# Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States

Part of the LGBTQ rights series :
Legal status of same-sex unions :
Marriage
Andorra
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Denmark
Ecuador
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Iceland
Ireland
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Recognized
Israel
United States:
 • American Samoa :
Civil unions or registered partnerships but not marriage
Bolivia
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Hungary
Italy
Latvia
Monaco
Montenegro
San Marino
United Kingdom:
 • Bermuda
 • Cayman Islands :
Minimal recognition
Bulgaria
Cambodia
China
 • Hong Kong
India
Japan
Lithuania
Namibia
Nepal
Netherlands:
 • Sint Maarten
Poland
Romania
Slovakia :
See also
Same-sex union legislation
Same-sex union court cases
Timeline of same-sex marriage
Recognition of same-sex unions in Africa
Recognition of same-sex unions in Asia
Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe
Recognition of same-sex unions in the Americas
Recognition of same-sex unions in Oceania
Marriage privatization
Divorce of same-sex couples
Domestic partnership
Military policy
Adoption
Listings by country
LGBTQ rights by country or territory :
Notes
1 2 Performed in the Netherlands proper (including the Caribbean Netherlands), as well as in Aruba and Curaçao. May be registered in Sint Maarten in such cases, but the rights of marriage are not guaranteed.
↑ Neither performed nor recognized in Niue, Tokelau, or the Cook Islands.
↑ Neither performed nor recognized in six British Overseas Territories.
1 2 Neither performed nor recognized in some tribal nations of the US. Recognized but not performed in several other tribal nations and American Samoa.
↑ Registered foreign marriages confer all marriage rights in Israel. Domestic common-law marriages confer most rights of marriage. Domestic civil marriage recognized by some cities.
1 2 3 4 5 The Coman v. Romania ruling of the European Court of Justice obliges the state to provide residency rights for the foreign spouses of EU citizens. Some member states, including Romania, do not follow the ruling.
↑ A "declaration of family relationship" is available in several of Cambodia's communes which may be useful in matters such as housing, but is not legally binding.
↑ Guardianship agreements confer some limited legal benefits in China, including decisions about medical and personal care.
↑ Hong Kong provides inheritance, guardianship rights, and residency rights for foreign spouses of legal residents.
↑ Indian courts have recognised guru–shishya, nata pratha or maitri karar–type contractual relationships, but they are not legally binding.
↑ Most Japanese cities and prefectures issue partnership certificates, but they are not legally binding.
↑ Marriages conducted abroad between a Namibian national and a foreign spouse provide residency rights in Namibia.
↑ Romania provides hospital visitation rights through a "legal representative" status. :
LGBTQ portal :
vte :
In response to court action in a number of states, the United States federal government and a number of state legislatures passed or attempted to pass legislation either prohibiting or allowing same-sex marriage or other types of same-sex unions.
On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges that a fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by the Fourteenth Amendment, and that states must allow same-sex marriage.

## Federal level

In 1996, the United States Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed Public Law 104–199, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Section 3 of DOMA defines "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of both federal law and any ruling, regulation, or interpretation by an administrative bureau or agency of the United States government. The impact of Section 2 of DOMA, which relieves jurisdictions within the United States of any obligation to recognize same-sex relationships legally established in any other jurisdiction, is less clear.
In United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court was asked to determine the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage for federal purposes as the union of a man and a woman. On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled by a 5–4 vote that the Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.
The State Marriage Defense Act, introduced in the House of Representatives on January 9, 2014, would require the federal government to recognize the validity of a marriage based on a person's legal residence (place of domicile), rather than on the validity of the marriage when and where it was solemnized (place of celebration). The Obama administration has generally used the latter standard. Its sponsors described it as a way to clarify the federal government's response to Windsor and restore the ability of the a state to control the definition of marriage within its borders.
In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court was asked to determine the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage licenses as well as state bans on recognition of same-sex marriages from other states. On June 26, 2015, the court ruled by a 5–4 vote that the Fourteenth Amendment obliges states to license same-sex marriages and to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.
In the 111th, 112th, 113th, 114th, and 117th Congresses, the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) was introduced by House and Senate Democrats to repeal DOMA. These efforts eventually prevailed in 2022, with the bill passing the House 267–157 and the Senate 61–36. President Joe Biden signed the bill into law on December 13, 2022.

