| Part of theLGBTQ rights series |
Recognized |
Civil unions or registered partnerships but not marriage |
See also
|
Notes
|
 LGBTQ portal |
Same-sex marriage is legal in the following countries:Andorra,Argentina,Australia,Austria,Belgium,Brazil,Canada,Chile,Colombia,Costa Rica,Cuba,Denmark,[nb 1]Ecuador,Estonia,Finland,France,Germany,Greece,Iceland,Ireland,Liechtenstein,Luxembourg,Malta,Mexico, theNetherlands,[nb 2]New Zealand,[nb 3]Norway,Portugal,Slovenia,South Africa,Spain,Sweden,Switzerland,Taiwan,Thailand, theUnited Kingdom,[nb 4] theUnited States,[nb 5] andUruguay. Same-sex marriage is recognized, but not performed inIsrael.
An alternative form of legal recognition other than marriage is recognized inBolivia,Croatia,Cyprus, theCzech Republic,Hungary,Italy,Latvia,Lithuania,Monaco,Montenegro, andSan Marino.
Several attempts have been made to establish a right to same-sex marriage at the international level through strategic litigation, at theHuman Rights Committee of the United Nations and at theEuropean Court of Human Rights, both of which currently have not yet recognized an equal right to marry for same-sex couples. The Human Rights Committee case was in 1999, with two same-sex couples as the plaintiffs/petitioners and the government of New Zealand as the defender/respondent. The ECHR case,Schalk and Kopf v Austria, was in 2010, with a same-sex couple as the plaintiffs/petitioners and the government of Austria as the respondents. Although both New Zealand and Austria then responded against the petitions then in each case, both countries now legally recognize same-sex marriage. However, new cases were raised regarding same-sex marriage recognition, e.g. Andersen v. Poland.[1]
On 8 January 2018, theInter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) ruled that theAmerican Convention on Human Rights mandates and requires the legalisation of same-sex marriage. The landmark ruling was fully binding onCosta Rica and set binding precedent in the other signatory countries. The Court recommended that governments issue temporary decrees legalising same-sex marriage until new legislation is brought in. The ruling applies to the countries ofBarbados,Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, theDominican Republic, Ecuador,El Salvador,Guatemala,Haiti,Honduras, Mexico,Nicaragua,Panama,Paraguay,Peru andSuriname. The Costa Rican Government subsequently announced that it would implement the ruling "in its totality",[2] and the Government of Panama has also signalled that it would accept the ruling.[3][4]
On 5 June 2018, theEuropean Court of Justiceruled thatEuropean Union member states must recognise thefreedom of movement and residency rights of same-sex spouses, provided one partner is an EU citizen.[5] The Court ruled that EU member states may choose whether or not to allow same-sex marriage, but they cannot obstruct the freedom of residence of an EU citizen and their spouse. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the term "spouse" is gender-neutral, and that it does not necessarily imply a person of the opposite sex.[6][7]
| Jurisdiction | End date | Description | Restrictions unconstitutional? |
|---|---|---|---|
 United States | 1972 | TheSupreme Court of the United States dismissedBaker v. Nelson "for want of a substantial federal question".[8] This decision wasoverturned in June 2015 by the same court in the caseObergefell v. Hodges. |  No |
 Netherlands | 1990 | TheSupreme Court of the Netherlands ruled that is not discriminatory not to allow same-sex couples to marry, because marriage is open to procreation. However, the Hoge Raad stated that the Parliament is free to grant to same-sex couples most of marriage rights.[9] | No |
 Israel | 1994 | An Israeli court ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to the same common law benefits as opposite-sex couples. |  Yes |
| Israel | 1995 | An Israeli court ruled that same-sex couples were entitled to further benefits. | Yes |
| Israel | 1996 | An Israeli court ruled that same-sex couples were entitled to even further benefits. | Yes |
 New Zealand | December 1997 | TheCourt of Appeal of New Zealand ruled inQuilter v Attorney-General that marriage under common law was between one man and one woman, and the common law ban on same-sex marriage was not discriminatory under theNew Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. | No |
 South Africa | February 1998 | TheTransvaal Provincial Division inLangemaat v Minister of Safety and Security ordered amedical aid scheme to register the same-sex life partner of a member as a dependent, ruling that scheme regulations excluding same-sex partners were unconstitutionally discriminatory.[10][11] | Yes |
 Canada | 1999 | The Supreme Court of Canada ruled inM. v. H. that cohabiting same-sex partners in acommon-law marriage were entitled to the same rights as unmarried cohabiting opposite-sex partners.[12] | Yes |
| South Africa | December 1999 | TheConstitutional Court ruled inNational Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs that foreign same-sex partners of South Africans are entitled to the same immigration benefits as foreign spouses.[13] | Yes |
| Israel | 2000 | An Israeli court ruled that same-sex couples were entitled topension benefits. | Yes |
| Israel | 2001 | Common-law status is once again expanded to allow a partner to claimguardianship of the other's child. | Yes |
| South Africa | July 2002 | The Constitutional Court ruled inSatchwell v President of the Republic of South Africa that pensions and other financial benefits provided by an employer to spouses must also be provided to same-sex life partners who have undertaken a reciprocal duty of support.[14] | Yes |
| South Africa | September 2002 | The Constitutional Court ruled inDu Toit v Minister of Welfare and Population Development that same-sex partners are entitled to adopt children jointly and to adopt each other's children as if they were married.[15] | Yes |
 Venezuela | 2003 | The Supreme Court of Venezuela ruled that the government is free to introduce measures that provide for economic benefits to same-sex couples, though it is not bound by law to do so.[16] | No |
| South Africa | March 2003 | The Constitutional Court ruled inJ v Director General, Department of Home Affairs that children born to lesbian life-partners throughartificial insemination are to be regarded aslegitimate in law and that both partners must be registered as the legal parents.[17] | Yes |
 Austria | 2003 | TheEuropean Court of Human Rights ruled that same-sex couples must be recognized under common-law status equal to opposite-sex couples. | Yes |
 South Korea | July 2004 | A lesbian couple who have lived together for 20 years has made a palimony suit the property division by eliminating de facto marriage.[18] | No |
| Israel | January 2005 | The Supreme Court expanded the common-law status to include for adoption of a partner's child. | Yes |
| South Africa | December 2005 | The Constitutional Court ruled inMinister of Home Affairs v Fourie that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples was unconstitutional. The ruling, however, was suspended for one year to allow Parliament time to enact legislation to rectify the inequality.[19] | Yes |
 Costa Rica | May 2006 | The Supreme Court of Costa Rica ruled 5–2 that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples was not unconstitutional.[20] | No |
 United Kingdom | July 2006 | InWilkinson v. Kitzinger and Others the High Court ruled that recognizing same-sex marriages performed abroad as "civil partnerships" over marriages was not discriminatory.[21] | No |
| Israel | November 2006 | The Supreme Court of Israel ruled that the government must recognize same-sex marriages performed abroad on par with opposite-sex marriages that have been performed abroad.[22] | Yes |
| South Africa | November 2006 | Days before same-sex marriage became legal, the Constitutional Court ruled inGory v Kolver NO that a same-sex life partner is entitled to inherit automatically when the other partner dieswithout a will.[23] | Yes |
 Brazil | 2006 | A 2006 decision issued by the Superior Tribunal de Justiça stated that same-sex couples qualify asde facto partners. | Yes |
 Colombia | February 2007 | A Colombian court ruled that some common law benefits must be extended to same-sex couples.[24] | Yes |
| Colombia | January 2009 | TheConstitutional Court of Colombia later ruled that benefits for cohabiting same-sex couples must be expanded to give them equality with cohabiting opposite-sex couples.[25] | Yes |
