Same-sex marriage
Same-sex marriage is the
union of two people who are of the same
gender. Other terms include "gender-neutral marriage", "equal marriage", "gay marriage", "lesbian marriage," "homosexual marriage", and "same-gender marriage".
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, opposing efforts to legalize or ban same-sex civil marriage made it a topic of debate all over the world. At present, same-sex marriages are recognized in the
Netherlands,
Belgium,
Spain,
Canada, and the U.S. state of
Massachusetts for same-sex marriages performed within that state under its laws.
On
December 1,
2005,
South Africa's Constitutional Court extended marriage to include same-sex couples. The court mandated that changes go into effect by the end of 2006.
Civil unions,
domestic partnerships,
registered partnership, and other legal recognitions of same-sex couples which offer varying amounts of the benefits of marriage are available in:
Andorra,
Argentina,
Brazil,
Croatia,
Czech Republic,
Denmark,
Finland,
France,
Germany,
Iceland,
Israel,
Luxembourg,
New Zealand,
Norway,
Portugal,
Slovenia,
Sweden,
Switzerland, and the
United Kingdom; the
Australian state of
Tasmania, and the
U.S. states of
California,
Connecticut,
Hawaii,
Maine,
New Jersey. and
Vermont; and the U.S.
District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The first same-sex union in modern history with government recognition was obtained in Denmark in 1989 (although historian
John Boswell argues numerous same-sex unions existed in pre-modern Europe; however, his scholarship standards are subject to intense debate).
[Halsall, Paul. "Reviewing Boswell". [1]] The Scandinavian (registered partnerships) are nearly equal to marriage, including legal adoption in Sweden. However these partnerships are written separately from marriage in the existing laws, and are thus not called marriage except in daily speech. In some countries with legal recognition the actual benefits are minimal. Many people feel that civil unions, even those which grant equal rights, are inadaquate as they create a separate status, and should be replaced by gender-neutral marriage.
Many proponents of same-sex marriage use the term "equal marriage", however, the term "equal marriage" has long been used by feminists to describe any marriage, regardless of the sex of the partners, in which the partners have equal status within the marriage. Some argue that the correct term is simply "marriage" since that is how opposite-sex marriage is presented. Opponents argue that equating same-sex and opposite-sex marriage changes the meaning of marriage and its traditions. Some opponents use the term "homosexual marriage", and surveys have suggested that the word "homosexual" is more stigmatizing than the word "gay".
[advocate.com. "New Poll: Americans Ambivalent About Homosexuality. [2]] Some publications that oppose same-sex marriage put the word "marriage" in quotes when referring to it. Notable publications that practice this are
The Washington Times and
LifeSite.
Cliff Kincaid, a writer for the American conservative-based media watchdog group
Accuracy in Media, agrees with this method arguing that "marriage" is a word that same-sex couples merely want to apply to themselves, but have no legal ability to do so in most states.
[Kincaid, Cliff. "Honest Versus Slanted Journalism". [3]] Gay rights supporters argue that it is editorializing and implying inferiority, and point out that the quotes are even used when referring to same-sex marriages in locations where it is legal.
Some have suggested abolishing the word "marriage" (or reserving it to a religious context) and referring to the civil and legal aspects of all marriages as
civil unions.
Harvard law professor
Alan Dershowitz, for instance, wrote in a 2003 editorial in the
Los Angeles Times that such an arrangement would "strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in the hands of the church while placing a secular institution under state control".
[ Dershowitz, Alan M. "Government Should Quit the Marriage Business". [4]] Conservative critics like
National Review's Jennifer Morse contend that the conflation of marriage with contractual agreements is itself a threat to marriage that "has undermined more heterosexual marriages than anything, with the possible exception of adultery".
