Stem Cell Research Internationally

---

July 9, 2004: France's parliament passes updates to the country's bioethics law, allowing a limited five-year period for stem cell research on human embryos.

September 14, 2004: Germany's National Ethics Council, charged with offering the federal government advice on ethical issues in the life sciences, announces that it will continue to oppose cloning of human embryos for research.

November 18, 2004: In an attempt to resolve division among UN member states, Italy puts forth a compromise proposal for a global treaty on human cloning.

November 19, 2004: The United Nations ends a long-running debate by deciding not to draft a treaty that would ban all human cloning. President Bush, along with Costa Rica, supported the total ban.

November 28, 2004: Swiss voters approve a new law that will allow research on the stem cells of human embryos, marking the first time a country has put the controversial issue to a popular vote.

February 20, 2005: The UN General Assembly's legal committee adopts a non-binding resolution against all forms of human cloning, including techniques used in stem cell research.

June 12, 2005: Italians begin voting on referendums to lessen the limitations on existing legislation on fertility treatment and stem cell research.

January 10, 2006: South Korean prosecutors say that they will open a criminal investigation into South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-Suk, a day after an investigation concluded that Hwang's acclaimed research on stem cells was fake.

June 29, 2006: A leading member of the Catholic Church expresses concern that the Church could be prosecuted for some of its traditional religious positions against abortion, same-sex marriage, and stem cell research.

July 24, 2006: The EU Council of Ministers agree to continue funding for embryonic stem cell research, but that aid may not be used to procure stem cell embryos.

August 17, 2006: Australian Prime Minister John Howard agrees to hold a conscience vote on a stem cell research bill allowing therapeutic cloning if a private bill is offered to parliament. A conscience vote is a free parliamentary vote in which members are not bound by party policy.

November 7, 2006: The Australian Senate votes to lift restrictions on stem cell research and permit the therapeutic cloning of human embryos.

December 6, 2006: The Australian Parliament votes in line with the Australian Senate's vote in November to lift restrictions, effectively ending the ban on stem cell cloning.

January 29, 2007: The government of Norway proposes new legislation that would allow embryonic stem cell research to potentially find cures for various diseases.

May 30, 2008: The Supreme Court of Brazil rules that a 2005 law allowing embryonic stem cell research is constitutional.

US Voter ID Litigation

---

April 22, 2005: Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue signs a bill that would require voters to show photo identification before being allowed to cast ballots.

May 26, 2005: The National Conference of State Legislatures, a body which tracks state law developments, finds that 26 states are considering new proposals for voting laws. The most important issue under review in many states is proof of identity for valid voters.

August 26, 2005: The US Department of Justice grants approval to a Georgia law that would require photo identification to vote in elections.

September 2, 2005: The ACLU charges that Georgia raised the fees for its new controversial voter ID cards without notice to the US Justice Department as required under federal law.

September 20, 2005: Several rights groups and two African-American registered Georgia voters file a lawsuit challenging a Georgia law that requires voters to show government-issued photo identification at the polls.

October 18, 2005: A US District Court judge in Northern Georgia grants a temporary injunction against the enforcement of a Georgia law that requires voters to show photo identification before casting a ballot.

October 27, 2005: The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denies a request from Georgia to throw out a lower court injunction barring enforcement of the state's new voter identification law.

November 17, 2005: Lawyers from the US Department of Justice recommend that the department reject Georgia's new voter-identification law, but are overruled by higher-ranking DOJ officials, according to documents obtained by the Washington Post.

January 25, 2006: The Republican majority in the Georgia legislature pushes through a revised voter ID bill which would require all voters to show either a driver's license, military ID, or state-issued identification card with a photo prior to voting.

February 9, 2006: The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit instructs a lower court to reconsider a challenge to Georgia's controversial voter ID law, but leaves in place an injunction barring the law's enforcement.

February 21, 2006: Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell says he will veto House Bill 1318, a bill that would require voters to provide identification at the polls in order to vote.

March 30, 2006: Civil rights, religious, and community groups ask the US Department of Justice to block a law that would require voters in Georgia to show photo identification before they could cast their ballots.

April 15, 2006: US District Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the Southern District of Indiana issues an opinion upholding a 2005 law enacted by the Indiana General Assembly that requires most voters to present a valid, government-issued photo identification card when they head to the polls.

April 21, 2006: The US Department of Justice signs off on a new Georgia law that will require voters to present a valid photo ID when they vote in elections.

June 20, 2006: The US District Court for the District of Arizona rejects a bid by Latino and voter-advocacy groups to temporarily halt a requirement that voters show government-issued identification to prove that they are US citizens when they register to vote.

July 5, 2006: Georgia's latest attempt to implement photo identification cards for voters is challenged by the ACLU and other voting rights advocates, who file a motion in federal district court seeking a preliminary injunction.

July 7, 2006: Judge Melvin K. Westmoreland of Fulton County Superior Court issues a temporary restraining order blocking the implementation of Georgia's photo identification cards for voters, holding that the authorizing bill violates the state constitution by placing an undue burden on the fundamental right to vote and that it would require a state constitutional amendment to legally take effect.

July 10, 2006: Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker files an emergency appeal with the Georgia Supreme Court on behalf of Governor Sonny Perdue, asking the court to overturn a lower court judge's decision to issue a temporary restraining order blocking the implementation of a law requiring Georgia voters to produce photo identification cards.

July 12, 2006: US District Judge Harold Murphy issues a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of Georgia's voter ID law until a full trial can be held in a challenge brought by civil rights groups.

July 17, 2006: Democratic Party officials in Missouri file a class-action lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction against the enforcement of a new state law that requires voters to show photo identification at the polls.

August 3, 2006: A group of Missouri voters lacking acceptable identification under a Missouri law that requires voters to show photo IDs at the polls files a lawsuit claiming the law could keep people from the polls in November.

