Same-sex marriage ceremony
Same-sex marriage ceremony
, also referred to as gay
, is a marriage
two persons of the same sex. The federal government of
the United States
does not recognize the marriages of same sex
couples and is prohibited from doing so by the Defense of Marriage Act
four states have legalized same-sex marriage as a result of a court
ruling, while three others have done so through a vote in their
respective state legislatures. New York and the District of
Columbia do not grant but recognize legal out-of-state same-sex
marriages. In California, same-sex marriage was legal from June to
November 2008, after the California Supreme Court held the statutes
limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the state
constitution; but the California electorate then approved a
that reinstated the ban on same-sex marriage as part of the
constitution. Marriages performed during the period remain legally
Same-sex marriage is permitted in five of the 50 states
States which previously allowed same-sex marriage:
- In California,
same-sex marriages were performed between June 16, 2008 and
November 4, 2008. The marriages that were performed during this
period are still recognized. On October 12, 2009, Governor
Schwarzenegger signed SB 54 allowing same-sex marriages from other
states or foreign countries performed on or before November 4,
2008, to be recognized as well.
States which recognize same-sex marriage but do not grant same-sex
- In New York and
[[Recognition of same-sex unions in the District of
D.C.]], same-sex marriages from other states or foreign countries
are recognized but they are not performed.
movement to obtain marriage
rights and benefits for same-sex couples in the United States began in the early 1970s.
Rhode Island, two
opinions of the attorney general suggest that same-sex marriages
should be recognized, but a state Supreme Court opinion appears to
contradict this position; same-sex marriages are not performed in
The issue became even more prominent in
in the mid-1990s
with a public backlash toward the idea evidenced
' passage of the
of Marriage Act
. In the late 2000s, New England became the center of an organized push to legalize
same-sex marriage in the U.S. with half of the six states comprising that region
passing laws granting same-sex couples the legal right to
marry. The issue remains politically divisive in the
The legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage in the United States
are complicated by the nation's federal
system of government. Traditionally, the federal government did not
attempt to establish its own definition of marriage; any marriage
recognized by a state
was recognized by
the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by
one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage
before 1967 due
to anti-miscegenation laws
With the passage of the Defense
of Marriage Act
in 1996, however, a marriage was explicitly
defined as a union of one man and one woman for the purposes of
federal law. (See .) Thus, no act or agency of the federal
government currently recognizes same-sex marriage.
According to the federal government's Government Accountability
than 1,138 rights and protections
are conferred to U.S.
citizens upon marriage by the federal government; areas affected
include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health
insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement
savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.
However, many aspects of marriage law affecting the day to day
lives of inhabitants of the United States are determined by the
states, not the federal government, and the Defense of Marriage Act
does not prevent individual states from defining marriage as they
The United States Supreme Court in 1972 dismissed Baker v. Nelson
, a case originating in
Minnesota, "for want of a substantial federal question".
marriage law in the United States by state
Five states have legalized same-sex marriage: Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire. In all five cases
this has been through legislation or court ruling. As of November
2009, when legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in Maine was
defeated by referendum, same-sex marriage had been defeated in all
31 states in which it had been directly put to a popular vote.
Thirty states have passed constitutional amendments prohibiting
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts
November 18, 2003; in Connecticut
10, 2008 (having previously legalized civil unions in October
2005); in Iowa
27, 2009; and in Vermont
since September 1,
2009. Same-sex marriages will be performed in New Hampshire
January 1, 2010.
Same-sex marriage is recognized only at the state level, as the
federal Defense of Marriage
explicitly bars federal recognition of such
Opponents of same-sex marriage have attempted to prevent individual
states from recognizing same-sex unions by attempting to amend the
to define marriage as a union between one man and
one woman. In 2006, the Federal Marriage Amendment
would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages, was
approved by the Republican
, on a party-line vote, and was debated by
the full United States Senate, but was ultimately defeated in both
houses of Congress.
The right to marry was first extended to same-sex couples by a
United States jurisdiction on November 18, 2003, in Massachusetts
by a state Supreme Judicial Court ruling.
