Here is a hope­fully use­ful excerpt from a foot­note in my Law Review arti­cle. It’s not the whole foot­note, and I’m not going to share the entire arti­cle for at least some time, as I have other plans for it. But this one foot­note, the result of many, many hours of research, could be use­ful to oth­ers and I thought I would share it.

(For those who are inter­ested, the arti­cle is not really about same-​​sex mar­riage as such, but about an obscure lit­tle choice of law prob­lem in one of the very few areas where fed­eral courts have to look into the valid­ity of a mar­riage — the com­mon law spousal priv­i­leges under Fed. R. Evid. 501.)

112. 37 states have enacted statutes ban­ning same-​​sex mar­riage and pro­hibit­ing the recog­ni­tion of out-​​of-​​state same-​​sex mar­riages. Ala. Code § 30–1-19 (2009) (Alabama); Alaska Stat. § 25.05.013 (2009) (Alaska); Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 25–101, 25–112 (2009) (Ari­zona); Ark. Code Ann. §§ 9–11-107, 9–11-109, 9–11-208(b)-© (2009) (Arkansas); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14–2-104 (2009) (Col­orado); Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 101(a), (d) (2009) (Delaware); Fla. Stat. § 741.212 (2009) (Florida); Ga. Code Ann. § 19–3-3.1 (2009) (Geor­gia); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572 (2009) (Hawai’i); Idaho Code Ann. §32–209 (2009) (Idaho); 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/​201, 5/​212, 5/213.1 (2009) (Illi­nois); Ind. Code § 31–11-1–1 (2009) (Indi­ana); Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 23–101, 23–115 (2009) (Kansas); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.005, 402.020, 402.040, 402.045 (2009) (Ken­tucky); La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 89, 96, 3520 (2009) (Louisiana); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 19-​​A § 701 (2009) (Maine); Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 2–201 (2009) (Mary­land); Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 551.1, 551.271 (2009) (Michi­gan); Minn. Stat. §§ 517.03, 518.01 (2009) (Min­nesota); Miss. Code Ann. §93–1-1 (2009) (Mis­sis­sippi); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 451.022 (2009) (Mis­souri); Mont. Code Ann. §§ 40–1-103, 40–1-401 (2009) (Mon­tana); N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 51–1, 51–1.2 (2009) (North Car­olina); N.D. Cent. Code §§ 14–03-01; 14–13-08 (2009) (North Dakota); Ohio Rev. Code § 3101.01 (Ohio); Okla. Stat. tit. 43 § 43–3.1 (2009) (Okla­homa); Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1704 (2009) (Penn­syl­va­nia); S.C. Code Ann. §§ 20–1-10, 20–1-15 (2009) (South Car­olina); S.D. Cod­i­fied Laws §§ 25–1-1, 25–1-38 (2009) (South Dakota); Tenn. Code Ann. § 36–3-113 (2009) (Ten­nessee); Tex. Fam. Code §§ 2.001, 6.204 (2009) (Texas); Utah Code Ann. §§ 30–1-2, 30–1-4.1 (2009) (Utah); Va. Code §§ 20–45.2, 20–45.3 (2009) (Vir­ginia); Wash. Rev. Code §§ 26.04.010, 26.04.020 (2009) (Wash­ing­ton); W. Va. Code § 48–2-603 (2009) (West Vir­ginia); Wis. Stat. §§ 765.001, 765.01, 765.04 (2009) (Wis­con­sin); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20–1-101 (2009) (Wyoming). One state, New Hamp­shire, has enacted statutes ban­ning same sex mar­riage, but allow­ing for lim­ited domes­tic recog­ni­tion of out-​​of-​​state same-​​sex mar­riages, pro­vided that the cou­ple estab­lish domi­cile in the state after mar­ry­ing and that the mar­riage was not effected in a man­ner designed to cir­cum­vent the state’s pro­hi­bi­tion of such mar­riages. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 457:1–3, 457:43 (2009). Research pro­duced no word from Vermont’s leg­is­la­ture or courts on whether out-​​of-​​state same-​​sex mar­riages would be rec­og­nized as civil unions under Vermont’s civil union frame­work under Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, ch.23 (2009). How­ever, given that Vermont’s civil union frame­work has now been sup­planted by allow­ing same-​​sex mar­riage in the state, . . . such recog­ni­tion will likely be unnec­es­sary in the future. Ver­mont is likely to rec­og­nize out-​​of-​​state same sex mar­riages as valid, as are the other three states which now allow same-​​sex mar­riage, although this has not yet been tested in court. . . . Ver­mont for­merly had a statu­tory ban on same-​​sex mar­riage, Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, §§ 5, 8 (2008), but has since repealed it, becom­ing the first state to leg­isla­tively enact same-​​sex mar­riage with­out a court order to do so. . .&nbsp. As of this writ­ing, only two state statutes ban­ning same-​​sex mar­riage have been struck down by courts. Conn. Gen. Stat. §46b-​​38aa (2008) (pro­vid­ing for same-​​sex civil unions but defin­ing mar­riage as “the union of one man and one woman”), inval­i­dated by Ker­ri­gan v. Comm’r of Pub. Health, 49 Conn. Sup. 664 (2008) (hold­ing that the statute’s def­i­n­i­tion of mar­riage vio­lated state constitution’s guar­an­tee of equal pro­tec­tion); Iowa Code § 595.2 (2009) (Iowa) (stat­ing that “[o]nly a mar­riage between a male and a female is valid”), inval­i­dated by Var­num v. Brien, No. CV5965, 2007 WL 2468667 (Iowa Dist. 2007) (uncon­sti­tu­tional on equal pro­tec­tion grounds), aff’d Var­num v. Brien, No. 07–1499, slip op. at 69 (Iowa 2009). 29 states have writ­ten same-​​sex mar­riage bans into their state con­sti­tu­tions. Ala. Const. amend. 774 (Alabama); Alaska Const. art. I, § 25 (Alaska); Ariz. Const. art. XXX (Ari­zona); Ark. Const. amend. 83 (Arkansas); Cal. Const. art. I, § 7.5 (Cal­i­for­nia); Colo. Const. art. II, § 31 (Col­orado); Fla. Const. art. I, § 27 (Florida); Ga. Const. art. I § IV (Geor­gia); Haw. Const. art. 1, § 23 (Hawai’i); Idaho Const. art. III, § 28 (Idaho); Kan. Const. art. 15, § 16 (Kansas); Ky. Const. § 233A (Ken­tucky); La. Const. art. XII, § 15 (Louisiana); Mich. Const. art. I, § 25 (Michi­gan); Miss. Const. art. 14, § 263A (Mis­sis­sippi); Mo. Const. art. I, § 33 (Mis­souri); Mont. Const. art. XIII, § 7 (Mon­tana); Neb. Const. art. I, § 29 (Nebraska); Nev. Const. art. I, § 21 (Nevada); N.D. Const. art. XI, § 28 (North Dakota); Ohio Const. art. XV, § 11 (Ohio); Okla. Const. art. 2, § 35 (Okla­homa); Or. Const. art. XV, § 5a (Ore­gon); S.C. Const. art. XVII, § 15 (South Car­olina); S.D. Const. art. XXI, § 9 (South Dakota); Tenn. Const. art. XI, § 18 (Ten­nessee); Tex. Const. art 1, § 32 (Texas); Utah Const. art 1, §29 (Utah); Va. Const. art. I, § 15-​​A (Vir­ginia); Wis. Const. art. XIII, § 13 (Wis­con­sin). Only Mass­a­chu­setts, Ver­mont, Con­necti­cut and Iowa cur­rently allow same-​​sex mar­riages. . . . The four remain­ing states (New Jer­sey, New Mex­ico, New York, and Rhode Island) and the Dis­trict of Colum­bia have no ban. See National Con­fer­ence of State Leg­is­la­tures, Same Sex Mar­riage, http://​www​.ncsl​.org/​p​r​o​g​r​a​m​s​/​c​y​f​/​s​a​m​e​s​e​x​.​htm (last vis­ited March 27, 2009). . . .