Everything about Same Sex Marriage totally explained
Same-sex marriage is a term for a
governmentally,
socially, or
religiously recognized
marriage in which two people of the same sex live together as a family. Other terms for this type of relationship include "gay marriage," "gender-neutral marriage," "equal marriage," "lesbian marriage," "same-sex civil marriage," "marriage equality," "homosexual marriage," "single-sex marriage," or "same-gender marriage."
Debates over terminology
Proponents of same-sex marriage often use the term "equal marriage" to stress that they seek equality as opposed to special rights; the term "equal marriage" has also 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. 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." Some publications that oppose same-sex marriage put the word marriage in
scare quotes when referring to it. One notable publication that practices this is
The Washington Times.
Cliff Kincaid, a writer for the conservative American 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. Same-sex marriage supporters argue that it's editorializing and implying inferiority, and point out that the quotes are even used when referring to same-sex marriages in locations where such unions are legal.
Some have suggested reserving the word "marriage" for religious contexts, and in civil and legal contexts using a uniform concept of
civil unions.
Harvard Law professor
Alan Dershowitz, for instance, wrote 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." Marriage proponents find such a suggestion impractical. "Why do we suddenly have to throw out the entire system, invent some whole new thing, just because gay people want to get married?," asks
Evan Wolfson of
Freedom to Marry. "I don’t actually see Alan Dershowitz doing anything about this, other than writing an article, because he probably rightly understands it would be an immense project to go around the country and convince 200 million plus people to trade in their marriage for something new and explain why we're doing this when we actually have a legal system that already clearly distinguishes between civil and religious marriage." 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."
However, in the case of one state in which same-sex marriages are recognized, Massachusetts, there's a long history of marriage being regarded as purely a civil institution, as illustrated in Governor
William Bradford's history
Of Plymouth Plantation:
May 12 was the first marriage in this place [for example,Plymouth] which, according to the laudable custom of the Low Countries, in which they'd lived, was thought most requisite to be performed by the magistrate, as being a civil thing, upon which many questions about inheritances do depend, with other things most proper to their cognizance and most consonant to the Scriptures (Ruth iv) and nowhere found in the Gospel to be laid on the ministers as a part of their office.
History
There is evidence that same sex unions have occurred since the beginning of recorded history in Egypt, China, Greece, Rome and Japan. Famous lovers include the Egyptian couple
Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum and the Greek couple
Harmodius and Aristogiton. The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. The rise of Christianity changed attitudes to same-sex unions and led to the persecution of gays. In the year 342, the Christian emperors
Constantius and
Constans declared that same-sex marriage to be illegal. In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodoisus and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be publicly burned alive.
Current status
Marriage, as defined by the civil law, is currently available to same-sex couples in five countries.
The Netherlands was the first country to allow same-sex marriage in 2001. Same-sex marriages are also recognized in
Belgium,
Spain,
Canada and
South Africa.
Massachusetts was the first state in the United States to allow same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses. This was the result of a 4 to 3 decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in
Goodridge v. Department of Health, which found that the state constitution required same-sex couples be granted marriage licenses under the "common benefits" clause,. In Massachusetts, while there were initial efforts to limit the decision legislatively or pass a state constitutional amendment reversing the decision, ultimately marriage licenses began to be issued to same-sex couples. These couples enjoy all the benefits of Heterosexual couples under Massachusetts state law, including the right to inherit, sue for loss of consortium, and coverage under state insurance laws. These benefits do not, however, extend to matters controlled by federal law, such as the ability to file a joint income tax return or assert a claim as a dependent spouse under Social Security. This is due to the
Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress in 1996, which Act states, "`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'
On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is unconstitutional. The ruling isn't to take effect for 30 days, when county clerks could begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Citing a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that reversed a ban on interracial marriages, the Republican-dominated California Supreme Court, in a 4-3 ruling penned by Chief Justice
Ronald George, struck down California's 1977 one-man, one-woman marriage law and a similar statute passed by initiative in 2000. The
judgment isn't final, for the ruling can be reconsidered upon filing of appeal or motion within 30 days, as Advocates for Faith and Freedom and the
Alliance Defense Fund stated they'd ask for a stay of the ruling. If the court denies the plea, same-sex couples could start getting married in 30 days. 2006 census figures indicate that California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households. Same-sex marriage opponents announced, however, that they've gathered 1 million signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to define marriage as between a man and woman, to effectively annul the decision.
While Massachusetts is the only state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and California—absent a stay—will soon join it, several other states—including
Connecticut,
Hawaii,
Maine,
New Hampshire,
New Jersey,
Oregon,
Vermont,
Washington state, as well as
Washington, D.C.—offer civil unions or domestic partnerships, which grant same-sex couples some or all of the same rights under state law granted to married couples.
