BALTIMORE -- Seven gay couples in Maryland rang in the New Year with wedding bells early Tuesday, the first wave of nuptials since voters in the state backed the legalization of same-sex marriage.

The couples were "lawfully married" rather than pronounced "husband and wife" at the 12:30 a.m. ET ceremony on New Year's Day in Baltimore's City Hall.

Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake officiated at the wedding of the first of the couples, 68-year-old James Scales and 60-year-old William Tasker. Scales and Tasker said they had been together for 35 years.

The mayor joked that everyone had come to celebrate a relationship that began many years ago -- "and I mean that, many years ago."

---

Making a statement
Soon after the November vote legalizing gay marriage, Scales, a longtime city employee, asked the mayor to marry the two.

"She wanted to make a statement to tell gay, lesbian, transgendered couples that they're welcome here," said the mayor's press secretary, Ian Brennan, of her decision.

Maine same-sex couples marry in first hours of law

Voters in Maryland, Maine and Washington state approved same-sex unions on Election Day, becoming the only states to pass such a measure by popular vote.

Nine of the 50 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., now have legalized gay marriage. Another 31 states have passed constitutional amendments banning it.

Rawlings-Blake called the Nov. 6 vote "a remarkable achievement for Maryland" and welcomed friends and families of the couples to witness history at the early-morning ceremony.

More coverage of gay marriage on NBCNews.com

"We are excited to open City Hall to host some of the first wedding ceremonies in our great state," Rawlings-Blake said.

Shift
Public opinion has been shifting in favor of allowing same-sex marriage. A Pew Research Center survey from October found that 49 percent of Americans favored allowing gay marriage, with 40 percent opposed. In May, President Barack Obama became the first U.S. commander in chief to say he believed same-sex couples should be allowed to get married.

The Supreme Court has agreed to review two challenges to federal and state laws that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Complete US coverage on NBCNews.com

The nation's highest court said this month that it would review a case against a federal law that denies married same-sex couples the federal benefits that heterosexual couples receive.

It also will look at a challenge to California's ban on gay marriage, known as Proposition 8, which voters narrowly approved in 2008.

Washington state's law legalizing same-sex unions took effect on Dec. 9 and Maine's on Dec. 29.

More content from NBCNews.com:

• New laws target sex offenders with Santa suits, and more
• Adam Lanza's body claimed by father for burial
• YOLO, fiscal cliff: 12 words that must be banned
• Video: Two teens, 12-year-old charged in fatal carjacking
• Officers' 'gut feeling' tracks down missing LA toddler

Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

 

Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters. Click for restrictions.

The images out of Washington state toward the end of 2012 — all-night parties celebrating legalized pot and same-sex marriage — sparked hope among liberal activists that the tide has turned on these two issues.

Even though national polls show more openness to pot and gay marriage nationwide, it raised the question — why Washington?

Oregon, the state’s blue neighbor to the south, has not successfully mounted campaigns to approve pot or same-sex marriage. California has had a messy relationship with both issues, and Idaho swings solidly right.

---

There are a number of unique factors that made Washington ripe for these liberal reforms, experts say.

"There’s a libertarian streak in Washington, and there are more atheists. Religion is part of this," University of Washington Professor John Findlay told NBC News. The state is one of the least religious, with only about half of Washingtonians telling the Gallup poll in 2008 that religion plays a part in their daily lives.

Beyond pot and same-sex marriage, Washington also allows physician-assisted suicide (as do Oregon and Montana) and was one of four states that decriminalized abortion before Roe v. Wade in 1971. To top off its liberal cred: A Democrat has been in the governor's office since 1980 — longer than any other state.

But to describe Washington as a purely liberal state is to oversimplify its politics. Outside of the Puget Sound area, Washingtonians have more in common with Red State residents than they do coffee-craving Seattleites.

"Without Seattle, we’d be Idaho," says pollster H. Stuart Elway. Seattle-area voters accounted for one-third of the state total.

Washington has no income tax, and the possibility of implementing one is rarely mentioned, even during tough economic times; in 1998, voters nixed affirmative action; two years later, they approved $30 license plate tab renewals, a dramatic fee reduction that cut into city and state coffers, hiking up bus fares and leaving potholes unfilled.

What ties all these measures together, beyond a "live and let live" ethos, is the state's initiative and referendum process, which gives voters, not lawmakers, the power to set policy much more directly than in other states.

Findlay says the initiative process can be traced back to the state’s early days, when Washingtonians, buoyed by the progressive and populist movements, didn't trust their politicians. While politicians in most other states manage what goes on the ballot, Washingtonians can pay $5 to submit an initiative or referendum. Get 241,153 valid signatures (120,557 for a referendum) and that measure is inked on the ballot.

"There’s a legacy of distrust of the Legislature stemming from 100 years ago that has continued to shape politics for more than a century," Findlay said.

Although 24 states and the District of Columbia have an initiative process, it has been most used by the Western states, particularly California, Oregon and Washington, making them laboratories for special interest groups.

Take marijuana, for example, where outside money was a big part of the campaign. Drug Policy Action in New York fronted $1.6 million; Progressive Insurance CEO Peter Lewis, who supports drug reform and lives in Ohio, donated about $2 million.

