Gay Marriages

Gay Marriage John McCain: Has said that he personally believes "marriage is between a man and a woman," but does not support a constitutional amendment aimed at prohibiting states from legalizing it. He says such a measure would usurp states' prerogatives. Voted in favor of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Clinton. That law banned the federal government from recognizing gay marriages. Barack Obama: Has also said that he personally believes "marriage is between a man and a woman"-the same language employed by President Bush, as well-while also opposing any constitutional amendment designed to prohibit states from banning gay marriage. Differs from McCain in that he advocates repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act that banned the federal government from recognizing gay marriages. Gay marriage seekers want legal protection Published: Oct. 15, 2008 at 11:06 PM Order reprints | Print Story | Email to a Friend | Post a Comment BOSTON, Oct. 15 (UPI) -- A study of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts found most gay couples wanted legal protections or to make a public statement, researchers say. The study, published in the Journal of GLBT Family Studies, also found the lack of family approval and difficulties planning and paying for the wedding were the most noted obstacles to marriage The state legalized same-sex marriage 13 months ago. Pamela J. Lannutti of Boston College used a sample of 263 partners in same-sex couples had an average relationship duration of 7.5 years. Seventy-two percent had gotten legally married in the 13 months after same-sex marriage was authorized in Massachusetts, and 28 percent planned to marry within 16 months. Twenty-four percent say their attraction to marriage was for legal protections, 20 percent wanted to make a public statement of commitment, 15 percent say they wanted to marry because of feelings for their partner, 14 percent say it was a means of acknowledgment from family, 13 percent wanted legal protection in having children, 8 percent wanted it as a means of acknowledgment from friends, 4 percent married for political reasons and 2 percent cited religious reasons. About 59 percent of the participants were women, 39 percent were men and 2 percent did not report their gender. ISSUE: Gay Marriage John McCain: Has said that he personally believes "marriage is between a man and a woman," but does not support a constitutional amendment aimed at prohibiting states from legalizing it. He says such a measure would usurp states’ prerogatives. Voted in favor of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Clinton. That law banned the federal government from recognizing gay marriages. Barack Obama: Has also said that he personally believes "marriage is between a man and a woman"—the same language employed by President Bush, as well—while also opposing any constitutional amendment designed to prohibit states from banning gay marriage. Differs from McCain in that he advocates repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act that banned the federal government from recognizing gay marriages.

A sharply divided Connecticut Supreme Court struck down the state’s civil union law on Friday and ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Connecticut thus joins Massachusetts and California as the only states to have legalized gay marriages. Related Times Topics: Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships Text of the Ruling (pdf) Enlarge This Image

•

Joanne Mock, right, and Elizabeth Kerrigan, with their son Carlos, 6, were among eight couples who sued to get marriage licenses. Readers' Comments Readers shared their thoughts on this article. Read All Comments (181) » The ruling, which cannot be appealed and is to take effect on Oct. 28, held that a state law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, and a civil union law intended to provide all the rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples, violated the constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law. Striking at the heart of discriminatory traditions in America, the court — in language that often rose above the legal landscape into realms of social justice for a new century — recalled that laws in the not-so-distant past barred interracial marriages, excluded women from occupations and official duties, and relegated blacks to separate but supposedly equal public facilities. “Like these once prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection,” Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote for the majority in a 4-to-3 decision that explored the nature of homosexual identity, the history of societal views toward homosexuality and the limits of gay political power compared with that of blacks and women. “Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same-sex partner of their choice,” Justice Palmer declared. “To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others.” The ruling was groundbreaking in various respects. In addition to establishing Connecticut as the third state to sanction same-sex marriage, it was the first state high court ruling to hold that civil union statutes specifically violated the equal protection clause of a state constitution. The Massachusetts high court held in 2004 that same-sex marriages were legal, while California’s court decision in May related to domestic partnerships and not the more broadly defined civil unions. The Connecticut decision, which elicited strong dissenting opinions from three justices, also opened the door to marriage a bit wider for gay couples in New York, where state laws do not provide for same-sex marriages or civil unions, although Gov. David A. Paterson recently issued

an executive order requiring government agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The opinion in Connecticut was hailed by jubilant gay couples and their advocates as a fulfillment of years of hopes and dreams. Hugs, kisses and cheers greeted eight same-sex couples as they entered the ballroom at the Hartford Hilton, where four years ago they had announced they would file a lawsuit seeking marriage licenses. One of those couples, Joanne Mock, 53, and her partner, Elizabeth Kerrigan, 52, stood with their twin 6-year-old sons, choking back tears of joy and gratitude. Another plaintiff, Garret Stack, 59, introduced his partner, John Anderson, 63, and said: “For 28 years we have been engaged. We can now register at Home Depot and prepare for marriage.” Religious and conservative groups called the ruling an outrage but not unexpected, and spoke of steps to enact a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, blamed “robed masters” and “philosopher kings” on the court. “This is about our right to govern ourselves,” he said. “It is bigger than gay marriage.” But the state, a principal defendant in the lawsuit, appeared to be resigned to the outcome. Gov. M. Jodi Rell said that she disagreed with the decision, but would uphold it. “The Supreme Court has spoken,” she said. “I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision, either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution, will not meet with success.” Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said his office was reviewing the decision to determine whether laws and procedures will have to be revised — local officials will issue marriage licenses to gay couples without question, for example — but he offered no challenge and said it would soon be implemented. Same-sex marriage From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Gay marriage) Jump to: navigation, search Legal recognition of Same-sex relationships Same-sex marriage Belgium Norway (2009-1-1) Canada South Africa Netherlands Spain Recognized in some regions United States (CA, CT[1], MA) Foreign marriages recognized Aruba (Dutch only) Israel France Netherlands Antilles (Dutch only) United States (NY) Civil unions and registered partnerships Andorra Iceland

Belgium Czech Republic Denmark Ecuador Finland France Germany Hungary (2009-11)

Luxembourg Netherlands New Zealand Slovenia Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom Uruguay

Recognized in some regions Argentina (C, RN, VCP) Australia (TAS, ACT, VIC eff. 2008-12-1) Brazil (RS) Canada (NS, QC) Mexico (Coah., DF) United States (CA, CT, DC, HI, ME, MD, NH, NJ, OR, VT, WA) Unregistered co-habitation Argentina Colombia Australia Croatia Austria Israel Brazil Portugal Recognition debated Argentina Greece Austria Ireland Australia (QLD) Italy Brazil Jersey Chile Latvia China Liechtenstein Colombia Lithuania Costa Rica Poland Croatia Romania Cuba Slovakia Estonia Taiwan Faroe Islands United States (IA, IL, NM, NY, RI) Recognition granted, same-sex marriage debated Australia (TAS) New Zealand France Portugal Hungary Sweden Iceland United Kingdom United States DC, (HI, ME, MD,

NH, NJ, OR, VT, WA) See also Civil union Domestic partnership Listings by country Registered partnership Same-sex marriage Timeline of same-sex marriage LGBT portal v•d•e Same-sex marriage (also referred to as gay marriage), is a term for a legally or socially, recognized marriage between two people of the same sex. "Same-sex marriage" and "gay marriage" are the most common terms used in news media and politics. Other terms used are included below. I think it is homosexual that they expect every gay man to want to get married. We are like any single guy, we just want to be promiscuous. Contents [hide] • 1 Debates over terminology ○ 1.1 Use of scare quotes in print and online media • 2 History • 3 Current status ○ 3.1 Civil unions and partnerships ○ 3.2 International organizations ○ 3.3 Transgender and intersex persons • 4 Controversy ○ 4.1 Religious arguments  4.1.1 Christian opposition  4.1.2 Christian acceptance  4.1.3 Judaism ○ 4.2 Arguments concerning children and the family  4.2.1 Arguments concerning divorce rates  4.2.2 Reproduction ○ 4.3 Social arguments ○ 4.4 Arguments about tradition ○ 4.5 Arguments concerning equality ○ 4.6 Parallels to interracial marriage ○ 4.7 Economic arguments ○ 4.8 Other arguments opposing same-sex marriage • 5 See also ○ 5.1 Documentaries and literature • 6 Footnotes • 7 References • 8 External links • 9 Bibliography [edit] Debates over terminology

Some proponents of same-sex marriage use the term "equal marriage" to stress that they seek equality as opposed to special rights.[2] Opponents argue that equating same-sex and opposite-sex marriage changes the meaning of marriage and its traditions.[3] Furthermore they frequently use the term "homosexual marriage," and some surveys have suggested that the word "homosexual" is more stigmatizing than the word "gay."[4] “ Marriage is a vocabulary, it’s a vehicle, an engine for a larger discussion that moves people’s understanding of who gay people are, why sex discrimination is wrong, why exclusion is wrong in America, that brings up discussion of the separation of church and state, that brings up discussion of whether there should be limitations or roles based on sex, or whether men and women should be treated equally. ” —Evan Wolfson[5] 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, writes 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."[6] Some proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage on both sides 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 and a contributor to the landmark cases in Vermont and Massachusetts that led to the legalization of same-sex civil unions and marriages, respectively. "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 are doing this when we actually have a legal system that already clearly distinguishes between civil and religious marriage."[7] Conservative critics in the US 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."[8] [edit] Use of scare quotes in print and online media

Some publications that oppose same-sex marriage adopt an editorial style policy of placing the word marriage in scare quotes ("marriage") when it is used in reference to same-sex couples. In the United States, the mainstream press has largely abandoned this practice. The last major U.S. print daily to employ this editorial style was The Washington Times, which abandoned the policy in February 2008 at the behest of newly appointed editor John Solomon[9]. Some online publications such as WorldNetDaily and Baptist Press still follow the practice. Cliff Kincaid, editor of the conservative American media-watchdog group Accuracy in Media and president of an anti-U.N. group called America's Survival, agrees with this method, arguing that "marriage" is a legal status denied same-sex couples by most state governments.[10] Same-sex marriage supporters argue that the use of scare quotes is an editorialization that implies inferiority, and point out that the quotes are even used when referring to same-sex marriages in states where such unions are legal.[11] Associated Press style, which professional journalists in the United States generally adopt, recommends the usages gay marriage and gay marriage amendment with no hyphen and no scare quotes. [edit] History Two men marrying in Amsterdam within the first month that marriage was opened to same-sex couples in the Netherlands (2001) Main article: History of same-sex unions 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. [12] In the year 342, the emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal.[13] [edit] Current status Main article: Status of same-sex marriage Status of Same Sex Recognition Recognition Granted for Same Sex Unions Recognition Debated for Same Sex Unions Same Sex Marriage Recognition Foreign Same Sex Marriage Recognition Civil and/or Domestic Partnership Unregistered Cohabitation Note: Hawaii not shown on map. (Civil and/or Domestic Partnerships and Recognition Granted) Status of same-sex partnerships in Europe. Same sex marriage recognised Civil unions recognised Unregistered cohabitation recognised Issue under political consideration Unrecognised or unknown Same sex marriage banned Status of same-sex partnerships in the United States Same-sex marriages Unions granting rights similar to marriage Unions granting limited/enumerated rights Foreign same-sex marriages recognized Statute bans same-sex marriage Constitution bans samesex marriage Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions Marriage, as defined by the civil law, is currently available to same-sex couples in six countries. The Netherlands was the first country to allow same-sex marriage in 2001. Same-sex marriages are also legal in Belgium, Canada, Norway, South Africa and Spain, along with three states in the United States, Massachusetts and recently California (for status in California see California Proposition 8 (2008)) and Connecticut[14]. In 2005, Spain became the first country in the world to recognize same-sex marriage (including adoption rights) on equal terms and under the same law. In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman amongst other stipulations.[15] As of May 2007, twenty-six states have passed constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage.[16], eighteen of which prohibit the legal recognition of any same-sex union.