New Mexico,
New York, and
Rhode Island recognize foreign marriage licenses, but don't grant them or any other form of same-sex relationship recognition. Twenty-six states have amended their constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, with the language varying as to what legal rights, other than marriage, can be extended to same-sex couples.
A New York appellate court ruled on
February 1,
2008 that same-sex marriages performed outside state must be recognized as valid within the state. However, same-sex couples are not permitted to wed in New York.
At the federal level, Australia bans recognition of
same-sex marriage, but the current federal
Australian Labor Party government favours synchronised state and territory
registered partnership legislation (as in
Tasmania) although the
Australian Capital Territory favours the introduction of
civil unions with official ceremonies. By stark contrast,
same-sex marriage in Canada was preserved when a proposed repeal bill failed at its first reading in
2006, while
New Zealand's Parliament similarly heavily defeated a private members bill that would have prohibited
same-sex marriage in New Zealand in
December 2005. However, as far as current
jurisprudence goes, New Zealand's Marriage Act 1955 still recognises only heterosexual couples as marriageable (although it has also included
transsexuals who have undergone
reassignment surgery as the 'opposite sex' for these purposes, since
Family Court and
High Court of New Zealand decisions in
1995.
Israel's High Court of Justice ruled to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other countries, although it's still illegal to perform them within the country. A bill was raised in
Knesset to rescind the Israeli High Court's ruling, but the Knesset hasn't advanced the bill since December
2006. (This makes the practice of same-sex marriage, as far as Israel is concerned, like the performance of a Reform or Conservative Jewish wedding.)
Canada and
Spain are the only countries where the legal status of same-sex marriage is exactly the same as that of opposite-sex marriage, though
South Africa is due to fully harmonize its marriage laws. Other nations all have requirements or restrictions that apply to same-sex marriage that don't apply to opposite-sex marriage.
Civil unions
The first same-sex union in modern history with government recognition was obtained in
Denmark in
1989.
Civil unions,
civil partnership,
domestic partnership, unregistered partnership/unregistered co-habitation or
registered partnerships offer varying amounts of the benefits of marriage and are available in:
Andorra,
Australia (except
Commonwealth law),
Colombia,
Croatia,
Czech Republic,
Denmark,
Finland,
France,
Germany,
Hungary (unregistered co-habitation since 1996; registered partnership from 2009),
Iceland,
Israel,
Luxembourg,
New Zealand,
Norway,
Portugal,
Slovenia,
South Africa,
Sweden,
Switzerland, the
United Kingdom and
Uruguay. They are also available in
some parts of
Argentina,
Brazil (
Rio Grande do Sul),
Mexico (Federal District and Coahuila), the
U.S. states of
California,
Connecticut,
Hawaii,
Maine,
New Hampshire,
New Jersey,
Oregon,
Vermont,
Washington, and the
District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.).
In the United Kingdom,
civil partnerships have identical legal status to a marriage, and partners gain all the same benefits and associated legal rights; ranging from tax exemptions and joint property rights, to
next-of-kin status and shared parenting responsibilities. Partnership ceremonies are performed by a marriage registrar in exactly the same manner as a
secular civil marriage.
Civil unions in New Zealand are identical to British civil partnerships in their association with equivalent spousal rights and responsibilities to fully-fledged heterosexual marriage.
Australia provides under all states, territories and two council areas either a registry system provided in; -
Sydney,
Melbourne,
Tasmania and
Victoria; or Unregistered partnership provided in;
Queensland,
South Australia,
Northern Territory,
Norfolk Island,
Western Australia,
Australian Capital Territory and
New South Wales. However, Commonwealth law provisions and statutes prohibit the recognition of civil unions, civil partnerships and same-gender marriages; fifty-eight (58) Legislative Acts of the Commonwealth use the phrase 'member of the opposite sex'. However, Commonwealth law still recognises same-sex partner under "interdependancy relationship" for anti-terrorism legislation, migration of same-sex partner, private superannuation schemes and Federal military and ADF services only. In 2007 Grace Abrams and Fiona Power became Australia's first legally recognised same sex married couple
(External Link
) after Grace Abrams had gender modification surgery and was later officially granted a passport with female status.
A
registered partnership in
Scandinavia is nearly equal to marriage, including legal adoption rights in Sweden and, since June, in Iceland as well. These partnership laws are short laws that state that wherever the word "marriage" appears in the country's law will now also be construed to mean "registered partnership" and wherever the word "spouse" appears will now also be construed to mean "registered partner" - thereby transferring the body of marriage laws onto same-sex couples in registered partnerships. In these countries, registered partnerships are generally called marriage in daily speech.
In some countries with legal recognition the actual benefits are minimal. Many people consider civil unions, even those which grant equal rights, inadequate, as they create a separate status, and think they should be replaced by gender-neutral marriage.
