Subject: TIMELINE PT. 1 (please update on websites)
From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 12:29:30 -0400 (EDT) [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]

Timeline
(revis
1970

The Los Angeles County Clerk requests the California legislature to tighten
its laws on
marriage after receiving many inquiries from gay couples wanting marriage
licenses. 

1971

Baker v. Nelson, in Minnesota, the first same-sex marriage case brought in
the United
States, is ruled against plaintiffs Richard John Baker and James Michael
McConnell.  Plaintiffs
contend that an absence of a specific prohibition on same-sex marriage
signifies a legislative
intent to recognize them.  They also argue that the state marriage statute,
as interpreted to
provide only for opposite-sex marriages, is unconstitutional on several
bases: it "denies
petitioners a fundamental right guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution,
arguably made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and
petitioners are
deprived of liberty and property without due process are denied equal
protection of the laws,
both guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment."  In its remarkably short
(two-page) decision,
the court added:  "We dismiss without discussion petitioners' additional
contentions that the
statute contravenes the First Amendment and Eight Amendment of the United
States Constitution.
. .The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely
involving the procreation
and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis."
 In responding to
plaintiffs argument that lack of ability to procreate constituted no bar to
marriage for opposite-
sex couples, the court responded:  ". . .abstract symmetry' is not demanded
by the Fourteenth
Amendment."  Finally, the court rejected plaintiffs contention that the
Loving miscegenation
case, as a "same-race" restriction that was overturned, provided precedent
for overturning a
similar "same-sex" restriction:  ". . .in commonsense and in a constitutional
sense, there is a
clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and
one based upon the
fundamental difference in sex."  (Precisely why sex constituted a
"fundamental" difference,
while race did not, was left unexplained.)   

1972

Burkett v. Zablocki , a Wisconsin case, is ruled against plaintiffs Donna
Burkett and
Manonia Evans.  Their case was actually dismissed for failure to properly
respond to defendants
briefs or to provide briefs of their own.  In response to their filing of the
case the previous
year, a bill was introduced in the state legislature to provide marriage for
gays; it failed. 
1973

 Jones v. Hallahan, a Kentucky case, is ruled against plaintiffs Tracy Knight
and
Marjorie Ruth Jones.  Petitioners relied on constitutional claims: a
fundamental right to marry
(as ruled by U.S. Supreme Court, but has been applied only to opposite-sex
marriages), the
right of association, and the right to free exercise of religion (both under
the First Amendment)
and the contention that the refusal of a marriage license subjects them to
cruel and unusual
punishment (as forbidden by the Eighth Amendment).  In an even shorter
decision than
Minnesota's two years previously, the court referred to the dictionary
definition of marriage as
existing between two persons of the "opposite sex."  The court wrote:  "It
appears to us that
appellants are prevented from marrying, not by the statutes of Kentucky or
the refusal of the
County Court Clerk of Jefferson County to issue them a license, but rather by
their own
incapability of entering into a marriage as that term is defined."     

1974

Singer v. Hara , a Washington state case, similarly rules against plaintiffs
John F.
Singer and Barwick.  Plaintiffs argued that Washington marriage statutes did
not prohibit
same-sex marriages; therefore a license must be issued.  Unlike the previous
two cases,
however, plaintiffs also argued that the state's Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)
forbad
discrimination on the basis of sex, which they in turn argued had occurred in
the denial of their
marriage license.  Plaintiffs also argued violations of their Eight, Ninth,
and Fourteenth
Amendment rights.  Through some tortuous logic, the court argues that because
of an exception
to the absolute prohibition on sex discrimination exists--that of unique
physical
characteristics of each of the sexes rather than gender per se--this suit
falls within that
exception because two males cannot produce children.  The court then concedes
that many
heterosexual married people cannot produce children, but, echoing the Baker
court (above),
calls that merely an imperfection in the law.  But this conclusion directly
contradicts the courts
above claim:  Now, the court argues, physical characteristics are not
dispositive.  This time
echoing the Jones, the court argues:  "Appellants were not denied a marriage
license because of
their sex; rather they were denied a marriage license because of the nature
of marriage itself."

