Same-sex marriage
Same-sex marriage is marriage between two people who are of the same sex (i.e., man & man, woman & woman). Other terms include both the inclusive "civil marriage", "gender-neutral marriage", and "equal marriage"; and the exclusive "gay marriage", "homosexual marriage", "same-gender marriage", "lesbian marriage".
The term "civil marriage" is used to communicate the secular nature of the same-sex marriage movement. The term emphasizes that this is a civil, not religious issue. In the United States it would be a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment for a state to force a religious group to recognize any particular type of marriage.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, opposing efforts to legalize or ban same-sex civil marriage made it a topic of debate all over the world. At present, same-sex marriages are recognized in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Canada, and the U.S. state of Massachusetts.
On 1 December, 2005, South Africa’s Constitutional Court extended marriage to include same-sex couples which will go into effect by December 2006.
Civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other legal recognitions of same-sex couples which offer varying amounts of benefits attached to marriage are available in: Andorra, Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the Australian Capital Territory and the states of New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania, and Western Australia, and the U.S. states of California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, Vermont, and Washington, D.C..
| Table of contents |
|---|
Debates over terminology
Many proponents of same-sex marriage use the term "equal marriage", but the term "equal marriage" has long been used by feminists to describe any marriage, regardless of the sex of the partners, in which the partners have equal status within the marriage. Some argue that the correct term is simply "marriage" since that is how opposite-sex marriage is presented. Opponents argue that equating same-sex and opposite-sex marriage changes the meaning of marriage and its traditions. Some opponents use the term "homosexual marriage", and surveys have suggested that the word "homosexual" is more stigmatizing than the word "gay".[1] Some publications that oppose same-sex marriage put the word "marriage" in quotes when referring to it. Notable publications that practice this are The Washington Times and LifeSite. Cliff Kincaid, a writer for the conservative-based media watchdog group Accuracy in Media, agrees with this method arguing that "marriage" is a word that same-sex couples merely want to apply to themselves, but have no legal ability to do so in most states.[2] Gay rights supporters argue that it is editorializing and implying inferiority, and point out that it is used when referring to same-sex marriages in countries where it is legal.
Some have suggested abolishing the word "marriage" (or reserving it to a religious context) and referring to the civil and legal aspects of all marriages as civil unions. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, for instance, wrote in a 2003 editorial in the Los Angeles Times that such an arrangement would "strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in the hands of the church while placing a secular institution under state control". [3] Conservative critics like National Review's Jennifer Morse contend that the conflation of marriage with contractual agreements is itself a threat to marriage that "has undermined more heterosexual marriages than anything, with the possible exception of adultery". [4]
The terms "gay marriage", "straight marriage", and all others implying sexual orientation, although popular with the media, are viewed by some as inaccurate. They claim that sexual orientation has rarely been a legal or religious qualification for marriage (a gay man could still marry a woman). Rather, the relevant qualification is the characteristic sexes of the parties to the marriage.
| Family law |
|---|
| Family |
History of same-sex unions
For detailed information, see History of human sexuality and Timeline of same-sex marriage.
Although popular demand for state-recognized same-sex marriage is a relatively new phenomenon in modern times, various types of same-sex unions have existed in earlier cultures. These have ranged from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions. The practice of same-sex love in antiquity often took the form of formal pairings of men with youths, which had many of the attributes of marriage but were limited in duration.
Asia
Same-gender romantic love or sexual desire has been recorded since ancient times in the entirety of the continent of Asia, right from the Middle East to South Asia to East Asia. Such desire often took the form of same-sex unions, usually between men, and often included some difference in age. There is far less information available on relationships among women in ancient times.