[Morse, Jennifer Roback. "Not a Social Contract". [5]]The terms "gay marriage", "straight marriage", and all others implying sexual orientation, although popular with the media, are viewed by some as inaccurate. Same-sex marriage partners may be bisexual and not gay, or opposite-gender marriage partners may be bisexual and not heterosexual. Morevoer, they claim that sexual orientation has rarely been a legal or religious qualification for marriage (a gay man could still marry a woman). Rather, the relevant qualification is the characteristic sexes of the parties to the marriage.
The terms of employment of the staff of
international organizations are not, in most cases, governed by the laws of the country in which their offices are located. Agreements with the host country safeguard these organizations' impartiality with regard to the host and member countries.
Hiring and
firing practices,
working hours and environment,
holiday time,
pension plans,
health insurance and
life insurance,
salaries, expatriation benefits and general conditions of employment are managed according to rules and regulations proper to each organization. The independence of these organizations gives them the freedom to implement human resource policies which are even contrary to the laws of their host and member countries. A person who is otherwise eligible for employment in Belgium may not become an employee of
NATO unless he or she is a
citizen of a NATO member state. The
World Health Organization has recently
banned the recruitment of cigarette smokers. Agencies of the
United Nations coordinate some human resource policies amongst themselves.
Despite their relative independence, few organizations currently recognise same-sex partnerships without condition. The
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the agencies of the
United Nations voluntarily
discriminate between opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages, as well as discriminating between employees on the basis of nationality. These organisations recognize same-sex marriages only if the country of citizenship of the employees in question recognizes the marriage. In some cases, these organizations do offer a limited selection of the benefits normally provided to opposite-sex married couples to de facto partners or
domestic partners of their staff, but even individuals who have entered into an opposite-sex
civil union in their home country are not guaranteed full recognition of this union in all organizations. However, the
World Bank does recognise domestic partners. [
6]
The legitimacy of marriage between two people of the same sex depends on how the authoritative definition of marriage is derived.
Gay rights advocates assert that marriage is a right since it is a legal agreement on the governmental level which should not be restricted to opposite-sex couples. Their opponents assert that same-sex marriage is not itself a right and should not be allowed on moral and/or religious grounds, or on the grounds that it will lead to a breakdown of the definition of marriage or of civil society. Most of the controversy centers around the government definition of marriage, rather than the
blessing of same-sex unions by individual religious organizations, which may or may not be recognized as civil marriages.
Those in favour of same-sex marriage argue that homosexuals contribute as much as heterosexuals to the funding for private and public family coverage even when they have no access to it, and that discrimination decreases productivity. They support the equalization of male-male, female-female, and male-female relationships, and being able to marry whichever consenting adult one chooses is seen as a civil right that should not be abridged by the government.
Opponents answer that this view of marriage reduces marriage to little more than a means test for social benefits. They also see same-sex and male-female arrangements as inherently unequal, stating that nothing less than perpetuation of humanity itself relies fully on the latter and not at all on the former, and trying to "equalize" such arrangements through force of law will only create gross social distortions to accommodate the gulf between such law and the observable facts of human nature. However, none to date have argued that there should be a legal requirement to have children in a male-female relationship to be recognized as a marriage or that sterile male-female couples should be denied a marriage license.
Religious arguments
Some opponents object to same-sex marriage on
religious grounds. They argue that extending marriage to same-sex couples undercuts the conventional meaning of marriage according to religious understanding and traditions, does not fulfill any procreational role, and/or sanctions a partnership centered around sexual acts that their respective religion prohibits. For example,
James Dobson, in
Marriage Under Fire and elsewhere, argues that legalization or even tolerance of same-sex marriage would redefine the family and lead to an increase in homosexual couples.
Conservative and some moderate Christians further state that same-sex marriage goes against biblical teaching, for example, Genesis 19:5 [
7](behavior which allegedly contributed to the destruction of ancient cities Sodom and Gomorrah). This story was the source of the word
sodomy. Other passages are Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 (which, by literal interpretation, prescribes the death penalty for male-male homosexual contact), and in the New Testament of the Bible, First Corinthians 6:8-10 and
Romans 1:24-27.
