Jump to content

Same-sex marriage in the United States: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
[pending revision][pending revision]
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverting possible vandalism by Yourmomma69 to version by 2001:468:C80:4391:F528:20C6:518C:FCE4. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot NG. (1278721) (Bot)
No edit summary
Line 32: Line 32:


===Federal law===
===Federal law===
The legal issues surrounding '''same-sex marriage in the United States''' are complicated by the nation's [[federalism|federal]] system of government. Prior to 1996, the federal government did not define marriage; any marriage recognized by a [[U.S. state|state]] was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967 due to [[anti-miscegenation laws]]). With the passage of the [[Defense of Marriage Act]] (DOMA) in 1996, a marriage was explicitly defined in federal law as a union of one man and one woman.<ref>{{usc|1|7}}.</ref>
The legal issues surrounding '''sex marriage in the United States''' are complicated by the nation's [[federalism|federal]] system of government. Prior to 1996, the federal government did not define marriage; any marriage recognized by a [[U.S. state|state]] was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967 due to [[anti-miscegenation laws]]). With the passage of the [[Defense of Marriage Act]] (DOMA) in 1996, a marriage was explicitly defined in federal law as a union of one man and one woman.<ref>{{usc|1|7}}.</ref>


DOMA is currently under challenge in the [[United States federal courts|federal court system]]. On July 8, 2010, Judge [[Joseph Louis Tauro|Joseph Tauro]] of the [[United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts|District Court of Massachusetts]] held that the denial of federal rights and benefits to lawfully married Massachusetts same-sex couples under the DOMA is unconstitutional, under the [[Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Tenth Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution|US Constitution]].<ref name="hrc.org">{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/us/09marriage.html|title=Judge Topples U.S. Rejection of Gay Unions | work = [[The New York Times]] |date=July 8, 2010|accessdate=June 2, 2011|first1=Abby|last1=Goodnough|first2=John|last2=Schwartz}}</ref><ref name="politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com">{{cite news|url=http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/09/judge-rules-federal-same-sex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/?iref=allsearch&fbid=2-HnSdp2S6g|title=Judge rules federal same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional|work=CNN|date=July 9, 2010|accessdate=July 19, 2012}}</ref> Since 2010, several other federal courts have found DOMA to be unconstitutional,<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/entry/c/doma|title=The Defense of Marriage Act|work=Freedom to Marry|accessdate=July 19, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/doma-unconstitutional-ruling-appeals-court-boston_n_1559031.html|title=DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional By Federal Appeals Court |last=Lavoie |first=Denise |date=May 31, 2012 |work=The Huffington Post|accessdate=July 19, 2012}}</ref> and five of those cases are awaiting a response for review by the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]].<ref>{{cite news|last=Geidner|first=Chris|title=BREAKING: DOJ Asks Supreme Court to Take Two DOMA Cases, Maintains Law Is Unconstitutional|url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/07/breaking-doj-asks-supreme-court-to-take-two-doma-c.html|accessdate=July 19, 2012|newspaper=Metro Weekly|date=July 3, 2012}}
DOMA is currently under challenge in the [[United States federal courts|federal court system]]. On July 8, 2010, Judge [[Joseph Louis Tauro|Joseph Tauro]] of the [[United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts|District Court of Massachusetts]] held that the denial of federal rights and benefits to lawfully married Massachusetts same-sex couples under the DOMA is unconstitutional, under the [[Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Tenth Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution|US Constitution]].<ref name="hrc.org">{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/us/09marriage.html|title=Judge Topples U.S. Rejection of Gay Unions | work = [[The New York Times]] |date=July 8, 2010|accessdate=June 2, 2011|first1=Abby|last1=Goodnough|first2=John|last2=Schwartz}}</ref><ref name="politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com">{{cite news|url=http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/09/judge-rules-federal-same-sex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/?iref=allsearch&fbid=2-HnSdp2S6g|title=Judge rules federal same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional|work=CNN|date=July 9, 2010|accessdate=July 19, 2012}}</ref> Since 2010, several other federal courts have found DOMA to be unconstitutional,<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/entry/c/doma|title=The Defense of Marriage Act|work=Freedom to Marry|accessdate=July 19, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/doma-unconstitutional-ruling-appeals-court-boston_n_1559031.html|title=DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional By Federal Appeals Court |last=Lavoie |first=Denise |date=May 31, 2012 |work=The Huffington Post|accessdate=July 19, 2012}}</ref> and five of those cases are awaiting a response for review by the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]].<ref>{{cite news|last=Geidner|first=Chris|title=BREAKING: DOJ Asks Supreme Court to Take Two DOMA Cases, Maintains Law Is Unconstitutional|url=http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/07/breaking-doj-asks-supreme-court-to-take-two-doma-c.html|accessdate=July 19, 2012|newspaper=Metro Weekly|date=July 3, 2012}}

Revision as of 14:59, 17 October 2012

Part of the LGBT rights series
Marriage

Recognized

Civil unions or registered partnerships but not marriage
Minimal recognition
See also
Notes
  1. ^ a b Performed in the Netherlands proper (including the Caribbean Netherlands), as well as in Aruba and Curaçao. May be registered in Sint Maarten in such cases, but the rights of marriage are not guaranteed.
  2. ^ Neither performed nor recognized in Niue, Tokelau, or the Cook Islands.
  3. ^ Neither performed nor recognized in six British Overseas Territories.
  4. ^ a b Neither performed nor recognized in some tribal nations. Recognized but not performed in several other tribal nations and American Samoa.
  5. ^ Registered foreign marriages confer all marriage rights. Domestic common-law marriages confer most rights of marriage. Domestic civil marriage recognized by some cities.
  6. ^ a b c d e The Coman v. Romania ruling of the European Court of Justice obliges the state to provide residency rights for the foreign spouses of EU citizens. Some member states, including Romania, do not follow the ruling.
  7. ^ A "declaration of family relationship" is available in several of Cambodia's communes which may be useful in matters such as housing, but is not legally binding.
  8. ^ Guardianship agreements, conferring some limited legal benefits, including decisions about medical and personal care.
  9. ^ Inheritance, guardianship rights, and residency rights for foreign spouses of legal residents.
  10. ^ Courts have recognised guru–shishya, nata pratha or maitri karar–type contractual relationships, but they are not legally binding.
  11. ^ Some cities and prefectures issue partnership certificates, but they are not legally binding.
  12. ^ Marriages conducted abroad between a Namibian national and a foreign spouse recognized for residency rights.
  13. ^ Hospital visitation rights through a "legal representative" status.
  1. ^ a b Not yet in effect.
LGBTQ portal
Civil same-sex marriage ceremony being performed in San Francisco City Hall.