In China, in the southern province of Fujian where male love was especially cultivated, men would marry youths in elaborate ceremonies. The marriages would last a number of years, at the end of which the elder partner would help the younger find a (female) wife and settle down to raise a family. Generally, this practice - though unusual even in China - was reflective of the value Chinese culture placed on the reciprocal relationship between benevolent elders teaching and guiding the obedient younger members of society
Classical Europe
There has been a history of same-sex unions in the Western world. Some early Western societies integrated, and even celebrated, same-sex relationships. Evidence of same-sex marriage in antiquity is plentiful. The practice was outlawed in 342 CE, though it is believed to have continued until the late Middle Ages.[1][2][3]
In Hellenic Greece, the pederastic relationships between Greek men (erastes) and youths (eromenos) who had come of age were, it has been argued, analogous to marriage in several aspects. The age of the youth was similar to the age at which women married (the mid-teens), and the relationship could only be undertaken with the consent of the father. This consent, just as in the case of a daughter's marriage, was contingent on the suitor's social standing. The relationship, just like a marriage, consisted of very specific social and religious responsibilities and also had a sexual component.
In ancient Rome, the Emperor Nero is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. Other Roman Emperors, including Diocletian, are reported to have done the same.
Increasingly influential Christianity promoted marriage for procreative purposes and to align society with Judeo-Christian perspectives on heterosexual relationships. The Roman use of sexuality as a form of dominance, as well as a means to conquer a male enemy through rape, have been linked with the increasing intolerance of same-sex relations in Rome.
Christian Europe
In medieval Europe, same-sex relations were much less open or accepted than in the classical world. However, much like the courtly love a knight might bear for his lady, deep, passionate friendship between people of the same sex was not only possible but celebrated. The "love" in such relationships has traditionally been assumed to be dispassionate; but modern scholars often question this. As part of the remains of a floor of a Dominican church in Istanbul were found two gravestones marking the resting places of two knights of the royal chamber of Richard II — Sir William Neville and Sir John Clanvowe, who died days apart in October 1391. Each of their shields holds an identical coat of arms both knights' familial arms side-by-side: "impaled," that is to say, like a married couple's. Thus the companionship and formal union associated with marriage are present; the only doubt is whether sex itself was. [5]
North America
Same-sex marriage has been documented in many societies that were not subject to Christian influence. In North America, among the Native Americans societies, it has taken the form of Two-Spirit-type relationships, in which some male members of the tribe, from an early age, heed a calling to take on female gender with all its responsibilities. They are prized as wives by the other men in the tribe, who enter into formal marriages with these Two-Spirit men. They are also respected as being especially powerful shamans.
In the United States during the 19th century, there was recognition of the relationship of two women making a long-term commitment to each other and cohabitating, referred to at the time as a Boston marriage; however, the general public at the time likely assumed that sexual activities were not part of the relationship.
Africa
In Africa, among the Azande of the Congo, men would marry youths for whom they had to pay a bride-price to the father. These marriages likewise were understood to be of a temporary nature. In Ancient Egypt, Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum are considered by many to be the first male couple in history. They shared the title of Overseer of the Manicurists in the Palace of King Niussere during the Fifth Dynasty of Egyptian pharaohs, and are listed as "royal confidantes" in their joint tomb. [6]
Notes
Current status of same-sex religious marriage
| Part of the LGBTQ rights series |
 LGBTQ portal |
Most Abrahamic religions disapprove of same-sex marriages. However, some churches and denominations support these unions.
In Canada, the issue of same-sex marriage has split the religious community, with the United Church of Canada, the country's largest Protestant denomination, and some elements of the Anglican Church of Canada being supportive.
In 2002, the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster in British Columbia (which includes Greater Vancouver) began allowing its churches to bless same-sex unions in marriage-like ceremonies. In response, bishops from Africa, Asia and Latin America, representing more than one-third of Anglican Communion members worldwide, cut their relations with the diocese.
Reform Judaism, the largest Jewish religious tradition, permits rabbis to bless same-sex unions within their synagogues, though it does not use the words "wedding" or "marriage" in this context. This is not supported in the Orthodox Judaism religious tradition, however, and selectively in the Conservative tradition.