International organizations
The terms of employment of the staff of
international organizations (not businesses) 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's 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, few organizations currently recognise same-sex partnerships without condition. The
Organization 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 organizations 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. However, the
World Bank does recognize domestic partners.
Anticipated demand in the United Kingdom
In the
United Kingdom, the government is reported to have anticipated demand for same-sex civil partnerships as being around 11,000 to 22,000 by
2010. However, this appears to have been an underestimate; as of December 2006 some 15,657 such partnerships had been registered in around 9 months.
Transgender and Intersex persons
When sex is defined legally, it may be defined by any one of several criteria: the
XY sex-determination system, the type of
gonads, or the type of external sexual features. By all of these definitions both
transsexuals and
intersexed individuals are legally categorized into confusing gray areas, and could be prohibited from marrying partners of the "opposite" sex or permitted to marry partners of the "same" sex due to arbitrary legal distinctions. This could result in long-term marriages, as well as recent same-sex marriages, being overturned.
An example of the problem with chromosomal definition would be a woman with
Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS), who would have a 46,XY karyotype, which is typically male. Although she may have been legally registered as female on her birth certificate, been raised as a female her entire life, have engaged in typical heterosexual female relationships, and may even have married before the status of her condition was known, using the chromosomal definition of sex could prevent or annul the marriage of a woman with this condition to a man, and similarly allow her to legally marry another woman. These same issues were faced by the
IOC to determine who qualified as a female for the women's competitions.
The problems of defining gender by the existence/non-existence of gonads or certain sexual features is complicated by the existence of
surgical methods to alter these features. Although it hasn't been exhaustively stated by a court, it's possible that a court could find that if a person has their gonads removed (not limited to a sex-change but also for medical disorder, such as
testicular cancer or removing
sexual ambiguity), they'd enter a sexual limbo status and fail to meet either set of criteria, thus excluding them from any allowance to marriage. This situation could easily occur through exclusionary findings by separate courts in a state that already doesn't recognize transsexual marriages to people of the same sex as their birth-sex, as in the case of Linda Kantaras vs. Michael Kantaras. Basing the distinction on genital appearance is complicated by available
surgery converting typically male genitalia to typically female genitalia, which has advanced to the point where, even were a genital inspection necessary, many transgendered women would pass this inspection without question.
Requiring a surgical reassignment for definition of gender for the purpose of declaring a marriage valid comes with further problems. The
female-to-male sex reassignment surgery is expensive and doesn't provide results as satisfactory as its counterpart; therefore many female-to-male transsexuals choose not to undergo this procedure. In a situation where genitalia legally defines gender and same-sex marriage isn't permitted, the transsexual man would therefore only be allowed to legally marry another man if he wished to marry.
These complications are probably more likely than one would think at first glance; according to the highest estimates (Fausto-Sterling et al., 2000) perhaps 1 percent of live
births exhibit some degree of sexual ambiguity, and between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births are ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention, including sometimes involuntary
surgery to address their sexual ambiguity.
In any legal jurisdiction where marriages are defined without distinction of a requirement of a male and female, these complications don't occur, and some legal jurisdictions may recognize a legal and official change of gender, which would allow one to satisfy the requirement of either "male" or "female" according to their gender-identity within their legal definition of marriage. Although some legal jurisdictions continue to only recognize the "immutable traits determined at birth." (Linda Kantaras vs. Michael Kantaras)
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 upon the dissolution of their marriage
In countries with legal systems based on the
Napoleonic codes, being legally recognized as one's transitioned gender may require conditions of infertility, where if a transsexual were ever found to have had a child, it would result in a reversal of a legal sex change and spontaneous annulment of the marriage if that country doesn't recognize same-sex marriages.
In the United States, transsexual and intersexual marriages typically run into the complications detailed above. As definitions and enforcement of marriage is defined by the state, these complications will vary from state to state. In Massachusetts no problem should arise in seeking to get a marriage, or enforcing that marriage, however marriage in states that have more prohibitive definitions,
any marriage with a transsexual could face challenge in a court based on any number of criteria.
(For discussions on the status of marriages involving transgendered persons see Julie A. Greenberg, Defining Male and Female: Intersexuality and the Collision Between Law and Biology, 41 Ariz. L. Rev. 265 (Summer 1999); and Michael L. Rosin, Intersexuality and Universal Marriage, 14 L. & Sex. 51 (2005) as well as the references they contain.)
Controversy
The controversy over recognition of same-sex unions as marriages is a small, albeit very important, part of a larger controversy concerning the role of government in recognizing and regulating intimate relationships. While there are few instances of societies recognizing same-sex unions as marriage, the historical and anthropological record reveals a remarkable variety of treatment of same-sex unions ranging from sympathetic toleration to indifference to prohibition. The 2004 Statement by the
American Anthropological Association relies upon this variety in reaching its conclusion that same-sex unions can "contribute to stable and humane societies":
The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.