Two black lesbian mothers from Dayton, Ohio sued for the right to marry,
although they
lacked both legal representation and support from the local gay community,
the latter perhaps
in part because they were living on public assistance.  They lost. 

1975

Two men from Phoenix are granted a marriage license by a county clerk.  This
license is
later revoked. 

On recommendation of the Boulder, Colorado city district attorney, County
Clerk Cela
Rorex issues Dave Zamora and Ave McCord a marriage license.  This causes a
month-long rush
on the clerk's office by same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses, until
the state Attorney
General voids the D.A.'s recommendation.  A court later revoked all of the
licenses.  In April, the
Arizona Supreme Court deemed the gay marriage attempts unconstitutional,
paving the way for
the state legislature to pass an emergency bill defining marriage as possible
only between a man
and a woman. 

The Maryland Attorney General's office rules that the Montgomery County Clerk
has no
legal basis on which to challenge the validity of the marriage of two women,
Michele Bernadette
Bush and Paulette Hill, to whom the clerk's office issued a marriage license.
 The license was
later revoked. 

The Washington, D.C., City Council considered a bill that would provide for
gay 
marriage. 

Two lesbians, Nancy Davis and Toby Schneiter, are arrested after a five-hour
sit-in at
the county's marriage license bureau to protest refusal of a license.  They
vow to go on a hunger
strike in jail. 

1977

Mikhail Itkin and Larry Lawrence are denied a marriage license by the Los
Angeles
County clerk's office.  That office indicated that this was not the first
time such an application
had been made, but that such requests come "three of four times a week."
 They sued the state,
but were dismissed.   Back in 1971, as part of a general revision of domestic
relations law,
the legislature had changed the requirement for marriage from "[a]ny man or
woman" to
"[a]ny unmarried person."   Both branches of the state legislature later
passed bills cloing
this "loophole," apparently becoming law without the signature of
then-Governor Jerry
Brown.  The Senate sponsor of the bill was John Briggs, who would later offer
the "Briggs
Initiative," a measure to ban gay schoolteachers that was defeated by a
movement led by openly
gay San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk.  

1978 

Assemblyman Bruce Nestande introduces and passes a bill adding "between one
man and
one woman" to the definition of marriage in California.  

1979-1985

No significant activity around the issue of same-sex marriage.

1986

The ACLU's Executive Director and Board of Directors say their organization
will seek to
eliminate legal barriers preventing gays from marrying. 

1989

The Bar Association of San Francisco calls for gay marriages. 

In Chicago, two journalists for gay publications, Rex Wockner and Paul
Varnell, file
complaints with the Illinois Department of Human Rights charging the state
with sex
discrimination because it refuses to allow gay marriages. 

In a poll, 69% of respondents say they disapprove of gay marriages; 23%
approve, 8%
are unsure. 

1990 

Several gay couples, including  Jeff Graubart-Cervone and Frank
Cervone-Graubart,
apply for and are denied marriage licenses at the Cook County clerk's office
in Chicago.  

1991

A bill is filed in the California legislature allowing for gay marriage.  It
is endorsed by
the California Bar Association and the Bar Association of San Francisco.  

The Massachusetts Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights launches a
campaign to pass
a gay marriage bill.  A handful of Democrats co-sponsor it. 

Dean v. D.C., a District of Columbia same-sex marriage case, is ruled against
plaintiffs Craig Dean and Patrick Gill.  No constitutional issues are raised.
 Plaintiffs argued
that the D.C. Marriage and Divorce Act authorized gay marriage, and that the
D.C. Human Rights
Act forbade discrimination in issuance of marriage licenses.  In what many
critics consider to be
the most unjudicious and homophobic ruling on a marriage case to date, the
court cited previous
cases as well as the bible, and alleges a legislative intent to disallow gay
marriages.   The D.C.
Human Rights Commission sided with the couple, contending that the marriage
bureau violated
city law by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.  The author of
the city's Human
Rights Act testified that the Council did not intend to forbid gay marriage.
 However, the court
noted that two years prior to adoption of the act, the District did reject a
proposal that would
have explicitly recognized gay marriage.  Then-Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly had
been quoted by
the Washington Times newspaper during the 1990 mayoral campaign as promising
to support
gay marriage.  Tom Stoddard of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund
responded to the
ruling:  "If we do file another [gay marriage] case, it should be in a state
with a political
climate that is relatively favorable to gays and lesbians, and it should be
filed in a state court
and deal with a state constitution."   An appeal to the Circuit Court of
Appeals (the highest D.C.
court) also resulted in a loss.  Plaintiffs asked for a for an en banc (full
court) hearing; this
was denied.   