On July 4, 2005, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ approved a resolution affirming equal marriage rights regardless of gender. The leadership of this denomination made claims like "the 1.3 million member UCC became the largest Christian denomination to approve marriage equality", despite the Synod's lack of authority to speak for the denomination's largely autonomous congregations. The specifics of the resolution did not change any church's religious marriage policies, but urged UCC congregations to advocate for civil marriage equality. In keeping with the polity of that denomination, doctrinal matters like wedding policies remain under the authority of each local congregation.
Religious same-sex wedding ceremonies are already performed in Unitarian Universalist churches, some Reform and Reconstructionist Jewish synagogues, some Quaker congregations (mostly associated with unprogrammed meetings; see the main article), and by the Metropolitan Community Church.
In Sweden the lutheran church allowed blessings of same-sex couples and also in the Netherlands the reformed church allowed blessings of married same-sex couples. In Germany many lutheran and reformed churches in the EKD permited their priests also blessings of same-sex couples..
Several Canadian religious groups joined in an interfaith coalition in support of equal marriage rights, and issued a joint statement: http://www.religious-coalition.org/
Jodo Shinshu, the dominant form of Buddhism in Japan (with a significant presence in the United States), states "there is no basic difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality" [7]. In accordance with that principle it offers religious rites for same-sex couples. This tradition of accepting same-sex relationships dates back to ancient Japan with only a brief discontinuance during the early 1900s (when Western nations suggested a proscription).
Current status of same-sex civil marriage
Africa
In December 2005, in the case of Minister of Home Affairs v. Fourie, the Constitutional Court of South Africa ruled unanimously that it was unconstitutional to prevent people of the same-gender from marrying when marriage was permitted for people of opposite gender, and gave Parliament one year to "rework laws allowing same-sex unions". If Parliament does not act, the words "or spouse" will be added to the Marriage Act to allow these unions.
South Africa is in the process of reorganizing certain government departments to support gay marriages. As of July 2005, the Department of Home Affairs had completed the design and printing of new forms to allow for same-sex couples to apply for immigration and residence benefits. Several same-sex couples are already legally recognized as married, based on the definition of "spouse" in South Africa's Immmigration Act of 2002.
Asia
In 2003, the government of the Republic of China, (ROC, aka Taiwan) led by the Presidential office proposed legislation granting marriages to same-sex couples under the Human Rights Basic Law. However, it faced opposition among cabinet members and has been stalled since. Currently ROC does not have any form of same-sex unions.
The National People's Congress, legislature of the People's Republic of China (PRC, aka China), proposed legislation allowing same-sex marriages in 2003. During the course of the debate the proposal failed to garner the 30 votes needed for a placement on the agenda. Same-sex marriage supporters have vowed to keep pressing for its passage in the PRC.
The Communist Party of the Philippines conducted the country’s first same-sex marriage in 2005; however it was not recognized by the government. Within the government there has been fierce debate on the issue of same-sex unions. Generally the Communist Party supports legislation allowing such marriages while the Roman Catholic Church opposes it. But since 1991 the Metropolitan Community Church Philippines has been conducting Same Sex Holy Unions in the Philippines
The King of Cambodia, Norodom Sihanouk, announced in 2004 that he supports legislation granting marriages to same-sex couples. He is hugely revered among Cambodians; however since his proclamation there have been no legislative efforts to allow them.
Europe
Same-sex civil marriages currently are legally recognized nationwide only in the Netherlands, which was the first country in the world to recognise same-sex marriages on April1, 2001, Belgium and Spain. Belgium (since 20 April 2006) and the Netherlands extends all the rights of marriage, including adoption , to same-sex couples.