However, other moderate and
liberal Christians have the view that these passages are taken out of full textual, historical and cultural contexts and aren't applicable to homosexual relationships as we know them today. They view the passages about Sodom and Gomorrah as referring to systematic rape and inhospitability. They see the passages in Leviticus as part of the
Holiness code and strictly reserved to the Jewish people of that time. Most of this Holiness code has been ignored and abandoned by contemporary Christians (e.g., prohibitions on wearing mixed fabrics, a proscription of the consumption of pork). For liberal Christians, the passage in Romans is seen as relating more to specific instances of Greco-Roman temple sex acts and idolatrous worship and not intended to address modern homosexuality.[
8]
The meaning of the Greek words
arsenokoités and
malakos (translated simply as "homosexuals" in most post-19th century versions; as "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" in the
King James Version of the Bible) used in Corinthians 6:8-10 has been a hotly contested matter. Conservative Christians and some moderates view the passage as specificially referring to homosexuals. [
9] & [
10] However, liberal and some moderate Christians see these passages obscure in meaning and do not believe that these passages refer to homosexuality, since the word "homosexual" wasn't coined until 1892 [
11]. They find that the view that these words refer to homosexuality is a contemporary interpretive bias that wasn't intended by the original author(s) of the text. [
12]
A fundamental concern of opponents is that the legalization of same-sex marriage will lead to a direct attack against religious institutions, limit their constitutional right to free speech, force them to perform marriage ceremonies of which they do not approve, and that established churches would be eventually bankrupted by lawsuits brought against them.
Some churches and denominations, as listed previously in this article, perform same-sex weddings. Members of these groups may believe that since the major scientific organizations state that there is no evidence one can voluntarily decide sexual orientation, all people regardless of sexuality should be able to marry the person they love and that to deny them is immoral. They also may view laws banning same-sex marriage as a violation of their religious freedom and an unfair favorship by a government of other religious groups.
Proponents claim that since marriages are conducted by the power invested in the celebrant by the state, under the principles of
religious pluralism and the
separation of church and state, religious arguments should not be used to constitute the law.
Social arguments
Those who advocate that marriage should be defined exclusively as the union of one man and one woman argue that only a heterosexual union can provide the procreative foundation of the family unit that they see as the chief social building block of civilization. They argue that the definition proposed by same-sex marriage advocates changes the social importance of marriage from reproducing to a legality, and may refer to themselves as "defenders" of traditional marriage. As any customary relationship may be considered "marriage", some argue that this then leads to undue legislative burden and an affront to the social value and responsibility of parenting one's own children.
The dissent by Justice Martha Sosman in the decision of the Massachusetts high court[
13] that mandated gay marriage for that state makes a societal argument without specifying the harm that would occur from this change. Asserting the
a priori importance of marriage as an institution, she questions whether the burden of proof that this would be harmless has been met. Her analysis can be seen as an example of
Precautionary Principle.
A common objection to same-sex marriage is to hold that the purpose of marriage is a procreative partnership and that the same-sex partnership is inherently sterile. Some who hold this view see marriage as the social codification of an evolved long-term mating strategy, with economic and legal benefits to facilitate family growth and stability.Others argue that because the law does not prohibit marriage between sterile heterosexual couples, or to women past
menopause, the procreation argument cannot reasonably be used against same-sex marriage, particularly since technological advances allow gay couples to have their own related biological children. [
14].
Another view is that all marriages should thus be lowered to "
civil unions". These civil unions would then only receive the
benefits of marriage which do not require expenditures from the government (e.g. tax breaks), and any monetary benefits would only be awarded based on the number of children living in a household.
