text:
List of banned video games by country

This is a list of video games that have been censored or banned by governments of various states in the world. Governments that have banned video games have been criticized for a correlated increase in digital piracy, limiting business opportunities and violating rights.

Afghanistan
During the first reign of the Islamic Emirate government in Afghanistan (1996–2001), Western technology and art was prohibited and this included video games. Between 2001 and 2021, no video games were officially banned in Afghanistan, except for PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds. In April 2022 Taliban spokesperson Inamullah Samangani confirmed that PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds is still banned under the Taliban administration to 'protect younger generations from a bad influence'.

Albania
In 2019, a ban on online gambling went to effect in Albania. When Dead Rising 2 released in Albania, retailer Albagame refused to sell copies of it over alleged gambling. Prime Minister Edi Rama threatened to ban the game in response to the anti-gambling law.

Argentina
Carmageddon is banned in the capital city of Buenos Aires because it depicts people being killed by motor vehicles.

RapeLay is banned because it promotes and supports the use of violence to compel a person to submit to sexual conduct, as well as the exploitation of young people for sexual purposes.

Australia
By Australian law, all media is rated by the Australian Classification Board (ACB), with works potentially receiving MA15+ (Mature Accompanied 15+), R18+ (Restricted 18+), X18+ (Restricted 18+), or even denied at rating (RC, Refused Classification). The ratings are enforced by law, banning retail sales of R18+ and X18+ works to adult consumers and preventing the sale or import of RC works.

Until 2011, video games in Australia could only be rated up to MA15+. At the time, the R18+ classification rating could be given to films, but a video game with content deemed fitting for the R18+ rating would be classed as 'Refused Classification' due to an appropriate classification not being available for the medium. In July and August 2011, all Australian state Attorneys-General agreed to instate an R18+ rating for video games, which would be available by the end of 2011. Many games previously refused classification would now fit into the R18+ rating and, if the publisher chose to pay the reclassification fee, would theoretically be able to sell their game in Australia. The date was later changed to allow the rating to be introduced at the beginning of 2013.

Numerous video games have been banned from Australia due to receiving an RC rating. However, developers may work to address concerns raised by the ACB to gain a rating that allows sale within Australia.

Due to the licensing of the International Age Rating Coalition software for developers to rate their own game, several hundred games have been banned from various app stores as of 2015.

Belgium
In Belgium, games such as Phantasy Star Online 2, FIFA 17, Gears of War 4, Mario Kart Tour, Call of Duty: Mobile and others have been banned due to the usage of loot boxes (which constitute gambling under the country's existing laws) and their equivalents. More are expected to be banned for the same reason.

Brazil
Brazil has banned many video games since 1999, mainly due to depictions of violence and cruelty, making it illegal to distribute and otherwise sell these games. Additionally, the Brazilian advisory rating system requires that all video games be rated by the organization, where unrated video games are banned from being sold in Brazil.

Bully is banned for showing violence and harassment in a school setting. The ban was lifted on 23 June 2016; the game can be acquired in physical and non-physical format through Steam.

Counter-Strike is banned because of violence and a map simulating a Favela in 2008. The ban was later lifted and the game is available for sale.

EverQuest is banned because the player is able to go on quests for both good and evil.

Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City was banned in Barueri because it uses music by the Brazilian composer Hamilton da Silva Lourenço without proper permission. It has been resolved and was lifted in 2012.

People's Republic of China
A very large number of video games are banned in mainland China. Games that depict drugs, sexuality, blood, organized crime or defamation of the Chinese government are almost always banned. Because of the large size of the Chinese video game market, many studios edit the content of their games to conform to the government's standards.

Home gaming consoles were banned in mainland China from June 2000 until 2013. When the ban was lifted, eighth-generation consoles such as the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 were allowed in the country.

As of April 2019, after implementing a new mandatory local rating and approval system, any and all games containing depictions of violence, blood, gambling and imperial history are de facto banned from all accessible platforms in the nation (unless otherwise changed to comply with local standards).

Notable games banned in this region are:

Germany

A video game is considered banned in Germany if it has been confiscated by a court.

Video games have so far been confiscated in Germany under the following laws: Note: Games confiscated under the criminal codes 86, 86a, 130 and 130a are published in a collective list.
 * Section 86: Dissemination of propaganda material of unconstitutional and terrorist organisations
 * Section 86a: Use of symbols of unconstitutional and terrorist organisations
 * Section 130: Incitement of masses
 * Section 130a: Instructions for committing criminal offences
 * Section 131: Depictions of violence

Other laws under which media can be confiscated are as follows, even if they have not yet been used for video games:
 * Section 184a: Dissemination of pornographic content depicting violent acts or sexual acts with animals
 * Section 184b: Dissemination, procurement and possession of child pornographic content
 * Section 184c: Dissemination, procurement and possession of youth pornographic content

Once a video game has been confiscated, it may no longer be distributed or made available to the public in Germany. The private acquisition, possession and playing of a confiscated game are not mentioned in the laws and are therefore not punishable (with the exception of child and youth pornography).

The list of confiscated video games was published as part of the official "BzKJaktuell" magazine by the Federal Agency for Child and Youth Protection in the Media. The list was last published in issue 1/22. No further list entries are known since then, although some titles have since been removed from the list.

The list of confiscated media should not be confused with the List of Media Harmful to Young People (also known colloquially as The Index), as indexed video games are not considered banned. However, indexed video games are subject to strict restrictions and may only be offered and sold to adults.

Video games that have been rejected by the Unterhaltungssoftware Selbstkontrolle are also not banned. These games may also only be offered and sold to adults on the German market.

Since 2018, several games have had their bans lifted.

Greece
The Law 3037/2002 banned all electronic games in public and private places in the hopes that it would fight illegal gambling in the country. It was repealed in 2011.

India
On October 22, 2008, Microsoft announced that Fallout 3 would not be released in India for Xbox 360 platform. Religious and cultural sentiments were cited as the reason. Although the specific reason was not revealed, it is possible that it is because the game contains two-headed mutated cows called Brahmin. Brahmin is the name of a caste of Hindu priests and religious scholars. The spelling of Brahmin is also similar to brahman, a breed of cow revered by Hindus.

PUBG Mobile was banned because of extreme violence. The move came after a direction from the states of Gujarat and Jammu and Kashmir seeking a ban on the game, as it was claimed to affect the minds of youths. It was banned in the cities of Ahmedabad, Surat, Vadodara, Bhavnagar and Rajkot of Gujarat, as well as all of Jammu and Kashmir. Players have been prosecuted for playing the game. The game was later completely banned due to mishandling of data on 2 September 2020, along with Rules of Survival, Mobile Legends: Bang Bang and Clash of Kings as a part of the Indian government's ban on 59 Chinese-owned apps following the border skirmishes between the two countries. Later, an India-exclusive version of PUBG Mobile, Battlegrounds Mobile India was released by Krafton.

Indonesia
Mortal Kombat 11 is banned in Indonesia because of excessive violence and gore as well as depiction of communist symbolism which is strictly banned in the country.

Iran
Iran typically bans any game that contains excessive violence, depicts cruelty, features strong sexual content, nudity, or portrays the Middle East negatively.

1979 Revolution: Black Friday focuses on the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and was banned for presenting "false and distorted information" regarding the revolution, and for being anti-Iranian.

ARMA 3 is banned due to the game's portrayal of a fictional faction, which includes Iran and is an enemy of NATO.

Battlefield 3 is banned because it presented a fictional U.S. invasion on Iran. Even before the ban, many retail stores were removing copies of the game from their shelves.

Clash of Clans is banned because it encourages violence, tribal war and is extensively addictive, as the government states.

Call of Duty: Mobile's services were cancelled by developer Activision for unspecified reasons, but thought to involve United States sanctions against Iran.

Pokémon Go is banned due to security reasons.

Valkyrie Drive: Bhikkhuni is banned for excessively glorifying homosexuality and immoral values via eroge style animation. However, the ban does not extend to digital distributions.

Iraq
Fortnite and PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds are banned in Iraq because of negative effects caused by some electronic games on the health, culture, and security of Iraqi society. However, the ban is not in effect in Iraqi Kurdistan, where the games are still available and are quite popular.

Republic of Ireland
The IFCO rarely rates video games and leaves decisions to PEGI and the BBFC. Manhunt 2 was banned for "gross, unrelenting and gratuitous violence", but the ban was later lifted and the game was given a PEGI 18 rating.

Italy
In 2006, following the release of the trailer to the game Rule of Rose, the magazine Panorama ran an article claiming live burials of children at the protagonist's hand. Shortly after, then-mayor of Rome, Walter Veltroni, called for a ban of the game in Italy. The game's European publisher, 505 Games, dismissed these claims, and the game was not banned following Veltroni's comments.

In 2007, following the decision of the governments of the United Kingdom and Ireland, the Minister of Communications Paolo Gentiloni publicly expressed the desire to ban the distribution of Manhunt 2 in Italy, due to the gratuitous violence and excessive cruelty in the video game, but the ban was never put into practice.