## State level
### Efforts to enable same-sex unions

Votes by state legislatures to recognize various types of same-sex unions, sorted by date:
| State | Date | Type of same-sex union | Upper house | Upper house | Lower house | Lower house | Governor | Final outcome |
| State | Date | Type of same-sex union | Yes | No | Yes | No | Governor | Final outcome |
| District of Columbia | June 1992 | Domestic partnership | — | — | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| California | September 1994 | Domestic partnership | 21 | 17 | 41 | 26 | Vetoed | No |
| Hawaii | March 1996 | Domestic partnership | 14 | 11 | Failed | Failed | — | No |
| Hawaii | June 1997 | Reciprocal beneficiary relationship | 24 | 7 | 43 | 27 | Signed | Yes |
| California | September 1998 | Domestic partnership | 21 | 17 | 41 | 36 | Vetoed | No |
| California | October 1999 | Domestic partnership | 23 | 13 | 41 | 38 | Vetoed | No |
| California | October 1999 | Domestic partnership | 22 | 14 | 41 | 36 | Signed | Yes |
| Vermont | April 2000 | Civil union | 19 | 11 | 79 | 68 | Signed | Yes |
| Rhode Island | July 2001 | Domestic partnership | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| California | August 2001 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | 22 | 12 | 41 | 27 | Signed | Yes |
| California | October 2001 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | 23 | 11 | 41 | 32 | Signed | Yes |
| New York | August 2002 | Domestic partnership | Passed | Passed | 147 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
| New York | August 2002 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | Passed | Passed | 147 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
| California | September 2002 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | 26 | 11 | 41 | 31 | Signed | Yes |
| California | September 2002 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | 23 | 13 | 43 | 27 | Signed | Yes |
| District of Columbia | April 2003 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | — | — | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| California | September 2003 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | 23 | 14 | 41 | 33 | Signed | Yes |
| New Jersey | January 2004 | Domestic partnership | 23 | 9 | 41 | 28 | Signed | Yes |
| Maine | April 2004 | Domestic partnership | 18 | 14 | 84 | 58 | Signed | Yes |
| District of Columbia | May 2004 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | — | — | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| California | September 2004 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | 23 | 12 | 46 | 29 | Signed | Yes |
| New York | September 2004 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | Passed | Passed | 141 | 1 | Signed | Yes |
| District of Columbia | December 2004 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | — | — | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| District of Columbia | January 2005 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | — | — | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| Connecticut | April 2005 | Civil union | 27 | 9 | 85 | 63 | Signed | Yes |
| Maryland | May 2005 | Domestic partnership | 31 | 16 | 83 | 50 | Vetoed | No |
| California | June 2005 | Marriage | — | — | Failed | Failed | — | No |
| Rhode Island | June 2005 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | Passed | Passed | — | — | — | No |
| Rhode Island | July 2005 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | Passed | Passed | — | — | — | No |
| California | September 2005 | Marriage | 21 | 15 | 41 | 35 | Vetoed | No |
| California | September 2005 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | 23 | 15 | 47 | 28 | Signed | Yes |
| California | September 2005 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | 21 | 14 | 47 | 32 | Signed | Yes |
| District of Columbia | December 2005 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | — | — | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| New Jersey | January 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | 39 | 0 | 67 | 8 | Signed | Yes |
| District of Columbia | January 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | — | — | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| New York | March 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | Passed | Passed | 96 | 25 | Signed | Yes |
| Maine | April 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| New York | June 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | — | — | 114 | 27 | — | No |
| New York | June 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | — | — | 116 | 27 | — | No |
| Rhode Island | June 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | —$^4$ | Yes |
| Rhode Island | June 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | —$^4$ | Yes |
| Rhode Island | July 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | —$^4$ | Yes |
| Rhode Island | July 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | —$^4$ | Yes |
| Rhode Island | July 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | —$^4$ | Yes |
| California | September 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | 24 | 15 | 46 | 29 | Signed | Yes |
| California | September 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | 23 | 15 | 47 | 31 | Signed | Yes |
| New Jersey | December 2006 | Civil union | 23 | 12 | 56 | 19 | Signed | Yes |
| District of Columbia | December 2006 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | — | — | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| New Hampshire | April 2007 | Civil union | — | — | Failed | Failed | — | No |
| Washington | April 2007 | Registered domestic partnership | 28 | 19 | 63 | 35 | Signed | Yes |
| Oregon | May 2007 | Domestic partnership | 21 | 9 | 34 | 26 | Signed | Yes |
| Maine | May 2007 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| New Hampshire | May 2007 | Civil union | 14 | 10 | 243 | 129 | Signed | Yes |
| Maine | June 2007 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| Maine | June 2007 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| New York | June 2007 | Marriage | — | — | 85 | 61 | — | No |
| Rhode Island | July 2007 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | —$^4$ | Yes |
| California | September 2007 | Marriage | 22 | 15 | 42 | 34 | Vetoed | No |
| California | October 2007 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| Rhode Island | October 2007 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Vetoed $^1$ | Yes |
| New Hampshire | January 2008 | Contractual cohabitation | Failed | Failed | — | — | — | No |
| New York | January 2008 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | Passed | Passed | — | — | — | No |
| New Mexico | February 2008 | Domestic partnership | — | — | 33 | 31 | — | No |
| Washington | March 2008 | Registered domestic partnership (expansion)' | 29 | 20 | 62 | 32 | Signed | Yes |
| Maine | March 2008 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| Maryland | April 2008 | Domestic partnership | — | — | 86 | 51 | — | No |
| Maryland | May 2008 | Domestic partnership | 30 | 17 | 88 | 46 | Signed | Yes |
| Maryland | May 2008 | Domestic partnership | 27 | 20 | 86 | 47 | Signed | Yes |
| District of Columbia | May 2008 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | — | — | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| New Mexico | February 2009 | Domestic partnership | 17 | 25 | — | — | — | No |
| Vermont | April 2009 | Marriage | 23 | 5 | 100 | 49 | Vetoed $^1$ | Yes |
| Colorado | April 2009 | Designated beneficiary agreement | 23 | 10 | 41 | 24 | Signed | Yes |
| Connecticut | April 2009 | Marriage (codification) | 28 | 7 | 100 | 44 | Signed | Yes |
| Maine | May 2009 | Marriage | 21 | 14 | 89 | 58 | Signed | No$^2$ |
| District of Columbia | May 2009 | Marriage (recognition only) | — | — | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| Washington | May 2009 | Registered domestic partnership (expansion) | 30 | 18 | 62 | 35 | Signed | Yes$^3$ |
| District of Columbia | May 2009 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | — | — | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| Maine | May 2009 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| Nevada | May 2009 | Domestic partnership | 14 | 7 | 28 | 14 | Vetoed$^1$ | Yes |
| New Hampshire | June 2009 | Marriage | 14 | 10 | 198 | 176 | Signed | Yes |
| Oregon | June 2009 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | 27 | 0 | 41 | 8 | Signed | Yes |
| Wisconsin | June 2009 | Domestic partnership | 17 | 16 | 50 | 48 | Signed | Yes |
| New York | August 2009 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | Passed | Passed | 142 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
| California | October 2009 | Out-of-state pre-proposition 8 marriage recognition | 24 | 14 | 44 | 27 | Signed | Yes |
| New York | December 2009 | Marriage | 24 | 38 | 89 | 52 | — | No |
| District of Columbia | December 2009 | Marriage | — | — | 11 | 2 | Signed | Yes |
| Rhode Island | January 2010 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Vetoed $^1$ | Yes |
| Rhode Island | January 2010 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Vetoed $^1$ | Yes |
| New York | January 2010 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | 61 | 0 | 142 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
| New Jersey | January 2010 | Marriage | 14 | 20 | — | — | — | No |
| New York | March 2010 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | — | — | 119 | 20 | — | No |
| New York | March 2010 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | Passed | Passed | 137 | 5 | Signed | Yes |
| New York | April 2010 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | — | — | 132 | 9 | — | No |
| Minnesota | May 2010 | Domestic partnership (only 1 entitlement) | 41 | 24 | 78 | 55 | Vetoed | No |
| Hawaii | July 2010 | Civil union | 18 | 7 | 31 | 20 | Vetoed | No |
| New York | August 2010 | Committed partnership | 50 | 11 | 107 | 26 | Signed | Yes |
| California | September 2010 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | 23 | 12 | 53 | 24 | Signed | Yes |
| Illinois | January 2011 | Civil union | 32 | 24 | 61 | 52 | Signed | Yes |
| Hawaii | February 2011 | Civil union | 18 | 5 | 31 | 19 | Signed | Yes |
| New Hampshire | March 2011 | Domestic union | — | — | Failed | Failed | — | No |
| Maryland | March 2011 | Marriage | 25 | 21 | — | — | — | No |
| Colorado | March 2011 | Civil union | 23 | 12 | — | — | — | No |
| Washington | April 2011 | Recognition of out-of-state union as registered domestic partnership | 28 | 19 | 58 | 39 | Signed | Yes |
| Nevada | May 2011 | Recognition of out-of-state union as domestic partnership | 21 | 0 | 41 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
| Washington | May 2011 | Registered domestic partnership (expansion) | 27 | 21 | 57 | 40 | Signed | Yes |
| Delaware | May 2011 | Civil union | 13 | 6 | 26 | 15 | Signed | Yes |
| Nevada | May 2011 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | 11 | 10 | — | — | — | No |
| New York | June 2011 | Marriage | 33 | 29 | 80 | 63 | Signed | Yes |
| Rhode Island | July 2011 | Civil union | 21 | 16 | 62 | 11 | Signed | Yes |