Nineteen additional states have legal statutes that define "marriage" as a union of two persons of the opposite-sex.[17] The territory of Puerto Rico ratified a similar statute in 1998. Nonetheless, some states are beginning to offer legal recognition to same-sex couples, whether in the form of marriage or as civil unions or domestic partnerships. The states of Vermont, New Jersey and New Hampshire offer civil unions. Also, California and Oregon have domestic partnership laws that grant all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Maine, Washington, Maryland, and the District of Columbia grant certain limited benefits through domestic partnerships, and Hawaii has reciprocal beneficiary laws. 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 opposite-sex 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 is 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 has not 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, Spain and Norway 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 do not apply to opposite-sex marriage. [edit] Civil unions and partnerships Main article: Civil union 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 cohabitation 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, Portugal, Slovenia, 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, Maryland, 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 opposite-sex 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.[18] In 2007 Grace Abrams and Fiona Power became Australia's first legally recognised same sex married couple [6] 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 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.[19] [edit] 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 is a citizen of a NATO member state.[20] The World Health Organization has recently banned the recruitment of cigarette smokers.[21] 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.[22] [edit] Transgender and intersex persons Main article: Legal aspects of transsexualism When sex is defined legally, it may be defined by any one of several criteria: the XY sexdetermination system, the type of gonads, or the type of external sexual features. Consequently, both transsexuals and intersexed individuals may be 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 longterm 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 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.[23] 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 has not been exhaustively stated by a court, it is 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 would 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 does not 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 does not provide results as satisfactory as its counterpart; therefore many femaleto-male transsexuals choose not to undergo this procedure. In a situation where genitalia legally defines gender and same-sex marriage is not 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.[24] In any legal jurisdiction where marriages are defined without distinction of a requirement of a male and female, these complications do not 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 (Gender Recognition Act 2004) allows a person who has lived in their chosen gender for at least two years to receive a gender recognition certificate officially recognizing their new gender. Because in the UK marriage is for mixed-sex couples and civil partnership is for same-sex couples, the person must dissolve their marriage or civil partnership before they can get their gender recognition certificate. They are then free to enter into a civil partnership or a marriage again with their former wife, husband, or civil partner. 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 does not 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. Wikinews has related news: Interview with gay marriage movement founder Evan Wolfson [edit] Controversy The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2008) Map showing the status of homosexuality laws of the world. No information Homosexuality legal Same sex marriages Same sex unions No same sex unions International marriage licenses recognized Homosexuality illegal Minimal penalty Large penalty Life in prison Death penalty No info on penalty The controversy over recognition of same-sex unions as marriages is 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. Some opponents of same-sex marriage argue that same-sex relationships are not marriages,[25] that legalization of same-sex marriage will open the door for the legalization of polygamy,[26] that legalization of same-sex marriage would erode religious freedoms,[27] and that same-sex marriage deprives children of either a mother or a father.[28] On the other hand, a 2004 Statement by the American Anthropological Association states that there is no evidence that society needs to maintain "marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution", and, further, that same-sex unions can "contribute to stable and humane societies."[29] Further, some supporters of same-sex marriage take the view that the government should have no role in regulating personal relationships,[30] while others argue that same-sex marriage would provide social benefits to same-sex couples.[31] The debate regarding same-sex marriage includes debate based upon social viewpoints as well as debate based on religious convictions, economic arguments, health-related concerns, and a variety of other issues. [edit] Religious arguments

Historian John Boswell claims the 4th century Christian martyrs Saint Sergius and Saint Bacchus were united in the rite of adelphopoesis, or brother-making, which he calls an early form of religious same-sex marriage [edit] Christian opposition Some opponents object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds. Opponents sometimes claim that extending marriage rights to same-sex couples could undercut the conventional purpose of marriage as interpreted by religious understanding.[32] Other opponents of same-sex marriage hold that same-sex marriage is contrary to God's will,[33][34] that it is unnatural,[35] and that it encourages unhealthy behavior.[36] Still others argue that same-sex marriage would encourage individuals to act upon homosexual urges, when such individuals ought to instead seek help to overcome the temptation toward homosexual behavior.[34] 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 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. Secular government recognition of any other union within the definition of "marriage" would therefore reflect a belief in the moral equivalence of acts between a husband and wife and acts between two men or two women; this belief is contrary to Catholic doctrinal teaching and could in turn, it is feared, form the basis for public education requirements[37] 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.[38] Catholic opponents also argue that inclusion of same-sex unions within the definition of marriage would also evidence rejection of the idea that, in general, it is best that children be raised by their biological mother and father, and that it is the community's interest in ensuring the well-being of children that forms the basis for the government's licensure and involvement in marriage.[39] Conservatives and some moderate Christians further note that homosexuality goes directly against biblical teaching, and extend this to same-sex marriage. Some Biblical scholars interpret Genesis 19:5 as indicating that homosexual behavior led to the destruction of the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.[40] Other passages interpreted as condemning homosexuality 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.[41] While these passages do not define the institution of marriage, Genesis 2:22-24 reads as follows: "Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had 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 shall 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 they will become one flesh."[42] This passage is referred to by Jesus in the New Testament Gospel of Matthew.[43] Furthermore, many Christians hold the belief that Romans 1 proscribes all homosexual behavior, regardless of its relational context.[44] [edit] Christian acceptance For some moderate and liberal Christians, the passage in Romans is seen as relating more to specific instances of Graeco-Roman temple sex acts and idolatrous worship and it is not intended to address contemporary homosexuality.[45] Critics argue that this interpretation is not rooted in the Scriptural text, as nothing in the passage suggests that the commentary regarding homosexual behavior is directed solely at temple prostitution.[46] 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.[47][48]

[edit] Judaism 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.[49] Some 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.[50] Members of Reform Judaism support the inclusion of same-sex unions within the definition of marriage.[51] The Jewish Reconstructionist Federation leaves the choice up to the individual rabbi.[52] [edit] Arguments concerning children and the family Main article: LGBT parenting The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. (September 2008) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. Some opponents of same-sex marriage argue that a child should be raised by both a father and a mother.[53][54] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints points to evidence which indicate "gender differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable" and "that fathers express more concern for the child’s longer-term development, while mothers focus on the child’s immediate well-being".[55] Focus on the Family points to academic studies which state that the presence of a father in the home increases children's cognitive and verbal skills, academic performance, involvement in or avoidance of high-risk behaviors and crime, and emotional and psychological health than children without a father.[56][57][58][59][60][61] Another study showed being without a resident father from infancy does not seem to have negative consequences for children.[62] Research has found no major differences in parenting or child development between families headed by two mothers and other fatherless families.[63][64][62] Like children raised by single mothers, children raised by two mothers perceived themselves to be less cognitively and physically competent than their peers from father-present families.[64] Children without fathers had more interactions, severe disputes and depended more on their mothers. Sons showed more feminine but no less masculine characteristics of gender role behavior.[62] Compared with young adults who had single mothers, men and women raised by two mothers were slightly more likely to consider the possibility of having a same-sex partner, and more of them had been involved in at least a brief same-sex relationship, but similar proportions identified themselves as homosexual.[64] Opponents of same-sex marriage also point to research which state the power and importance of the mother-child bond compared to children without a mother.[56][65][66] David Blankenhorn argues that raising children in a same-sex marriage violates the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child that guarantees children the right to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world.[67] A number of health and child-welfare organizations "support the parenting of children by lesbians and gay men, and condemn attempts to restrict competent, caring adults from serving as foster and/or adoptive parents." Such organizations 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.[68] 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.[69] Noted Harvard political

philosopher and legal scholar John Rawls supported gay marriage and did not believe that it would undermine the welfare of children.[70] [edit] Arguments concerning divorce rates The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

One of four newly wedded same-sex couples in a public wedding at Taiwan Pride 2006. Internationally, 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.[71] A study on short-term same-sex marriages in Norway and Sweden found that divorce risks are higher in same-sex marriages than in opposite-sex marriages, and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more dynamic, than unions of gay men.[72] The authors cited that this may be due to same-sex couples "non- involvement in joint parenthood", "lower exposure to normative pressure about the necessity of life-long unions" as well as differing motivations for getting married.[72] [edit] Reproduction See also: Same-sex marriage and procreation 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 is 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 does not create marriage any more than government creates jobs."[73] 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. Opponents of same-sex marriage quote Bertrand Russell who said "it is through

children alone that sexual relations become important to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution."[67] 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.[74] 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 would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action. The core meaning that marriage is the union of a man and a woman is essential in influencing the forming of the individual identity to an extent that common sense readily comprehends.[75] Based on research showing that, on average, children do best when raised by their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage,[76] some argue that legal marriage is a way of encouraging monogamy and commitment by those who may create children through their sexual coupling.[77][78] One prominent supporter of this viewpoint, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher, argues that "marriage as a universal social institution is grounded in certain universal features of human nature. When men and women have sex, they make babies. Reproduction may be optional for individuals, but it is not optional for societies. Societies that fail to have “enough” babies fail to survive. And babies are most likely to grow to functioning adulthood when they have the care and attention of both their mother and their father."[79] 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:[80] 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. Some proponents of same-sex marriage also 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.[81] The Maryland Supreme Court ruled that "the fundamental right to marriage and its ensuing benefits are conferred on opposite-sex couples not because of a distinction between whether various opposite-sex couples actually procreate, but rather because of the possibility of procreation."[82] [edit] Social arguments Another school of thought regarding social arguments against same-sex marriage holds that same-sex marriage is a red herring designed to create legal principles under which sexual orientation will be treated as an immutable characteristic like race, and that same-sex marriage advocates seek to use the law to "stigmatize, marginalize, and repress those who disagree with the government’s new views on marriage and sexual orientation."[83] Advocates of same-sex marriage oppose these social arguments. Advocates for recognition of same-sex unions argue that there is 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.[84]

Prenuptial and postnuptial agreements arise among those holding this view.[85] Dissidents to the same-sex marriage movement within the gay community argue that the pursuit of social recognition and legal benefits 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.[86] [edit] Arguments about tradition Stanley Kurtz from the Hoover Institution said that same-sex marriage separates the ideas of marriage and parenthood, thereby accelerating marital decline. He cites studies showing a substantial rise in the out-of-wedlock birthrates, for both firstborn and subsequent children in areas where same-sex unions are legal.[87] In Conaway v. Deane et. al, the Maryland Supreme Court ruled that the State has a legitiment interest in encouraging the traditional family structure in which children are born.[82] [edit] Arguments concerning equality Some opponents of same-sex marriage (including some ex-gay organizations) argue that sexual behavior is not genetic or unchangeable, reasoning that if homosexuality is not genetic or unchangeable, it is not unjust for government to define marriage as the union of one woman and one man.[88][89][90][91][92] Same-sex marriage opponents support this position with research as well as anecdotal evidence regarding efforts to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions.[93] They point to the American Psychiatric Association's statement which reads "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime."[94] In Deane & Polyak v. Conaway, the Maryland Supreme Court ruled "There is no fundamental right to marry a person of your own sex".[82] 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 schoolsponsored visas or face separation 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 Maryland Supreme Court ruled that the case did not establish the right to same-sex marriage.[82] 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 samesex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status" and also that "The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal." There is, however, a bill pending in the United States Congress since 2000, called Uniting American Families Act pertaining to this alleged discrimination. Of all of the state supreme courts that have considered cases alleging that an opposite-sex definition of marriage is unconstitutional and discriminatory, only five -- the high courts of Hawaii (later reversed by constitutional amendment), Vermont, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and California -- have found opposite-sex marriage to be unconstitutional and discriminatory (see Same-sex marriage in the United States, Same-sex marriage status in the United States by state, and Hawaii Constitutional Amendment 2 (1998)).[96] Some opponents of same-sex marriage argue that a state’s decision to define marriage as a relationship between one woman and one man does not discriminate against anyone; according

to this view, the 48 states in the United States that do not allow same-sex marriage[97] confer identical rights upon adult, unmarried persons: the right to marry any consenting, unrelated, unmarried adult of the opposite sex.[98]

[edit] 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.[99] 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 cannot procreate."

“

Knocking down bans on interracial marriage did not 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.”

”

—-Focus on the Family’s Glenn Stanton[100]

Proponents of same-sex marriage make a comparison between racial segregation and segregation of homosexual and heterosexual marriage classifications in civil law.[101] 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, 1 U.S.C. § 7, 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), 28 U.S.C. § 1738C, purporting to limit mandatory interstate recognition of same-sex marriages. By "federalizing" marriage with statutes that are susceptible to 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 had not 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, e.g., 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 (20052006); 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).

[edit] Economic arguments

Dr. M. V. Lee Badgett, an economist and associate professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, has studied the impact of same-sex legal marriage on four 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.'"[102] 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 oppositesex 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, samesex 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 is not 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 cannot 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 do not extend the benefits of marriage on the Federal level, and most states do not 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 do not 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.[102] In terms of specific programs' spending the report states: Recognizing same-sex marriages would increase outlays for Social Security and for the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program, CBO estimates, but would reduce spending for Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, and Medicare. Effects on other programs would be negligible. Altogether, CBO concludes, recognizing same-sex marriages would affect outlays by less than $50 million a year in either direction through 2009 and reduce them by about $100 million to $200 million annually from 2010 through 2014.[102]

The CBO study counters the economic argument by some U.S. critics of same-sex marriage against governmental recognition on the grounds that the public should not have to shoulder the burden of increased taxes and insurance premiums to cover the associated costs.[103]

[edit] Other arguments opposing same-sex marriage

Some same-sex marriage opponents take the view that legalization of same-sex marriage will open the door to the redefinition of marriage to include other family forms such as polygamy; some are concerned that the same arguments used to advocate for same-sex marriage legislation could be used to advocate for other legally-recognized arrangments that would have unknown (and possibly detrimental) effects on children.[104][105]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).[106] •

•

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 are 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.[107] Marriages of convenience for tax or other reasons.

Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Marriage is a Sacred Religious Sacrament Gay Marriage Would Be a Sacrilege and Thus Must Be Banned? By Austin Cline, About.com

Filed In: 1. Atheist Activism & Politics 2. > Godless Liberalism

3. > Gay Rights and Marriage Atheism Ads Virginia Marriage Marriage Joke Marriage Sayings Marriage Petition Marriage Officiant Although rarely offered as an explicit argument against gay marriage, the idea that marriage is a sacred religious sacrament is one of the most important arguments for opponents and underlies much of the vehemence which motivates them in a way that the other arguments fail to explain. Indeed, if it weren’t for the idea that marriage is sacred, it seems unlikely that the debate would be as rancorous as it is. To cite just one example, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist stated in an interview on ABC: “I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament and that should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between what has traditionally in our Western values been defined as between a man and woman. So I would support the amendment [banning gay marriage].”

Marrage as Sacred

If marriage is sacred and if that sacral nature is derived from the idea that it has been blessed by God, then it will cease being sacred if God’s laws on marriage are not followed. The admittance of same-sex couples to the institution of marriage is not unlike letting an atheist deliver Holy Communion or allowing a Buddhist to become pope. Not following the rules that allow something to be a sacrament (“sign of the sacred”) is sacrilege (“desecration or misuse of something sacred”) and this is unacceptable to religious individuals and organizations. There is nothing wrong with individuals or churches treating marriage as sacred or sacramental, but this is not a debate about what individuals or private institutions should be doing. It is a debate about how the government should treat people and how the laws on marriage should be written. Is there any obligation on the part of the government to define civil marriages in a manner that does not conflict with religious conceptions of the same? With all due respect to religious people, the answer has to be no. It doesn’t matter what their personal feelings are regarding marriage, nor does it matter how important a particular definition of marriage happens to be within their religious system. The government is separate from and independent of their religion and must define marriage in a manner consistent with the secular principles upon which the government and the laws are founded. What if some religious groups declared that a certain type of tree were sacred — would the government be obligated to prevent anyone from cutting down that species and making furniture out of it? Some religious groups prohibit the remarriage of people who have gone through civil divorce proceedings. Should the government therefore pass civil laws that prohibit divorce, or at least the remarriage of divorced persons?

Church & State If the separation of church and state means anything, it must include the idea that people cannot be forced by the government to live according to the dictates of others’ religion. Just because one or many groups consider something sacred doesn’t mean that everyone must be forced to do so as well. Just because one or many religious groups consider same-sex marriage a sacrilege doesn’t mean that everyone else must be forced to define marriage in a way that would exclude gay couples. It also isn’t good enough for people to argue that same-sex marriage is against God’s will — it’s fine if churches teach this, but no government is under any obligation to legislate in a manner that is consistent with what what any church interprets God’s will to be. That would be the very essence of what it means to live in a theocracy. Marriage does not exist in order to further any mandates from anyone’s gods. Marriage does not exist simply in order to encourage and protect procreation. Marriage does not exist because it is a “natural” function. No, marriage exists because society finds that it is valuable and worthy to encourage and protect committed, intimate relationships that are pursued over an extended period of time. As an institution, marriage helps provide legal protection and stability to human relationships that might not otherwise survive problems and pressures under more informal terms. Financial and social benefits are thus conferred upon marital relationships because their long-term stability furthers general social stability. So far, no government has suggested that any religious groups be forced to perform and recognize gay marriages - that’s the flip-side of the separation of church and state and is as it should be. Just as the government is not obligated to define marriage along religious lines, religious groups are not obligated to define marriage along civil lines.

Marriage within a religion might be conceived as having been authored by God, but that is not and cannot be the starting basis for civil society. In civil society, marriage is authored by secular laws voted upon by representatives of the people and as interpreted by the courts. Thus, we are the authors of civil marriage - religion no longer plays any essential role.

Same-Sex Marriages: Legal Issues Summary Massachusetts became the first state to legalize marriage between same-sex couples May 17, as a result of a November 2003 decision by the state’s highest court that denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry violated the state’s constitution. Currently federal law does not recognize same-sex marriages. This report discusses the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), P.L. 104-199, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows individual states to refuse to recognize such marriages performed in other states, as well as the potential legal challenges to the DOMA. Moreover this report summarizes the legal principles applied in determining the validity of a marriage contracted in another state; surveys the various approaches employed by states to prevent same-sex marriage; and discusses the recent House and Senate Resolutions introduced proposing a constitutional amendment (H.J.Res. 56, S.J.Res. 26, S.J.Res. 30, and S.J.Res. 40) and limiting Federal courts’ jurisdiction to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of DOMA. (H.R. 3313). On July 14, 2004, the Senate considered and voted on a required procedural motion. This motion failed by a vote of 48-50, which prevented further consideration of S.J.Res. 40. On July 22, 2004, the House voted on and passed H.R. 3313.

Contents

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Potential Constitutional Challenges to DOMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Full Faith and Credit Clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Equal Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Substantive Due Process (Right to Privacy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Interstate Recognition of Marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 States’ Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 State Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 State “Civil Union” Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Pending Federal Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

List of Tables Table 1. State Statutes Defining “Marriage” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003). Voters approved the constitutional ban on August 3, 2004. 3 Voters approved the constitutional ban on September 18, 2004. 4 Voters will vote on proposed constitutional amendments in Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Utah this year. Similar measures were approved by Massachusetts’, Tennessee’s and Wisconsin’s legislatures, but must be approved again in 2005 before going to a statewide vote that year in Wisconsin and 2006 in Massachusetts and Tennessee. 5 These states are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, 1 2

Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. 6 P.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C).

Same-Sex Marriages: Legal Issues Massachusetts became the first state to legalize marriage between same-sex couples May 17, as a result of a November 2003 decision by the state’s highest court that denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry violated the state’s constitution.1 Currently neither federal law nor any state law affirmatively allows gay or lesbian couples to marry. On the federal level, Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages for purposes of federal enactments. States, such as Alaska, Hawaii, Missouri,2 Louisiana,3 Nebraska and Nevada have enacted state constitutional amendments limiting marriage to one man and one woman.4 Thirty-eight other states have enacted statutes limiting marriage in some manner.5 A chart summarizing these various approaches is included at the end of this report.

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)6

In 1996, Congress enacted the DOMA “[t]o define and protect the institution of marriage.” It allows all states, territories, possessions, and Indian tribes to refuse to recognize an act of any other jurisdiction that designates a relationship between individuals of the same sex as a marriage. In part, DOMA states: No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other

CRS-2 28 U.S.C. §1738C. 1 U.S.C. § 7. 9 It should be noted that a federal bankruptcy court in the Western District of Washington found DOMA constitutional. Two American women, married in British Columbia, Canada filed a joint bankruptcy petition in Tacoma, challenging the definitional part of DOMA. The court ruled that there was no fundamental constitutional right to marry someone of the same sex and that DOMA did not violate the Fourth, Fifth or Tenth amendments, nor the principles of comity. In re Lee Kandu and Ann C. Kandu, No. 03-51312 (Western District of Washington, Aug. 17, 2004). This decision is not binding on other courts. Federal challenges to DOMA are pending in Florida. 10 U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1. 11 See 142 Cong. Rec. S5931-33 (June 6, 1996) (statement introducing Professor Laurence H. Tribe’s letter into the record concluding that DOMA “would be an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to limit the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.”). 12 See Paige E. Chabora, Congress’ Power Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, 76 Neb. L. Rev. 604, 621-35 (1997). State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.7 7 8

Furthermore, DOMA goes on to declare that the terms “marriage” and “spouse,” as used in federal enactments, exclude homosexual marriage. 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.8

Potential Constitutional Challenges to DOMA9

Full Faith and Credit Clause. Some argue that DOMA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’ authority under the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution.10 Article IV, section 1 of the Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause states: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Opponents argue that, while Congress has authority to pass laws that enable acts, judgments and the like to be given effect in other States, it has no constitutional power to pass a law permitting States to deny full faith and credit to another State’s laws and judgments.11 Conversely, some argue that DOMA does nothing more than simply restate the power granted to the States by the full faith and credit clause.12 While there is no judicial precedent on this issue, it would appear that Congress’ general authority to “prescribe...the effect” of public acts arguably gives it discretion to define the “effect” so that a particular public act is not due full faith and credit. It would appear CRS-3 517 U.S. 620 (1996). Id. 15 123 S.Ct. 2472 (2003). For a legal analysis of this decision, refer to CRS Report RL31681, Homosexuality and the Constitution: A Legal Analysis of the Supreme Court Ruling in Lawrence v. Texas by Jody Feder. 16 Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472 (2003). 13 14

that the plain reading of the clause would encompass both expansion and contraction. Equal Protection. Congress’ authority to legislate in this manner under the full faith and credit clause, if the analysis set out above is accepted, does not conclude the matter. There are constitutional constraints upon federal legislation. One that is relevant is the equal protection clause and the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Romer v. Evans,13 which struck down under the equal protection clause a referendum-adopted provision of the Colorado Constitution, which repealed local ordinances that provided civil-rights protections for gay persons and which prohibited all governmental action designed to protect homosexuals from discrimination. The Court held that, under the equal protection clause, legislation adverse to homosexuals was to be scrutinized under a “rational basis” standard of review.14 The classification failed to pass even this deferential standard of review, because it imposed a special disability on homosexuals not visited on any other class of people and it could not be justified by any of the arguments made by the State. The State argued that its purpose for the amendment was two-fold: (1) to respect the freedom of association rights of other citizens, such as landlords and employers) who objected to homosexuality; and (2) to serve the state’s interest in conserving resources to fight discrimination against other protected groups. DOMA can be distinguished from the Colorado amendment. DOMA’s legislative history indicates that it was intended to protect federalism interests and state sovereignty in the area of domestic relations, historically a subject of almost exclusive state concern. Moreover, it permits but does not require States to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in other States, affording States with strong public policy concerns the discretion to effectuate that policy. Thus, it can be argued that DOMA is grounded not in hostility to homosexuals but in an intent to afford the States the discretion to act as their public policy on same-sex marriage dictates.

Substantive Due Process (Right to Privacy). Another possibly applicable constitutional constraint is the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas,15 which struck down under the due process clause a state statute criminalizing certain private sexual acts between homosexuals. The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process privacy guarantee extends to protect consensual sex between adult homosexuals. The Court noted that the Due Process right to privacy protects certain personal decisions from governmental interference. These personal decisions include issues regarding contraceptives, abortion, marriage, procreation, and family relations.16 The Court extended this right to privacy to cover adult consensual homosexual sodomy. CRS-4 Id. at 2484. See H.Rept. 104-664, 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2905 (stating that “marriage licensure is not a judgment.”). See also, 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (defining which acts, records and judicial proceeding are afforded full faith and credit). 19 Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 107. 20 On the state level, common examples of nonnegotiable marital rights and obligations include distinct income tax filing status; public assistance such as health and welfare benefits; default rules concerning community property distribution and control; dower, curtesy and inheritance rights; child custody, child agreements; name change rights; spouse and marital communications privileges in legal proceedings; and the right to bring wrongful death, and certain other, legal actions. 17 18

It is currently unclear what impact, if any, the Court’s decision in Lawrence will have on legal challenges to laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. On the one hand, this decision can be viewed as affirming a broad constitutional right to sexual privacy. Conversely, the Court distinguished this case from cases involving minors and “whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.”17 Courts may seek to distinguish statutes prohibiting same-sex marriage from statutes criminalizing homosexual conduct. Courts may view the preservation of the institution of marriage as sufficient justification for statutes banning same-sex marriage. Moreover, courts may view the public recognition of marriage differently than the sexual conduct of homosexuals in the privacy of their own homes.