Given their success in Washington and Colorado, Drug Policy Action is looking to push similar campaigns in California and Oregon in 2014 or 2016. Both states have legalized medical marijuana and in California, medical pot has becoming a booming business since it was approved in 1996. A 2007 federal study estimated that Californians consume one million pounds of pot a year.

"We have these results in Colorado and Washington under our belt, so that sort of fertilizes the ground," Dale Gieringer, who heads the California office of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, told Reuters. 

Outside money also played a role in the battle over gay marriage, but so too did some Washington billionaires, including Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft, and Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, who collectively gave more than $3 million to the campaign to approve same-sex marriage.

"The populist and progressive movements are over, and the feelings are over, but there’s this tool," Findlay said. "A lot of us complain about those things, but it doesn't matter, because it’s going to shape politics in this state. This is the tool we have that most other states don’t have. It’s part of how we do things here. And it doesn't work exclusively for progressives or conservatives."

Other reasons floated for the state’s unique positions on issues: Unions have long had a stronghold in the state, as have female politicians -- the state was home to Dixie Lee Ray, the fiery former governor whose motto during her 1976 campaign was “Little lady takes on big boys.”

But, as Elway noted, Washington’s votes often come down to the Seattle area. Elsewhere on Election Day, conservative Washingtonians watch in dismay as their leads are turned upside down as results from the metropolitan area trickle in.

State Republican Party Chairman Kirby Wilbur told the Seattle Times that the votes speak for themselves.

"Washington has always been a socially liberal and economically conservative state," he said.

To be fair, Washington may not be so far ahead of the rest of the country on social issues such as pot and same-sex marriage, according to Mark Smith, who teaches political science at the University of Washington.

Smith noted that 53.7 percent of Washingtonians approved same-sex marriage. Polling figures show a similar, if slightly lower, level of support nationwide.

"We’re not that far ahead of the nation,” Smith said. "The whole nation is trending; we’re just further along than the rest of the country."

More content from NBCNews.com:

• New laws target sex offenders with Santa suits, and more
• New Year kicks off on Christmas Island, rolls west
• Adam Lanza's body claimed by father for burial
• YOLO, fiscal cliff: 12 words that must be banned
• Video: Two teens, 12-year-old charged in fatal carjacking
• Officers' 'gut feeling' tracks down missing LA toddler

Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

 

PORTLAND, Maine - Gay and lesbian couples exchanged their vows early Saturday as Maine's new same-sex marriage law took effect a minute after midnight.

Among them were Steven Bridges and Michael Snell, who held a commitment ceremony six years ago but wanted to make their marriage official under state law.

"It's historic. We've waited our entire lives for this," said Bridges, a retail manager, who's been in a relationship with the Snell, a massage therapist, for nine years. Bridges, 42, and Snell, 53, wore lavender and purple carnations on black T-shirts with the words "Love is love."

With Snell's two adult daughters looking on, they exchanged their vows in the city clerk's office after getting the first marriage license issued to a same-sex couple in Portland. They said they'll hold another ceremony with friends this summer, after the weather warms up.

---

Voters approved gay marriage in November, making Maine and two other states the first to do so by popular vote. A law is already in effect in Washington state; Maryland's takes effect Tuesday. 

Nine of the 50 U.S. states plus the District of Columbia have now legalized gay marriage. Another 31 states have passed constitutional amendments banning it.

In Portland, a half dozen couples huddled with friends and family in freezing temperatures outside the building before the doors to the city clerk's office were opened at 10 p.m. local time.

"We've been together for 30 years, and never thought that this country would allow marriages between gay couples," said Roberta Batt, 71, an antiques dealer and retired physician with silver hair and round eyeglasses. She planned to marry her longtime partner, Mary, who stood nearby.

"We're just very thankful to the people of Maine, and I hope the rest of the country goes the way this state has," she added.

Suzanne Blackburn and Joanie Kunian, of Portland, were among those in line to get their license at midnight, but they didn't plan to wed immediately. One of their grandchildren wanted them to get married on Valentine's Day.

"I don't think that we dared to dream too big until we had the governor's signature," Blackburn said. "That's why it's so important, because it feels real."

Watch the most-viewed videos on NBCNews.com

In Bangor, the city clerk's office was planning to be open on Saturday from 6 a.m. to 8 a.m. for residents to obtain marriage licenses. The Brunswick town clerk's office was set to be open from 9 a.m. to noon on Saturday by appointment. As of midday on Friday, five same-sex couples had booked appointments, the office said.

More lavish same-sex weddings are being booked starting in the spring at the On the Marsh Bistro in Kennebunk, said owner Denise Rubin.

"We support it wholeheartedly," she said. "We look forward to being part of a whole new wave of wonderful thinking."

The tide of public opinion has been shifting in favor of allowing same-sex marriage. In May, President Barack Obama became the first U.S. president to say he believed same-sex couples should be allowed to get married.

A Pew Research Center survey from October found 49 percent of Americans favored allowing gay marriage, with 40 percent opposed. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review two challenges to federal and state laws that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The nation's highest court said this month it will review a case against a federal law that denies married same-sex couples the federal benefits that heterosexual couples receive. It also will look at a challenge to California's ban on gay marriage, known as Proposition 8, which voters narrowly approved in 2008.

Washington state's law legalizing same-sex unions took effect on Sunday, December 9, and Maryland's law takes effect on January 1, 2013.