 Slovenia | July 2009 | The Constitutional Court of Slovenia ruled that the registered partnership law excluding registered partners from inheritance rights was discriminatory and gave the Parliament six months to respond to the ruling.[26] | Yes |
 Portugal | July 2009 | TheConstitutional Court of Portugal ruled 3–2 that the statutory ban on same-sex marriage does not violate the Portuguese constitutional provision that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.[27][28] | No |
 Russia | January 2010 | Two lesbians who recently married in Canada announced their intention to push for its recognition within Russia.[29][30] Russian courts have ruled that the two are not legally able to marry, and thus the two women are seeking to use a loophole for recognition only.[31] | No[32] |
 Poland | March 2010 | The European Court of Human Rights ruled that homosexuals have the right to inherit from their partners.[33] | Yes |
 Italy | April 2010 | The constitutionality of Italy's refusal to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples was questioned before the Constitutional Court.[34][35] In April 2010, the court rejected the bids from Italian couples.[36] | No |
| Austria | June 2010 | Schalk and Kopf v. Austria challenges the validity of Austria's marriage laws in theEuropean Court of Human Rights.[37][38] | No |
 Mexico | August 2010 | After affirming the constitutionality of Mexico City'ssame-sex marriage law, theSupreme Court ruled that all Mexican states are required to recognize the marriages. | Yes[39] |
 Germany | August 2010 | The Constitutional Court of Germany ruled that the twenty-point higher inheritance tax for registered partners as opposed to married opposite-sex couples violated the constitution. The government had until 2011 to amend the law. | Yes |
 France | January 2011 | France's highest court of appeal, theCourt of Cassation, on November 17, 2010, asked theConstitutional Council to decide whether Articles 75 and 144 of the Civil Code are inconsistent with the preamble and Article 66 of the French constitution.[40][41][42] On January 28, 2011, the Council ruled that the law banning same-sex marriage is constitutional.[43] | No |
| Brazil | May 2011 | On May 5, 2011, theSupreme Federal Court ruled 10-0 that same-sex stable unions must be recognized. This decision paved the way for future legalization on same-sex matrimonial rights.[44] | Yes |
| Brazil | June 2011 | A judge in São Paulo converted a stable union into a civil marriage.[45] | Yes |
| Colombia | July 2011 | The Constitutional Court of Colombia ruled that same-sex couples are at a legal disadvantage by being excluded from marriage and ordered Congress to rectify this issue by June 20, 2013. If the deadline is not met, same-sex couples would thenceforth be able to get married by a judge or a notary.[46] | Yes |
 India | July 2011 | TheGurgaon Court [State of Haryana] granted an individual marriage to a lesbian couple.[47] | Individual case |
| Brazil | October 2011 | TheSuperior Court of Justice ruled that two women can legally marry. Differently from theU.S. Supreme Court's "stare decisis", the Superior Court decision would only reach the authors of the demand, but stood as a precedent that could be followed in similar cases. It is the highest court in Brazil to uphold a same-sex marriage. It overturned two lower courts' rulings against the women. The Court ruled that the Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry and that the current Civil Code does not prohibit the marriage of two people of the same sex. This decision paved the way for future legalization on same-sex matrimonial rights.[48] | Yes |
 Chile | December 2011 | A Court of Appeals in Santiago asked the Constitutional Court about the validity of Article 102 of the Civil Code that defines marriages only between a man and a woman, after three couples challenged the article.[49] The Constitutional Court rejected their bids in a 9–1 vote,[50] and subsequently, the Court of Appeals rejected the challenges.[51] | No |
| Italy | March 2012 | TheSupreme Court of Cassation ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to the same common law benefits as opposite-sex couples.[52] | Yes |
| Israel | December 2012 | Ramat Gan family court allowed a gay couple to divorce.[53] | Yes |
| Mexico | December 2012 | TheSupreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Mexico ruled unanimously in favor of three same-sex couples who sued the state ofOaxaca for the right to marry. The ruling does not immediately eliminate marriage bans in other Mexican states, but it does set a legal precedent to begin challenging statewide marriage bans.[54] | Yes |
| Italy | January 2013 | TheSupreme Court of Cassation ruled that gay couples can bring up children as well as heterosexual couples. It also said that it was "mere prejudice" to assume that living with a homosexual couple could be detrimental for a child's development.[55][56] | Yes |
| Austria | January 2013 | The Constitutional Court of Austria ruled that same-sex couples who want to register their partnership will have the same ceremony offered to opposite-sex couples who want to marry. In addition, gay couples will be able to bring the witnesses.[57] | Yes |
 Australia | February 2013 | Court held that the national ban on same-sex marriages did not constitute gender discrimination[58] | No |
 Paraguay | March 2013 | A Paraguayan gay couple asked anAsunceño judge to register their marriage which they performed in Argentina.[59] On 4 April 2013 the judge refused to register the couple's marriage because the Paraguayan Constitution establish that marriage can only be formed by a man and a woman. The petitioners announced their intentions to appeale the ruling.[60] | No |
| Italy | May 2013 | An Italian judge recognises a civil partnership contracted by two Italian men in the UK. The couple registered their partnership in the local (Milan) Civil union register. It is the first time that occurs in the Italian jurisprudence.[61] | Yes |
| Brazil | May 2013 | On May 14, 2013, theNational Justice Council ruled 14-1 that every notary of Brazil must license and perform same-sex marriage and permit the conversion of any same-sex stable union into a marriage. The ruling was published on 15 May and took effect on 16 May 2013.[62] | Yes |
| United States | June 2013 | InUnited States v. Windsor theSupreme Court of the United States struck down section 3 of theDefense of Marriage Act, which denied federal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples legally married in their own state. | Yes |
| Colombia | July 2013 | A Civil Court in Bogotá ruled that a male same-sex couple has the right to marry.[63] | Yes |
 Greece | November 2013 | In 2008 Greece passed a law which regulated cohabitation but excluded same-sex couples from enjoying the same benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples. On November 7, 2013, in Vallianatos and others v Greece the ECtHR ruled that is discriminatory excluding same-sex couples.[64] | Yes |
| Italy | 2014 | The Civil Court ofGrosseto ordered the recognition of a marriage contracted by two Italian men in New York. It is the first time that occurs in the Italian jurisprudence.[65] In September 2014 an appellate court in Florence has overruled the lowers court decision. However, the court didn't rule on the constitutionality of the marriage, but insisted that the couple sued the wrong agency. The judges sent the case back to the Civil Court of Grosseto.[66] | Case dismissed |
 Costa Rica | 2014 | Two gay couples asked a Costa Rican court on May 16, to be married in a civil union.[67] The request of one couple was declined, but they said they have the intention to appeal the judgement.[68] | United with other similar cases ruled upon in 2018 |
| Costa Rica | June 2015 | A gay couple asked a Family Court in 2013 for the right to the benefits of de facto unions afforded to heterosexual couples. On 2 June 2015, the court ruled for the plaintiffs granting them pension, visitation and inheritance rights in their verdict. The couple became the first in the nation to have a same-sex union recognised. The effects of the ruling are on hold while a judicial review of a law referenced in the judge's opinion is pending.[69] |  |