Interstate Recognition of Marriage

DOMA opponents assume that the Full Faith and Credit Clause would obligate States to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in States in which they are authorized. This conclusion is far from evident as this clause applies principally to the interstate recognition and enforcement of judgments.18 It is settled law that final judgments are entitled to full faith and credit, regardless of other states’ public policies, provided the issuing state had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.19 The Full Faith and Credit Clause has rarely been used by courts to validate marriages because marriages are not “legal judgments.” As such, questions concerning the validity of an out-of-state marriage are generally resolved without reference to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. In the legal sense, marriage is a “civil contract” created by the States which establishes certain duties and confers certain benefits.20 Validly entering the contract creates the marital status; the duties and benefits attached by a State are incidents of that status. As such, the general tendency, based on comity rather than on compulsion under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, is to recognize marriages contracted in other States even if they

could not have been celebrated in the recognizing State. The general rule of validation for marriage is to look to the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated. A marriage satisfying the contracting State’s CRS-5 See 2 Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 283. Conn. Gen Stat. Ann. § 45a-803-4. 23 Idaho Code § 32-209. 24 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/201. 25 Kan. Stat. Ann. § 23-101. 26 Mo. Rev. Stat. § 451.022. 27 Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 23 § 1704. 28 S.C. Code Ann. § 20-1-10. 29 Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-113. 30 Loucks v. Standard Oil Co., 120 N.E. 198, 202 (N.Y. 1918)(defining public policy as a valid reason for closing the forum to suit); see e.g. Langan v. St. Vincent Hosp., 2003 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 673 (stating that New York adheres to the general rule that “marriage contracts, valid where made, are valid everywhere, unless contrary to natural laws or statutes.”); Shea v. Shea, 63 N.E.2d 113 (N.Y. 1945)(finding that a common law marriage validly contracted in another state should not be recognized as common law marriage in New York as it was prohibited by statute). 21 22

requirements will usually be held valid everywhere.21 Many States provide by statute that a marriage that is valid where contracted is valid within the State. This “place of celebration” rule is then subject to a number of exceptions, most of which are narrowly construed. The most common exception to the “place of celebration” rule is for marriages deemed contrary to the forum’s strong public policy. Several States, such as Connecticut,22 Idaho,23 Illinois,24 Kansas,25 Missouri,26Pennsylvania,27 South Carolina,28 and Tennessee29 provide an exception to this general rule by declaring outofstate marriages void if against the State’s public policy or if entered into with the intent to evade the law of the State. This exception applies only where another State’s law violates “some fundamental principle of justice, some prevalent conception of good morals, some deep-rooted tradition of the common weal.”30 Section 283 of the Restatement (Second) of Law provides: (1) The validity of marriage will be determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to the particular issue, has the most significant relationship to the spouses and the marriage under the principles stated in § 6. (2) A marriage which satisfies the requirements of the state where the marriage was contracted will everywhere be recognized as valid unless it violates the strong public policy of another state which had the most significant relationship to the spouses and the marriage at the time of the marriage.

CRS-6 It should be noted that, prior to the Goodridge case, in Adoption of Tammy, 619 N.E. 2d 315 (Mass. 1993), the Supreme Judicial Court had interpreted “marriage” to mean “the union of one man and one woman.” 32 Hilary Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, No. 01-1647-A, 2002 Mass. Super LEXIS 153 (Suffolk County, Super. Ct. May 7, 2002). 33 Id. 34 Id. 35 Id. 36 Hillary Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003). 37 Id. at *14 (stating that it “cannot be rational under our laws, and indeed is not permitted, (continued...) 31

States’ Responses

State Litigation. Massachusetts, unlike thirty-eight States and the federal government, has not adopted a “defense of marriage statute” defining marriage as a union between a man and woman.31 On April 11, 2001, a Boston-based, homosexual rights group, Gay Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) filed suit against the Massachusetts Department of Public Health on behalf of seven same-sex couples. The plaintiffs claimed that “refusing same-sex couples the opportunity to apply for a marriage license” violates Massachusetts’ law and various portions of the Massachusetts Constitution. GLAD’s brief argued the existence of a fundamental right to marry “the person of one’s choosing” in the due process provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution and asserted that the marriage laws, which allow both men and women to marry, violate equal protection provisions.32 The Superior Court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments after exploring the application of the word marriage, the construction of marriage statutes and finally, the historical purpose of marriage. The trial court found that based on history and the actions of the people’s elected representatives, a right to same-sex marriage was not so rooted in tradition that a failure to recognize it violated fundamental liberty, nor was it implicit in ordered liberty.33 Moreover, the court held that in excluding samesex couples from marriage, the Commonwealth did not deprive them of substantive due process, liberty, or freedom of speech or association.34 The court went on to find that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples was rationally related to a legitimate state interest in encouraging procreation.35 On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overruled the lower court and held that under the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth could not deny the protections, benefits, and obligations attendant on marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.36 The court concluded that interpreting the statutory term “marriage” to apply only to male-female unions, lacked a rational basis for either due process or equal protection purposes under the state’s constitution. Moreover, the court found that such a limitation was not justified by the state’s interest in providing a favorable setting for procreation and had no rational relationship to the state’s interests in ensuring that children be raised in optimal settings and in conservation of state and private financial resources.37 The court CRS-7 (...continued) to penalize children by depriving them of state benefits because the state disapproves of their parents’ sexual orientation.”) 38 Id. at 15. 39 Id. at *18. 40 The state Senate asked the court whether it would be sufficient for the legislature to pass a law allowing same-sex civil unions that would confer “all of the benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities of marriage.” 41 Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, SJC-01963, 802 N.E.2d 565 (Mass. 2004). 42 There are approximately 20 lawsuits filed which seek same-sex marriage rights under state constitutions. These states include: California, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Washington. Washington’s Supreme Court is expected to hear appeals of two lower court rulings that struck down the state’s DOMA (Anderson v. King County, 2004 WK 1738447, Wash. Super, Aug. 4, 2004 and Castle v. State, 20004 WL 1985215, Wash. Super., Sept. 7, 2004 ). Lawsuits pending in California and Oregon also have been appealed to their state’s highest courts. 37

43

Standhardt v. Superior Court of the State of Arizona, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).

reasoned that the laws of civil marriage did not privilege procreative heterosexual intercourse, nor contain any requirement that applicants for marriage licenses attest to their ability or intention to conceive children by coitus. Moreover, the court reasoned that the state has no power to provide varying levels of protection to children based on the circumstances of birth. As for the state’s interest in conserving scarce state and private financial resources, the court found that the state failed to produce any evidence to support its assertion that same-sex couples were less financially interdependent than opposite-sex couples. In addition, Massachusetts marriage laws do not condition receipt of public and private financial benefits to married individuals on a demonstration of financial dependence on each other.38 As this decision is based on the Commonwealth’s constitution, it is not reviewable by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court stayed its decision for 180 days to give the Legislature time to enact legislation “as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion.”39 On February 3, 2004, the court ruled, in an advisory opinion to the state senate, that civil unions are not the constitutional equivalent of civil marriage.40 The court reasoned that the establishment of civil unions for same-sex couples would create a separate class of citizens by status discrimination which would violate the equal protection and due process requirements of the Constitution of the Commonwealth.41 While the aforementioned opinions deal exclusively with a state constitution,42 an Arizona Court of Appeals exercising its discretion to accept jurisdiction based on the issue of first impression, held that the fundamental right to marry protected by the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Arizona Constitution did not encompass the right to marry a same-sex partner.43 Moreover, the court found that the state had a legitimate interest in encouraging procreation and child rearing within the marital relationship and limiting that relationship to opposite-sex couples. In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Lawrence, the petitioners argued that the Arizona statute prohibiting same-sex marriages violated their CRS-8 Id. at 457. Id. 46 See also, Morrison v. Sadler, 2003 WL 23119998 (Ind. Super. May 7, 2003)(holding that the state’s law “promotes the state’s interest in encouraging procreation to occur in a context where both biological parents are present to raise the child.”); Lewis v. Harris, 2003 WL 2319114 (N.J.Super.L. Nov. 5, 2003)(holding that the right to marry does not include a fundamental right to same-sex marriage). 47 See Salucco v. Alldredge, 2004 WL 864459 (Superior Ct of Mass., Mar. 29, 2004)(exercising its general equity jurisdiction to dissolve a Vermont civil union). 48 See Langan v. St. Vincent Hosp., 2003 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 673 (finding that New York’s statutes did not prohibit recognition of a same-sex union nor was such a union against New York’s public policy on marriage thus recognizing the same-sex partner as a spouse for purposes of New York’s wrongful death statute). 49 Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 15 §§ 1203, 5163. See also, “The Vermont Guide to Civil Unions” found at [http://www.sec.state.vt.us/otherprg/civilunions/civilunions.html]. 44 45

fundamental right to marry and their right to equal protection under the laws, both of which are guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions. The court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the Supreme Court in Lawrence implicitly recognized that the fundamental right to marry includes the freedom to choose a same-sex spouse.44 The court viewed the Lawrence language as acknowledging a homosexual person’s “right to define his or her own existence, and achieve the type of individual fulfillment

that is the hallmark of a free society, by entering a homosexual relationship.”45 However, the court declined to view the language as stating that such a right includes the choice to enter a state-sanctioned, same-sex marriage.46 As such, the court reviewed the constitutionality of the challenged statutes using a rational basis analysis and found that the state has a legitimate interest in encouraging procreation and child-rearing within the marital relationship, and that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is rationally related to that interest. Moreover, the court said that while the state’s reasoning is debatable, it is not arbitrary or irrational. Consequently, the court upheld the challenged statutes. State “Civil Union” Laws. Civil union/domestic partnership laws confer certain rights and benefits upon domestic partners which vary depending on the state law. Some of these rights and benefits include laws relating to title, tenure, descent and distribution, intestate succession; causes of action related to or dependent upon spousal status,47 including an action for wrongful death,48 emotional distress, or loss of consortium; probate law and procedure; adoption law and procedure; insurance benefits; workers’ compensation rights; laws relating to medical care and treatment, hospital visitation and notification; family leave benefits; public assistance benefits under state laws and laws relating to state taxes. For example, in Vermont, civil union status is available to two persons of the same sex who are unrelated49 and affords parties “the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under Vermont law, whether they derive from statute, policy, administrative or court rule, common law or any other source of civil law, as are CRS-9 Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 15 § 1204. See also, Salucco v. Alldredge, 2004 WL 864459 (Superior Ct of Mass., Mar. 29, 2004)(discussing Vermont’s civil union statutes). 51 CA Fam. §§ 297, 298 and 299(extending the rights and duties of marriage to persons registered as domestic partners on and after January 1, 2005). It should be noted that opposite-sex domestic partners over the age of 62 meeting the eligibility requirements of Title II of the Social Security Act (SSA) for old age benefits (as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 402(a)), or Title XVI of the SSA for aged individuals (as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 1381) are eligible to register as domestic partners. 52 Hawaii’s term for domestic partners is “reciprocal beneficiaries.” Reciprocal beneficiaries must be eighteen years old, ineligible to marry, and unmarried. This status includes relationships not involving sex or the same residence. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572C-5; See also, [http://www.hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/reciprocal/index.html] (discussing Hawaii’s reciprocal beneficiary status). 53 The New Jersey Domestic Partnership Act is effective July 11, 2004 and grants legal status to same-sex couples and unmarried, opposite-sex couples age 62 or over under certain New Jersey laws. 54 Domestic partnerships also exist at the local level. For example, New York City allows residents an opportunity to register their domestic partnerships provided that both individuals are eighteen years of age or older, unmarried or related by blood in a manner that would bar his or her marriage in New York State, have a close and committed personal relationship, live together and have been living together on a continuous basis. N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 3-241. It should be noted that this statute allows both same-sex and opposite -sex partners to register. 55 On July 14, 2004, the Senate considered and voted on a required procedural motion. This motion failed by a vote of 48-50, which prevented further consideration of the resolution. 50

granted to spouses in a marriage.”50 Domestic partnership laws also exist in California,51 Hawaii,52 and New Jersey53 and offer some marital benefits to same-sex

couples although not as comprehensive as Vermont’s civil union.54

Pending Federal Legislation On May 21, 2003, H.J.Res. 56, a proposed constitutional amendment was introduced. The companion measure, S.J.Res. 26 was introduced in the Senate on November 25, 2003. The text of the proposed constitutional amendments is as follows: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

S.J.Res. 30 was introduced on March 22, 2004 with technical changes to S.J.Res. 26. The text of S.J.Res 30 and S.J.Res. 4055 is as follows: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