Same-sex marriage is not recognized in most U.S. jurisdictions. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted in 1996, prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and allows each U.S. state to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states. However, since 2004, six states have legalized same-sex marriage: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont, as well as the District of Columbia, and two Native American tribal jurisdictions.[1]

Two states[2] recognize same-sex marriages performed only in other jurisdictions.[3][4] California, which briefly granted same-sex marriage in 2008, now only recognizes them on a conditional basis.[5] Laws that would legalize same-sex marriage in Washington and Maryland were passed in 2012,[6][7] but each will be subject to a referendum during the November 2012 elections,[8] while Maine will also vote on an initiative to establish same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage has been legalized through court rulings and legislative action, but not via popular vote.[9][10] Nine states prohibit same-sex marriage in statute and thirty prohibit it in their constitution.[11] The movement to obtain marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples in the United States began in the 1970s,[12] but became more prominent in U.S. politics in 1993 when the Hawaii Supreme Court declared the state's prohibition to be unconstitutional in Baehr v. Lewin.[13]

During the 21st century, public support for legalizing same-sex marriage has grown considerably,[14] and various national polls now show that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage.[15] On May 9, 2012, Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to publicly declare support for the legalization of same-sex marriage.[16][17]

See also: Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States

Federal law

The legal issues surrounding sex marriage in the United States are complicated by the nation's federal system of government. Prior to 1996, the federal government did not define marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967 due to anti-miscegenation laws). With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, a marriage was explicitly defined in federal law as a union of one man and one woman.[18]

DOMA is currently under challenge in the federal court system. On July 8, 2010, Judge Joseph Tauro of the District Court of Massachusetts held that the denial of federal rights and benefits to lawfully married Massachusetts same-sex couples under the DOMA is unconstitutional, under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.[19][20] Since 2010, several other federal courts have found DOMA to be unconstitutional,[21][22] and five of those cases are awaiting a response for review by the U.S. Supreme Court.[23][24]

According to the federal government's Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2004, more than 1,138 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage by the federal government; areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.[25]

However, many aspects of marriage law are determined by the states, not the federal government. The Defense of Marriage Act does not prevent individual states from defining marriage as they see fit.

The United States Supreme Court in 1972 dismissed Baker v. Nelson, a case originating in Minnesota, "for want of a substantial federal question."[26] In so doing, the court upheld Minnesota's right to restrict marriage to different-sex couples.[27]

Marriage laws in states that do not permit or recognize same-sex marriage are being challenged in court. Cases include Perry v. Brown, which challenges the validity of California's Proposition 8 under the United States Constitution[28] Sevcik v. Sandoval, which challenges Nevada's system of marriage for different-sex couples and domestic partnerships for same-sex couples under the equal protection clause.[29] and others.

State law

Further information: Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state
Status of same-sex marriage in the United States
  Performed and recognized
  Recognized when performed elsewhere
  Recognized by state and federal governments, but not by tribal government
  (mixed jurisdiction; not performed by tribal government)
  (mixed jurisdiction; not performed or recognized by tribal government)

Same-sex marriage is recognized only at the state level, as the federal Defense of Marriage Act explicitly bars federal recognition of such marriages.

Six state governments (along with the District of Columbia, the Coquille Indian Tribe, and the Suquamish tribe) have legalized same-sex marriage and currently offer same-sex marriages: New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire. In all six states, same-sex marriage has been legalized through legislation or court ruling.[30] Same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since May 17, 2004; in Connecticut since November 12, 2008;[31] in Iowa since April 27, 2009;[32][33] in Vermont since September 1, 2009; New Hampshire since January 1, 2010; and New York since July 24, 2011.[34] In 2009, New England became the center of an organized push to legalize same-sex marriage,[35] with four of the six states in that region granting same-sex couples the legal right to marry.

Out of 28 states where constitutional amendments or initiatives that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman were put on the ballot in a referendum, voters in all 28 states voted to approve such amendments.[36] Arizonans voted down one such amendment in 2006,[37] but approved a different amendment to that effect in 2008.[38] In 1998, Hawaiian voters approved language allowing their legislature to ban same-sex marriage.[39] In 2009, Maine voters prevented legislation permitting same-sex marriage from going into effect.[30][40]

As of January 2010, 29 states had constitutional provisions restricting marriage to one man and one woman, while 12 others had laws that did so.[41] Nineteen states ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent to civil marriage.[42]

Opponents of same-sex marriage have worked to prevent individual states from recognizing same-sex unions by attempting to amend the United States Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. In 2006, the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages, was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote and was debated by the full United States Senate, but was ultimately defeated in both Houses of Congress.[43]

In 2003, the US Supreme Court struck down Texas' "Homosexual Conduct" law[44] in Lawrence v. Texas.[45] The ruling effectively nullified similar same-sex sodomy laws in Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri along with broader sodomy laws in nine other states.[46]

The right to marry was first extended to same-sex couples by a United States jurisdiction on November 18, 2003, in a state Supreme Judicial Court ruling in Massachusetts.[47]

On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of California issued a decision in which it effectively legalized same-sex marriage in California, holding that California's existing opposite-sex definition of marriage violated the constitutional rights of same-sex couples.[48][49] Same-sex marriage opponents in California placed a state constitutional amendment known as Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot for the purpose of restoring an opposite-sex definition of marriage.[50] Proposition 8 was passed on Election Day 2008, as were proposed marriage-limiting amendments in Florida and Arizona.[51] On August 4, 2010, a decision by the U.S. District Court in Perry v. Schwarzenegger ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional.[52] The decision in that case is currently being appealed and the case is ultimately expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.[53] On October 10, 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned the state's civil unions statute as unconstitutionally discriminatory against same-sex couples, and required the state to recognize same-sex marriages.[54]

Same-sex marriage was legalized in Iowa following the unanimous ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court in Varnum v. Brien on April 3, 2009.[55] This decision was initially scheduled to take effect on April 24, but the date was changed to April 27 for administrative reasons.[33] On April 7, 2009, Vermont legalized same-sex marriage through legislation. The Governor of Vermont had previously vetoed the measure, but the veto was overridden by the Legislature. Vermont became the first state in the United States to legalize same-sex marriage through legislative means rather than litigation. On May 6, 2009, Maine Governor John Baldacci signed a law legalizing same-sex marriage, becoming the first state governor to do so.[56] However, the legislation was stayed pending a vote and never went into effect. It was repealed by referendum in November 2009.[30] On June 3, 2009, New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage.[57]

