Same-sex marriage in the Sixth Circuit
# Same-sex marriage in the Sixth Circuit

Part of the LGBT 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

Iceland

Ireland

Luxembourg

Malta

Mexico

$Netherlands^1$

New $Zealand^2$

Norway

Portugal

Slovenia

South Africa

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Taiwan

United $Kingdom^3$

United $States^4$

Uruguay :

Civil unions and registered partnerships

Bolivia

Croatia

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Greece

Hungary

Italy

Latvia

Liechtenstein

Monaco

Montenegro

Netherlands:

  • Aruba

San Marino

United Kingdom:

  • Bermuda

  • Cayman Islands :

Common-law marriage

$Israel^5$ :

Minimal recognition

$Bulgaria^6$

Cambodia:

  • 68 communes

$China^7$

$India:^8$

  • Chandigarh

  • Gujarat

  • Haryana

  • Kerala

  • Odisha

  • Punjab

  • Tamil Nadu

  • Uttarakhand

$Japan^9$

$Lithuania^6$

$Namibia^{10}$

$Netherlands:^2$

  • Curaçao

  • St Maarten

$Poland^6$

$Romania^{12}$

$Slovakia^6$ :

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

LGBT rights by country or territory :

Notes

Performed in the Netherlands proper, including the Caribbean Netherlands. Registered in Aruba, Curaçao and 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.

Neither performed nor recognized in some tribal nations. Recognized but not performed in several other tribal nations and American Samoa.

Cohabitation. Registered foreign marriages confer limited rights. Marriage recognized in some cities.

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.

Legal guardianships (nationwide, except Hong Kong and Macau), residency rights for foreign spouses of legal residents (Hong Kong).

Unregistered cohabitation or Maitri karar–type contractual relationships, but they are not legally binding.

Some cities and prefectures issue partnership certificates, though not legally formalized.

Marriages conducted abroad between a Namibian national and a foreign spouse recognized for residency rights

Hospital visitation rights through a "legal representative" status

* Not yet in effect :

LGBT portal :

vte :

On April 28, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments for Obergefell v. Hodges (Ohio), which was consolidated with three other same-sex marriage cases from the other states in the Sixth Circuit: Tanco v. Haslam (Tennessee), DeBoer v. Snyder (Michigan), Bourke v. Beshear (Kentucky). On June 26, 2015 the Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit's decision, paving the way for same-sex marriage to become legal in those states, and setting a precedent for the entire nation. All four states complied with the ruling the same day it was issued before the mandate was actually issued. Every state in the circuit had a district court ruling against their states' ban, but they were eventually stayed pending appeal. The Sixth Circuit consists of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. On August 6, 2014, the Sixth Circuit heard oral arguments for same-sex marriage cases from each state within the circuit. On November 6, 2014, the Sixth Circuit in a split 2-1 decision, upheld the states' same-sex marriage bans, reversing the district courts' rulings that struck them down. The Sixth Circuit was the first and only circuit court since the landmark ruling United States v. Windsor to uphold the constitutionality of states' same-sex marriage bans which caused a circuit split.

Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell, same-sex marriages were neither performed nor recognized in Kentucky (with the exception of a divorce that was granted to a same-sex couple). However, recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriage was technically legal for a brief amount of time when a federal judge overturned part of the state's ban on same-sex marriage. This ruling was stayed the following day. Recognition of same-sex relationships (marriages under that name or any other) have been banned by the state constitution since 2004. The state's ban was struck down entirely on 1 July 2014 and was stayed pending appeal.

Michigan's state constitution bans recognition of same-sex unions in any form following a 2004 popular vote. Same-sex marriage in Michigan was ruled legal on March 21, 2014 by the U.S. District Court for Michigan's Eastern District. More than 300 same-sex couples were married in Michigan on Saturday, March 22, 2014, but a stay against enforcement of the ruling was issued late that same day until March 26. On March 25, 2014, a federal appeals court stayed the ruling indefinitely. The same-sex marriages that were performed that day are currently recognized.

On April 14, 2014, U.S. District Judge Timothy S. Black ruled that Ohio had to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions Two days later he stayed enforcement of his ruling except for the birth certificates sought by the plaintiffs.

On March 14, 2014, U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger granted a preliminary injunction requiring Tennessee to recognize the marriages of the three plaintiff couples. On April 25, 2014, the Sixth Circuit, in an unpublished per curiam order, issued a stay of the district court's decision in Tanco, and ordered that the case be assigned to a panel of judges on the Sixth Circuit for expedited consideration on the merits.

