Last Friday’s decision to postpone a vote on marriage equality in the Illinois House came as a huge disappointment to supporters of LGBT equality. But Prairie State voters can take heart from legislative battles in other states where marriage equality was similarly delayed or defeated — but where the same chambers went on to pass bills soon after.

Like Illinois, legislative efforts to pass marriage equality stumbled in Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and New York — either failing to obtain a majority or by through postponed consideration. Future attempts to enact legislation later succeeded in three of those states, while the New Jersey legislature’s passage of a bill was met with a Gov. Chris Christie’s (R) veto. As Illinois supporters work to win passage of the bill later this year, ThinkProgress reached out to key players in each of those states and asked them about their experiences.

Three common themes emerged in their responses. Several said Illinois supporters need to make sure they have an accurate target list and focus on the lawmakers who need persuading. Constituents, they suggested, must respectfully tell their personal stories to their legislators and make their representatives understand why this issue matters to their families. Finally, the openly LGBT caucus within the legislature must appeal personally and emotionally to their colleagues, especially those who may not be as attuned to the topic.

Maryland

Perhaps the most analogous case was Maryland’s unsuccessful 2011 attempt to pass a civil marriage bill through the state House of Delegates. Though advocates believed they had the needed votes to pass the bill, they were forced to postpone the vote after some pledged supporters wavered. Unlike Illinois, supporters went through with the debate — hoping their compelling personal stories might sway the handful of votes needed for a majority — before sending the bill back to committee after it became apparent the votes would not be there. Advocates, including Gov. Martin O’Malley (D), the state’s seven openly LGBT Delegates, and LGBT groups, organized a new campaign and successfully pushed the bill through less than a year later. When opponents forced the question onto the November ballot, a majority voted for marriage equality.

Openly lesbian Maryland Del. Heather Mizeur (D) noted that about 10 supporters were willing to be a part of a 71-vote majority but would have voted against the bill if it appeared likely to lose. “It would not have been okay to lose by 12 votes and try to come back the next year to win those back. We wanted to hold onto their willingness to be yes on a winning vote, instead of locking them into a no vote because they saw it was going down,” she recalled. To turn around the vote in Illinois, she suggested, “it could be helpful for them to try to wage an effort to get their supporters to sign some sort of pledge, start getting a vote count, and get a campaign around securing public commitments.” Maryland’s success came, she explained, from working with allies at national organizations, state groups, and really putting together a campaign. “Leave no stone unturned until we’re able to claim victory.”

Carrie Evans, executive director of Equality Maryland, said that it made little sense to demand a vote in 2011 because there was not going to be an election before the next (2012) session. She noted that while grassroots activists were vital to the successful effort to win the second attempt, so was having a robust LGBT caucus inside the legislature who could remind colleagues, “you know my husband, you know my kids.” Issues like marriage equality, she observed, must be personal. “They’re so close — you really just have to build on that and get those last few votes.”
Read more

Today the Nevada Assembly voted 27-14 to approve a constitutional amendment that would repeal the 2002 amendment banning same-sex marriage. Combined with the Senate approval from April, this completes the amendment’s first phase of approval. Both chambers must approve the measure a second time during 2015 legislative session, following which it will be advanced to the ballot in November, 2016.

Unless a constitutional amendment is repealed in the interim in another state, Nevada would be the first state to repeal its own constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

Nevada Sen. Kelvin Atkinson (D)

Monday night, the Nevada Senate voted 12-9 to repeal the state’s constitutional amendment banning the recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages. That language would be replaced to recognize all marriages between two people, “regardless of gender.” As BuzzFeed’s Chris Geidner points out, the Senate is the first legislative chamber in the country to affirm the overturn of a marriage amendment.

The debate lasted over an hour, during which one Senator came out for the first time. Sen. Kelvin Atkinson (D) announced, “I’m black. I’m gay… I know this is the first time many of you have heard me say that I am a black, gay male.” Atkinson pointed out that his father’s interracial marriage would have similarly been banned decades ago, suggesting to detractors, “If this hurts your marriage, then your marriage was in trouble in the first place.”

Despite this victory, the bill has a long road ahead. Not only does it still have to pass the state Assembly, but both chambers will have to pass it again during the next session in 2015. Following that, it must pass a referendum, which would likely take place in 2016.

A new Public Opinion Strategies poll commissioned by the Retail Association of Nevada finds that a majority of Nevada voters would support repealing the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. With divides along partisan and generational lines, 54 percent would favor removing the Protection of Marriage provision from the Nevada Constitution, with 43 percent opposed. Only those who identified as deeply conservative had winning support for maintaining the ban — by 76 percent.

Brittney Leon and Terri-Ann Simonelli with their domestic partnership certificate (via the Las Vegas Review-Journal).

A same-sex couple in Nevada is raising awareness about the inequality couples experience without marriage after Spring Valley Hospital refused to recognize their relationship. Brittney Leon and Terri-Ann Simonelli have a domestic partnership, which under Nevada state law grants couples all the same rights as married couples. When Leon checked into the hospital last month because of complications in her pregnancy, the admissions officer told Simonelli she would have to secure power of attorney to be with her partner.

Leon ended up losing her baby, and Simonelli had to rely on the doctor for updates, spending long stretches of time without news on her partner’s condition and the fate of her family. This was despite the fact that the hospital had no hesitations about accepting Leon’s insurance, which is provided through Simonelli’s job. The Las Vegas Review-Journal attempted to get a comment from the hospital about the incident:

A woman who identified herself as public relations representative at Spring Valley Hospital told a Review-Journal reporter in a phone interview that the hospital policy requires gay couples have power of attorney in order to make medical decisions for each other .

When asked if she was aware of Nevada’s domestic partnership law, she accused the reporter of bias and hung up the telephone.

Over two years ago, President Obama ordered the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a rule that would prevent hospitals from denying visitation privileges to the partners of gays and lesbians. It’s unclear whether the power-of-attorney requirement violates that memorandum — though it obviously discriminates against same-sex couples — or whether it is indicative of how little authority the new rule has.

Leon and Simonelli have decided not to file a complaint, but their story is an important reminder of how same-sex couples are treated as second-class citizens. Even though they hypothetically have all of the same rights under the state’s domestic partnership law, they were still treated in an incredibly crass way in a time of emergency and heightened emotional stress.