The 2012 Freedom to Marry Ballot Initiatives: On the Ground in Four Key States
Marriage for same-sex couples is on the ballot in four states this November, and it will be a pivotal moment for the LGBT movement. In Maine, Maryland and Washington voters have the opportunity to expand the freedom to marry to same-sex couples; and Minnesota voters could make that state the first ever to defeat a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Even a single ballot box win would change the national debate and would reinforce the polls showing growing majorities across the country that support marriage for committed same-sex couples.
In each of these states, ACLU affiliates are actively engaged in local coalitions committed to defending the freedom to marry. With less than 40 days until the election, we’ll be providing you with a window into the advocacy work happening on the ground. Check back every two weeks to learn about the organizations, people, and volunteers working tirelessly to protect all families. We’ll share photos, videos, victories and challenges in the states where marriage is on the ballot.
Maine – It’s Not a Partisan Issue
A diverse and growing coalition of over 100 partners has been working together, under the umbrella organization since February to demonstrate broad support for marriage for same-sex couples in Maine. is proud to serve as a coalition partner. Executive Director Shenna Bellows and Legal Director Zach Heiden serve on the Executive Committee for the campaign, helping to guide important strategic decisions for a win in November.
For this campaign, the ACLU of Maine has chosen to make good on the promise that marriage for same-sex couples is not a partisan issue. In April, ACLU of Maine Marriage Project Coordinator Jill Barkley began outreach to supportive Republicans across the state. Working closely with the campaign, a group called "Republicans United for Marriage" was formed. The group consists of elected officials, former party chairs and active registered Republicans across the state of Maine. The goal is to reach Republicans who will in turn reach out to their friends, family and colleagues about this issue. For more information about the campaign in general, please visit
Maryland – Taking Action
The ACLU of Maryland is a board member of which is a coalition of more than 130 groups across the state working to defend the Civil Marriage Protection Act of 2012 from referendum challenge this November. Together, we are recruiting volunteers for phone banks and canvassing, hosting house parties across the state, and supporting efforts to secure the TV and radio ads needed to reach voters.
The ACLU is also helping to organize supporters to work on the ground: On Saturdays and Sundays throughout the rest of September and October, activists can join us for . Volunteers across the state will knock on doors and call voters to talk to them about supporting The Civil Marriage Protection Act (Question 6).
Contacting friends and neighbors in Maryland who vote is a crucial component of this campaign. Our opponents will spend millions on TV and radio ads that will mislead voters. Marylanders for Marriage Equality will be on the ground talking to Marylanders and making sure they get the facts on Question 6.
Minnesota – Many Voices Stand Together
The took its first case fighting for LGBT equality over 40 years ago. In 1970 we filed the first marriage case in the country and we have not given up the fight for equality since.
On November 6, Minnesota has a chance to become the first state ever to defeat a freedom-limiting marriage amendment. We have been a part of the coalition group opposing the marriage amendment in Minnesota, , since day one. We are a strong and vibrant coalition with over 650 partner organizations ranging from religious organizations, to businesses to non-profits.
We hope that as a coalition of many voices we can stand together and defeat this amendment!
Washington – Committed Couples and Communities of Color
The ACLU of Washington is a member of the Governance Committee for (WUM), a coalition of more than 600 organizations, congregations, unions, and businesses working together in coalition to defend civil marriage for loving, committed same-sex couples. WUM is working to approve Referendum 74 which will uphold SB 6239 – a bill signed into law by Washington Governor Chris Gregoire in February of 2012.
The ACLU is helping coordinate . The site features links to fact sheets for different ethnic communities, as well as moving stories and videos that illustrate why marriage for gay and lesbian couples is important to all communities of color. They can be downloaded and shared with various community organizations and individuals.
We are also coordinating Communities of Color phone banks in October and early November. These phone banks are part of an effort to reach voters who are still making a decision on this issue. Participants of past phone banks have found the conversations to be “incredibly moving and rewarding – to reach people who want to have meaningful discussion about the topic”. If you are interested in volunteering or even hosting a phone bank at your home please contact Dean Jackson at field@aclu-wa.org for more information.
Learn more about 2012 freedom to marry ballot initiatives: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
President Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender YouthPresident Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would ban coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender youth whose parents are active-duty military personnel. The American Civil Liberties Union is opposing final passage of the defense bill over the inclusion of this health care ban and calling on President Joe Biden to veto the bill. Section 708 of the NDAA would prohibit insurance coverage for “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria” such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, which Speaker Mike Johnson says would “permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors.” The same treatments would be covered by TRICARE for any medical purpose other than treating gender dysphoria, the clinical diagnosis for the psychological distress experienced by transgender people related to their gender identity. “By passing this bill, the House and Senate are forcing thousands of active-duty service members to choose between their careers in the military and the future of their transgender children,” said Mike Zamore, national director of policy & government affairs at the ACLU. “This unconscionable and unjustifiable attack on those families stands in direct contrast to President Joe Biden’s legacy of defending the civil rights of transgender Americans — including when few in his own party showed the courage to do so. President Biden should cement his legacy by vetoing this bill and sending it back to Congress to pass without Speaker Johnson’s last minute health care ban for servicemembers’ kids.” If signed by President Biden, this health care ban would be the first new anti-LGBTQ provision enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president since the enactment of the military’s since-repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for LGBTQ servicemembers and the since-repealed federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages known as the Defense of Marriage Act. It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in TRICARE or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through TRICARE Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Montana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's LicensesMontana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's Licenses
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. After a prior restriction on amendments of birth certificates was struck down by the courts, in early 2024 the state of Montana enacted a new rule that categorically bars transgender Montanans from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. Around the same time, the Montana Department of Justice adopted a policy similarly restricting amendment of driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs challenged these policies in state district court, arguing that they violate various constitutional provisions, including the right to equal protection of the law. In a recent Montana Supreme Court decision, two justices concluded that discrimination on the basis of transgender status – as the state is engaging in here – is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause. The plaintiffs, two transgender women, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, said: “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male. Fortunately, the court agrees that this ridiculous policy should not be in effect.” “Once again the State of Montana chose to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans, only for that discriminatory action to be blocked by the courts,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.” “Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity unjustly violates their rights to privacy, equal treatment, and not being compelled to convey a government message about their sex that they disagree with,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. Fortunately, the court has refused to allow the state of Montana to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity as this case goes forward.” In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held, “[i]f the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate the basis of sex.” The state has the option of appealing the district court’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, but the underlying case will proceed in district court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. -
FloridaDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. DixonKeohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy. -
IdahoDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. LabradorRobinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.