| California | September 2011 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | 22 | 13 | 52 | 25 | Signed | Yes |
| California | October 2011 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | 25 | 15 | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| California | October 2011 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | 24 | 13 | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| Washington | February 2012 | Marriage | 28 | 21 | 55 | 43 | Signed | Yes$^3$ |
| New Jersey | February 2012 | Marriage | 24 | 16 | 42 | 33 | Vetoed | No |
| Maryland | March 2012 | Marriage | 25 | 22 | 72 | 67 | Signed | Yes$^3$ |
| New York | April 2012 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | — | — | 129 | 10 | — | No |
| Colorado | May 2012 | Civil union | 23 | 12 | — | — | — | No |
| New Jersey | August 2012 | Civil union and domestic partnership (expansion: surrogacy) | 21 | 11 | 41 | 33 | Vetoed | No |
| Wyoming | January 2013 | Domestic partnership | — | — | 24 | 35 | — | No |
| Colorado | March 2013 | Civil union | 21 | 14 | 39 | 26 | Signed | Yes |
| Rhode Island | May 2013 | Marriage | 26 | 12 | 56 | 15 | Signed | Yes |
| Delaware | May 2013 | Marriage | 12 | 9 | 23 | 18 | Signed | Yes |
| Minnesota | May 2013 | Marriage | 37 | 30 | 75 | 59 | Signed | Yes |
| Nevada | June 2013 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | 21 | 0 | 41 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
| Hawaii | November 2013 | Marriage | 19 | 4 | 30 | 19 | Signed | Yes |
| Illinois | November 2013 | Marriage | 32 | 21 | 61 | 54 | Signed | Yes |
| New York | February 2014 | Marriage (codification) | — | — | 125 | 10 | — | No |
| Wyoming | February 2014 | Marriage | — | — | 17 | 41 | — | No |
| New York | April 2014 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | — | — | 124 | 14 | — | No |
| California | July 2014 | Marriage (statutory codification) | 25 | 10 | 51 | 11 | Signed | Yes |
| Virginia | February 2015 | Marriage (statutory codification) | 20 | 18 | — | — | — | No |
| Utah | March 2015 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) | 26 | 0 | 39 | 30 | Signed | Yes |
| New Mexico | April 2015 | Marriage (partial codification) | 35 | 5 | 37 | 10 | Signed | Yes |
| Nevada | June 2015 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | 21 | 0 | 42 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
| Nevada | June 2015 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | 19 | 0 | 41 | 1 | Signed | Yes |
| New Jersey | June 2015 | Marriage, civil union and domestic partnership (expansion: surrogacy) | 21 | 13 | 43 | 25 | Vetoed | No |
| Maine | June 2015 | Marriage (expansion) | 35 | 0 | 141 | 0 | Vetoed$^1$ | Yes |
| Oregon | July 2015 | Marriage (statutory codification) | 18 | 11 | 40 | 18 | Signed | Yes |
| Guam | August 2015 | Marriage (codification) | — | — | 13 | 2 | —$^4$ | Yes |
| New York | September 2015 | Marriage (codification) | 60 | 0 | 146 | 1 | Signed | Yes |
| District of Columbia | December 2015 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | — | — | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| Oregon | March 2016 | Marriage (statutory codification) | 18 | 11 | 43 | 13 | Signed | Yes |
| New York | March 2016 | Marriage (codification) | — | — | 129 | 12 | — | No |
| New York | April 2016 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | — | — | 120 | 15 | — | No |
| Colorado | June 2016 | Conversion of civil union into marriage | 34 | 0 | 52 | 13 | Signed | Yes |
| North Carolina | June 2016 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) | — | — | Passed | Passed | — | No |
| California | July 2016 | Marriage and domestic partnership (statutory codification) | 34 | 0 | 63 | 1 | Signed | Yes |
| North Dakota | January 2017 | Marriage (statutory codification) | 15 | 31 | — | — | — | No |
| New Mexico | February 2017 | Marriage (partial codification) | — | — | 63 | 0 | — | No |
| Utah | March 2017 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) | 26 | 0 | 74 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
| Utah | March 2017 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) | 29 | 0 | 69 | 3 | Signed | Yes |
| Utah | March 2017 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) | 27 | 0 | 68 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
| Maryland | May 2017 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | 138 | 2 | 45 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
| Nevada | May 2017 | Marriage (statutory codification) | 20 | 1 | 28 | 10 | Signed | Yes |
| Nevada | June 2017 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | 21 | 0 | 41 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
| New York | June 2017 | Marriage (codification) | 62 | 0 | 139 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
| New Jersey | June 2017 | Marriage, civil union and domestic partnership (expansion: surrogacy) | 22 | 15 | — | — | — | No |
| North Carolina | July 2017 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| Maine | July 2017 | Marriage (codification) | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | —$^4$ | Yes |
| Maryland | January 2018 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | 135 | 2 | 45 | 1 | Vetoed | No |
| New Mexico | February 2018 | Marriage (partial codification) | — | — | 60 | 2 | — | No |
| New York | March 2018 | Marriage (codification) | — | — | 129 | 6 | — | No |
| Utah | March 2018 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) | 27 | 0 | 70 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
| Utah | March 2018 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) | 23 | 0 | 73 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
| Utah | March 2018 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) | 23 | 4 | 44 | 24 | Signed | Yes |
| Utah | March 2018 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) | 25 | 3 | 45 | 26 | Signed | Yes |
| New York | April 2018 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | — | — | 114 | 17 | — | No |
| Minnesota | May 2018 | Marriage (codification) | 34 | 33 | 78 | 50 | Vetoed | No |
| New Jersey | May 2018 | Marriage, civil union and domestic partnership (expansion: surrogacy) | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| New York | June 2018 | Marriage (codification) | 57 | 4 | — | — | — | No |
| New Hampshire | June 2018 | Marriage (equalization of marriageable age) | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| Arkansas | March 2019 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) | 35 | 0 | 96 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
| Nebraska | March 2019 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) | — | — | 38 | 6 | Signed | Yes |
| New Mexico | March 2019 | Marriage (partial codification) | — | — | 53 | 2 | — | No |
| Virginia | March 2019 | Marriage (expansion: surrogacy) | 28 | 12 | 63 | 36 | Signed | Yes |
| New Mexico | March 2019 | Marriage (partial codification) | 32 | 8 | 40 | 25 | Signed | Yes |
| Nebraska | March 2019 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) | — | — | 45 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
| Utah | March 2019 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) | 22 | 2 | 55 | 6 | Signed | Yes |
| Utah | March 2019 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) | 29 | 0 | 69 | 4 | Signed | Yes |
| New Mexico | April 2019 | Marriage (partial codification) | 39 | 0 | 62 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
| Maryland | May 2019 | Marriage (expansion) | 34 | 10 | 121 | 15 | Signed | Yes |
| Maryland | May 2019 | Marriage (expansion) | 31 | 14 | 133 | 6 | Signed | Yes |
| Oklahoma | May 2019 | Marriage (expansion: surrogacy) | 33 | 10 | 84 | 6 | Signed | Yes |
| Nebraska | May 2019 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) | — | — | 40 | 3 | Signed | Yes |
| Nebraska | May 2019 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) | — | — | 33 | 8 | Vetoed | No |
| Minnesota | May 2019 | Marriage (codification) | 52 | 15 | 74 | 50 | Signed | Yes |
| Rhode Island | June 2019 | Marriage (expansion) | 35 | 0 | — | — | — | No |
| Maine | June 2019 | Marriage (codification) | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| Delaware | July 2019 | Marriage (codification) | 20 | 1 | 37 | 4 | Signed | Yes |
| New York | October 2019 | Marriage (codification) | 61 | 0 | 121 | 23 | Signed | Yes |
| Hawaii | December 2019 | Marriage and civil union (codification) | — | — | Passed | Passed | — | No |
| New York | December 2019 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | 59 | 0 | 122 | 24 | Signed | Yes |
| New Hampshire | January 2020 | Marriage (codification) | — | — | Failed | Failed | — | No |
| New Mexico | February 2020 | Marriage (partial codification) | 42 | 0 | 64 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
| Nebraska | February 2020 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) | — | — | 47 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
| New Mexico | February 2020 | Marriage (partial codification) | 40 | 0 | 67 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
| Virginia | March 2020 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) | 28 | 12 | 63 | 34 | Signed | Yes |
| Virginia | March 2020 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) | 25 | 13 | 62 | 38 | Signed | Yes |
| Virginia | March 2020 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) | 33 | 6 | 58 | 42 | Signed | Yes |
| Utah | March 2020 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) | 24 | 1 | 70 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
| Utah | March 2020 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) | 27 | 0 | 71 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
| Virginia | April 2020 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) | 39 | 1 | 91 | 6 | Signed | Yes |
| New York | April 2020 | Marriage (expansion) | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| Virginia | April 2020 | Marriage (statutory codification) | 24 | 16 | 53 | 43 | Signed | Yes |
| New York | April 2020 | Domestic partnership (expansion) | 62 | 0 | 131 | 11 | Signed | Yes |
| Puerto Rico | June 2020 | Marriage (codification) | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| North Carolina | June 2020 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) | 47 | 0 | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| New Hampshire | July 2020 | Marriage (codification) | Passed | Passed | 209 | 119 | Signed | Yes |
| Rhode Island | July 2020 | Marriage (expansion) | 34 | 1 | 64 | 1 | Signed | Yes |
| Rhode Island | July 2020 | Marriage (expansion) | 36 | 1 | 67 | 1 | Signed | Yes |
| North Carolina | 2023 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) | 50 | 0 | — | — | — | No |
| Virginia | 2024 | Marriage (expansion) | 22 | 17 | 54 | 40 | Signed | Yes |
| Pennsylvania | 2024 | Marriage (partial statutory codification) | | | 133 | 68 | — | No |
| Colorado | 2025 | Marriage | | pending | | | | |
Notes:
* $^1$Veto overridden
* $^2$People's veto (Maine Question 1, 2009)
* $^3$People's veto failed (Washington Referendum 71, Washington Referendum 74, Maryland Question 6)
* $^4$The bill was allowed to lapse into law.