On December 18, 2009, a same-sex marriage bill was signed into law by the Mayor of the District of Columbia;[58] same-sex marriage licenses became available in Washington, D.C. on March 3, 2010.[59]

California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions. New Jersey grants civil unions that provide "all of the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under the law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, public policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage."[60]

Maryland recognizes same-sex marriages formed in other jurisdictions, but does not allow forming such marriages within their own borders.[3][4][61] New York had been in a similar situation as its courts had held that same-sex marriages conducted in states where they are legal must be recognized by those states, but that the state statutes did not allow the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses,[62] a situation which changed when its legislature legalized granting licenses to same-sex couples in 2011. On February 13, 2012, Washington Governor Chris Gregoire signed legislation into law that would institute same-sex marriage in the state, but the enactment was stayed pending a November 2012 voter referendum.[63]

On May 8, 2012, North Carolina voters approved, 61–39%, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage as well as all other types of same-sex unions. North Carolina already prohibited same-sex marriages by statute, and became the final state in the South to do so by constitutional amendment.[64]

Debate

President Obama

On May 9, 2012, President Barack Obama announced in an interview with ABC News that after wrestling with the subject for many years, he had come to believe same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.[65] In the same interview, he stated his belief that individual states should have the final say as to whether same-sex marriage is recognized.[66] The announcement made Obama the first United States president to publicly declare his support of same-sex marriage while in office, and marked a departure from his previous stance on the issue,[17][67] although Obama had previously made comments in support of same-sex marriage as early as the 1990s during his campaign for the Illinois Senate.[68] In a 1996 newspaper interview, Obama stated "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."[69] However, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama stated, "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. You know, God is in the mix,"[70] although he remained supportive of the rights of individuals who identified as gay or lesbian.[71]

In January 2009, it was reported that Obama opposed a federal mandate for same-sex marriage, and also opposed the Defense of Marriage Act,[72] stating that individual states should decide the issue.[73][74] Obama opposed Proposition 8 — California's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage — in 2008.[75] In December 2010, the White House website stated that the president supported full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposed a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.[71] He also stated that his position on same-sex marriage was "evolving" and that he recognized that civil unions from the perspective of same-sex couples was "not enough", before subsequently declaring his full support for the legalization of same-sex marriage in May 2012.[76]

Other politicians and media figures

Many high-profile politicians and commentators have expressed their views on same-sex marriage. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are two of the most prominent conservative commentators based on recent listenership ratings.[77] In an O'Reilly Factor interview in August 2010, when Beck was asked if he "believe(s) that gay marriage is a threat to [this] country in any way", he stated, "No I don't...I believe that Thomas Jefferson said: 'If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket what difference is it to me?'"[78]

On his radio show in August 2010, Rush Limbaugh made the following comments on the decision by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker regarding Proposition 8 in California: "Marriage? There's a definition of it, for it. It means something. Marriage is a union of a man and woman. It's always been that. If you want to get married and you're a man, marry a woman. Nobody's stopping you. This is about tearing apart an institution."[79]

Commenting on the same court decision, former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich issued a statement in opposition to same-sex marriage, which read, in part, as follows: "Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife... Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy."[80]

Then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi expressed her support for Judge Walker's decision: "I am extremely encouraged by the ruling today, which found that Proposition 8 violated both the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Proposition 8 has taken away individual rights and freedoms, and is a stain upon the California Constitution. We must continue to fight against discriminatory marriage amendments and work toward the day when all American families are treated equally."[81] In 2009, Pelosi described the difficulty in repealing the Defense of Marriage Act: "I would like to get rid of all of it. But the fact is we have to make decisions on what we can pass at a given time. It doesn't mean the other issues are not important. It is a matter of getting the votes and the legislative floor time to do it."[82]

Congressman Barney Frank voiced his concern in September 2009 with regard to the ability to obtain sufficient votes to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act: "If we had a chance to pass that, it would be a different story, but I don't think it's a good idea to rekindle that debate when there's no chance of passage in the near term."[83]

During the 2008 presidential election campaign, then-Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin stated: "I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that's where we would go because I don't support gay marriage."[84]

MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow expressed her frustration with the Obama Administration position on same-sex marriage in August 2010. In response to Senior White House Advisor David Axelrod's statement on President Obama's position: "The president does oppose same-sex marriage but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples in benefits and other issues", Maddow said, "Got that? So the line from the administration is that Barack Obama does not want gay people to be allowed to be married, but when gay people can be married and other people are trying to take away that right like in California, he doesn't want the right to be taken away. But, he's not in favor of that right in the first place. You got it? The president is against gay marriage but he is also against constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, which means that he'd apparently prefer that gay marriage be banned through flimsier tactical means? That's the president's position. Clear as mud. Ripe for criticism much?"[85]

Advocacy and opposition groups

Advocacy groups have entered the same-sex marriage debate in recent years, including the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and the Family Research Council (FRC), which has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[86]

NOM lists strategies on its website for supporters to use, including the following statement: "Strong majorities of Americans oppose gay marriage. Supporters of SSM therefore seek to change the subject to just about anything: discrimination, benefits, homosexuality, gay rights, federalism, our sacred constitution. Our goal is simple: Shift the conversation rapidly back to marriage. Don't get sidetracked. Marriage is the issue. Marriage is what we care about. Marriage really matters. It's just common sense."[87]

According to its website, the FRC opposes "the vigorous efforts of homosexual activists to demand that homosexuality be accepted as equivalent to heterosexuality in law, in the media, and in schools. Attempts to join two men or two women in 'marriage' constitute a radical redefinition and falsification of the institution, and FRC supports state and federal constitutional amendments to prevent such redefinition by courts or legislatures."[88]

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is one of the leading advocacy groups in support of same-sex marriage. According to the HRC's website, "Many same-sex couples want the right to legally marry because they are in love—many, in fact, have spent the last 10, 20 or 50 years with that person—and they want to honor their relationship in the greatest way our society has to offer, by making a public commitment to stand together in good times and bad, through all the joys and challenges family life brings."[89]

Support

See also: List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States
Rally for same-sex marriage (May 2009, San Francisco, California)

Same-sex marriage supporters make several arguments in support of their position. Gail Mathabane likens prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past U.S. prohibitions on interracial marriage.[90] Fernando Espuelas argues that same-sex marriage should be allowed because same-sex marriage extends a civil right to a minority group.[91] According to an American history scholar Nancy Cott "there really is no comparison, because there is nothing that is like marriage except marriage."[92]