Some disagree with the idea of government recognition of any marriages, arguing that the personal relationships of citizens are not a proper issue of governmental concern. This view is often expressed by those who see the only legal issues related to marriage involving the nature and extent of parties’ consent to the relationship. Proponents of this view argue that the parties should define almost all aspects of the relationship, in much the same way that parties to other types of contracts are generally free to define the terms of their agreement. Prenuptial and postnuptial agreements arise among those holding this view.
Others, including many
gay rights advocates, assert that legal recognition of marriage is based upon the government's interest in encouraging stable, committed relationships. Stable relationships reduce the need for society (sometimes through government) to provide support for its members. Each spouse safeguards the other's well being by, at times, acting as a nurse, banker, policeman, etc. Examples include demanding the keys to the car when one or the other has had too much to drink, or staying home to care for the other after surgery, or paying debts owed by a husband or wife. Advocates for recognition of same-sex unions argue that there's no difference in the ability of same-sex and opposite-sex couples to make commitments and care for each other, and therefore the law of marriage should apply to both.
A third approach to marriage is based on the belief that the government's involvement in marriage arises from the consequences of sexual acts between men and women – namely the creation of children. Based on research showing that, on average, children do best when raised by their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage, proponents argue that legal marriage is society’s way of encouraging monogamy and commitment by those who may create children through their sexual coupling. These advocates acknowledge that not every opposite couple is capable of creating a child through sexual acts, but they argue that all laws are over inclusive in some aspect and to create exact congruence marriage and child-bearing capacity would require unacceptable inquiries by government at the time of issuing marriage licences. No such intrusion is necessary to conclude that no sexual act between same-sex partners will result in childbearing, and therefore it's proper to exclude these couples from the legal definition of marriage.
Opponents of marriage within the
gay community also object to the same-sex marriage movement, even though their concerns pertain to the institution of marriage, rather than to the gender of its participants. They argue that seeking marriage as a means to social benefits and recognition reinforces the exclusion of other persons, notably the single and those in families composed of three or more intimate partners, from these benefits. From this perspective same-sex marriage is a
conservative movement within LGBT politics.
Religious arguments
Some opponents object to same-sex marriage on purely
religious grounds. Opponents often claim that extending marriage to same-sex couples will undercut the conventional purpose of marriage as interpreted by cultural, religious, and traditional understanding. Furthermore, opponents argue that same-sex marriage can't fulfill common procreational roles, and/or sanctions a partnership that's centered around sexual acts that their respective religion prohibits. For example,
James Dobson, in
Marriage Under Fire and elsewhere, states that legalization or even tolerance of same-sex marriage would redefine the family, damage traditional family unions, and lead to an increase in the number of homosexual couples.
The Roman Catholic Church also opposes recognition of same-sex unions, arguing that acts of sexual intimacy are only proper between a man and a woman, and that the proper setting for those acts is only within marriage. Government inclusion of any other unions within the definition of "marriage" would reflect a belief in the moral equivalence of acts between a husband and wife and acts between two men or two women; this belief many find erroneous, in turn, would form the basis for public education requirements and legal enforcement of that view through laws restricting the actions of those who continue to believe that sexual acts between members of the same sex are not morally acceptable. Inclusion of same-sex unions within the definition of marriage would also evidence rejection of the idea that, in general, it's best that children be raised by their biological mother and father, and that it's the community's interest in insuring the well-being of children that forms the basis for the government's licensure and involvement in marriage.
Conservatives and some moderate Christians further claim that homosexuality goes against biblical teaching, and extend this to same-sex marriage. As an example, there's the Bible verse Genesis 19:5, which many Biblical scholars believe indicates that homosexual behavior led to the destruction of the ancient cities of
Sodom and Gomorrah. Other passages are Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and in the New Testament of the Bible, I Corinthians 6:8-10 and Romans 1:24-27. While these passages don't define the institution of marriage, Genesis 2:22-24 reads as follows: "Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he'd taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she'll be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and that'll become one flesh." This passage is quoted by Jesus in the New Testament Gospel of Matthew. However, other moderate and
liberal Christians claim that Biblical passages concerning homosexual behavior are taken out of full textual, historical and cultural contexts, and are not applicable to homosexual relationships as we know them today. They view the passages about Sodom and Gomorrah as referring to systematic
rape and inhospitality. They view the passages in Leviticus as part of the
Holiness Code and strictly reserved to the Israelites of that time. Some of this Holiness Code isn't practiced by contemporary Christians (for example, prohibitions on wearing mixed fabrics, a proscription of the consumption of pork, the sacrifice of animals as atonement for sins), while other parts such as the prohibitions on incestuous relations still are. For some modern Christians, the passage in Romans is seen as relating more to specific instances of Greco-Roman temple sex acts and idolatrous worship and it isn't intended to address contemporary homosexuality. Other modern Christians hold that Romans 1 proscribes all homosexual behavior, regardless of its relational context.