Japan
Video games are rarely banned in Japan, and it holds the place as one of the top video game producers in the world. However, for some games, usually western, they may edit or censor their games if they appear offensive to Japan; an example being the Japanese release of Fallout 3. "The Power of the Atom" quest was edited to relieve concerns about atomic detonation in inhabited areas and the Fat Man weapon was renamed to the Nuka Launcher due to its relation to the real historic event. Another example is the Japanese version of Crash Bandicoot 2: Cortex Strikes Back in which a death animation that has Crash squashed into a head and feet was altered due to its resemblance to the Kobe child murders. Japan's Spike removed all references to Kim Jong-il and North Korea in Homefront, as well. Resident Evil 4, Call of Duty: Black Ops, Bulletstorm, Gears of War 3, Grand Theft Auto V, Dead Island, Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance, Just Cause 2 and numerous other violent titles, distributed physically and digitally, were heavily edited for excessive violence, but only on the localization level; the games can still be played if the locale is switched from Japanese to English. On 13 March 2019, the sales of Judgment had stopped producing future sales in Japan, following Pierre Taki's arrest on suspicion of cocaine use. As a result, Sega had replaced both the voice actor and the character model having been subsequently removed. As of November 2022, video game The Callisto Protocol has been banned in Japan. CERO would not be rating due to the game's violent content and the developer refused to make the necessary changes. Previously, the Dead Space series encountered the same fate, with all entries since the original 2008 release effectively being banned in Japan.

Malaysia
Malaysia tends to ban offensive content such as extreme-impact violence, depictions of cruelty, any content considered anti-Muslim, sexual content and nudity. In August 2008, after the Grand Theft Auto series ban in Thailand (see below), head of a Malaysian consumer rights organization, Muhammad Idris, called for the ban of the entire Grand Theft Auto series and other similarly violent video games such as the Manhunt series and Mortal Kombat. In February 2010, one week after Dante's Inferno was released, the game was banned by the Jabatan Agama Islam (JAIS), a Muslim organisation in Malaysia, for depictions of Judeo-Christian hell iconography which was against Sharia, as well as cruelty and sexuality.

In September 2017, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) blocked access to the entire Steam store following the discovery of a controversial fighting game involving religious deities, Fight of Gods. The ban was lifted one day later after Valve agreed to block the game in Malaysia.

Mexico
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 was banned in the state of Chihuahua due to Mexican rebels being depicted as antagonists and stereotyping the cities of Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juárez. However, the game could still be found in shelves in other federal entities.

Nepal
PUBG was banned because of delinquency issues involving youths. Currently, the ban has been lifted.

New Zealand
In New Zealand, games are classified by the country's Office of Film and Literature Classification. If they are dubbed "objectionable" in all cases, they are banned. In this case, the game in question is not only illegal to sell, but also to own, possess, or import. Games are typically banned and classified as "objectionable content" when they contain extreme violence, offensive depictions of cruelty, animal cruelty, sexual content involving minors, or graphic depictions of sexual content, including sexual fetishes that are "revolting or abhorrent" (such as depictions of urination, bestiality, necrophilia, urophilia, coprophilia, and/or incest).

Pakistan
On July 1, 2022, the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority banned Player Unknown's Battleground (PUBG) after a teenager allegedly shot his family of four after binging the video game for days. The ban caused turmoil among the youth, whose protests mounted pressure against the regulator. It was eventually unbanned after nearly a month.

Games such as Call of Duty: Black Ops II and Medal of Honor have also been banned in Pakistan due to their portrayal of the country as a failed state where terrorist organizations openly operate.

Philippines
In 1981, a presidential decree issued by Ferdinand Marcos outlawed the use and distribution of video game consoles, arcade games and pinball machines, deeming them as a "destructive social enemy" and "to the detriment of the public interest".

While no video games have been banned nationwide since 1986, at least one title, Defense of the Ancients, has been banned in a barangay in Dasmariñas, Cavite following complaints of delinquency issues, and two murder incidents involving youths in the area resulting from brawls in relation to the game. The ban, however, only covers internet cafes and does not extend to privately-owned PCs at home.

Russia
In Russia, games are classified by the "On Countering Extremist Activity" federal law and are included in the "Federal List of Extremist Materials".

Media in the United States and Europe have incorrectly reported that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, which features a storyline in which Russian ultra-nationalists take control of the country and invade the United States, was banned in Russia. Activision called these reports "erroneous". Instead, a censored version of the game was published, omitting the controversial "No Russian" level. This also presumably prevented the game from being released on consoles in Russian, with only a PC version officially available.

Because of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, few games are being released because many game developers are ceasing operations in Russia.

Saudi Arabia
Most banned games can be found in many stores due to a lack of government enforcement of bans (often at a substantial price). However, not all major stores will stock banned titles. The Last of Us Part II is banned due to homosexual-related content.

Singapore
Singapore has banned games in the past and still occasionally does (including a ban on arcades nationwide from 1983 to the 1990s). With the implementation of the Video Game Classification in 2008 by the Media Development Authority, most games are widely available for purchase to their respective age group, such as those containing full frontal nudity or strong graphic violence under an "M18" rating. Games that were previously banned such as Mass Effect were re-rated either "Age Advisory" or "M18" after the implementation of the classification system.

South Korea
Since 2006, South Korea has only banned video games on rare occasions. Even before this, games were very rarely banned unless that game mentioned elements of the Korean War in order to avoid tensions between the countries North Korea and South Korea. However, Manhunt, Manhunt 2, and Mortal Kombat are still banned because of violence and cruelty. Grand Theft Auto III, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City and Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction were previously banned, but the bans were later lifted.

The Game Rating Board requires that all video games be rated by the organization. Unrated titles are banned from being sold in the country, and websites selling them can be blocked.

Thailand
Since August 2008, all video game titles of the Grand Theft Auto series have been completely banned in Thailand, because of a case where an 18-year-old Thai player supposedly influenced by Grand Theft Auto killed a taxi driver from Bangkok. The ban, however, does not extend to the digital PC versions of Grand Theft Auto V.

Tropico 5 is yet another banned title. The ruling military junta at the time claimed that it could "affect peace and order" within the country.

United Arab Emirates
In the United Arab Emirates, a branch of the government called the National Media Council (NMC) works to control the media and entertainment industry in the country, and they have the authority to issue bans on any specific media products, including video games, to comply with the country's legal and cultural values. Usually, the NMC do not explicitly state their actual consensus for any kind of issued ban on a product, so official reasons behind their bans remain unclear. However, bans issued by the NMC apply only to the sale of those products through local outlets; they do not make private ownership illegal. There are certain exceptions, notably for Spec Ops: The Line (see below). Some banned games may be available and sold on the nation's grey market.

In 2018, the NMC introduced a localised rating system for various media, including video games.

The following titles are banned from mainstream physical retail. However, unlike Saudi Arabia, most of these games can still be seen on digital storefronts such as the PlayStation Store.

United Kingdom
Games in the UK usually only fail to receive a certification rating (effectively a ban) when they contain real sex scenes and/or gratuitous violence. BBFC age ratings are compulsory and backed by legislation, taking effect 30 July 2012. It is illegal to sell, buy or rent, but not import, a game that has not been classified by an approved age rating organisation in the UK. This only applies to games stored on physical media, not downloadable media.

United States
In the United States, the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB)—a self-regulatory organization, issues ratings for video games and enforces voluntary regulations on how they are marketed and sold. The Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association—which challenged a California law restricting the sale of "violent video games" (defined using a variation of the Miller test separate from ratings assigned by bodies such as the ESRB) to minors, insisting that video games were considered a protected form of expression under the First Amendment, meaning that federal or state law cannot be used to regulate their distribution based on content.

However, games can still be recalled as the result of court orders; a nude model featured in The Guy Game sued its developer and publisher over use of her likeness, as she was underage at the time of filming and thus could not personally consent to her depiction. All remaining copies of the game that contained her likeness were recalled from stores. In 2012, a court found that Silicon Knights had plagiarized Epic Games' proprietary Unreal engine, and had used it in Too Human and X-Men: Destiny, along with other unreleased projects. The studio was ordered to recall and destroy all remaining copies, materials, and source code relating to the games.

The ESRB's highest rating, "Adults Only", has been considered a total ban on the mainstream sale of certain games, as most retailers refuse to stock games carrying the rating, and they cannot be published on major video game consoles due to company policies. The release of Thrill Kill, an AO-rated fighting game with extreme violence and strong sexual themes, was outright cancelled by Electronic Arts (who had acquired its developer) due to objections over its content. Following the discovery of an incomplete sex minigame that was not included in the final game but was still present in the game's code and could be accessed using a modification or cheating device, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was re-rated Adults Only and recalled by Rockstar Games, in favor of a new revision of the game that omitted the offending content entirely and carried the original Mature rating.

Ukraine
Mortal Kombat 11 is banned in Ukraine due to high-impact blood and gore and depictions of communist symbolism, which is banned per Ukrainian law.

Uzbekistan
Authorities in Uzbekistan banned a number of games over concerns that they could be "used to propagate violence, pornography, threaten security and social and political stability", most notably first-person shooters such as Call of Duty: Black Ops and Doom, horror games like Silent Hill and Resident Evil, Mortal Kombat and even relatively non-violent simulations such as The Sims. The ban was condemned and ridiculed for taking precedence over more important societal issues and a waste of time and effort.

title: List of banned video games by country


text:
Albanifriedhof

Albanifriedhof is a cemetery in Göttingen, Germany, just outside the city wall to the southeast. It is most famous as the final resting place of Carl Friedrich Gauss.The cemetery is named after the adjacent St Albani Evangelical Lutheran Church.

Notable interments

 * Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777–1855), mathematician and scientist
 * Johann Friedrich Gmelin (1748–1804), naturalist, botanist, entomologist and malacologist

 * Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752–1840), zoologist, anthropologist
 * Johann Friedrich Herbart (1776–1841), philosopher, psychologist, and founder of pedagogy as an academic discipline
 * Otto Jahn (1813–1869), archaeologist, philologist, and writer on art and music
 * Rudolf Hermann Lotze (1817–1881), philosopher and logician

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Albanifriedhof


text:
Kerr effect

The Kerr effect, also called the quadratic electro-optic (QEO) effect, is a change in the refractive index of a material in response to an applied electric field. The Kerr effect is distinct from the Pockels effect in that the induced index change for the Kerr effect is directly proportional to the square of the electric field instead of varying linearly with it. All materials show a Kerr effect, but certain liquids display it more strongly than others. The Kerr effect was discovered in 1875 by Scottish physicist John Kerr.

