Marriage Equality USA

Stay Informed

Back to Map

State of Texas
All in this Region

Current Status

  • 1 case in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, 4 cases in the 5th Federal District, 2 cases in the Texas Supreme Court, and 1 case in the state Appeals Court.


  • Texas is home of the historic legal case Lawrence v. Texasin which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in thirteen other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory. 
  • Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships from 2005 until 26 June 2015, per Proposition 2.

Legislation - Pending

Over 20 anti-Gay pieces of legislation were defeated this session!

28 May 2015, One Final Indignity - By Jose TFN (Texas Freedom Network) Insider

Legislation - Enacted


Lawsuits - Pending

State of Texas v. U.S.A. U.S. Dept. of Labor

Case#: 7:15-cv-56
Date Filed: 18 March 2015
Court Level: Federal District Court (U.S. District Court for the Northern District)
Date of Appeal:


  • 18 March 2015, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed suit to challenge the Obama administration on a new rule that would allow married same-sex couples to be eligible for the Family & Medical Leave Act, even in states that don’t recognize their unions. Paxton said the lawsuit is “about defending the sovereignty of our state,” which has a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. 
  • 18 March 2015, Texas AG files lawsuit against FMLA rule for same-sex couples - By Chris Johnson, Washington Blade
  • 25 March 2015, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint.
  • 23 April 2015, a Joint Status Report and Proposed Brief Schedule were filed.
    Proposed schedule as to briefing on the preliminary injunction and additional motions.
    "The Federal Government intends to file a motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs intend to file a motion for relief concerning the scope of the preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs interpret the existing preliminary injunction order as reaching more broadly than the defendants have interpreted the order, see Defs.’ Req. for Hr’g 1–3, ECF No. 19, and thus the parties differ in their view of the nature of the relief sought by the plaintiffs’ motion. The defendants view the plaintiffs’ anticipated motion as a motion to expand the preliminary injunction, while the plaintiffs view that motion as a motion to modify or clarify the preliminary injunction."
  • 23 April 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to file a Second Amended Complaint.
  • 24 April 2015, Georgia joined this lawsuit (second amended complaint was filed).
  • 24 April 2015, the DOJ (for the defendants) asked for and was granted a partial stay of the proceedings pending a decision in the Supreme Court marriage cases. The case will be stayed EXCEPT for proceedings related to the preliminary injunction that was entered by the Court on March 26.
  • 24 April 2015, a briefing schedule was set for the parties' motions as to the preliminary injunction.
  • 27 April 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction, which was filed on April 27.
  • 14 May 2015, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to lifting the stay and the DOJ's interpretation as to the scope of the injunction.
  • 28 May 2015, defendants USA filed Reply in support of dissolving preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion to expand the injunction is due June 11.
Goodfriend v. DeBeauvoir

Case #: 15-0139 (TX Supreme Court)1:13-cv-00955-SS (Trial Court)
Court Level: Texas Supreme Court
Date Filed: 18 February 2015
Date of Ruling:


In re State of Texas Relator (Estate of Stella Marie Powell, Deceased)

Case #: 15-0135 (TX Supreme Court); C-1-PB-14-001695 (Trial Court)
Court Level: Texas Supreme Court
Date Filed: November 2014
Date of Appeal: 19 February 2015