September 14, 2006: A Missouri judge rules that a state law requiring voters to show a Missouri-issued photo identification at the polls violates the state constitution because it is "an impermissible additional qualification to vote."

September 19, 2006: Georgia State Superior Court Judge T. Jackson Bedford Jr. holds that the controversial voter ID law is unconstitutional because it is not required under the Georgia constitution and would disenfranchise otherwise qualified voters.

September 20, 2006: The US House of Representatives passes a bill that would require voters to present valid photo ID cards when they head to the polls to vote in federal elections starting in 2008, thereby amending the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

October 4, 2006: The Supreme Court of Missouri hears oral arguments in two appeals challenging the September 14 ruling that a state law requiring voters to show a Missouri-issued photo identification at the polls violates the state constitution.

October 6, 2006: The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit grants an emergency injunction suspending the application of Arizona's controversial voter ID law a month before the November 7 general election.

October 11, 2006: The US Election Assistance Commission finds little evidence to support claims of voter fraud which have been driving the recent push for more stringent voter registration and voter ID policies, USA Today reports.

October 16, 2006: The Supreme Court of Missouri affirms a trial court decision striking down a state law requiring voters to show Missouri-issued photo identification at the polls.

October 18, 2006: Judge Richard Posner of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit expresses skepticism that an Indiana law requiring voters to show ID cards at the polls would prevent some citizens from casting ballots.

October 20, 2006: The US Supreme Court rules that Arizona can enforce a new law requiring voters to show government-issued ID cards at the polls for the November elections, reversing a decision rendered earlier by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

October 26, 2006: US District Judge Algenon Marbley grants a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of Ohio's voter ID law as it applies to absentee ballots because Ohio's 88 counties are applying it inconsistently.

October 29, 2006: Absentee Ohio voters must continue to show proof of ID when casting ballots after a federal appeals court stays a lower court order that would have temporarily suspended Ohio's voter ID law.

November 1, 2006: Although Ohio absentee voters must continue to show proof of ID when applying for an absentee ballot, absentee ballots already obtained without ID will still be counted after a settlement is reached between the state and groups opposed to Ohio's voter ID law.

January 4, 2007: The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upholds an Indiana law requiring voters to show photo identification before casting a ballot.

April 21, 2007: The Ninth Circuit Court holds that AZ may enforce Prop 200 while a non-profit organization challenges the law in federal court.

June 11, 2007: The Supreme Court of GA dismisses a challenge to GA's voter ID law for lack of standing.

July 18, 2007: The MI Supreme Court upholds a voter ID law in a 5-2 decision.

July 31, 2007: GA Secretary of State Karen Handel says that GA's voter ID law will begin to be enforced during GA's September Special Elections and the state will be filing a motion to lift a stay of proceedings in a federal challenge.

August 30, 2007: Judge Roslyn Silver rejects claims challenging AZ's voter ID law filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), ruling that the fees associated with procuring the required documents did not amount to a fee to vote.

September 7, 2007: US District Judge Harold Murphy lifts a stay of the GA voter ID law, enabling the law to go into effect during Special Elections on September 18.

January 9, 2008: The US Supreme Court hears oral arguments in consolidated cases regarding the constitutionality of IA's voter ID statute.

April 28, 2008: The US Supreme Court upholds IN's voter ID statute, which requires voters to present photo identification as a prerequisite to voting.

Vioxx Litigation

---

September 30, 2004: Merck begins a voluntary worldwide withdrawal of its pain-reliever drug, Vioxx, which has been linked to increased risk of heart attack and stroke.

November 8, 2004: Merck and Co., maker of Vioxx, is served with a subpoena from the Department of Justice and is the subject of a probe by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

January 25, 2005: According to a study published by Food and Drug Administration safety reviewer David Graham, as many as 140,000 heart attacks in the US may have been caused by Vioxx before it was taken off the market.

February 15, 2005: The FDA announces that it will create an independent drug safety board in response to criticism in the wake of the Vioxx recall.

February 16, 2005: The federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation assigns all pending Vioxx product liability lawsuits to Judge Eldon Fallon of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans.

March 18, 2005: The US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana begins pre-trial hearings, launching the federal liability case against Merck & Co., producers of the painkilling product Vioxx.

April 29, 2005: An Alabama Circuit Court refuses to dismiss the first wrongful-death suit brought against Merck for their painkiller Vioxx.

July 11, 2005: Jury selection begins in the first of over 3,800 state and federal lawsuits against Merck, alleging that the company knew its popular painkiller Vioxx was dangerous before it voluntarily pulled the drug from the market in September 2004.

July 14, 2005: The first trial against Merck for distributing the drug Vioxx while aware of an increased chance of heart attack and stroke begins in Texas with opening statements from both sides.

August 19, 2005: A Texas jury awards a $253.4 million verdict in a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the widow of a man who suffered cardiac arrest after using Vioxx.

August 25, 2005: Merck considers settling some of the thousands of state and federal lawsuits it faces for the distribution of Vioxx, according to a spokesman for the company's legal team.

August 29, 2005: A New Jersey judge rejects a motion by Merck to postpone its scheduled second trial, saying that a $253 million verdict handed down by a Texas jury earlier did not preclude a fair trial for Merck in Atlantic City New Jersey.

September 9, 2005: Merck says that it has no plans to make a comprehensive deal to settle the thousands of cases against the company concerning side effects of Vioxx.

September 17, 2005: The New Orleans-based federal judge charged with co-ordinating the approximately 1800 pending federal lawsuits relating to the withdrawal of Vioxx from pharmacists' shelves last year rules that the first federal trial against Merck will take place in Houston beginning November 28.

November 3, 2005: A New Jersey jury finds that Merck properly warned consumers about the risks associated with Vioxx in the second Vioxx case.

November 29, 2005: The first federal Vioxx trial, in which Evelyn Irvin Plunkett sues Merck for the death of husband Richard "Dicky" Irvin of a heart attack in May 2001, begins with an opening statement from Plunkett's lawyer, who tells jurors that Irvin died as a direct result of taking Vioxx.