On May 15,
2008, the Supreme Court of California issued a decision in which it effectively legalized
same-sex marriage in California, holding that California's existing opposite-sex
definition of marriage violated the constitutional rights of
Same-sex marriage opponents in California
placed a state constitutional amendment known as Proposition 8
on the November ballot for the
purpose of restoring an opposite-sex definition of marriage;
was passed on Election
Day 2008, as were proposed marriage-limiting amendments in Florida
and Arizona. The California
amendment was challenged
in a court proceeding, but was upheld
by the state supreme court, in a 6-1 vote, on May 26, 2009. The
court ruled, however, that the approximately 18,000 same-sex
marriages that took place in 2008 would remain valid.
On October 10, 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned the
state's civil-unions statute (2005), as unconstitutionally
discriminating against same-sex couples, and required the state to
recognize same-sex marriages.
marriage was legalized in Iowa following
the unanimous ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court in Varnum
April 3, 2009. This was initially to take effect on April 24, but
the date was changed to April 27 for administrative reasons.
7, 2009, Vermont legalized
same-sex marriage through legislation.
The Governor had
previously vetoed the measure, but the veto was overridden by the
Legislature. Vermont became the first state in the United States to
legalize same-sex marriage through legislation, as opposed to
litigation, albeit without the governor's signature. On the same
day, the City Council of the federal District of Columbia passed a
bill by a 12–1 vote that recognizes same-sex marriages performed
elsewhere, although the bill is subject to Congressional
On May 6, 2009, Maine became the fifth state to legalize same-sex
marriage. The legislation was overturned by referendum in November
On June 3, 2009, New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize
As of June
1, 2009, New
Jersey has created legal unions that, while not called
marriages, are explicitly defined as offering all the rights and
responsibilities of marriage under state (though not federal) law
to same-sex couples. Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Wisconsin, Washington and the District of Columbia have created legal unions for same-sex couples that
offer varying subsets of the rights and responsibilities of
marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions.
As of January 1, 2009, thirty states have constitutional amendments
explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, defining
civil marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman. More
than forty states explicitly restrict marriage to two persons of
the opposite sex, including some of those that have created legal
recognition for same-sex unions under a name other than "marriage",
e.g., civil unions and domestic partnerships. Nineteen states ban
any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent
to civil marriage. New York courts have ruled that same-sex
marriages conducted in states where they are legal must be
recognized by those states, but that the state statutes do not
allow the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses — as a result New
York now has same-sex divorces without allowing same-sex weddings.
New Jersey only recognized same-sex marriages for the purpose of
divorce, otherwise they are converted to Civil Unions.
Pennsylvania state senator John
plans to introduce a constitutional amendment
banning same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania. However, Senator
has introduced a bill that
would legalize same sex marriage.
International recognition of marriages
Same-sex marriage conducted abroad is recognized in State of
, and the
The nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada
raised questions about U.S. law, because of Canada's proximity to
the U.S. and the fact that Canada has no citizenship or residency
requirement to receive a marriage certificate (unlike Belgium
and the Netherlands
and the U.S. have a history of respecting marriages contracted in
Immediately after the June 2003 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in Ontario
number of American couples went or planned to go to the province in
order to get married. A coalition of American national gay rights
groups issued a statement asking
couples to contact them before attempting legal challenges, so that
they might be coordinated as part of the same-sex marriage movement
in the United States.
Barack Obama, like most national Democratic politicians, is against
same-sex marriage while remaining sympathetic to human-rights. The
president "supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT
couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage." He
opposes a federal mandate for same-sex marriage, but also opposes
the proposed federal ban
gay marriage, arguing that the individual states should decide.
Obama opposed Proposition 8--California's constitutional ban on gay
marriage--in 2008, and may have made comments in support of
same-sex marriage during his Illinois Senate race in the 1990's,
while he subsequently opposed same-sex marriage in the 2008
T-shirt reading "If your marriage
needs protecting you need a therapist not an amendment" (May 2009,
Same-sex marriage supporters make several arguments in support of
their position. Advocates of same-sex marriage sometimes liken
prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past prohibitions on
interracial marriage. Some same-sex marriage supporters argue that
same-sex marriage should be allowed because same-sex marriage
extends a civil right to a minority group.