This article includes reporting by Reuters and The Associated Press.

More content from NBCNews.com:

• Woman charged in connection with fatal firefighter shootings
• New York City homicides, shootings at modern record lows
• Sheriff orders armed 'posse' to patrol schools
• Snowstorm heads for Northeast, but it's a gentler one
• Landslides take out Amtrak service in rainy Northwest
• The year in quotes quiz: Test your knowledge!
• Video: TODAY's most newsworthy stories of 2012

Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

 

WASHINGTON -- The marriage cases the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear will test an axiom about the court, one that says it prefers to move in small increments rather than big leaps.

By next June, the justices could rule narrowly on the constitutionality of allowing same-sex couples to get married. Or they could announce a sweeping ruling that would apply nationwide and remain the law of the land for years to come.

"We have no idea if they will ultimately reach the broader issues about gay people and the fundamental right to marry," says Mary Bonauto of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, a veteran of the legal battles over gay rights.

It's possible the court will find a way to avoid the central issue both cases raise: Does the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection allow the state and federal governments to make legal distinctions between same-sex couples and those of the opposite sex?

The court agreed Friday to consider challenges to a law that bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages in the states where they are legal and to California's Proposition 8, the voter-approved initiative that put a stop to marriage in that state for gay couples.

Both cases invite the potential for far-reaching decisions, says Tom Goldstein, a Washington, D.C., lawyer who argues before the court and publishes the SCOTUSblog website.

---

"This is a monumental action by the Supreme Court, because we know they're going to say something about gay marriage for the first time ever. They may not decide there's a constitutional right to it, but this will be the building block, in one direction or the other, for recognizing or rejecting that right," Goldstein says.

The greatest potential for a ruling with nationwide implications comes in the California case.  Proposition 8, approved by 52 percent of California voters in 2008, amended the state constitution to ban same-sex marriages. It went into effect after 18,000 couples had been legally married there.

A federal judge in San Francisco declared the ban unconstitutional, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the ruling. But it based its decision on narrower grounds that apply only to California. 

Once a state grants a fundamental right like marriage, the appeals court said, it cannot later take it away. 

"The people of California may not, consistent with the federal Constitution, add to their state constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of their right to use the official designation that the state and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class,” wrote Judge Stephen Reinhardt.

If the Supreme Court affirms that decision, the ruling would affect only California, permitting marriage for same-sex couples to resume.  No other state has granted and then withdrawn the marriage right for gay couples.

But the justices could go further and decide whether any state can refuse to permit same-sex couples to get married. 

"The question whether the states may discriminate against gay men and lesbians in the provision of marriage licenses is the defining civil rights issue of our time," argues Ted Olson, the Washington, D.C., lawyer representing two gay couples who challenged the California measure.

The Supreme Court could also reverse the lower courts and uphold Proposition 8 as a legitimate exercise of the people's right to amend their state constitution, an outcome urged by the ballot measure's backers.

The appeals court decision, they argue, "threatens to short-circuit further democratic deliberations regarding official recognition of same-sex relationships."

The Supreme Court also gave itself a way out of reaching the merits of the California case.  It directed lawyers for both sides to address an unusual aspect of the controversy.

After voters approved the initiative, which became part of the state constitution, California officials declined to defend it and the legal battle was picked up by Prop 8's backers.  The Supreme Court wants to know if they had the legal authority to stand in for the state and carry on that battle.

The second case the Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear is a challenge to a federal law passed in 1996 and signed by President Clinton.  The Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, bars federal agencies from recognizing same-sex marriages in the states where they are legal under state law.

The court took up a lawsuit filed by a New York woman, Edie Windsor, who lived for more than 40 years with her partner, Thea Spyer, marrying her in Canada in 2007.

But when Spyer died two years later, leaving Windsor the estate, the IRS sent a tax bill for $363,000, because the federal government did not recognize their marriage.  The surviving spouse of a traditional marriage is generally not required to pay federal estate taxes.

“It was the injustice, I think, ultimately,” Windsor says.  “I couldn't believe that they were making a stranger of this person I lived with and loved for 43-something years."

A decision striking down DOMA would not, by itself, require states to allow same-sex marriages.  But the federal government would be required to recognize those marriages in the states where they are legal.

In that case, too, the court provided itself an off-ramp.  After first defending the law, the Obama administration concluded last year that DOMA was unconstitutional.  House Republicans picked up the legal defense. The Supreme Court asked lawyers for both sides to address whether the House Republicans have the legal right to carry on the appeal.

Both cases will be argued in March, and a decision probably will not come before late in June.

More content from NBCNews.com:

• US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue
• Obama seeking $60.4 billion for post-Sandy recovery
• Advocates on both sides hope for Supreme Court clarity on same-sex marriage
• Woman survives six days in snow eating tomatoes
• 'My puppy saved my life': SUV rams into man's jewelry store, which he had just left
• Shark bait? Rotting whale on Malibu beach raises fear
• Mormon church website: 'Sexuality is not a choice'

Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

Santiago Ortiz was deeply in love and, he believed, near death when he asked Pablo Garcia to leave his native Venezuela and join him in New York. There was no time to bother with a visa. Ortiz was HIV positive and he wanted Garcia with him.

