Sept. 7, 2004), rev'd, Andersen, 138 P.3d 963.
189. Note, however, that some courts, in the very same opinions that they praise same-sex couples as stable parents, also express sympathy for the view that same-sex couples are generally worse parents than different-sex couples. See, e.g., Hernandez, 855 N. E.2d at 7 (plurality opinion);
190. Andersen, 138 P.3d at 982-83. For discussion, see Stein, supra note 83.
191. See, e.g., Johnson v. Calvert, 851 P.2d 776 (Cal. 1993);
192. Culliton v. Beth Israel Deaconess Med. Ctr., 756 N. E.2d 1133 (Mass. 2001).
193. See, e.g., A. H. W. v. G. H. B., 772 A.2d 948 (N. J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 2000);
194. Belsito v. Clark, 644 N. E.2d 760 (Ohio Ct. Com. P1. 1994).
195. See, e.g., Geen v. Geen, 666 So. 2d 1192 (La. Ct. App. 1995) (three parents);
196. C. E. W. v. D. E. W., 845 A.2d 1146 (Me. 2004) (de facto parent);
197. Jacob v. Shultz-Jacob, 923 A.2d 473, 482 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007) (three parents);
198. In re Parentage of L. B., 122 P.3d 161 (Wash. 2005) (de facto parent).
199. See, e.g., J. HERBIE DIFONZO, BENEATH THE FAULT LINE: THE POPULAR AND LEGAL CULTURE OF DIVORCE IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY AMERICA (1997).
200. See, e.g., Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U. S. 455(1981);
201. Orr v. Orr, 440 U. S. 268(1979). But see Nguyen v. INS, 533 U. S. 53, 58-59(2001) (upholding different requirements for citizenship for children of unmarried women who are U. S. citizens as compared to children of unmarried men who are U. S. citizens).
202. See, e.g., Marvin v. Marvin, 557 P.2d 106 (Cal. 1976) (enforcing oral or implied cohabitation contracts);
203. Ireland v. Davis, 957 S. W.2d 310 (Ky. Ct. App. 1997) (interpreting domestic violence laws to include same-sex couples);
204. Dunphy v. Gregor, 642 A.2d 372 (N. J. 1994) (applying bystander liability to unmarried different-sex cohabitant);
205. Braschi v. Stahl Assocs. Co., 543 N. E.2d 49 (N. Y. 1989) (recognizing samesex cohabitant as family member under housing law);
206. Gormley v. Robertson, 83 P.3d 1042 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004) (applying equitable distribution to property accumulations of unmarried same-sex couple).
207. See Stein, supra note 120.
208. OHIO CONST. art. XV, § 11 ("Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.").
209. See State v. McBeth, No. 5-05-34, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 5377 (Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 16, 2006);
210. State v. Rodriguez, No. H-05-020, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 3289 (Ohio Ct. App. June 30, 2006);
211. State v. Logsdon, No. 13-05-29, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 2813 (Ohio Ct. App. June 12, 2006);
212. State v. McKinley, No. 8-05-14, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 2379 (Ohio Ct. App. May 22, 2006).
213. State v. Carswell, 871 N. E.2d 547 (Ohio 2007).
214. Conaway v. Deane, 932 A.2d 571 (Md. 2007). The same general scenario played out in Hawaii and Washington; the scenario in Oregon was somewhat different, but still fairly similar. See supra note 76 and accompanying text.
215. See generally DAVID MOATS, CIVIL WARS: THE BATTLE FOR GAY MARRIAGE (2005).
216. S. 115, 2009 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Vt. 2009);
217. Abby Goodnough, Rejecting Veto, Vermont Backs Gay Marriage, N. Y. TIMES, Apr. 8, 2009 at A1.
218. See, e.g., LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, PRIVATE LIVES: FAMILIES, INDIVIDUALS, AND THE LAW (2004);
219. John Demos, Images of the American Family, Then and Now, in CHANGING IMAGES OF THE FAMILY 43 (Virginia Tufte & Barbara Myerhoff eds., 1979);
220. Stein, supra note 65, at 663.