### Efforts to prohibit same-sex unions

Votes by state legislatures to prohibit recognition of various types of same-sex unions, sorted by date:
| State | Date | Type of same-sex union | Upper House | Upper House | Lower house | Lower house | Governor | Final outcome$^1$ |
| State | Date | Type of same-sex union | Yes | No | Yes | No | Governor | Final outcome$^1$ |
| Maryland | May 1973 | Marriage | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes$^2$ |
| Texas | June 1973 | Marriage | 30 | 1 | 113 | 17 | Signed | Yes |
| Oklahoma | February 1975 | Marriage | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| Arizona | April 1975 | Marriage | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| Virginia | August 1975 | Marriage | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes$^2$ |
| Utah | April 1977 | Marriage | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| Florida | June 1977 | Marriage | 37 | 0 | 101 | 11 | Signed | Yes |
| Illinois | June 1977 | Marriage | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes$^2$ |
| California | August 1977 | Marriage | 23 | 5 | 68 | 2 | Signed | Yes$^2$ |
| Wyoming | October 1977 | Marriage | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| Wisconsin | July 1979 | Marriage | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| New Hampshire | July 1987 | Marriage | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes$^2$ |
| Louisiana | 1987 | Marriage | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| New Hampshire | March 1994 | Recognition of out-of-state marriage | 11 | 12 | — | — | — | No |
| Guam | May 1994 | Marriage | — | — | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes$^2$ |
| Hawaii | June 1994 | Marriage | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes$^2$ |
| Utah | March 1995 | Recognition of out-of-state marriage | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| South Dakota | January 1996 | Marriage | 26 | 8 | 49 | 18 | Signed | Yes |
| Idaho | February 1996 | Marriage | 24 | 6 | 66 | 4 | Signed | Yes |
| Idaho | March 1996 | Recognition of out-of-state marriage | 28 | 4 | 59 | 6 | Signed | Yes |
| Colorado | March 1996 | Marriage | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Vetoed | No |
| Kansas | April 1996 | Marriage | 39 | 1 | 87 | 38 | Signed | Yes |
| Georgia | April 1996 | Marriage | 47 | 0 | 135 | 10 | Signed | Yes |
| Arizona | May 1996 | Marriage | 21 | 9 | 50 | 5 | Signed | Yes |
| Alaska | May 1996 | Marriage and civil union | 16 | 3 | 31 | 9 | —$^3$ | Yes |
| Illinois | May 1996 | Marriage | 42 | 9 | 87 | 17 | Signed | Yes$^2$ |
| Tennessee | May 1996 | Marriage | 31 | 0 | 90 | 1 | Signed | Yes |
| South Carolina | May 1996 | Marriage | 45 | 0 | 82 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
| Michigan | June 1996 | Marriage | 31 | 2 | 88 | 14 | Signed | Yes |
| Michigan | June 1996 | Recognition of out-of-state marriage | 32 | 2 | 74 | 28 | Signed | Yes |
| Delaware | June 1996 | Marriage | 17 | 3 | 39 | 0 | Signed | Yes$^2$ |
| North Carolina | June 1996 | Marriage and recognition of out-of-state marriage | 41 | 4 | 98 | 10 | Signed | Yes |
| Missouri | July 1996 | Marriage | 29 | 2 | 131 | 10 | Signed | Yes |
| California | August 1996 | Marriage | 20 | 21 | Passed | Passed | — | No |
| Oklahoma | September 1996 | Marriage | 42 | 2 | 99 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
| Pennsylvania | October 1996 | Marriage | 43 | 5 | 189 | 13 | Signed | Yes |
| Mississippi | February 1997 | Marriage | 50 | 0 | 118 | 3 | Signed | Yes |
| Arkansas | February 1997 | Marriage | 34 | 0 | 92 | 2 | Signed | Yes |
| North Dakota | February 1997 | Marriage | 43 | 6 | 73 | 18 | Signed | Yes |
| Texas | February 1997 | Marriage | 31 | 0 | 143 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
| Washington | February 1997 | Marriage | 33 | 15 | 63 | 35 | Vetoed | No |
| Virginia | March 1997 | Recognition of out-of-state marriage | 40 | 0 | 87 | 9 | Signed | Yes$^2$ |
| Maine | March 1997 | Marriage | 24 | 10 | 106 | 39 | —$^3$ | Yes$^2$ |
| Indiana | April 1997 | Marriage | 38 | 10 | 85 | 9 | Signed | Yes |
| Montana | April 1997 | Marriage and civil union | 45 | 5 | 73 | 23 | Signed | Yes |
| Florida | May 1997 | Recognition of out-of-state marriage | 33 | 5 | 97 | 19 | —$^3$ | Yes |
| Minnesota | June 1997 | Marriage | 64 | 0 | 108 | 20 | Signed | Yes$^2$ |
| Colorado | June 1997 | Marriage | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Vetoed | No |
| Washington | February 1998 | Marriage | 34 | 11 | 65 | 28 | Vetoed $^4$ | Yes$^2$ |
| Kentucky | April 1998 | Marriage and recognition out-of-state marriage | 32 | 2 | 84 | 9 | Signed | Yes |
| Alabama | May 1998 | Marriage | 30 | 0 | 79 | 12 | Signed | Yes |
| Hawaii | November 1998 | Marriage | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes$^2$ |
| Puerto Rico | March 1999 | Marriage | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Signed | Yes |
| Louisiana | July 1999 | Marriage and recognition of out-of-state marriage | 32 | 0 | 95 | 0 | Signed | Yes |
| West Virginia | March 2000 | Marriage | Passed | Passed | 96 | 3 | Signed | Yes |
| New Hampshire | March 2000 | Recognition of out-of-state marriage | — | — | 128 | 232 | — | No |
| Vermont | April 2000 | Marriage | 19 | 11 | 79 | 68 | Signed | Yes |
| Connecticut | April / May 2000 | Marriage | 31 | 5 | 96 | 51 | Signed | Yes |
| Colorado | May 2000 | Marriage | 33 | 32 | 37 | 28 | Signed | Yes |
| New Hampshire | March 2001 | Recognition of out-of-state civil union | — | — | 88 | 276 | — | No |
| Missouri | July 2001 | Marriage | 31 | 0 | 124 | 20 | Signed | Yes |
| American Samoa | March 2003 | Marriage | Failed | Failed | — | — | — | No |
| Texas | May 2003 | Recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriage and civil union | 22 | 9 | 118 | 9 | Signed | Yes |
| Wisconsin | November 2003 | Marriage | 22 | 10 | 68 | 29 | Vetoed | No |
| Ohio | February 2004 | Marriage, recognition of out-of-state marriage, and civil union | 18 | 15 | 72 | 22 | Signed | Yes |
| Utah | March 2004 | Civil union | 24 | 4 | 62 | 12 | Signed | Yes |
| Virginia | April 2004 | Civil union | 27 | 12 | 69 | 30 | —$^3$ | Yes$^2$ |
| New Hampshire | May 2004 | Recognition of out-of-state marriage | 16 | 7 | 215 | 137 | Signed | Yes$^2$ |
| Connecticut | April 2005 | Marriage | 27 | 9 | 85 | 63 | Signed | Yes |
| Wyoming | February 2007 | Recognition of out-of-state marriage | 21 | 8 | — | — | — | No |
| New Hampshire | March 2009 | Civil union | — | — | 136 | 205 | — | No |
| New Hampshire | February 2010 | Marriage | — | — | 109 | 210 | — | No |
| Wyoming | March 2011 | Recognition of out-of-state marriage | 14 | 16 | 31 | 28 | — | No |
| New Hampshire | March 2012 | Marriage | — | — | 116 | 211 | — | No |
| Wyoming | February 2014 | Recognition of out-of-state marriage | — | — | 29 | 31 | — | No |
| Tennessee | January 2016 | Marriage (repeal by Natural Marriage Defense Act) | — | — | Failed | Failed | — | No |
| South Carolina | March 2018 | Marriage (repeal by declaring same-sex marriage as parodical marriages) | — | — | Failed | Failed | — | No |
| Iowa | January 2023 | Marriage (declares Respect for Marriage Act inaplicable in Iowa ) | — | — | Failed | Failed | — |
Notes:
* $^1$ On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges that a fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by the Fourteenth Amendment, and that states must allow same-sex marriage.
* $^2$ Subsequently, repealed.
* $^3$ The bill was allowed to lapse into law.
* $^4$ Veto overridden.

