Same-sex marriage

Same-sex marriage (also called gay marriage) is a legally or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender.

Same-sex marriage is a civil rights, political, social, moral, and/or religious issue in many western nations. The conflict arises from the term "marriage" being used to include same-sex relationships as well as an often-overlapping government-endorsed civil status with legal benefits.

Support for same-sex marriage is often based upon what is regarded as a universal human rights issue, equality before the law, and the goal of normalizing LGBT relationships.

Opposition to same-sex marriage is often based upon the inclusion of same-sex couples in the word marriage. Other reasons may include direct and indirect social consequences of same-sex marriages, parenting concerns, freedom of religion concerns, religious grounds, tradition, and/or homophobia.

Etymology and terminological usage

The word "marriage" comes from Old French mariage, from marier (“‘to marry’”), from Latin maritare (“‘to marry", literally “give in marriage’”), from maritus (“‘lover", "nuptial’”), from mas (“‘male", "masculine", "of the male sex’”).

According to Confucius, "Marriage is the union (of the representatives) of two different surnames, in friendship and in love, in order to continue the posterity of the former sages, and to furnish those who shall preside at the sacrifices to heaven and earth, at those in the ancestral temple, and at those at the altars to the spirits of the land and grain."

Anthropologists have struggled to come up with a definition of marriage that absorbs commonalities of the social construct across cultures. Edvard Westermarck defined marriage in the 1922 edition of The History of Human Marriage as "a relation of one or more men to one or more women which is recognized as custom or law and involves certain rights and duties" to the individuals who enter into it, and any children born from it. Such definitions failed to recognize same-sex marriages that have been documented around the world, including in more than 30 African cultures, such as the Kikuyu and Nuer.

In lexicography, words have changed and expanded in accordance to the status quo. In the last ten years, in the English-speaking world, all major dictionaries have either dropped gender specifications, or supplemented them with secondary definitions to include gender-neutral language or same-sex unions. The Oxford English Dictionary has recognized same-sex marriage since 2000.

Some proponents of same-sex marriages use the term marriage equality or gender-neutral marriage to stress that they seek equality as opposed to special rights. Some opponents argue that equating same-sex and opposite-sex marriages changes the meaning of marriage and its traditions, and some use the term "traditional marriage" to mean marriages between one man and one woman.

Alan Dershowitz and others have suggested reserving the word "marriage" for religious contexts as part of privatizing marriage, and in civil and legal contexts using a uniform concept of civil unions, in part to strengthen the separation between church and state. Jennifer Roback Morse, the president of the anti-same-sex marriage group National Organization for Marriage's Ruth Institute project, claims that the conflation of marriage with contractual agreements is itself a threat to marriage.

Use in print and online media

Some publications that oppose same-sex marriages adopt an editorial style policy of placing the word marriage in quotation marks ("marriage") when it is used in reference to same-sex couples. In the United States, the mainstream press has generally abandoned this practice. Some socially conservative online publications, such as WorldNetDaily and Baptist Press, still follow the practice. Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media argues for use of quotation marks on the grounds that marriage is a legal status denied same-sex couples by most state governments. Same-sex marriage supporters argue that the use of scare quotes is an editorialization that implies illegitimacy.

Associated Press style recommends the usages marriage for gays and lesbians or in space-limited headlines gay marriage with no hyphen and no scare quotes. AP warns that the construct gay marriage can imply that marriage licenses offered to gay and lesbian couples are somehow legally different, as such it should be avoided as much as possible in favor of marriage for gays and lesbians.

History

Main articles: History of same-sex unions and Timeline of same-sex marriage

Ancient

Various types of same-sex marriages have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies. Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.

The first recorded mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire. These same sex marriages were solemnized with the same ceremonies and customs which were used for heterosexual marriages. Cicero mentions the marriage (using the latin verb for "to marry", i.e. nubere) of the son of Curio the Elder in a casual manner as if it was commonplace. Cicero states that the younger Curio was "united in a stable and permanent marriage" to Antonius. Martial also mentions a number of gay marriages. By Juvenal's time, gay marriages seem to have become commonplace as he mentions attending gay marriages as if there were "nothing special.". These gay marriages continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.