Christopher Ott argues against the position that same-sex marriage
would devalue marriage as a whole by referencing other historical
events such as allowing women to vote
describes the prohibition of same-sex marriage as devaluing the
American principle of equal
Rally for Prop 8 in Fresno, California
same-sex marriage harms the family structure of society, and that
same-sex marriages deprive children of either a mother or a father.
takes the view
that same-sex relationships are intrinsically different from
marriages, and that any comparison with interracial marriage is
unjustified. Some opponents to same sex marriage argue that
judicial rulings such as the California Supreme Court's decision in
the In re Marriage Cases
amounted to unconstitutional judicial activism.
Effects of same-sex marriage
Economic impact on same-sex couples
Dr. M. V. Lee Badgett, an economist and associate professor at the
, has studied the impact of same-sex legal
marriage on same-sex couples. According to a 1997 General Accounting Office
requested by Rep. Henry Hyde
least 1,049 U.S. Federal laws and regulations include reference to
marital status. A later 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office
finds 1,138 statutory provisions "in which marital status is a
factor in determining or receiving 'benefits, rights, and
privileges.'" Many of these laws govern property rights, benefits,
and taxation. Same-sex couples are ineligible for spousal and
benefits. Badgett's research finds the resulting
difference in Social Security income for same-sex couples compared
to opposite-sex married couples is US$5,588 per year. The federal
ban on same-sex marriage and benefits through the 1996 Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA) extends to federal government employee
benefits. According to Badgett's work, same-sex couples face other
financial challenges against which legal marriage at least
partially shields opposite-sex couples:
state laws grant full marriage rights (Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire and Vermont) or some or
all of the benefits under another name (New Jersey, California, etc.), these state laws do not extend
the benefits of marriage on the Federal level, and most states do
not currently recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions from
- potential loss of couple's home from medical expenses of one
partner caring for another gravely ill one
- costs of supporting two households, travel, or emigration out
of the U.S. for an American citizen unable to legally marry a
- higher cost of purchasing private insurance for partner and
children if company is not one of 18% that offer domestic partner
- higher taxes: unlike a company's contribution to an employee's
spouse's health insurance, domestic partner benefits are taxed as
- legal costs associated with obtaining domestic partner
documents to gain some of the power of attorney, health care
decision-making, and inheritance rights granted through legal
- higher health costs associated with lack of insurance and
preventative care: 20% of same-sex couples have a member who is
uninsured compared to 10% of married opposite-sex couples
- current tax law allows a spouse to inherit an unlimited amount
from the deceased without incurring an estate tax but an unmarried
partner would have to pay the estate tax on the inheritance from
- same-sex couples are not eligible to file jointly or separately
as a married couple and thus cannot take the advantages of lower
tax rates when the individual income of the partners differs
One often overlooked aspect of same-sex marriage are the potential
effects on same-sex couples. While the legal
benefits of marriage are numerous, same-sex couples would face the
same financial constraints of legal marriage as opposite-sex
married couples. Such potential effects include the marriage penalty
in taxation. Similarly,
while social service providers usually do not count one partner's
assets toward the income means test for welfare and disability
assistance for the other partner, a legally married couple's joint
assets are normally used in calculating whether a married
individual qualifies for assistance.
Several psychological studies have shown that an increase in
exposure to negative conversations and media messages about
same-sex marriage creates a harmful environment for the LGBT
population that may affect their health and well-being.
One study surveyed more than 1,500 lesbian, gay and bisexual adults
across the nation and found that respondents from the 25 states
that have outlawed same-sex marriage had the highest reports of
"minority stress" — the chronic social stress that results from
minority-group stigmatization — as well as general psychological
distress. According to the study, the negative campaigning that
comes with a ban is directly responsible for the increased stress.
Past research has shown that minority stress is linked to health
risks such as risky sexual behavior and substance abuse.
studies examined personal reports from LGBT adults and their
families living in Memphis, Tennessee, immediately after a successful 2006 ballot
campaign banned same-sex marriage.