### Proposed memorials requesting to Supreme Cort the reversal of Obergefell

Votes by state legislatures calling to reverse Obergefell, sorted by date:
| State | Date | Type of same-sex union | Upper House | Upper House | Lower house | Lower house | Governor | Final outcome$^1$ |
| State | Date | Type of same-sex union | Yes | No | Yes | No | Governor | Final outcome$^1$ |
| Idaho | January 2025 | Marriage | Passed | Passed | 46 | 24 | Signed | Yes |
| North Dakota | March 2025 | Marriage | 16 | 31 | 52 | 40 | | No |
| Michigan | Unknown | Marriage | | | Pending | Pending | | |

### Attempts to establish same-sex unions via initiative or statewide referendum

| State | Intended date | Same-sex union | Description | Outcome |
| Maine | November 2012 | Marriage | Initiative to establish same-sex marriage. | Yes |

### Efforts to enable ban amendment

| State | Date | Type of same-sex union | State senate | State senate | State senate | State senate | Lower house | Lower house | Lower house | Lower house | % of legislative vote required | Final outcome |
| State | Date | Type of same-sex union | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | | % of legislative vote required | Final outcome |
| State | Date | Type of same-sex union | Vote | % | Vote | % | Vote | % | Vote | % | % of legislative vote required | Final outcome |
| Hawaii | 1997 | Marriage ban permitted | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | 66.67% | Advanced |
| Hawaii | 1998 | Marriage ban permitted | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | Passed | 50.01% | Constitutional Amendment 2 placed on the ballot |
| Alaska | May 12, 1998 | Same-sex marriage | 14 | 70% | 6 | 30% | 28 | 70% | 12 | 30% | 66.67% | Measure 2 placed on the ballot |
| Indiana | February 3, 2004 | Same-sex marriage | 42 | 84% | 7 | 14% | — | — | — | — | 50.01% | Died in committee |
| Georgia | February 16, 2004 February 26, 2004 March 31, 2004 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 40 | 71.43% | 14 | 25% | 117 | 65% | 50 | 27.78% | 66.67% | Constitutional Amendment 1 placed on the ballot |
| Georgia | February 16, 2004 February 26, 2004 March 31, 2004 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 40 | 71.43% | 14 | 25% | 122 | 67.78% | 52 | 28.89% | 66.67% | Constitutional Amendment 1 placed on the ballot |
| Mississippi | March 1, 2004 April 7, 2004 | Same-sex marriage | 51 | 98.08% | 0 | 0% | 97 | 79.51% | 17 | 13.93% | 66.67% | Amendment 1 placed on the ballot |
| Missouri | March 1, 2004 May 14, 2004 | Same-sex marriage | 26 | 76.47% | 6 | 17.65% | 130 | 79.75% | 26 | 15.95% | 50.01% | Constitutional Amendment 2 placed on ballot |
| Wisconsin | March 3, 2004 March 11, 2004 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 20 | 60.61% | 13 | 39.39% | 68 | 68.69% | 27 | 27.27% | 50.01% | Advanced |
| Wisconsin | December 6, 2005 February 28, 2006 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 19 | 57.56% | 14 | 42.42% | 62 | 62.63% | 31 | 31.31% | 50.01% | Referendum 1 placed on ballot |
| Utah | March 3, 2004 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 20 | 68.97% | 7 | 24.14% | 58 | 77.33% | 14 | 18.67% | 66.67% | Constitutional Amendment 3 placed on ballot |
| Kansas | March 5, 2004 March 25, 2004 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | — | — | — | — | 88 | 70.4% | 36 | 28.8% | 66.67% | Bill was amended |
| Kansas | March 25, 2004 | Same-sex marriage | 17 | 42.5% | 16 | 40% | — | — | — | — | 66.67% | Rejected |
| Kentucky | April 12, 2004 April 13, 2004 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 33 | 86.84% | 5 | 13.16% | 85 | 85% | 11 | 11% | 60% | Constitutional Amendment 1 placed on ballot |
| Oklahoma | April 15, 2004 April 22, 2004 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 26 | 54.17% | 19 | 39.58% | 92 | 91.09% | 4 | 3.96% | 50.01% | State Question 711 placed on ballot |
| Kansas | May 1, 2004 May 4, 2004 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 27 | 67.5% | 13 | 32.5% | 79 | 63.2% | 45 | 36% | 66.67% | Rejected |
| Tennessee | May 6, 2004 May 19, 2004 | Same-sex marriage | 28 | 84.85% | 1 | 3.03% | 85 | 85.86% | 5 | 5.05% | 50.01% | Advanced |
| Tennessee | February 28, 2005 March 17, 2005 | Same-sex marriage | 29 | 87.88% | 3 | 9.09% | 88 | 88.89% | 7 | 7.07% | 66.67% | Constitutional Amendment 1 placed on ballot |
| Louisiana | June 6, 2004 June 15, 2004 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 31 | 79.49% | 6 | 15.38% | 88 | 83.81% | 13 | 12.38% | 66.67% | Constitutional Amendment 1 placed on ballot |
| Kansas | January 13, 2005 February 2, 2005 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 28 | 70% | 11 | 27.5% | 86 | 68.8% | 37 | 29.6% | 66.67% | Amendment 1 placed on ballot |
| South Dakota | February 3, 2005 February 28, 2005 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 20 | 57.14% | 14 | 40% | 55 | 78.57% | 14 | 20% | 50.01% | Amendment C placed on ballot |
| Virginia | February 26, 2005 | All types of same-sex unions | 30 | 75% | 10 | 25% | 79 | 79% | 17 | 17% | 50.01% | Advanced |
| Virginia | January 15, 2006 March 7, 2006 | All types of same-sex unions | 28 | 70% | 11 | 27.5% | 85 | 85% | 12 | 12% | 50.01% | Question 1 placed on ballot |
| South Carolina | March 1, 2005 April 14, 2005 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 42 | 91.3% | 1 | 2.17% | 96 | 77.42% | 3 | 2.42% | 66.67% | Amendment 1 placed on ballot |
| South Carolina | January 25, 2007 February 27, 2007 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 41 | 89.13% | 1 | 2.17% | 92 | 74.19% | 7 | 5.65% | 66.67% | Amendment 1 ratified |
| Alabama | March 8, 2005 March 10, 2005 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 30 | 85.71% | 0 | 0% | 85 | 80.95% | 7 | 6.67% | 60% | Amendment 774 placed on ballot |
| Texas | April 25, 2005 May 21, 2005 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 21 | 67.74% | 8 | 25.81% | 101 | 67.33% | 29 | 19.33% | 66.67% | Proposition 2 placed on ballot |
| Idaho | February 6, 2006 February 15, 2006 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 26 | 74.29% | 9 | 25.71% | 53 | 75.71% | 17 | 24.29% | 66.67% | Constitutional Amendment 2 placed on ballot |
| Pennsylvania | June 6, 2006 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | — | — | — | — | 136 | 66.97% | 61 | 30.05% | 66.67% | Died in committee |
| Pennsylvania | June 21, 2006 | Same-sex marriage | 38 | 76% | 12 | 24% | — | — | — | — | | | | 66.67% | Died in committee |
| Arizona | May 12, 2008 June 27, 2008 | Same-sex marriage | 16 | 53.33% | 4 | 13.33% | 35 | 55% | 25 | 41.67% | 50.01% | Proposition 102 placed on ballot |
| Wyoming | February 6, 2009 | Same-sex marriage | — | — | — | — | 25 | 40.32% | 35 | 56.45% | 66.67% | Died in committee |
| West Virginia | March 30, 2009 | Same-sex marriage | — | — | — | — | 30 | 30% | 67 | 67% | 66.67% | Died in committee |
| Indiana | January 28, 2010 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 38 | 76% | 10 | 20% | — | — | — | — | 50.01% | Died in committee |
| New Hampshire | February 17, 2010 | Same-sex marriage | — | — | — | — | 135 | 33.75% | 201 | 50.25% | 60% | Died in committee |
| Wyoming | January 27, 2011 | Same-sex marriage | 20 | 64.52% | 10 | 32.26% | — | — | — | — | 66.67% | Died in committee |
| Iowa | February 1, 2011 | Same-sex marriage | — | — | — | — | 62 | 62% | 37 | 37% | 50.01% | Died in committee |
| Indiana | February 15, 2011 March 29, 2011 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 40 | 80% | 10 | 20% | 70 | 70% | 26 | 26% | 50.01% | Advanced, but bill was amended |
| Indiana | January 28, 2014 February 17, 2014 | Same-sex marriage | 32 | 64% | 17 | 34% | 57 | 57% | 40 | 40% | 50.01% | Advanced |
| Indiana | 2015/2016 | Same-sex marriage | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 50.01% | Not reintroduced in General Assembly |
| Minnesota | May 11, 2011 May 21, 2011 | Same-sex marriage | 37 | 55.22% | 27 | 40.3% | 70 | 52.24% | 62 | 46.27% | 50.01% | Constitutional Amendment 1 placed on ballot |
| North Carolina | September 12, 2011 September 13, 2011 | Same-sex marriage and civil unions | 30 | 60% | 16 | 32% | 75 | 62.5% | 42 | 35% | 60% | Constitutional Amendment 1 placed on ballot |