Two special cases of the Kerr effect are normally considered, these being the Kerr electro-optic effect, or DC Kerr effect, and the optical Kerr effect, or AC Kerr effect.

Kerr electro-optic effect
The Kerr electro-optic effect, or DC Kerr effect, is the special case in which a slowly varying external electric field is applied by, for instance, a voltage on electrodes across the sample material. Under this influence, the sample becomes birefringent, with different indices of refraction for light polarized parallel to or perpendicular to the applied field. The difference in index of refraction, Δn, is given by
 * $$\Delta n = \lambda K E^2,\ $$

where λ is the wavelength of the light, K is the Kerr constant, and E is the strength of the electric field. This difference in index of refraction causes the material to act like a waveplate when light is incident on it in a direction perpendicular to the electric field. If the material is placed between two "crossed" (perpendicular) linear polarizers, no light will be transmitted when the electric field is turned off, while nearly all of the light will be transmitted for some optimum value of the electric field. Higher values of the Kerr constant allow complete transmission to be achieved with a smaller applied electric field.

Some polar liquids, such as nitrotoluene (C7H7NO2) and nitrobenzene (C6H5NO2) exhibit very large Kerr constants. A glass cell filled with one of these liquids is called a Kerr cell. These are frequently used to modulate light, since the Kerr effect responds very quickly to changes in electric field. Light can be modulated with these devices at frequencies as high as 10 GHz. Because the Kerr effect is relatively weak, a typical Kerr cell may require voltages as high as 30 kV to achieve complete transparency. This is in contrast to Pockels cells, which can operate at much lower voltages. Another disadvantage of Kerr cells is that the best available material, nitrobenzene, is poisonous. Some transparent crystals have also been used for Kerr modulation, although they have smaller Kerr constants.

In media that lack inversion symmetry, the Kerr effect is generally masked by the much stronger Pockels effect. The Kerr effect is still present, however, and in many cases can be detected independently of Pockels effect contributions.

Optical Kerr effect
The optical Kerr effect, or AC Kerr effect is the case in which the electric field is due to the light itself. This causes a variation in index of refraction which is proportional to the local irradiance of the light. This refractive index variation is responsible for the nonlinear optical effects of self-focusing, self-phase modulation and modulational instability, and is the basis for Kerr-lens modelocking. This effect only becomes significant with very intense beams such as those from lasers. The optical Kerr effect has also been observed to dynamically alter the mode-coupling properties in multimode fiber, a technique that has potential applications for all-optical switching mechanisms, nanophotonic systems and low-dimensional photo-sensors devices.

Magneto-optic Kerr effect
The magneto-optic Kerr effect (MOKE) is the phenomenon that the light reflected from a magnetized material has a slightly rotated plane of polarization. It is similar to the Faraday effect where the plane of polarization of the transmitted light is rotated.

DC Kerr effect
For a nonlinear material, the electric polarization $$ \mathbf{P} $$ will depend on the electric field $$ \mathbf{E} $$:

 * $$ \mathbf{P} = \varepsilon_0 \chi^{(1)}\mathbf{E} + \varepsilon_0 \chi^{(2)}\mathbf{E E} + \varepsilon_0 \chi^{(3)}\mathbf{E E E} + \cdots $$

where $$\varepsilon_0$$ is the vacuum permittivity and $$\chi^{(n)}$$ is the $$n$$-th order component of the electric susceptibility of the medium. We can write that relationship explicitly; the i-th component for the vector P can be expressed as:
 * $$P_i =

\varepsilon_0 \sum_{j=1}^{3} \chi^{(1)}_{i j} E_j + \varepsilon_0 \sum_{j=1}^{3} \sum_{k=1}^{3} \chi^{(2)}_{i j k} E_j E_k + \varepsilon_0 \sum_{j=1}^{3} \sum_{k=1}^{3} \sum_{l=1}^{3} \chi^{(3)}_{i j k l} E_j E_k E_l + \cdots $$

where $$i = 1,2,3$$. It is often assumed that $$P_1$$ ∥ $$P_x$$, i.e., the component parallel to x of the polarization field; $$E_2$$ ∥ $$E_y$$ and so on.

For a linear medium, only the first term of this equation is significant and the polarization varies linearly with the electric field.

For materials exhibiting a non-negligible Kerr effect, the third, χ(3) term is significant, with the even-order terms typically dropping out due to inversion symmetry of the Kerr medium. Consider the net electric field E produced by a light wave of frequency ω together with an external electric field E0:

 * $$ \mathbf{E} = \mathbf{E}_0 + \mathbf{E}_\omega \cos(\omega t), $$

where Eω is the vector amplitude of the wave.

Combining these two equations produces a complex expression for P. For the DC Kerr effect, we can neglect all except the linear terms and those in $$\chi^{(3)}|\mathbf{E}_0|^2 \mathbf{E}_\omega$$:

 * $$\mathbf{P} \simeq \varepsilon_0 \left( \chi^{(1)} + 3 \chi^{(3)} |\mathbf{E}_0|^2 \right) \mathbf{E}_\omega \cos(\omega

t),$$

which is similar to the linear relationship between polarization and an electric field of a wave, with an additional non-linear susceptibility term proportional to the square of the amplitude of the external field.

For non-symmetric media (e.g. liquids), this induced change of susceptibility produces a change in refractive index in the direction of the electric field:

 * $$ \Delta n = \lambda_0 K |\mathbf{E}_0|^2, $$

where λ0 is the vacuum wavelength and K is the Kerr constant for the medium. The applied field induces birefringence in the medium in the direction of the field. A Kerr cell with a transverse field can thus act as a switchable wave plate, rotating the plane of polarization of a wave travelling through it. In combination with polarizers, it can be used as a shutter or modulator.

The values of K depend on the medium and are about 9.4×10−14 m·V−2 for water, and 4.4×10−12 m·V−2 for nitrobenzene.

For crystals, the susceptibility of the medium will in general be a tensor, and the Kerr effect produces a modification of this tensor.

AC Kerr effect
In the optical or AC Kerr effect, an intense beam of light in a medium can itself provide the modulating electric field, without the need for an external field to be applied. In this case, the electric field is given by:

 * $$ \mathbf{E} = \mathbf{E}_\omega \cos(\omega t), $$

where Eω is the amplitude of the wave as before.

Combining this with the equation for the polarization, and taking only linear terms and those in χ(3)|Eω|3:

 * $$ \mathbf{P} \simeq \varepsilon_0 \left( \chi^{(1)} + \frac{3}{4} \chi^{(3)} |\mathbf{E}_\omega|^2 \right) \mathbf{E}_\omega \cos(\omega t).$$

As before, this looks like a linear susceptibility with an additional non-linear term:

 * $$ \chi = \chi_{\mathrm{LIN}} + \chi_{\mathrm{NL}} = \chi^{(1)} + \frac{3\chi^{(3)}}{4} |\mathbf{E}_\omega|^2,$$

and since:

 * $$ n = (1 + \chi)^{1/2} =

\left( 1+\chi_{\mathrm{LIN}} + \chi_{\mathrm{NL}} \right)^{1/2} \simeq n_0 \left( 1 + \frac{1}{2 {n_0}^2} \chi_{\mathrm{NL}} \right)$$

where n0=(1+χLIN)1/2 is the linear refractive index. Using a Taylor expansion since χNL ≪ n02, this gives an intensity dependent refractive index (IDRI) of:

 * $$ n = n_0 + \frac{3\chi^{(3)}}{8 n_0} |\mathbf{E}_{\omega}|^2 = n_0 + n_2 I$$

where n2 is the second-order nonlinear refractive index, and I is the intensity of the wave. The refractive index change is thus proportional to the intensity of the light travelling through the medium.

The values of n2 are relatively small for most materials, on the order of 10−20 m2 W−1 for typical glasses. Therefore, beam intensities (irradiances) on the order of 1 GW cm−2 (such as those produced by lasers) are necessary to produce significant variations in refractive index via the AC Kerr effect.

The optical Kerr effect manifests itself temporally as self-phase modulation, a self-induced phase- and frequency-shift of a pulse of light as it travels through a medium. This process, along with dispersion, can produce optical solitons.

Spatially, an intense beam of light in a medium will produce a change in the medium's refractive index that mimics the transverse intensity pattern of the beam. For example, a Gaussian beam results in a Gaussian refractive index profile, similar to that of a gradient-index lens. This causes the beam to focus itself, a phenomenon known as self-focusing.

As the beam self-focuses, the peak intensity increases which, in turn, causes more self-focusing to occur. The beam is prevented from self-focusing indefinitely by nonlinear effects such as multiphoton ionization, which become important when the intensity becomes very high. As the intensity of the self-focused spot increases beyond a certain value, the medium is ionized by the high local optical field. This lowers the refractive index, defocusing the propagating light beam. Propagation then proceeds in a series of repeated focusing and defocusing steps.

title: Kerr effect


text:
Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Massachusetts since May 17, 2004, as a result of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Constitution to allow only opposite-sex couples to marry. Massachusetts was the sixth jurisdiction in the world (after the Netherlands, Belgium, Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec) to legalize same-sex marriage. It was the first U.S. state to open marriage to same-sex couples.