  • November 2014, an Austin woman, Sonemaly Phrasavath, challenged Texas’ ban on same-sex marriage after her spouse, Stella Marie Powell, died of cancer earlier in 2014. Phrasavath fought for the two to legally be recognized as a married couple.
  • 12 November 2014, Austin woman challenging same-sex marriage ban - By Angie Beavin, KXAN
  • 16 February 2015, Phrasavath’s lawyer, Brian Thompson, asked Travis County Probate Judge Guy Herman to declare the Texas ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional, then rule that Phrasavath is entitled to a share of Powell’s estate because their relationship otherwise met the legal definition of a common-law marriage.
  • 17 February 2015, Judge Herman ruled that the Texas ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
  • Michael Knisely, the lawyer for the siblings who opposed Phrasavath’s claim, said no decision has been made on whether to appeal.
  • The ruling doesn’t mean the county will begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples right away. Travis County Clerk Dana DeBeauvoir said she couldn’t begin issuing the licenses until she gathered additional information. Texas newspaper the American Statesman reported that DeBeauvoir "in the past has said that she is ready to begin distributing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as soon as allowed by the courts."
  • 17 February 2015, Travis judge rules Texas marriage ban unconstitutional - By Chuck Lindell, American Statesman
  • 19 February 2015, the Attorney General had previously declined to intervene in the case, but has now asked to do so. Meanwhile, the AG, on behalf of the state, has turned to the Texas Supreme Court, asking the Court to take immediate action to order the probate judge to vacate or stay his order.
  • 19 February 2015, the TX Supreme Court granted the stay.
  • 20 February 2015, the Texas Attorney General's office filed a petition asking the TX Supreme Court to void any marriage licenses issued on 19 February 2015 before the Court issued its stay. See the Goodfriend case immediately above.
  • 20 February 2015, the Court ordered a Response to the AG's mandamus petition.
  • 2 March 2015, plaintiffs requested a time extension and plaintiffs' motion to extend time was granted.
  • 6 March 2015, Texas has asked to file an amended petition in the marriage license case, Goodfriend v. DeBeauvoir (see immediately above), to account for the plaintiffs' dismissing the case in trial court. No action on this unopposed motion yet from the Court. Previously, the respondents in both cases asked to extend the deadline for responding to the petitions; the Court approved their requests. Responses are now due in both cases on 13 April 2015.
Murphy v. Colvin

This case originated in Texas and the plaintiff is a Texan, however, since the lawsuit is against the Social Security Administration, the case is filed in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia - see LAWSUITS-PENDING on our DC page.

In the Matter of the Marriage of A.L.F.L. and K.L.L.

Case #: 2014-CI-02421
Court Level: State Appeal Court of Appeals (4th)
Date Filed: 18 February 2014
Date of Appeal: June 2014


  • This is dissolution of marriage case filed by a lesbian couple (Allison Leona Flood Lesh and Kristi Lyn Leshin) in Bexar County, Texas who had married in Washington and are having a custody dispute.
  • 22 April 2014, state District Judge Barbara Nellermoe ruled that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, paving the way for Flood Lesh and Lesh to proceed with their divorce and subsequent child custody battle. 
  • 24 April 2014, the state intermediate court granted an emergency motion by the state Attorney General to stay that ruling while it considers his motion to vacate the ruling.
  • 28 May 2014, a Petition for Writ of Mandamus was conditionally granted, vacating the trial court’s opinion on the ground that notice of the constitutional challenge was not given to the Texas AG as required by statute.
  • 13 June 2014, a motion for involuntary dismissal was filed by the Appellees.
  • 16 June 2014, the trial court judge vacated her order. The appeal of that order is pending in the 4th Court of Appeals.
Nuckols v. Perry

Case #: Original case #3:13-CV-00245 ( S.D. Tex. )
Court Level: Federal District Court (5th)
Date Filed: Original case filed on 2 July 2013; second case with Lambda Legal filed 9 January 2014
Ruling Date: 16 July 2013 for original suit


  • 2 July 2013, a Galveston man filed a federal lawsuit challenging the TX constitution’s ban on same-sex marriage. (His foreign national partner had been deported in 1986.)
  • 67 July 2013, Nuckols withdrew his suit, after hearing from the ACLU and from Lambda Legal. The pro se plaintiff's stated reason for dismissal was the existence of a similar lawsuit in the state of Pennsylvania. The motion to dismiss was granted was granted by the Honorable Judge Gregg Costa.
  • 9 January 2013, a second suit was filed as a Lambda Legal lawsuit seeking the freedom to marry for unmarried same-sex couples.
  • 13 February 2014, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, but was that motion was held moot due to the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint.
  • 9 April 2014, the court granted a joint motion to stay pending the 5th Circuit’s decision in DeLeon (below).
  • 15 April 2014, amended complaint filed, followed by another motion to dismiss.
  • 28 May 2014, the defendants filed consent to proceed before a magistrate judge.
Freeman v. Parker