### Efforts to ban same-sex unions by constitutional amendment

The following table shows all popular vote results regarding state constitutional amendments concerning same-sex marriage, and in some cases civil unions and domestic partnerships. The Hawaii amendment is different in that it granted the legislature authority to "reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples" (which the legislature had already done).
| State | Initiated or legislatively referred ballot measure | Ban on | Date | Yes vote | Yes vote | No vote | No vote | Total votes | Voter turnout | Electorate | Final outcome |
| State | Initiated or legislatively referred ballot measure | Ban on | Date | Votes | % | Votes | % | Total votes | Voter turnout | Electorate | Final outcome |
| Alaska | Measure 2 | Marriage | November 3, 1998 | 152,965 | 68.11% | 71,631 | 31.89% | 224,596 | 49.54% | 453,332 | Yes |
| Hawaii | Constitutional Amendment 2 | Marriage ban permitted | November 3, 1998 | 285,384 | 69.18% | 117,827 | 28.56% | 412,520 | 67.19% | 601,404 | Yes |
| Nebraska | Initiative Measure 416 | All types of same-sex unions | November 7, 2000 | 477,571 | 70.1% | 203,667 | 29.9% | 681,238 | 62.77% | 1,085,217 | Yes |
| Nevada | Ballot Question 2 | Marriage | November 7, 2000 | 412,688 | 69.62% | 180,077 | 30.38% | 592,765 | 67.8% | 874,304 | Yes |
| Nevada | Ballot Question 2 | Marriage | November 5, 2002 | 337,197 | 67.2% | 164,573 | 32.8% | 501,770 | 57.68% | 869,859 | Yes |
| Missouri | Constitutional Amendment 2 | Marriage | August 3, 2004 | 1,055,771 | 70.61% | 439,529 | 29.39% | 1,495,300 | 42.93% | 3,483,481 | Yes |
| Louisiana | Constitutional Amendment 1 | Marriage and civil union | September 18, 2004 | 619,908 | 77.78% | 177,067 | 22.22% | 796,975 | 27.91% | 2,855,561 | Yes |
| Kentucky | Constitutional Amendment 1 | Marriage and civil union | November 2, 2004 | 1,222,125 | 74.56% | 417,097 | 25.44% | 1,639,222 | 58.7% | 2,794,286 | Yes |
| Georgia | Constitutional Amendment 1 | Marriage and civil union | November 2, 2004 | 2,454,930 | 76.15% | 768,716 | 23.85% | 3,223,646 | 75.87% | 4,248,837 | Yes |
| Ohio | State Issue 1 | Marriage and civil union | November 2, 2004 | 3,329,335 | 61.71% | 2,065,462 | 38.29% | 5,394,797 | 67.66% | 7,972,826 | Yes |
| Mississippi | Amendment 1 | Marriage | November 2, 2004 | 957,104 | 86.01% | 155,648 | 13.99% | 1,112,752 | 53.78% | 2,068,766 | Yes |
| Oklahoma | State Question 711 | Marriage and civil union | November 2, 2004 | 1,075,216 | 75.59% | 347,303 | 24.41% | 1,422,519 | 66.35% | 2,143,978 | Yes |
| Arkansas | Constitutional Amendment 3 | Marriage and civil union | November 2, 2004 | 753,770 | 74.95% | 251,914 | 25.05% | 1,053,399 | 62.47% | 1,686,124 | Yes |
| Michigan | State Proposal - 04-2 | All types of same-sex unions | November 2, 2004 | 2,698,077 | 58.62% | 1,904,319 | 41.38% | 4,602,396 | 64.24% | 7,164,047 | Yes |
| Montana | Constitutional Initiative 96 | Marriage | November 2, 2004 | 295,070 | 66.56% | 148,263 | 33.44% | 443,333 | 69.44% | 638,474 | Yes |
| Utah | Constitutional Amendment 3 | Marriage and civil union | November 2, 2004 | 593,297 | 65.86% | 307,488 | 34.14% | 900,785 | 70.47% | 1,278,251 | Yes |
| North Dakota | Constitutional Measure 1 | Marriage and civil union | November 2, 2004 | 223,538 | 73.23% | 81,708 | 26.77% | 305,246 | 62.68% | 487,010 | Yes |
| Oregon | State Measure 36 | Marriage | November 2, 2004 | 1,028,546 | 56.63% | 787,556 | 43.37% | 1,816,102 | 84.82% | 2,141,249 | Yes |
| Kansas | Amendment 1 | Marriage and civil union | April 5, 2005 | 417,627 | 69.95% | 179,432 | 30.05% | 597,059 | 35.35% | 1,688,926 | Yes |
| Texas | Proposition 2 | Marriage and civil union | November 8, 2005 | 1,723,782 | 76.25% | 536,913 | 23.75% | 2,260,695 | 17.97% | 12,577,545 | Yes |
| Alabama | Amendment 774 | Marriage and civil union | June 6, 2006 | 697,591 | 81.18% | 161,694 | 18.82% | 859,285 | 35.61% | 2,413,279 | Yes |
| South Carolina | Amendment 1 | Marriage and civil union | November 7, 2006 | 829,360 | 77.97% | 234,316 | 22.03% | 1,063,676 | 43.37% | 2,452,714 | Yes |
| Virginia | Question 1 | All types of same-sex unions | November 7, 2006 | 1,328,537 | 57.06% | 999,687 | 42.94% | 2,328,224 | 51.12% | 4,554,683 | Yes |
| Tennessee | Constitutional Amendment 1 | Marriage | November 7, 2006 | 1,419,434 | 81.25% | 327,536 | 18.75% | 1,746,970 | 46.73% | 3,738,703 | Yes |
| Wisconsin | Referendum 1 | Marriage and civil union | November 7, 2006 | 1,264,310 | 59.43% | 862,924 | 40.57% | 2,127,234 | 49.97% | 4,256,721 | Yes |
| South Dakota | Amendment C | All types of same-sex unions | November 7, 2006 | 172,305 | 51.83% | 160,152 | 48.17% | 332,457 | 65.56% | 507,132 | Yes |
| Colorado | Amendment 43 | Marriage | November 7, 2006 | 855,206 | 55.02% | 699,030 | 44.98% | 1,554,236 | 62.6% | 2,533,058 | Yes |
| Arizona | Proposition 107 | Marriage and civil union | November 7, 2006 | 721,789 | 48.21% | 775,498 | 51.79% | 1,496,987 | 58.28% | 2,568,401 | No |
| Idaho | Constitutional Amendment 2 | Marriage and civil union | November 7, 2006 | 282,386 | 63.35% | 163,384 | 36.65% | 445,770 | 58.27% | 764,880 | Yes |
| Florida | Constitutional Amendment 2 | Marriage and civil union | November 4, 2008 | 4,890,883 | 61.92% | 3,008,026 | 38.08% | 8,456,329 | 75.18% | 11,247,634 | Yes |
| Arizona | Proposition 102 | Marriage | November 4, 2008 | 1,258,355 | 56.2% | 980,753 | 43.8% | 2,239,078 | 74.95% | 2,987,451 | Yes |
| California | Proposition 8 | Marriage | November 4, 2008 | 7,001,084 | 52.24% | 6,401,482 | 47.76% | 13,743,177 | 79.42% | 17,304,091 | Yes |
| North Carolina | Constitutional Amendment 1 | Marriage and civil union | May 8, 2012 | 1,317,178 | 61.04% | 840,802 | 38.96% | 2,157,980 | 34.27% | 6,296,759 | Yes |
| Minnesota | Constitutional Amendment 1 | Marriage | November 6, 2012 | 1,399,916 | 47.44% | 1,510,434 | 51.19% | 2,950,780 | 76.42% | 3,861,043 | No |