Background
In 1989, passing legislation first proposed in 1973, Massachusetts prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation in credit, public and private employment, union practices, housing, and public accommodation. In the decade that followed, political debate addressed same-sex relationships through two proxy issues: spousal benefits and parenting rights. The Boston City Council debated health insurance for the same-sex partners of city employees in May 1991, and Cambridge began providing health benefits to the same-sex partners of its employees the following year. In 1992, Governor Bill Weld issued an executive order providing limited benefits to the same-sex partners of approximately 3,000 management-level state employees, covering only leave for family sickness and bereavement, far short of the health benefits LGBT activists were seeking, but probably the first state-level recognition of same-sex relationships. The Roman Catholic bishops of Massachusetts, replying in The Pilot, the newspaper of the Boston Archdiocese, said that Weld's "domestic partners" decision harms the common good "by making a special interest group equal to the family" and confuses "civil rights and family benefits". They asked: "Why should special recognition and assistance be given to friends who happen to share the same house?" Legislation to establish domestic partnerships that would carry spousal benefits was introduced annually in the Massachusetts General Court without success. Its supporters focused on equal benefits and fairness rather than same-sex relationships themselves. In 1998, when the General Court passed a home rule petition allowing Boston to create such a status, Governor Paul Cellucci vetoed it because it applied to different-sex couples, which he thought undermined marriage, while he offered to sign legislation that applied to same-sex couples only. Mayor Thomas Menino's attempt to extend health care benefits to Boston city employees' domestic partners by executive order was successfully challenged by the Catholic Action League in court.

The state had no explicit regulations with respect to foster care and parenting by gays and lesbians, either singly or in relationships, until, on May 24, 1985, the state Department of Social Services, with the approval of Governor Michael Dukakis, created a rule that foster children be placed in "traditional family settings". In December 1986, a commission that reviewed the foster care system recommended that sexual orientation could not be used to disqualify foster parents. As Dukakis delayed accepting that recommendation, advocates for gay and lesbian rights threatened protests against his presidential campaign. The ban on gay foster parents was enacted into law in the 1989 budget. After a lawsuit challenging the ban was settled out of court, the Dukakis administration withdrew the policy in April 1990. In the 1990s, court decisions further expanded the parenting rights of gays and lesbians. In September 1993, the state's highest court ruled that state law allowed for second-parent adoption by a parent of the same sex as a biological parent. In July 1999, the same court awarded visitation rights to each of two mothers after their separation.

Same-sex marriage itself was rarely mentioned or addressed directly during these years. The Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights launched a campaign on behalf of marriage rights for same-sex couples in Massachusetts in 1991. Governor Bill Weld said he would be willing to meet with the group and said he was undecided on the question. When asked about "gay marriage" while running to represent Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate in 1994, Mitt Romney said: "it is not appropriate at this time". In December 1996, considering the possibility of Hawaii legalizing same-sex marriage, Weld said that Massachusetts would recognize the validity of same-sex marriages licensed there. He called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.

Protection of Marriage Amendment
In December 1998, Representative John H. Rogers, a Democrat, proposed legislation to prevent Massachusetts from granting legal recognition to same-sex marriages established elsewhere: "a purported marriage contracted between persons of the same sex shall be neither valid nor recognized in the Commonwealth." In 1999, the Lesbian and Gay Political Alliance of Massachusetts called it a "hate bill" and a coalition of more than 150 religious leaders formed the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry to oppose it. Other religious leaders organized in support of the measure. Rogers revised his proposal to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman when he offered it again in 2001, with the additional provision that "Any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage, or its legal equivalent, or receive the benefits exclusive to marriage in the Commonwealth." The chair of the Lesbian and Gay Political Alliance of Massachusetts said its prospects for passage were slim but it could serve as a countervailing proposal to efforts at establishing civil unions or providing benefits to same-sex partners of state and local government employees. Alongside these legislative maneuvers, the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) filed a lawsuit in state court challenging the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples in April 2001.

In July 2001, Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage announced a campaign to amend the Constitution of Massachusetts with language similar to Rogers' legislation, called the "Protection of Marriage Amendment". Some signature gatherers complained that opponents of the amendment were harassing them and their opponents charged in turn that some signature gatherers were misrepresenting the petition's content. A sufficient number of signatures were certified in December.

The President of the Massachusetts Senate controls the calling of a constitutional convention and its agenda. Senate President Tom Birmingham, an opponent of the amendment, called a joint meeting of the General Court as a constitutional convention for June 19, 2002, and immediately adjourned it for a month saying legislators needed for time to consider the agenda items. When the constitutional convention met again on July 17, the amendment's opponents knew that proponents had the 50 votes needed for passage. Birmingham, who was presiding, moved for adjournment without considering the amendment, and his motion passed 137 to 53. He called the amendment "wrong-hearted and wrong-headed" and defended the procedure: "Everybody recognizes a vote to adjourn was a vote up or down" on the amendment. "I did gavel the last constitutional convention to a recess because I felt the members needed more time to assess... Today we saw democracy in action. They may not like it, but they lost two to one." A representative of the Catholic Action League, which supported the amendment, said: "Everything that is wrong with Massachusetts state government was apparent today for all the world to see". One legislator who voted to adjourn said: "For those of us who believe in an open democratic process, this was not a comfortable vote". State Senator Cheryl A. Jacques, an opponent of the amendment and a lesbian, said: "I'm proud to have done anything possible to defeat this hate-filled, discriminatory measure. I'll take a victory on this any way I can get it." Arlene Isaacson of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus later explained it was a critical moment because same-sex marriage had no chance of winning a popular vote at the time: "Not that we would lose by a little, because that wasn't an issue. Rather, it was that we were going to get massacred".

In April 2003, a committee of the General Court held a hearing on the constitutional amendment, but took no action. The four Roman Catholic bishops of Massachusetts, long distracted by the revelations of the sexual abuse of minors by priests, did not address the issue until late May, when they ordered pastors to read and publish a statement to mobilize their parishioners to contact their legislators to urge then to support the constitutional amendment.

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health
Seven same-sex couples represented by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) initiated a lawsuit in state court, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, on April 11, 2001. GLAD attorney, Jennifer Levi, argued the case in Superior Court on behalf of the plaintiffs. Levi argued that denying same-sex couples equal marriage rights was unconstitutional under the State Constitution. On May 7, 2002, Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Thomas E. Connolly ruled that the state marriage statute was not gender-neutral, no fundamental right to same-sex marriage existed, and that limiting marriage to male-female couples was rational because "procreation is marriage's central purpose". He concluded his legal analysis by saying that the issue should be handled by the General Court.

The plaintiffs appealed directly to the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), which heard arguments on March 4, 2003. Mary Bonauto of GLAD argued the case for the plaintiffs. Assistant Attorney General Judith Yogman represented the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. On November 18, 2003, the SJC ruled 4 to 3 that the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The court said: "We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution." It provided a definition of marriage that would meet the State Constitution's requirements: "We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others." The court stayed its ruling for 180 days (i.e. until May 17, 2004) to allow the General Court to "take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."

Governor Mitt Romney said he disagreed with the SJC's decision, but "We obviously have to follow the law as provided by the Supreme Judicial Court, even if we don't agree with it". He said he would work with the General Court to draft a law "consistent" with the ruling. He also backed an amendment to the State Constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman while also providing by statute "basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to same-sex couples and other nontraditional relationships." Romney quickly joined legislators in attempting to satisfy the Goodridge decision by creating civil unions for same-sex couples. His views were recognized as an attempt to establish his record on a controversial issue while planning to run for the Republican nomination for president. Former Governor Weld took credit for laying the groundwork for the decision: "A lot of the stuff we did foreshadowed the opinion." He said: "It is a thunderbolt, but a thunderbolt correctly heard."

Opponents of gay and lesbian rights opposed any compromise with the SJC. Brian Camenker, head of the Parents Rights Coalition, said: "As Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out in his letter from the Birmingham jail, there are some laws that are so unnatural that you have an obligation to openly defy them. The concept of stable, healthy gay relationships is largely a manufacturing of the gay propaganda machine." He called the decision "complete lunacy" and said: "It's beyond shocking. It's madness. It's four judges basically turning society inside out with no input from anybody else."

Interpreting Goodridge
On December 11, 2003, the Massachusetts Senate put forward legislative language creating civil unions for same-sex couples to the SJC, asking if it satisfied the court's requirements. On February 4, 2004, the court replied that it was unacceptable to allow different-sex couples marriages but same-sex couples only civil unions, that the distinction between marriage and civil unions constituted unconstitutional discrimination, even if the rights and obligations attached to each were identical. It called the difference between the terms marriage and civil union "a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status." As for the argument that the federal government's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages as marriages justified the use of a different term, the court said: "Courts define what is constitutionally permissible, and the Massachusetts Constitution does not permit this kind of labeling... We do not abrogate the fullest measure of protection to which residents of the Commonwealth are entitled under the Massachusetts Constitution ... because those rights might not be acknowledged elsewhere." The court also reiterated the need for the General Court to modify the state's marital laws. "The purpose of the stay was to afford the Legislature an opportunity to conform the existing statutes to the provisions of the Goodridge decision." It ended: "The answer to the question is 'No.'" Religious leaders responded with strong statements on both sides of the issue. Archbishop Seán Patrick O'Malley said in a statement: "The tone and tenor of this answer clearly demonstrates the overly activist stance of the four-judge majority... Clearly, the justices who issued this opinion seem determined to blur the constitutional separation of powers and to usurp the rightful role of the Legislature." He called for the General Court to act during its scheduled joint session to put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to a popular vote. Governor Mitt Romney authored an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal that called the latest SJC ruling "wrongly decided and deeply mistaken", backed a state constitutional amendment and urged other states to take similar action, but did not endorse the idea of a federal constitutional amendment.

