ABSTRACT
The early 2000s was a period of profound policy divergence between the U.S. and Canada, especially because of the court decisions in Canada that led to the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2005, contrasted with the diffusion of DOMAs and constitutional marriage bans throughout the U.S. as states moved to change their marriage laws to forestall the development of same-sex marriage. This backlash accelerated when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the highest state court in Massachusetts, ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in the Goodridge decision, which led to the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2004. At the same time, the U.S. also saw the development of a marriage movement-outbursts of civil disobedience in New Paltz (New York), Portland, San Francisco, and Sandoval, New Mexico-in which straight political leaders at the local level permitted, licensed or offi ciated at the marriages of same-sex couples. This marriage movement was evidenced by spontaneous demonstrations by same-sex couples and their supporters in New York City and other locations across the U.S. and small-scale acts of civil disobedience in claiming legality for same-sex marriages, especially through ceremonies performed by clergy from Unitarian, liberal Protestant and reform Jewish faiths (see Pinello 2006). While the assertion and claiming of legality for same-sex relationships (especially through the use of religious ceremonies) also occurred in Canada, the decisions of the courts and the lack of challenge from the federal government to these decisions, led to a relatively quick passage of same-sex marriage legislation. As this chapter will show, these cross-national differences in public policy were facilitated by political institutional differences and shaped by the policy legacies of past experiences with lesbian and gay human rights issues.