The leading associations of psychological, psychiatric, medical, and social work professionals in the United States have said that claims that the legal recognition of marriage for same–sex couples undermines the institution of marriage and harms children is inconsistent with the scientific evidence which supports the conclusions: that homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality that is not chosen; that gay and lesbian people form stable, committed relationships essentially equivalent to heterosexual relationships; that same-sex parents are no less capable than opposite-sex parents to raise children; and that the children of same-sex parents are no less psychologically healthy and well-adjusted than children of opposite-sex parents. The body of research strongly supports the conclusion that discrimination by the federal government between married same-sex couples and married opposite-sex couples in granting benefits unfairly stigmatizes same-sex couples. The research also contradicts the stereotype-based rationales advanced to support passage of DOMA that the Equal Protection Clause was designed to prohibit.[93]

Former presidents Bill Clinton[94] and Jimmy Carter,[95] former vice presidents Dick Cheney[96] and Al Gore,[97] and current vice president Joe Biden have also voiced their support for legal recognition.

Opposition

See also: Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States
Rally for Prop 8 in Fresno, California (October 2008)

Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States ground their arguments on parenting concerns, religious concerns, concerns that changes to the definition of marriage would lead to the inclusion of polygamy or incest, and other intellectual ideas expressed in natural law theory.[98] The Southern Baptist Convention says that extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would undercut the conventional purpose of marriage.[99] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Southern Baptist Convention, and National Organization for Marriage argue that children do best when raised by a mother and father, and that legalizing same-sex marriage is, therefore, contrary to the best interests of children.[100][101][102][103] Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage has raised concerns about the impact of same-sex marriage upon religious liberty and upon faith-based charities in the United States.[104] Other arguments against same-sex marriage are based upon concerns that the process of redefining the institution would be a Pandora's box. Stanley Kurtz of the Weekly Standard has written that same-sex marriage would eventually lead to the legalization of polygamy and polyamory, or group marriage, in the United States.[105]

The most successful tactic to prevent legalization has been state constitutional amendments against same-sex marriages.[9] The funding of the amendment referendum campaigns has been an issue of great dispute. Both judges[106][107] and the IRS[108] have ruled that it is either questionable or illegal for campaign contributions to be shielded by anonymity. In February 2012, the National Organization for Marriage vowed to spend $250,000 in Washington legislative races to defeat the Republican state senators who voted for same-sex marriage.[109]

Public opinion

Main article: Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States

Public support for same-sex marriage has grown at an increasing pace since the 1990s.[14] In 1996, just 25% of Americans supported legalization. Polls have shown that support is identical among whites and non-whites.[110] Polling trends in 2010 and 2011 showed support for same-sex marriage gaining a majority, although the difference is within the error limit of the analysis.[111] On May 20, 2011, Gallup reported majority support for same-sex marriage for the first time in the country.[112] In June 2011, two prominent polling organizations released an analysis of the changing trend in public opinion about same-sex marriage in the United States, concluding that "public support for the freedom to marry has increased, at an accelerating rate, with most polls showing that a majority of Americans now support full marriage rights for all Americans."[113]

Effects of same-sex 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.[114] 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.'"[115] Many of these laws govern property rights, benefits, and taxation. Same-sex couples, whose marriages are not recognized by the state, are ineligible for spousal and survivor Social Security benefits.[115] 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.[115] According to Badgett's work, same-sex couples face the following other financial challenges against which legal marriage at least partially shields opposite-sex couples:[116]

  • Legal costs associated with obtaining domestic partner documents to gain legal abilities granted automatically by legal marriage, including power of attorney, health care decision-making, and inheritance[116]
  • A legal spouse can inherit an unlimited amount from the deceased without incurring an estate tax but a same-sex partner would have to pay the estate tax on the inheritance from her/his partner[115]
  • Same-sex couples are not eligible to file jointly as a married couple and thus cannot take the advantages of lower tax rates when the individual income of the partners differs significantly[115]
  • Only 18% of companies offer domestic partner health care benefits[116]
  • Taxation of same-sex spouse health insurance benefits when provided by an employer, unlike like benefits provided to a heterosexual couple[115]
  • 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[116]
  • Inability to protect jointly-owned home from loss due to costs of potential medical catastrophe[116]
  • Inability for a U.S. citizen to extend citizenship to same-sex partner[116]

While state laws grant full marriage rights (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont) or some or all of the benefits under another name (New Jersey, Washington, California, Delaware, Illinois, 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, domestic partnerships, or civil unions from other states.

Potential economic disadvantages

While the legal benefits of marriage are numerous, same-sex couples could face the same financial constraints of legal marriage as opposite-sex married couples. Such potential effects include the marriage penalty in taxation (if the federal government were to recognize same-sex marriage).[115] 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.[115]

Economic impact on the federal government

The 2004 Congressional Budget Office study, working from an assumption "that about 0.6 percent of adults would enter into same-sex marriages if they had the opportunity" (an assumption in which they admitted "significant uncertainty") estimated that legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the United States "would improve the budget's bottom line to a small extent: by less than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years". This result reflects an increase in net government revenues (increased income taxes due to marriage penalties more than offsetting decreased tax revenues arising from postponed estate taxes). Marriage recognition would increase the government expenses for Social Security and Federal Employee Health Benefits but that increase would be more than made up for by decreased expenses for Medicaid, Medicare, and Supplemental Security Income.[115]

Mental health

Based in part on empirical research that has been conducted on the adverse effects of stigmatization, numerous prominent social science organizations have issued position statements supporting same-sex marriage and opposing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; these organizations include the American Psychoanalytic Association and the American Psychological Association.[93]

Several psychological studies[117][118][119] 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.[120]

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.[121]

Dr. Ilan H. Meyer, Williams Senior Scholar of Public Policy at the UCLA School of Law and expert on minority stress, has found through several empirical studies that gays and lesbians encounter a disproportionate level of stress and mental health difficulties because of discrimination and oppressive laws, and that these stresses amplify the social stigma that makes them more susceptible to depression, suicide and substance abuse.[122] At the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial, he testified that the mental health outcomes for gays and lesbians would improve if laws such as Proposition 8 did not exist because "when people are exposed to more stress...they are more likely to get sick..." and that particular situation is consistent with laws that say to gay people "you are not welcome here, your relationships are not valued." Such laws have "significant power", he said.[122][123]

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.[124][125] 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.