Judaism, like Christianity, reflects differing views between conservative and liberal adherents. Orthodox Judaism maintains the traditional Jewish bans on both sexual acts and marriage amongst members of the same sex. The Orthodox Union in the United States supports a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Conservative Jews reject recognition of same-sex unions as "marriage," but permit celebration of commitment ceremonies, in part as an expression their belief that scripture requires monogamy of all sexually active couples. Members of Reform Judaism support the inclusion of same-sex unions within the definition of marriage. The Jewish Reconstructionist Federation leaves the choice up to the individual rabbi.
There are some people who, despite having a moral or religious stance that same-sex marriage is wrong, still feel that it isn't their place to take their religious sentiments into the secular realm, and enforce their beliefs on others who may disagree. So, while these religious people don't approve of homosexual couples and continue to refuse to recognize their marriages from a religious aspect, they nevertheless recognize and tolerate their secular marriage.
Some modern religions and denominations perform same-sex weddings. At the 1996
Unitarian Universalist General Assembly, delegates voted overwhelmingly that because of "the inherent worth and dignity of every person," same-sex couples should have the same freedom to marry that other couples have.
Social arguments
Those who advocate that marriage should be defined exclusively as the union of one man and one woman argue that heterosexual unions provide the procreative foundation of the family unit that's the chief social building block of civilization. Social conservatives and others may see marriage not as a legal construct of the state, but as a naturally occurring "pre-political institution" that the state must recognize as it recognizes other natural institutions such as jobs and families. "Government doesn't create marriage any more than government creates jobs." They argue that the definition proposed by same-sex marriage advocates changes the social importance of marriage from its natural function of reproduction into a mere legality or freedom to have sex. These sides of the argument 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 that legalized same-sex marriage in 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, which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm wouldn't ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.
A common objection to same-sex marriage is that the purpose of marriage is a result of naturally occurring sexual attraction that leads to procreation, 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 doesn't prohibit marriage between sterile heterosexual couples or to women past
menopause, the procreation argument can't reasonably be used against same-sex marriage, particularly since technological advances allow gay couples to have their own related biological children.
Another view is that all marriages should thus be viewed legally as "
civil unions." These civil unions would then only receive the
benefits of marriage which don't require expenditures from the government (for example, tax breaks), and any monetary benefits would only be awarded based on the number of children living in a household.
Dissidents to the same-sex marriage movement within the gay community argue that the pursuit of social recognition and legal benefits (for example, health care insurance) by means of marriage reinforces marriage as an institution of exclusion, because it extends rights and benefits to people on the basis of their relationship status. Some of these rights (for example, health care insurance), they argue, should be made available to all people, including those who are single and those whose families are composed of three or more intimate partners. Some also argue that seeking marriage as a way of legitimating gay parenting reinforces cultural biases and discrimination against single parents. Lastly, some note that the same-sex marriage movement reinforces a cultural bias against being single in adulthood, treating it as abnormal, undesirable, or immature.
Some same-sex marriage proponents, such as
Andrew Sullivan, argue that same-sex marriage is moral enough to support the family-centered role that marriage plays in society despite the absence of biological children. Supporters also argue that the institution of marriage would be strengthened by making it available to more people, and furthermore 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.
Also, many people argue in favor of same-sex marriage because they say that sexual orientation is uncontrollable. They cite many scientific studies which claim that no one can choose or change their sexual orientation, and that forbidding marriage between two people of the same sex is like forbidding marriage between two people of the same eye color, skin color, or nose length. Some believe that sexual orientation is genetically determined, just like these traits, and thus shouldn't be cited as a basis for discrimination. In contrast, opponents of same-sex marriage (including some
ex-gay organizations) argue that homosexuality isn't genetic or unchangeable. Same-sex marriage opponents support this position with research as well as anecdotal evidence regarding efforts to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions. Some opponents of same-sex marriage reason that if homosexuality isn't genetic or unchangeable, then it isn't unjust for government to define marriage as the union of one woman and one man.
Arguments about tradition
Proponents of same-sex marriage point out that "traditional" concepts of marriage in actuality have already undergone
significant change.
Polygamy has been prohibited, 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 concerning children and the family
In opposing same-sex marriage in various state courts, a common key state's argument against allowing same-sex marriage has been the use of legal marriage to foster the state's interest in human reproduction. In
Anderson et al. v. King County in which several same-sex couples argued that the state of Washington's version of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional, the
Washington Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the law was constitutional. Writing in the majority opinion, Justice Barbara Madsen wrote in 2006:
The Legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are brought up in homes headed by children's biological parents.