December 12, 2005: The judge in the first federal Vioxx case declares a mistrial after the jury reported that it was deadlocked.

February 6, 2006: The retrial of the first federal lawsuit against the manufacturers of Vioxx begins in New Orleans with jury selection.

February 17, 2006: A federal jury clears Merck of responsibility in the death of a Florida man who had taken Vioxx in the first federal lawsuit over Vioxx.

March 6, 2006: Opening statements begin in the second New Jersey state trial against New Jersey-based Merck, with plaintiffs alleging that damage occurred through the long-term use of the drug, an element missing in the previous New Jersey case.

March 31, 2006: A New Jersey appeals court upholds a July 2005 trial court decision to certify a nationwide class of plaintiffs suing Merck for damages relating to Vioxx.

April 5, 2006: New Jersey state court jury renders a split verdict after two days of deliberations in a joint trial that pitted two state residents who took Vioxx against Merck.

April 11, 2006: A jury awards $9 million in punitive damages to a New Jersey man who sued Merck on grounds that his prolonged use of Vioxx caused him to suffer a heart attack, marking the first suit involving facts of long-term use.

April 21, 2006: A Texas state jury finds Merck liable for the death of a 71-year-old man who died from a heart attack within a month of taking Vioxx, in the sixth Vioxx case to reach a verdict.

July 13, 2006: A New Jersey state jury in Atlantic City finds Merck not liable for a woman's heart attack, saying that Merck adequately warned doctors of the health risks from Vioxx, in the seventh Vioxx trial to reach a verdict.

August 2, 2006: A California jury finds Merck not liable for causing the heart attack of 71-year old Stewart Grossberg, determining Vioxx did not cause Grossberg's heart ailments.

August 17, 2006: In the ninth Vioxx trial to reach a verdict, a federal jury in New Orleans finds Merck negligent for failing to warn doctors about the risks associated with taking Vioxx and found that Merck knowingly misrepresented the risks involved.

August 17, 2006: A New Jersey state court vacates a November verdict finding Merck not liable for the heart attack of Frederick Humeston after lawyers for the plaintiff present new evidence showing that Merck withheld evidence during the trial.

August 30, 2006: US District Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the Eastern District of Louisiana throws out a jury verdict holding Merck liable for $50 million in compensatory damages to a retired FBI agent who claimed Vioxx caused his heart attack, calling the award "grossly excessive."

September 26, 2006: In the third federal ruling on Vioxx and the first ruling to involve a claimant who took the drug after the label was changed, a federal jury in Louisiana finds Merck not liable for the heart attack of plaintiff Robert Garry Smith after he took Vioxx for about four months.

October 5, 2006: New Jersey Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee issues an order striking down about 50 lawsuits brought by British plaintiffs in the New Jersey state court against Merck.

October 18, 2006: A civil court in Berlin dismisses two claims against a German distributor of Vioxx, citing plaintiffs' failures in both cases to demonstrate a causal connection between the drug and symptoms.

November 15, 2006: A federal jury sitting in New Orleans rules that Merck is not liable for damages allegedly caused by the heart attack of a Utah man, Charles Laron "Ron" Mason, 64, who had taken the painkiller for a 10 1/2 month period. This was the eleventh Vioxx-related case tried in US courts, and the fourth tried in federal courts.

November 22, 2006: A federal judge in New Orleans rejects a bid to have all federal lawsuits against Merck in connection with Vioxx consolidated in a single national class action against the company.

December 13, 2006: In the fifth federal Vioxx trial, a jury in New Orleans returns a verdict in favor of Merck, concluding that the company did not fail to adequately warn a Tennessee man's doctors about risks associated with Vioxx.

December 15, 2006: Marking Merck's fourth state victory, an Alabama jury returns a verdict in favor of Merck, concluding that Vioxx did not cause the plaintiff in the case to suffer a heart attack.

January 18, 2007: A jury in California cannot reach a decision on the third of a series of questions on a verdict form in the consolidated cases of two men who blamed their heart attacks on Vioxx, leading Judge Victoria Chaney of the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County to declare a mistrial.

March 5, 2007: A New Jersey superior court judge upholds a jury verdict for Merck, finding that the company had given adequate warning to physicians of the risks associated with Vioxx.

March 12, 2007: A separate New Jersey jury awards a plaintiff $20 million in the latest Vioxx litigation. During the first phase of the trial, the jury found that Merck had not adequately warned doctors and consumers about the increased risk of heart attack associated with the drug.

March 27, 2007: An Illinois jury sides with Merck in the latest Vioxx litigation, holding that the painkiller was not the cause of the 2003 death of 52-year-old Patty Schwaller.

April 13, 2007: A New Jersey federal judge dismisses a class action brought by investors of Merck, ruling that the suit was filed after the statute of limitations had run. The investors had said that Merck had deliberately concealed information from them about the safety record of its arthritis drug Vioxx.

June 6, 2007: US District Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the US Eastern District of Louisiana modifies his 2006 ruling that rejected a $51 million jury award against Merck, offering the plaintiff $600,000 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages.

July 31, 2007: The New Jersey Superior Court affirmes a lower court decision that New Jersey is not an appropriate forum for 98 English and Welsh plaintiffs to proceed with personal injury lawsuits against New Jersey-based Merck, rejecting the plaintiffs' assertions that their remedies under UK law will be inadequate.

September 6, 2007: The New Jersey Supreme Court dismisses a class action lawsuit filed against Merck, reversing a lower court's decision to grant nationwide class certification in the case.

September 17, 2007: New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg file a joint lawsuit against Merck, alleging that the company misrepresented known dangers associated with Vioxx, causing millions of taxpayer dollars to be wasted.

November 9, 2007: Merck says it has agreed to pay $4.85 billion to settle all pending lawsuits regarding Merck's marketing and distribution of Vioxx.