A study by the Columbia Mailman School of Public Health found that gay men in Massachusetts visited health clinics significantly less often following the legalization of same-sex marriage in that state.[126]

Case law

United States case law regarding same-sex marriage:

  • Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971) (upholding a Minnesota law defining marriage)
  • Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588 (Ky. 1973) (upholding a Kentucky law defining marriage)
  • Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187 (Wash. App. 1974) (ban on same-sex marriage was constitutional on the basis of gender discrimination; because the historical definition of marriage is between one man and one woman, same-sex couples are inherently ineligible to marry)
  • Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1111 (affirming that same-sex marriage does not make one a "spouse" under the Immigration and Nationality Act)
  • De Santo v. Barnsley, 476 A.2d 952 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984) (same-sex couples cannot undergo divorce proceedings because they cannot enter a common law marriage)
  • In re Estate of Cooper, 564 N.Y.S.2d 684 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1990) (the state has a compelling interest in fostering the traditional institution of marriage and prohibiting same-sex marriage)
  • Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993) (holding that statute limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the Hawaii constitution's equal-protection clause unless the state can show that the statute is (1) justified by compelling state interests and (2) narrowly tailored, prompting a state constitutional amendment and the federal Defense of Marriage Act)
  • Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307 (D.C. 1995)
  • Storrs v. Holcomb, 645 N.Y.S.2d 286 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996) (New York does not recognize or authorize same-sex marriage); overturned in part by Martinez v. County of Monroe (2008) (out-of-state same-sex marriages must be recognized equal to out-of-state opposite-sex marriages because they do not violate public policy)
  • In re Estate of Hall, 707 N.E.2d 201, 206 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998) (no same-sex marriage will be recognized; petitioner claiming existing same-sex marriage was not in a marriage recognized by law)
  • Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194; 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999) (Common Benefits Clause of the state constitution requires that same-sex couples be granted the same legal rights as married persons)
  • Rosengarten v. Downes, 806 A.2d 1066 (Conn. Ct. App. 2002) (Vermont civil union cannot be dissolved in Connecticut)
  • Burns v. Burns, 560 S.E.2d 47 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman)
  • Frandsen v. County of Brevard, 828 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2002) (State constitution will not be construed to recognize same-sex marriage; sex classifications not subject to strict scrutiny under Florida constitution)
  • In re Estate of Gardiner, 42 P.3d 120 (Kan. 2002) (a post-op male-to-female transgendered person may not marry a male, because this person is still a male in the eyes of the law, and marriage in Kansas is recognized only between a man and a woman)
  • Standhardt v. Superior Court ex rel. County of Maricopa, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003) (no state constitution right to same-sex marriage)
  • Morrison v. Sadler, 2003 WL 23119998 (Ind. Super. Ct. 2003) (Indiana's Defense of Marriage Act is found valid)
  • Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003) (denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated provisions of the state constitution guaranteeing individual liberty and equality, and was not rationally related to a legitimate state interest)
  • Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006) (reversing 368 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D. Neb. 2005)) (Nebraska's Initiative Measure 416 does not violate Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, was not a bill of attainder, and does not violate the First Amendment; "laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples ... do not violate the Constitution of the United States")[127]
  • Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.2d 196 (N.J. 2006) (New Jersey is required to extend all rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples, but prohibiting same-sex marriage does not violate the state constitution; legislature given 180 days from October 25, 2006 to amend the marriage laws or create a "parallel structure")
  • Andersen v. King County, 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006) (Washington's Defense of Marriage Act does not violate the state constitution)
  • Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006) (New York State Constitution does not require that marriage be extended to same-sex couples)
  • Langan v. St. Vincent's Hospital, 25 A.D.3d 90, 802 N.Y.S.2d 476 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005), review denied, 850 N.E.2d 672 (N.Y. 2006) (denying survivor partner in Vermont officiated Civil Union standing as a "spouse" for purposes of New York's wrongful death statute)
  • Conaway v. Deane, 932 A.2d 571 (Md. 2007) (upholding state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman)
  • Martinez v. County of Monroe, 850 N.Y.S.2d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). (The court ruled unanimously that because New York legally recognizes out-of-state marriages of opposite-sex couples, it must do the same for same-sex couples. The county was refused leave to appeal on a technicality.[128])
  • In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008). (The court ruled that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is invalid under the equal protection clause of the California Constitution, and that full marriage rights, not merely domestic partnership, must be offered to same-sex couples.);[129]
  • Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009). (holding that Proposition 8 was validly adopted, but that marriages contracted before its adoption remain valid)[130]
  • Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, (Ia. 2009). (Barring same-sex couples from marriage, the court unanimously ruled, violates the equal protection provisions of the Iowa Constitution. Equal protection requires full marriage, rather than civil unions or some other substitute, for same-sex couples)
  • Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010). (California's Proposition 8 (2008) violates fundamental right to marry under Loving v. Virginia, violates Due Process and Equal Protection Causes of the Fourteenth Amendment, and illegally discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. Proposition 8 is driven only by animus against same-sex couples; therefore, does not survive rational basis review. Permanently enjoins CA from enforcing Prop 8; order was stayed pending appeal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where it was affirmed, now stayed pending possible appeal to the Supreme Court)
  • Perry v. Brown, Slip Op. (9th Cir. 2012), Perry v. Schwarzenegger affirmed on the grounds that under Romer v. Evans, Proposition 8's withdrawal of the designation of "marriage" from same-sex couples violates the Equal Protection Clause as there is no legitimate government interest to sustain a rational basis review; therefore, it is driven only by animus against gays and lesbians. Order stayed 90 days pending possible appeal to the Supreme Court.
  • Gill v. Office of Personnel Management 699 F.Supp.2d 374 and Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services 698 F.Supp.2d 234 (D.Mass. 2010) challenged Section 3 of DOMA on equal protection, due process, Tenth Amendment, and Spending Clause grounds. Upheld at the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Implementation stayed pending filed appeal to the Supreme Court.
  • Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, Slip Op. (N.D. Cal. 2012), Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for the purposes of federal statutes, regulations, etc. as being between one man and one woman, was held to violate the Equal Protection Clause. The court ruled that homosexuality is a quasi-suspect classification, meaning DOMA must substantially relate to an important government interest ("intermediate scrutiny"). The court found it could not meet that burden, and also failed rational basis review.
  • Port v. Cowan, 426 Md. 435, 44 A.3d 970 (2012). (unanimous ruling; valid foreign same-sex marriages recognized in Maryland under doctrine of comity)[131]
  • Windsor v. United States (S.D.N.Y. 2012), successfully challenged Section 3 of DOMA on equal protection grounds in the case of a widow who had her deceased wife's estate taxed more than $350,000 by the government, due to the lack of federal recognition. Windsor was awarded approximately $350,000 plus interest and court costs. Instead of waiting for an appeal in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Windsor's attorneys have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review her case.[132][133]
  • In Jackson v. Abercrombie, federal District Court judge Alan Kay on August 8, 2012, citing Baker v. Nelson as controlling, rejected the claim by two lesbians that Hawaii's failure to provide for same-sex marriage violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.[134][135][136] It is the first court decision to cite the discredited "New Family Structure" research of Mark Regnerus.[137][138]