A poll conducted by EOS Gallup Europe in 2003 found that 57 percent of the population in the then 15-member European Union supports same-sex marriage. The support among the members states who joined in 2004 is much lower (around 28 percent), meaning that 53 percent of citizens in the 25-member EU support legalising same-sex marriage. [8]
In May 2004, the largest opposition party in France, the French Socialist Party, announced its support for same-sex marriage. A 2004 poll by ELLE found that 64% of France supports same-sex marriage and 49% supports adoption by same-sex couples. [9] See Same-sex marriage in France
After being elected in June 2004, Spanish prime minister Zapatero restated his pre-election pledge to push for legalization of same-sex marriage. [10] On 1 October, 2004, the Spanish Government approved a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, including adoption rights. The bill received full parliamentary approval on June 30, 2005 and passed into law on July 2. Polls suggest that 62% to 66% of Spain supports same-sex marriage. [11][12][13] For more information see Same-sex marriage in Spain.
On 18 November 2004 the United Kingdom Parliament passed the Civil Partnership Act, which came into force in December 2005 and allows same-sex couples to register their partnership. The Government stressed during the passage of the Bill that it is not same-sex marriage, and some gay activists have criticized the Act for not using the terminology of marriage. However, the rights and duties of partners under this legislation will be almost exactly the same as for married couples. An amendment proposing similar rights for family members living together was rejected. The press is widely referring to these unions as "gay marriage." [14] [15] See Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom.
In late January 2005, the Swedish government put together a committee of the major political parties to study whether or not the country should allow same-sex marriages. [16]. The conclusion of the committee shall be brought to the government no later than March 30, 2007. [17]
In December 2005, the Latvian Parliament passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. President Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga signed the amendment shortly afterwards, making Latvia the third (after Poland and Lithuania) member state of the European Union to constitutionally define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. [18]
In March 2006, the parliament of the Czech Republic voted to override a presidential veto and allow same-sex partnerships to be recognized by law. The parliament had previously rejected similar legislation four times. [19]
North America
Canada
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Canada
In Canada between 2003 and 2005, federal court rulings in the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick as well as the Yukon Territory, found the prohibition of same-sex marriage to be contrary to the Charter of Rights, thus legalizing it in those jurisdictions. On July 20, 2005, the Canadian Parliament passed the Civil Marriage Act defining marriage nationwide as "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others." Canada is also the only country without a residency requirement for same-sex marriage; consequently, many foreign couples have come to Canada to marry, regardless of whether that marriage will be recognized in their home country. In fact, in some cases, a Canadian marriage has provided the basis for a challenge to the laws of another country, with cases in Ireland and Israel.
As of November 11th, 2004 the Canadian federal government's immigration department, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC), considers same-sex marriages performed in Canada valid for the purposes of sponsoring a spouse to immigrate. See CIC Immigration authorities there had previously considered long-term same-sex relationships to be equivalent to similar heterosexual relationships as grounds for sponsorship.
United States
Main article: Same-sex marriage in the United States
In 1972 the United States Supreme Court ruled that the United States Constitution does not require states to issue a marriage license to same-sex couples. Hence, this is an issue left up to each state. Currently in the United States, only Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriage, Vermont and Connecticut offer civil unions, California, New Jersey, Maine and the District of Columbia grant benefits through domestic partnerships, and Hawaii has reciprocal beneficiary laws.
Nineteen states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage[20], forty-three states have legal statutes defining marriage to two persons of the opposite-sex. The territory of Puerto Rico ratified a DOMA in 1998.
Congress in 1996 passed the Defense of Marriage Act. (Regarding the name of the act, see below.) The Act is meant to prevent the courts from using the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause to bring same-sex marriage to states that have rejected it by forcing one state to recognize the marriages of another state, although it is debated whether that clause would even have such an effect without the Act.
In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court decided Baker v. Vermont, ruling that their state legislature must establish identical rights for same-sex couples similar to those of married opposite-sex couples. Legislators elected to create state level civil unions as what they argued was a middle-ground; this was signed into law by then-governor Howard Dean.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on November 18 2003, ruled in the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples violates the state's Equal Protection Clause. The court stayed its ruling until May 17 2004. Beginning on that date, hundreds of same-sex couples were legally married in Massachusetts.