| United States | June 2015 | InObergefell v. Hodges theSupreme Court of the United States held that theEqual Protection Clause and theDue Process Clause of theFourteenth Amendment require all states to license marriage between two people of the same sex and recognize those marriages performed in other jurisdictions.[70] | Yes |
| Colombia | April 2016 | The Constitutional Court unified the criteria after Congress did not meet its 2013 deadline and, in practice, only some judges were performing marriages. The 2016 ruling indicates that judges and notaries are obliged to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[71] | Yes |
 China | 2016 | The court in central Changsha dismissed the suit brought against the civil affairs bureau for refusing to issue a marriage license to a gay couple. One of the plaintiffs, 26-year-old Sun Wenlin, said he would appeal the decision.[72][73] | No |
| South Korea | December 2016 | AfterSeodeamun-gu office refused to grant marriage licenses to a same-sex couple, they asked a court on May 21, 2014, to be married.[74] The first oral argument was held on July 6, 2015, in Seoul. On 25 May 2016, the district court ruled against the couple and declared that same-sex marriage can't be granted under the current laws. The couple quickly filed an appeal against the district court ruling. In December 2016 the ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The couple announced they would petition theSupreme Court.[75] | No [Appealed ?] |
 Estonia | January 2017 | The Tallinn Circuit Court recognized one marriage performed in Sweden, declaring that out-of state marriages are governed by the countries statutes they are concluded under, thus granting foreign same-sex spouses the same-rights as domestic opposite-sex spouses.[76] | Yes |
| Italy | February 2017 | TheSupreme Court recognized one marriage performed in France between an Italian women and her French partner by rejecting an appeal to the ruling from a Naples court recognizing the marriage.[77] | Individual case |
 Taiwan | May 2017 | On 24 May 2017 theConstitutional Court ruled that same-sex couples have a right to marry, and gave the legislature two years to adequately amend Taiwanese marriage laws. According to the court ruling, if amendments are not passed within two years, same-sex marriages will automatically become legal.[78] Same-sex marriage became legal on 24 May 2019. | Yes |
| Estonia | June 2017 | TheSupreme Court of Estonia ruled that same-sex couples have a right to the protection of family life. Clarifying the courts' jurisdiction in the matter of applying legal protection in residence permit disputes, the Court ruled that Estonian law does not forbid issuing a residence permit to same-sex spouses.[79] | Yes |
| Greece | November 2017 | A couple married by the Greek municipality ofTilos in June 2008 sought to have their marriage recognized. However, theSupreme Court upheld earlier rulings by lower courts rejecting the legality of their marriage and thereby annulling it.They are expected to bring their case to the ECHR.[80][81] | No [Appealed ?] |
| Austria | December 2017 | TheConstitutional Court ruled that same-sex couples have a right to marry, and gave the legislature until 01.12.2019 to adequately amend the Austrian Civil Code. According to the court ruling, if amendments are not passed until the date given, same-sex marriages will automatically become legal.The plaintiffs were allowed to marry immediately.[82][83] | Yes |
 Bulgaria | January 2018 | The case of a Bulgarian couple that had married in the UK sought to have their marriage recognized in Bulgaria. The Sofia Administrative Court rejected their case labelling it "against the public order".[84] | No |
 Hungary | February 2018 | The Budapest District Court ruled that foreign same-sex marriages have to be given the same rights domesticcivil unions are given.[85] | Yes |
| Estonia | April 2018 | TheSupreme Court of Estonia held that despite the lack of implementing measures the Registered Partnership Act has taken effect and is valid as it found the denial of recognition to same-sex couples unconstitutional.[86][87] | Yes |
 Nepal | June 2018 | The Supreme Court of Nepal held that denying a dependent visa for a foreign same-sex spouse of a Nepalese citizen is unlawful, as the Immigration Rules do not specify the gender of the spouse. The plaintiffs married in the U.S.[88] | Yes |
| Costa Rica | August 2018 | Sala IV of theConstitutional Court ruled two articles of the Family Code (§14; §242) and article 4 of the Law of Young People unconstitutional giving lawmakers 18 months to amend the lawbooks in order to legalize same-sex marriage. If they fail to do so, it will become legal automatically.[89][90] | Yes |
 Lithuania | January 2019 | TheConstitutional Court ruled that foreign same-sex spouses have to be granted equal residency rights.[91][92] | Yes |
 El Salvador | January 2019 | The "Sala de lo Constitucional" is studying whether to admit or not a case against article 11 of the Family code which defines marriage as "the legal union between a man and a woman". It was then rejected on procedural ground.[93][94] | Case dismissed |
| Poland | February 2019 | The case of a Polish couple seeking to get their Portuguese marriage recognized was rejected by the "Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie" but the court also ruled that the Polish constitution does not prohibit same-sex marriage.[95] | No |
 Ecuador | June 2019 | On 29 June 2018 a Judge in Cuenca admitted two same-sex marriages relying on the IACRH ruling. However, this decision was overruled by the Labor Chamber of the Provincial Court of Justice due to an appeal by the Civil Registry.[96][97] The case was heard by the Constitutional Court,[98][99] which then voted 5-4 that the IACRH ruling is applicable, thus legalizing same-sex marriage in Ecuador.[100] | Yes |
| Estonia | July 2019 | TheSupreme Court of Estonia held one section of the Aliens Act unconstitutional, thereby granting residency rights for same-sex couples married abroad equal to those of different-sex couples.[101] | Yes |
 Philippines | September 2019 | Arguments at theSupreme Court of the Philippines on same-sex marriage in response as part of theFalcis III vs. Civil Registrar-General case were heard June 19, 2018.[102] They were rejected on procedural grounds in September 2019.[103] The case was dismissed due to Falcis III not seeking marriage for himself or has presented an actual case.[104] | Case dismissed |
| Poland | February 2020 | A case brought to the attention of the Civil Registrar to recognise same-sex marriage between a citizen of Poland and the United Kingdom. The Supreme Administrative court ruled that recognising same-sex marriage contracted abroad would undermine the Polish legal system, that the denial to recognise marriage does not interfere with the right to family life.[105] The case was later taken to the European Court of Human Rights asAndersen v. Poland.[1] | |
| Chile | June 2020 | After theConstitutial Court ruled in a separate case that marriage is a fundamental right, a couple filed a lawsuit against the Civil Registry in January 2019 for denying them a marriage licence and family protection. After the Court of Appeals refused to admit the case, the Supreme Court interfered in February 2019, ordering the case to continue its legal proceeding through the Court of Appeals.[106][107] It then ruled the refusal of the Civil Registry not to be illegal. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court.[108] The petition was then rejected by the Constitutional Court 5–4.[109][110] | No |
 Peru | November 2020 | TheConstitutional Court heard a case on 20 June 2018 regarding the registration and recognition of a marriage performed abroad[111] On 3 Nov 2020, the Court voted 4–3 to reject the petition to register the marriage.[112] | No |
 Latvia | November 2020 | TheConstitutional Court ruled that same-sex partners are entitled to paternal leave. Furthermore, they noted that the state has an obligation to protect the families of same-sex partners as well.[113] | Yes |
 Bolivia | December 2020 | A court of first instance ruled that the Civil Register of Bolivia has to recognize a same-sex couple as a "free union", as the denial thereof constitutes discrimination under Bolivian law.[114][115] | Yes |
 Japan | March 2021 | The Sapporo District Court ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage was inconsistent the constitution's requirement for equal treatment, but left it to the legislature to resolve the problem.[116] | No |