May 14, 2008: A Texas appeals court overturns a verdict finding Merck liable for the death of a 71-year-old man who died from a heart attack within a month of taking Vioxx.

May 20, 2008: Merck agrees to pay $58 million to settle lawsuits regarding its allegedly deceptive advertising for Vioxx.

May 30, 2008: NJ Appellate Division reduces a jury award in a consolidated Vioxx lawsuit, finding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to punitive damages.

September 10, 2008: The US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reinstates a class-action lawsuit against Merck.

October 2, 2008: Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum files a lawsuit against Merck alleging deceptive marketing in promoting Vioxx.

Stem Cell Research

---

August 26, 2004: The FBI helps to investigate an explosion at a stem-cell research laboratory near Boston.

February 22, 2005: A California public interest group files a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the $3 billion stem cell research funding institution authorized by California voters the previous November.

March 8, 2005: In a split 84-34 vote that is being claimed as a symbolic victory for the Bush administration, the UN General Assembly urges governments to enact a total ban on human cloning, including the cloning of embryos for stem cell research.

March 30, 2005: The Massachusetts Senate approves a bill to loosen restrictions on scientists conducting stem cell research.

May 20, 2005: US President George W. Bush threatens to veto any legislation that would ease restrictions on federally funded stem cell research.

May 31, 2005: The Massachusetts legislature overrides a veto by Gov. Mitt Romney on a bill allowing scientists seeking to do stem cell research in Massachusetts to bypass approval from the local district attorney.

June 23, 2005: The Wisconsin Assembly votes to approve one of the country's broadest bans on human cloning in the state where embryonic stem cell research was pioneered and a huge biotechnology infrastructure exists.

June 30, 2005: Ohio Governor Bob Taft vetoes as too restrictive a ban on using funds from a high-tech job initiative to pay for embryonic stem cell research.

July 31, 2005: Stem cell bill sponsor Sen. Arlen Specter says that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist gave his position a "a big boost" after changing his stance and supporting Specter's plan to ease restrictions on embryonic stem cell research and provide it with more federal dollars for research.

September 29, 2005: Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle says that he will veto a ban on human cloning approved by the state senate by a margin of 21-12.

October 11, 2005: A coalition including medical professionals from the University of Missouri and Washington University, the American Diabetes Association and the Parkinson's Action Network propose a Missouri constitutional amendment that would specify that stem cell research, cures, and therapies allowed under federal law are also allowed under state law.

November 3, 2005: Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle vetoes a ban on human cloning. In a statement, Doyle said "The real purpose of this bill is to restrict stem cell research, which holds enormous potential..."

April 21, 2006: A Superior Court judge in California throws out a lawsuit challenging the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the $3 billion stem cell research program that was approved in Proposition 71, approved by California voters in a 2004 referendum.

June 29, 2006: A leading member of the Catholic Church expresses concern that the Church could be prosecuted for some of its traditional religious positions against abortion, same-sex marriage and stem cell research.

July 18, 2006: The US Senate votes to increase federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, but the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act falls four votes shy of the two-thirds supermajority needed to survive an expected White House veto.

July 19, 2006: President Bush vetoes a bill to increase federal funding for embryonic stem cell research in what is the first presidential veto during his time in office.

November 7, 2006: Missouri voters narrowly approve Constitutional Amendment #2, a stem cell initiative that would prevent Missouri from criminalizing the use of stem cells in certain techniques such as therapeutic cloning.

January 11, 2007: The US House of Representatives passes HR 3, which would amend the Public Health Service Act to allow for additional embryonic stem cell research. The White House promises to veto the bill.

February 26, 2007: A California state appeals court rules that the state's stem cell research program "suffers from no constitutional or other legal infirmity," leading the way for approximately $3 billion in grant money to be awarded to researchers.

March 30, 2007: Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick says he plans to reverse the restrictions placed on stem cell research by former governor Mitt Romney.

April 10, 2007: The White House announces that President Bush will refuse to endorse legislation that would subsidize stem cell research and would veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007.

April 11, 2007: The US Senate approves the Stem Cell Enhancement Act of 2007 despite President Bush’s veto warning.

May 17, 2007: The CA Supreme Court denies review of a lower court ruling, effectively allowing the continuation of a state-sponsored program for stem cell research.

June 7, 2007: The US House of Representatives passes the Stem Cell Enhancement Act of 2007, sending it to President Bush for signature.

June 20, 2007: President Bush vetoes the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which would have relaxed funding restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.

November 5, 2008: Michigan voters approve a proposed constitutional amendment allowing stem cell research under certain conditions.

Same-Sex Marriage Internationally

---

September 17, 2003: Canadian Members of Parliament defeat an Opposition motion reaffirming the heterosexual definition of marriage by a vote of 137-132.

March 19, 2004:The Quebec Court of Appeal, the province's high court, holds that same-sex couples have the right to marry.

March 31, 2004: A new bill unveiled by Britain and expected to be passed by year's end gives legal recognition for the first time to same-sex couples who register their partnerships.

May 27, 2004: Australian Prime Minister John Howard pushes forward legislation today that would ban same sex marriage in Australia and would stop gay couples from adopting foreign children.

June 5, 2004: In the southwestern French town of Begles, two men are wed by the town's mayor in the first same-sex marriage in France.

June 15, 2004: French Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin suspends Noel Mamere, the mayor of Begles, from his job for one month for conducting a gay marriage without proper authority.

July 27, 2004: A French court declared the country's first same-sex marriage "null and void."

August 13, 2004: The Australian Senate votes in favor of a bill banning same-sex marriage, with supporters saying the bill was in line with the common law definition of marriage.

September 13, 2004: The Washington Post includes a piece on Pope John Paul II, weighing in on gay marriage, telling bishops that efforts to equate marriage between man and woman to other forms of cohabitation violated "God's plan for humanity."