Cherokee
The Native American Cherokee Nation in 2004 issued a moratorium on same-sex marriages while they consider their validity after a lesbian couple applied for a marriage. Due to their tribal sovereignty, theoretically, if the nation allowed them the U.S. government would have to recognize it. The Tribal Council unanimously approved a Constitutional amendment stating that the Cherokee defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The couple have appealed to the judicial court, on grounds that their union predated the amendment. On December 22, 2005, the Judicial Appeals Tribunal of the Cherokee Nation dismissed an injunction against the lesbian couple filed by members of the Tribal Council to stop the marriage. The couple still has to file the marriage certificate for the marriage to become legal. However, there are no plans to complete the filing.
Australia
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Australia
In 2004, Prime Minister John Howard proposed to amend federal law so that neither foreign nor domestic same-sex unions could be recognised as marriage. This effectively banned same-sex marriage in Australia. The Federal Opposition, namely the Australian Labor Party under the leadership of Mark Latham, joined with the Government to support the ban, amid strong objection from the Australian Democrats and The Greens. It was passed on 13 August 2004.
A Civil Union Bill was introduced to the ACT parliament by Chief Minister Jon Stanhope in late March 2006. The Bill seeks to extend marriage-like rights to committed same-sex couples within the ACT. However, the Prime Minister has since publically objected to same-sex relationships being legally equated with "traditional marriage" and may seek overturn that bill (despite Attorney-General Philip Ruddock stating that such relationships were a legislative matter for individual States and Territories).[1]
International Organizations
The terms of employment of the staff of international organizations are not, in most cases, governed by the laws of the country in which their offices are located. Agreements with the host country safeguard these organizations' impartiality with regard to the host and member countries. Hiring and firing practices, working hours and environment, holiday time, pension plans, health insurance and life insurance, salaries, expatriation benefits and general conditions of employment are managed according to rules and regulations proper to each organization. The independence of these organizations gives them the freedom to implement human resource policies which are even contrary to the laws of their host and member countries. A person who is otherwise eligible for employment in Belgium may not become an employee of NATO unless he or she is a citizen of a NATO member state. The World Health Organization has recently banned the recruitment of cigarette smokers. Agencies of the United Nations coordinate some human resource policies amongst themselves.
Despite their relative independence, no organization currently recognises same-sex partnerships without condition. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the agencies of the United Nations voluntarily discriminate between opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages, as well as discriminating between employees on the basis of nationality. These organisations recognize same-sex marriages only if the country of citizenship of the employees in question recognizes the marriage. In some cases, these organizations do offer a limited selection of the benefits normally provided to opposite-sex married couples to de facto partners or domestic partners of their staff, but even individuals who have entered into an opposite-sex civil union in their home country are not guaranteed full recognition of this union in all organizations.
Controversy
The legitimacy of marriage between two people of the same sex depends on how the authoritative definition of marriage is derived. Gay rights advocates assert that marriage is a right since it is a legal agreement on the governmental level which should not be restricted to opposite-sex couples. Their opponents assert that same-sex marriage is not itself a right and should not be allowed on moral and/or religious grounds, or on the grounds that it will lead to a breakdown of the definition of marriage or of civil society. Most of the controversy centers around the government definition of marriage, rather than the blessing of same-sex unions by individual religious organizations, which may or may not be recognized as civil marriages.
Those in favour of same-sex marriage argue that homosexuals contribute as much as heterosexuals to the funding for private and public family coverage even when they have no access to it, and that discrimination decreases productivity. They support the equalization of male-male, female-female, and male-female relationships, and being able to marry whichever consenting adult one chooses is seen as a civil right that should not be abridged by the government.