1992

In another poll, 58% of respondents disapproved of gay marriage; 35%
approved, and
7% were unsure.  This represents a significant change in attitude from the
poll conducted three
years earlier (see above).  Because the margins of error in the two polls
were 3% and 5%  for
1989 and 1992 respectively , this demonstrates a statistically significant
increase in
support for gay marriage of between 4% and 14%. 

1993 

license application to the Los Angeles County Clerk's office, but are refused.
 Represented by Lawyer
Paul S. Marchand, the couple file a lawsuit in the 2nd District Court of
Appeal for Los Angeles.
  This case has not been reported out, and is believed to be on hold, at the
request of the
plaintiffs, pending a final outcome in the Baehr Hawaii case (see below).  

Baehr v. Lewin (since renamed Baehr v. Miike) , a landmark same-sex marriage
case
in Hawaii, rules that the state's refusal to issue marriage licenses to three
same-sex couples,
Joseph Melilio and Pat Lagon, Genora Dancel and Ninia Baehr, and Tammi
Rodrigues and
Antoinette Pregil, presumptively violates Hawaii's Equal Rights Amendment
(ERA) barring
discrimination on the basis of sex (a "suspect class" due to the ERA).
 Unless the state can,
under "strict scrutiny" analysis (back in the lower court, on remand)
demonstrate a
"compelling state interest" in this denial, it will have to issue marriage
licenses to these and
all other same-sex couples who otherwise qualify.  Many commentators have
stated that final
victory is almost assured, given that "strict scrutiny" in theory leads in
practice to virtually
certain death for those statutes or state actions to which it is applied.
 The plaintiffs actually
argued their case on the claim of a violation of their right to privacy.
  But the court took a very
minor point made in plaintiffs arguments--literally a footnote regarding the
ERA--and made
that the basis of their decision.  The court wrote in part:  "The facts in
Loving...on the one hand,
and the United States Supreme Court, on the other, both discredit the
reasoning of Jones and
unmask the tautological and circular nature of [defendant's] argument."
 About Singer it
commented brusquely:  "As in Jones, we reject this exercise in tortured and
conclusory
sophistry."  The court did, however,  rejected plaintiffs claim to a
"fundamental right" to
marriage.   This fact is unlikely to affect the actual result of this case,
but may prove the
usefulness of this case as precedent, in other states lacking ERA's, to be
limited.  Because no
federal Constitutional issues were raised here, state courts have the last
word. , 
Additionally, if the final outcome of this case is in favor of the
plaintiffs, because the ruling was
based on the state constitution, only an amendment to the constitution could
allow the continued
denial of same-sex marriage licenses.  (This in turn would require either a
two-thirds vote of
the legislature plus ratification by a popular vote, or a constitutional
convention.)  (Some
legislative attempts have been made to counter the current and/or future
Baehr ruling, but they
have been unsuccessful, and in any case could only be symbolic--see above.)
 The legislature
has begun hearings on the issue of same-sex marriage.      

A same-sex marriage case was brought in Wisconsin, but this is believed to be
on hold
pending a final decision in Baehr.  No case number has been assigned.  

Washington Post poll finds that 70% of Americans oppose gay marriage.
  Hawaii poll
finds that about sixty percent oppose gay marriage. 

