In the 2004 general election, 13 states passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. In the 2006 general election, another seven states adopted constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. However, in some of these states--Virginia and Wisconsin, for example--the 2006 amendments only barely passed, and in one state, Arizona, it failed, while in Colorado an amendment creating domestic partnerships almost passed.

Sponsor Message.

What is especially disturbing about these amendments is that many of them ban not just same-sex marriage, but all forms of state recognition of same-sex couples. The Michigan amendment, for example, was interpreted by the Michigan Attorney General to mean that municipalities may not extend domestic partnership health care benefits to same-sex couples, an interpretation upheld by the state's conservative Supreme Court.

Amendments this sweeping may, however, be subject to attack under the United States Supreme Court's decision in Romer v. Evans. A federal district court in Nebraska struck down that state's extreme anti-marriage amendment under Romer v. Evans, though it was reinstated by a federal appeals court, and is now being appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court.

As more liberal judges are appointed to the federal judiciary by President Obama, and as more states permit same-sex marriage, an appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court challenging the Defense of Marriage Act is likely.

European Registered Partnerships

The United States lags a good deal behind some other countries with regard to recognizing same-sex unions. Denmark was the first country in the world to enact a registered partnership law for same-sex couples in 1989. Norway was next in 1993, and then Sweden (1995), Iceland (1996), and the Netherlands (1998). The Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, and Swedish partnership acts are available to same-sex couples only, while the Dutch law is available to same-sex and opposite sex couples.

The European registered partnership acts essentially treat partners as if they were married, but with some exceptions, the most important of which being that none of them allow for joint adoption.

In 2005, Great Britain permitted same-sex couples to enter into civil partnerships that confer all the rights and responsibilities of marriage but that cannot be called marriage.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair hailed the civil partnership law as a "landmark measure" that "gives gay and lesbian couples who register their relationship the same safeguards over inheritance, insurance and employment and pension benefits as married couples. . . . No longer will same sex couples who have decided to share their lives fear that they will be denied a say over the partner's medical treatment or find themselves denied a home if their partner dies."

The French Civil Solidarity Pact

The French partnership law, which was passed in 1999 and is known as the "civil solidarity pact" or "pacte civile," is open to same-sex and opposite-sex couples and grants marriage-like rights in the areas of inheritance, housing, and social welfare. A civil solidarity pact can be terminated unilaterally by a partner, and no obligations follow on dissolution. The law does not confer inheritance rights, nor does it allow for adoption. The law is therefore more akin to a limited domestic partnership law than it is to the European registered partnership acts or to the civil union law. Still, it has proven popular with many French couples.

Dutch, Belgian, and Spanish Marriage

On April 1, 2001, the Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage, with the "Act on the Opening up of Marriage." The Act simply yet boldly proclaims, "A marriage can be contracted by two persons of different sex or of the same sex."

Couples in a registered partnership can convert their partnership into a marriage. But those who prefer not to can remain in their registered partnership, and couples can continue to enter registered partnerships rather than marriage if they so choose. According to the legislative findings, "the interest in registered partnerships in the Netherlands is relatively high . . . ." Interestingly, the government acknowledged that the popularity of registered partnerships "make[s] it plausible that there is a need for a marriage-like institution devoid of the symbolism attached to marriage."