Same-sex marriage has been legal in Guam since June 9, 2015 in accordance with a ruling from the District Court of Guam on June 5 that the territory's prohibition of same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Guam was the first overseas territory of the United States to recognize same-sex marriage. On August 27, 2015, the Guam Marriage Equality Act of 2015 passed by the Guam Legislature came into effect, officially incorporating the federal court ruling into statutory law.
Marriage statutes
The Guam Organic Act of 1950, an Act of the United States Congress, does not address the question of marriage. Since August 2015, Guam's marriage statutes have recognised the marriages of same-sex couples. Previously, a 1994 law specifying the responsibilities of the Guam Department of Public Health and Social Services defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. That law, which contained a prohibition on marriage "between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews", arguably showed Guam anticipated recognising only opposite-sex marriages. The law stipulated that parties "must declare in the presence of the person solemnizing the marriage that they take each other as husband and wife." With respect to marriages from other jurisdictions, the statutes stated:
The 1994 law, which set standards and procedures for the Guam Department of Public Health and Social Services, included this definition:
Federal courts in Guam are subject to the precedents set in 2014 by the decisions of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Latta v. Otter and Sevcik v. Sandoval, which found Idaho's and Nevada's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples unconstitutional. The District Court of Guam noted this precedent in its June 2015 ruling permanently enjoining Guam officials from enforcing the 1994 law "or any other laws or regulations to the extent they prohibit otherwise qualified same-sex couples from marrying in Guam".
2015 equality legislation
Following the District Court of Guam's June 2015 ruling permanently enjoining Guam officials from enforcing the 1994 law banning same-sex marriage and the U.S Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, Guam legislators on August 12, 2015 passed the Guam Marriage Equality Act of 2015, which created legal equality in civil marriage. The bill passed by a margin of 13–2 in the Legislature of Guam. It took effect on August 27, 2015.
The law amended the definition of marriage in Guam law to the following:
Proposed legislation
Legislation to permit civil unions (, ) was first discussed in the mid 2000s. After Vermont enacted same-sex marriage legislation in 2009, the 27th Guam Youth Congress, an advisory body which submits legislation to committees of the Legislature of Guam, forwarded a bill to legalize civil unions, with the bill being supported by Speaker Derick Baza Hills. A similar measure failed in the 25th Guam Youth Congress by just one vote. Citing recent rulings in the courts such as the unanimous decision overturning the ban on same-sex marriage in Iowa, Hills later commented that the courts would be essential to make sure we "allow for equal rights". While same-sex marriage was then not being considered in Guam, Hills made sure to point out that "We do have advocates in the Legislature [who support same-sex civil unions] ... I do feel and know that there are senators comfortable supporting this legislation". Hills called on the Legislature to introduce legislation to create such unions, though the extent of rights to be granted was unknown.
On June 3, 2009, Vice-Speaker Benjamin Cruz introduced Bill No. 138, which would have established same-sex civil unions providing all of the rights and benefits of civil marriage. The bill was heavily condemned by the Catholic Church, and it did not get sufficient votes to make it to the session floor. Due to opposition to the bill within the religious community, Bill No. 185 and Bill No. 212 were introduced by proponents of same-sex unions should the civil union bill fail to pass. Bill No. 212 mirrored the bill passed in Hawaii that provided significantly limited rights. It would have established a "Designated Beneficiary Agreement", and unlike civil unions, would have been open to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Both bills also failed to pass.