Opponents answer that this view of marriage reduces marriage to little more than a means test for social benefits. They also see same-sex and male-female arrangements as inherently unequal, stating that nothing less than perpetuation of humanity itself relies fully on the latter and not at all on the former, and trying to "equalize" such arrangements through force of law will only create gross social distortions to accommodate the gulf between such law and the observable facts of human nature. However, none to date have argued that there should be a legal requirement to have children in a male-female relationship to be recognized as a marriage or that sterile male-female couples should be denied a marriage license.
Religious arguments
Some opponents object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds. They argue that extending marriage to same-sex couples undercuts the conventional meaning of marriage according to religious understanding and traditions, does not fulfill any procreational role, and/or sanctions a partnership centered around sexual acts that their respective religion prohibits. For example, James Dobson, in Marriage Under Fire and elsewhere, argues that legalization or even tolerance of same-sex marriage would redefine the family and lead to an increase in homosexual couples.
Conservative and some moderate Christians further state that same-sex marriage goes against biblical teaching, for example, Genesis 19:5 (behavior which contributed to the destruction of ancient cities Sodom and Gomorrah). This story was the source of the word sodomy. Other passages are Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Corinthians 6:8-10 and Romans 1:24-27. However, other moderate and liberal Christians have the view that these passages are taken out of full textual, historical and cultural contexts and aren't applicable to homosexual relationships as we know them today. [21]
A fundamental concern of opponents is that the legalization of same-sex marriage will lead to a direct attack against religious institutions, limit their constitutional right to free speech, force them to perform marriage ceremonies of which they do not approve, and that established churches would be eventually bankrupted by lawsuits brought against them. However, many proponents of same-sex marriage counter this notion with the assertion that the separation of church and state already protects religion from government interference.
Some churches and denominations, as listed previously in this article, perform same-sex weddings. Members of these groups may believe that since the major scientific organizations state that there is no evidence one can voluntarily decide sexual orientation, all people regardless of sexuality should be able to marry the person they love and that to deny them is immoral. They also may view laws banning same-sex marriage as a violation of their religious freedom and an unfair favorship by a government of other religious groups.
Proponents claim that since marriages are conducted by the power invested in the celebrant by the state, under the principles of religious pluralism and the separation of church and state, religious arguments should not be used to constitute the law.
Some churches and denominations, listed above, perform same-sex weddings. Members of these groups may believe that since the major scientific organizations state that there is no evidence one can voluntarily decide sexual orientation, all people regardless of sexuality should be able to marry the person they love and that to deny them is immoral. They also may view laws banning same-sex marriage as a violation of their religious freedom and an unfair favorship by a government of other religious groups.
Social arguments
Those who advocate that marriage should be defined exclusively as the union of one man and one woman argue that only a heterosexual union can provide the procreative foundation of the family unit that they see as the chief social building block of civilization. They argue that the definition proposed by same-sex marriage advocates changes the social importance of marriage from reproducing to a legality, and may refer to themselves as "defenders" of traditional marriage. As any customary relationship may be considered "marriage", some argue that this then leads to undue legislative burden and an affront to the social value and responsibility of parenting one's own children.
The dissent by Justice Martha Sosman in the decision of the Massachusetts high court[22] that mandated gay marriage for that state makes a societal argument without specifying the harm that would occur from this change. Asserting the a priori importance of marriage as an institution, she questions whether the burden of proof that this would be harmless has been met. Her analysis can be seen as an example of Precautionary Principle.
A common objection to same-sex marriage is to hold that the purpose of marriage is a procreative partnership and that the same-sex partnership is inherently sterile. Some who hold this view see marriage as the social codification of an evolved long-term mating strategy, with economic and legal benefits to facilitate family growth and stability. Others argue that because the law does not prohibit marriage between sterile heterosexual couples, or to women past menopause, the procreation argument cannot reasonably be used against same-sex marriage, particularly since technological advances allow gay couples to have their own related biological children. [23]
Some same-sex marriage proponents, such as Andrew Sullivan, argue that same-sex marriage is moral enough to support the family-centered role marriage plays in society despite the absence of biological children. Also that the institution of marriage would be strengthened by making it available to more people, and argue further that same-sex marriage would encourage gays and lesbians to settle down with one partner and raise families. Others argue that marriage no longer retains a procreative function of the government since many governments offer child tax-credits and assistance regardless of marital status.