Also, Ontario Superior Court Justice Ruth Mesbur strikes down as contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms a section of the Canadian federal Divorce Act that had defined spouse as "either a man or woman who are married to each other," allowing a same-sex lesbian couple married under provincial law to divorce.

September 16, 2004: Manitoba becomes the fourth province in Canada to legalize same-sex marriage, following Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia.

September 24, 2004: The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia rules that same-sex marriages are legal, making it the sixth province to do so.

October 1, 2004: The Spanish government approves a draft law to legalize same-sex marriage.

October 30, 2004: The upper house of the German Parliament passes legislation that greatly expands the rights of same-sex couples.

November 5, 2004: A Saskatchewan judge rules that a Canadian federal law on marriage is unconstitutional, making it the seventh jurisdiction in the country to approve same-sex marriages.

November 9, 2004: An Irish judge rules that a lesbian couple who were married in Canada can seek state recognition of their marriage.

November 15, 2004: Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern says that Ireland should give greater rights to same-sex couples.

November 20, 2004: Irish Justice Minister Michael McDowell says that Ireland should pursue civil partnerships for unwed couples, both heterosexual and homosexual, but should not institute a full process for 'gay marriage.'

December 5, 2005: Registration for same-sex couples to apply for a civil partnership ceremony under the UK Civil Partnership Act 2004 begins.

December 9, 2004: The Supreme Court of Canada approves a proposed federal law that would make same-sex marriage legal across Canada.

December 10, 2004: The New Zealand Parliament approves legislation recognizing same-sex civil unions, giving same-sex couples the same rights, entitlements, and obligations as married couples.

January 19, 2005: Two Russian men unsuccessfully try to register for a marriage certificate in Moscow in an effort to provide legal grounds to challenge the Russian family code.

February 1, 2005: Canadian Justice Minister Irwin Cotler introduces what he terms "landmark legislation" to legalize same-sex marriage in Canadian federal law.

February 10, 2005: Some Canadian MPs report that they have been lobbied by US citizens and advocacy groups over pending federal legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage.

February 15, 2005: The Russian Supreme Court rejects a petition for the legalization of same-sex marriage, holding that it cannot alter the Russian Family Code to allow for same-sex marriages.

February 21, 2005: The British government announces that same-sex partners will be able to enter into civil unions starting in December.

April 22, 2005: The lower house of the Spanish Parliament approves a bill to legalize same-sex marriages.

May 5, 2005: The Canadian House of Commons votes to give a second reading to Bill C-38, a measure to implement the Civil Marriage Act and extend marriage rights to same-sex couples.

June 6, 2006: Pope Benedict XVI speaks out against same-sex marriage while addressing a group at Rome's St. John's Cathedral.

June 19, 2005: Hundreds of thousands of protesters converge on Madrid to protest proposed legislation that would recognize same sex marriage.

June 28, 2005: Canada's House of Commons passes a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage across Canada.

June 30, 2005: Despite being voted down in the Senate, the Spanish parliament passes a law legalizing same-sex marriage and allowing same-sex couples to adopt and inherit each other's property.

Also, the Spanish Catholic Bishops Conference call for citizens to publicly oppose the law "through all legitimate means".

July 20, 2005: In the absence of the Canadian Governor General, Canadian Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin signs Bill C-38 into law, making Canada the fourth nation in the world to legalize gay marriage.

August 24, 2005: Aruba's Superior Court rules that a lesbian couple legally married in the Netherlands has the right to register their marriage in the autonomous Caribbean republic that is part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands even though same-sex marriage is not authorized under Aruba's civil code.

September 30, 2005: Spain's conservative Popular Party files a constitutional challenge against a law passed earlier in the year which legalizes gay marriage.

November 1, 2005: A same-sex couple petitions the Israeli High Court of Justice to force the country's Population Registry to recognize their same-sex marriage, performed legally in Toronto, Canada.

December 1, 2005: The South African Constitutional Court rules that it is unconstitutional to prohibit gay couples from marrying, giving parliament one year to amend the 1961 Marriage Act to allow same-sex marriage.

December 15, 2005: The unicameral Latvian parliament overwhelmingly passes a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, effectively blocking the recognition of same-sex marriage.

December 22, 2005: Nearly 700 same-sex couples in Britain take part in civil partnership ceremonies on the first day of eligibility under Britain's Civil Partnership Act.

January 19, 2006: Nigeria's government announces plans to ban same-sex marriage and any protests urging same-sex unions.

April 7, 2006: Canadian Conservative Party Prime Minister Stephen Harper says that he intends to hold a free vote in the Canadian Parliament about whether to revive debate on a federal law permitting same-sex marriages that was passed by the Liberal Party government of former Prime Minister Paul Martin.

May 11, 2006: Pope Benedict explicitly condemns same-sex marriage or any legal recognition of same-sex couples as Italy's new center-left government prepares to take office in the coming week.

May 12, 2006: A new report by the Irish Human Rights Commission is released that finds that Ireland may be in breach of international human rights laws because the country does not currently recognize same-sex marriages.

May 31, 2006: Costa Rica's Supreme Court upholds a law forbidding same-sex marriage, rejecting arguments that the law is unconstitutional.

June 6, 2006: A British lesbian couple married in British Columbia, Canada, argue in the High Court in London that their same-sex marriage should be recognized in British law, challenging the Civil Partnership Act 2004 which only accords same-sex couples who legally marry overseas the recognition of a civil union.

June 7, 2006: Australian Prime Minister John Howard and his Cabinet announce that the federal government will set aside legislation allowing same-sex civil unions in the Australian Capital Territory, the federal district that includes Canberra.

July 31, 2006: The UK High Court denies a bid by a British lesbian couple married in Canada to have their marriage recognized by British law.

August 24, 2006: South Africa's cabinet sends a civil unions bill to the parliament that would place same-sex partnerships on equal footing with traditional marriages.