### Post-Obergefell attempts to repeal constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions

| State | Date | Type of same-sex union | Upper House | Upper House | Lower house | Lower house | Final outcome |
| State | Date | Type of same-sex union | Yes | No | Yes | No | Final outcome |
| Nevada | 2017 | Same-sex marriage | 19 | 2 | 27 | 14 | Advanced |
| Nevada | March/May 2019 | Same-sex marriage | 19 | 2 | 37 | 2 | Placed on Ballot |
| Nevada | November 2020 | Same-sex marriage | Referendum (62.4%) | Referendum (62.4%) | Referendum (62.4%) | Referendum (62.4%) | Yes |
| Virginia | February 2021 | Same-sex marriage, civil union and any marriage-like contract between unmarried persons | 24 | 12 | 60 | 33 | Advanced |
| Virginia | 2022 | Same-sex marriage, civil union and any marriage-like contract between unmarried persons | 25 | 14 | - | - | No |
| California | 2023 | Same-sex marriage | 31 | 0 | 67 | 0 | Placed on Ballot |
| California | 2023 | Same-sex marriage | Referendum (62.62%) | Referendum (62.62%) | Referendum (62.62%) | Referendum (62.62%) | Yes |
| California | November 2024 | Same-sex marriage | Referendum (62.62%) | Referendum (62.62%) | Referendum (62.62%) | Referendum (62.62%) | Yes |
| Hawaii | March/April 2024 | Legislative authority to enact same-sex marriage ban | 24 | 1 | 43 | 6 | Placed on Ballot |
| Hawaii | November 2024 | Legislative authority to enact same-sex marriage ban | Referendum (55.94%) | Referendum (55.94%) | Referendum (55.94%) | Referendum (55.94%) | Yes |
| Colorado | April/May 2024 | Same-sex marriage | 29 | 5 | 46 | 14 | Placed on Ballot |
| Colorado | November 2024 | Same-sex marriage | Referendum (64.33%) | Referendum (64.33%) | Referendum (64.33%) | Referendum (64.33%) | Yes |
| Virginia | January 2025 | Same-sex marriage, civil union and any marriage-like contract between unmarried persons | 24 | 15 | 58 | 35 | Advanced |
| Virginia | 2026 | Same-sex marriage, civil union and any marriage-like contract between unmarried persons | Pending | Pending | Pending | Pending | |

### Proposed attempts to constitutionally block same-sex unions

| State | 2000s | 2010s | Details | |
| Delaware | 2009 | | A proposed constitutional amendment, Senate Bill 27, to ban same-sex marriage failed. | Failed |
| Indiana | 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 | 2010 2011 2014 | On February 15, 2011, the Indiana House approved a ban on civil unions and marriage (70–26). The bill passed the Indiana Senate by a 40–10 vote. According to state law, the bill must now be approved by the next, separately elected legislature before voters will see the measure on the 2014 ballot. On January 27, 2014, the Indiana House voted 52–43 to remove the ban on civil unions from the proposed measure. On January 28, 2014, the Indiana House voted 57–40 in favor of the amended measure. On February 17, 2014, the Indiana Senate voted 32–17 approving the House-amended version of the ban on gay marriage. The measure will now need to be approved by the next, separately elected legislature before voters are allowed to decide its fate in 2016. | Failed |
| Iowa | 2004 2005 | 2010 2011 | After the Iowa Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal in 2009, a backlash quickly developed that resulted in three of the justices losing their seats in the 2010 election. Additionally, Republicans took control of the House and fell one seat short of taking over the Senate. For a proposed constitutional amendment to come before Iowa voters, it has to be approved in exactly the same form by two consecutive general assemblies. | Failed |
| Minnesota | 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009 | 2011 | A bill was sponsored in 2009 but failed to be brought up for a vote. An amendment was introduced again in 2011. The House and Senate bills passed. Both are referred to other area. The bill would have been approved by majority by both the Senate and house by May 23, 2011. On May 11, 2011, the Senate passed the bill 38–27. On May 22, 2011, an amendment was passed in the house by a vote of 70–62, and was placed on the ballot in the November 2012 election. | Failed |
| New Hampshire | 2006 2007 | 2010 | On February 17, 2010, a proposed constitutional amendment failed in the house by a 201–135 margin. Constitutional amendments in New Hampshire require two-thirds approval from voters. | Failed |
| New Jersey | 2006 2007 2008 | 2010 | Bills to place an amendment on the ballot have all failed in the House or Senate Judiciary Committee. | Failed |
| New Mexico | 2007 2008 2009 | 2010 2011 2013 2014 | A joint resolution was prefiled in the New Mexico legislature for the 2014 session. The resolution would define marriage as one man and one woman for the state of New Mexico. | Failed |
| Pennsylvania | 2006 2008 2009 | 2010 2011 2013 | A joint resolution was introduced in the house of representatives with record low sponsorship on May 8, 2013. The bill would ban same-sex marriages and civil unions. Pennsylvania would become the first northeastern state with a marriage amendment. According to state law, the amendment must receive a majority vote from both chambers of the legislature in two consecutive sessions before voters are allowed to decide its fate. The soonest voters could see the measure is in 2015. | Failed |
| West Virginia | 2009 | 2010 2011 | West Virginia senators proposed a constitutional amendment for the 2010 ballot that would have defined marriage as "a union between and man and a woman". The amendment was defeated. Another proposition was introduced in January 2011 but failed to advance. | Failed |
| Wyoming | 2009 | 2011 | In 2009, the house of representatives considered an amendment to the state constitution, House Joint Resolution 17 (also known as the "Defense of Marriage" resolution), defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The measure was defeated in the house on February 6, with 35 votes against and 25 in favor. On January 27, 2011, the Senate approved an amendment, but it died in the house. | Failed |

### Efforts to ban same-sex unions by statute

The following consists of votes by statutory initiatives that ban same-sex marriage and/or civil unions and domestic partnerships:
| State | Date | Yes vote | No vote | Description | Final outcome |
| California | March 2000 | 61% (4,618,673) | 39% (2,909,370) | Proposition 22. Amend the Family Code to say: Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.$^1$ | Yes$^2$ $^3$ |
Notes:
* $^1$ There is a debate as to whether the adoption of Prop 22 only prohibited California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.
* $^2$ In March 2005, Judge Richard Kramer ruled there appeared to be no rational state compelling interest in limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. His ruling was appealed to the California Court of Appeal for the 1st District, which upheld Proposition 22 on October 5, 2006. The Supreme Court of California ruled on May 15, 2008, that Proposition 22 is unconstitutional and it was struck down by the state's highest court.
* $^3$ Subsequently, repealed by state legislature.