 Thailand | November 2021 | The Constitutional Court of Thailand ruled that the current definition of marriage does not violate the equality clause in the Constitution. Nonetheless, the court called on Parliament and Government to discuss reforms concerning same-sex unions.[117] | No |
 Honduras | January 2022 | In May 2018 two lawsuits were filed regarding same-sex marriage in Honduras, one was rejected due to technical errors. In January 2022, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal seeking access to same-sex marriage. The litigants have announced they will seek redress at the Interamerican Court of Human Rights.[118] | No |
| Russia | March 2022 | The Grand Chamber of the ECtHR accepted the referral of a case against the Russian Government after a Chamber Judgement found the lack of legal recognition for same-sex couples to breach Art. 8 of theEHRC.[119] | Jurisdiction withdrawn when Russia was expelled from the Council of Europe[120] |
| Peru | June 2022 | The Constitutional Court denied an appeal seeking recognition of same-sex marriages conducted in foreign countries, saying the constitution limits marriage to opposite-sex couples. The Court also indicated that it did not believe the country was beholden to the previous Interamerican Court of Human Rights opinion requiring the country to legalize same-sex marriage on the ground that the court had been politicized.[121][122] | No |
| Japan | June 2022 | The Osaka District Court ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage was constitutional, disagreeing with an earlier ruling by the Sapporo District Court.[123] | No |
| Slovenia | July 2022 | The Constitutional Court ruled that ban same-sex marriage and joint couple adoption violated the constitutional right to equal treatment, and ordered that its ruling take effect immediately. It also ordered Parliament to amend the law to bring it in compliance within six months, which the government announced it would do.[124] | Yes |
 Suriname | February 2023 | The Constitutional Court ruled the ban on same-sex marriage does not violate the constitution or Suriname's obligations under the Interamerican Convention on Human Rights. However, the court also found that the Civil Code is outdated and needs to be modernized following public debate.[125] | No |
 Panama | March 2023 | After a seven-year delay, the Supreme Court of Justice ruled that there is no positive right to same-sex marriage under the Panamanian constitution or law.[126] | No |
 Namibia | May 2023 | In 2017, filing a lawsuit in the Windhoek High Court, a Namibian-South African couple sought to have their South African marriage recognized in Namibia in order to obtain residency rights and get their adopted children recognized as theirs.[127][128] In 2019 two other cases of same-sex couples married abroad were filed, too.[129] The High Court ruled against them, finding itself bound to a precedent by theSupreme Court. The couple might appeal the court decision.[130] In May 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that the government must recognize foreign same-sex marriages equally to opposite-sex marriages, in accordance with the constitutional protections for equality and dignity.[131] | Yes |
 Romania | May 2023 | In June, 2019, 7 same sex couples filed suit in the ECHR claiming that the lack of legal protection for same-sex relationships is unconstitutional and a breach to a decision by the ECHR (Oliari and Others v. Italy).[132] The ECHR ruled that Romania violates of Art. 8 European Convention on Human Rights in refusing to grant same-sex couples some form of legal recognition.[133] | Yes |
| Nepal | July 2023 | A couple is challenging the country's 2017 Civil Code before the Supreme Court, to secure the right for two people of any gender to marry. The hearing has been postponed to November 8, 2023.[134] On 28 June 2023, a single judge bench of the Nepal Supreme Court issued a groundbreaking order directing the government to establish a "separate register" for "non-traditional couples andsexual minorities" to "temporarily register" them. However, the Kathmandu District Court rejected a marriage registration application on 13 July.[135][136] The couple appealed to the Patan High Court, but the High Court rejected the appeal on 6 October 2023.[137] | |
| India | October 2023 | On 17 October 2023, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the legalization of same-sex marriage is a matter for the Parliament to decide, not the courts. In a 3–2 decision, it also ruled against ordering the government to introduce civil unions, and in a separate 3-2 decision, ruled against ordering the government to allow adoption by same-sex couples. The majority opinion of the court also states that transgender people in a heterosexual relationship may marry. However, the court unanimously accepted the government's suggestion that it set up a high-powered committee headed by theCabinet Secretary to investigate the discrimination faced by LGBT people and study providing limited legal rights and benefits to same-sex couples. | No |
| Poland | December 2023 | The plaintiffs sue the Government of Poland for the lack of legal recognition of same-sex unions in the ECtHR.[119] In December 2023, the ECtHR ruled that the lack of same-sex unions violates the Convention. | Yes |
| Lithuania | April 2025 | The Constitutional Court found that the restriction of civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples was unconstitutional, and allowed same-sex couples to immediately register their partnerships through the courts. The Court also ordered the government to amend the law to bring the civil partnership act into force, and ensure that partners enjoy equal rights to married couples.[138] | Yes |
 Venezuela | Litigation pending | A case aiming at legalizing same-sex marriage is still pending in the "Tribunal Supremo de Justicia".[139] | |
| Latvia | Litigation ongoing | In May 2016 the Constitutional Court overturned a lower courts decision to deny a same-sex marriage application, stating that for thought there are no provisions allowing for the recognition of same-sex couples, it must be considered if this lack does not violate theConstitution of Latvia or theEuropean Convention on Human Rights and if it would not be necessary to grant them a protection under terms different from marriage.[140] | |
 Georgia | Litigation ongoing | A man is challenging that while the civil code of Georgia is explicitly between a man and a woman, the Constitution does not reference sex/gender in its section on marriage. The plea was launched in 2016.[141] | |
 Albania | Litigation pending | An Albanian LGBT rights group, PRO LGBT, filed a lawsuit in 2017 requesting recognition of same-sex partnerships in the country's Family Code.[142] | |
| Japan | Litigation pending | On February 14, 2019, 13 same sex couples filed suit in Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, and Sapporo claiming that the denial of same-sex marriages is unconstitutional[143] Another three couples filed in Fukuoka a few months later.[144] While the district court in Sapporo ruled in favor of the plaintiffs,[145][144] the district court in Osaka upheld the same-sex marriage ban.[146] These cases have been all been heard at the appellate High Court level, and all five high courts that have ruled have found that the ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.[147] | |
 Serbia | Litigation pending | In July, 2019, a lesbian couple launched a legal challenge after being rejected in the civil registry in Novi Sad.[148] | |
| El Salvador | Litigation pending | In August 2019 La Sala Constitutional accepted a case to review the constitutionality of the articles 11, 90.3 and 118 of the Family Code. LGBT-rights organizations called on the court to respect the IACHR ruling concerning same-sex marriage.[149] |
For same-sex marriage court cases seeking to recognize individual marriages in the US states seeSame-sex marriage in the United States.For individual amparos and the "México Igualitario" in Mexico seeSame-sex marriage in Mexico.For individual injunctions in Brazil seeSame-sex marriage in Brazil
| Jurisdiction | Country | End date | Description | Restrictions unconstitutional? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Washington | United States | 1974 | Singer v. Hara unsuccessfully challenged the validity Washington's Civil Code ban on same-sex marriage in theWashington Court of Appeals. TheSupreme Court of Washington refused to review the decision. | No |