Some philosophers object to same-sex marriage because of their inherent sterility. However, due to the legality of opposite-sex marriages in which one or both partners are sterile, these philosophers believe that all marriages should thus be lowered to "civil unions". These civil unions would then only receive the benefits of marriage which do not require expenditures from the government (e.g. tax breaks), and any monetary benefits would only be awarded based on the number of children living in a household.
Some libertarians object to same-sex marriage because they are opposed to any form of state-sanctioned marriage, including opposite-sex unions. They are not necessarily opposed to the idea of a same-sex wedding itself, only that the government should not have any role in the event, nor for that matter should government approval be sought for opposite-sex marriages. See Libertarian perspectives on gay rights.
Arguments about tradition
Proponents of same-sex marriage point out that so-called "traditional" concepts of marriage in actuality have already undergone significant change. Polygamy has been abolished, married women are no longer considered the property of their husbands, divorce is legal, contraception within wedlock is allowed, and anti-miscegenation laws forbidding interracial marriage have been eliminated in most modern societies. The fact that changes in the customs and protocols of marriage often occur gives rise to the argument that marriage is dynamic, and same-sex marriage is only the latest evolution of the institution.
Arguments about legal rationality
Some opponents (including Senator Rick Santorum) also claim that allowing same-sex marriage will blur other common law precedents and lead to the legalization of a variety of "non-traditional" relationships including:
- incestuous marriages: The counter-argument is that allowing same-sex couples to marry does not alter the restriction on consanguinous relationships.
- marriages of convenience for tax or other reasons: The counter-argument is that these are already legal between people of the opposite sex.
- marriages between humans and animals. Non-human animals, however, do not have the legal standing to consent into a marriage contract. This argument is not taken seriously by most commentators, and may be often considered insulting in comparing homosexual humans with animals.
- polygamous/group marriages. The gist of this argument is that the traditional definition of marriage involves two components, a commitment to one person of the opposite sex, and that changing one of these components (restricting it to members of opposite sexes) would necessarily lead to a change in the other component (restricting it to only one person).
The counter-argument is that allowing same-sex couples to marry does not necessarily change the restriction on the number of people who may contract a marriage. Furthermore, because of the reciprocal nature of many spousal rights and responsibilities, it would not be possible to give three-person groups identical rights and responsibilities as two-person groups. For example, if a government gives medical coverage to spouses of service members, then a service member with thirty spouses would either receive benefits far more valuable than one with only one spouse would, or not all that service member's spouses would receive coverage. Thus, polygamy could present far different legal ramifications.
Supporters of same-sex marriage state that, in the jurisdictions that have afforded legal recognition of same-sex unions, the dire consequences foretold by opponents have not come to pass. (In the Netherlands, the government has not intervened into a cohabitation contract between a man and two bisexual women because it is not akin a legal marriage, but a contract between consenting individuals.)
Arguments concerning children
Some object on the grounds that same-sex couples should not be allowed to adopt or raise children or to have access to reproductive technologies, and that same-sex marriage would make such adoptions easier. A number of health and child welfare organizations, however, disagree. They include the Child Welfare League of America, North American Council on Adoptable Children, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers. (See [24]) On July 28, 2004, the American Psychological Association's Council of Representatives adopted a resolution supporting legalization of same-sex civil marriages and opposes discrimination against lesbian and gay parents. (See [25])
Arguments concerning equality
In the United States, there are at least 1,138 federal laws "in which marital status is a factor" (United States General Accounting Office). See Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States for a partial list. A denial of rights or benefits without substantive due process, assert the proponents of same-sex marriage, directly contradicts the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution which provides for equal protection of all citizens.
