States concerning the right of same-gender couples to marry. These two countries were selected for this comparison because the Netherlands and some states in the United States appear to be on the verge of opening civil marriage to same-gender couples. However, the routes that each country is taking to this same destination have come from completely different directions. For example, in both countries same-gender couples have filed lawsuits seeking to marry. In the 1990s, five different cases were filed in the U.S., and the jud ges in at least three of these cases have been receptive to the petitioners= attempts to obtain marital rights. In the states of Hawaii and Alaska, lower court judges have held that the denial of marriage licenses to same-gender couples is unlawful discrimination in violation of state constitutional provisions; in the state of Vermont, the highest appellate court has ruled that the vermont Constitution requires same-gender couples be granted the equivalent rights as married opposite-gender couples. Court challenges to the marriage laws in the Netherlands, however, have been unsuccessful and the dutch jud ges have been unwilling to find that ne-gender couples have a right to marry On the other hand, in July of 1999, the Dutch government introduced a bill in the Parliament that would allow same-gender Dutch couples to marry one another in civil ceremonies. Ironically, just the opposite legislative activity is occurring in many of the U.S states. In fact, in Hawaii and Alaska the state legislators and citizens recently passed constitutional amendments to limit marriage to opposite-gender couples, to prevent the court decisions in those states from taking effect. 7 This article discusses and compares the contrasting legal developments in the United States and the Netherlands concerning the right of same-gender couples to marry. It does so by discussing the case law and the current legislative activity, first in the Netherlands and section analyzes and compares the Dutch and United States legal histories concern hext then in the United States, dealing with the right of same-gender couples to marry. The opening civil marriage to same-gender couples. This section examines how the differences in the two countries= legal systems, as well as the social status of homosexuals and the legal status of nonmarital cohabitation, have influenced the contrasting routes these two countries have taken toward opening marriages to same-gender couples Baehr v Milke, 1996WL 694235(Haw. Cir. Ct. Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, 1998 WL 88743(Alaska Super. Ct.) Bakerv.Vermont744A.2d864,1999wl1211709(vt.1999),httplwwwstatevtus/courts/98. 032xt HR 19 oktober 1990, NJ1992, 192, m nt EAAL en EAA (homohuwelijk) rb Amsterdam 13 februari 1990, NJCM-Bulletin 1990, p. 456-460, m nt. K Boele-Woelki en P.C. Tange Wetsvoorstel openstelling huwelijk voor personen van hetzelfde geslacht(Wet openstelling huwelijk), Kamerstukken /1998/99, 26672, nr 1-2. For an English translation of the text of the bill, see the summary translationbyKeesWaaldijk,http:/ruliis.leidenunivnluser/cwaaldii/wwwl(publicationsaboutLawand Homosexuality, Unpublished papers and minor publications) See ALASKA CoNST. Art. I, Sec. 25; see HAW. CONST. Art. 1, Sec. 23. In Alaska, 68 percent of voters voted in favor of upholding traditional marriage as opposed to 32 percent opposing the constitutional amendment By a margin of 69 percent to 29 percent, Hawaii voters upheld a constitutional amendment giving the Legislature >the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. See Cheryl Wetzstein, Gays Cant Marry, 2 States Say, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, Nov, 5, 1998, atAl6States concerning the right of same-gender couples to marry. These two countries were selected for this comparison because the Netherlands and some states in the United States appear to be on the verge of opening civil marriage to same-gender couples. However, the routes that each country is taking to this same destination have come from completely different directions. For example, in both countries same-gender couples have filed lawsuits seeking to marry. In the 1990s, five different cases were filed in the U.S., and the judges in at least three of these cases have been receptive to the petitioners= attempts to obtain marital rights. In the states of Hawaii2 and Alaska,3 lower court judges have held that the denial of marriage licenses to same-gender couples is unlawful discrimination in violation of state constitutional provisions; in the state of Vermont,4 the highest appellate court has ruled that the Vermont Constitution requires same-gender couples be granted the equivalent rights as married opposite-gender couples. Court challenges to the marriage laws in the Netherlands, however, have been unsuccessful and the Dutch judges have been unwilling to find that same-gender couples have a right to marry.5 On the other hand, in July of 1999, the Dutch government introduced a bill in the Parliament that would allow same-gender Dutch couples to marry one another in civil ceremonies.6 Ironically, just the opposite legislative activity is occurring in many of the U.S. states. In fact, in Hawaii and Alaska the state legislators and citizens recently passed constitutional amendments to limit marriage to opposite-gender couples, to prevent the court decisions in those states from taking effect.7 2 Baehr v. Miike, 1996 WL 694235 (Haw. Cir. Ct.). 3 Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, 1998 WL 88743 (Alaska Super. Ct.). 4 Baker v. Vermont, 744 A.2d 864, 1999 WL 1211709 (Vt. 1999), http://www.state.vt.us/courts/98- 032.txt 5 HR 19 oktober 1990, NJ 1992, 192, m.nt. EAAL en EAA (homohuwelijk); Rb Amsterdam 13 februari 1990, NJCM-Bulletin 1990, p. 456-460, m.nt. K. Boele-Woelki en P.C. Tange. 6 Wetsvoorstel openstelling huwelijk voor personen van hetzelfde geslacht (Wet openstelling huwelijk), Kamerstukken II 1998/99, 26 672, nr. 1-2. For an English translation of the text of the bill, see the summary translation by Kees Waaldijk, http://ruljis.leidenuniv.nl/user/cwaaldij/www/ (Publications about Law and Homosexuality, Unpublished papers and minor publications). 7 See ALASKA CONST. Art. I, Sec. 25; see HAW. CONST. Art. 1, Sec. 23. In Alaska, 68 percent of voters voted in favor of upholding traditional marriage as opposed to 32 percent opposing the constitutional amendment. By a margin of 69 percent to 29 percent, Hawaii voters upheld a constitutional amendment giving the Legislature >the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.= See Cheryl Wetzstein, Gays Can't 'Marry,' 2 States Say, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, Nov. 5, 1998, at A16. This article discusses and compares the contrasting legal developments in the United States and the Netherlands concerning the right of same-gender couples to marry. It does so by discussing the case law and the current legislative activity, first in the Netherlands and then in the United States, dealing with the right of same-gender couples to marry. The next section analyzes and compares the Dutch and United States legal histories concerning opening civil marriage to same-gender couples. This section examines how the differences in the two countries= legal systems, as well as the social status of homosexuals and the legal status of nonmarital cohabitation, have influenced the contrasting routes these two countries have taken toward opening marriages to same-gender couples