 Colorado | United States | 1985 | Adams v. Howerton unsuccessfully argued that the then-current marriage defenition was gender neutral, thus giving same-sex marriages validity, in theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, upholding a decision by theUnited States District Court for the Central District of California. TheU.S. Supreme Court refused to review the decision. | No |
 Alaska | United States | August 1994 | Bess v. Ulmer unsuccessfully challenged the validity under the Alaskan Constitution of Alaska's Civil Code ban on same-sex marriage. TheSupreme Court of Alaska overturned an earlier court ruling favoring further hearings. | No |
 Hawaii | United States | December 1999 | Baehr v. Miike unsuccessfully challenged the validity of the same-sex marriage ban under the Constitution of Hawaii. TheSupreme Court of Hawaii overturned an earlier court ruling favoring legalization, as a newly passed constitutional amendment limited the provisions the lower court relied on. | No |
 Vermont | United States | December 1999 | InBaker v. Vermont theVermont Supreme Court found that the Constitution of Vermont mandates to grant same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex ones. Nonetheless, it did not legalize same-sex marriage. | / |
 Florida | United States | 2001 | InFrandsen v. County of Brevard theFlorida Fifth District Court of Appeal found that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples did not violate the state Constitution's equal protection for gender classifications. | No |
 Ontario | Canada | June 2003 | TheCourt of Appeal for Ontario in the caseHalpern v Canada (AG) against the current Civil Code that does not allow for same-sex marriage because it violated theCharter of Rights and ordered that its judgment come into effect immediately, | Yes |
 British Columbia | Canada | July 2003 | TheCourt of Appeal of British Columbia ordered inBarbeau v. British Columbia 2003 BCCA 251, requiring the Federal Government to legalize same-sex marriage and ordering that the ruling in the Province take effect immediately. | Yes |
 Massachusetts | United States | November 2003 | InGoodridge v. Department of Public Health theSupreme Judicial Court found that the then-current definition of marriage was unconstitutional thus legalizing same-sex marriage. | Yes |
 Québec | Canada | March 2004 | TheQuébec Court of Appeal ordered inHendricks and Leboeuf v. Québec, that the wording of marriage be changed form "homme et femme" to "époux" and ordering that it take effect immediately. | Yes |
 Yukon | Canada | July 2004 | TheSupreme Court of the Yukon Territory ordered inDunbar & Edge v. Yukon (Government of) & Canada (A.G.), 2004 YKSC 54, that the Yukon common law definition of marriage be changed immediately to be "the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others." | Yes |
 Manitoba | Canada | September 2004 | TheCourt of Queen's Bench of Manitoba ordered inVogel v. Canada, that the same-sex marriage licenses shall be issued in the Province.[150] | Yes |
 Nova Scotia | Canada | September 2004 | TheNova Scotia Supreme Court ordered inBoutilier v. Canada (A.G) and Nova Scotia (A.G), that the then-current law was unconstitutional, thereby legalizing same-sex marriage in the Province | Yes |
 Saskatchewan | Canada | November 2004 | TheCourt of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan ordered inN.W. v. Canada (Attorney General), that the then-current law was against the Charter of Human Rights, thereby legalizing same-sex marriage in the Province | Yes |
 Newfoundland and Labrador | Canada | December 2004 | TheSupreme Court of Newfoundland ordered the State to issure same-sex marriage licences. | Yes |
 Oregon | United States | December 2004 | InLi and Kennedy v. State of Oregon theOregon Supreme Court ruled against Multnomah County, stating that it is not entitled to perform same-sex marriages under the current statutes. Nonetheless, the court refused to rule on same-sex marriage by itself. | No |
 New Brunswick | Canada | April 2005 | TheCourt of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick ordered the State to issue same-sex marriage licences. | Yes |
| Washington | United States | July 2006 | Andersen v. King County unsuccessfully challenged Washington's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in theWashington Supreme Court. | No |
 New York | United States | July 2006 | Hernandez v. Robles unsuccessfully challenged in theCourt of Appeal the validity under the StatesConstitution of its same-sex marriage ban. | No |
 Nebraska | United States | July 2006 | Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning unsuccessfully challenged the validity under the United States Constitution ofInitiative Measure 416, Nebraska's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. | No[151] |
 New Jersey | United States | October 2006 | InLewis v. Harris theSupreme Court that the "unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our State Constitution." It gave the lawmakers 6 month to introduce Civil Unions. | Yes |
 Aruba | Netherlands | April 2007 | The Supreme Court of the Netherlands ruled that Aruba must recognize all Dutch marriages, including same-sex marriages.[152] | Yes |
 Netherlands Antilles | Netherlands | April 2007 | The Supreme Court of the Netherlands's ruling applied to the Netherlands Antilles in addition to Aruba. | Yes |
| New York | United States | February 2008 | InMartinez v. County of Monroe the Appellate Court held that New York has to recognize out-of state same-sex marriages as it recognizes all other valid out-of state marriages. | Yes |
 California | United States | May 2008 | InIn re Marriage Cases theSupreme Court struck down the then-current ban on same-sex marriage upholding rulings from lower courts. | Yes |
 Maryland | United States | September 2008 | InConaway v. Deane & Polyak theCourt of Appeals held that the then-current defenition of marriage did not constitute discrimination under theMaryland Constitution. | No |
 Connecticut | United States | October 2008 | InKerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health theSupreme Court of Connecticut held that it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, thereby legalizing same-sex marriage. | Yes |
 Rhode Island | United States | November 2008 | TheRhode Island Supreme Court that the lack of legal provisions impeded them from granting divorce to a couple married in Massachusetts. | No |
 Iowa | United States | April 2009 | InVarnum v. Brien theIowa Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, thereby legalizing same-sex marriage. | Yes |
 Wyoming | United States | June 2011 | InChristiansen v. Christiansen theSupreme Court of Wyoming granted a Canadien same-sex couple divorce stating that the decision about recognition of foreign same-sex unions would be "left for another day". | Individual case |
 Alagoas | Brazil | December 2011 | The Corregedoria Geral da Justiça of Alagoas ruled that officials have to perform same-sex marriages in the state.[153] | Yes |
| Maryland | United States | May 2012 | InPort v. Cowan theCourt of Appeals held that there is no legal reason not to recognize valid foreign marriages or marriages form other jurisdictions where it is legal, thereby legalizing the recognition of foreign same-sex marriages. | Yes |
 Sergipe | Brazil | July 2012 | The Corregedoria Geral da Justiça of Sergipe regulated same-sex marriage in the state by "Provimento nº 06/2012". | Yes |
 Espírito Santo | Brazil | July 2012 | The Corregedoria Geral da Justiça of Espírito Santo issued a "circular letter" telling notaries to perform same-sex marriages in the state. | Yes |
 Bahia | Brazil | November 2012 | The Corregedoria Geral da Justiça of Bahia adopted the current definition of marriage to include same-sex marriages in the state.[154] | Yes |
 Federal District | Brazil | December 2012 | A court in the Federal District found that same-sex marriages could be performed without injunctions in the district.[155] | Yes |
 Piauí | Brazil | December 2012 | The Corregedoria Geral da Justiça of Piauí found that same-sex marriages could be performed without injunctions in the district. | Yes |
 Montana | United States | December 2012 | InDonaldson v. State of Montana theMontana Supreme Court held that the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage does not preclude them from anything but the term marriage and thus does not violate the basic rights of anybody. | No |