Some same-sex marriage proponents, such as
Andrew Sullivan, argue that same-sex marriage is moral enough to support the family-centered role marriage plays in society despite the absence of biological children. Also that the institution of marriage would be strengthened by making it available to more people, and argue further that same-sex marriage would encourage gays and lesbians to settle down with one partner and raise families. Others argue that marriage no longer retains a procreative function of the government since many governments offer child tax-credits and assistance regardless of marital status.
Some
libertarians object to same-sex marriage because they are opposed to any form of state-sanctioned marriage, including opposite-sex unions. They are not necessarily opposed to the idea of a same-sex wedding itself, only that the government should not have any role in the event, nor for that matter should government approval be sought for opposite-sex marriages. See
Libertarian perspectives on gay rights.Arguments about tradition
Proponents of same-sex marriage point out that "traditional" concepts of marriage in actuality have already undergone
significant change. Polygamy has been abolished, married women are no longer considered the property of their husbands,
divorce is legal,
contraception within wedlock is allowed, and
anti-miscegenation laws forbidding
interracial marriage have been eliminated in most modern societies. The fact that changes in the customs and protocols of marriage often occur gives rise to the argument that marriage is dynamic, and same-sex marriage is only the latest evolution of the institution.
Arguments about legal rationality
Some opponents (including
Senator Rick Santorum) also claim that allowing same-sex marriage will blur other common law precedents and lead to the legalization of a variety of "non-traditional" relationships including:
*
incestuous marriages: The counter-argument is that allowing same-sex couples to marry does not alter the restriction on consanguinous relationships.
*
marriages of convenience for tax or other reasons: The counter-argument is that these are already legal between people of the opposite sex.
*
marriages between humans and animals. Non-human animals, however, do not have the legal standing to consent into a marriage contract. This argument is not taken seriously by most commentators, and may often be considered insulting in that it compares non-heterosexual humans to animals.
*
Polygamy. The gist of this argument is that the traditional definition of marriage involves two components, a commitment to one person of the opposite sex, and that changing one of these components (restricting it to members of opposite sexes) would necessarily lead to a change in the other component (restricting it to only one person).
The counter-argument is that allowing same-sex couples to marry does not necessarily change the restriction on the number of people who may contract a marriage. Furthermore, because of the reciprocal nature of many spousal rights and responsibilities, it would not be possible to give three-person groups identical rights and responsibilities as two-person groups. For example, if a government gives medical coverage to spouses of service members, then a service member with thirty spouses would either receive benefits far more valuable than one with only one spouse would, or not all that service member's spouses would receive coverage. Thus, polygamy could present far different legal ramifications.
However, some point out that the argument for gay marriage itself is not a matter of financial benefit. Were this the case, the gay community would only need to advocate civil union, which has identical financial and/or legal beneifits. However, if the argument for gay marriage concerns a civil right for a consenting adult "couple" to marry, then it is difficult to maintain that this argument does not apply to any consenting adult "group" or, for that matter, to consenting brothers or sisters. Some advocates of gay marriage accept that, if gay marriage is allowed on grounds of civil rights, there are no logical grounds to deny polygamous or other alternative marriage among consenting adults. Libetarian tend to argue that, ultimately, the state sanction of particular type(s) of relationship is discriminatory one way or another. Therefore, the state should either sanction any type of relationship which consenting adults wish to engage in, which could be seen as making the exercise pointless, or end the practice all together, leaving the matter of marriage to the citizen and private civil organisation including religious ones.
Supporters of same-sex marriage state that, in the jurisdictions that have afforded legal recognition of same-sex unions, the dire consequences foretold by opponents have not come to pass. (In
the Netherlands, the government has not intervened in a cohabitation contract between a man and two bisexual women because it is not akin a legal marriage, but a contract between consenting individuals.)
Arguments concerning children
Some object on the grounds that same-sex couples should not be allowed to adopt or raise children or to have access to reproductive technologies, and that same-sex marriage would make such adoptions easier. A number of health and child welfare organizations, however, disagree. They include the Child Welfare League of America, North American Council on Adoptable Children,
American Academy of Pediatrics,
American Psychiatric Association,
American Psychological Association, and the
National Association of Social Workers.