That was 26 years ago. Ortiz, an American, is still alive. He and Garcia were married in Connecticut last year. And Garcia still does not have a visa. The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, blocks federal recognition of same-sex relationships.

"I told him, 'I might die tomorrow, I might die in a month,'" recalled Ortiz, soon to be 57, about that romantic moment in Caracas 26 years ago. "I said, 'Don't wait. Come now.'"

---

The medical treatment of HIV has advanced markedly since the 1980s. Full legal acceptance of gay marriage still has a ways to go.

 

Their best hope for getting the same visa a heterosexual couple would be eligible for rests with the U.S. Supreme Court, which is expected to hear a challenge to DOMA this year in what could be a breakthrough for gay rights in America.

Although the two men were married in Connecticut, one of nine states that allows same-sex marriage, Garcia was denied his application for permanent residence — which is routine for foreign nationals in heterosexual marriages with Americans, even when the foreigner has overstayed his or her visa.

Garcia, 52, a playwright and a doctoral student in Spanish literature, remains in the United States illegally.

"He swept me off my feet," Ortiz, a retired school psychologist, said as he sipped coffee in the couple's colorful apartment in Queens. "For me, it's been easy. I can go wherever I want, I can travel, and Pablo has been there for me. Pablo doesn't have his papers and it's unfair."

There are at least 28,500 same-sex couples in the United States in which one partner is a U.S. citizen and the other is not, and 11,500 same-sex couples where neither partner is a U.S. citizen, according to the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles.

This year, Barack Obama became the first U.S. president to endorse same-sex marriage, and in September his administration issued a policy that lesbian and gay couples be eligible for delays in deportation.

Even so, the wait has been excruciating for bi-national couples living with the threat that one partner could be deported.

"If you are hours from being put on a plane and being deported, there is relief (legal recourse)," said Rachel Tiven of Immigration Equality, a Washington-based group that is representing Ortiz and Garcia. "There is still no access to green cards or any other affirmative immigration benefit."

The Supreme Court was expected to decide whether it will hear a legal challenge to DOMA this session, and could make an announcement as soon as Friday.

'Baby Whisperer'
It took a decade of friendship for Maria del Mar Verdugo, a citizen of Spain, and Heather Morgan, an American living in New York, to realize they were in love and wanted to spend their lives together. They were married in 2011 and now share a sunny one-bedroom apartment near Columbia University in Manhattan.

Relaxing in their pajamas on a recent Sunday, they talked about living with the worry that Verdugo, who is 43, could lose her marketing job — and with it her employer's sponsorship of her work visa. Her current visa expires in 2013.

They long to have children, but say they are putting that off for now. Their preferred parenting roles — where Morgan, who works for a Jewish charity, would continue to work full-time and Verdugo would work part-time but stay home — is impossible as long as Verdugo's immigration status is attached to her job.

"I certainly always knew I wanted to be a mom. And Mar, if you see her with kids, she's like the baby whisperer," said Morgan, who is 36. "I guess more than anything we'd like to have the choice of when and how to raise children."

Still, they consider themselves fortunate because even the worst case scenario — Verdugo losing her work visa, and the couple having to relocate to Spain — would be tolerable. Spain is one of 11 countries that has legalized same-sex marriage and the couple has a network of friends and family in the country.

Another 14 countries also recognize same-sex couples for immigration purposes, but not the United States because of DOMA.

For Richard Dennis and Jair Izquierdo, who have been together for six years, Obama's 2011 directive came too late. Izquierdo, a 35-year-old makeup artist from Peru, came to New York in 2001 on a tourist visa and stayed on.

Two years ago, Izquierdo arrived at what he thought was a bridal job, but it turned out to be a sting operation and he was arrested. Several months later, in late 2010, Izquierdo was deported and given a 10-year ban on returning to the country.

The two speak or text several times a day, but Dennis, who is 49, says the home they bought together in Jersey City feels empty. Dennis said he has considered joining Izquierdo in Peru, but said he is reluctant in part because his own command of Spanish is poor.

"It hasn't split us up," Dennis said. "Physically it has, but not emotionally."

More content from NBCNews.com:

• US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue
• Obama seeking $60.4 billion for post-Sandy recovery
• Advocates on both sides hope for Supreme Court clarity on same-sex marriage
• Woman survives six days in snow eating tomatoes
• 'My puppy saved my life': SUV rams into man's jewelry store, which he had just left
• Shark bait? Rotting whale on Malibu beach raises fear
• Mormon church website: 'Sexuality is not a choice'

Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters. Click for restrictions.

New in this version: Adds legal analysis

Updated at 6:50 p.m. ET: The Supreme Court's announcement Friday that it will take up two same-sex marriage cases this term gave advocates on both sides something to cheer about.

The court picked cases involving two measures that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman: the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law, and California's Proposition 8, a ballot initiative approved by state voters in 2008.

Nearly two decades of legal skirmishing over the question has left supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage alike hoping for clarity from the Supreme Court, which has never before considered the topic.

"We are delighted that the nation's highest court will decide whether to uphold the will of more than 7 million Californians who voted to preserve the unique definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman," said Andy Pugno, general counsel of Protect Marriage, which sponsored Proposition 8 and petitioned the court for a hearing after it was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal court.