 São Paulo | Brazil | December 2012 | The Corregedoria Geral da Justiça of São Paulo found that same-sex marriages could be performed without injunctions in the district.[156] | Yes |
 Paraná | Brazil | March 2013 | The Corregedoria Geral da Justiça of Paraná found that same-sex marriages are possible under the current procedure.[157] | Yes |
 Michigan | United States | March 2013 | InDeBoer v. Snyder theUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan found the marriage restriction unlawful. The decision was appealed to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and later consolidated with other suits form the Sixth Circuit toObergefell v. Hodges. | Consolidated to Obergefell v. Hodges |
 Mato Grosso do Sul | Brazil | April 2013 | The Corregedoria Geral da Justiça of Mato Grosso do Sul authorized same-sex marriages.[158] | Yes |
 Rio de Janeiro | Brazil | April 2013 | The Corregedoria Geral da Justiça of Rio de Janeiro published a ruling allowing for same-sex marriage if the local judge agrees on it. | Yes |
 Rondônia | Brazil | April 2013 | The Corregedoria Geral da Justiça of Rondônia authorized same-sex marriages.[159] | Yes |
 Paraíba | Brazil | April 2013 | The Corregedoria Geral da Justiça of Paraíba authorized same-sex marriages. | Yes |
 Santa Catarina | Brazil | April 2013 | The Corregedoria Geral da Justiça of Santa Catarina authorized same-sex marriages if both applicants are resident to the state.[160] | Yes |
| California | United States | June 2013 | InHollingsworth v. Perry theSupreme Court of the United States vacated the decision of the circuit court of appeals and reinstated the original decision of the district court. This has the effect that California'sProposition 8, a voter-approved referendum that took away the right of same sex-marriage that previously had been approved by the state's courts, is struck down and same-sex marriage will resume in California. | Case dismissed Same-sex marriage in California resumes |
 New Mexico | United States | August 2013 | InHanna v. Salazar theNew Mexico Supreme Court ordered the Santa Fe County Clerk to perform same-sex marriages. | Yes |
| New Mexico | United States | August 2013 | InStark v. Martinez theNew Mexico District Court ordered the Taos County Clerk to perform same-sex marriages. | Yes |
 Illinois | United States | September 2013 | The casesDarby v. Orr andLazaro v. Orr seeking to have same-sex marriages recognized in the state were dismissed. | Dismissed |
| New Jersey | United States | October 2013 | InGarden State Equality v. Dow theNew Jersey Superior Court found the then-current defenition of marriage to be unconstitutional and thus legalized same-sex marriage. A stay was unanimously rejected by theSupreme Court. | Yes |
 Tennessee | United States | March 2013 | InTanco v. Haslam theUnited States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted three couples an injunction. The decision was appealed to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and later consolidated with other suits form the Sixth Circuit toObergefell v. Hodges. | Consolidated to Obergefell v. Hodges |
 Australian Capital Territory | Australia | December 2013 | TheHigh Court of Australia reviewed the constitutionality of the Marriage Equality Bill approved in October by theAustralian Capital Territory[161] It declared on December 12 that same-sex marriage can only be legalised by the Federal government. | Marriage solely a Federal Jurisdiction |
 Ohio | United States | December 2013 | InObergefell v. Kasich theUnited States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio held that it is unconstitutional not to recognize valid out-of state same-sex marriages. The decision was appealed to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit where it was consolidated withHenry v. Wymyslo and later consolidated with other suits form the Sixth Circuit toObergefell v. Hodges. | Consolidated to Obergefell v. Hodges |
| New Mexico | United States | December 2013 | InGriego v. Oliver theNew Mexico Supreme Court found the then-current defenition of marriage to be unconstitutional and thus legalized same-sex marriage, upholding the ruling of a lower court. | Yes |
| Florida | United States | January 2014 | InPareto v. Ruvin theFlorida Supreme Court upheld the ruling of a lower court, mandatingMiami-Dade County has to perform same-sex marriages. | Yes |
 Kentucky | United States | February 2014 | InBourke v. Beshear theUnited States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky found the denial of recognition to valid same-sex marriages unconstitutional. The decision was appealed to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit where it was consolidated withLove v. Beshear and later consolidated with other suits form the Sixth Circuit toObergefell v. Hodges. | Consolidated to Obergefell v. Hodges |
| Florida | United States | April 2014 | InHuntsman v. Heavilin theSixteenth Judicial Circuit held thatMonroe County has to perform same-sex marriages. | Yes |
| Ohio | United States | April 2014 | InHenry v. Wymyslo theUnited States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ruled that the state must recognize same-sex marriages. The decision was appealed to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit where it was consolidated withObergefell v. Kasich toObergefell v. Himes. | Consolidated to Obergefell v. Hodges |
| Alaska | United States | April 2014 | Schmidt and Schuh v. Alaska held that same-sex couples have to be granted the same property tax exemptions. | Yes |
 Wisconsin | United States | May 2014 | InHalopka-Ivery v. Walker a couple married in California sought to challenge Wisconsin's statute imposing criminal penalties on residents who contract in other jurisdictions a marriage that is not recognized by the state and have their marriage recognized claiming that the state's "parallel civil marriage and domestic partnership structure" denied them access to federal benefits. TheWisconsin Supreme Court declined their case one month after it was filed | Dismissed |
| Oregon | United States | May 2014 | InGeiger v. Kitzhaber theU.S. District Court for the District of Oregon found the then-current defenition of marriage to be unconstitutional and thus legalized same-sex marriage after petitions to stay the ruling were blocked by both theUnited States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. | Yes |
 Texas | United States | May 2014 | InIn the Matter of the Marriage of A.L.F.L. and K.L.L. the45th Judicial District Court of Bexar County found the then-current defenition of marriage to be unconstitutional and thus let the petition for divorce proceed. | Yes |
 Pennsylvania | United States | May 2014 | InWhitewood v. Wolf theU.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania found the then-current defenition of marriage to be unconstitutional and thus legalized same-sex marriage. | Yes |
 Idaho | United States | May 2014 | InLatta v. Otter theNinth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a previous ruling of theU.S. District Court for the District of Idaho legalizing same-sex marriage. | Yes |
| Kentucky | United States | July 2014 | InLove v. Beshear theUnited States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky found the denial of recognition to valid same-sex marriages unconstitutional. The decision was appealed to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit where it was consolidated toBourke v. Beshear. | Consolidated to Obergefell v. Hodges |
 Missouri | United States | October 2014 | InBarrier v. Vasterling theMissouri Circuit Court ruled that not recognizing out-of state same-sex marriages violated the plaintiffs rights, thus recognizing such unions in the state. | Yes |
 Utah | United States | October 2014 | InKitchen v. Herbert theUnited States District Court for the District of Utah found the then-current defenition of marriage to be unconstitutional and thus legalized same-sex marriage. It was later upheld by theTenth Circuit Court of Appeals after an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was rejected. | Yes |
 Oklahoma | United States | October 2014 | InBishop v. United States theTenth Circuit Court of Appeals complied with a District Court Ruling that found the then-current defenition of marriage to be unconstitutional and thus legalized same-sex marriage after an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was rejected. | Yes |