Case #: 4:13-cv-375
Court Level: Federal District Court (5th)
Date Filed: 26 December 2013
Date of Appeal:


  • 26 December 2013, Lambda Legal filed a federal lawsuit seeking to restore worker benefits for same-gender spouses.
  • The lawsuit was filed on behalf three City of Houston employees legally married to same-sex spouses in other jurisdictions and follows notification these employees received that the City, one month after extending the coverage to their spouses, was being forced to withdraw these benefits and cancel the coverage.
  • Awaiting judge’s ruling on motion to consolidate with Pidgeon (see below). 
  • 28 August 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion for (1) a preliminary injunction and (2) to stay the proceedings pending final outcome of the challenge to the Texas marriage ban. The City didn't oppose the motion.
Zahrn v. Perry

Case #: 1:13-CV-955-SS
Court Level: Federal District Court (5th)
Date Filed: 31 October 2013
Date of Appeal:


  • 31 October 2013, 2 same-sex couples filed a federal class action sexual-orientation-discrimination suit seeking equal marriage rights for all TX couples, and challenging the TX statutory and constitutional bans on same-gender civil marriage.
  • 9 January 2014, the judge for Cleopatra De Leon, et al., v. TX Governor Rick Perry et al. rejected an effort by the TX attorney general to consolidate this case and Christopher McNosky, et al. v. TX Governor Rick Perry, et al. into the De Leon case. 
  • This case was consolidated with McNosky.
  • 12 March 2014, TX asked the court to stay proceedings in this case pending the outcome at the 5th Circuit of Cleopatra De Leon, et al., v. TX Governor Rick Perry et al. (see below). 
  • 10 September 2014, this case and McNosky v. Perry were granted the hold pending a decision from the 5th Circuit in DeLeon v. Perry (immediately below). The judge also dismissed all pending motions in the cases, saying they could be refiled after the 5th Circuit ruling.
DeLeon v. Perry

Case #: 14-50196 (5th Circuit), 5:13-cv-982 (Federal District Court)
Court Level: 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
Date Filed: 28 October 2013
Date of Appeal: 7 March 2014