September 17, 2006: Thousands of protesters take to the streets across South Africa demonstrating against same-sex marriage as South Africa's parliament prepares to hold hearings on a bill that would place same-sex partnerships on equal footing with traditional marriage.

November 14, 2006: The South African National Assembly passes the Civil Unions Bill.

November 21, 2006: The Supreme Court of Israel rules that same-sex marriages ordained abroad must be recognized by the state.

November 30, 2006: South African Deputy President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka approves the country's Civil Unions Bill, becoming the first African nation to recognize same-sex unions.

December 7, 2006: Canada's House of Commons votes against reopening debate on same-sex marriage, effectively upholding Canada's 2005 law allowing equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.

December 8, 2006: Italian Senate officials say that lawmakers are planning to draft legislation that would give some legal recognition to same-sex unions.

December 12, 2006: The government of the Australian Capital Territory introduces revised legislation that would grant legal recognition to same-sex partnerships but would stop short of authorizing same-sex marriage.

December 15, 2006: Ireland's High Court refuses to recognize the same-sex marriage of a lesbian couple married in Canada in 2003.

December 22, 2006: Pope Benedict XVI condemns proposed Italian legislation that would recognize civil unions for unmarried couples, including same-sex couples.

January 10, 2007: Northern Ireland must abide by a gay rights bill that came into effect January 1 after the House of Lords votes to keep the regulations in place.

January 23, 2007: The head of Catholic bishops in Italy denounces a plan by the Italian government to give same-sex couples many of the rights that heterosexual couples enjoy.

January 29, 2007: Italian Justice Minister Clemente Mastella says that he will refuse to vote for a proposed law that would give same-sex couples many of the rights of heterosexual couples.

February 9, 2007: Italy's Cabinet approves a controversial proposal that would give legal rights to unmarried heterosexual and same-sex couples.

Also, the Constitutional Court of Colombia rules that same-sex couples must be accorded the same property rights as other unmarried couples.

February 23, 2007: UN human rights experts say a proposed Nigerian law banning gay marriage and tightening laws criminalizing homosexuality in the country, which authorizes a maximum five-year sentence for any person found to be openly gay, will make persons engaging in same sex relationships more susceptible to arbitrary arrests, detention, torture and ill-treatment.

March 1, 2007: The Supreme Court of Canada rules that the Canadian Parliament’s 2000 decision to deny survivor pension benefits to persons in same-sex relationships was unconstitutional discrimination.

March 13, 2007: The high court of France holds that same-sex marriages are not valid under French law and that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

June 15, 2007: Colombia's Congress approves legislation giving same-sex couples who have cohabited for over two years similar rights as regular common law marriages.

June 20, 2007: The Colombian Senate votes against legislation giving certain same-sex couples rights similar to common law marriage.

September 4, 2007: A Malaysian judge rules that a five-year marriage between two local citizens is void after finding that the husband is actually a woman.

November 1, 2007: Ireland says it will introduce new legislation next year recognizing the rights of both same-sex and unmarried heterosexual couples to enter into civil unions. [Features video]

December 18, 2007: The Hungarian parliament votes to recognize civil partnerships between same-sex couples, giving them certain rights in common with married heterosexual couples.

March 15, 2008: The Norwegian government proposes a law that would grant same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples.

March 31, 2008: The Greek Ministry of Justice agrees to establish a working group to analyze the potential impact of recognizing same-sex civil marriages in Greece.

April 1, 2008: The European Court of Justice rules that a person in a same-sex partnership has the right to collect their partner's pension benefits after that partner's death.

April 19, 2008: The Constitutional Court of Colombia holds that same-sex couples should be given the same pension and health benefits as those held by opposite-sex couples.

May 5, 2008: The Australian Capital Territory abandons a proposal to legally recognize same-sex civil union ceremonies.

May 9, 2008: The Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory passes a law that will enable same-sex domestic partners to register their relationships with the government, minus a portion of the legislation which would have legalized same-sex civil union ceremonies.

October 11, 2008: The Portuguese Assembly of the Republic votes overwhelmingly against two proposals to legalize same-sex marriage.

November 19, 2008: The Supreme Court of Nepal directs the government to extend equal rights to gender minorities, including same-sex marriage.

November 20, 2008: The Supreme Court of California agrees to hear challenges to Proposition 8.

November 22, 2008: The parliament of Burundi votes in favor of a law criminalizing homosexuality.

November 25, 2008: The Australian Senate approves legislation allowing same-sex couples to enjoy most of the same rights as heterosexual couples, but not the right to marry.

December 19, 2008: The UN General Assembly splits over the issue of decriminalizing homosexuality with 66 nations signing a statement calling for decriminalization, and nearly 60 nations signing an opposing statement.

Same-Sex Marriage in the United States

---

November 18, 2003: The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts rejects a ban on gay marriage, calling it unconstitutional, in the much-awaited landmark case Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, brought by seven gay couples who were denied marriage licenses in the state.

November 19, 2003: Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney says that in the wake of the ruling by the state Supreme Judicial Court indicating that gay couples have a right to marry under the current Massachusetts Constitution, he will support a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual unions.

January 12, 2004: The leader of Boston's Roman Catholic Archdiocese asks Catholic lawyers and judges to oppose gay marriage, saying the institutions of marriage and family are under assault.

February 4, 2004: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issues an advisory opinion requested by the legislature for clarification on a civil unions bill, ruling that anything other than the right to marry for same-sex couples is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

February 13, 2004: The Massachusetts Constitutional Convention ends with no agreement among legislators on proposed amendments relating to same-sex marriage. As a result, Goodridge v. Department of Health, the last word of the Supreme Judicial Court on the subject, essentially legalizing gay marriage, is left intact for the time being.

March 11, 2004: The Massachusetts House and Senate reconvene with a compromise in sight consisting of a constitutional amendment sponsored by Senate President Travaglini which would ban gay marriage while establishing same-sex civil unions.