| Colorado | United States | October 2014 | InBurns v. Hickenlooper theU.S. District Court for the District of Colorado found the then-current defenition of marriage to be unconstitutional and thus legalized same-sex marriage. | Yes |
| Colorado | United States | October 2014 | InColorado ex rel. Suthers v. Hall theColorado Supreme Court ruled against the state of Colorado, not granting a stay to the licensing of same-sex marriage by various clerks. | Yes |
 Virginia | United States | October 2014 | InBostic v. Schaefer theU.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found the then-current defenition of marriage to be unconstitutional and thus legalized same-sex marriage after an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was rejected. | Yes |
 North Carolina | United States | October 2014 | InGeneral Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Cooper theUnited States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina found the then-current defenition of marriage to be unconstitutional and thus legalized same-sex marriage. | Yes |
| Wisconsin | United States | October 2014 | InWolf v. Walker theU.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin found the then-current defenition of marriage to be unconstitutional and thus legalized same-sex marriage. It was later upheld by theSeventh Circuit Court of Appeals. | Yes |
 Indiana | United States | October 2014 | InBaskin v. Bogan theU.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana found the then-current defenition of marriage to be unconstitutional and thus legalized same-sex marriage, reversing an earlier judgment by theU.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. | Yes |
| Hawaii | United States | October 2014 | InJackson v. Fuddy theNinth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the lower court ruling upholding the same-sex marriage ban was voided by the new Marriage Equality Act, dismissing the case. | Dismissed |
| Florida | United States | October 2014 | InBrenner v. Scott theU.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida found the then-current defenition of marriage to be unconstitutional and thus legalized same-sex marriage. It was later upheld by theEleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. | Yes |
 Nevada | United States | October 2014 | InSevcik v. Sandoval theNinth Circuit Court of Appeals found the then-current defenition of marriage to be unconstitutional and thus legalized same-sex marriage. It was later upheld by theSeventh Circuit Court of Appeals. | Yes |
| Alaska | United States | October 2014 | InHamby v. Parnell theU.S. District Court for the District of Alaska found the then-current defenition of marriage to be unconstitutional and thus legalized same-sex marriage. | Yes |
| Wyoming | United States | October 2014 | A district court in a case in whichGuzzo v. Mead, found the then-current defenition of marriage to be unconstitutional and thus legalized same-sex marriage. | Yes |
 Arizona | United States | October 2014 | TheU.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in a case in whichConnolly v. Roche andMajors v. Horne were united, found the then-current defenition of marriage to be unconstitutional and thus legalized same-sex marriage. | Yes |
 West Virginia | United States | November 2014 | InMcGee v. Cole theUnited States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia found the then-current defenition of marriage to be unconstitutional and thus legalized same-sex marriage. | Yes |
 Kansas | United States | November 2014 | InSchmidt v. Moriarty theKansas Supreme Court found that a judge licensing same-sex marriage did act within his jurisdiction, it did not rule about the issue of same-sex marriage by itself | Yes |
| Missouri | United States | November 2014 | InState of Missouri v. Florida theSt. Louis Circuit Court found the then-current defenition of marriage to be unconstitutional and thus legalized same-sex marriage in St. Louis County. | Yes |
| Utah | United States | November 2014 | InMcGee v. Cole theUnited States District Court for the District of Utah ordered the state to permanently licence same-sex marriages and dismissed a permanent stay to a previous court ruling. It was issued after theTenth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to issue stays extending to more than October 2014. | Yes |
 South Carolina | United States | November 2014 | InBradacs v. Haley theUnited States District Court for the District of South Carolina upheld the validity of same-sex marriages performed abroad or in other states. | Yes |
| South Carolina | United States | November 2014 | InCondon v. Haley theUnited States District Court for the District of South Carolina found the then-current defenition of marriage to be unconstitutional and thus legalized same-sex marriage. | Yes |
 Georgia | United States | January 2015 | TheU.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia suspended proceeding due to the pending decision ofObergefell v. Hodges in the U.S. Supreme Court. | Suspended |
 Alabama | United States | March 2015 | The Alabama Policy Institute and the Alabama Citizens Action Programm filed a lawsuit asking the Alabama Supreme Court to order the state's probate judges to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples in theAlabama Supreme Court, which found the current same-sex marriage ban did not violate the U.S. constitution, thus barring any same-sex marriages in the state. | No |
 Arkansas | United States | June 2015 | InWright v. Arkansas theSupreme Court of Arkansas dismissed an appeal to the ruling of a lower court legalizing same-sex marriage until the ruling was stayed as moot afterObergefell v. Hodges. | Dismissed |
| Missouri | United States | June 2015 | InLawson v. Kelly theJackson County Circuit Court found the then-current defenition of marriage to be unconstitutional and thus legalized same-sex marriage, but the decision was stayed pending an appeal to theEighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which lifted the stay complying withObergefell v. Hodges. | Yes |
 Guam | United States | June 2015 | TheDistrict Court of Guam ruled that officials have to perform same-sex marriages.[162] | Yes |
| Nebraska | United States | July 2015 | InWaters v. Ricketts theEighth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed a lower courts ruling, lifting the stay on the decision and granting a general injunction, thus legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. | Yes |
 Louisiana | United States | July 2015 | InRobicheaux v. George theFifth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the state to recognize and register out-of state same-sex marriages, thus complying withObergefell v. Hodges. | Yes |
 Mississippi | United States | July 2015 | InCampaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant theFifth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the stay on a lower courts ruling, thus legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. | Yes |
| Texas | United States | July 2015 | InTexas v. Naylor theSupreme Court of Texas upheld a lower courts ruling to grant divorce to a same-sex marriage that has never been recognized in Texas, denying the state a right to intervene.. | Yes |
| Texas | United States | July 2015 | TheFifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the caseDe Leon v. Perry, amanded a lower court decision just ordering review of the statute banning same-sex marriage, complying withObergefell v. Hodges. | Yes |
| Louisiana | United States | July 2015 | TheLouisiana Supreme Court in the caseCostanza v. Caldwell dismissed an appeal by the state, lifting the stay on a lower which subsequently declared the same-sex marriage ban unlawfull, complying withObergefell v. Hodges. | Yes |
 Puerto Rico | United States | July 2015 | TheFirst Circuit Court of Appeals in the caseConde-Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla, overturned the ban on same-sex marriage. | Yes |
 South Dakota | United States | July 2015 | TheEighth Circuit Court of Appeals in the caseRosenbrahn v. Daugaard, reaffirmed the ruling ofU.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota ruled the current ban on same-sex marriage violated fundamental rights, complying withObergefell v. Hodges. | Yes |