CRS-10 It appears that the Netherlands, Belgium and Ontario, Canada are the only international jurisdictions that sanction and/or recognize a same-sex union as a “marriage,” per se. 57 Julie A. Greenberg, Defining Male and Female: Intersexuality and the Collision Between Law and Biology, 41 Ariz. L. Rev. 265,309 (1999) (discussing biological characteristics and sexual identity). 58 See e.g., In re Estate of Gardiner, 42 P.3d 120 (Kan. 2002); Littleton v. Prange, 9 S.W. 3d 223 (Tex. App. 1999); but see, M.T. v. J.T., 355 A.2d 204 (N.J. 1976)(determining an individual’s sexual classification for the purpose of marriage encompasses a mental component as well as an anatomical component). 59 If a mistake was made on the original birth certificate, an amended certificate will sometimes be issued if accompanied by an affidavit from a physician or a court order. 60 On July 14, 2004, the House Judiciary Committee reported out an amendment in the nature of a substitute which removed the limitation on interpreting the federal definition of marriage. 61 The act refers to courts “created by Act of Congress.” Article III, § 1 of the Constitution established the Supreme Court, and provides that inferior courts may be established by Congress. 62 The proposed Act provides that “No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of section 1738c of this title or of this section.” For a more detailed discussion of court-stripping see, CRS Report RL32171, Limiting Court Jurisdiction Over Federal Constitutional Issues: ‘Court-Stripping’, by Kenneth R. Thomas. 56

While uniformity may be achieved upon ratification of such an amendment, States would no longer have the flexibility of defining marriage within their borders. Moreover, States may be prohibited from recognizing a same-sex marriage performed and recognized outside of the United States.56 It appears that this amendment would not impact a State’s ability to define civil unions or domestic partnerships and the benefits conferred upon such. However, an issue may arise regarding the time in which an individual is considered a man or a woman. As the first official document to indicate a person’s sex, the designation on the birth certificate “usually controls the sex designation on all later documents.”57 Some courts have held that sexual identity for purposes of marriage is determined by the sex stated on the birth certificate, regardless of subsequent sexual reassignment.58 However, some argue that this method is flawed,

as an infant’s sex may be misidentified at birth and the individual may subsequently identify with and conform his or her biology to another sex upon adulthood.59 H.R. 3313,60 the Marriage Protection Act of 2003 was introduced on October 16, 2003, and provides that no inferior federal courts61 shall have jurisdiction to hear or decide any question pertaining to DOMA regarding full faith and credit.62 On July 22, 2004, the House voted on and passed H.R. 3313. CRS-11 It should be noted that only on five occasions previous to the DOMA has Congress enacted legislation based upon this power. The first, passed in 1790 (1 Stat. 122, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1738), provides for ways to authenticate acts, records and judicial proceedings. The second, dating from 1804 (2 Stat. 298, codified at 28 U.S.C. 1738), provides methods of authenticating non-judicial records. Three other Congressional enactments pertain to modifiable family law orders (child custody, 28 U.S.C. § 1738A, child support (28 U.S.C. § 1738B) and domestic protection (18 U.S.C. § 2265)). 63

Conclusion States currently possess the authority to decide whether to recognize an out-ofstate marriage. The Full Faith and Credit Clause has rarely been used by States to validate marriages because marriages are not “legal judgments.” With respect to cases decided under the Full Faith and Credit Clause that involve conflicting State statutes, the Supreme Court generally examines the significant aggregation of contacts the forum has with the parties and the occurrence or transaction to decide which State’s law to apply. Similarly, based upon generally accepted legal principles, States routinely decide whether a marriage validly contracted in another jurisdiction will be recognized in-State by examining whether it has a significant relationship with the spouses and the marriage. Congress is empowered under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution to prescribe the manner that public acts, commonly understood to mean legislative acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved and the effect of such acts, records, and proceedings in other States.63 The Supreme Court’s decisions in Romer v. Colorado and Lawrence v. Texas may present different issues concerning DOMA’s constitutionality. Basically Romer appears to stand for the proposition that legislation targeting gays and lesbians is constitutionally impermissible under the Equal Protection Clause unless the legislative classification bears a rational relationship to a legitimate State purpose. Because samesex marriages are singled out for differential treatment, DOMA appears to create a legislative classification for equal protection purposes that must meet a rational basis test. It is possible that DOMA could survive constitutional scrutiny under Romer inasmuch as the statute was enacted to protect the traditional institution of marriage. Moreover, DOMA does not prohibit States from recognizing same-sex marriage if they so choose. Lawrence appears to stand for the proposition that the zone of privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteen Amendment extends to adult, consensual sex between homosexuals. Lawrence’s implication for statutes banning same-sex marriages and the constitutional validity of the DOMA are unclear. CRS-12

Table 1. State Statutes Defining “Marriage” State Statute Marriage definitiona Non-

Recognition Alabama ALA. CODE § 30-1-19 (2003) X X Alaska ALASKA STAT. § 25.05.011 (2003) X Arizona ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 25-101 (2003) X Arkansas ARK. CODE ANN. § 9-11-109 (2003) X California CAL. FAM. CODE § 300 (2003) X Colorado COLO. REV. STAT. § 14-2-104 (2003) X Connecticut Judicial Interpretation Xb Delaware DEL. CODE ANN. tit.13 § 101 (2002) X Florida FLA. STAT. Ch. 741.04 (2002) X Georgia GA. CODE ANN. § 19-3-3.1 (2002) X Hawaii HAW. REV. STAT. ANN. § 572-1 (2003) X Idaho* IDAHO CODE § 32-209 (2003) X Illinois* 750 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/201 (2003) XX Indiana IND. CODE ANN. § 31-11-1-1 (2003) XX Iowa IOWA CODE § 595.2 (2003) X Kansas* KAN.. STAT. ANN. § 23-101 (2002) X Kentucky KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 402.020 (2002) X Louisiana LA. CIV. CODE art. 86 (2003) X Maine ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 19, § 701 (2003) X

CRS-13 State Statute Marriage definitiona NonRecognition Maryland MD. CODE ANN. FAM. LAW § 2201 (2002) X Massachusetts Judicial Interpretation Xc

Michigan MICH. COMP. LAWS § 551.1 (2003) XX Minnesota MINN. STAT. § 517.01 (2002) X Mississippi MISS. CODE ANN. § 93-1-1 (2003) X Missouri* MO. REV. STAT. § 451.022 (2003) X Montana MONT. CODE ANN. § 40-1-103 (2002) X Nebraska NEB. REV. STAT. ANN. art. 1, § 29 (2002) X Nevada NEV. REV. STAT. ANN. §122.020 (2003) X New Hampshire N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 457:2 (2002) X New Jersey Judicial Interpretation Xd New Mexico N.M. STAT. ANN § 40-1-1 (2002) Xe New York Judicial Interpretation Xf North Carolina N.C. GEN. STAT. § 51-1.2 (2003) X North Dakota N.D. CENT. CODE § 14-03-01 (2002) X Ohio* OHIO REV. CODE ANN. §3101 Xg X Oklahoma OKLA. STAT. tit. 43 § 3.1 (2003) X Oregon OR. REV. STAT. § 106.010 (2001) Xh Pennsylvania* PA. STAT. ANN. tit. 23 § 1704 (2002) X Rhode Island R.I. GEN. LAWS § 15-1-1 (2002) Xi South Carolina* S.C. CODE ANN. § 20-1-10 (2002) X South Dakota S. D. CODIFIED LAWS § 25-1-1 (2002) X

CRS-14 State Statute Marriage definitiona NonRecognition Tennessee* TENN. CODE. ANN. § 36-3-113 (2003) X Texas TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 2.001 (2002) X

Utah UTAH CODE ANN. § 30-1-2 (2003) X Vermont VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 15 § 8 (2003) X Virginia VA. CODE ANN. § 20-45.2 (2003) X Washington WASH. REV. CODE ANN. § 26.04.010 (2003) X West Virginia W. VA. CODE § 48-2-603 (2003) X Wisconsin WIS. STAT. § 765.01 (2002) Xj Wyoming WYO. STAT. § 20-1-101 (2003) X Puerto Rico P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 31, § 221 (2002) X

* denotes statute establishing same-sex union as violation of state’s public policy

a. Marriage consists of a contract between one man and one woman. b. Since nothing in the statute, legislative history, court rules, case law, or public policy permitted same-sex marriage or recognized the parties’ Vermont civil union as a marriage, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to dissolve the union. c. The Supreme Judicial Court has interpreted “marriage,” within Massachusetts’ statutes, “as the union of one man and one woman.” Adoption of Tammy, 619 N.E.2d 315 (1993). However, in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003), the court construed the term “marriage” to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. d. Although no specific language in this statute or other New Jersey marriage statutes prohibits samesex marriages, the meaning of marriage as a heterosexual institution was so firmly established that the court could not disregard its plain meaning and the clear intent of the legislature. Rutgers Council v. Rutgers State University, 689 A.2d 828 (1997). e. Marriage is a civil contract requiring consent of parties f. Marriage has been traditionally defined as the voluntary union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. See e.g., Fisher v. Fisher, 250 N.Y. 313, 165 N. E. 460 (1929). A basic assumption, therefore, is that one of the two parties to the union must be male and the other must be female. On the basis of this assumption, the New York courts have consistently viewed it essential to the formation of a marriage that the parties be of opposite sexes. However, in Langan v. St. Vincent Hosp., 2003 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 673, the court found that New York’s statutes did not prohibit recognition of a same-sex union nor was such a union against New York’s public

CRS-15

policy on marriage. As such, the court recognized the same-sex partner as a spouse for purposes of New York’s wrongful death statute. g. Effective May 7, 2004. h. Marriage is a civil contract entered into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age, who are otherwise capable, and solemnized in accordance with ORS 106.1 i. Men are forbidden to marry kindred. j. Marriage, so far as its validity at law is concerned, is a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable in law of contracting is essential, and which creates the legal status of husband and wife. Opposition to equal civil rights for gays comes in many forms. Religious conservatives are losing the argument that there is something necessarily wrong with homosexuality, so they appear to be turning to a new one: treating gays like fully equal citizens and human beings is incompatible with conservatives’ religious liberty. Since when did the preservation of religious liberty require treating members of a minority like second-class citizens? Rick Duncan, Welpton Professor of Law at the University of Nebraska College of Law, exemplifies this position: If gay rights laws are enacted, religious persecution follows inexorably. [R]eligious dissenters...are marginalized and stigmatized as “homophobes” and as outlaws... Public school curricula soon reflect the change in the law, and our children are made a captive audience for learning the new social understanding of marriage and family and of unlawful discrimination.

[...] In contemoprary America, the greatest threat to religious liberty is the gay rights/gay marriage movement... I would leave my church and join another, if my church suddenly discovered that the Bible’s teachings about human sexuality and marriage and family were no longer true. In my opinion, my church would no longer be a “Christian” church if it adopted such a theology. [...] This is why some of us fight so hard against gay rights and gay marriage — gay rights/marriage are incompatible (at least in certain situations) with religious liberty. What if he had written: If civil rights laws are enacted, religious persecution follows inexorably. [R]eligious dissenters...are marginalized and stigmatized as “racists” and as outlaws... Public school curricula soon reflect the change in the law, and our children are made a captive audience for learning the new social understanding of desegregation and family and of unlawful discrimination. [...] In contemporary America, the greatest threat to religious liberty is the civil rights/interracial marriage movement... I would leave my church and join another, if my church suddenly discovered that the Bible’s teachings about human segregation and marriage and race were no longer true. In my opinion, my church would no longer be a “Christian” church if it adopted such a theology. [...] This is why some of us fight so hard against civil rights and interracial marriage — civil rights/marriage are incompatible (at least in certain situations) with religious liberty. There’s no real difference between the two aside from the identity of those being targeted: blacks or gays. When faced with this problem, Rick Duncan insisted that teachings about “homosexuality, unlike race, strikes at the very essence of the Created Order, from Genesis 1 to the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament.” This shows how ignorant some Christians are of Christian history and theology in America. For a long time, race was also part of the essence of the Created Order, based upon how Christians read Genesis 9. For them, the separation of the races, as well as the inferiority of non-whites, were undeniable biblical truths — no less secure and divinely ordained than the definition of marriage as one man and one woman.