  • Two same-gender couples (Cleopatra DeLeon & Nicole Dimetman, Mark Phariss & Vic Holmes) represented by Lambda Legal filed a federal class action lawsuit for all TX couples, challenging the 2003 law and the 2005 TX constitutional ban on civil marriage equality inside TX and on recognition of legal same-sex marriages performed outside of TX.
  • 9 January 2014, the judge rejected an effort by the TX attorney general to consolidate two other suits (Shannon Zahrn, et al. v. TX Governor Rick Perry, et al., and Christopher McNosky, et al. v. TX Governor Rick Perry, et al.) into this one.
  • 12 February 2014, the court heard oral arguments, and a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the state from enforcing the ban during the litigation.
  • 26 February 2014, a federal judge declared that the TX 2003 law and 2005 ban on same-sex civil marriage both violate the U.S. Constitution (but stayed his decision until appeals are completed), and also issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the bans because (1) they cause irreparable harm, and (2) plaintiffs are likely to win.
  • The next day, TX scheduled an appeal for May 2014.
  • 7 March 2014, the preliminary injunction against the TX same-gender civil marriage bans while the district court case is proceeding was appealed by TX to the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, and the district court case proceedings were stayed pending the appeal ruling.
  • 14 April 2014, the plaintiffs filed an opposed motion to expedite the appeal.
  • 21 May 2014, that motion was denied.
  • 20 September 2014, amicus briefs have been filed for the plaintiffs and for the state
  • 6 October 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the 5th Circuit to schedule oral argument "at the earliest possible date," requesting oral argument in November 2014.
  • 9 October 2014, the 5th Circuit agreed to expedite oral argument.
  • 27 October 2014, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals tentatively set oral argument in the this case and Louisiana's Robicheaux   for the week of 5 January 2015.  
  • 28 October 2014, the state filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority with the 5th Circuit, noting the October 21st decision in the Puerto Rico case Conde-Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla.
  • 20 November 2014, 5th Circuit appeal set for argument on Friday, 9 January 2015 in New Orleans, West Courtroom, AM session. 
  • 24 November 2014, the plaintiffs asked the district court to lift stay.
  • 25 November 2014, the state filed their Opposition to Lifting Stay. The state also filed a Proposed order as an attachment to their opposition to lifting the stay.
  • 26 November 2014, the plaintiffs filed their reply brief in support of lifting stay.
  • 3 December 2014, Bexar County Clerk Gerard "Gerry" Rickhoff, a Republican, said he will keep his office open 24 hours a day if a federal judge lifts his stay on allowing same-sex couples in Texas to marry - Article by Joshua Fechter, San Antonio Express-News
  • 3 December 2014, Notice of Recent Authority was filed by the defendants.
  • 4 December 2014, as expected, Texas informed the district court of the stay granted in the Mississippi case as argument not to lift the stay in Texas.
  • 5 December 2014, the case is now reflected on the 5th Circuit's calendar for 9 January 2015, 30 minutes per side.
  • 12 December 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay.
  • 29 December 2014, the panel for the marriage cases is now posted on 5th Circuit calendar: Judges Patrick E. Higginbotham, Jerry E. Smith and James E. Graves, Jr.
  • 5 January 2015, the 5th Circuit posted the rules for attendance for the oral argument Friday, 9 January 2015.
  • 8 January 2015, round up of information from Equality Case Files on Friday's 5th Circuit oral arguments, including links to briefs filed in this case, and the Louisiana, and Mississippi marriage cases.
  • 9 January 2015, audio of today's 5th Circuit oral argument is now available.
  • 19 February 2015, the State filed its Opposition to Lifting Stay. As to the request to, at minimum, lift the stay as to plaintiffs Cleopatra DeLeon and Nicole Dimetman so that both parents can be listed on their child's birth certificate, the state claims the district court preliminary injunction would not address this issue: "Additionally, even assuming that failing to be listed on a child’s birth certificate when the child is born is a concrete and irreparable injury, it is not an injury that would be remedied by lifting the stay. ... [T]his lawsuit did not challenge the state laws governing birth certificates." (pg 10) 
  • 20 February 2015, the plaintiffs filed their Reply in support of lifting the stay.
  • 26 June 2015, Judge Garcia issued an ORDER Granting the Plaintiff's Emergency unopposed MOTION to lift the Stay!
McNosky v. Perry

Case #: 1:13-CV-631-SS
Court Level: Federal District Court (5th)
Date Filed: 29 July 2013
Date of Appeal:


  • 29 July 2013, a federal lawsuit seeking equal marriage rights, challenging the TX statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex civil marriage.
  • 9 January 2014, the judge for Cleopatra De Leon, et al., v. TX Governor Rick Perry et al. rejected an effort by the TX attorney general to consolidate this case and Shannon Zahrn, et al. v. TX Governor Rick Perry, et al. into the De Leon case.
  • This case was consolidated with Zahrn (see above).
  • 12 March 2014, TX asked the court to stay proceedings in this case pending the outcome at the 5th Circuit of Cleopatra De Leon, et al., v. TX Governor Rick Perry et al.
  • 22 March 2014, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the proposed stay. 
  • 10 September 2014, this case and Zahrn v. Perry (above) were stayed pending a decision from the 5th Circuit in DeLeon v. Perry (immediately above). The judge also dismissed all pending motions in the cases, saying they could be refiled after the 5th Circuit ruling.
Pidgeon v. Parker

Case #: 4:13-cv-03768
Court Level: Federal District Court (5th)
Date Filed: 17 February 2013
Date of Appeal:


  • A TX district judge temporarily prohibited Houston, TX from offering partner benefits to same-gender couples.
  • 20 December 2013, Houston said it would appeal the 17 December court order barring domestic partner benefits for same-gender spouses of city employees.
  • 31 December 2013, Houston’s attorney got the case moved from state district family court into federal court.
  • 2 January 2014, the federal judge denied the Houston Republican Party’s request for a stay against the city policy of providing equal benefits, and reversed the district court approval of that stay.
  • 21 January 2014, the plaintiffs said they will try to move the case back to state court.
  • Awaiting ruling on motion to remand and on motion of the Freeman plaintiffs (represented by Lambda Legal) to intervene (see above).
  • 28 August 2014, this case was remanded back to state court.