Most respondents reported
feeling alienated from their communities, afraid that they would
lose custody of their children and that they might become victims
of violence. The studies also found that families
experienced a kind of secondary minority stress, says Jennifer Arm,
a counseling graduate student at the University
a pair of economists at Emory University tied the passage of state bans on same-sex marriage
in the US to an increase in the rates of HIV
The study linked the passage of same-sex marriage
ban in a state to an increase in the annual HIV rate within that
state of roughly 4 cases per 100,000 population.
Timeline of major events
- October 10, 1972: The United
States Supreme Court dismisses appeal in Baker v. Nelson "for want of a substantial
5, 1993: The Hawaii State Supreme Court rules that statute limiting marriage to
opposite-sex couples is presumed to be unconstitutional unless the
state can show that it is (1) justified by compelling state
interests and (2) narrowly drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgements
of rights under the Hawaii
Constitution. The case is sent back to the lower courts
for a trial on these two issues.
- September 21, 1996: President Bill
Clinton signs into law the Defense of Marriage Act, denying
federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
- December 3, 1996: A Hawaii trial-court judge holds that no
compelling interests support Hawaii's statute limiting marriage to
opposite-sex couples. He stays the decision pending review by the
Hawaii Supreme Court.
- November 3, 1998: Hawaii voters amend the Hawaii Constitution
to give the Hawaii State
Legislature the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex
- December 9, 1999: In light of the constitutional amendment, the
Hawaii Supreme Court dismisses the case challenging Hawaii's law
limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. The court thus never
decided whether the law was constitutional.
- December 20, 1999: The Vermont
Supreme Court holds that exclusion of same-sex couples from
benefits and protections incident to marriage under state law
violated the common-benefits clause of the Vermont Constitution.
- November 18, 2003: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court gives the state legislature 180 days to enact
- February 11, 2004: The Massachusetts General Court
(legislature) completes the first step in a process that would ban
same-sex marriage. The process is not continued.
- February 12 – March 11, 2004: San Francisco issues
same-sex marriage licenses.
- May 17, 2004: Same-sex marriage starts in
- August 12, 2004: The California
Supreme Court rules that the San Francisco marriages are
- September 29, 2005: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes a
same-sex marriage bill.
- October 12, 2007: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
vetoes same-sex marriage bill.
15, 2008: The Supreme Court of California overturns the state's ban on same-sex
- June 16, 2008: Same-sex marriage starts in
- September 10, 2008: HB436, a bill that seeks to "eliminates the
exclusion of same gender couples from marriage", is submitted to
the New Hampshire House of Representatives.
- October 10, 2008: The Supreme Court of Connecticut
orders same-sex marriage legalized.
- November 4, 2008: California voters pass Proposition 8, amending the
state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
- November 5, 2008: Proposition 8 takes effect in
California, stopping new same-sex marriage licenses from being
issued after this date.
- November 12, 2008: Same-sex marriage starts in
- March 26, 2009: HB436 supporting same-sex marriage passes the
New Hampshire House of Representatives.
3, 2009: The Iowa
Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage.
- April 6, 2009: A same-sex marriage bill is passed by the
Vermont General Assembly
and then vetoed by the governor.
- April 7, 2009: The Vermont
General Assembly overrides the governor's veto of the same-sex
- April 23, 2009: Connecticut governor signs legislation which
statutorily legalizes same-sex marriage (see Oct. 10 and
Nov. 12, 2008), and also converts any existing civil unions into
marriages as of October 1, 2010.
- April 27, 2009: Same-sex marriage starts in
- April 29, 2009: HB436 supporting same-sex marriage passes the
New Hampshire Senate with minor
- May 6, 2009: Maine Governor Baldacci signs Marriage Equality
Bill. The New
Hampshire House of Representatives concurs with the Senate's
amendments to HB436, and the bill supporting same-sex marriage
advances to Governor John Lynch.
- May 12, 2009: A same-sex marriage bill passes in the lower
house New York Assembly.