US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue

---

"Arguing this case before the Supreme Court finally gives us a chance at a fair hearing, something that hasn't been afforded to the people since we began this fight," Pugno said.

At the same time, California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who opposed enactment of the initiative, also welcomed the news, saying that "for justice to prevail, Proposition 8 must be invalidated so that gay and lesbian families are finally treated with equality and dignity."

Rick Jacobs, founder of Courage Campaign, a California group that campaigned vigorously against Proposition 8, said the Supreme Court hearing would hasten the day when the law would "catch up with the American public."

Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases: Your view

"Sooner than later, no one will care about loving gay and lesbian couples marrying any more than they care about their straight counterparts doing so," Jacobs said in a statement. "Each day of delay brings more suffering and hardship."

Watch US News videos on NBCNews.com

The case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, which President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996, was brought by Edie Windsor, 83, of New York, who was assessed a $363,000 estate tax bill after Thea Spyer, her partner of 44 years, died in 2009. 

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, made it illegal for the State of New York to recognize the women's marriage in Canada. If Spyer had been married to a man, the estate she left Windsor wouldn't have been liable for taxes.

"When Thea and I met nearly 50 years ago, we never could have dreamed that the story of our life together would be before the Supreme Court as an example of why gay married couples should be treated equally and not like second-class citizens," Windsor said Friday. 

"While Thea is no longer alive, I know how proud she would have been to see this day," she added. "The truth is, I never expected any less from my country."

Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said the cases "present the Supreme Court with a monumental opportunity to affirm our Constitution's promises of liberty, equality and human dignity."

"The journey is not finished, for as long as DOMA remains intact, then true equality remains out of reach," she said. "The clock is ticking on DOMA — it's time the Supreme Court strike down DOMA and Proposition 8, once and for all."

But Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian advocacy group, said he was confident that the court "will recognize that DOMA is supported by numerous legitimate legislative purposes — all of which are consistent with our principles of federalism."

"The argument that the authors of our Constitution created or even implied a 'right' to redefine 'marriage' lies outside our constitutional law," Perkins said. "Additionally, we believe that the people's vote on Proposition 8 should be respected."

The court has never before waded into the highly contentious issue of same-sex marriage.

"This is a monumental action by the Supreme Court, because we know they're going to say something about gay marriage for the first time ever," said Tom Goldstein, publisher of the closely watched SCOTUSBlog. (SCOTUS is shorthand for Supreme Court of the United States.)

Michael Klarman, a constitutional law professor at Harvard University, said he thought it was likely that the court would invalidate DOMA.

"There is some chance the vote won't even by 5-4, as some conservative justices who don't necessarily think there is a right to same-sex marriage will be troubled by the federalism implications of Congress' defining marriage rather than deferring to the states on this issue," Klarman, author of the forthcoming "From the Closet to the Altar: Courts, Backlash, and the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage," told NBC News by email.

As for the Proposition 8 case, Klarman was less willing to make a prediction, saying the justices could "reject the argument that same-sex marriage is constitutionally protected, they could accept that argument or they could narrowly affirm the 9th Circuit and invalidate what California has done in a way that has no implications for any other state."

He said the last option was unlikely, which means "I would guess they will either broadly embrace a right to same-sex marriage or reject it."

Arguments are expected in March, with rulings likely by June.

More content from NBCNews.com:

• Woman survives six days in snow eating tomatoes
• Shark bait? Rotting whale on Malibu beach raises fear
• Mormon church website: 'Sexuality is not a choice'
• 7 dogs rescued as police bust dog fight
• Video: Deaf twins hear for the first time

Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

Updated at 4:51 a.m. ET: SEATTLE – When the clock struck midnight here on Thursday, hundreds of gay couples were lined up outside the county courthouse to obtain marriage licenses, while a hundred or so pot-lovers gathered across town beneath the Space Needle to light up.

They could do this because last month, on Nov. 6, Washington state voters approved marriage for same-sex couples and legalizing marijuana. Both laws went into effect at midnight.

The King County Recorder's Office opened its doors to couples at 12:01 a.m. At the front of the line were Kelly Middleton, 24, and Amanda Dollente, 29. They had arrived at 4 p.m., worried they wouldn't get a spot in line. 

---

They had gone through three cups of hot chocolate and countless cigarettes, worried they weren't prepared and anxious that the law might suddenly change – as it did in California in 2008.

"I ran around the building asking people, 'Are we in the right place? Will you look at my paperwork?'" Dollente said.

There was concern last week that the marriage licenses would still carry the words "bride" and "groom," but officials came through in time. The county printed out 1,000 marriage licenses with "bride," "groom" and "spouse" just in case. 

A history of pot, from George Washington to legalizing ganja
Photoblog: Pot fans light up at the Space Needle

Seventy-two couples down the line were Larry Duncan, 56, a retired psychiatric nurse, and Randell Shepherd, 48, a computer programmer, of North Bend, Wash. They wore matching duck hunter hats ("a fashion statement," Duncan joked) and matching shoulder-length white beards. They've been together 11 years.

"We were at a party and we met eyes and fell in love," Duncan said.

"He came up and asked me out, and I said yes," Shepherd added.

They’re considering getting married on Sunday at a church conducting mass ceremonies for same-sex couples, even though they’re not particularly religious.