Slavery, Segregation, and Hatred of Gays Both slavery and segregation were based upon religious beliefs; it would have been easy for slavers or segregationists to make the same argument Rick Duncan offers: it’s incompatible with religious liberty to treat blacks like equal human beings or equal citizens. Ultimately, they lost the cultural, social, and political arguments. Society changed, and today both slavery and segregation are wrong. People who argue that whites are superior to others and should have access to special privileges unavailable to non-whites — even if they base their claim on religious beliefs — are labeled racists and ejected from polite company. The same will eventually happen with gays in America. Even today, it’s harder to be openly bigoted against gays than it was a couple of decades ago, with the main exception being bigotry framed in religious terms. At some point, though, such bigotry will be treated with the same contempt as racial bigotry framed in religious terms. Christians will have to choose between social ostracization or modifying their views — just as they have had to do on racial issues. This isn’t a threat to religious liberty because no one has a religious “right” to hold and advocate views without social consequences. Christians who think that equal rights for gays is a threat to their religious beliefs are sincere, but are also sincerely immoral and wrong. People like this have opposed justice and liberty throughout American history — always for other people, of course, and always on the basis of their religious traditions. It’s because of them that religion has consistently been on the side of oppressors, even as those seeking justice have tried to turn things around and use it on behalf of liberty. 18/1Yf/Zd

atheism

atheism

14

0

Search

Agnosticism / Atheism 1. 2. 3. • • • •

Home Religion & Spirituality Agnosticism / Atheism

Atheism Basics Critiquing God & Religion Godlessness

Filed In: Atheist Activism & Politics> Godless Liberalism> Gay Rights and Marriage

Gay Rights, Gay Marriage, Homophobia: Ethical, Political Issues

Those who oppose gay marriage do so with a vehemence: it's not simply that they would rather not see it exist, but rather that they regard gay marriage as perhaps the greatest moral and social evil to occur since the legalization of abortion. They cannot be dismissed as mere cranks - it is important to understand what their arguments are in order to determine how good their case is and to refute it if their position is unsound. Same-Sex Marriage and Ga... Gay Political Issues Polls: Gay Marriage @ Lesbian Weddings News: Gay Marriage @ Catholicism & Gay Marriage @ Gay Rights vs. Religious Freedom Opposition to equal civil rights for gays comes in many forms. Religious conservatives are losing the argument that there is something necessarily wrong with homosexuality, so they appear to be turning to a new one: treating gays like fully equal citizens and human beings is incompatible with conservatives%u2019 religious liberty.

Sponsored Links

Marriage and GodLet God be the source Of love in your marriagewww.MarriageAndGod.com Free VideoWatch & Share Millions of Videos about same marriage4dh.com/Video Need a Quick Divorce?7 days in Dominican Republic. For more information, Go to:www.phlaw.com Atheism Ads Atheism Religion Atheism God Marriage Licenses Catholic Marriage Atheism Symbol Christians Who Support Torture are Supporting Evil Perhaps the most important thing about marriage is the way in which it creates new kinship ties. Marriage is in fact the primary means through which a person acquires new relatives and close social relations - people for whom you are expected to sacrifice and who are expected to sacrifice for you. The Divorce Vaccine: Would Christians Take It? What if scientists could create a vaccine that prevented people from divorcing? Far-fetched, I know, but given how much religious conservatives have to oppose divorce in order to defend "traditional" marriage, it's not unreasonable to wonder what they would think of such a vaccine. Gay Marriage Helps Improve Marriage for Everyone Opponents of gay marriage most commonly argue that if gay couples are allowed to marry on an equal basis with straight couples, then traditional marriage will be undermined and eventually destroyed. It's the same argument they have been making against other changes for decades - but what does the evidence say? Contrary to supporting their claims, the evidence points in the opposite direction. Civil Rights for Blacks, Civil Rights for Gays Many opponents of social and political equality for gays bristle at the mere suggestion that efforts to secure that equality has any similarity to the struggle for civil rights and quality for blacks in America. Even when they argue against this comparison, though, they often end up making arguments very much like those of the racists who hated blacks.

Gay Marriage & Gay Rights Resources: Gay Marriage & Gay Rights are Civil Rights Gay rights and gay marriage are central battles in America's culture wars for two reasons. First, the growing acceptance of homosexuality is a direct threat to the domination of traditional Christian norms for sex and sexuality. Second, marriage is not only an important cultural symbol, but an example of how heterosexuals are privileged -- and heterosexual privilege is one of the few remaining unjust social privileging systems in America. Arguments for Gay Marriage: Moral and Social Arguments for Gay Marriage Debates over gay marriage involve both legal and social arguments, for and against. Legal arguments on behalf of gay marriage tend to get more attention because it should be a matter of basic civil and equal rights. Even if gay marriage were harmful, the equality and dignity of gay couples should be respected, though it's not true, or at least not demonstrable, that gay marriage would be harmful. On the contrary, there are good reasons to think that legalized gay marriage would benefit us all. Common Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Moral and Religious Arguments The debate over the legalization of gay marriage in America is about more than just the status of gay couples; it's also about the future of American civil law. Either civil law is defined by the needs and rights of citizens, or civil laws will be placed under the dominion of religious laws and gay marriage will remain banned. Gay marriage furthermore represents a threat to established norms of authority, identity and power. Religious Beliefs & Religious Acts: Religously Motivated Discrimination Conservative Christians are failing to convince enough people that homosexuality is abhorrent enough to justify restricting gays' civil liberties. Their new tactic is to argue that substantively recognizing the equality of gays would require violating the First Amendment. Christians' belief in God's condemnation of homosexuality is claimed to be so important that forcing them to treat gays equally means forcing them to violate their religious beliefs. Religious Right to Deny Gays Equality Acceptance of gays continues to grow in America, but for many there remains a strong conviction that homosexuality is abhorrent, that gays are violating some of God's most basic commandments for humanity, and even that the presence and acceptance of gays in America is abhorrent to God. Some conclude that the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty protects both their right to believe such things and a right to act on these beliefs. They are wrong. Marriage: Religious Rite or Civil Right? Many argue that marriage is essentially and necessarily a religious rite -- they conceive of marriage in almost exclusively religious terms. Therefore, legalizing gay marriage constitutes a type of sacrilege and an unjustified intrusion of the state into what is necessarily a religious matter. Because of religion's traditional role in sanctifying marriages and presiding over wedding ceremonies this is understandable, but it's also incorrect. Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Marriage is a Sacred Religious Sacrament Although rarely offered as an explicit argument against gay marriage, the idea that marriage is a sacred religious sacrament is one of the most important arguments for opponents and underlies much of the vehemence which motivates them in a way that the other arguments fail to explain. Indeed, if it weren't for the idea that marriage is sacred, it seems unlikely that the debate would be as rancorous as it is. Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Marriage is for Having Children The idea that gay couples can't marry because of the disconnect between homosexuality and procreation cuts across many arguments against gay marriage. Gay marriage would be 'unnatural' because it can't produce children, the natural end of marriage. Gay marriage would undermine marriage because it is a legal and moral institution designed to promote and protect procreation and raising of children. Gay marriage would desecrate God's mandate that heterosexual couples have to mate and procreate. What is Marriage Between a Man and a Woman? Those who argue against gay marriage insist that the only marriages between men and women are legitimate, but what about those who are not quite male or female - at least not according to the definitions usually employed? Defining marriage in terms of sex begs the question of how we define the sexes - how we define who is a 'man' and who is a 'woman.' Deciding who can marry whom isn't always a simple matter of determining what sorts of internal organs a person has. Gay Rights & Marriage vs. Religious Liberty Opposition to equal civil rights for gays comes in many forms. Religious conservatives are losing the argument that there is something necessarily wrong with homosexuality, so they appear to be turning to a new one: treating gays like fully equal citizens and human beings is incompatible with

conservatives’ religious liberty. Since when did the preservation of religious liberty require treating members of a minority like second-class citizens? Gay Marriage vs. Divorce & Remarriage Religious conservatives are fierce defenders of the idea that gay marriage must be absolutely prohibited to 'save' traditional marriage. They even argue that anything remotely resembling marriage, like civil unions, must be banned as well. If we ignore how most of this position is tied inextricably to religious ideology, and focus solely on the claim that traditional marriage is in danger, what do we find? Inconsistency and hypocrisy. Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Gay Couples are Unnatural The idea that gay marriage is wrong because gay couples are somehow unnatural is not often stated openly, but this premise influences other arguments and lies behind many people's negative opinions about homosexuality in general. For most people, heterosexual relationships are the norm, both in society and in nature. Homosexual relationships are thus abnormal and unnatural; therefore, they shouldn't be validated by the state nor recognized as a form of marriage. Equal Rights vs. Special Rights A common Christian Right argument against protecting gays' basic civil rights is that gays are seeking 'specia' rights unavailable to others. This is untrue, but it's rhetorically powerful and sounds convincing. It's also hypocritical because if any group in America is benefiting from and defending special rights for themselves, it's religious believers. Why do Christians favor restrictions on gays which they would never accept for themselves? What is Marriage? Gay Marriage Can’t Be a Real Marriage Some argue that marriage is defined narrowly as only being between a man and a woman, so gays can't possibly marry. The fact is, though, that the nature of marriage has changed in definition and make-up many times over the centuries. Marriage today isn't at all like what it was two millennia or even two centuries ago. The changes in marriage have been broad and fundamental, so what are traditionalists really trying to defend? What is 'traditional' about modern marriage? Gays and Immigrants: Two Groups, One Discrimination How many advocates for "justice" are really only advocates for "just us" - advocates for a "justice" that applies to just a single group and not to any others which might be experiencing similar discrimination or oppression? Too many. Housework is Gay Christian conservatives who insist that men and women should be limited to entirely different occupations are quick to claim that this isn't supposed to mean that women are inferior. After all, women's occupations are just as good and important as men's, right? Why Do You Really Oppose Gay Marriage? People who oppose gay marriage offer lots of different reasons for why they don't want it to become legal. A great many of those reasons are either religious or rely upon religious premises - but does that mean that the real reasons are genuinely religious? Could it instead be that there are other reasons and religion is just being used as an excuse? Mormons, Polygamy, and Same-Sex Marriage Today the Mormon Church is one of the foremost opponents of same-sex marriage. What makes this interesting is that over century ago, the Mormons were in the middle of another national debate over the nature of marriage - but on the other side. At the time, they vigorously defended their own 'alternative' lifestyle. My, how things have changed. Civil Rights, Civil Equality: Democracy Requires Full, Equal Humanity Political equality requires human equality - when one group of citizens is treated as inferior on a basic human level, then it's impossible for them to be truly equal on a political level. Democracy, which is based upon political equality, thus cannot fully exist then citizens are denied full human equality. That's what happens when women, gays, or others are forced to hide or deny themselves. Gay Clergy, Female Clergy, and Divorced Clergy There was a lot of complaints about the confirmation of the election of a gay bishop in the Episcopal Church. Many of those who were upset were also upset when the Episcopalians decided to allow women to become members of the clergy. One interesting issue lost in all of this is the status of divorced clergy. Should a man be able to divorce and remarry but still be a bishop? Coretta Scott King, Racism, and Homophobia Do conservatives want a segregated society, where homosexuals are kept away from heterosexuals? There are certainly efforts to segregate material that doesn't unequivocally condemn homosexuality; efforts to keep gays in the closet have an effect very much like segregation. Activists in Boise, Idaho, recently put "Heterosexuals Only" stickers in public places to help make this point.

Some Conservatives Admit to Being Homophobes A significant number of conservatives are homophobic and this is why they are so opposed to civil and legal equality for gays. Unfortunately, most of them are unwilling to admit it - most, but not none. There are a few who are unapologetic about their bigotry and discrimination. Rick Duncan: Gay Rights Incompatible With Religious Liberty Opposition to equal civil rights for gays comes in many forms. Religious conservatives are losing the argument that there is something necessarily wrong with homosexuality, so they appear to be turning to a new one: treating gays like fully equal citizens and human beings is incompatible with conservatives' religious liberty. Same Sex Marriage is a Civil Matter Arguments against the legalization of same-sex marriage usually rely upon religion, religious premises, and religious beliefs. There is a problem with that: if the only arguments against allowing gays to marry are religious, then that is no argument at all. Jeff Jacoby Opposes Equal Humanity & Citizenship of Gays? Does Jeff Jacoby hate gay Americans? He doesn't come right out and say that he hates them, but his comments on gay adoption wouldn't be treated as anything other than bigotry and hatred if we were talking about Jewish or interracial couples trying to adopt. The Boston Globe should be ashamed for publishing such contemptible material. Civil Equality vs. Religious Bigotry Should the civil equality of all citizens, and especially members of minority groups, be limited by the bigotry and traditions of particular religious groups? On its face, that sounds like an absurd proposition, but it's precisely what many in the Christian Right seek to establish. They insist that their religious traditions and beliefs constitute limits on the liberties of everyone else. Civil Marriage vs. Religious Marriage Is marriage a civil right or a religious rite? This is the question which lies behind so many debates over issues like gay marriage. Some insist that marriage is a civil matter and should be regulated according to civil, secular standards. Others insist that marriage is a religious issue which should be regulated according to (their) religious standards. Who is right? Gay Adoptions, Immigration, and American Catholics On the east coast, Catholic Charities is discontinuing adoption services in Boston rather than continue to place kids with gay families. Conservatives are happy about this. On the west coast, Catholic leaders are gearing up to disobey government immigration laws, but conservatives aren't quite so pleased about this. Why the difference? Interracial Marriage: Equal Rights vs. Special Rights When interracial couples fought for the right to marry each other, were they asking for equal rights or special rights? They claimed that they wanted the same rights as same-race couples, but conservative defenders of tradition insisted that they wanted special rights. After all, no one was allowed to marry members of another race, so all were treated equally. Gay Marriage vs. Miscegenation A lot of people oppose the legalization of gay marriages - for them, this poses a serious threat to the institution of marriage itself. Now, it is entirely possible that their concerns are justified - but what is disturbing, and what should be disturbing for them as well, is just how similar their arguments are to the ones which were used to oppose interracial marriages... Gay Marriage & Church/State Separation There is a great deal of work being done by religious conservatives to try and ensure that gay marriage never becomes legal in the United States. If they are able to pass a constitutional amendment that defines marriage narrowly enough, they might succeed - but in so doing they will permanently alter the very character of the Constitution itself. Why? So-Called 'Balance' when Debating Homosexuality When was the last time you saw a discussion in the media over some issue of gay rights where both sides accepted the full humanity and equality of gays, but simply differed on the details of specific policies? When was the last time one of those invited to speak on the issue didn't believe, and probably said outright, that their position was that gays are an abomination? Unpacking the Anti-Gay Marriage Agenda Is it possible to offer a serious, considered argument against gay marriage? Yes. Unfortunately, almost no one who argues against gay marriage does so - just about all such people are anti-gay bigots who don't appear interested or capable of constructing serious, fair, and honest arguments. Homosexuality in Public and Private It's common for anti-gay bigots to complain that it's inappropriate for homosexuals to 'display' their