Without coming to agreement on how to proceed, legislative leaders considered several legal options, including passing statutes to delay the implementation of Goodridge, a strategy outlined by Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard Law School, until a referendum on a constitutional amendment could be held in November 2006. Amending the Massachusetts Constitution is a multi-year process that could not be accomplished before the date set by the SJC for the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In order to amend the State Constitution, it is necessary for an amendment first to receive sufficient support at two state constitutional conventions, which is a joint meeting of the two houses of the General Court (the House of Representatives and the Senate), held during two successive two-year sessions, before going before the voters in a referendum during a normally scheduled November election. An amendment put forward by legislators needs a majority (101 out of 200) at two constitutional conventions and an amendment put forward by petition needs a 25% vote (50 out of 200) at two constitutional conventions.

Constitutional convention 2004
Advocates of same-sex marriage, who had been far outnumbered as demonstrators two years earlier, were a large and constant presence in the House of Representatives throughout the 2004 convention, coordinated by MassEquality, an umbrella organization formed to respond to the public backlash against Goodridge. They had mobilized constituent telephone calls with increasing success in the weeks before the convention and emphasized the impact on children being raised by gay parents. The amendment's proponents drew support from Massachusetts Citizens for Life and larger donations than they had previously received, along with personal lobbying in localities.

The General Court met in joint session as a constitutional convention on February 11, and after six hours of debate rejected two amendments, one proposed by House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran and the other by Senate President Robert Travaglini. Both would have banned same-sex marriage, one would have made civil unions possible in the future and the other would have established civil unions. Finneran commented: "We are as divided as the nation on this. We are doing the best we can. We are human beings. We struggle. Sometimes we come up short." The convention met again the next day and defeated an amendment that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman and disavowed any position on civil unions on a 103–94 vote that showed divisions in each party and Catholic legislators evenly divided. Ronald Crews of the Massachusetts Family Institute blamed Finneran's misreading of his own caucus for the failure of his own proposed language, a defeat in the convention's opening moments from which Crews found it impossible to recover.

At the end of March, after extended debate, and some tactical voting in which some legislators backed measures they would not ultimately support in order to prevent the adoption of an even stronger measure, the convention passed by a vote of 105–92 an amendment to ban same-sex marriage but allow civil unions. It also specified that civil unions should not be treated as marriages for federal purposes. The language adopted had Romney's support. One report described the process: "Tenuous and shifting coalitions held together in the final vote, despite a series of parliamentary moves by liberal lawmakers to stop anything from moving forward. In the end, an amendment that was disliked by the political right and the political left was approved because it was the only measure that could draw the support of a majority of lawmakers." The proposed amendment, if approved by a second constitutional convention in 2005, would have been placed before the voters as a referendum in November 2006. Romney believed the vote justified asking the SJC to stay its ruling requiring the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples on May 17, but Attorney General Thomas Reilly said there was no legal basis for making that request.

As the constitutional convention concluded its work on the amendment, some politicians announced plans to make the November 2004 elections a referendum on same-sex marriage. In Vermont, following the enactment of civil unions legislation in 2000, a large group of its supporters had been defeated. One political action committee announced plans to target legislative candidates who supported same-sex marriage, eight Republicans and two independents. Ronald Crews of the Massachusetts Family Institute estimated a possible shift of 10 to 15 seats against same-sex marriage. The elections resulted in shifts that consistently favored supporters of same-sex marriage rights. Carl Sciortino, a gay activist and first-time candidate, drew support from supporters of same-sex marriage, but ran largely on traditional issues like education, taxation, and health care, and narrowly defeated a 16-year veteran and same-sex marriage opponent in the Democratic primary on September 14. Later that month, Speaker of the House Finneran resigned from the General Court to be replaced by Salvatore DiMasi, who backed same-sex marriage. Some candidates who backed a constitutional amendment did not make same-sex marriage a campaign issue as anticipated, but it proved critical in a few races. All 50 incumbents who opposed a constitutional amendment and faced challengers won re-election. Four supporters of Goodridge retired and successors with similar views replaced them. Five opponents of Goodridge retired and three of their successors were supporters of same-sex marriage. In special elections in the spring of 2005, three incumbents who supported a constitutional amendment lost to supporters of same-sex marriage.

Attempts to delay implementation
Despite Romney's urging, Attorney General Reilly refused to ask the SJC to stay its decision, saying that implementation was not problematic and that a popular vote on a constitutional amendment was the only way to resolve the issue. On April 16, 2004, Romney asked the General Court to pass legislation giving him authority to request a stay. He said the implementation of the SJC ruling presented legal complications, citing both a 1913 law that invalidated the marriage of non-residents if the marriage was invalid in their home state and the possibility that a popular referendum on same-sex marriage might retroactively invalidate same-sex marriages. Conservative groups like the Coalition for Marriage praised Romney for continuing to search for a way to block same-sex marriages.

In April, the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts and several conservative advocacy organizations tried to block the implementation of Goodridge in state court until the attempt to amend the State Constitution was allowed to run its course. A single justice of the SJC dismissed the complaint on May 3. A few days later, shortly before the Goodridge decision was to take effect, four conservative public interest law firms, Liberty Counsel, the Thomas More Law Center, Citizens for the Preservation of Constitutional Rights, and the American Family Association Center for Law and Policy, brought suit in federal court on behalf of the Vice President of the Catholic Action League, Robert Largess, and eleven members of the General Court to stop the May 17 marriages. It argued that the SJC's decision deprived the people of Massachusetts of their right to a republican government. On May 13, 2004, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro denied their request for an injunction delaying implementation of the decision, as did the First Circuit Court of Appeals on June 29. In November, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case without comment.

On May 14, Democratic Representative Philip Travis filed legislation to impeach Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, the author of the Goodridge decision. Another bill targeted all four justices who signed the majority decision in that case.

Implementation
With respect to implementation, the principal dispute concerned the 1913 statute that denied a marriage license to a couple if their marriage would not be valid in their state of residence. The Massachusetts Town Clerks' Association raised the issue for the first time on February 24, reporting that some of them were receiving inquiries from out-of-state couples. New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer made the question more urgent when he issued a non-binding opinion on March 3 that "New York common law requires recognizing as valid a marriage... validly executed in another state". On March 31, Romney took the position that no other states recognized same-sex marriage and therefore residents of other states could not marry in Massachusetts. Reilly took the position that 38 states expressly denied recognition to same-sex marriages and that residents of other states could obtain licenses.

Localities that supported the right of same-sex couples to marry resisted both those interpretations. On April 11, Provincetown's Board of Selectmen decided their town clerk would approve marriage license applications from any couple that swore, as was customary, that their marriage was lawful. The town manager said: "We've never been the marriage police with heterosexual couples, and we're not about to start with same-sex couples". Worcester's clerk took a similar position on April 16. Before the end of the month, an investigation by The Boston Globe showed that since 1976 town clerks had been repeatedly instructed not to question applicants for marriage licenses about their eligibility. A spokesman for Governor Romney said that the Goodridge decision "changed the definition of marriage, it changed the way the new marriage forms look, and it changed the way city and town clerks will carry out the requirements of the law."

When Romney suggested confusion over the 1913 law justified postponing the implementation of Goodridge, Mary Bonauto, the lawyer who successfully argued Goodridge, suggested he get the law repealed: "If he's so concerned about problems, he can file an emergency bill to repeal that law. Massachusetts has basically said discriminating against people of the same sex is unconstitutional. So why would we try so hard to uphold another state's discriminatory law?" She asked: "Under the governor's logic, if some state again started banning marriages between Catholics and Protestants, then would Massachusetts enforce that?" In an interview on April 23, Romney said: "Massachusetts should not become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage. We do not intend to export our marriage confusion to the entire nation." His spokesman announced he was sending letters to the governors and attorneys general of the other states to explain his view that same-sex marriage was not legal in their state and asking "if we're wrong" about that. Denying license to all out-of-state couples became known as "the Romney plan". It also allowed visitors from Ontario to marry, since same-sex marriage was legal there. The governor's legal counsel, Daniel Winslow, warned that a justice of the peace who could not in conscience officiate at a same-sex wedding should resign.

On May 4, when the Romney Administration began training clerks to handle applications from same-sex couples, a report from The Boston Globe called it "a major shift from the governor's earlier stance on enforcing limitations on licensing gay marriage." The new forms were gender-neutral, identifying the applicants as "Party A" and Party B" and asking each to check a box for either male or female. Clerks could require proof of residency if they asked that of all couples, but needed only to have applicants swear that there were no legal impediments to their marrying in Massachusetts. The administration said that earlier reports had been premature. Some towns and clerks announced plans to knowingly issue licenses to out-of-staters, including Provincetown, Worcester, and Somerville. Bonauto said that GLAD's position was that applicants should never be less than honest, "let alone on a form signed under oath".

First same-sex marriages
On May 16, 2004, Cambridge, which The New York Times described as having "a well-known taste for erudite rebelliousness", decorated the wooden staircases of City Hall with white organza. Hundreds of applicants and supporters in celebratory dress–"glittery party hats and boutonnieres"–gathered in the street. City officials opened the building at 12:01 a.m. May 17 "for a rousing party, with wedding cake, sparkling cider and the music of the Cambridge Community Chorus." Some 262 couples obtained licenses, starting with Marcia Hams and Susan Shepherd. The first to wed in Cambridge were Tanya McCloskey and Marcia Kadish at 9:15 a.m. Cambridge City Clerk Margaret Drury was the first city clerk in the U.S. to perform a legal same-sex marriage. Massachusetts has a three-day waiting period before issuing marriage licenses, but many couples obtained waivers of the waiting period in order to be wed as soon as possible.

