The Senate quickly amended the bill to include the language Governor Lynch demanded. However, the House demurred, defeating the new bill by two votes, raising questions as to whether the state would adopt same-sex marriage in 2009.

Sponsor Message.

After further deliberation, the House and Senate agreed on compromise language that was acceptable to the Governor. On a 14-10 vote in the Senate and a 198-176 vote in the House, the legislature approved the bill, which was quickly signed by Governor Lynch.

In signing the bill, Lynch remarked that he had changed his previous position opposing same-sex marriage because he had come to the conclusion that "a separate system is not an equal system."

"Today," he said, "we are standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear that they will receive the same rights, responsibilities--and respect--under New Hampshire law."

Domestic Partnership in Wisconsin

In a very low-key development in 2009, Wisconsin became the first state with a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions to adopt domestic partnerships.

Under the budget signed into law on July 1, 2009 by Democratic Governor Jim Doyle, same-sex couples are offered 43 of the more than 200 state rights and benefits extended to married couples, such as allowing domestic partners to take family and medical leave to care for a seriously ill partner, make end-of-life decisions, and have hospital visitation rights. In addition, domestic partners will be presumed to have joint tenancy rights, be able to transfer real estate without fee, and enjoy rights related to power of attorney and finances.

The domestic partnership law also allows state government workers as well as University of Wisconsin employees to include domestic partners in their group health insurance and retirement survivor benefits.

Although the domestic partnership provisions were adopted with little legislative opposition, they were challenged by the proponents of the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in an appeal to the state supreme court. On November 4, 2009, the day after the disastrous defeat in Maine, the Wisconsin Supreme Court announced that it had declined to hear the challenge to domestic partnerships.

Other States

A few other states--such as Hawaii, Maryland, Rhode Island, and Colorado--and the District of Columbia also offer a handful of rights to same-sex couples, but fall short of the rights conferred by domestic partnerships, civil unions, or marriage. In addition, a number of cities and counties offer domestic partner registries through which gay and lesbian couples may qualify for a limited number of benefits.

Defense of Marriage Acts

When Mayor Newsom created a firestorm by permitting same-sex marriage in San Francisco in 2004, some gay advocates expressed concern that his actions may have hurt the cause of marriage equality. Indeed, President Bush referred to San Francisco and Massachusetts when he announced his decision to support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. But the sight of thousands of loving couples, many of whom had been together for decades, sharing vows and joining in marriage also did much to energize the proponents of same-sex marriage. San Francisco's decision to issue licenses to same-sex couples in 2004, while perhaps not of lasting legal significance, provided huge symbolic support for marriage equality and eventually resulted in the historic California Supreme Court ruling of 2008.

Recently there have been encouraging signs of the increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage, particularly in New England. But the achievement of marriage equality has been made more difficult by the Republican Party's routine use of same-sex marriage as a "wedge issue" by which to energize its base. Following the Hawaii decision in 1993, for example, states rushed to pass so-called "Defense of Marriage" Acts, which limit marriage to opposite-sex couples and bar recognition of any same-sex marriage or civil union from another state. Currently, more than 40 states have ordinances or constitutional amendments that limit marriage (and the recognition of out-of-state marriages) to opposite-sex couples.