See also

Legislation

Supporting organizations

Opposing organizations

References

  1. ^ Coquille and Suquamish
  2. ^ Maryland and Rhode Island
  3. ^ a b "States". Freedom to Marry. April 16, 2010. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
  4. ^ a b The situation in Rhode Island is uncertain, despite an opinion by the state's Attorney General:
  5. ^ See
  6. ^ Tracey Simmons (February 13, 2012). "Washington becomes seventh state to legalize gay marriage". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 8, 2012.
  7. ^ Davis, Aaron C. (March 1, 2012). "Maryland becomes eighth state to legalize gay marriage". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 9, 2012.
  8. ^ See
  9. ^ a b David Gardner (November 4, 2009). "Gay marriage thrown out by all 31 U.S. states where it has been put to vote". Dailymail.co.uk. Retrieved February 8, 2012.
  10. ^ See
  11. ^ See
  12. ^ Gumbel, Andrew. "The Great Undoing?". The Advocate. Retrieved July 9, 2012.
  13. ^ "Same Sex Marriage Laws - History". National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved August 1, 2012.
  14. ^ a b "Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness" (PDF). Retrieved December 20, 2011.
  15. ^ See
  16. ^ "Obama Affirms Support for Same-Sex Marriage". ABC News. May 9, 2012.
  17. ^ a b "Obama says same-sex couples should be able to marry". BBC News. May 9, 2012.
  18. ^ 1 U.S.C. § 7.
  19. ^ Goodnough, Abby; Schwartz, John (July 8, 2010). "Judge Topples U.S. Rejection of Gay Unions". The New York Times. Retrieved June 2, 2011.
  20. ^ "Judge rules federal same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional". CNN. July 9, 2010. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
  21. ^ "The Defense of Marriage Act". Freedom to Marry. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
  22. ^ Lavoie, Denise (May 31, 2012). "DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional By Federal Appeals Court". The Huffington Post. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
  23. ^ Geidner, Chris (July 3, 2012). "BREAKING: DOJ Asks Supreme Court to Take Two DOMA Cases, Maintains Law Is Unconstitutional". Metro Weekly. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
  24. ^ Grindley, Lucas (June 19, 2012). "Republicans Appeal DOMA Case to Supreme Court". The Advocate. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
  25. ^ "2004 updated report of the GAO" (PDF). Retrieved December 20, 2011.
  26. ^ Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972).
  27. ^ Denniston, Lyle (July 4, 2012). "Gay marriage and Baker v. Nelson". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved September 14, 2012.
  28. ^ "Yes on 8 » Perry v. Schwarzenegger". Protect Marriage. June 16, 2010. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
  29. ^ Geidner, Chris (April 13, 2012). "Lambda Legal Files Federal Lawsuit Seeking Marriage Equality in Nevada". Metro Weekly. Retrieved August 10, 2012.
  30. ^ a b c Glenn Adams and David Crary, "Maine voters reject gay-marriage law", November 4, 2009
  31. ^ "State Supreme Court Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage", Hartford Courant
  32. ^ "Iowa Supreme Court strikes down gay marriage ban | News Story on". 365gay.com. Archived from the original on June 5, 2011. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
  33. ^ a b "Iowa gay marriages delayed | News Story on". 365gay.com. Archived from the original on April 10, 2009. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
  34. ^ Confessore, Nicholas; Barbaro, Michael (June 24, 2011). "New York Allows Same-Sex Marriage, Becoming Largest State to Pass Law". The New York Times. Retrieved June 25, 2011.
  35. ^ The Washington Times: Valerie Richardson, "Gay marriage backers target New England," January 4, 2009, Retrieved March 21, 2011
  36. ^ Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin. See Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States#Attempts_to_establish_same-sex_unions_via_initiative_or_statewide_referendum
  37. ^ "Arizona Secretary of State: 2006 general election results". Retrieved March 2, 2011.
  38. ^ "State of Arizona Official Canvass: 2008 General Election – November 4, 2008" (PDF). Secretary of State of Arizona. December 1, 2008. Retrieved March 2, 2011.
  39. ^ "General Election 1998". Hawaii Office of Elections. November 3, 1998. Retrieved March 2, 2011.
  40. ^ Miller, Kevin; Harrison, Judy (November 4, 2009). "Gay marriage repealed in Maine". Bangor Daily News.
  41. ^ "Statewide Marriage Prohibitions" (PDF). Hrc.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 28, 2011. Retrieved December 20, 2011.
  42. ^ Statewide Marriage Prohibitions plus Kansas http://www.kslib.info/constitution/art15.html
  43. ^ "Senate blocks same-sex marriage ban", CNN, June 7, 2006, . Retrieved July 5, 2006.
  44. ^ "Texas Penal Code 2011, Title 5, Chapter 21. Sexual Offenses". Sec. 21.06. HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.
  45. ^ "Lawrence v. Texas. 539 U.S. 558 (2003)". Supreme Court of the United States. Cornell University School of Law. Retrieved July 28, 2012.
  46. ^ Schlesinger, Richard (June 26, 2003). "High Court Rejects Sodomy Law". CBS News. Of the 13 states with sodomy laws, four — Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri — prohibit oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia. Thursday's ruling apparently invalidates those laws as well.
  47. ^ Burge, Kathleen (November 18, 2003). "SJC: Gay marriage legal in Mass". The Boston Globe. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
  48. ^ "California same-sex marriage ban struck down". CNN. May 16, 2008. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
  49. ^ Mintz, Howard (May 15, 2008). "California Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage". Mercury News. Retrieved May 15, 2008.
  50. ^ "Gay Couples Rejoice at Ruling". The New York Times. May 16, 2008.
  51. ^ "Bans in 3 States on Gay Marriage". The New York Times. November 5, 2008.
  52. ^ Perry v. Schwarzenegger (US District Court, Northern California August 4, 2010), Text.
  53. ^ "Judge strikes down California's ban on same-sex marriage". CNN. August 5, 2010. Retrieved August 4, 2010.
  54. ^ McFadden, Robert (October 10, 2008). "Gay Marriage Is Ruled Legal in Connecticut". The New York Times. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