On July 28, 2004, the
American Psychological Association's Council of Representatives adopted a resolution supporting legalization of same-sex civil marriages and opposes discrimination against lesbian and gay parents.
Arguments concerning equality
In the
United States, there are at least 1,138 federal laws "in which marital status is a factor" (
United States General Accounting Office). See
Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States for a partial list. A denial of rights or benefits without substantive
due process, assert the proponents of same-sex marriage, directly contradicts the
14th Amendment of the US Constitution which provides for
equal protection of all citizens.
In a 2003 case titled
Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court held that the
right to private consensual sexual conduct was protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. (The court noted "moral disapproval does not constitute a legitimate governmental interest under the Equal Protection Clause.") Both supporters and detractors of same-sex marriage have noted that this ruling paved the way for subsequent decisions invalidating state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Antonin Scalia noted as such in his dissenting opinion to
Lawrence.
Some opponents of extending marriage to same-sex couples claim that equality can be achieved with
civil unions or other forms of legal recognition that don't go as far as to use the word "marriage" that's used for opposite-sex couples. An opposing argument, used by the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, is the following:
"the dissimilitude between the terms "civil marriage" and "civil union" is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status" and also that
"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."Some proponents of same-sex marriage make a comparison between
racial segregation and segregation of homosexual and heterosexual marriage classifications in civil law. They argue that dividing the concept of same-sex marriage and different-sex marriage is tantamount to "
separate but equal" policies (like that overturned in the US Supreme Court case
Brown v. Board of Education), or
anti-miscegenation laws that were also overturned.
One fundamental problem for any law banning same-sex marriage is defining the terms "man" and "woman". If defined genetically, both transsexuals and intersexed individuals would be prohibited from marrying partners of the "opposite" sex and therefore from heterosexual marriage. Just as recent same-sex marriages have been quickly overturned as null and void, so too could extant, long term marriages. More than one in one hundred newborns are to some degree physically aberrant from their genetic sex, with most of them undergoing some degree of surgical alteration. In the United Kingdom, recent legislation allows transsexual persons to be officially recognized in their new gender, but this has the effect of annulling any previous marriage. However the couple will now be able to register a civil partnership, to come into force immediately on the dissolution of their marriage.
Many countries, including the
United States and
Canada, have historically had
anti-miscegenation laws in place to prevent
interracial marriages. These laws are now considered a direct infringement upon the
civil rights of interracial couples and the last such law in the United States was struck down in 1967 (
Loving v. Virginia). A key argument in support of same-sex marriage is that laws banning same-sex marriage are highly analogous to laws banning interracial marriage; a ban on same-sex marriage can therefore be seen as a form of discrimination infringing upon the civil rights of same-sex couples
. In response, opponents of same-sex marriage argue that men and women are fundamentally different from one another, whereas interracial couples still fit within the "one man and one woman" definition of marriage
. They also point out that the United States Supreme Court specifically distingushed Loving as not being applicable in the same-sex marriage debate, in its summary affirmance in
Baker v. Nelson.
The
etiquette of addressing same-sex couples is often questioned. Some people with friends who are in a same-sex marriage are unsure as to how to address them, since in English and other languages, married people may use a different form of address from single ones.
Etiquette writer
Judith Martin (
Miss Manners) counsels that where the spouses have taken one name, they may be addressed as
The Messrs. John and Richard Doe or
Mmes. Alice and Carol Roe; otherwise, they may be addressed individually, as is done for other married couples with different surnames.
*
Blessing of same-sex unions*
Adoption by same-sex couples*
Marriage rights and obligations*
Marriage, unions and partnerships by country*
Religion and sexual orientation*
Same-sex marriage*
Timeline of same-sex marriage*
*
Same-sex Marriage at
Wikia*
Photos from San Francisco City Hall at Shooter.net