(See also
Same-sex marriage in Washington,
Same-sex marriage and procreation)
In responding to this argument in 2007, the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, a supporter of same-sex marriage, began a petition drive to place a ballot measure on the November 2007 ballot that would require opposite-sex couples who marry to have children within three years or have their marriages become legally unrecognized. Couples seeking a marriage license would also have to show they can produce children. The group admits this ballot initiative aims at calling attention to the Washington Supreme Court's decision in
Anderson and the logical extension of this reasoning to childless and/or sterile heterosexual couples.
In terms of numbers, the
2000 U.S. Census reports more than 600,000 same-sex couples (
unmarried domestic partners on the Census form) in the United States. The Census Bureau estimates that this number would be over 770,000 in 2005. While a post-Census study by UCLA economist Dr. M.V. Lee Badgett found that there was a significant undercount of same-sex couples in 2000, the Census reports that among the couples answering they're a same-sex couple: one-third of lesbian couples and one-fifth of gay male couples have children under 18 living in the home.
Some object on the grounds that same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt or raise children or to have access to reproductive technologies, and that same-sex marriage would make such arrangements 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. 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.
Noted Harvard political philosopher and legal scholar
John Rawls supported gay marriage and didn't see any problem with it unless it could be shown it would somehow undermine the welfare of children, for which he didn't believe there was an argument.
(External Link) He is joined with philosophers
Robert Nozick,
Martha Nussbaum,
Cornel West and
Susan Moller Okin among others, who see the issue as a matter of justice within family and society.
Arguments concerning divorce rates
On an international scale, the most comprehensive study to date on the effect of same-sex marriage / partnership on heterosexual marriage and divorce rates was conducted looking at over 15 years of data from the Scandinavian countries. The study (later part of a book), by researcher
Darren Spedale, found that, 15 years after Denmark had granted same-sex couples the rights of marriage, rates of heterosexual marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of heterosexual divorce had gone down - contradicting the concept that same-sex marriage would have a negative effect on traditional marriage.
All U.S. states submit monthly summaries of vital statistics on births, deaths, marriages, and divorces to the U.S. Center For Disease Control's National Center For Health Statistics (NCHS) who then prepares monthly and yearly reports. The following statistics are based on that NCHS material. Over three years have passed now since same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts and data from all of 2004 and 2005 are now available.
The current divorce trends in Massachusetts counter claims of same-sex marriage having a negative impact on traditional marriage. In fact, for several years now the Commonwealth has had the lowest divorce rate of any state in the union. In 2004 the Massachusetts divorce rate, at 2.2 per 1,000 residents per year, was considerably lower than the U.S. national average rate for that year, 3.8 per 1,000 and close to the national average of 2.0 back in 1940. In the first two years of same-sex marriage in the Bay State, the rate of divorce showed a steady decline making it likely that Massachusetts will continue to have the lowest divorce rate in the nation.
States which have taken aggressive action against same-sex marriage have not done nearly as well during the two year period of legal same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. The preliminary data from 2004 and 2005—from the 17 U.S. states which have provided data on divorce for 2004 and 2005 and whose voters also passed state constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage—presents a striking picture: the group of U.S. states arguably most hostile to divorce, those which have passed both state laws and also state constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage, lag dramatically in terms of divorce rate improvement when compared to same-sex marriage-friendly states.
Among those U.S. states that are most opposed to same-sex marriage which have also provided divorce data for the time period — Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Texas — the average divorce rate (unadjusted for population changes ) for 2004 and 2005 increased 1.75%. This group contains 4 of the 5 states with the highest divorce rate increases in the U.S. during 2004 and the first 11 months of 2005.
Arguments concerning equality
In the
United States, there are at least 1,138 federal laws "in which marital status is a factor." (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
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which provides for
equal protection of all citizens. For instance, a heterosexual U.S. citizen who marries a foreign partner immediately qualifies to bring that person to the United States, while long-term gay and lesbian binational partners who have spent decades together are denied the same rights, forcing foreign gay partners to seek expensive temporary employer or school-sponsored visas or face separation. See
Immigration Equality and
Human Rights Watch report on this and other forms of discrimination against same-sex couples.
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 doesn't 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" isn't innocuous; it's 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." For instance, in matters under federal purview such as immigration, a bi-national same-sex couple committed under civil union don't have the same rights as their married heterosexual counterparts in sponsoring their
alien partner for
permanent residency. There is however, a bill pending in the
United States Congress since 2000, called
Uniting American Families Act pertaining to this discrimination.