- May 26, 2009: The California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8, but also upholds the marriage
rights of the 18,000 same-sex couples married while same-sex
marriage had been briefly legalized.
- June 3, 2009: The New
Hampshire General Court passes new HB73, which includes
protections for religious institutions, as required by Gov.
John Lynch to secure his signature on
HB436, a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. Gov. Lynch signs both
bills the same day.
- September 1, 2009: Same-sex marriage starts in
- September 11, 2009: Same-sex marriage was supposed to start on
this day in Maine, but is subject to a People's Veto.
- October 2, 2009: A Texas judge rules the state's same-sex
marriage ban unconstitutional while presiding over the divorce
proceedings for two gay Texans married in Massachusetts, clearing
the way for both Texas' first same-sex divorce and a legal
challenge to the same-sex marriage ban.
- October 11, 2009: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
signs into law recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriage.
- November 3, 2009: The same-sex marriage law passed in Maine is
repealed by a People's Veto referendum.
- December 1, 2009: District of Columbia City Council passes
same-sex marriage bill 11-2. The bill will go to Mayor Adrian Fenty
for signature. Barring interference by the United States Congress
within thirty days after Mayor Fenty signs the bill, DC will allow
- January 1, 2010: Same-sex marriage to start in New
Hampshire and out of state same-sex marriage becomes
recognized in California.
United States case law regarding same-sex marriage:
- Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn.
1971) (upholding a Minnesota law defining marriage)
- Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588
(Ky. 1973) (upholding a Kentucky law defining
- Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187 (Wash.
App. 1974) (ban on same-sex marriage was
constitutional on the basis of gender discrimination;
because the historical definition of marriage is between one man
and one woman, same-sex couples are inherently ineligible to
- Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th
Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 458
U.S. 1111 (affirming that same-sex marriage does not make one a
"spouse" under the Immigration and Nationality Act)
- De Santo v. Barnsley, 476 A.2d 952
(Pa. Super. Ct.
1984)(same-sex couples cannot undergo divorce
proceedings because they cannot enter a common law marriage)
- In re Estate of Cooper, 564 N.Y.S.2d 684
(N.Y. Fam. Ct.
- Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993)
(holding that statute limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples
violates the Hawaii constitution's equal-protection clause unless
the state can show that the statute is (1) justified by compelling
state interests and (2) narrowly tailored, prompting a state constitutional
amendment and the federal Defense of Marriage Act)
- Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307
- Storrs v. Holcomb, 645 N.Y.S.2d 286
(N.Y. App. Div.
1996) (New York does not recognize or authorize
same-sex marriage) (this ruling has since been changed, New York
does recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states)
- In re Estate of Hall, 707 N.E.2d 201, 206
(Ill. App. Ct.
1998) (no same sex marriage will be recognized;
petitioner claiming existing same-sex marriage was not in a
marriage recognized by law)
- Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194; 744 A.2d 864
(Vt. 1999) (Common Benefits Clause of the state
constitution requires that same-sex couples be granted the same
legal rights as married persons)
- Rosengarten v. Downes, 806 A.2d 1066
(Conn. Ct. App.
2002) (Vermont civil union cannot be dissolved in
- Burns v. Burns, 560 S.E.2d 47 (Ga.
Ct. App. 2002)
(recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman)
- Frandsen v. County of Brevard, 828 So. 2d 386
(Fla. 2002) (State constitution will not be
construed to recognize same-sex marriage; sex classifications not
subject to strict scrutiny under Florida constitution)
- In re Estate of Gardiner, 42 P.3d 120 (Kan.
2002) (a post-op male-to-female transgendered person may
not marry a male, because this person is still a male in the eyes
of the law, and marriage in Kansas is recognized only between a man
and a woman)
- Standhardt v. Superior Court ex rel.
County of Maricopa, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz.
Ct. App. 2003) (no state
constitution right to same-sex marriage)
- Morrison v. Sadler, 2003 WL 23119998
(Ind. Super. Ct.
2003) (Indiana's Defense of Marriage Act is found
v. Dept. of Public
Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003)
(denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated
provisions of the state constitution guaranteeing individual
liberty and equality, and was not rationally related to a
legitimate state interest.)
- Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.2d 196
(N.J. 2006) (New Jersey is
required to extend all rights and responsibilities of marriage to
same-sex couples, but prohibiting same-sex marriage does not
violate the state constitution; legislature given 180 days from
October 25, 2006 to amend the marriage laws or create a "parallel
- Andersen v.
King County, 138
P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006) (Washington's Defense of
Marriage Act does not violate the state constitution)
- Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1
(N.Y. 2006) (New York State
Constitution does not require that marriage be extended to same-sex
932 A.2d 571 (Md. 2007) (upholding state law
defining marriage as between a "man" and a "woman,")
v. County of
Monroe, 850 N.Y.S.2d 740 (N.Y.
App. Div. 2008)
(The court ruled unanimously that because New York legally
recognizes out-of-state marriages of opposite-sex couples, it must
do the same for same-sex couples. The county was refused leave to
appeal on a technicality.)
- In re Marriage
Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008) (The
court ruled that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is
invalid under the equal protection clause of the California
Constitution, and that full marriage rights, not merely domestic
partnership, must be offered to same-sex couples.); overruled by
Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48 (Cal.
Proposition 8, codified as Marriage Protection Act,
functionally reverses In re Marriage by holding that same-sex
couples do not have equal access to "marriage" designation and that
such a holding does not violate California's privacy, equal
protection, or due process laws)
- Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, (Ia.
2009) (Barring same-sex couples from marriage, the court
ruled, violates the equal protection provisions of the Iowa Constitution. Equal protection
requires full marriage, rather than civil unions or some other
substitute, for same-sex couples.)
- Glenn Adams and David Crary, "Maine voters reject gay-marriage law,"
The Washington Post, November 4,
- " State Supreme Court Legalizes Same-Sex
Marriage", Hartford Courant
- " Senate blocks same-sex marriage ban",
CNN, June 7, 2006, (Accessed
July 5, 2006)
- California same-sex marriage ban struck
- nytimes.com, Gay Couples Rejoice at Ruling
- " Bans in 3 States on Gay Marriage"
- Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited
to one man, one woman, Des Moines
Register, April 3, 2009.
- " Number of states", NYTimes.com
- Statewide Marriage Prohibitions plus Kansas
- Protecting marriage to protect children - Los
- Dang, Alain, and M. Somjen Frazer.. "Black Same-Sex Couple
Households in the 2000 U.S. Census: Implications in the Debate Over
Same-Sex Marriage." Western Journal of Black Studies 29.1
(Spring2005 2005): 521-530. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 30 Sep.
- Price, M. "UPFRONT - Research uncovers the stress created by
same-sex marriage bans" in Monitor on Psychology, Volume
40, No. 1, page 10, January 2009. Washington DC: American
Psychological Association. 
- Potoczniak, Daniel J.; Aldea, Mirela A.; DeBlaere, Cirleen"Ego
identity, social anxiety, social support, and self-concealment in
lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals." Journal of Counseling
Psychology, Vol 54(4), Oct 2007, 447-457.
- Balsam, Kimberly F.; Mohr, Jonathan J. "Adaptation to sexual
orientation stigma: A comparison of bisexual and lesbian/gay
adults." Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol 54(3), Jul
- Rostosky, Sharon Scales; Riggle, Ellen D. B.; Gray, Barry E.;
Hatton, Roxanna L. "Minority stress experiences in committed
same-sex couple relationships." Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, Vol 38(4), Aug 2007, 392-400.
- Szymanski, Dawn M.; Carr, Erika R. "The roles of gender role
conflict and internalized heterosexism in gay and bisexual men's
psychological distress: Testing two mediation models."
Psychology of Men & Masculinity, Vol 9(1), Jan 2008,
- Emory researchers: Gay marriage bans increase HIV
- Study Links Gay Marriage Bans to Rise in HIV
- Dallas Morning News, October 2, 2009.
- GAY MARRIAGE: Technicality delays county's
- Murdoch, Joyce and Deb Price (2001). Courting Justice: Gay
Men and Lesbians v. the Supreme Court. New York, Basic Books.