### Lawsuits seeking to overturn statutory bans

The following lists cases seeking to overturn marriage bans:
| State | Case | Date | Vote for | Vote against | Description | Restrictions unconstitutional? | Final outcome |
| Minnesota | Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson | October 15, 1971 | 0 | 7 | Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota's marriage statute applied only to opposite-sex couples. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, but dismissed on October 10, 1972. | No | No |
| Kentucky | Jones v. Callahan | November 9, 1973 | 0 | 7 | Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled that Kentucky's marriage statute applied only to opposite-sex couples. | No | No |
| Washington | Singer v. Hara | October 1974 | Failed | Failed | Washington Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of same-sex couple who were denied a marriage license by their county clerk. Washington Court of Appeals's decision stating that state marriage statutes only applied to opposite-sex couples upheld. | No | No |
| District of Columbia | Dean v. District of Columbia' | January 1995 | 0 | 9 | District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled that District's marriage statute applied only to opposite-sex couples. | No | No |
| Hawaii | Baehr v. Miike | December 9, 1999 | 0 | 5 | Hawaii Supreme Court ruled on May 5, 1993, in a 3 in favor to 1 against decision, that state must provide a compelling interest to restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Remanded case to lower courts for trial on the subject. On December 3, 1996, Judge Chang ruled that the state had not established any compelling interest in denying same-sex couples the ability to marry and that, even if it had, it failed to prove that the Hawaii statute was narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary abridgement of constitutional rights. He enjoined the state from refusing to issue marriage licenses to otherwise-qualified same-sex couples. The following day Chang stayed his ruling, acknowledging the "legally untenable" position couples would be in should the Supreme Court reverse him on appeal. Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs' arguments were moot in light of 1998 state constitutional amendment. | No | No |
| Vermont | Baker v. Vermont | December 20, 1999 | 5 | 0 | Vermont Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage or something similar must be implemented in 100 days. | Yes | Legalized civil unions in Vermont by Vermont General Assembly |
| Alaska | Brause v. Alaska Dept of Health & Social Services | April 17, 2001 | 0 | 5 | Alaska Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs' arguments were moot in light of 1998 state constitutional amendment. | No | No |
| Massachusetts | Goodridge v. Department of Public Health | November 18, 2003 | 4 | 3 | Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules that same-sex marriages must be legal in 180 days. | Yes | Legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts on May 17, 2004 |
| Arizona | Harold Donald Standhardt and Tod Alan Keltner v. State of Arizona | May 25, 2004 | Failed | Failed | Arizona Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a unanimous Arizona Appellate Court ruling upholding statutory marriage ban. | No | No |
| Louisiana | Forum for Equality v McKeithen | January 19, 2005 | 0 | 7 | District Judge William Morvant of Baton Rouge struck down the constitutional amendment on the grounds that it violated a provision of the state constitution requiring that an amendment cover only one subject. The Louisiana Supreme Court, however, upheld the constitutional amendment. | No | No |
| Oregon | Mary Li and Rebecca Kennedy et al. v. State of Oregon et al. | April 2005 | 0 | 7 | Oregon Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs' arguments were moot in light of 2004 state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. | No | No |
| New York | Hernandez v. Robles | July 6, 2006 | 2 | 4 | New York Court of Appeals upheld New York's marriage statute did not allow same-sex marriage, and that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. | No | No |
| Georgia | Perdue v. O'Kelley | July 7, 2006 | 0 | 7 | On May 16, 2006, Constance C. Russell of Fulton County Superior Court struck down the constitutional amendment on the grounds that it violated a provision of the state constitution requiring that an amendment cover only one subject. The Georgia Supreme Court, however, upheld the constitutional amendment. | No | No |
| Washington | Andersen v. King County | July 26, 2006 | 4 | 5 | Washington Supreme Court upholds Washington's statute banning same-sex marriage. | No | No |
| New Jersey | Lewis v. Harris | October 25, 2006 | 7 | 0 | New Jersey Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage or something similar must be implemented in 100 days. | Yes | Legalized civil unions in New Jersey by New Jersey General Assembly |
| Maryland | Conaway v. Deane & Polyak | September 2007 | 3 | 4 | Maryland Court of Appeals upholds Maryland's statute banning same-sex marriage. | No | No |
| Michigan | Pride at Work v. Granholm | May 7, 2008 | 5 | 2 | Michigan Supreme Court ruled that Michigan's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions also applies to domestic partner benefits. | No | Constitution of Michigan prohibits domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples |
| California | In re Marriage Cases | May 15, 2008 | 4 | 3 | California Supreme Court overturns Proposition 22 and rules that in 30 days, same-sex marriages must be legal. | Yes | Same-sex marriage licenses issued in California from June 17, 2008, to November 5, 2008 On November 5, 2008, Proposition 8 goes into effect banning same-sex marriage in the Constitution of California |
| Connecticut | Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health | October 10, 2008 | 4 | 3 | Connecticut Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriages must be legal in 30 days. | Yes | Legalized same-sex marriage in Connecticut on November 12, 2008 |
| Iowa | Varnum v. Brien | April 2009 | 7 | 0 | Iowa Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriages must be legal in 27 days. | Yes | Legalized same-sex marriage in Iowa on April 27, 2009 |
| California | Strauss v. Horton | May 26, 2009 | 1 | 6 | California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8; however, same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008, are also upheld. | No | California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8; however, same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008, are also upheld. |
| New York | Lewis v. New York State Department of Civil Service | November 2009 | 3 | 2 | The case challenging the recognition of same-sex marriages in the state of New York was heard by New York Court of Appeals and upheld the rights that came with the recognition of same-sex marriages. | Recognition upheld | Continuing the recognition of same-sex marriages abroad. |
| Wisconsin | McConkey v. Van Hollen | June 30, 2010 | 0 | 7 | Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds constitutional amendment. | No | No |
| Wyoming | Christiansen v. Christiansen | June 2011 | Allowed | Allowed | Wyoming Supreme Court allows two Wyoming residents to dissolve a legal relationship created under the laws of Canada. | Yes | Couple can divorce in Wyoming |
| Maryland | McConkey v. Van Hollen | May 18, 2012 | 7 | 0 | Maryland Court of Appeals upholds Maryland's recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages. | Recognition upheld | Continuing the recognition of same-sex marriages abroad. |
| Wisconsin | Appling v. Doyle | July 31, 2014 | 7 | 0 | On November 4, 2009, Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to hear the challenge to Wisconsin's domestic partnership. On June 20, 2011, the Circuit court Judge Dan Moeser ruled that the domestic partnership registry does not violate the state constitution, finding that the state "does not recognize domestic partnership in a way that even remotely resembles how the state recognizes marriage". On December 21, 2012, District 4 Court of Appeals affirms Judge Moeser's decision in a unanimous ruling. On July 31, 2014, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the domestic partnership law does not violate the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. | Recognition upheld | Wisconsin's domestic partnership law is upheld. |
| Montana | Donaldson and Guggenheim v. State of Montana | December 2012 | 3 | 4 | Montana Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's dismissal of this case because the plaintiffs had not identified specific state statutes in their complaint. They did not seek the right to marry, but equal treatment for same-sex couples with respect to inheritance rights, health care decisions, and parenting. The Court invited the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint citing specific statutes, which the plaintiffs, did on April 16, 2013. | No | Pending (Lewis and Clark County District Court) |
| New Mexico | Griego v. Oliver | December 19, 2013 | 5 | 0 | On March 21, 2013, ACLU filed a lawsuit in the Albuquerque District court on behalf of two New Mexico couples who are seeking the right to marry. On December 19, 2013, New Mexico's Supreme Court declared that denying marriage to same-sex couples is unconstitutional in the state. | Yes | Legalized same-sex marriage in New Mexico on December 19, 2013 |
| Texas | In Re Marriage of J.B. and H.B. | June 19, 2015 | n/a | n/a | County judge ruled statutory and constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in violation of the US constitution; appealed to 5th Texas Court of Appeals. The court says Texas's same-sex marriage ban is constitutional. The Fifth Circuit denied en banc review. J.B. sought review from the Texas Supreme Court in February 2011 and that court requested briefs in October. On July 3, 2013, the Texas Supreme Court sua sponte ordered supplemental merits briefing in light of United States v. Windsor. | Case dismissed on June 19, 2015, because a Petitioner died. | Case dismissed on June 19, 2015, because a Petitioner died. |
| Texas | Texas v. Naylor | June 19, 2015 | 5 | 3 | On January 7, 2011, the Third Court of Appeals in Austin in the case of State of Texas v. Angelique S. Naylor and Sabina Daly rejected, on procedural grounds, the Texas attorney general's appeal of a divorce granted by a lower court to a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts. The appeal was still pending in December 2012. | Third Court of Appeals upheld in a 5-3 decision on June 19, 2015. The Court ruled that the Texas government had no standing to intervene in the divorce. | Third Court of Appeals upheld in a 5-3 decision on June 19, 2015. The Court ruled that the Texas government had no standing to intervene in the divorce. |