Modern

In October 1989, Denmark became the first nation to recognize same-sex unions in the form of "registered partnerships". In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation to grant same-sex marriages. Same-sex marriages are granted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), and Sweden (2009). In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.

The Canadian Parliament approved the granting and recognition of same-sex marriages by defining marriage as “the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others” in July 2005. A Conservative Government motion inviting MPs to request repeal of same-sex marriage in Canada failed in December 2006, so same-sex marriages continue to be honored throughout the nation.

Current status

Main articles: Status of same-sex marriages and Same-sex marriage legislation around the world

Worldwide laws regarding same-sex intercourse, unions and expression

Same-sex intercourse illegal. Penalties:
Death	Prison; death not enforced
Death under militias	Prison, with arrests or detention
Prison, not enforced1
Same-sex intercourse legal. Recognition of unions:
Marriage	Extraterritorial marriage2
Civil unions	Limited domestic
Limited foreign	Optional certification
None	Restrictions of expression, not enforced
Restrictions of association with arrests or detention

¹No imprisonment in the past three years or moratorium on law.
²Marriage not available locally. Some jurisdictions may perform other types of partnerships.

The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, Norway, and Sweden are the only countries in which the legal status of same-sex marriages are exactly the same as that of opposite-sex marriages. Nepal's highest court, in November 2008, issued final judgment on matters related to LGBT rights. Based on the court recommendation the government announced its intention to introduce a same-sex marriage bill by 2010.

The granting and honoring of same-sex marriages is also currently being considered by several countries in Europe, such as in Portugal where the recognition of same-sex marriages is officially on the platforms of the main political party, the Socialists. The current governing party of Iceland has also recently hinted that it intends to reconstruct its marriage laws, thereby making them gender neutral. In early July, the minister of Slovenia announced that the country would likely legalize same-sex marriages in the near future after the government agreed that same-sex couples deserve to be entitled to all of the same benefits of opposite-sex couples. The new government of Luxembourg has also announced its intention to legalize same-sex marriage.

Additional South American nations have taken up such proposals, with the Justice Minister of Argentina working to submit a gender neutral law draft before the Congress, while the Parliament of Venezuela debates a same-sex marriage bill.

Australia bans recognition of same-sex marriages at the federal level, but the current Australian Labor Party government favors synchronized state and territory registered partnership legislation (as in Tasmania and Victoria). The Australian Capital Territory has civil unions.

New Zealand's Parliament rejected a bill that would have prohibited the recognition of same-sex marriage in New Zealand in December 2005. However, New Zealand's Marriage Act 1955 still only recognizes marriage rights for opposite-sex couples. New Zealand's marriage laws consider transsexuals who have undergone reassignment surgery as having changed sex for legal purposes, following Family Court and High Court of New Zealand decisions in 1995.

Israel's High Court of Justice ruled to honor same-sex marriages granted in other countries even though Israel itself does not issue such licenses. A bill was raised in the Knesset (parliament) to rescind the High Court's ruling, but the Knesset has not advanced the bill since December 2006.

In France, in 2006, a 30-member non-quorum parliamentary commission of the French National Assembly published a 453-page Report on the Family and the Rights of Children, which rejected same-sex marriages.

Africa

Main article: LGBT rights in Africa

Same-sex marriage became legal in South Africa on 30 November 2006 when the Civil Unions Bill was enacted after having been passed by the South African Parliament earlier that month. A ruling by the Constitutional Court on 1 December 2005 had imposed a deadline of 1 December 2006 to make same-sex marriage legal. South Africa became the fifth country, the first in Africa, and the second outside Europe, to legalize same-sex marriage. In 2006, Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo introduced legislation that prohibits same-sex marriages and criminalizes anyone who "performs, witnesses, aids or abets" such ceremonies.

Amongst the Igbo people of Nigeria there are circumstances where a marriage between two women is allowed, such as when a woman has no child and the husband dies.