Texas v. Naylor

Case #: 11-0114 (TX Supreme Court), 03-10-00237-CV (District Court)
Court Level: Texas Supreme Court
Date Filed: 2009
Date of Appeal: 2011


  • Angelique Naylor and Sabina Daly married in Massachusetts in 2004. They returned home to Texas, later adopted a child and stated a business together. Naylor filed for divorce on 3 December 2009.
  • The district court actually granted the divorce on 10 February 2010, before the Attorney General could intervene. The Attorney General appealed that decision and the state filed to intervene the next day on 11 February 2011.
  • The Third Court of Appeals in Austin held that the state had no right to intervene in the case, to challenge the divorce on appeal.
  • The case is pending before the Texas Supreme Court. Oral arguments took place on 5 November 2013.
J.B. v. Dallas County

Case #: 11-0024 (TX Supreme Court), 05-09-01170-CV (District Court)
Court Level: Texas Supreme Court
Date Filed: January 2009, 17 February 2011
Date of Appeal: March 2011


  • In 2009, a same-sex couple that had married in Massachusetts filed for divorce in Dallas.
  • Before the district court could grant the divorce the Texas Attorney General intervened and challenged the court's jurisdiction to do so.
  • 2 October 2009, the district court ruled, in the case of In Re Marriage of J.B. and H.B. that, to the extent Texas laws purported to prevent two men who were legally married in Massachusetts from getting a divorce in Texas, those laws were unconstitutional.
  • The Texas Attorney General appealed, and on 31 August 2010, the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas reversed the lower court, ruling that the same-sex marriage ban does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, even when used to prevent a legally-married couple from obtaining a divorce.
  • The case is pending before the Texas Supreme Court. Oral arguments took place on 5 November 2013.

Lawsuits - Resolved

Alicia Butler & Judith Chedville vs. Texas

Case #:
Date Filed: 13 September 2013
Ruling Date: 27 November 2013


  • On 9 September 2013, 16 TX state representatives told the TX Military Forces to: (1) stop denying equal pay and benefits to all same-gender married military couples at all TX National Guard facilities, (2) stop denying membership in family readiness groups, and (3) stop denying participation in marriage enrichment retreats.
  • In September, after the DOD had issued guidelines on extending benefits to the same-sex spouses of military members, Butler and Chedville went to Camp Mabry in Austin to attempt to register in the federal Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS). Chedville is an Army nurse and Iraq war veteran, and a 1st Lieutenant in the Army National Guard. Even after presenting a valid marriage license, Butler and Chedville were denied access to the registration process at Camp Mabry, and were told they would instead have to travel to a federal facility, the closest one requiring a three-hour trip.
  • 13 September 2013, in Alicia Butler & Judith Chedville vs. Texas, Lambda Legal told the TX Military Forces that since 3 September 2013 it has been unlawful to deny equal federal pay and benefits to any same-gender married military couple, and the TX ban on same-gender civil marriage does not exempt TX from compliance.
  • 31 October 2013, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel directed Army National Guard units nationwide to process benefit applications for all personnel with same-gender spouses, regardless of local marriage laws, especially at the 114 bases in 9 states: FL, GA, IN, LA, MS, OK, SC, TX, and WV.
  • 27 November 2013, after increasing pressure to follow U.S. Department of Defense guidelines, the Texas Military Forces allowed Lambda Legal's client, Alicia Butler, the wife of 1st Lt. Judith Chedville, to register for federal military benefits at Camp Mabry.
Domenico Nuckols vs. TX Governor Rick Perry, et al.