homosexuality all the time. They imagine that such displays are done deliberately as a political or social statement, and at times this may be true. What they forgot or simply ignore, however, is how often heterosexuality is on display. Religious Marriage vs. Civil Marriage All marriages in America are civil marriages because all marriages require a civil license. Some people have a religious ceremony, but the ceremony has no legal standing. All that's required are the signatures of the couple, witnesses, and the person authorized to perform the ceremony - I know, because I've performed marriages myself. But how many people opt for a religious ceremony? Law and Morality: Changing Attitudes Towards Homosexuality The most common objection to laws guaranteeing equality and equal rights for gays is simple bigotry: people find homosexuality to be morally objectionable, so they don't want homosexuals to be treated equally. This bigotry used to be much stronger than it is today; as attitudes towards gays have changed, so have the types of demands which gays and their supporters have made. Same-Sex Marriage, Religion, and Ideology Marriage in America is fundamentally a civil affair - marriages are defined and regulated by the states, not by individual churches and religious denominations. Given the religious diversity of America, there's no other reasonable option. So why do religious groups object to expanding civil marriage to gay couples? Because they simply don't realize, understand, or accept that marriage is civil. Moral Panic Over Gays: Defending Traditional Marriage Sometimes, the issue isn't the issue - what this means is that the 'issue' being debated is, at least in some ways, a mask or a symbol for more fundamental issues. If we don't realize this, then we will fail to understand why apparently absurd arguments are being made: they are only 'absurd' if they are taken as being about the surface issue; when we look at the underlying issues, it makes sense. Homosexual Recruitment vs. Heterosexual Recruitment The Christian Right regularly accuses gays of trying to 'recruit' young people into the homosexual lifestyle. For such Christians, it's inconceivable that people would be gay simply because it's what's most natural for them - being gay must be something like a movement which one is converted to by current members. The truth, however, is that Christian Right are the ones doing the recruiting. Nazi Germany and the Right-Wing War on Homosexuality, Sexual Deviance One of the things which the Nazis used to appeal to Christian voters in Weimar Germany was their strong opposition to all forms of sexual deviance: prostitution, pornography, sex without procreation, too much liberty for women, and of course homosexuality. The Nazis argued that all this created impurity within Germany and imperiled Germany's future. Homosexuality: A Public or Private Issue? "Homosexuality is a public issue, because the heterosexual majority has elected to single it out as a characteristic for which an individual may be denied basic civil and human rights." Gender and Identity: Just Male and Female? (Book Notes: With Pleasure) In the debate over gay marriage, a common refrain hear from religious conservatives is that marriage is only between "one man and one woman." Gender, it is assumed, comes it precisely two forms: no more, no less. What they don't realize is that culture plays as much of a role in this as does biology. Can Gay Rights and Gay Marriage Be Stopped? (Book Notes: Gay Marriage) What do conservative religious critics hope to accomplish in their opposition to gay rights and gay marriage? William F. Buckley has described the basic principle of conservatism as "To stand athwart history yelling 'Stop!'" Do they, though, really expect to succeed in this when it comes to homosexuality? Gay Rights and Special Rights (Book Notes: Created Equal) Frequently... when gays talk about gay rights, heterosexuals hear talk about sex, not personal freedom. The claim that gays want "special rights" reflects the degree to which lesbians and gay men are seen as so out of the ordinary that their claims to ordinary rights seem special. The Inferiority of Gay Americans (Book Notes: Perfect Enemies) Members of the Christian Right sometimes like to say that their policy is to "hate the sin but love the sinner" and, therefore, while they hate homosexuality, they don't hate homosexuals. Their actions and statements, though, betray their true feelings: they believe that gays are inferior citizens and inferior human beings. The Changing Institution of Marriage (Book Notes: Gay Marriage) Opponents of gay marriage try to portray themselves as "defenders" of "traditional" marriage and act as through extending the right to gays to marry each other would alter an institution that has endured unchanged for millennia. Reality is very different, though.

Hate the Sin, Hate the Sinner (Book Notes: Civil Wars) It's common for Christians to claim that they "hate the sin, but lover the sinner." Do their actions match their rhetoric, though? That's a difficult proposition to defend. It's surely true with some, but the most vocal and active members of the Christian Right don't really act like they believe what they are saying. Revulsion of Homosexuality (Book Notes: Created Equal) The oppression and persecution of homosexuals in America is becoming more and more important politically. Back when discrimination against gays was the norm, there were no questions about why it occurred. Now that it is being challenged, though, the roots of this hatred are being exposed. Gays as Invisible, Second-Class Citizens (Book Notes: Perfect Enemies) Homosexuals have come a long way in America - from being afraid to reveal their sexuality to anyone a few decades ago to agitating for gay marriage today. This progress has been accompanied by a backlash, though, because gay Americans want more civil rights than many straights are willing to honor. Divorce as a Sin and a Crime: Christianity, Marriage, and the State The arguments being used by the Christian Right today against gay marriage are not unique or sui generis. These arguments are an integral part of how the Christian Right views the world and they have used the exact same arguments in the past - for example, when they were opposing the liberalization of divorce laws. Fear of Freedom - Others' Freedom (Book Notes: Created Equal) "Freedom is the scariest of human desires. The American commitment to the freedom and equality of the autonomous individual has always frightened as many Americans as it exhilarated. ... To some groups, the apparent lack of moral order engendered by the elevation of individual rights gave rise to a persistent fear of conspiracy..." Discrimination as the Christian Right's Goal The Christian Right often likes to portray itself as standing up for religious liberty on the one hand and traditional religious values on the other. The means by which they expect to advance these, things, though, is through the elimination of full civil equality of those groups which are regarded as morally and spiritually inferior. Bigotry and Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Many of those who oppose the legalization of gay marriage object to being called bigots or homophobes. They insist that their position is based on reason or religion, not hatred. Perhaps it is possible to oppose gay marriage without being bigoted, but would we give an opponent of interracial marriage the same benefit of the doubt? Unlikely - and for good reasons. Using Stereotypes to Divide and Repress The arguments against legalizing gay marriage are rather poor, both from logical and legal perspectives. The organizing ideology behind the opposition is primarily religious, but the widespread acceptance of this opposition appears to involve people's unease with gay people generally and gay marriage itself. Marriage: Religious Rite or Civil Right? Many people argue that marriage is essentially and necessarily a religious rite - they conceive of religion in almost exclusively religious terms and object to the intrusion of the state into a religious matter. Because of religion's traditional role in sanctifying marriages and presiding over wedding ceremonies this is understandable, but it's also incorrect. What's The Point of Marriage, Gay or Straight? A common question in the debate over gay marriage is: what the point is for gays to marry? Aside from property and legal issues that could, in theory, be solved by other laws, what point are gays trying to make in attempting to get married? Why is it so important to be able to hold up a marriage certificate and say ‘we're married‘ instead of simply saying ‘we're a couple‘ without a certificate? What is a Marriage Between a Man and a Woman? Those who argue against gay marriage insist that the only legitimate marriages are those between men and women. But what about people who are, well, not quite either male or female - at least not according to all the definitions usually employed? Defining marriage in terms of sex begs the question of how we define the sexes - how we define who is a "man" and who is a "woman." Marriage is for Raising Children? The premise that gay couples don't merit treatment as married couples because of the disconnect between homosexuality and procreation cuts across many arguments against same-sex marriage. Is that true, and if so, does it matter?

Gay Marriage Will Undermine the Institution of Marriage: Therefore, Gays Shouldn’t Marry? A common argument against legalizing same-sex marriages is that doing so would undermine the institution of marriage. For some reason, a marriage between members of the same sex is a selfcontradiction and, if their unions are legalized, then marriage itself across the country will be harmed. But upon what basis is such an argument made? Gay Couples are Unnatural & Unnatural Unions Cannot Be Marriage This is a premise which influences other arguments and which lies behind many people's negative opinions about homosexuality in general. Homosexual relationships are regarded as abnormal and unnatural. Perhaps they should be tolerated as a matter of social fairness, but they certainly shouldn't be validated by the state and recognized as a form of marriage. Marriage is Sacred and a Sacrament This is rarely argued explicitly, but it is perhaps one of the most important arguments for opponents. The idea that marriage is sacred and/or a sacrament underlies much of the vehemence that motivates them in a way that the other arguments fail to explain. Indeed, if it weren't for the idea that marriage is sacred, it seems unlikely that the debate would be as huge and rancorous as it is. Gay Rights and Gay Marriage Timeline Chronological, Although many states in the United States voted to outlaw gay marriage, there are many places in the world where gays and lesbians can get married or obtain civil unions. Here are a list of places where same-sex couples can get legally married or enter in some kind of legally recognized partnership. This list will be updated as things change. Gay Marriage

Canada •

• • •

•

In December 2004, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriages are constitutional. On June 28, 2005 the House of Commons voted to extend marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples throughout Canada. The Senate approved the measure in July 2005. It is now legal for gays and lesbians to marry every place in Canada. There is no residency requirement for Canadian marriage, but that does not mean a Canadian gay marriage will be recognized by other countries.

Europe Netherlands (Holland) has full marriage and registered partnership rights for same sex or opposite sex couples. Belgium in 2003 became the second country in the world to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry. Since 2006, gay and lesbian couples have been allowed to adopt children. Spain voted in June 2005 to extend full marriage rights to gay and lesbian citizens. The measure adds one sentence to existing Spanish marriage law: Marriage will have the same requirements and results when the two people entering into the contract are of the same sex or of different sexes.

Africa South Africa legalized gay marriage on November 30th, 2006. South Africa has one of the most inclusive constitutions in the world, calling for equal rights for gays and lesbians.

The United States •

Massachusetts On May 17th, 2004, Massachusetts began marrying gay and lesbian couples. At this point, only residents of Massachusetts and states that allow gay marriage are allowed to marry there. California The California Supreme Court ruled that banning gay and lesbian couples from marrying is unconstitutional on May 15, 2008. The court gave 30 days for the state to begin marrying same-sex couples, so by June 16, 2008, gays and lesbians will be able to marry in California.

Religious Right to Deny Gays Equality Does Religious Liberty Protect a Right to Treat Gays as Unequal? By Austin Cline, About.com

Filed 1. 2. 3.

In:

Atheist Activism & Politics > Godless Liberalism > Gay Rights and Marriage

Sponsored Links Pantheist atheistsHawking, Einstein, Sagan Shelley - all pantheistswww.Pantheism.net/atheism.htm Infertility Clinic InIndia. With 17 Yrs Experience & 50% Success Rate ! Safe & Reliable.www.InfertilityIndia.com The Atheist's RiddleSo Simple, Any Child Can Understand So Complex, No Atheist Can SolveCelestialMechanic.com Atheism Ads Atheism Religion Atheism God Religious Songs Religious Beliefs Religious Pictures Acceptance of gays continues to grow in America, but for many there remains a strong conviction that homosexuality is abhorrent, that gays are violating some of God’s most basic commandments for humanity, and even that the presence and acceptance of gays in America is abhorrent to God. Some conclude that the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty protects both their right to believe such things and a right to act on these beliefs. They are wrong.