  55. ^ Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman, Des Moines Register, April 3, 2009.
  56. ^ "Office of the Governor: News & Events: News Releases". Maine.gov. May 6, 2009. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
  57. ^ "House Bill 0436". Gencourt.state.nh.us. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
  58. ^ "Mayor Adrian Fenty Signs DC Marriage Bill". Hrcbackstory.org. Archived from the original on July 27, 2011. Retrieved December 20, 2011.
  59. ^ Post Store (March 3, 2010). "D.C. same-sex marriage law takes effect". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
  60. ^ "Civil Unions for Same-Sex Couples in the State of New Jersey". Lambda Legal. Retrieved July 19, 2012.
  61. ^ See
  62. ^ Martinez, Patricia v County Of Monroe Decision Appellate Division Fourth Judicial Department
  63. ^ The Seattle Times: Lornet Turnbull, "Gregoire signs gay marriage into law," February 13, 2012, Retrieved February 13, 2012
  64. ^ Nate Silver (May 4, 2012). "North Carolina's Ban on Gay Marriage Appears Likely to Pass". New York Times. Retrieved May 9, 2012.
  65. ^ Michael A. Memoli, Kathleen Hennessey (May 9, 2012). "Obama declares support for same-sex marriage". Chicago Tribune. chicagotribune.com. Retrieved May 9, 2012.
  66. ^ O'Brien, Michael (May 9, 2012). "Obama: 'I think same sex couples should be able to get married'". MSNBC. Retrieved May 9, 2012.
  67. ^ "ElectionCenter2008". CNN. Retrieved October 3, 2009.
  68. ^ "Report: Obama Changed His View on Gay Marriage". FoxNews.com. April 7, 2010. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
  69. ^ Linkins, Jason (January 13, 2009). "Obama Once Supported Same-Sex Marriage 'Unequivocally'". Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved December 20, 2011.
  70. ^ "Obama and Miss California aligned on same-sex marriage?". The Christian Science Monitor. May 12, 2009. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
  71. ^ a b "Civil Rights". The White House. Retrieved October 3, 2009.
  72. ^ Paterson, Penny (January 13, 2009). "Gay Supporters Petition Obama to Repeal DOMA". Santa Barbara Independent. Retrieved June 24, 2009.
  73. ^ Eleveld, Kerry (April 3, 2009). "White House Responds to Iowa". The Advocate. Archived from the original on April 7, 2009. Retrieved June 17, 2009.
  74. ^ "Same-sex Marriage - Issues - Election Center 2008". CNN. Retrieved May 23, 2010.
  75. ^ Post Store (August 5, 2010). "President Obama's beliefs meet his policy". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
  76. ^ Bacon, Jr., Perry (December 23, 2010). "Obama says his views on same-sex marriage are evolving". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 5, 2011.
  77. ^ Talkers Magazine, "2010 Talkers 250", Retrieved November 30, 2010.
  78. ^ Elizabeth Tenety, "Glenn Beck, Gay Marriage Advocate?", The Washington Post, August 12, 2010, Retrieved October 31, 2010.
  79. ^ Limbaugh, Rush (August 5, 2010). "One Leftist Judge Slaps Down Seven Million Voters in California". Retrieved October 31, 2010.
  80. ^ Newt Gingrich's Website, Retrieved October 31, 2010.
  81. ^ Speaker Nancy Pelosi's website, Retrieved October, 31, 2010.
  82. ^ Matthew S. Bajko, "DOMA repeal unlikely in '09", EDGE, April 28, 2009, Retrieved November 1, 2010,
  83. ^ Politico, "Frank won't back Marriage Act repeal", September 13, 2010, Retrieved November 1, 2010.
  84. ^ Scott Conroy, "Palin Breaks With McCain On Gay Marriage Ban", CBS News, October 20, 2008, Retrieved October 31, 2010.
  85. ^ SheWired.com, "Rachel Maddow on Obama's 'Tortured Logic' Over Gay Marriage: Video", August 6, 2010, retrieved November 1, 2010.
  86. ^ "SPLC Responds to Attack by Family Research Council | Southern Poverty Law Center". Splcenter.org. December 15, 2010. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
  87. ^ National Organization for Marriage Website, Retrieved October 31, 2010.
  88. ^ Family Research Council website, Retrieved October 31, 2010.
  89. ^ Human Rights Campaign website, Retrieved November 1, 2010.
  90. ^ Mathabane, Gail (January 25, 2004). "Gays face same battle interracial couples fought". USA Today. Retrieved May 23, 2010.
  91. ^ "Commentary: Latinos should see gay marriage a civil right - CNN.com". CNN. November 7, 2008. Retrieved May 23, 2010.
  92. ^ "Perry v. Schwarzenegger" (PDF). Retrieved December 20, 2011.
  93. ^ a b "Brief of the American Psychological Association, the Massachusetts Psychological Association, The National Association of Social Workers and its Massachusetts Chapter, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees and in Support of Affirmance - Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts Civil Action Nos. 1:09-cv-11156-JLT, 1:09-cv-10309-JLT (Honorable Joseph L. Tauro)" (PDF). Retrieved December 20, 2011.
  94. ^ "Bill Clinton endorses gay marriage in New York". USA Today. May 5, 2011. Retrieved June 26, 2012.
  95. ^ Raushenbush, Paul (March 19, 2012). "President Jimmy Carter Authors New Bible Book, Answers Hard Biblical Questions". The Huffington Post. Retrieved June 26, 2012.
  96. ^ Stenovec, Timothy (September 13, 2011). "Dick Cheney On Gay Marriage: "I Certainly Don't Have Any Problem With It". The Huffington Post. Retrieved June 26, 2012.
  97. ^ "Al Gore: "Gay men and women should have the same rights". Current TV. January 17, 2008. Retrieved July 8, 2012.
  98. ^ "Homosexuality". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. stanford.edu. Retrieved May 8, 2012.
  99. ^ Southern Baptist Convention, On Same-Sex Marriage (adopted 2003) http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1128 (visited January 20, 2008).
  100. ^ "The Divine Institution of Marriage - LDS Newsroom". Beta-newsroom.lds.org. August 13, 2008. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
  101. ^ "(FLWY)". USCCB. November 12, 2003. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
  102. ^ "Obama celebrates gay dads on Father's Day - Florida Baptist Witness". Gofbw.com. July 2, 2010. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
  103. ^ "Why Marriage Matters" (PDF). Retrieved December 20, 2011.
  104. ^ "Banned in Boston". The Weekly Standard. May 15, 2006. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
  105. ^ "Beyond Gay Marriage". The Weekly Standard. August 4, 2003. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