Case #:
Date Filed: 1 July 2013
Ruling Date: Withdrawn 17 July 2013


  • 1 July 2013, Domenico Nuckols of Galveston filed a federal lawsuit challenging the TX constitution’s ban on same-gender marriage. (His foreign national partner had been deported in 1986.)
  • 17 July 2013, after hearing from the ACLU and from Lambda Legal, Nuckols withdrew his suit. (See Nuckols v. Perry under Pending Lawsuits.)
William Adam Flowers v. Lacey Flowers

Case #:
Date Filed:
Ruling Date: 24 June 2011


  • William and Lacey Flowers divorced in 2004, and they agreed that their three children should stay with her.
  • William Flowers later changed his mind and sued for custody; a jury ruled that custody should remain with Lacey, but William could continue his regular visits.
  • In March 2011 William Flowers and Jim Evans were married in Connecticut.
  • After William married Jim, he sought to change the custody agreement.
  • In the custody proceedings, there were no allegations of abuse either physically or emotionally from the children’s father or his husband.
  • 24 June 2011, Judge Charley E. Prine, Jr. issued a ruling which included an injunction applicable only to William. It prohibited him from leaving his children alone with any male to whom the kids are not related by “blood or adoption.” So if, for example, William wanted to visit his mother in the hospital, he couldn’t leave his kids at home with his husband. As written, the injunction also prohibited male doctors, teachers and pastors from being alone with the children. (This ruling was despite the fact that Jim Evans also had his own biological children from a previous marriage; children he was responsible for caring for. Nobody seemed to have a problem with that.)
  • Because there was no allegation of abuse in the case, family law practitioners said the order was an unheard of infringement on the rights of parents and a judicial condemnation of the fact that William Flowers is not only gay but married to his partner, Jim Evans.
  • In October 2011, William Flowers appealed the decision. Oral arguments were heard in November 2012.
  • 23 July 2013 the Fourteenth Court of Appeals overturned the trial court's 2011 ruling.
Carolyn Compton v. Joshua Compton

Case #:
Date Filed: September 2010
Ruling Date: 7 May 2013


  • Carolyn Compton was married to Joshua Compton for 11 years. Carolyn filed for divorce in September 2010.
  • December 2010, she applied for a protective order, citing her estranged husband’s “sporadic and threatening behavior.”
  • The couple divorced and Carolyn was given custody of the couple’s two children.
  • Carolyn became partners with Page Price, with whom she and the children shared a home for 3 years.
  • In April 2011, the divorce case was re-opened. Joshua Compton reportedly went to court to enforce the morality clause after hiring a private investigator to spy on his ex-wife. He unsuccessfully sought to have Carolyn jailed for violating the morality clause by living with her lesbian partner.
  • The morality clause says Compton cannot have anyone in her home between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. if it is “an intimate dating relationship” but they are not married. However, under Texas law, Compton cannot marry Price.
  • 7 May 2013, Republican Collin County Judge John Roach Jr. issued an order giving Price 30 days to move out.
  • Attorneys for Compton and Price issued a statement saying the couple planned to comply with the order even though it is an unconstitutional violation of their right to privacy under case law including Lawrence v. Texas.

Ballot Initiatives - Pending


Ballot Initiatives - Passed

Proposition 2

Purpose of Ballot Measure: To define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and to prohibit civil unions and domestic partnerships.
Date Passed: 8 November 2005


  • Proposition 2 was a referendum for a state constitutional amendment placed on the ballot by the Texas legislature.
  • The measure added a new provision to the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 32, which provides that "Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman," and "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
  • Texas was the 19th state to adopt a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. It was the most populous state to adopt a constitutional ban against same-sex marriage until California passed its ban in November 2008.



  • 29 October 2014, in a poll run by the University of Texas-Austin and the Texas Tribune, 47% of respondents said they would not support same-sex marriage, 42% said they would, and 11% were undecided. When asked about civil unions, 39% said they would allow marriage, 28% would allow civil unions, 25% opposed both, and 9% were undecided. Poll Details
  • 18 April 2014, in an independent survey conducted by the Texas Tech's Earl Survey Research Lab, students found that 48% of respondents supported marriage equality while only 47% opposed it. Associate professor Mark McKenzie oversaw the poll. News Source
  • On 26 February 2014, Public Religion Research Institute surveyed 297 TX residents regarding same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 48% support it, 49% do not, and 4% do not know or refuse to answer.