 “Enough people have told me, ‘God hates fags,’” Duncan said, who described himself as 'Old South.' “I want someone in a church to say, ‘God loves fags,’ to have that stamp on it.”

Outside the courthouse, stickers were handed out and a group sang a cappella, pulling from gospel and the musical Rent. Some wore bridal veils or matching t-shirts; supporters passed out cups of coffee; one woman provided Kleenex; many hugged and kissed.

Inside were eight couples -- some of the movers and shakers who helped to pass the law -- who had been selected as the first to receive their marriage licenses. Among them: Pete-e Peterson, 85, and Jane Abbott Lighty, 77, have been together for 35 years after meeting on a blind date and falling instantly in love. They will be getting married during a Seattle Men's Chorus concert on Sunday.

(State law requires that couples wait at least three days after obtaining their licenses to get married, which means Sunday is the earliest day they can get married.)

Peterson grew up in Alabama and was an Air Evacuation nurse during the Korean War. She adopted her sister's 3-year-old daughter and raised her. Lighty, who grew up mostly in the Bay Area, was also a nurse.

"I never thought this day would come," Peterson told every reporter who asked.

Another couple, Amanda Beane and Anne Bryson-Beane, have been together for 15 years. They have adopted seven children who are between four and 12 and who dressed up to attend the ceremony.  

Neil Hoyt, 52, and Donald Glenn Jenny, 64, have been together for 24 years and will also be getting married at the Seattle Men's Chorus concert on Sunday night (where there will be a judge and 2,000 cupcakes).

According to UCLA's Williams Institute, same-sex marriage could pump $57 million to the state economy in the first year – resulting in $5 million of tax revenue.

Two miles away, revelers prepared to roll a joint or lift a pipe – even though it is illegal to smoke marijuana in public in Washington state.

Not that the smokers were too worried. Sgt. Sean Whitcomb told The Associated Press earlier in the week that the Seattle Police Department did not expect to write many tickets – a 2003 law made marijuana the department's lowest priority.

Related: For those hazy on pot law, Seattle police produces marijuana guide

But Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes discouraged celebrants from smoking in public, telling KUOW they should smoke at home.

"And be thankful that we're no longer arresting some 10,000 Washingtonians a year in the state of Washington and spending well over $100 million in law enforcement resources on that," he added. "And especially be grateful for lessening the racially disproportionate impact that these crazy drug laws have on our communities of color."

Before midnight, the U.S. Department of Justice issued several sobering statements, reminding revelers that pot remains illegal at the federal level, and that any amount of the substance may not be brought into federal buildings, national parks and forests and military installations. And according to one statement: 

The Department of Justice is reviewing the legalization initiatives recently passed in Colorado and Washington State. The Department’s responsibility to enforce the Controlled Substances Act remains unchanged. Neither States nor the Executive branch can nullify a statute passed by Congress.

More content from NBCNews.com:

• In 911 call, Belcher's mom begs girlfriend not to die
• Bob Costas: We need to talk about America's gun culture
• Snow, cold missing across much of the US
• Conversion therapists: 'You can't say gay once, gay always'
• West Point cadet quits, cites 'criminal' behavior of officers
• Video: Photographer: ‘No way’ I could have saved subway victim

Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

SEATTLE -- The side opposed to same-sex marriage in Washington state has conceded that Referendum 74 will likely pass.

“While we are disappointed, we are not defeated,” said Joseph Backholm, chairman of Preserve Marriage Washington, in a statement. “We are fighting for a cause that is true, and beautiful, and right – the sacred institution of marriage. It’s a cause worth fighting for, and we will continue to educate citizens and policymakers on the timeless truth that real marriage is the union of one man and one woman.”

NBC has also projected the measure will pass, marking a victory for advocates of same-sex marriage, who also saw successes in Maine, Maryland and Minnesota. The Senate also ushered in its first openly-gay senator, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin.

---

In Washington state, approving Referendum 74 changes the legal definition of marriage as a “civil contract between two persons." Previously, the law stated that marriage was between “a male and a female.”  

Related: 1 for 31 no more: Gay rights movement ends dismal record

The referendum also specifies that religious institutions may not be sued for refusing to marry same-sex couples.

The margin was too thin to determine whether the referendum had passed on Tuesday night, largely because of Washington’s mail-in ballot system. Votes postmarked Tuesday, Election Day, didn’t arrive until Wednesday or Thursday.   

Tuesday’s returns indicated that the referendum would pass, however, which ignited Capitol Hill, Seattle’s traditionally gay neighborhood. There, several blocks were shut down, a DJ blasted music, and the smell of marijuana wafted through the air. (The state had also passed the legalization of marijuana.)

Zach Silk, campaign manager for Washington United for Marriage, responded to the concession in a statement:

“From the beginning, this campaign told the stories of loving couples and their families who simply want to get married. All of us, from our volunteers, to our staff to the nearly 20,000 donors who invested in the freedom to marry, are enormously grateful to the voters of Washington State. Yes, we made history, but more importantly, we helped protect and defend thousands of families across the state.”

Advocates of same-sex marriage raised $14 million – far more than their opponents, who raised $2.7 million. That was partly thanks to a $2.5 million donation from Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, and his wife MacKenzie, and $600,000 from Bill and Melinda Gates. Both couples live in the Seattle area.