1994

Another poll finds that 62% are opposed to gay marriage.  Presumably those in
favor
were 38%, although precise figures for that as well as "undecided" are
unavailable.  (The
margin of error is also unknown.)   It is interesting to note that despite
the legality
of inter-racial marriage since 1967, its acceptance by 1983 had risen to only
40%--only marginally greater than that for gay marriage.   

Historian John Boswell's landmark book Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe is
released.  In it, he proves that the Christian church performed gay unions in
Europe throughout
the medieval period, and even that gay "marriages" occurred before
heterosexual ones.   The
controversy surrounding this best-selling book causes several newspapers to
refuse to run a
"Doonesbury" cartoon which discusses it.  

In an Orlando, Florida court, Shawna Underwood and Donia Davis bring a
same-sex
marriage lawsuit.  This case has not been reported out, nor has it apparently
even been assigned
a case number.  Like the California case (see above), it is believed to be on
hold pending a final 
decision in Baehr.  

Callender v. Corbett, an Arizona same-sex marriage case brought by plaintiffs
Jerry
Callender, Antonio Muniz, John Duran, Stephen Baker, Eileen Maura Jutras,
Lizbeth M.
Petrucci, Kathy Greaves, and Aileen McMurrer.  Their lawyer is Paul Gattone.
 A Superior
Court judge rules against them, citing, as had been cited in some previous
cases, that any change
in marriage law was a matter for the state legislature.  Although this case
was lost, plans for
appeal are believed to be on hold pending a final decision in Baehr.   

Three lesbian couples seeking marriage licenses are turned away by the County
Clerk's
office in Green Bay, Wisconsin.  Among them are Georgina and Annette Grinkey.

1995

An Ithaca, New York couple, Toshav and Philip Storrs, request a marriage
license from
the Ithaca City Clerk, Julie Newcomb.  Mayor Benjamin Nichols, as well as the
full City Council,
endorse the concept of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples who
apply and otherwise
qualify.  The city is prepared to issue a license, but the Storrs request
that this be delayed
pending consultation with legal experts to determine the possible
ramifications of issuance. 
Many, though not all, gay leaders have taken the position that the license
should not be issued
because it would have a negative impact on the long-term ability of same-sex
couples to achieve
marriage rights.  Officials of the City of Ithaca announced that, though they
are supportive of the
right to marriage for gay couples, they would not be issuing marriage
licenses to same-sex
couples at this time.  This decision was reportedly reached based on legal as
well as strategic
factors.  In 1996, the couple brought a lawsuit in Tompkins County; the court
ruled against
them.  The couple will appeal to New York state's highest court, the Court of
Appeals.       

Utah passes anti-marriage bill.  South Dakota introduces anti-marriage bill,
but it dies
in committee.    

In Alaska, a case is filed by Jay Brause and Gene Dugan.  A trial date has
not yet been set,
nor has the court yet responded officially.  

Hawaii's Commission on Sexual Orientation votes 5-2 to recommend marriage
rights for
same-sex couples.  This represents the first time that an official state body
has endorsed
marriage rights for gay couples.  

1996

Anti-marriage bills are introduced in the following states: Alabama, Alaska,
Arizona,
California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New
York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota,
Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington.  As of this writing, South Dakota,
Idaho, Georgia, Kansas,
Oklahoma, Arizona, Alaska, Illinois, South Carolina, Tennessee, Delware,
North Carolina,
Hawaii, Michigan, Missouri, and Pennsylvania have passed.  Executive Orders
forbidding same-
sex marriages are issued by the governors of Mississippi and Alabama, but
these are of
particularly dubious legality because such power may "properly" reside with
the legislature.  

A host of conservative groups band together, along with many of the
Republican
candidates for President, to launch the "National Campaign to Protect
Marriage"  campaign to
make sure gay couples never obtain the right to legal marriage. Presidential
hopefuls Pat
Buchanan, Alan Keyes, and Phil Gramm spoke, while letters of support from Bob
Dole and Steve
Forbes were also read.  (Only Richard Lugar failed to support the rally.)
 Also speaking were
Don Wildmon of the American Family Association and Mike Gabbard of Stop
Promoting
Homosexuality Hawaii, among others.  