April 16, 2004: Massachusetts Governor Matt Romney asks the Massachusetts legislature for special authorization to seek a stay of the ruling that would otherwise legalize same-sex marriage in Massachusetts mid-May.

April 21, 2004: The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts files a petition with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court asking for a delay of same-sex marriages until a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage can be voted on.

May 4, 2004: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Justice Roderick Ireland rejects a last-minute application by the Massachusetts Catholic Action League for a stay of the Court's landmark gay marriage ruling.

May 10, 2004: Liberty Counsel and other conservative groups file a motion in federal court seeking to block the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts after similar attempts filed in state court failed.

May 14, 2004: US District Judge Joseph Tauro rejects an effort by conservative groups to prevent gay marriages from taking place in Massachusetts.

Also, the US Supreme Court refuses to block the first state-sanctioned gay marriages in the United states from starting in Massachusetts.

May 17, 2004: Massachusetts becomes the first state to legalize gay marriage.

Also, reacting to the first state-authorized same-sex marriages that began in Massachusetts, President Bush renews his call for a Constitutional amendment banning the practice.

May 21, 2004: Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly orders four clerks to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples from out-of-state.

June 2, 2004: State lawmakers in Massachusetts renew efforts to oust Supreme Judicial Court justices who signed the majority opinion that made same sex marriage legal in Massachusetts.

June 29, 2004: Federal appeals court says that the Massachusetts court acted within the US Constitution when issuing same-sex marriage decision.

November 29, 2004: The US Supreme Court declines to hear a challenge to last year's Massachusetts high court decision legalizing same-sex marriage.

May 3, 2005: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court hears a bid to restrain same-sex couples from marrying until state residents can vote on a proposed state constitutional amendment banning such marriages.

June 16, 2005: Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney announces his support of a drive to put before state voters a proposed constitutional amendment to ban both same-sex marriage and civil unions.

September 14, 2005: The Massachusetts state legislature rejects a proposed state constitutional amendment that would have banned gay marriage but allowed civil unions.

December 7, 2005: Supporters of a ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage in Massachusetts deliver 170,000 signatures to the secretary of state, moving them one step closer to putting the initiative on the ballot in 2008.

January 3, 2006: Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders file a complaint against Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly, seeking to overturn Reilly's September decision to allow a ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage to proceed.

March 30, 2006: The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts rules that same-sex couples from outside of Massachusetts cannot marry in the state.

July 10, 2006: The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts rules that a proposed state constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage can be placed on the ballot for voter approval, if the amendment is approved by the state legislature.

November 24, 2006: Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney files a request with the state's Supreme Judicial Court to put a measure effectively banning same-sex marriage on the 2008 Massachusetts ballot if legislators fail to vote on the issue before the end of their term on January 2.

December 27, 2006: The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts rules unanimously that it could not force the state legislature to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

January 2, 2007: Massachusetts lawmakers push forward a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

February 17, 2007: NJ AG Stuart Rabner says that same-sex marriages and civil unions from out-of-state jurisdictions will be afforded "all of the rights and benefits of marriage" under New Jersey's civil unions law.

February 21, 2007: Rhode Island recognizes same-sex marriages of state employees performed in Massachusetts.

February 24, 2007: US District Judge Mark Wolf dismisses a lawsuit against a MA town that allows its public school system to teach children about same-sex marriage brought by two families of elementary school students arguing that the school's actions violated their right to free exercise of religion.

April 3, 2007: Gov. Patrick directs the MA Dept. of Public Health to register the same-sex marriages of 26 couples from outside the state who were married by four MA towns despite an order by former Gov. Romney not to marry out-of-state same-sex couples.

May 16, 2007: Suffolk County Superior Court holds as valid the marriages of same-sex couples from NY who married in MA before the NY Court of Appeals upheld a ban on New York same-sex marriage.

June 14, 2007: The MA legislature votes against allowing a statewide vote on a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

July 26, 2007: The MA Registry of Vital Records says that because the New Mexico government has not explicitly banned same-sex marriage, MA may issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples from that state.

May 15, 2008: The Supreme Court of California overturns a state ban on same-sex marriage, ruling 4-3 in In re Marriage Cases.

May 23, 2008: Alliance Defense Fund petitions the Supreme Court of CA to stay its decision overturning a ban on same-sex marriage.

May 29, 2008: NY Governor David Paterson orders all state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages from other states as legal marriages for purposes of NY law.

Also, CA Deputy State Registrar Janet McKee issues a memorandum setting June 17 as the start date for issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

May 31, 2008: Ten US state attorneys general petition the Supreme Court of CA to postpone implementation of its decision legalizing same-sex marriages until after state elections in November.

June 3, 2008: California Secretary of State Debra Bowen announces that a ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage will appear on the November ballot.

June 4, 2008: The Supreme Court of CA denies bids by two conservative groups to stay the Court's decision overturning a ban on same-sex marriage in the state.

June 17, 2008: The Supreme Court of CA ruling which overturned a state ban on same-sex marriage takes effect.

June 18, 2008: The CA First District Court of Appeal rejects a petition by an anti-same-sex marriage group to block the issuance of sex-neutral marriages licenses.

July 12, 2008: The MA Supreme Judicial Court rules that couples married after the court's decision legalizing same-sex marriage cannot make claims for benefits they would have received had they been allowed to marry sooner.

July 16, 2008: The MA Senate passes a bill to repeal a law which bars people from marrying in MA if their own state would not recognize such a union.

July 17, 2008: The CA Supreme Court rejects a challenge seeking to remove a November ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriage in the state.

July 30, 2008: The MA House of Representatives votes in favor of a bill to repeal a law barring people from marrying in MA if their own state would not recognize such a union.

Also, the New York Civil Liberties Union announces that health insurance company BlueCross BlueShield of Western New York has agreed to extend health-care benefits to spouses in validly married same-sex couples.

August 15, 2008: The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rules that Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury did not violate the constitutional rights of voters who signed a petition to hold a referendum on a state law establishing same-sex domestic partnerships when he struck over 200 signatures.