Promoting vs. Preventing Harm The most fundamental purpose of a government is to protect us from harm, especially at the hands of each other. A government which protects those committing the harm rather than those who are being harmed is no real government at all. Obviously not every possible government act can be justified on the basis of protecting us from harm, but we are looking more specifically at whether individuals harming others can justifiably be protected under “free exercise” of their religion. The constitutional guarantee of religious liberty provides absolute protections of belief, but not absolute protections for acts. It’s true that some beliefs become almost or completely pointless without the freedom to act — for example, what good is the belief that you are forbidden to eat pork if you are legally required to eat pork every week? At the same time, though, the belief that there are gods which demand human sacrifices cannot possibly justify the sacrificial killing of others. Although these are obviously very extreme cases, they do highlight a crucial fact: the real test about whether the freedom to engage in religiously motivated behavior will even be granted, much less protected, must depend primarily upon the degree to which that behavior harms others. The importance of this behavior to the religious believer cannot be entirely ignored, of course, but the harm to others must be treated as the primary consideration. In recent years, however, there has been a trend in political and legal circles to treat restrictions on religiously motivated behavior as presumptively discriminatory. Instead of protecting people from harm, politicians and judges are increasingly protecting those who would commit harm. Sometimes, as for example when churches seek to ignore zoning regulations, the harm done to others is ignored or arrogantly minimized. The potential dangers of this shift should not be underestimated.

Modern Culture vs. Religious Traditions There appear to be two things driving this trend. The first is the degree to which the Christian Right is increasingly at odds with modern culture. Many of the values and traditions which the Christian Right claims to be fundamental to both Christianity and America have been called into question or even abandoned in modern America. This threatens those who have based their identities as Americans and Christians on those values and traditions. There is a sense that both America and Christianity are under siege from evil forces which must be defeated. If they cannot impose their traditions on others, then they hope to at least retain the ability to act as they see fit, regardless of what the broader culture thinks. Thus they seek to use the language and law of religious liberty to protect a “right” to inflict harm on others through activities like job and healthcare discrimination.

The second driving force is the long-standing assumption that religion — and especially Christianity — is a necessary good both for individuals and for society as a whole. This inclines people against criticizing or restricting religiously-motivated beliefs and actions. If religion is ultimately a force for good, then both potential and actual harms can be minimized or dismissed as not being very important in the grand scheme of things.

Harm of Religiously Motivated Beliefs

All sorts of mischief can thus be justified in the name of religious liberty. Churches can ignore zoning regulations and destroy a residential neighborhood. Prelates can hide records of clerical sexual abuse and administrative cover-ups. Gays, so it is argued, can be denied protection under anti-discrimination laws when it comes to hiring, firing, renting apartments, etc. People’s right to “free exercise” of their religion does not and cannot protect any and all religiouslymotivated acts. The most reasonable standard is to ask whether the acts harm others; if so, the acts should probably be disallowed. It may be true that gays could try to find another job or apartment; those aspiring to discriminate, however, could themselves find an occupation where they aren’t put in a position where they must choose between religiously-motivated discrimination and following the law.

Book Review

Gay marriage is, fundamentally speaking, about marriage itself. This might sound obvious, but it’s easy to forget because so many of the arguments appear to turn on the nature of homosexuality, homosexual activity, and the status of gays in society. However relevant some of these matters may be, we must keep coming back to the nature of marriage in order to ask whether “gay marriage” makes sense, and if it does, whether it is something which should be legalized. That’s precisely what Johnathan Rauch does in his book Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America. Although everyone sees marriages all around, the debate over gay marriage has made it clear that defining the nature of marriage isn’t as easy as one might assume. This is probably because it carries with it strong public as well as private components. Some people focus on one to the exclusion of the other, with the result being a distortion of marriage which may serve some political agenda but which fails to address reality. Rauch doesn’t make this mistake, however; with just a few words, he manages to capture what I think may be the essence of marriage in all its public, private, legal, social, and even religious senses: “To be married is to know there is someone out there for whom you are always first in line. ...[W]hatever else marriage may be, it s a commitment to be there.” Marriage, as Rauch explains, is one of the few social institutions or contracts which you don’t have to do anything to remain a part of; instead, you simply have to be — specifically, be there for the other person, no matter what happens. This, in a nutshell, is the public and private nature of marriage. It’s private because it involves the intimate, personal relationship between two people. It’s public because it means that someone voluntarily assumes a responsibility which no one else must be assigned to — a spouse is a “social worker of the first resort,” someone who is there for you if you lose your job, suffer serious injury, become depressed, etc. Consider most traditional marriage vows: do they say anything about having children, raising children, inheritance, or sex? No, they are primarily about being there for one another, no matter what may come: sickness or health, wealth or poverty, better or worse...until death separates them. “Being there when your partner is sick or in trouble, or when your mother-in-law is dying, is what marriage is for... “Benefits,” in fact, is not the right word for what is at issue here. Gay partners are not asking to get something; they are asking to be able to give something: a workday to tend to a sick partner, a hand at a mother-in-law’s hospital bedside, a shared home, a bequest.”

Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, by Jonathan Rauch

This is why one can speak for their spouse when they cannot speak for themselves. This is what lies behind most, if not all, the rights and privileges that are given to married couples and spouses. As Rauch explains, the law is telling married couples, “You have a unique responsibility to care for each other. Here are the tools. Do your job.” The law doesn’t say this to couples who are cohabitating or simply dating. The law doesn’t give these tools to people who aren’t married. Why? Committing to care for another person, no matter what, is a difficult and serious thing to do. Romantic love doesn’t last forever, but the commitment must endure. Both legal statutes and community expectations are set up in a way to help ensure that the commitment can endure despite the weakness of “ordinary mortals,” despite the transient nature of romance and altruism, and despite all of the distractions and temptations of modern life.

Gay Marriage is god for america By order of its state Supreme Court, California began legally marrying same-sex couples this week. The first to be wed in San Francisco were Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, pioneering gayrights activists who have been a couple for more than 50 years. More ceremonies will follow, at least until November, when gay marriage will go before California's voters. They should choose to keep it. To understand why, imagine your life without marriage. Meaning, not merely your life if you didn't happen to get married. What I am asking you to imagine is life without even the possibility of marriage. Re-enter your childhood, but imagine your first crush, first kiss, first date and first sexual encounter, all bereft of any hope of marriage as a destination for your feelings. Re-enter your first serious relationship, but think about it knowing that marrying the person is out of the question. Imagine that in the law's eyes you and your soul mate will never be more than acquaintances. And now add even more strangeness. Imagine coming of age into a whole community, a whole culture, without marriage and the bonds of mutuality and kinship that go with it. What is this weird world like? It has more sex and less commitment than a world with marriage. It is a world of fragile families living on the shadowy outskirts of the law; a world marked by heightened fear of loneliness or abandonment in crisis or old age; a world in some respects not even civilized, because marriage is the foundation of civilization. This was the world I grew up in. The AIDS quilt is its monument. Few heterosexuals can imagine living in such an upside-down world, where love separates you from marriage instead of connecting you with it. Many don't bother to try. Instead, they say same-sex couples can get the equivalent of a marriage by going to a lawyer and drawing up paperwork – as if heterosexual couples would settle for anything of the sort. Even a moment's reflection shows the fatuousness of "Let them eat contracts." No private transaction excuses you from testifying in court against your partner, or entitles you to Social Security survivor benefits, or authorizes joint tax filing, or secures U.S. residency for your partner if he or she is a foreigner. I could go on and on. Marriage, remember, is not just a contract between two people. It is a contract that two people make, as a couple, with their community – which is why there is always a witness. Two people can't go into a room by themselves and come out legally married. The partners agree to take care of each other so the community doesn't have to. In exchange, the community deems them a family, binding them to each other and to society with a host of legal and social ties. This is a fantastically fruitful bargain. Marriage makes you, on average, healthier, happier and wealthier. If you are a couple raising kids, marrying is likely to make them healthier, happier and wealthier, too. Marriage is our first and best line of defense against financial, medical and emotional meltdown. It provides domesticity and a safe harbor for sex. It stabilizes communities by formalizing responsibilities and creating kin networks. And its absence can be calamitous, whether in inner cities or gay ghettos.

In 2008, denying gay Americans the opportunity to marry is not only inhumane, it is unsustainable. History has turned a corner: Gay couples – including gay parents – live openly and for the most part comfortably in mainstream life. This will not change, ever. Because parents want happy children, communities want responsible neighbors, employers want productive workers, and governments want smaller welfare caseloads, society has a powerful interest in recognizing and supporting same-sex couples. It will either fold them into marriage or create alternatives to marriage, such as publicly recognized and subsidized cohabitation. Conservatives often say same-sex marriage should be prohibited because it does not exemplify the ideal form of family. They should consider how much less ideal an example gay couples will set by building families and raising children out of wedlock. Nowadays, even opponents of same-sex marriage generally concede it would be good for gay people. What they worry about are the possible secondary effects it could have as it ramifies through law and society. What if gay marriage becomes a vehicle for polygamists who want to marry multiple partners, egalitarians who want to radically rewrite family law, or secularists who want to suppress religious objections to homosexuality? Space doesn't permit me to treat those and other objections in detail, beyond noting that samesex marriage no more leads logically to polygamy than giving women one vote leads to giving men two; that gay marriage requires only few and modest changes to existing family law; and that the Constitution provides robust protections for religious freedom. I'll also note, in passing, that these arguments conscript homosexuals into marriagelessness in order to stop heterosexuals from making bad decisions, a deal to which we gay folks say, "Thanks, but no thanks." We wonder how many heterosexuals would give up their own marriage, or for that matter their own divorce, to discourage other people from making poor policy choices. Any volunteers? Honest advocacy requires acknowledging that same-sex marriage is a significant social change and, as such, is not risk-free. I believe the risks are modest, manageable, and likely to be outweighed by the benefits. Still, it's wise to guard against unintended consequences by trying gay marriage in one or two states and seeing what happens, which is exactly what the country is doing. By the same token, however, honest opposition requires acknowledging that there are risks and unforeseen consequences on both sides of the equation. Some of the unforeseen consequences of allowing same-sex marriage will be good, not bad. And barring gay marriage is risky in its own right. America needs more marriages, not fewer, and the best way to encourage marriage is to encourage marriage, which is what society does by bringing gay couples inside the tent. A good way to discourage marriage, on the other hand, is to tarnish it as discriminatory in the minds of millions of young Americans. Conservatives who object to redefining marriage risk redefining it themselves, as a civil-rights violation. There are two ways to see the legal marriage of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. One is as the start of something radical: an experiment that jeopardizes millennia of accumulated social patrimony. The other is as the end of something radical: an experiment in which gay people were told that they could have all the sex and love they could find, but they could not even think about marriage. If I take the second view, it is on conservative – in fact, traditional – grounds that gay souls and straight society are healthiest when sex, love and marriage all walk in step. Mr. Rauch, a senior writer with National Journal and a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution, is the author of "Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America" (Holt Paperbacks, 2004).

Gay marriage 'is good for health'

Sir Elton John's is the highest-profile civil partnership so far

Gay "marriage" could boost the mental and physical health of homosexuals, doctors believe.

Rates of depression, drug abuse and cancer are higher in the gay community than among heterosexual people. The report said civil partnerships, which were introduced in England and Wales in December, were likely to reduce prejudice and social exclusion. The Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health article was based on previous studies in other countries. Denmark was the first country to introduce civil partnerships for same sex couples in 1989, since when several European Union countries, some US states, Australia and Canada have followed suit. I think having civil partnerships is going to mean a lot more security, financially, without the need to seek legal recourse, which in turn means less stress and that will be beneficial Andy Forrest, of Stonewall

Professor Michael King, of University College London, who cowrote the article, said: "Civil partnerships are likely to break down some of the prejudice and promote greater understanding, including among staff working in the health service. "Legal civil partnerships could increase the stability of same sex relationships and minimise the social exclusion to which gay and lesbian people are often subjected." Research has shown that lesbians have higher risk of breast cancer, heart disease and obesity, while gay men have a higher risk of HIV, the article said. Gay people are also more likely to suffer from depression, drug abuse and suicidal urges than heterosexual people. Stable

And the report said studies had shown those who are in a stable relationship, of either the same or opposite sex, enjoyed some health benefits. It cited Swiss research which showed patients with HIV in stable partnerships were more likely to progress more slowly to Aids. And other studies have revealed that married same sex couples had greater openness about their sexual orientation and closer relationships with their relatives than same sex couples not in civil partnerships. But the doctors in the latest study added further research was needed to prove the theory. Andy Forrest, of Stonewall gay rights campaign group, said the report was "logical" but it would be too early to see if such an impact emerged in England and Wales. "I think having civil partnerships is going to mean a lot more security, financially, without the need to seek legal recourse, which in turn means less stress and that will be beneficial. "There is also the issue of prejudice and hassle that people can encounter in their every day lives, with the rights these partnerships have this will be reduced."