Other cities and towns in Massachusetts began issuing applications during normal business hours. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino greeted three of the couples who were plaintiffs in Goodridge and said: "We've broken down the barrier. I am so proud of these people. I am very proud to be mayor of this city today." The first to marry in Boston City Hall were Tom Weikle and Joe Rogers, who lined up for their license application at 5:30 a.m. and were wed about 11 a.m. by Boston's city clerk. Rejecting the Romney's insistence that the 1913 statute be respected, Somerville Mayor Joseph Curtatone addressed a crowd of same-sex couples that included several from New York gathered in front of Town Hall at 8 am.: "No matter who you are or where you come from, if you fill out the application, you will be given a license to marry. Those of you from out of state, welcome to Somerville." The seven couples who were party to the Goodridge lawsuit were all wed on May 17, beginning with Robert Compton and David Wilson at Boston's Arlington Street Church. There were sizable celebrations in Northampton, Worcester, and Provincetown, while "explicit protests were scattered and few".

A survey from The Boston Globe found that half of the couples who applied for licenses on the first day had been partners for a decade or more. Two-thirds were women and 30% were raising children. Only the towns that had made an issue of issuing licenses to out-of-staters had appreciable numbers of them. In the first week, 2,468 same-sex couples applied for licenses, including at least 164 from 27 other states and the District of Columbia. News coverage of the day's events in Massachusetts was extensive, though limited outside the United States. The Today Show broadcast live coverage from outside Boston City Hall. The three major networks lead their evening news shows with wedding coverage. The Cincinnati Enquirer ran the tag "For better or for worse" above the headline "Same-sex weddings make history". It was the lead story in The Washington Post and The New York Times.

Governor Romney in a brief statement said: "All along, I have said an issue as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage should be decided by the people. Until then, I intend to follow the law and expect others to do the same." President George W. Bush took note of these events in Massachusetts with a statement calling for a federal constitutional amendment "defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and a woman as husband and wife." It said: "The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges. All Americans have a right to be heard in this debate."

On the same day, non-binding opinions by the attorneys general of two more neighboring states fueled debate about enforcing the 1913 law. On May 17, Richard Blumenthal wrote in a letter to Romney that the status of an out-of-state same-sex marriage in Connecticut was not "automatically void", and Patrick C. Lynch reported that Rhode Island only invalidated a marriage that violated public policy as in cases of "bigamy, incest or mental incompetence".

Constitutional convention 2005
The constitutional convention took up the compromise amendment approved in 2004. It failed on a vote of 157–39 on September 14, after many moderate legislators who had initially supported it refused to and most legislators opposed to same-sex marriage abandoned its compromise language. State Senator Brian Lees, a Republican who co-sponsored the amendment in the previous convention, explained why he withdrew his support: "Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth, with the exception of those who can now marry. This amendment which was an appropriate measure or compromise a year ago, is no longer, I feel, a compromise today." Opponents turned instead to an alternative method of amending the Constitution that they thought would allow them to present an uncompromising ban on same-sex marriage to the voters. This method would require the collection of thousands of signatures on petitions but would need the support of only a quarter of the legislators to become a referendum. The process of gathering signatures was already underway when the legislators voted to reject the 2004 compromise. Travis explained that the opponents' fervor came in reaction to the position taken by gay and lesbian activists: "We all want to give people the rights to have insurance and transfer property. No one is so rotten to the core that they wouldn't even consider that. That would be inappropriate. But we don't want to call it marriage. And remember, they held out for marriage. Civil unions weren't acceptable to the gay community in Massachusetts. They didn't want a second-sister relationship like they have in Vermont. They wanted the full-blown description with the title of marriage."

Petitions
An organization called VoteOnMarriage.org organized the petition drive. Its backers included Governor Romney, former Boston Mayor Ray Flynn, former SJC Justice Joseph Nolan, and Gilbert Thompson, president of the board of the Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston. The language of their amendment was: "When recognizing marriages entered into after the adoption of this amendment by the people, the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall define marriage only as the union of one man and one woman."

Unlike amendments in other states, the amendment did not explicitly forbid other forms of legal relationships for same-sex couples, such as civil unions or domestic partnerships. It did not attempt to invalidate same-sex marriages licensed since Goodridge.

Attorney General Reilly certified the language and format of the petitions as valid on September 7, 2005. Advocates of same-sex marriage objected that the proposed amendment was clearly designed to reverse the SJC decision, a violation of the State Constitution's rule that amendments could not be used for that purpose. Deval Patrick, Reilly's principal opponent for the Democratic nomination for governor, said "There was a strong argument that this should have gone a different way." Massachusetts Secretary of State William F. Galvin said: "I think this is one of those instances where the institution of gay marriage may be less divisive to society than the referendum campaign will be. The emotions that this kind of issue brings out can be very detrimental to society. It has been around for a year and any honest person can conclude that it has not been detrimental to society."

VoteOnMarriage.org collected 170,000 signatures before the December 7, 2005 deadline, almost three times the number required. Paid signature collectors from Arno Political Consultants subsequently revealed that an unknown but large number of these signatures had been collected through fraud. The collectors told voters that they were signing a petition about a different issue or that the petitions were in favor of same-sex marriage. In a case led by attorney Jennifer Levi, GLAD challenged Reilly's certification of the petitions in court, claiming the effort contradicted a provision of the Massachusetts Constitution (Article 48, Section 2), which prohibits the use of such petitions for "reversal of a judicial decision." In July, the SJC ruled unanimously that the amendment did not constitute "reversal" of a judicial decision, given that the proposed amendment sought to define only those marriages performed after its passage. If passed, the amendment would have restricted future marriages to different-sex couples but would not have invalidated the approximately 8,000 same-sex marriage licenses already issued.

Constitutional convention 2006
On July 12, 2006, the General Court sitting as a constitutional convention voted 100 to 91 to postpone action on the initiative amendment until November 9, 2006, two days after the elections. Supporters of same-sex marriage sought the delay, which the amendment's backers denounced and Romney criticized it. As that date neared, Arline Isaacson, a lobbyist for the Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, was not optimistic about her side's chances and Senate President Robert Travaglini was considering allowing a vote to adjourn without acting on the measure. Instead, on November 9, 2006, the legislators in convention voted 109 to 87 to recess until January 2, the last day of the legislative session.

On November 19, 2006, Governor Romney led a rally against the General Court's delaying tactics in front of the Massachusetts State House. Romney said: "The issue before us is not whether same-sex couples should marry. The issue before us today is whether 109 legislators will follow the constitution." He said he would ask a justice of the SJC to order the initiative placed on the ballot because the legislators were refusing to fulfill their constitutional obligations. The next day, he sent the 109 legislators a copy of the State Constitution with a letter underscoring the document's provision that the legislators sitting as a constitutional convention shall vote on initiatives: "Not 'may' vote ... not 'could' vote ... not 'perhaps' vote ... It's very clear." His reference was to the clause: "final legislative action in the joint session ... shall be taken only by call of the yeas and nays". He filed the lawsuit as one member of a group of private citizens on November 24, citing 5 occasions in 24 years in which the General Court failed to vote on valid initiatives. Other plaintiffs included Ray Flynn and officials of VoteOnMarriage.org and the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. Named as defendants were the Massachusetts Secretary of State, who oversees the preparation of election ballots, William F. Galvin, and the President of the Massachusetts Senate who chairs joint sessions of the General Court, Senator Travaglini. After a 20-minute hearing on November 30, Associate Justice Judith A. Cowin ordered an expedited hearing before the full SJC on December 20. At that hearing, both sides agreed that the SJC could not enforce an order against the General Court. An attorney for the plaintiffs said: "We're not asking you to tell the General Court how to do their business. We're only asking you to declare what their constitutional obligations are." The First Assistant Attorney General representing the General Court countered that the voters were free to replace the legislators at the next election.

On December 27, 2006, the SJC ruled unanimously that Article 48 of the State Constitution requires legislators to take recorded votes on initiative amendments. The SJC's opinion authored by Justice John M. Greaney said the legislators' duties were "beyond serious debate", and described their constitutional obligations: "The members of the joint session have a constitutional duty to vote, by the yeas and nays, on the merits of all pending initiative amendments before recessing on January 2, 2007. With respect to legislative action on proposals for constitutional amendments introduced ... by initiative petition, the language of art. 48 is not ambiguous."

"Today's discussion and holding on the meaning of the duty lays any doubt to rest... Those members who now seek to avoid their lawful obligations, by a vote to recess without a roll call vote by yeas and nays on the merits of the initiative amendment ... ultimately will have to answer to the people who elected them."

He explained that the court could take no action against the plaintiffs in the case: "[T]here is no presently articulated judicial remedy for the Legislature's indifference to, or defiance of, its constitutional duties. We have no statutory authority to issue a declaratory judgment concerning the constitutionality of the legislative action, or inaction, in this matter." VoteOnMarriage.org, which had gathered signatures on the proposal the legislators had failed to vote on, sued on December 13, asking a federal court to order them to vote or, in the absence of a vote, to order the amendment placed on the ballot. It also sought $500,000 from the 109 legislators who voted to adjourn, the cost of its signature-gathering campaign. Arline Isaacson, one of the leaders of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, urged the General Court to adjourn without voting on the amendment. She said: "We know that if the Legislature votes on the amendment, we will lose this year and next year, and it will go to the ballot, where it will likely pass." Senator Brian Lees said he thought the General Court would not be swayed by the ruling and he stood by his opposition to taking a vote: "I will never vote to put a form of discrimination into the state constitution." Before the legislators met, Deval Patrick, who was due to succeed Romney as governor on January 4, 2007, said: "I hope by whatever means appropriate, the constitutional convention today ends this debate. I think a vote on adjournment is a vote on the merits." The joint session of the General Court, promptly after coming to order and without debate, voted on the amendment on January 2, 2007, the last day of its 2005–2006 session. There were 62 votes in favor and 132 opposed, a sufficient number to require the amendment's consideration at another constitutional convention. Isaacson said that the SJC ruling "really tipped the scales against us."