September 3, 2008: The New York State Supreme Court dismisses a lawsuit challenging the decision made by NY Governor David Paterson recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages.

October 10, 2008: The Connecticut Supreme Court rules that the Connecticut Constitution requires that same-sex couples be allowed to marry.

October 27, 2008: A pending California ballot initiative to eliminate same-sex marriage in the state generates more than $60 million in contributions to committees representing both sides.

November 5, 2008: A constitutional amendment in California and similar measures in Arizona and Florida ban same-sex marriages in those states.

November 6, 2008: Rights groups file a writ petition seeking to invalidate California’s state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage.

November 9, 2008: Demonstrators in San Diego and Los Angeles protest the passage of Proposition 8, California’s constitutional amendment making same-sex marriages illegal.

November 13, 2008: Connecticut Superior Court Judge Jonathan Silbert signs a final order allowing same-sex marriage in the state.

November 18, 2008: California AG Jerry Brown urges the state Supreme Court to review the petitions regarding the recent passage of Proposition 8.

December 20, 2008: CA AG Edmund Brown Jr. urges the Supreme Court of California to declare Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

Overcrowded Prisons

---

April 25, 2005: The US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that prison incarceration rates for 2003-2004 hit an all-time high, with nearly 2.3 percent of the population being jailed for some length of time.

May 11, 2005: A federal judge threatens to take over the California prison health care system, citing "terrible" medical care that prisoners receive.

July 1, 2005: Carrying out his May threat to take over the California prison health care system, US District Judge Thelton Henderson says he will appoint an independent overseer for the medical facilities.

November 3, 2005: The number of adults in prison is on the rise in the United States, according to a report released by the US Justice Department.

January 3, 2006: According to records released by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 44 convicts out of a total California prison population of 164,000 committed suicide during 2005, an increase from 26 in 2004 and 36 in 2003, the previous record.

February 26, 2006: California Youth and Adult Corrections Secretary Roderick Hickman says that he is resigning his post after a two year attempt to reform California's prison system.

May 22, 2006: The US prison and jail population added prisoners from mid-2004 to mid-2005 at a rate of 2.6 percent and more than 1,000 new inmates a week, reaching a total of 2,186,230 inmates behind bars according to a Justice Department Bureau of Justice Statistics report.

June 22, 2006: A federal watchdog charged with overseeing California prison reform releases a report saying that an abrupt reversal in policy by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger prompted two secretaries of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to resign earlier this year.

October 5, 2006: California Gov. Schwarzenegger issues an emergency proclamation to relieve prison overcrowding by allowing inmates to be transferred to other states.

October 8, 2006: Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers express doubts about whether non-violent offenders are actually rehabilitated in prison during an interview published in the British newspaper The Observer.

October 9, 2006: British Home Secretary John Reid outlines steps to combat the increasingly urgent problem of prison overcrowding. The prison population of England and Wales reaches a record of 79,843, theoretically leaving space available for only 125 more prisoners.

October 21, 2006: UK Home Secretary John Reid solicits bids for the provision of prison ships to house approximately 800 inmates to relieve pressure on Britain's overcrowded jails.

October 28, 2006: In response to a suit by the ACLU seeking to remedy "almost unspeakable conditions" in county jails, a federal judge issues a temporary restraining order designed to alleviate crowded conditions in California's Los Angeles County jail system.

November 4, 2006: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation begins transferring inmates to private detention centers in other states to alleviate overcrowding under the terms of California Gov. Schwarzenegger's October 4 emergency proclamation.

December 12, 2006: US District Judge Lawrence Karlton says that the state of California has six months to remedy overcrowding in the state's prison system, which is 70 percent over capacity with 173,000 total inmates, before he will decide whether to establish a three-member judicial panel to make recommendations to fix the problem.

December 25, 2006: A recent UK Home Office report prepared for Prime Minister Tony Blair details the country's first increase in crime since the mid-1990s and predicts a massive 25% increase in its prison population over the next five years, according to the Sunday Times.

January 24, 2007: UK Home Secretary John Reid, Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer, and Attorney General Lord Goldsmith write to British judges urging them to limit imposition of prison sentences to only the most dangerous criminals in order to help the government deal with prison overcrowding.

February 20, 2007: The Sacramento County Superior Court strikes down a plan by California Governor Schwarzenegger to transfer prisoners to private out-of-state facilities in order to reduce prison overcrowding.

February 23, 2007: Governor Schwarzenegger announces a plan to release some prisoners convicted of nonviolent crime to alleviate the burden on California's overcrowded prison system.

April 27, 2007: CA state legislators approve an $8.3 billion dollar program to construct new facilities as part of an effort to alleviate California's overcrowded prisons.

May 4, 2007: CA Gov. Schwarzenegger signs the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007, allotting $7.7M for the construction of new prison facilities.

June 19, 2007: The UK justice minister gives authority to prison governors to grant early release to offenders who are coming to the end of their sentence in an effort to ease prison overcrowding across England and Wales.

November 20, 2007: JFA Institute, a Washington criminal justice research group, reports that the US prison population is currently eight times as high as it was in 1970.

December 6, 2007: A report by the DOJ indicates that over seven million men and women were in prison, in jail, or on probation or parole in the US in 2006, accounting for 1 in every 31 adults, including a 43 percent increase in the number of prisoners held at Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities.

March 16, 2008: District Judge Thelton Henderson says he is "hopeful" that a court battle between the state of CA and inmate advocacy groups over state prison conditions could be resolved before trial.

May 13, 2008: CA Governor Schwarzenegger abandons a plan to release approximately 22,000 "lower risk" prisoners as part of a proposal intended to alleviate severe prison overcrowding.

June 6, 2008: The US DOJ releases two new reports detailing increased populations in American jails and prisons, showing that the US prison population increased by 1.5 percent from mid-year 2006 to mid-year 2007.