In a 2003 case titled Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court held that the right to private consensual sexual conduct was protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. (The court noted "moral disapproval does not constitute a legitimate governmental interest under the Equal Protection Clause.") Both supporters and detractors of same-sex marriage have noted that this ruling paved the way for subsequent decisions invalidating state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia noted as such in his dissenting opinion to Lawrence.
Some opponents of extending marriage to same-sex couples claim that equality can be achieved with civil unions or other forms of legal recognition that don't go as far as to use the word "marriage" that's used for opposite-sex couples. An opposing argument, used by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, is the following: "the dissimilitude between the terms "civil marriage" and "civil union" is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status" and also that "The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."
Some proponents of same-sex marriage make a comparison between racial segregation and segregation of homosexual and heterosexual marriage classifications in civil law. They argue that dividing the concept of same-sex marriage and different-sex marriage is tantamount to "separate but equal" policies (like that overturned in the US Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education), or anti-miscegenation laws that were also overturned.
One fundamental problem for any law banning same-sex marriage is defining the terms "man" and "woman". If defined genetically, both transsexuals and intersexed individuals would be prohibited from marrying partners of the "opposite" sex and therefore from heterosexual marriage. Just as recent same-sex marriages have been quickly overturned as null and void, so too could extant, long term marriages. More than one in one hundred newborns are to some degree physically aberrant from their genetic sex, with most of them undergoing some degree of surgical alteration. In the United Kingdom, recent legislation allows transsexual persons to be officially recognized in their new gender, but this has the effect of annulling any previous marriage. However the couple will now be able to register a civil partnership, to come into force immediately on the dissolution of their marriage.
Miscellaneous
The etiquette of addressing same-sex couples is often questioned. Some people with friends who are in a same-sex marriage are unsure as to how to address them, since in English and other languages, married people may use a different form of address from single ones. Etiquette writer Judith Martin (Miss Manners) counsels that where the spouses have taken one name, they may be addressed as The Messrs. John and Richard Doe or Mmes. Alice and Carol Roe; otherwise, they may be addressed individually, as is done for other married couples with different surnames. [26]
See also
| Part of a series on |
| LGBTQ rights |
|---|
 |
| Lesbian ∙ Gay ∙ Bisexual ∙ Transgender ∙ Queer |
 LGBTQ portal |
- Blessing of same-sex unions
- Gay adoption
- Marriage rights and obligations
- Marriage, unions and partnerships by country
- Religion and sexual orientation
- Same-sex marriage
- Timeline of same-sex marriage
Bibliography
- Wolfson, Evan (2004). Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0743264592.
- Boswell, John (1994). Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe. New York: Villard Books. ISBN 0679432280.
- Chauncey, George (2004). Why Marriage?: The History Shaping Today's Debate over Gay Equality. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0465009573.
- Dobson, James C. (2004). Marriage under Fire: Why We Must Win This War. Sisters, Or.: Multnomah. ISBN 1590524314.
External links
- The Freedom to Marry Coalition
- Lesbian couples raise well-adjusted teenagers, New Scientist, 15 November 2004.
- "Mr and Mr and Mrs and Mrs" by James Davidson, London Review of Books, 2 June 2005, - detailed review of The Friend, by Alan Bray, a history of same-sex marriage and other same-sex formal bonds.
- Template:De icon Legal regulations discriminating gays in Europe
- Template:De icon Legal protection before discrimination based on sexual orientation in Europe
- Template:De icon Recognition of relationship of person of same-sex in Europe
- Why Same Sex Marriage Should be Legal, an essay and legal review.
- Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding Same-sex marriage
- ReligiousTolerance.org: Reasons why same-sex marriage is a bad idea - a roundup of common arguments against same-sex marriage, with rebuttals
- Gay & Lesbian couples tell their own stories about the issues they face as unmarried couples.
- ^ "Canberra may step in on same-sex law". The Age. March 30, 2006.