Constitutional convention 2007
When the General Court met as a constitutional convention in June 2007, observers anticipated a closer vote than the previous January because of retirements and some announced changes in position. Advocates of the amendment charged that the political pressure on legislators on the part of Governor Deval Patrick and legislative leaders included job offers and trading votes on other issues. Opponents of the amendment cast the vote as one of conscience and personal rather than political lobbying. The day before the convention, the state's four Roman Catholic bishops in a letter to legislators endorsed putting the issue to a popular vote: "[T]he marriage debate should not be reserved only to lawyers and lawmakers. Every citizen has a stake in the outcome, because every citizen has a stake in the well-being of the family." Cardinal O'Malley called several legislators to lobby for their votes and Governor Patrick said he offered some help in their re-election campaigns. On June 14, 2007, the convention opened and proceeded immediately to a vote on the issue without debate. The measure failed to obtain the required 50 votes, as 45 voted in favor, 151 opposed the measure, and four were absent or abstained from the vote. Two new legislators who were thought to support the amendment voted against it, while nine who had supported it in January, seven Democrats and two Republicans, changed their votes to oppose it. VoteOnMarriage.Org announced it would attempt to unseat legislators who had switched sides to defeat the amendment.

Marriages of non-residents
A Massachusetts law enacted in 1913 invalidated the marriage of non-residents if the marriage was invalid in the state where they lived. Historians and legal scholars believe it originated in an upsurge of anti-miscegenation sentiment associated with the notoriety of champion boxer Jack Johnson's marriages to white women. Though moribund for decades, it was used to prevent same-sex couples who were residents of other states from marrying in Massachusetts. As the date neared for the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Governor Romney and some town clerks disputed how and whether that law should be enforced, and Romney had used the state's authority to block the same-sex marriages of non-residents from being properly recorded. He told a news conference: "We certainly won't record on our public health records marriages that are on the face of them not consistent with the law". The clerks soon relented under orders from Attorney General Reilly. In June 2004, GLAD brought a lawsuit, Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Public Health, on behalf of several out-of-state same-sex couples and several town clerks who objected to being forced to discriminate in denying licenses to such couples. The SJC upheld the law on March 30, 2006, though it allowed that residents of states like New York and Vermont, which did not explicitly exclude same-sex couples from marriage, might pursue the case further. On September 29, 2006, Superior Court Justice Thomas Connolly determined that same-sex couples who reside in Rhode Island can marry in Massachusetts after finding "that same-sex marriage is ... not prohibited in Rhode Island". In May 2007, Judge Connolly declared valid the marriages of several same-sex couples, residents of New York, who married in Massachusetts before July 6, 2006, when a New York court issued a ruling that same-sex marriage was not legal there, New York's first explicit prohibition on same-sex marriage. In July 2007, the Department of Public Health ruled that same-sex couples from New Mexico, where whether the law prohibited same-sex marriage was disputed, can obtain marriage licenses in Massachusetts.

On June 15, 2007, following the defeat of the initiative to amend the State Constitution, Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute warned that gay and lesbian activists would try to repeal the 1913 law next so that "This radical social experiment will be exported to the other 49 states". He said its repeal would "open the floodgates for Massachusetts to become the Mecca for same-sex marriage. Their goal is to strike down the marriage restrictions in every state. Their launching pad will be Massachusetts." Isaacson said "no one is rushing" to take on that issue and that "In the short term, we want everyone to rest, breathe and appreciate the incredible victory that took place". Liberal columnist Ellen Goodman wrote: "Las Vegas? Mecca? So far, little Rhode Island is the only state that allows gay residents to wed in Massachusetts. We are the Las Vegas of Rhode Island."

On June 30, 2008, the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, in reply to an inquiry from Daniel O'Connell, Massachusetts Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, reported that it calculated that allowing non-resident same-sex couples to marry would add $37 million to the Massachusetts economy in each of the next three years and add 330 jobs for the same period.

The Massachusetts General Court took up the repeal of the 1913 law the next month. On July 15, the Massachusetts Senate voted to repeal it on a unanimous voice vote. The House approved the legislation on July 29, 2008 on a 118 to 35 vote, and Governor Deval Patrick signed the bill into law on July 31. It took effect immediately. Patrick said: "I think other states will make their own judgments, and I expect them to–that's their own business. All we can do is tend our own garden, and make sure that it's weeded, and I think we've weeded out a discriminatory law that we should have." MassResistance mounted a petition drive for a referendum to reinstate the law in October 2008, but failed to collect enough signatures.

Recognition of legal relationships from other jurisdictions
On July 26, 2012, in a case involving a same-sex couple who established a civil union in Vermont in 2003, the SJC ruled unanimously in Elia-Warnken v. Elia that Massachusetts recognizes a same-sex civil union established in another jurisdiction as the legal equivalent of a marriage. Chief Justice Roderick L. Ireland wrote: "Refusing to recognize a legal spousal relationship that granted rights equal to those acquired through marriage, in a State that did not allow same-sex couples to marry at the time, would only perpetuate the discrimination against same-sex couples" that led the court to tell the Senate in 2004 that civil unions would not suffice as an alternative to marriage for same-sex couples. The SJC took a comparable position on September 12 with respect to domestic partnerships established in other jurisdictions in a case involving a California couple, Hunter v. Rose.

Charron v. Amaral
On July 10, 2008, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled unanimously that a surviving partner in a same-sex relationship, that was prevented from marrying before the same-sex marriage ban was declared unconstitutional, could not sue for loss of consortium. The court ruled that its decision in Goodridge could not be applied retroactively. Previously, the lower court had granted summary judgment to the defendants.

Subsequent developments
Eleven years after legalization in Massachusetts, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide with its Obergefell v. Hodges ruling on June 26, 2015. Several state politicians from across the political spectrum welcomed the ruling. Governor Charlie Baker said, "For me, the issue of marriage equality is personal. I'm pleased the Commonwealth has already recognized same-sex marriages in our state, and with today's Supreme Court decision every American citizen across the nation will have equal protection under the law and the right to marry the person they choose." Senator Ed Markey said, "With this momentous ruling from the Supreme Court we end a chapter of discrimination in our country's history and start a new one that says all Americans have the right to pursue happiness by marrying the person they love. Today, we raise our voices for equality. We raise our voices for an end to all forms of discrimination. We raise our voices for justice. It's about basic freedoms for our friends, neighbors and families. Any effort to deny equal protections under the law is unfair, discriminatory, and unconstitutional – and that is just plain wrong. I am so proud to represent the state that has become a model across the country and the world on LGBT inclusion and acceptance." In August 2023, Boston removed all mentions of sex on marriage licence forms "in the hopes of offering more dignified experiences for all".

Marriage statistics
In the first year, more than 6,200 same-sex couples had married in Massachusetts. That number fell to only 1,900 marriages in the second year. Out of the total of more than 8,100 marriages, 64% involved lesbian couples. In comparison, more than 36,000 heterosexual couples are married each year in Massachusetts. The number of marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples in Massachusetts leveled off at about 1,500 a year in 2006 and 2007. They represented about 4% of all marriages in the state. A total of 22,406 same-sex marriages were performed in Massachusetts from 2004 to 2012, mostly in Barnstable, Middlesex and Suffolk counties. Subtracting the first year total, an average of 2,025 marriages were performed each subsequent year.

The 2020 U.S. census showed that there were 20,913 married same-sex couple households (9,037 male couples and 11,876 female couples) and 12,539 unmarried same-sex couple households in Massachusetts.

Public opinion
Notes:
 * The margin of error for the national survey was ± 0.82 percentage points at the 95% level of confidence, including the design effect for the survey of 1.56.

title: Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts


text:
USS Eagle (1798)

The first USS Eagle, a schooner, was built at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1798, and commissioned in the Revenue Cutter Service under the command of Captain H. G. Campbell, USRCS.

Quasi War
She placed under control of the Navy in July 1798 for service in the undeclared naval war (Quasi-War) with France.

From October 1798 Eagle patrolled off the coast of South Carolina and Georgia protecting American shipping from French privateers. Ordered to the West Indies, she arrived at Prince Rupert's Bay, Dominica, 14 March 1799, to hunt French ships, and to convoy merchant vessels on the Guadeloupe Station until late in June, when she sailed for New Castle, Delaware. Sometime in early 1799 she and USRC Diligence captured French ship Reynard. In late April or before 6 May 1799,  Eagle, USS Richmond (1798) and USRC Virginia (1797) captured the French ship Louis.

In a letter dated 20 May, 1799 Navy Secretary Benjamin Stoddert notified the Treasury Secretary that he should consider Eagle to be officially transferred to the U.S. Navy.

Sometime just before 11 June, 1799 she and USS Baltimore captured a prize, probably French ship ''Siren"".

On 27 July 1799 the Secretary of the Navy sent a letter with Campbell's commission as a U.S. Navy officer, rank of master commandant.