A poll conducted during the New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary
finds the
following:  Prior to being told about an anti-gay marriage rally in Des
Moines, Iowa, 22% say
they would be less supportive of a candidate who opposed gay marriage.
 Nearly half said it made
no difference to them, and 28% said they would be more supportive of such a
candidate.  After
being told of the rally, one-third said they would be less supportive of such
a candidate, 45%
said it would make no difference, and only 18% said they would be more likely
to support such a
candidate.  Nearly two-thirds had strong misgivings about the rally.  

The so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) is introduced and passed by
wide
margins in both houses of Congress.  DOMA purports to allow any state to deny
recognition of a
same-sex marriage legally contracted in any other state, and defines marriage
for federal
purposes as a union between one man and one woman only.  President Clinton
signs the bill in
the early morning hours of September 21st.  

On September 10th, Baehr v. Miike recommences in the Hawaii Circuit Court of
Appeals. 
Under a "strict scrutiny" standard, the state is forced to prove it has a
"compelling state
interest" in denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  Hawaii attempts
to show that the
desirability  for children to be raised by their biological parents is such a
compelling interest,
although during the expert witness trial, even the state's own witnesses are
forced to admit that
gay couples can and often do make very good parents.  On December 3rd, Judge
Kevin Chang
rules, as expected, that the state has not met its burden, and marriage
licenses must be issued to
same-sex couples on the same basis as for mixed-sex couples.  The state
immediately appeals,
and also requests a stay on the effect of the ruling pending the final result
of the appeal to the
Hawaii Supreme Court; this is granted.  Licenses are unlikely to be issued
until early 1998.      

1997 and beyond

Due to the overwhelming volume of marriage-related news items, we will not be
updating this Timeline.  Please contact FORM for up-to-date information.

NOTES

-----------------------------------------------------
The Forum on the Right to Marriage (FORM)
Box 8033 JFK Station
Boston, MA 02114
(617) 868-FORM
[email-masked]
HTTP://www.calico-company.com/formboston
America Online:  Keyword: GLCF Library.  New Files -or- Legal Issues -or-
Organizations

Materials available:
Arguments/Letters to the Editor
Flier (new) *
General Quotations
Hawaii Primer 
How You Can Help
Ithaca Primer
Law Chart
Law Review Summary
Legal History 
Legal Summary
Marriage Primer     
Press Kit *
Resources
Timeline   
Wedding Announcements  

*available soon

##############################
FORM is a national grassroots organization primarily
engaged in education and outreach concerning the issue of
same-sex marriage.

FORM provides resources and training to similar locally
based groups throughout country.

FORM exists as well to facilitate and support the efforts 
of individuals, whether legal or legislative, that advance
the cause of same-sex marriage in the United States.

When feasible, FORM will work in concert with gay and
lesbian political groups to optimize organized efforts to
attain same-sex marriage rights.
##########################################
--------(Please print out, cut here, and mailback)-----------

Please help us to begin building the framework for legalizing same-sex
marriage. 

_ Yes, I want to be a member of FORM.  Please
enter my membership at the following level:

    _ Individual ($20.)
    _ Household ($30.) 
    _ Student/Low-income ($10.)

    _ I want to make an additional contribution in the amount of:

       $ _____  
   
 (Please make checks payable to: Forum on the Right to Marriage (FORM),
Inc.)     

 _ Add me to your mailing list:     
 __________________________________
 __________________________________
 __________________________________

 _ I'm interested in becoming a FORM organizer/starting a chapter in my
area.

We hope that you will become involved in FORM.  But the most important
thing, in whatever aspect of gay rights we may be involved in, is that we
as gay people share with those around us the truth of our lives.  FORM's
activities can serve only as an adjunct to individual gay men, women, and
young people willing to reach out and change the hearts and minds of the
American people. Thanks for your interest and your continued assistance
in helping to make marriage a reality for the gay community.  

Please mail to:

The Forum on the Right to Marriage (FORM)
Box 8033 JFK Station
Boston, MA 02114