Parallels to interracial marriage
Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that men and women are fundamentally different from one another, whereas interracial couples still fit within the "one man and one woman" definition of marriage. Louisiana State University law professor Katherine Spaht has characterized the debate as follows: “the fundamental understanding of marriage has always been, by definition, a man and a woman. Never did Webster’s dictionary define the term marriage in terms of the races. There is an inherent difference between interracial marriage and same-sex “marriage” because homosexuals can't procreate."
Focus on the Family’s Glenn Stanton told the Baptist Press that “knocking down bans on interracial marriage didn't redefine marriage, it affirmed marriage by saying that any man has a right to marry any woman under the law. But what same-sex ‘marriage’ proponents seek to do is to radically redefine the very definition of marriage to say it’s not about gender. Marriage is about bringing the genders together, not keeping the races apart.”
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 U.S. Supreme Court case
Brown v. Board of Education), or
anti-miscegenation laws that were also overturned by the Supreme Court in 1967 in
Loving v. Virginia.
In 1972, after the Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling in
Baker v. Nelson specifically distinguished
Loving as not being applicable to the same-sex marriage debate, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question." This type of dismissal usually constitutes a decision
on the merits of the case; as such, Baker appeared—at least for a time — to be binding precedent on all lower federal courts.
It is unclear whether
Baker v. Nelson remains as a potential bar to the federal courts from hearing cases regarding same-sex marriage. The federal
Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA) simultaneously created (1) a federal definition of marriage,, and (2) a new rule under the
Full Faith and Credit Act (passed pursuant to Congress's authority under the federal Constitution's
Full Faith and Credit Clause),, purporting to limit mandatory interstate recognition of same-sex marriages. By "federalizing" marriage with statutes that are susceptible of judicial scrutiny, Congress effectively — albeit perhaps unintentionally — expanded the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts, seemingly superseding Baker's dismissal "for want of a substantial federal question."
This loophole in jurisdiction recently came to light when a same-sex couple was granted standing to sue in federal district court on a claim that DOMA is unconstitutional under the federal Constitution. See
Smelt v. County of Orange, 374 F. Supp. 2d 861 (
C.D. Cal., 2005), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 447 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 396 (2006). In
Smelt, the district court applied Pullman abstention to one part of the claim, but it proceeded to the merits on another part, finding DOMA to be constitutional. The
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court on the abstention question, but it reversed the district court on the merits, holding that the couple lacked standing to sue. The Ninth Circuit raised the standing question
sua sponte, but only because the couple hadn't demonstrated the requisite injury. The Ninth Circuit left open the possibility that another couple with a demonstrable injury could bring the same suit in the future. Importantly,
Baker v. Nelson is mentioned nowhere in the Ninth Circuit's opinion; its continuing relevance is therefore highly suspect.
Beginning in 2003, members of Congress have annually introduced a "
court-stripping" provision that would prevent all federal courts from hearing claims challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. See, for example, Marriage Protection Act of 2003, H.R. 3313 (108th Cong., 1st Sess.). This proposed court-stripping provision has itself been challenged as being of dubious constitutionality. See Jason J. Salvo, Comment, Naked Came I: Jurisdiction-Stripping and the Constitutionality of House Bill 3313, 29 Seattle U. L. Rev. 963 (Summer 2006); Maxim O. Mayer-Cesiano, On Jurisdiction-Stripping: The Proper Scope of Inferior Federal Courts' Independence from Congress, 8 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 559 (May 2006); J. Spencer Jenkins, Note, 'Til Congress Do Us Part: The Marriage Protection Act, Federal Court-Stripping, and Same-Sex Marriage, 40 New Eng. L. Rev. 619 (Winter 2006); Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Note, The Marriage Protection Act: A Lesson in Congressional Over-Reaching, 50 N.Y. L. Sch. L. Rev. 809 (2005-2006); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Constitutional Limits to Court-Stripping, 9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 347 (Summer 2005); Theodore J. Weiman, Comment, Jurisdiction Stripping, Constitutional Supremacy, and the Implications of Ex Parte Young, 153 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1677 (2005).
Economic arguments
Economic arguments on the impact of same-sex marriage focus on the effects on same-sex couples, businesses, employers, and governments. Economist and associate professor at the University of Massachusetts (Amherst), Dr. M. V. Lee Badgett has studied the impact of same-sex legal marriage on all four of these groups.
Impact on Same-sex Couples: Badgett finds that exclusion from legal marriage has an economic impact on same-sex couples. According to a 1997 General Accounting Office study requested by Rep.