She returned to the Caribbean in August 1799 for similar duty. In early November she recaptured a brig that was being towed by a privateer, the privateer was forced ashore but got off and got away. She later captured a French sloop, and with USS Ganges captured a French Letter of Marque. On 2 May, 1800 captured French schooner "La Magdelaine" (15 tons). On 10 September 1800 when she set sail for St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, with the sloop-of-war USS Maryland (1799), escorting a convoy of 52 ships. After arrival at New Castle on 28 September, Eagle was laid up for repairs. Eagle's third cruise to the West Indies extended from January to June 1801, when she returned to Baltimore.

During her career in the United States' navy, she captured or assisted in the capture of 22 French vessels which had been preying on American ocean commerce. Sometime in 1799 she captured French ship "Bon Pere", Bon Pere was taken into USRC Service under same name that year. Eagle was sold 17 June 1801.

title: USS Eagle (1798)


text:
Richard Wainwright (politician)

Richard Scurrah Wainwright (11 April 1918 – 16 January 2003) was a British politician of the Liberal Party. He was the MP for Colne Valley from 1966 to 1970, and again from 1974 to 1987.

Early life and education
Wainwright was born in Leeds. He was educated at Shrewsbury School He then won an open scholarship to Clare College, Cambridge (BA History, 1938). While studying for his degree he developed his interest in the Liberal Party, as a member of the Cambridge University Liberal Club.

Early career
After leaving university he became a Merchant Banker, but later left the profession to focus on his political aspirations. During World War II, he registered as a conscientious objector and joined the Friends' Ambulance Unit, a Quaker organisation, serving in Normandy in 1944, and Antwerp the Netherlands and Germany in 1944–46.

Parliamentary career
Wainwright stood as the Liberal Party candidate for the constituency of Pudsey in the general election of 1950 and again in 1955, but was unsuccessful on both occasions. In 1956 he became the Liberal candidate for Colne Valley. Standing there as a Liberal in 1959, the 1963 by-election, and 1964, he increased his vote each time until he finally gained the seat in 1966. At the following election in 1970 he was defeated by the Labour Party's David Clark but regained the seat at the February 1974 election. He retained his seat until his retirement at the 1987 general election.

In 1953, Wainwright was elected to the executive of the Liberal Party and served as its Chairman between 1970 and 1972. His particular areas of interest were employment, trade and public finance. From 1961 he concentrated his work at Liberal headquarters on local government. He was a central spokesman for the Liberal Party on finance and represented his party on the Finance Bill Committee in 1968, trade and industry, the economy (1966–1970, 1979–1985) and employment (1985–1987). He was the chairman of the Liberal Party Research Department (1968–1970). After 1974 Wainwright focused on the financial management of the party.

Outside Parliament
After 1987, although retired as an MP, Wainwright continued to be politically active, working for the Electoral Reform Society, as well as being a founding member of the executive committee of Charter 88. Between 1986 and 1997 he was also Deputy Chairman of the Wider Share Ownership Council. When the Liberal Party merged with the Social Democratic Party to become the Liberal Democrats, Wainwright became a member working as President of the Yorkshire Federation of Liberal Democrats (1989–1997).

Wainwright was a Methodist lay preacher. Between 1948 and 1958, he served on the Leeds Group B Hospital Management Committee and was Chairman of the Arthington Hospital and Thorp Arch Hospital Committees. He served on the Committee for the Leeds, Skyrac and Morley Savings Bank Board of Managers and the Leeds Library Committee. Further roles included Treasurer of the Leeds Invalid Children's Aid Society and the Bethany House Free Church Probation Home. Between 1959 and 1984, he was a member of the Joseph Rowntree Social Services Trust Limited (now the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust). He was also made a Fellow of the Huddersfield Polytechnic (later the University of Huddersfield) in 1988.

Personal life
His wife Joyce (née Hollis; died 4 February 2011 ), whom he married in 1948, was an active member of the Yorkshire Women's Liberal Federation, fulfilling roles as both Chairman and President, and Chairman of the Colne Valley Women's Liberal Council (1959–1987). She was also a member of the Executive of the national Women's Liberal Federation. The couple had four children, two of whom entered public life: their son Martin is a former Northern Editor of The Guardian newspaper, and their daughter Hilary is a radical academic and editor of Red Pepper magazine.

Wainwright died in Leeds on 16 January 2003, aged 84. The former offices of Greg Mulholland, who was Liberal Democrat MP for Leeds North West from 2005 to 2017, were named 'Richard Wainwright House' in his honour.

title: Richard Wainwright (politician)


text:
12 Golden Country Greats

12 Golden Country Greats is the fifth studio album by the American rock band Ween, and their third on Elektra Records. It is the only album on which the group limited themselves to a specific genre of music (in this case, country music).

Background and recording
According to producer and friend of the band Ben Vaughn, Ween asked him to produce the album because he already had experience working with musicians in the Nashville country scene, having produced Arthur Alexander's album Lonely Just Like Me (1993) and co-written songs with Rodney Crowell and Gary Nicholson. The legendary Bradley's Barn was chosen as the recording studio for the album.

Some musicians, such as keyboardist Bobby Emmons (who also served as a church deacon) and Danny Davis, declined to participate in the recording due to the "blue" nature of much of the material, but Ween and Vaughn still got many highly regarded country musicians to play on the album. Later, Ween assembled some of the session musicians again into a touring band dubbed The Shit Creek Boys.

Album title
Despite the album's title, it only features ten tracks. Ween claimed that the "12" represents the veteran musicians that appear on the record.

However, the band did indeed record twelve songs during the demo sessions for the album. When it came time to record the actual album, the band chose not to use the songs "I Got No Darkside" and "So Long, Jerry" but kept the album title. "So Long, Jerry", a tribute to the then recently deceased Jerry Garcia, was featured as a B-Side on the "Piss Up a Rope" single.

Song information
The session musicians were responsible for almost all of the instrumentation on the album. The only instrumental parts recorded by the core members of Ween were guitar solos by Dean and Gene on "I Don't Wanna Leave You on the Farm" and "Fluffy", respectively.

Gene sings the lead vocal part on every song except "Piss Up a Rope" and "Help Me Scrape the Mucus off My Brain", which feature Dean on lead vocals. The Jordanaires, best known for having provided background vocals for Elvis Presley, appear on the tracks "I'm Holding You" and "Powder Blue".

The melody of "Japanese Cowboy" closely resembles that of "Chariots of Fire" by Vangelis. The band has played the two songs as a medley in live shows.

In the tradition of country music, during "Powder Blue", Gene introduces each member of the band, who then plays a short solo on their instrument. The track was intended to run for 4:16, the last approximately one minute of which would consist of an audio clip of Muhammad Ali from after the Rumble in the Jungle fight playing over the backing instrumental track of the song. Ali's lawyers denied Ween permission to use the audio sample, but the album had already been mixed by that point, and Elektra accidentally initially pressed the album with Ali's speech still included. Repressings contain a cropped version of the track that ends abruptly at 3:13, after the introduction: "Ladies & Gentlemen, I'd like to present Muhammad Ali" (who is no longer heard).

"Help Me Scrape the Mucus off My Brain" is a riff on Merle Haggard's "If We Make It Through December", featuring a nearly identical melody, but played much faster than Haggard's more somber original.

Singles
"Piss Up a Rope" was released as a 7-inch vinyl single on Diesel Only Records. The B-side was "Sweet Texas Fire", a non-album track recorded during the Chocolate & Cheese sessions.

"You Were the Fool" and "Piss Up a Rope" were released together as a 7-inch vinyl single on Flying Nun Records (with "You Were the Fool" on "Side A" and "Piss Up a Rope" on "Side AA"). "So Long Jerry" (a tribute to Jerry Garcia recorded during the 12 Golden Country Greats sessions, but omitted from the final album) was included with these songs on a CD single issued by Elektra.

Reception
Reviews for the album were mostly positive. Stephen Thomas Erlewine of Allmusic called it "as satisfying as any of their records, and gutsier, too", despite interpreting "Mister Richard Smoker" as being homophobic, and awarded the album 4 stars out of 5. Sputnikmusic's Zachary Powell gave the album $4 1/2$ stars out of 5 and claimed that "Writing songs about similar themes to what country songs have been written about but including their personal brown touch is what the band does best." Another writer for the same site, Bill Thomas, gave the album 4 stars out of 5. Ethan Smith of Entertainment Weekly, on the other hand, railed against the album, describing the songs as being "notable more for their homophobia, misogyny, and racism than for anything funny", and gave it a C−.

In a 2011 interview, producer Ben Vaughn remarked that, when the album was released, many Ween fans were confused by the radical break with the band's previous sound, comparing it to the fan reception given to Neil Young's album Trans.

Track listing
All tracks written by Ween. All lead vocals by Gene Ween, except where noted

Personnel
Ween
 * Dean Ween – vocals; guitar solo on "I Don't Want to Leave You on the Farm"
 * Gene Ween – vocals; guitar solo on "Fluffy"

Additional musicians
 * The Jordanaires – vocals on "I'm Holding You" and "Powder Blue"
 * Pete Wade – Dobro, guitar, 6-string bass
 * Bob Wray – bass
 * Kip Paxton – bass
 * Buddy Blackman – banjo
 * Russ Hicks – pedal steel
 * Buddy Spicher – fiddle, mandolin
 * Bobby Ogdin – piano
 * Hargus "Pig" Robbins – piano
 * Denis Solee – clarinet
 * Charlie McCoy – organ, banjo, bass, harmonica, percussion, trumpet, tuba, vibraphone
 * Gene Chrisman – drums
 * Buddy Harman – drums
 * Bobby Bradley – engineer
 * Ben Vaughn – producer
 * Chuck Dehaan – art direction

title: 12 Golden Country Greats