| Kansas | United States | August 2015 | TheTenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order declaring that "Article 15, § 16 of the Kansas Constitution, ... and any other Kansas statute, law, policy, or practice that prohibits issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Kansas or recognizing such marriages on the same terms and conditions that apply to opposite-sex couples contravene the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. | Yes |
| Mississippi | United States | December 2015 | InCzekala-Chatham v. Melancon theMississippi Supreme Court granted divorce to a same-sex couple which was never recognized under state law, complying withObergefell v. Hodges. | Yes |
 Jalisco | Mexico | January 2016 | TheSupreme Court of Justice ruled that the current definition of marriage was discriminatory and thus unconstitutional, thereby legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.[163] | Yes |
| Virginia | United States | April 2016 | TheSupreme Court of Virginia held that cohabitation laws also apply to same-sex couples. | Yes |
| Texas | United States | April 2016 | In cases from Travis County theSupreme Court of Texas dismissed efforts to let common-law same-sex marriages be voided. | Dismissed |
| Alabama | United States | April 2016 | InHard v. Strange theEleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower courts ruling amending a death certificate to include the marriage previously concluded in Massachusetts. | Yes |
| Alabama | United States | June 2016 | InSearcy v. Strange andStrawser v. Strange theUnited States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama issued a permanent injunction barring any state official from enforcing laws that fail to recognize same-sex couples' right to marry. | Yes |
 Bermuda | UK | May 2017 | A gay Bermudian and his fiancé have been granted leave to argue in the Supreme Court that they should be allowed to wed on the island.[164] On 5 May 2017 the ban on gay marriage within Bermuda was declared unconstitutional by a unanimous decision within theSupreme Court of Bermuda. The Bermuda Government responded with adomestic partnership law in February 2018.[165] | Yes |
 Chiapas | Mexico | July 2017 | An act of unconstitutionality was filed in April 2016 against the Civil Code of the state. The Supreme Court of Justice then ruled that the current definition of marriage was discriminatory and thus unconstitutional, thereby legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.[166] | Yes |
 Puebla | Mexico | August 2017 | An act of unconstitutionality was filed in April 2016 against the Civil Code of the state. The Supreme Court of Justice then ruled that articles 294 and 300 of the Civil Code were discriminatory and thus unconstitutional, thereby legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.[167] | Yes |
 Hong Kong | China | July 2018 | TheCourt of Appeal ruled that same-sex spouses have to be granted spousal visa equally to heterosexual partners.[168] | Yes |
 Nuevo León | Mexico | February 2019 | An act of unconstitutionality was filed in February 2018 against the Civil Code of the state. The Supreme Court of Justice then ruled that articles 140 and 148 of the Civil Code were discriminatory and thus unconstitutional, thereby legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.[169] | Yes |
 Aguascalientes | Mexico | April 2019 | The Supreme Court of Justice ruled that articles 143, 144 and 113 of the Civil Code were discriminatory and thus unconstitutional, thereby legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.[170][171] | Yes |
| Hong Kong | China | June 2019 | The court found that denying spousal benefits to same-sex couples married abroad is not in accordance with theBasic Law.[172] | Yes |
| Hong Kong | China | October 2019 | In August 2018 theHigh Court heard a case seeking to recognisecivil partnerships in a preliminary hearing, and it is expected to be heard in the first half of 2019.[173][174][175] The Court then dismissed the case, as it found it was not for the courts to solve.[176][177] | Dismissed |
| Hong Kong | China | September 2020 | In January 2019 the High Court agreed to hear a challenge to the city's refusal to recognise same-sex marriage, argueing that the inability of same-sex couples to get married violated their right to equality under the city'sBill of Rights and theBasic Law.[178] The case got rejected as "too ambitious".[179] | No |
 Cayman Islands | UK | December 2020 | The Immigration Appeals Tribunal ruled that the Irish same-sex marriage of a permanent resident has to be recognized for the purpose of granting the husband the status of spouse of a permanent resident. It held that differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex marriages would be unconstitutional.[180] | Yes |
| Northern Ireland | UK | Case Moot | A case heard by theCourt of Appeal on 16 March 2018 by an anonymous couple seeking to convert their Civil Union into marriage.[181] Meanwhile, in December 2020, theNorthern Ireland Assembly legalized such conversions.[182] | Further proceedings? |
| Bermuda | UK | March 2022 | TheDomestic Partnership Act 2018 replacing equal marriage was found discriminatory and unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in June 2018, but the ruling was stayed for an appeal by the Government. TheCourt of Appeal in November 2018 rejected the appeal thus relegalizing same-sex marriage in Bermuda.[183] The Government has filed an appeal to the Privy Council, however, the ruling of the Court of Appeal is not stayed.[184] The Privy Council heard the case on 3 and 4 of February 2021.[185] On 14 March 2022, the Privy Council overturned the ruling of the Court of Appeal and ruled that legislation banning same-sex marriage in Bermuda was not unconstitutional.[186] | No |
| Cayman Islands | UK | March 2022 | In April 2018 a lawsuit against the statutory same-sex marriage ban was filed in theGrand Court. The hearing took place in February 2019.[187][188] The court than ruled the current defenition of marriage unconstitutional.[189][190] The ruling was appealed by the government,[191] and stayed. The Court of Appeal reversed the ruling of the Grand Court, stating that it relied too much on court rulings not being relevant for the case and thus again banning same-sex marriage on the island. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeal noted that some kind of recognition has to be granted, and that the government of the UK must step in, given that no Civil Unions are implemented.[192] The Privy Council heard the case on 23 and 24 February 2021.[193] On 14 March 2022, the Privy Council ruled that the Constitution did not provide right for same-sex marriage.[194] | No |
 Veracruz | Mexico | May 2022 | In August 2020 the National Human Rights Commission filed a case of unconstitutionality against the Civil Code of the state.[195] The court ruled the articles in question to be void.[196] | Yes |
| Hong Kong | China | September 2023 | InSham Tsz Kit v Secretary for Justice theHong Kong Court of Final Appeal directed the government to establish an alternative framework for the legal recognition of same-sex relationships, with equivalent rights and obligations to marriage, within two years of the ruling. However, the court also ruled that same-sex couples do not have a constitutionally guaranteed right to marry.[197] | / |
 Curaçao and Aruba | Netherlands | July 2024 | In September 2021, the Court of First Instance found that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage in Curaçao was contrary to the equality principle in the constitution, but left it to the legislature to address the unlawful discrimination.[198] In December 2022, the Joint Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage in Aruba and Curaçao was unlawful discrimination and that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in those islands.[199] TheSupreme Court of the Netherlands upheld the previous ruling. Furthermore, it supported the view of the Joint Court of Justice that no legislative action is needed for same-sex marriage to be available in Aruba and Curaçao.[200] | Yes |
 Virgin Islands | UK | Pending | A Virgin Islands couple who were married in the UK filed suit in 2021 seeking local recognition of their marriage.[201] The case is set to be heard at the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court in September 2022.[202] |
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link){{cite web}}:|last= has generic name (help){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)