• LGBT rights in Africa
• Congo

• Nigeria
• South Africa

International organizations

The terms of employment of the staff of international organizations (not commercial) in most cases are not governed by the laws of the country in which their offices are located. Agreements with the host country safeguard these organizations' impartiality.

Despite their relative independence, few organizations currently recognize same-sex partnerships without condition. 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.

United States

Main article: Same-sex marriage in the United States

In the United States, although same-sex marriages are not recognized federally, same-sex couples can currently marry in five states, and receive state level benefits. Additionally, several states offer civil unions or domestic partnerships, granting all or part of the state-level rights and responsibilities of marriage. In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage solely as a union between a couple of the opposite sex for all federal purposes and allowing for the nonrecognition amongst the states. President Barack Obama is opposed to same-sex marriage, while he "supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples", a full repeal of DOMA, and called Proposition 8 "unnecessary".

Other legally recognized same-sex unions

Main article: Civil union

Civil unions, civil partnerships, domestic partnerships, registered partnerships, or unregistered partnership/unregistered co-habitation legal status offer varying portions of the legal benefits of marriage and are available to same-sex couples in: Andorra, Australia, Colombia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay. They are also available in parts of Argentina (Villa Carlos Paz, Río Cuarto, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Río Negro), Mexico (Coahuila and the Federal District), and the United States (California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, Wisconsin and Washington, and the federal District of Columbia).

Many advocates, such as this protester at a demonstration in New York City against California Proposition 8, reject the notion of civil unions. U.S. Same-sex marriage movement activist Evan Wolfson does not feel civil unions are a replacement for full marriage equality.

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.

Australia

In Australia, Commonwealth law prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriage. However, all states and territories provide a range of rights to same-sex couples cohabiting, equal to those afforded to opposite-sex de facto couples. These rights are gained without registration. Furthermore, formal domestic partnership registries exist in Tasmania, Victoria, and the Australian Capital Territory. Since November 2008, same-sex couples are recognized as de facto partners in a wide range of Commonwealth legislation, including superannuation, social security, health care and taxation. In 2007, Grace Abrams and Fiona Power became Australia's first legally recognized same-sex married couple after Grace Abrams had gender-modification surgery and was later officially granted a passport with female status.

Europe

Laws regarding same-sex partnerships in Europe¹

  Marriage

  Civil union

  Limited domestic recognition (cohabitation)

  Limited foreign recognition (residency rights)

  Unrecognized

  Constitution limits marriage to opposite-sex couples

¹ May include recent laws or court decisions that have not yet entered into effect.

---

In Denmark, Finland, Hungary and Iceland, a registered partnership is "nearly" equal to marriage, including legal joint adoption rights in Denmark and Iceland. Finland and Greenland have biological adoption only (no joint adoption). These partnership laws are short laws that state that wherever the word "marriage" appears in the country's law, it will now also be construed to mean "registered partnership", and wherever the word "spouse" appears, it will now also be construed to mean "registered partner" — thereby transferring the body of marriage laws onto same-sex couples in registered partnerships.

In the United Kingdom, civil partnerships were introduced in 2005. The law gives civil partners the same benefits and associated legal rights of marriage; ranging from tax exemptions and joint property rights, to next-of-kin status and shared parenting responsibilities. The one notable exception is the use of courtesy titles by the partner of a male peer or knight. In the first year, 16,100 ceremonies took place. Civil unions in New Zealand are identical to British civil partnerships in their association with equivalent spousal rights and responsibilities to marriage.

Transgender and intersex persons

See also: Transsexualism, Legal aspects of transsexualism, and Gender identity

When sex is defined legally, it may be defined by any one of several criteria: the XY sex-determination system, the type of gonads, or the type of external sexual features. 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 legal distinctions. This could result in long-term marriages, as well as recent same-sex marriages, being overturned.

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. Estimates run as high as 1 percent of live births exhibiting some degree of sexual ambiguity, and between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births being ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention, including sometimes involuntary surgery to address their sexual ambiguity.

In any legal jurisdiction where marriages are defined without distinction of a requirement of a male and female, these complications do not occur. In addition, some legal jurisdictions recognize a legal and official change of gender, which would allow a transsexual to be legally married in accordance with an adopted gender identity.

In the United Kingdom, the 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 marriages are for mixed-sex couples and civil partnerships are for same-sex couples, a person must dissolve his/her marriage or civil partnership before obtaining a gender recognition certificate. Such persons are then free to enter or re-enter civil partnerships or marriages in accordance with their newly recognized gender identity.

In the United States, transsexual and intersexual marriages typically run into the complications detailed above. As definitions and enforcement of marriage are defined by the states, these complications vary from state to state.

Controversy

See also: LGBT rights opposition

While few societies have recognized same-sex unions as marriages, the historical and anthropological record reveals a large range of attitudes towards same-sex unions ranging from praise, to sympathetic toleration, to indifference, to prohibition. Organizations opposed to same-sex marriages have argued that same-sex marriages are not marriages, that legalization of same-sex marriages will open the door for the legalization of polygamy, that recognition of same-sex marriages would erode religious freedoms, and that same-sex marriage, while doing good for the couples that participate in them and the children they are raising, undermines a right of children to be raised by their biological mother and father.

Some supporters of same-sex marriages take the view that the government should have no role in regulating personal relationships, while others argue that same-sex marriages would provide social benefits to same-sex couples. 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." The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers state: "There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage.... Empirical research has consistently shown that lesbian and gay parents do not differ from heterosexuals in their parenting skills, and their children do not show any deficits compared to children raised by heterosexual parents.... [I]f their parents are allowed to marry, the children of same-sex couples will benefit not only from the legal stability and other familial benefits that marriage provides, but also from elimination of state-sponsored stigmatization of their families."

The debate regarding same-sex marriages includes debate based upon social viewpoints as well as debate based on majority rules, religious convictions, economic arguments, health-related concerns, and a variety of other issues.

Judicial and legislative

Main article: Marriage_(conflict) § Same-sex_marriage

A "majority rules" position regards same-sex marriage as void and illegal unless it has been accepted by a simple majority of voters or of their elected representatives. In contrast, a civil-rights view holds that, after carefully studying both sides of the controversy, an impartial judiciary, in upholding its constitutional duties, should decide whether the right to marry regardless of the gender of the participants is constitutionally guaranteed.

In general, the legal effect marriage has on same-sex couples when marriage licenses are issued to them and honored by the states in which they live is indistinguishable from any other legal effect marriage has on any other couple under state law. The United States has developed extensive case law and legislation addressing the nuance of American legal conceptions of equality before the law.

Religion

Main article: Religious arguments about same-sex marriage

Arguments on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate are often made on religious grounds and/or formulated in terms of religious doctrine. One source of controversy is how same-sex marriage affects freedom of religion. Many churches' religious beliefs do not allow them to provide employment, public accommodations, adoption services and other benefits to same-sex couples. There is concern that religious communities might not be able to decide what type of marriages to solemnize. Some areas have made special provisions for religious protections.

Many Christian groups have been vocal and politically active in opposing same-sex marriage laws in the United States. Christians opposed to same-sex marriage have claimed that extending marriage rights to same-sex couples could undercut the conventional purpose of marriage, or would be contrary to God's will. Christian opposition to same-sex marriage also comes from the belief that same-sex marriage normalizes homosexuality and would encourage individuals to act upon their homosexual feelings, rather than trying to overcome their same-sex attraction.

Christian supporters of same-sex marriage have claimed that marriage rights for same-sex couples strengthens the institution of marriage and provides legal protection for children of gay and lesbian parents. Biblical apologetics for same-sex marriage rights include arguments that the word "homosexual", as found in many modern versions of the Bible, is an inaccurate translation of what is found in the original biblical texts. Vines or Strong's biblical concordances do not contain the word "homosexual". There also is no direct biblical prohibition of marriage rights for same-sex couples. Certain biblical texts used by non-affirming Christian organizations to condemn homosexuality, and by extension same-sex marriage, may refer only to specific sex acts and idolatrous worship lacking any relevance to contemporary same-sex relationships. Supporting marriage rights for gays and lesbians is viewed by affirming Christians as a Christ-like commitment to the equality and dignity of all persons. The United Church of Canada asserts that "human sexual orientations, whether heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual, are a gift from God."

Judaism, like Christianity, contains varying views on the issue of marriage rights, both politically and religiously, for same-sex couples. Many Orthodox Jews maintain the traditional Jewish bans on both sexual acts and marriages amongst members of the same sex, but other orthodox rabbis, such as Steven Greenberg, disagree. Some Conservative Jews reject recognition of same-sex unions as marriages, but permit celebration of commitment ceremonies, while others recognize same-sex marriage. The Union for Reform Judaism (formerly known as the Union of American Hebrew Congregations) supports the inclusion of same-sex unions within the definition of marriage. The Jewish Reconstructionist Federation leaves the choice to individual rabbis.

Buddhist scripture and teachings do not take a consistent stance against homosexuality, and do not specifically proscribe nor endorse same-sex marriage; thus, there is no unified stance for or against the practice.

Children and the family

Main article: Same-sex marriage and the family

Opponents of same-sex marriage claim that children do best with both a mother and a father, and that therefore the state should encourage the traditional family structure by granting it a special status. They say that children should have a right to be raised by both a father and a mother and that the government should not support a marriage that cannot offer that. Same-sex marriage opponent Maggie Gallagher claims that legal marriage is a way of encouraging monogamy and commitment by those who may create children through their sexual coupling. Some groups believe that children raised by homosexual parents also develop homosexual or bisexual preferences or are more likely to have a same-sex relationship.

As noted by Professor Judith Stacey, of New York University: “Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights”. The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and National Association of Social Workers have stated in an Amicus curiae brief presented to the Supreme Court of the State of California: "Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific research literature. When comparing the outcomes of different forms of parenting, it is critically important to make appropriate comparisons. For example, differences resulting from the number of parents in a household cannot be attributed to the parents’ gender or sexual orientation. Research in households with heterosexual parents generally indicates that – all else being equal – children do better with two parenting figures rather than just one. The specific research studies typically cited in this regard do not address parents’ sexual orientation, however, and therefore do not permit any conclusions to be drawn about the consequences of having heterosexual versus nonheterosexual parents, or two parents who are of the same versus different genders. Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents. Amici emphasize that the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise. Allowing same-sex couples to legally marry will not have any detrimental effect on children raised in heterosexual households, but it will benefit children being raised by same-sex couples." The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated in Pediatrics, the most-cited journal in the field of pediatrics: "More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents." The Australian Psychological Society has stated: "The family studies literature indicates that it is family processes (such as the quality of parenting and relationships within the family) that contribute to determining children’s wellbeing and ‘outcomes’, rather than family structures, per se, such as the number, gender, sexuality and co-habitation status of parents. The research indicates that parenting practices and children’s outcomes in families parented by lesbian and gay parents are likely to be at least as favourable as those in families of heterosexual parents, despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.". Canadian Psychological Association has issued similar position

Those who advocate that marriage should be defined exclusively as the union of one woman and one man argue that opposite-sex couples provide the procreative foundation that is the chief building block of civilization. Proponents of same-sex marriage contend that by expanding marriage to LGBT individuals the state actually protects the rights of all married couples and, if they had any, of their children without discrimination while in no way affecting the rights of opposite sex married couples and their children, natural or adopted. Some also counterclaim that the historic definition of marriage as a license to intercourse and as a license to the treating of a wife as a possession of her husband has already been changed by social progress reminding us that the legal equality men and women enjoy in modern marriage and that, in civilized society, it is no longer illegal to have sexual intercourse before marriage.

A study on marriage statistics of opposite-sex married couples by researcher Darren Spedale found that 15 years after Denmark had granted same-sex couples marriage-like partnership status, rates of opposite-sex marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of opposite-sex divorce had gone down. He says this is evidence that same-sex unions do not have a negative effect on traditional marriages, which he says would also apply to same-sex marriages.

However, a study on same-sex partnerships in Norway and Sweden found that short-term divorce risks are higher in same-sex partnerships than in opposite-sex marriages. The authors stated that this may be due to same-sex couples' "non-involvement in joint parenthood" and "lower exposure to normative pressure about the necessity of life-long unions."

A multi-method, multi-informant comparison of community samples of committed gay male and lesbian (30 participants each) couples with both committed (50 young engaged and 40 older married participants) and non-committed (109 exclusively dating) opposite-sex pairs was conducted in 2008. Results indicated that individuals in committed same-sex relationships were generally not distinguishable from their committed opposite-sex counterparts.

Marriage privatization

A libertarian argument for marriage privatization holds that the state has no role in defining the terms whereby individuals contract to arrange their personal relationships, regardless of sexual orientation. People holding this viewpoint argue that the state should have a limited role or no role in defining marriage, only in enforcing those contracts people construct themselves and willfully enter. Those following this line of reasoning believe that efforts to "legitimize" same-sex marriages as a state institution are backwards-looking, and will have the effect of expanding state influence into personal affairs where state influence already does not belong. People opposing same-sex marriages on these grounds, also support scaling back the definition by the state of contractual obligations between opposite sex partners to a same or similar degree.

Mental and physical health concerns

See also: LGBT topics in medicine

Several Canadian physicians and Paul Cameron of the US Family Research Institute argue that while people should have the choice whether to participate in same-sex relationships, those relationships should not be given official recognition because of the health effects associated with men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women. Concerned Women for America (a conservative US group promoting what they consider to be biblical values) argues that "The government should not condone behavior that is unhealthy, spreads disease and can result in death." Supporters of same-sex marriage argue that same-sex marriage would encourage monogamy and help stop the spread of disease.

Education controversy

The subject of how the legalization of same-sex marriage affects public education is a source of controversy. An argument sometimes used by supporters is that teaching same-sex marriage in schools will help children to be more open minded by exposing them to different types of families. There is concern from opponents of same-sex marriage that it will undermine parental rights over their children's education. They say that schools shouldn't teach that opposite-sex marriage is the same as same-sex marriage, and legalizing same-sex marriage will force them to treat it the same.

There is also concern that the information being presented might not be accurate, omits medical, psychological and legal impact of homosexuality, and might not be appropriate for the age group,. There has also been controversy that educators who disagree may be punished.

Freedom of speech controversy

There is debate over how same-sex marriage will effect freedom of speech.

Opponents of same-sex marriage say that it will negatively impact their freedom of speech. Opponents worry that they will be marginalized for their views. Some have been fired for writing editorials opposing same-sex marriage or have had been the subject of human rights complaints. Opponents have also expressed concern that freedom of speech is limited by voter intimidation and have sought to protect the names of donors to legislation opposing same-sex marriage.

Supporters say that the legalization of same-sex marriage will not override protections already in place for freedom of speech, but freedom of speech has always been limited when it interferes with other rights. The current Labour government in the UK says that recognizing domestic partnerships instead of same-sex marriages achieve a balance between the right of people to live free from discrimination with the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Effects of same-sex marriage

The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and National Association of Social Workers have stated in an Amicus curiae brief presented to the Supreme Court of the State of California: "Homosexuality is neither a disorder nor a disease, but rather a normal variant of human sexual orientation. The vast majority of gay and lesbian individuals lead happy, healthy, well-adjusted, and productive lives. Many gay and lesbian people are in a committed same-sex relationship. In their essential psychological respects, these relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships. The institution of marriage affords individuals a variety of benefits that have a favorable impact on their physical and psychological well-being. A large number of children are currently being raised by lesbians and gay men, both in same-sex couples and as single parents. Empirical research has consistently shown that lesbian and gay parents do not differ from heterosexuals in their parenting skills, and their children do not show any deficits compared to children raised by heterosexual parents. State policies that bar same-sex couples from marrying are based solely on sexual orientation. As such, they are both a consequence of the stigma historically attached to homosexuality, and a structural manifestation of that stigma. By allowing same-sex couples to marry, the Court would end the antigay stigma imposed by the State of California through its ban on marriage rights for same-sex couples. In addition, allowing same-sex couples to marry would give them access to the social support that already facilitates and strengthens heterosexual marriages, with all of the psychological and physical health benefits associated with that support. In addition, if their parents are allowed to marry, the children of same-sex couples will benefit not only from the legal stability and other familial benefits that marriage provides, but also from elimination of state-sponsored stigmatization of their families. There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage."

Economic impact on same-sex couples

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 same-sex couples. According to a 1997 General Accounting Office study requested by Rep. Henry Hyde (R), at least 1,049 U.S. Federal laws and regulations include reference to marital status. A later 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office finds 1,138 statutory provisions "in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving 'benefits, rights, and privileges.'" Many of these laws govern property rights, benefits, and taxation. Same-sex couples are ineligible for spousal and survivor Social Security benefits. Badgett's research finds the resulting difference in Social Security income for same-sex couples compared to opposite-sex married couples is US$5,588 per year. The federal ban on same-sex marriage and benefits through the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) extends to federal government employee benefits. According to Badgett's work, same-sex couples face other financial challenges against which legal marriage at least partially shields opposite-sex couples:

• potential loss of couple's home from medical expenses of one partner caring for another gravely ill one
• costs of supporting two households, travel, or emigration out of the U.S. for an American citizen unable to legally marry a non-U.S. 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 (Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont) or some or all of the benefits under another name (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.

Mental health

Recently, several psychological studies have shown that an increase in exposure to negative conversations and media messages about same-sex marriage creates a harmful environment for the LGBT population that may affect their health and well-being.

One study surveyed more than 1,500 lesbian, gay and bisexual adults across the nation and found that respondents from the 25 states that have outlawed same-sex marriage had the highest reports of "minority stress" — the chronic social stress that results from minority-group stigmatization — as well as general psychological distress. According to the study, the negative campaigning that comes with a ban is directly responsible for the increased stress. Past research has shown that minority stress is linked to health risks such as risky sexual behavior and substance abuse.

Two other studies examined personal reports from LGBT adults and their families living in Memphis, Tennessee, immediately after a successful 2006 ballot campaign banned same-sex marriage. Most respondents reported feeling alienated from their communities, afraid that they would lose custody of their children and that they might become victims of violence. The studies also found that families experienced a kind of secondary minority stress, says Jennifer Arm, a counseling graduate student at the University of Memphis.

Gay activist Jonathan Rauch has argued that marriage is good for all men, whether homosexual or heterosexual, because engaging in its social roles reduces men's aggression and promiscuity. After reviewing current psychological and other social science studies on same-sex marriage in comparison to opposite-sex marriage, Gregory M. Herek claims that the data indicate that same-sex and opposite-sex relationships do not differ in their essential psychosocial dimensions; that a parent's sexual orientation is unrelated to their ability to provide a healthy and nurturing family environment; and that marriage bestows substantial psychological, social, and health benefits. Herek concludes that same-sex couples and their children are likely to benefit in numerous ways from legal recognition of their families, and providing such recognition through marriage will bestow greater benefit than civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Physical health

In 2009, a pair of economists at Emory University tied the passage of state bans on same-sex marriage in the US to an increase in the rates of HIV infection. The study linked the passage of same-sex marriage ban in a state to an increase in the annual HIV rate within that state of roughly 4 cases per 100,000 population.

See also

• Adelphopoiesis ("brother-making")
• Adoption by same-sex couples
• Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches
• Defense of Marriage Act
• Divorce of same-sex couples
• Heterosexism
• LGBT rights in Europe
• List of LGBT couples
• Marriage gap
• Marriage rights and obligations
• Marriage, unions and partnerships by country

• Mixed-orientation marriage
• Religion and sexuality
• Religious arguments about same-sex marriage
• Same-sex controversy in the U.S. Census 2000
• Same-sex marriage and procreation
• Status of same-sex marriage
• Timeline of same-sex marriage
• Uniting American Families Act

Documentaries and literature

• A Union in Wait
• Freedom to Marry
• Pursuit of Equality
• Marriage Equality USA
• The Gay Marriage Thing
• MTV's True Life: I'm Gay and I'm Getting Married

Bibliography

Sources :

• Boswell, John (1995). The Marriage of Likeness: Same-sex Unions in Pre-modern Europe. New York: Simon Harper and Collins. ISBN 0002555085.
• Boswell, John (1994). Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe. New York: Villard Books. ISBN 0679432280.
• Emanuele Calò, Matrimonio à la carte - Matrimoni, convivenze registrate e divorzi dopo l'intervento comunitario, Milano, Giuffrè, 2009
• Caramagno, Thomas C. (2002). Irreconcilable Differences? Intellectual Stalemate in the Gay Rights Debate. Westport, CT: Praeger. ISBN 0275977218.
• Cere, Daniel (2004). Divorcing Marriage: Unveiling the Dangers in Canada's New Social Experiment. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. ISBN 0773528954.
• Chauncey, George (2004). Why Marriage?: The History Shaping Today's Debate over Gay Equality. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0465009573.
• Dobson, James C. (2004). Marriage Under Fire. Sisters, Or.: Multnomah. ISBN 1590524314. {{cite book}}: Text "Marriage under Fire: Why We Must Win This War" ignored (help)
• Larocque, Sylvain (2006). Gay Marriage: The Story of a Canadian Social Revolution. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company. ISBN 1550289276.
• Moats, David (2004). Civil Wars: A Battle For Gay Marriage. New York, NY: Harcourt, Inc. ISBN 015101017X.
• Rauch, Jonathan (2004). Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, LLC. ISBN 0805078150.
• Spedale, Darren (2006). Gay Marriage: For Better or For Worse? What We've Learned From the Evidence. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195187512.
• Truluck, Rembert S. (2000). Steps to Recovery from Bible Abuse. Gaithersburg, MD: Chi Rho Press, Inc. ISBN 188849316X.
• Wolfson, Evan (2004). Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0743264592.
• Robert P. George, Jean Bethke Elshtain (Eds.), ed. (2006). The Meaning of Marriage: Family, State, Market, And Morals. Dallas: Spence Publishing Company. ISBN 1890626643.
• Robert E. Goss, Amy Adams Squire Strongheart (Eds.), ed. (2008). Our Families, Our Values: Snapshots of Queer Kinship. New York, NY: The Harrington Park Press, An Imprint of the Haworth Press, Inc. ISBN 1560239107.
• Douglas Laycock, Anthony Picarello, Jr., Robin Fretwell Wilson (Eds.), ed. (2008). Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ISBN 074256326X.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
• Andrew Sullivan (Editor), ed. (2004). Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con - A Reader, Revised Updated Edition. New York, NY: Vintage Books, a division of Random House, Inc. ISBN 1400078660. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)
• Oliver, Marilyn Tower (1998), Gay and lesbian rights: a struggle, Enslow Publishers, ISBN 9780894909580

External links

• Template:DMOZ
• Google Map of "World homosexuality laws"
• Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships topic page from The New York Times
• Maggie Gallagher debates Gavin Newsom on gay marriage in a May 2009 interactive debate from NOW on PBS Online
• Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons
• LA Weekly feature, "California Supreme Court Set to Consider Gay Marriage," Feb. 2008 by Matthew Fleischer
• Today is Freedom to Marry Day - Just Don't Say "Gay Marriage"!, Evan Wolfson, Huffington Post, February 12, 2008.
• Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco California Supreme Court Opinion overturning ban on same-sex unions, May 15, 2008
• American Courts on Marriage: Is Marriage Discriminatory? 1998-2008, Joshua Baker, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, May 2008.
• Same-Sex Marriage: Developments in the Law", Emily Doskow, NOLO, 2008.
• "The Debate: The Bible and Gay Marriage" in Newsweek Religion Newsweek Web Exclusive, December 16, 2008.
• "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage" by David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch
• "Reactions to Raunch/Blankenhorn compromise"
• Varnum Et. Al. v Brien Polk County Iowa Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Overturns Ban on Gay Marriage 3Apr2009.
• * The Lame Case Against Gay Marriage - Essay on public opinion, religion, & the law