Henry Hyde (R), at least 1,049 U.S. Federal laws and regulations include reference to marital status. A later 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office finds 1,138 statutory provisions "in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving 'benefits, rights, and privileges.'" Many of these laws govern property rights, benefits, and taxation. Same-sex couples are ineligible for spousal and survivor Social Security benefits. Badgett's research finds the resulting difference in Social Security income for same-sex couples compared to opposite-sex married couples is US$5,588 per year. The federal ban on same-sex marriage and benefits through the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) extends to federal government employee benefits. For example, after the 2006 death of former Massachusetts Congressman
Gerry Studds (D), the first openly gay member of Congress, his legal spouse Dean Hara was denied the estimated $114,337 annual pension to which Hara would have been eligible if their Massachusetts marriage was recognized on the federal level. According to Badgett's work, same-sex couples face other financial challenges against which legal marriage at least partially shields opposite-sex couples:
- potential loss of couple's home from medical expenses of one partner caring for another gravely ill one
costs of supporting two households, travel, or emigration out of the U.S. for an American citizen unable to legally marry a non-US citizen
higher cost of purchasing private insurance for partner and children if company isn't one of 18% that offer domestic partner benefits
higher taxes: unlike a company's contribution to an employee's spouse's health insurance, domestic partner benefits are taxed as additional compensation
legal costs associated with obtaining domestic partner documents to gain some of the power of attorney, health care decision-making, and inheritance rights granted through legal marriage
higher health costs associated with lack of insurance and preventative care: 20% of same-sex couples have a member who is uninsured compared to 10% of married opposite-sex couples
current tax law allows a spouse to inherit an unlimited amount from the deceased without incurring an estate tax but an unmarried partner would have to pay the estate tax on the inheritance from her/his partner
same-sex couples are not eligible to file jointly or separately as a married couple and thus can't take the advantages of lower tax rates when the individual income of the partners differs significantly
While state laws grant full marriage rights (Massachusetts) or some or all of the benefits under another name (Vermont, New Jersey, California, etc.), these state laws don't extend the benefits of marriage on the Federal level, and most states don't currently recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions from other states.
One often overlooked aspect of same-sex marriage are the potential negative effects on same-sex couples. While the legal benefits of marriage are numerous, same-sex couples would face the same financial constraints of legal marriage as opposite-sex married couples. Such potential effects include the marriage penalty in taxation. Similarly, while social service providers usually don't count one partner's assets toward the income means test for welfare and disability assistance for the other partner, a legally married couple's joint assets are normally used in calculating whether a married individual qualifies for assistance.
Impact on Businesses: Dr. M. V. Lee Badgett's research estimates the potential impact on businesses of same-sex marriage legalization to be $2 billion to the wedding industry alone. Badgett derives this estimate by calculating the amount spent on weddings if a) half of same-sex couples marry and b) each couple spends 1/4 the average amount spent on an opposite-sex wedding (US$27,600 average wedding cost / 4 = US$6,900 per same-sex couple).
Impact on Employers: In terms of employers where marriage opponents fear higher benefit costs, Badgett and Mercer Human Resources Consulting separately find less than 1% of employees with a same-sex partner sign up for domestic partner benefits when a company offers them. Badgett finds less than 0.3% of Massachusetts firms' employees signed up for spousal benefits when that state legalized same-sex marriage.
Impact on Governments: A 2004 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report examines the impact of allowing the 1.2 million Americans in same-sex domestic partnerships in the 2000 Census to marry and finds the impact to be comparatively small in terms of the huge Federal budget. While some spending on Federal programs would increase, these outlays would be offset by more savings in other spending areas. The report predicts that if same-sex marriage was legalized in all 50 states and on the Federal level, the U.S. government would bring in a net surplus of US$1 billion per year over the next 10 years.
Other arguments
The Weekly Standard commentator Stanley Kurtz argues allowing same-sex marriage blurs other common law precedents and will lead to the legalization of a variety of non-traditional relationships (see Slippery-slope argument).
Polygamy. 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).
Polyamory. Defined as the practice whereby a person has more than one long term loving relationship in their life, with the knowledge and acceptance of others they're involved with, in whatever form is chosen by those involved. This can include long term stable group marriages, or stable couples who have external partners as well as their 'primary' partner. A polyamorous civil union in the Netherlands in 2005 sparked many comparisons with gay marriage on American conservative blogs. Most practitioners of polyamory in the United States are skeptical of all forms of marriage, however.
Incestuous marriages. The natural aversion most people feel toward incestuous relationships doesn't vary depending on sexual orientation, yet this is a logical consequence of redefining marriage to accommodate a group.
Marriages of convenience for tax or other reasons. This however, seems to be more of an argument against government-sanctioned marriage in general, not just same-sex marriage.
Human-animal marriage. Non-human animals, however, don't have the legal standing to consent into a marriage contract.Further Information
Get more info on 'Same Sex Marriage'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://same-sex_marriage.totallyexplained.com">Same-sex marriage Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