  106. ^ Anti-gay marriage group loses Maine appeal to prevent release of its donor list. David Sharp, Associated Press, January 31, 2012.
  107. ^ "Campaign Finance After Two Years of Citizens United, Josh Douglas of the University of Kentucky College of Law, January 21, 2012". Jurist.org. January 21, 2012. Retrieved May 19, 2012.
  108. ^ I.R.S. Moves to Tax Gifts to Groups Active in Politics, New York Times, By Stephanie Strom, May 12, 2011
  109. ^ Gay marriage foes to fight expected Washington state law. Nicole Neroulias, Reuters, February 2, 2012.
  110. ^ Support for Gay Marriage Reaches a Milestone Retrieved June 11, 2012
  111. ^ Nate Silver. "Gay Marriage Opponents Now in Minority". The New York Times April 20, 2011. Retrieved April 26, 2011.
  112. ^ "For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage". Gallup.com. Retrieved September 19, 2012.
  113. ^ The Rapid Increase in Support for Marriage Changes Political Equation: Emerging Majority Supports the Freedom to Marry. Joel Benenson, Benenson Strategy Group, and Jan van Lohuizen, Voter Consumer Research. July 27, 2011. Retrieved August 2, 2011.
  114. ^ Dang, Alain, and M. Somjen Frazer.. "Black Same-Sex Couple Households in the 2000 U.S. Census: Implications in the Debate Over Same-Sex Marriage." Western Journal of Black Studies 29.1 (Spring2005 2005): 521–530. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. September 30, 2009
  115. ^ a b c d e f g h i "The Potential Budgetary Impact of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages". Congressional Budget Office. June 21, 2004. Retrieved March 8, 2007. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  116. ^ a b c d e f Badgett, M.V. Lee (2003). Money, Myths, and Change: The Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay Men. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-03401-1.
  117. ^ Price, M. "Upfront — Research uncovers the stress created by same-sex marriage bans" in Monitor on Psychology, Volume 40, No. 1, page 10, January 2009. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
  118. ^ Potoczniak, Daniel J.; Aldea, Mirela A.; DeBlaere, Cirleen "Ego identity, social anxiety, social support, and self-concealment in lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals." Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol 54(4), October 2007, 447–457.
  119. ^ Balsam, Kimberly F.; Mohr, Jonathan J. "Adaptation to sexual orientation stigma: A comparison of bisexual and lesbian/gay adults." Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol 54(3), July 2007, 306–319.
  120. ^ Rostosky, Sharon Scales; Riggle, Ellen D. B.; Gray, Barry E.; Hatton, Roxanna L. "Minority stress experiences in committed same-sex couple relationships." Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol 38(4), August 2007, 392–400.
  121. ^ Szymanski, Dawn M.; Carr, Erika R. "The roles of gender role conflict and internalized heterosexism in gay and bisexual men's psychological distress: Testing two mediation models." Psychology of Men & Masculinity, Vol 9(1), January 2008, 40–54.
  122. ^ a b Berger, Stephanie. "Ilan H. Meyer, PhD, Expert on Minority Stress, Testifies in Landmark California Proposition 8 Constitutional Challenge Case". Columbia University. columbia.edu. Retrieved March 8, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  123. ^ "Perry v. Schwarzenegger Transcript of Proceedings: pp.670-990 (Meyer testimony begins on p.806)" (PDF). U.S. District Court of Northern California. American Foundation for Equal Rights. Retrieved March 8, 2012. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help); External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  124. ^ "Emory researchers: Gay marriage bans increase HIV infections". Webcitation.org. Retrieved February 8, 2012.
  125. ^ Elaine Justice. "Study Links Gay Marriage Bans to Rise in HIV infections". Emory.edu. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
  126. ^ "BBC News - Gay marriage 'improves health'". Bbc.co.uk. December 16, 2011. Retrieved December 20, 2011.
  127. ^ "Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006) opinion" (PDF). Retrieved December 20, 2011.
  128. ^ Louis, Tim. "GAY MARRIAGE: Technicality delays county's appeal". Rochestercitynewspaper.com. Retrieved June 27, 2010.
  129. ^ 'In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008).
  130. ^ Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009).
  131. ^ "Port v. Cowan, No. 69, September Term, 2011. (May 18, 2012)". Findlaw. Retrieved July 17, 2012.
  132. ^ Shapiro, Lila (July 16, 2012). "Edie Windsor vs. DOMA: 83-Year-Old Lesbian Petitions U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Case". The Huffington Post. Retrieved July 17, 2012.
  133. ^ Bolcer, Julie (July 26, 2012). "NYC Asks Supreme Court to Hear DOMA Challenge from Edie Windsor". The Advocate. Retrieved July 26, 2012.
  134. ^ Blair, Chad (August 8, 2012). "Hawaii Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ban". Honolulu Civil Beat. Retrieved August 9, 2012.
  135. ^ Johnson, Chris (August 9, 2012). "Hawaii court upholds same-sex marriage ban". The Washington Blade. Retrieved August 13, 2012.
  136. ^ Leonard, Arthur S. "Federal Court Rejects Hawaii Marriage Challenge". newyorklawschool.typepad.com. Retrieved August 13, 2012.
  137. ^ Bartlett, Tom (July 26, 2012). "Controversial Gay-Parenting Study Is Severely Flawed, Journal's Audit Finds". Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved August 12, 2012.
  138. ^ Marrigan, Haurwitz, Tara, Ralph K.M (July 27, 2012). "UT researcher's study on children of gay parents should not have been published, audit says". statesman.com. Retrieved August 13, 2012.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Bibliography

  • Chauncey, George (2004). Why Marriage?: The History Shaping Today's Debate over Gay Equality. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-00957-3.
  • Murdoch, Joyce and Deb Price (2001). Courting Justice: Gay Men and Lesbians v. the Supreme Court. New York, Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-01513-1.
  • Dobson, James C. (2004). Marriage Under Fire. Sisters, Or.: Multnomah. ISBN 1-59052-431-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |unused_data= ignored (help)
  • Wolfson, Evan (2004). Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-7432-6459-2.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States&oldid=518333427"