The opposition mounted a national campaign that was largely headed by the same team that passed Proposition 8 in 2008. More than $1 million of the campaign’s money came from the National Organization for Marriage, according to Washington state’s Public Disclosure Commission. The ads opposing same-sex marriage in Washington recycled footage that had been used in ads in Maine, Maryland and Minnesota.

More content from NBCNews.com:

• Giffords, Kelly confront Tucson shooter in court
• Record snow, new power outages as storm slams Northeast
• Hail to the chief: Americans eyed in search for Britain's top rabbi
• Gov. Andrew Cuomo fires New York's emergency management chief, official says
• Man admits Election Day burglary of Nancy Pelosi house, cops say

Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

 

 

Updated at 4:34 p.m. ET: A federal appeals court in New York on Thursday became the second appeals court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, ruling that the law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman is unconstitutional.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals joins the 1st Circuit court in Boston, which handed down its ruling in May, in rejecting a key part of the law. The 2nd Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that DOMA unconstitutionally denies federal benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples.

---

The constitutionality of same-sex marriage could ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, which may take up the issue in its current term.

"Homosexuals are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public," Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs wrote for the 2-1 majority. 

"Even if preserving tradition were in itself an important goal, DOMA is not a means to achieve it," he said.

Judge Chester Straub dissented, arguing that the federal definition of marriage should be left to the political process. "If this understanding is to be changed, I believe it is for the American people to do so," he wrote.

Appeals in several DOMA cases are pending before the Supreme Court.

"Next stop, Supreme Court," said Rick Jacobs, founder of the Courage Campaign, a California-based progressive advocacy organization. "Politicians and judges have no business telling anyone who they can love and who they can marry."

The appellate panel ruled in favor of Edith "Edie" Windsor, an 83-year-old lesbian whose partner, whom she married in Canada, died in 2009. Windsor argued that the 1996 law discriminates against gay couples in violation of the Constitution.

Six states have legalized same-sex marriage, including New York in 2011. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act, federal law and government programs do not recognize those marriages. 

Read the appeals court opinion (PDF)

Windsor had to pay $363,000 in federal taxes after inheriting property from Thea Spyer, to whom she was married. The IRS stated the marriage was not recognized at the federal level and imposed the estate tax.

"Given her age and health, we are eager for Ms. Windsor to get a refund of the unconstitutional tax she was forced to pay as soon as possible," Roberta Kaplan, her legal counsel, said in a statement.

"This law violated the fundamental American principle of fairness that we all cherish," added Windsor. "I know Thea would have been so proud to see how far we have come in our fight to be treated with dignity."

The Obama administration said last year it considered DOMA unconstitutional and would no longer defend it. Instead, a group appointed by the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives is defending the law in courts across the country.

The appeals court rejected the group's arguments that the law was necessary to maintain a uniform definition of marriage, that it served the government's interest of saving money and that it was necessary to encourage procreation.

Referring to the House Republican leadership, which is defending the law in court because it holds a 3-2 majority on the House's Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, Jacobs wrote:

BLAG argues that, unlike protected classes, homosexuals have not "suffered discrimination for longer than history has been recorded." But whether such discrimination existed in Babylon is neither here nor there. BLAG concedes that homosexuals have endured discrimination in this country since at least the 1920s. Ninety years of discrimination is entirely sufficient to document a "history of discrimination."

Jacobs was appointed in 1992 by by President George H. W. Bush to serve on the Second Circuit. He was joined in his opinion by Judge Christopher Droney, an Obama appointee. Straub, who wrote the dissent, is a Clinton appointee.

The decision came less than a month after the court heard arguments on Sept. 27.   

Lawyer Paul Clement, who had argued in support of the law on behalf of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives, was traveling and did not immediately return a message for comment to The Associated Press.   

James Esseks, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, called the ruling "a watershed moment in the legal movement for lesbian and gay rights."   

"It's fabulous news for same-sex couples in New York and other states," he said.   

Esseks said the 2nd Circuit went farther than the appeals court in Boston by saying that when the government discriminates against gay people, the courts will presume that the discrimination is unconstitutional.   

In striking down the law, Jacobs wrote that the law's "classification of same-sex spouses was not substantially related to an important government interest" and thus violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo praised the decision:

"In June 2011, New York State inspired the rest of the nation by becoming the largest state to achieve marriage equality. Today’s ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit provides further momentum for national progress on this important civil rights issue. What we did here in New York can only be the beginning, and we must continue to work together until all Americans are free to marry whom they love and are entitled to all of the rights and benefits of marriage equally, regardless of sexual orientation."

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has donated $250,000 to support same-sex marriage backers in Maryland, added:

“Today’s decision affirms that DOMA deprives same sex couples of equal protection under the law. This ruling is an important step in ensuring the rights of men and women are not dependent upon who they love and who they chose to spend their lives with. We have much more to do, but we are another step further on the road to a more perfect union for all Americans.”

The National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, said it looked forward to a Supreme Court ruling:

“This is yet another example of judicial activism and elite judges imposing their views on the American people, and further demonstrates why it is imperative for the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review in the currently pending DOMA cases as well as to the Proposition 8 case. The American people are entitled to a definitive ruling in support of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, as 32 states have determined through popular vote."

Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

More content from NBCNews.com:

• U.S. nonprofit 'names and shames' businesses to put bite into Iran sanctions
• Same-sex marriage supporters rack up large war chests in state battles
• Some chimps to be removed from federal research, but where will they go?
• Video: How dangerous was NYC bomb plot suspect?
• Ocelots, pro baseball pitcher and pipeline builder tangled up in lawsuit

Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

As same-sex couples wait for the Supreme Court to decide if it will hear one of five challenges to a law that bans federal recognition of gay marriage, opening arguments were heard Thursday in one such case in New York.

The case before the U.S. 2nd Court of Appeals concerns Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a lesbian couple who lived together in New York City for 44 years and formally married in Canada in May 2007. While this case is still in earlier stages of the court process, attorneys have also asked the nation’s top court to bundle the case with the others in the legal battle against the Defense of Marriage Act across the nation.

The state of New York recognized the marriage of Windsor and Spyers, but federal law did not because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman.

---

When Spyer passed away in 2009, Windsor was hit with $363,053 in federal estate taxes. Had they been considered spouses under federal law, she would have assumed Spyer’s assets, including their home, without incurring estate taxes.

Windsor sued the government in November 2010.

In June, U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones in Manhattan ruled in Windsor’s favor, and declared the 1996 DOMA law unconstitutional, by discriminating against same-sex couples. That decision prompted the current challenge by proponents of the law.

The Supreme Court has been asked to hear five different challenges to DOMA, including the Windsor case, in their next session, which opens Monday.

"It is critically important for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear one or more of the DOMA cases," said Susan Sommer, director of constitutional litigation at Lambda Legal. "In addition to being barred from the protections, rights and benefits afforded under 1,138 federal laws, it is demeaning to married same-sex couples and their families to have their federal government treat them as legal strangers."

In their next term, the justices could decide to take up one or more of the cases, none of them or simply delay considering the issue indefinitely.

However, in comments last week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she believes the Defense of Marriage Act will reach the Supreme Court within the coming year.

Watch the most-viewed videos on NBCNews.com

Each of the five cases that have been successful in district court challenges of DOMA’s Section 3 — the portion that defines marriage as heterosexual — that are now at various stages of appeal in circuit courts.

Each focuses on different federal benefits that are currently provided for people in traditional marriages, but not for those in same-sex marriages.

The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton after it appeared in 1993 that Hawaii might legalize gay marriage.

Since then, many states have banned gay marriage through amendments to their constitution, but six have approved them, including Massachusetts and New York.

In Feb. 2011, the U.S. Justice Department under guidance from President Barack Obama has said it would no longer defend DOMA in court because they believe it to be unconstitutional.

Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter

As a result, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives is spearheading appeals to uphold DOMA against challenges, acting on behalf of the legislative body.

Lawyer Paul Clement, speaking on behalf of bipartisan group on Thursday told the appeals court that the Defense of Marriage Act was consistent with the intention of Congress to continue "preserving programs the way they've always been — not opening these programs to others."

NBC's Kari Huus and Miranda Leitsinger and The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

More content from NBCNews.com:

• Summer's over, but drought persists; two-thirds of contiguous US affected
• Lucky 13 brings $202 million for Powerball ticket sold in Iowa
• Authorities hunting for 73-year-old accused of killing his daughter-in-law
• Video: Helmet camera captures soldier shot in firefight
• No fix for 'Jesus rifles' deploying to Afghanistan

Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

Follow Kari Huus on Facebook

 

In a city with one of the largest gay communities, the Vatican on Friday named San Francisco's newest archbishop: a man who is a strong opponent of same-sex marriage.

The central governing body of the Roman Catholic Church picked Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, who is currently the bishop in the Diocese of Oakland, Calif. Cordileone, who will soon govern more than 432,000 Catholics in San Francisco under his new title, has publicly backed bans for same-sex marriage.

---

Cordileone, 56, supported California's controversial Proposition 8, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. During the state's November 2008 election, Proposition 8 barely passed with a 52 percent vote and contradicted the California Supreme Court's ruling that had legalized same-sex marriage just five months before.

When interviewed by the Catholic Radio Network around that time, Cordileone characterized same-sex marriage as a plot by "the evil one" to destroy morality in the modern world, according to the Chronicle.

Friday's appointment comes after the resignation of San Francisco's current Archdiocese, 76-year-old George H. Niederauer, who held the position since late 2005.

"I look forward to assuming my new pastoral responsibilities with and for the priests and people of the Archdiocese of San Francisco," Cordileone said in a press conference statement.

"This isn't a marriage made in heaven," Tom Ammiano, a gay state assemblyman who represents San Francisco, told the Chronicle. Ammiano did say he's willing to discuss gay marriage with Cordileone.

In February, a federal appeals court found Prop 8 unconstitutional, but the U.S. Supreme Court will probably have the final say in its constitutionality.

More content from NBCNews.com:

• Maryland man arrested with dozens of weapons, says he's the Joker
• Trial delayed for father of missing Iowa girl
• After 53 rounds, Spanish spelling bee is estancamiento (that's a stalemate)
• City closes hot dog stand teen hoped would raise money for disabled parents
• Synthetic drug raids: 90 arrested, $36M seized
• Woman charged with cashing mummified friend's checks
• Shotgun pellet's 'miracle' path through brain spares woman

Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook