Jump to content

Same-sex marriage: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
ClueBot (talk | contribs)
1,596,818 edits
m Reverting possible vandalism by 205.201.197.148 to version by Dawn Bard. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot. (686910) (Bot)
←Replaced content with ' '''Same-sex marriage''' and '''gay marriage''' are terrible sinns.'
Tag: blanking
Line 1: Line 1:
{{SSM}}


'''Same-sex marriage''' and '''gay marriage''' are terms for a [[Law|legally]] or [[social]]ly recognized [[marriage]] between two people of the same gender.
'''Same-sex marriage''' and '''gay marriage''' are terrible sinns.

The first country to allow same-sex couples to enter into legally recognized marriage was the [[Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands|Netherlands]], effective in 2001. Since then, six other countries and five [[United States|U.S.]] states have followed suit, though California later revoked the right and has it under judicial review. Proponents of same-sex marriage regard it as a [[Human rights|human right]] to be able to enter into marriage regardless of [[sexual orientation]]. Those who oppose same-sex marriage often base their opposition on the perceived societal impact of same-sex marriage, concerns about indirect consequences of same-sex marriage, parenting concerns, tradition, or religious grounds. Same-sex couples can be [[civil union|civilly united]], but not married, in 16 countries and specific jurisdictions within 5 others. Additionally, [[Israel]] and [[France]], along with the state of [[New York]], recognize legal same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions but do not perform their own. Political and legal debate continues in over two dozen other countries and multiple U.S. states.

==Debates over terminology==
Some proponents of same-sex marriage use the term "equal marriage" to stress that they seek equality as opposed to special rights.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/
|title=Equal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples
|publisher=Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell
}}</ref> Some opponents argue that equating same-sex and opposite-sex marriage changes the meaning of marriage and its traditions.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/MarriageSacred.htm
|title=Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Marriage is a Sacred Religious Sacrament
|publisher=About.com
|author=[[Austin Cline]]
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref>
[[Alan Dershowitz]] and others have suggested reserving the word "marriage" for religious contexts as part of [[privatizing marriage]], and in civil and legal contexts using a uniform concept of [[civil unions]], in part to strengthen the separation between church and state.<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://www.rossde.com/editorials/Dershowitz_marriage.html
|title=Government Should Quit the Marriage Business
|publisher=Los Angeles Times
|author=Dershowitz, Alan M.
|date=2003-12-03
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref> In the United States, conservative critics claim that the conflation of marriage with contractual agreements is itself a threat to marriage.<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/morse200405200926.asp
|title=''Not'' a Social Contract
|publisher=National Review
|author=Morse, Jennifer Roback
|date=2004-05-20
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref>

===Use of scare quotes in print and online media===
Some publications that oppose same-sex marriage adopt an editorial style policy of placing the word ''marriage'' in [[scare quotes]] ("marriage") when it is used in reference to same-sex couples. In the United States, the mainstream press has generally abandoned this practice.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2008/02/25/washington-times-scare-quotes-are-history/|title=Washington Times Scare Quotes Are History|publisher=Washington City Paper|author=Erik Wemple|date=2008-02-25|accessdate=2008-07-28}}</ref> Some online publications, such as [[WorldNetDaily]] and [[Baptist Press]], still follow the practice. [[Cliff Kincaid]] argues for use of scare quotes on the grounds that marriage is a legal status denied same-sex couples by most state governments.<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/honest-versus-slanted-journalism/
|title=Honest Versus Slanted Journalism
|publisher=Accuracy In Media
|author=Kincaid, Cliff
|date=2004-02-26
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref> Same-sex marriage supporters argue that the use of [[scare quotes]] is an editorialization that implies illegitimacy.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/05/21/washington-times-dismisses-gay-marriages.htm
|title=Washington Times Dismisses Gay “Marriages”
|publisher=About.com
|author=Austin Cline
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref>

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

==History==
{{main|History of same-sex unions|History of human sexuality|Timeline of same-sex marriage|Homosexuality in China|Homosexuality in Japan|Homosexuality in ancient Rome|Homosexuality in ancient Greece|Historical pederastic couples}}

Although state-recognized same-sex marriage is a relatively new phenomenon in Western society, there is a long history of same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.

In the southern [[China|Chinese]] province of [[Fujian]], through the [[Ming dynasty]] period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies. Males also entered similar arrangements.<ref>{{cite web
|last=T.
|first=L.
|title=Same sex marriage in the non-European world
|publisher=Color Q World
|url=http://www.colorq.org/Articles/2004/ssmarriage.htm
|accessdate=2007-01-21}}
</ref> In [[Japan]], [[Shudo]] (衆道 shudō), the Japanese tradition of age-structured homosexuality was prevalent in samurai society from the medieval period until the end of the 19th century. Shudo is analogous to the ancient Greek tradition of pederasty ([[paiderastia]]). A law in the [[Theodosian Code]] (''C. Th.'' 9.7.3) issued in 342 CE prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome, but the exact intent of the law and its relation to social practice is unclear, as only a few examples of same-sex marriage in that culture exist.<ref>{{cite journal
|last=Kuefler
|first=Mathew
|year=2007
|title=The Marriage Revolution in Late Antiquity: The Theodosian Code and Later Roman Marriage Law
|journal=Journal of Family History
|volume=32
|pages=343-370
|url=http://jfh.sagepub.com/cgi/content/short/32/4/343
}}</ref> [[Suetonius]] mentioned (in the context of Nero's vices) that Nero married a slave boy, and also a male friend; [[Martial]] also mentions same sex marriages taking place.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Nero*.html#28
|accessdate=2008-12-31
|title=Suetonius ''Life of Nero'' 28-29}}
</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/martial_epigrams_book01.htm#C24
|accessdate=2008-12-31
|title=Martial ''Epigrams'' 1.24, 12.42; etc.}}
</ref>

==Current status==
{{Refimprovesect|date=December 2008}}
{{globalize|section}}
{{main|Status of same-sex marriage}}
[[Image:Same sex marriage map Europe detailed.svg|thumb|'''Status of same-sex partnerships in Europe.''' {{legend|#000080|Same-sex marriage recognized}} {{legend|#0066FF|Other type of partnership recognized}} {{legend|#AACCFF|Unregistered cohabitation recognized}}
{{legend|#FFD42A|Issue under political consideration}}
{{legend|#cccccc|Unrecognized or unknown}}
{{legend|#D40000|Same-sex marriage banned|}}]]

[[Image:Samesex marriage in USA.svg|right|thumb|'''Status of same-sex partnerships in the United States''' {{legend|#a9218e|Same-sex marriages}}
{{legend|#605ca8|Unions granting rights similar to marriage}}
{{legend|#00a651|Unions granting limited/enumerated rights}}
{{legend|#00b7f1|Foreign same-sex marriages recognized}}
{{legend|#cccccc|No specific prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriages or unions}}
{{legend|#ffff00|Statute bans same-sex marriage}}
{{legend|#ff7f00|Constitution bans same-sex marriage}}
{{legend|#ed1e24|Constitution bans same-sex marriage ''and'' other kinds of same-sex unions}}]]

The [[Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands|Netherlands]] was the first modern nation to legalize same-sex marriage in 2001. Same-sex marriages are also legal in [[Same-sex marriage in Belgium|Belgium]] (2003),<ref> [http://www.senaat.be/www/?MIval=/dossier&LEG=2&NR=1173&LANG=nl Legislative record of the same-sex marriage bill in Dutch] and [http://www.senaat.be/www/?MIval=/dossier&LEG=2&NR=1173&LANG=fr in French], by the Belgian Senate.</ref> [[Same-sex marriage in Spain|Spain]] (2005), [[Same-sex marriage in Canada|Canada]] (2005), [[Same-sex marriage in South Africa|South Africa]] (2006), [[Recognition of same-sex unions in Norway|Norway]] (2009) and [[Same-sex marriage in Sweden|Sweden]] (2009). In [[Same-sex marriage in Nepal|Nepal]], their authorization has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.<ref>[http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=NLetter&id=7c190914-f498-427c-ad0b-97559a3aae71&Headline=Nepal+SC+approves+same-sex+marriage "Hindustan Times" (a news outlet in India) Article dated November 19, 2008]</ref> In the [[United States]], same-sex couples can marry in [[Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts|Massachusetts]], [[Same-sex marriage in Connecticut|Connecticut]], and [[Same-sex marriage in Iowa|Iowa]]; same-sex couples will be able to marry in [[Same-sex marriage in Vermont|Vermont]] starting September 1, 2009. Vermont was the first U. S. state to enact same-sex marriage by legislation<ref>[http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090403/NEWS/90403010/-1/LIFE04 Iowa Supreme Court upholds Hanson's ruling; marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman]</ref><ref>http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090407/NEWS03/90407016</ref>, but their unions are not recognized federally. From June 2008 until November 2008, [[California]] also authorized same-sex marriages, until voters enacted [[California Proposition 8 (2008)|Proposition 8]], which banned same-sex marriage.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,1545381.story LA Times article dated November 5,2008]</ref>

In 1996, [[Congress of the United States|the United States Congress]] passed the [[Defense of Marriage Act]] (DOMA) defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman amongst other stipulations.<ref>[http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/7.html US CODE: Title 1,7. Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”]</ref> As of November 2008, twenty-nine states had passed constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, nineteen of which prohibit the legal recognition of ''any'' same-sex union.<ref>[http://www.hrc.org/issues/marriage/marriage_laws.asp Human Rights Campaign: State Laws]</ref> Eighteen additional states, and the territory of [[Puerto Rico]] have legal statutes that define "marriage" as a union of two persons of the opposite-sex.<ref>See webpage of the National Conference of State Legislatures at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/samesex.htm</ref> President [[Barack Obama]]'s [[political platform]] includes full repeal of the DOMA.<ref>[http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf Barack Obama on LBGT Rights]</ref>

The U.S. states of [[Civil unions in New Jersey|New Jersey]]<ref>[http://www.hrc.org/issues/1548.htm HRC: LGBT Laws of NJ]</ref> and [[Civil unions in New Hampshire|New Hampshire]]<ref>[http://www.hrc.org/issues/1329.htm HRC: LGBT Laws of NH]</ref> offer civil unions with all state-level rights and responsibilities of marriage. Also, [[Domestic partnership in Oregon|Oregon]]<ref>[http://www.hrc.org/issues/1463.htm HRC: LGBT Laws of Oregon]</ref>, [[Domestic partnership in District of Columbia|the District of Columbia]]<ref>[http://www.hrc.org/issues/836.htm HRC: LGBT Laws of DC]</ref> and [[Domestic partnership in Washington|Washington]]<ref>[http://www.hrc.org/issues/1164.htm HRC: LGBT Laws of Washington]</ref> have domestic partnership laws that grant ''most'' of the state-level rights and responsibilities of marriage. [[Domestic partnership in Maine|Maine]]<ref>[http://www.hrc.org/issues/882.htm HRC: LGBT Laws of Maine]</ref>, [[Colorado]] and [[Same-sex marriage in Maryland#Domestic partnership legislation|Maryland]]<ref>[http://www.hrc.org/issues/904.htm HRC: LGBT Laws of Maryland]</ref> grant certain ''limited'' state-level rights and responsibilities of marriage through domestic partnerships, and [[Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationships in Hawaii|Hawaii]]<ref>[http://www.hrc.org/issues/898.htm HRC: LGBT Laws of Hawaii]</ref> has reciprocal beneficiary laws, which also has a few certain, limited, state-level rights and responsibilities of marriage.

At the federal level, Australia bans recognition of same-sex marriage, but the current [[Australian Labor Party]] government favors synchronized state and territory [[registered partnership]] legislation (as in [[Tasmania]] and [[Victoria]]). The [[Australian Capital Territory]] has [[civil unions]] with no official ceremonies.

The Canadian Parliament approved same-sex marriage by defining marriage as “between two people” in June, 2005. The Conservative Government introduced a bill proposing to repeal [[same-sex marriage in Canada]] in 2006, but it failed at its first reading in 2006, hence same sex marriage continues to be recognized throughout the nation.
<ref>[http://www.equal-marriage.ca/resource.php?id=538 Canadians for Equal Marriage News Article dates December 7, 2006]</ref>
[[New Zealand]]'s Parliament rejected a bill that would have prohibited [[same-sex marriage in New Zealand]] in December 2005. However, New Zealand's Marriage Act 1955 still only recognizes marriage rights for opposite-sex couples; New Zealand's marriage laws consider [[transsexuals]] who have undergone [[reassignment surgery]] as having changed sex for these purposes, following [[Family Court]] and [[High Court of New Zealand]] decisions in 1995).

[[File:World homosexuality laws.svg|thumb|300px|left| '''Types of partnerships recognized<br/>in countries where homosexuality is legal'''
{{legend|#002255|Same-sex marriage recognized}}
{{legend|#0066FF|Other type of partnership recognized (including unregistered cohabitation)}}
{{legend|#CCCCCC|No recognition of same-sex couples}}
{{legend|#7FBCFF|Foreign same-sex marriages recognized}}

'''Homosexuality illegal'''
{{legend|#f9dc36|Minimal penalty}} {{legend|#ec8028|Large penalty}} {{legend|#e73e21|Life in prison}} {{legend|#8c210f|Death penalty}}
]]

[[Same-sex marriage in Israel|Israel]]'s High Court of Justice ruled to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other countries, although it is still illegal to perform them within the country. A bill was raised in [[Knesset]] to rescind the Israeli High Court's ruling, but the Knesset has not advanced the bill since December 2006.

In 2006, a 30 member parliamentary commission of the [[Same-sex marriage in France|French]] National Assembly published a 453 page Report on the Family and the rights of Children, which rejected same-sex marriage. In the report, the commission says that “the child represents the future of society.” The commission asks legislators to make sure that “children, confronted with mutations in family models, be fully taken into account and not suffer from situations imposed upon them by adults.” It adds: “The interest of the child must take precedence over adults’ exercise of their freedom (…) including with regards to parents’ lifestyle choices.” <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006_docs/Francesummary.pdf|format=PDF|title=Executive summary of "Report on the Family and the Rights of Children" prepared by the French National Assembly, Paris, January 25, 2006|date=2006-01-25|accessdate=2008-10-24}}</ref>

[[Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands|The Netherlands]], [[Same-sex marriage in Belgium|Belgium]], [[Same-sex marriage in Canada|Canada]], [[Same-sex marriage in Spain|Spain]], [[Same-sex marriage in Norway|Norway]] and [[Same-sex marriage in Sweden|Sweden]] are the only countries where the legal status of same-sex marriage is exactly the same as that of opposite-sex marriage, though [[Same-sex marriage in South Africa|South Africa]] is due to fully harmonize its marriage laws. [[Nepal|Nepal's]] highest court, in November 2008, issued final judgment on matters related to LGBT rights. Based on the court recommendation the government announced its intention to introduce a same-sex marriage bill by 2010.<ref>[http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-9597.html Nepal’s highest court confirms full rights for LGBT people]</ref><ref>[http://www.ukgaynews.org.uk/Archive/08/Nov/1703.htm Tears of Joy as Nepali Gays Transgender Persons at Supreme Court Decision]</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.365gay.com/news/nepal-supreme-court-orders-full-lgbt-rights/|title=Nepal Supreme Court orders full LGBT rights}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=&id=7c190914-f498-427c-ad0b-97559a3aae71&&Headline=Nepal+SC+approves+same-sex+marriage|title=Nepal SC approves same-sex marriage}}</ref><ref>http://www.igovernment.in/site/Nepal-apex-court-okays-same-sex-marriage/</ref>

===Civil unions and partnerships===
{{Refimprovesect|date=December 2008}}
{{main|Civil union}}

The first same-sex union in modern history with government recognition was obtained in [[Denmark]] in 1989.

[[Civil union]]s, [[civil partnership]], [[domestic partnership]], unregistered partnership/unregistered co-habitation or [[registered partnership]]s offer varying amounts of the benefits of marriage and are available in: [[Andorra]], [[Australia]], [[Colombia]], [[Croatia]], [[Czech Republic]], [[Denmark]], [[Finland]], [[France]], [[Germany]], [[Hungary]], [[Iceland]], [[Israel]], [[Luxembourg]], [[New Zealand]], [[Portugal]], [[Slovenia]], [[Switzerland]], the [[United Kingdom]] and [[Uruguay]]. They are also available in '''some parts''' of [[Argentina]], [[Mexico]] (Federal District and Coahuila), the [[United States|U.S.]] states of [[California]], [[Hawaii]], [[Maine]], [[Maryland]], [[New Hampshire]], [[New Jersey]], [[Oregon]], [[Washington]], and the [[District of Columbia]] (Washington, D.C.).
[[Image:New York City Proposition 8 Protest outside LDS temple 20.jpg|thumb|The notion of [[civil unions]] is rejected by some, such as this protester at a large demonstration in New York City against [[California Proposition 8]].<ref name=Towleroad>[http://www.towleroad.com/2008/11/we-did-it.html NYC Protest and Civil Rights March Opposing Proposition 8], [[Andy Towle]], Towelroad.com, November 13, 2008; accessed November 14, 2008.</ref> U.S. Same-sex marriage movement founder [[Evan Wolfson]] does not feel civil unions are a replacement for full [[marriage equality]].<ref>[[n:en:Interview with gay marriage movement founder Evan Wolfson|Interview with Evan Wolfson]], David Shankbone, ''[[Wikinews]]'', September 30, 2007.</ref>]]
In the United Kingdom, [[civil partnerships]] were introduced in 2006. The law gives civil partners identical legal status to a marriage, and partners gain all the same benefits and associated legal rights; ranging from tax exemptions and joint property rights, to [[next-of-kin]] status and shared parenting responsibilities. Partnership ceremonies are performed by a marriage registrar in exactly the same manner as a [[secular]] [[civil marriage]]. In the first year 16,100 ceremonies took place.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/03/gayrights.world Honeymoon is over for gay weddings]</ref>
[[Civil unions in New Zealand]] are identical to British civil partnerships in their association with equivalent spousal rights and responsibilities to full-fledged opposite-sex marriage.

In [[Australia]], Commonwealth law prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriage. However, all states and territories provide a range of rights to same-sex cohabiting couples, equal to those afforded to heterosexual ''de facto'' couples. These rights are gained without registration. Furthermore, formal domestic partnership registries exist in [[Tasmania]], [[Victoria (Australia)|Victoria]] and the [[Australian Capital Territory]]. Since November 2008, same-sex couples are recognized as ''de facto'' partners in a wide range of Commonwealth legislation, including superannuation, social security, health care and taxation.<ref>[http://www.theage.com.au/national/sweeping-gay-law-reform-finally-passes-20081127-6jgd.html Sweeping gay law reform finally passes]</ref> In 2007, Grace Abrams and Fiona Power became Australia's first legally recognized same sex married couple after Grace Abrams had gender modification surgery and was later officially granted a passport with female status.<ref>[http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/16/2060485.htm Limited govt equals freedom for same-sex couples]</ref>

A [[registered partnership]] in [[Scandinavia]] is nearly equal to marriage, including legal adoption rights in Sweden, Norway and Iceland. These partnership laws are short laws that state that wherever the word "marriage" appears in the country's law will now also be construed to mean "registered partnership" and wherever the word "spouse" appears will now also be construed to mean "registered partner" - thereby transferring the body of marriage laws onto same-sex couples in registered partnerships.

In some countries with legal recognition the actual benefits are minimal. Many people consider civil unions, even those which grant equal rights, inadequate, as they create a separate status, and think they should be replaced by gender-neutral marriage.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-bohrer/nj-civil-unions-nothing-_b_36351.html
|title=NJ Civil Unions: Nothing to Celebrate
|publisher=The Huffington Post
|author=John R. Bohrer
|date=2006-12-14
|accessdate=
}}</ref>

===International organizations===
{{Refimprovesect|date=December 2008}}
The terms of employment of the staff of [[international organizations]] (not businesses) are not, in most cases, governed by the laws of the country in which their offices are located. Agreements with the host country safeguard these organizations' impartiality with regard to the host and member countries. [[Recruitment|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 the [[NATO]] civilian secretariat in Brussels unless he or she is a citizen of a NATO member state.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.nato.int/structur/recruit/info.htm
|title=NATO Recruitment service
|publisher=NATO
|date=2006-12-07
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref> The [[World Health Organization]] has recently banned the recruitment of cigarette smokers.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.who.int/employment/recruitment/en/
|title=What are we looking for?
|publisher=World Health Organization
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref> Agencies of the [[United Nations]] coordinate some human resource policies amongst themselves.

Despite their relative independence, few organizations currently recognize same-sex partnerships without condition. The [[Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development]] (OECD) and the agencies of the [[United Nations]] voluntarily [[discriminate]] between opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages, as well as discriminating between employees on the basis of nationality. These organizations recognize same-sex marriages only if the country of citizenship of the employees in question recognizes the marriage. In some cases, these organizations do offer a limited selection of the benefits normally provided to opposite-sex married couples to de facto partners or [[domestic partner]]s of their staff, but even individuals who have entered into an opposite-sex [[civil union]] in their home country are not guaranteed full recognition of this union in all organizations. However, the [[World Bank]] does recognize domestic partners.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTHRJOBS/0,,contentMDK:20522360~menuPK:1353209~pagePK:64262408~piPK:64262191~theSitePK:1058433,00.html
|title=Jobs - Compensation & Benefits
|publisher=The World Bank Group
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref>

===Transgender and intersex persons===
{{Refimprovesect|date=December 2008}}
{{main|Legal aspects of transsexualism}}

When sex is defined legally, it may be defined by any one of several criteria: the [[XY sex-determination system]], the type of [[gonad]]s, or the type of external sexual features. Consequently, both [[transsexual]]s and [[intersex]]ed individuals may be legally categorized into confusing gray areas, and could be prohibited from marrying partners of the "opposite" sex or permitted to marry partners of the "same" sex due to arbitrary legal distinctions. This could result in long-term marriages, as well as recent same-sex marriages, being overturned.

The problems of defining gender by the existence/non-existence of gonads or certain sexual features is complicated by the existence of [[Gender Reassignment Surgery|surgical methods]] to alter these features. These complications are probably more likely than one would think at first glance; according to the highest estimates (Fausto-Sterling et al., 2000) perhaps 1 percent of live [[childbirth|birth]]s exhibit some degree of sexual ambiguity, and between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births are ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention, including sometimes involuntary [[surgery]] to address their sexual ambiguity.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency
|title=How common is intersex?
|publisher=Intersex Society of North America
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref>

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

In the United Kingdom, recent legislation (Gender Recognition Act 2004) allows a person who has lived in their chosen gender for at least two years to receive a gender recognition certificate officially recognizing their new gender. Because in the UK marriage is for mixed-sex couples and civil partnership is for same-sex couples, a person must dissolve his/her marriage or civil partnership before obtaining a gender recognition certificate. Such persons are then free to enter or re-enter civil partnerships or marriages in accordance with their newly recognized gender identity.

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

{{wikinews|Interview with gay marriage movement founder Evan Wolfson}}

==Controversy==

While few societies have recognized same-sex unions as marriage, the [[History of same-sex unions|historical and anthropological record]] reveals a large range of attitudes towards same-sex unions ranging from sympathetic toleration to indifference to prohibition. Organizations opposed to same-sex marriage have argued that same-sex marriages are not marriages,<ref name="savemarriageny1">http://www.savemarriageny.org/The%20Case%20Against%20Same-Sex%20Marriage%20and%20Civil%20Unions.pdf</ref> that legalization of same-sex marriage will open the door for the legalization of polygamy,<ref>http://www.nationformarriage.org/atf/cf/%7B39D8B5C1-F9FE-48C0-ABE6-1029BA77854C%7D/CatholicEnglish.pdf</ref> that legalization of same-sex marriage would erode religious freedoms,<ref name=BannedInBoston>[http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp Banned in Boston]</ref> and that same-sex marriage deprives children of either a mother or a father.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-blankenhorn19-2008sep19,0,2093869.story Protecting marriage to protect children - Los Angeles Times<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> Other advocates of traditional marriage hold that same-sex marriage is unnatural<ref>{{cite web|url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE0DE1731F937A35753C1A964958260|title=Anti-Gay Backlashes Are on 3 States' Ballots|date=1992-10-04|accessdate=2008-06-06|publisher=The New York Times}}</ref> and that it encourages unhealthy behavior.<ref>[http://www.balancedpolitics.org/same_sex_marriages.htm BalancedPolitics.org - Same Sex Marriages (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against)]</ref>

Some opponents of same-sex marriage also argue that the alleged historical precedence of the definition of marriage - the traditional understanding - justifies the need to protect it from the changes sought by advocates of same-sex marriage.<ref>Bill Bennett. "In Defense of Traditional Marriage." ''Newsweek''(6-3-96). Qtd. in [http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/bulletin01/06.html].</ref> Other opponents contend that the legalization of same-sex marriage, by altering the traditional definition of marriage, would harm families and society as a whole.<ref name=DMD>
{{cite web
|last=Brownback
|first=Sam
|title=Defining Marriage Down - We need to protect marriage.
|publisher=[[National Review]]
|date=July 9, 2004
|url=http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/brownback200407090921.asp}}
</ref>

Some supporters of same-sex marriage take the view that the government should have no role in regulating personal relationships,<ref name="findlaw1">See discussion of prenuptial and postmarital agreements at Findlaw [http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/marriage-agreements/]</ref> while others argue that same-sex marriage would provide social benefits to same-sex couples.<ref name="indegayforum1">Professor Dale Carpenter is a prominent spokesman for this view. For a better understanding of this view, see Professor Carpenter's writings at http://www.indegayforum.org/staff/show/91.html.</ref> A 2004 Statement by the [[American Anthropological Association]] states that there is no evidence that society needs to maintain "marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution", and, further, that same-sex unions can "contribute to stable and humane societies."<ref>[http://www.aaanet.org/press/ma_stmt_marriage.htm Statement on Marriage and the Family from the American Anthropological Association]</ref> Gay activist [[Jonathan Rauch]] has argued that marriage is good for all men, whether homosexual or heterosexual, because engaging in its social roles reduces men's aggression and promiscuity.<ref>Rauch, Jonathan. "For Better or Worse?" The case for gay (and straight) marriage. ''The New Republic'', May 6, 1996. [http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/gay_marriage_1_the_case_for_marriage/]</ref><ref>Rauch, Jonathan (2004). ''Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America.'' New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, LLC.[http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805078150/independegayforu]</ref> After reviewing current psychological and other social science studies on same-sex marriage in comparison to heterosexual marriage, [[Gregory M. Herek]] claims that the data <ref>Herek, Gregory M. "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: A social science perspective." ''American Psychologist,'' Vol 61(6), Sep 2006, 607-621.</ref> indicate that same-sex and heterosexual relationships do not differ in their essential psychosocial dimensions; that a parent's sexual orientation is unrelated to her or his ability to provide a healthy and nurturing family environment; and that marriage bestows substantial psychological, social, and health benefits. Herek concludes that same-sex couples and their children are likely to benefit in numerous ways from legal recognition of their families, and providing such recognition through marriage will bestow greater benefit than civil unions or domestic partnerships.<ref>Herek, Gregory M. "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: A social science perspective." ''American Psychologist,'' Vol 61(6), Sep 2006, 607-621.</ref>

The debate regarding same-sex marriage includes debate based upon social viewpoints as well as debate based on majority rules (or will of the people), religious convictions, economic arguments, health-related concerns, and a variety of other issues.

===Majority Rules===
A "majority rules" position is that same-sex marriage should only be deemed a right if it is accepted by a majority of voters through a general election ballot.<ref>
"[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/12/03/state/n220022S18.DTL&hw=same+sex+marriage+proposition&sn=011&sc=464 Poll: Calif. gay marriage ban driven by religion.]" By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer. Thursday, December 4, 2008.</ref> A civil-rights view, in contrast, holds that the judiciary should decide on the legality of same-sex marriage.<ref>
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7723645.stm "Divisions persist over gay marriage ban"] By Rajesh Mirchandani, BBC News, Los Angeles. Wednesday, 12 November 2008.</ref>

In May 2008 the California Supreme Court found the state's opposite-sex definition of marriage to be unconstitutional, reasoning that certain fundamental rights should be placed "beyond the reach" of popular votes and elected officials.<ref>IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA: [[In re Marriage Cases|In re MARRIAGE CASES]]. May 15, 2008. Pages 113-116. Ct. App. 1/3 Nos. A110449, A110450, A110451, A110463, [Six consolidated appeals.]1 ) A110651, A110652, San Francisco County, JCCP No. 4365</ref> The court's decision was later overturned in part by the passage of [[Proposition 8]] in November 2008; however, the proposition's constitutionality is under judicial review, as of December 2008. California's Attorney General, Jerry Brown, has urged the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8 as unconstitutional due to the "fundamental liberty interest" cited in the California Constitution.<ref>Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/19/BA6514RNVU.DTL "Brown asks state high court to overturn Prop. 8"] in ''The San Francisco Chronicle.'' Friday, December 19, 2008. </ref><ref>Lisa Leff, Associated Press Writer. [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/12/19/state/n150241S64.DTL "Jerry Brown urges court to void Prop. 8"] in ''The Associated Press.'' Friday, December 19, 2008. </ref>

===Religious arguments===
{{main|Religious arguments about same-sex marriage}}

Arguments both in opposition to and in favor of same-sex marriage are often made on religious grounds and/or formulated in terms of religious doctrine.

Many objections to same-sex marriage are based upon [[homosexuality and religion|religious grounds]]. Religious opponents of same-sex marriage sometimes claim that extending marriage rights to same-sex couples could undercut the conventional purpose of marriage, or would be contrary to God's will.<ref>See e.g., Southern Baptist Convention, ''On Same-Sex Marriage'' (adopted 2003) http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1128 (visited January 20, 2008).</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/robertson.html|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20021219203548/http://hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/robertson.html|archivedate=2002-12-19|title=The Religious Right and Anti-Gay Speech: Messengers of Love or Purveyors of Hate?|publisher=Matthew Shepard Online Resources}}</ref><ref name=autogenerated1>http://www.apacny.net/The%20Christian%20Case%20Against%20Same-Sex%20Marriage.pdf</ref> Some religious advocates of "traditional marriage" contend that to call same-sex relationships "marriages" is a [[misnomer]], because marriage necessarily involves the uniting of two members of the opposite sex.<ref>http://www.nogaymarriage.com/gaymarriagequestions.html</ref><ref>http://www.apacny.net/APACBiblicalPerspectiveSSMCU.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.caucusforamerica.com/print.php?pID=41</ref> Other religious opponents argue that same-sex marriage would encourage individuals to act upon homosexual urges, rather than seeking help to overcome [[same-sex attraction]].<ref name=autogenerated1 />
Within the [[Judeo-Christian]] tradition, religious objections to same-sex marriage are often based upon [[Bible|biblical]] passages at [[Genesis]] 19:5 [[Leviticus]] 18:22, and [[Leviticus]] 20:13. Within the [[Christian]] tradition, such objections are often based on [[Epistle to the Romans|Romans]] 1, [[I Corinthians]] 6:8-10, and [[Jude]] 1:7. Religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage include the [[Church of God in Christ]],<ref>[http://www.cogic.org/ Church Of God In Christ, Inc]</ref>, [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage|title=The Divine Institution of Marriage|accessdate=2008-09-23}}</ref> the [[Conservative Congregational Christian Conference]],<ref>[http://www.gender-news.com/article.php?id=31 gender-news.com<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> the [[Conservative Mennonite Conference]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://cmcrosedale.org/about/homosexuality.shtml|title=CMC Statement on Homosexuality|publisher=Conservative Mennonite Conference|accessdate=2006-07-05}}</ref>, the
[[Convocation of Anglicans in North America]], the
[[Hutterite|Hutterite Brethren]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/02/17/hutterite-050217.html|title=Hutterites take rare political stand against gay marriage|publisher=CBC News|date=[[2005-02-18]]|accessdate=2006-07-05}}</ref> the [[Orthodox Church in America]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?SID=12&ID=26|title=On Marriage, Family, Sexuality, and the Sanctity of Life|publisher=Orthodox Church in America|accessdate=2006-07-05}}</ref> the [[Seventh-day Adventist Church]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_sda.htm|title=The Seventh-Day Adventist Church and Homosexuality}}</ref> the [[Roman Catholic Church]], the [[Southern Baptist Convention]],<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/06/15/national1654EDT0681.DTL Article Not Found!<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> and the
[[Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America]] (OU).<ref name="orthjew">''[http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=100556 Same-Sex Marriage]''</ref>

Some [[Liberal Christianity|liberal Christians]] such as the [[Metropolitan Community Church]], the United Church of Christ and progressive congregations within the mainline denominations believe that biblical texts refer only to specific sex acts and idolatrous worship lacking relevance to contemporary same-sex relationships.<ref>{{cite paper
|url=http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Sexuality_Spirituality&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=629#Part2
|title=Homosexuality: Not A Sin, Not A Sickness – What The Bible Does and Does Not Say
|publisher=Metropolitan Community Church
|author=Rev. Elder Don Eastman
|year=1990
|accessdate=2008-11-23
}}
</ref> Some Christians support religious and legal recognition of same-sex marriage based on a moral commitment to equality, or a belief that "human sexual orientations, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are a gift from God."<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.united-church.ca/humanrights/equal/chronology
|title=Equality Rights
|publisher=United Church of Canada
|year=2007
|accessdate=2008-11-09
}}</ref> Several Christian denominations support same-sex marriage and perform same-sex weddings. The three largest are [[Unitarian Universalism|Unitarian Universalists]]<ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.uua.org/socialjustice/socialjustice/statements/14251.shtml
|title=UUA: Support of the Right to Marry for Same-Sex Couples
|publisher=www.uua.org
|accessdate=2009-04-07
|last=
|first=
}}
</ref>, the [[United Church of Canada]] and the [[United Church of Christ]] (UCC).{{Fact|date=January 2009}}

Judaism, like Christianity, reflects differing views between conservative and liberal adherents. [[Orthodox Judaism]] maintains the traditional Jewish bans on both sexual acts and marriage amongst members of the same sex. Orthodox Judaism also refuses to marry even opposite-sex interfaith couples, as in its view a Jew cannot marry a non-Jew.<ref> Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, Orthodox Response to Same-Sex Marriage, NY Jewish Week (Mar. 26, 2004) http://www.ou.org/public_affairs/article/ou_resp_same_sex_marriage/ (visited January 20, 2008); Rabbinical Council of America, Joining with Three Other Orthodox Organizations, RCA Opposes Redefinition of Marriage in New York State (June 21, 2007) http://www.rabbis.org/news/index.cfm?type=policies (visited January 20, 2008).</ref> Some [[Conservative Judaism|Conservative Jews]] reject recognition of same-sex unions as marriage, but permit celebration of commitment ceremonies, while others recognize same-sex marriage.<ref>Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, Homosexuality, Human Dignity, & Halakhah: A Combined Responsum for the [[Committee on Jewish Law and Standards]] (approved by a majority of the Committee on Dec. 6, 2006) at http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/docs/Dorff_Nevins_Reisner_Final.pdf (visited January 20, 2008)</ref> Members of [[Reform Judaism]] support the inclusion of same-sex unions within the definition of marriage.<ref>Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Civil Marriage for Gay and Lesbian Jewish Couples (adopted by the General Assembly 1997) http://urj.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=7214&pge_prg_id=29601&pge_id=4590 (visited January 20, 2008).</ref> The [[Reconstructionist Judaism|Jewish Reconstructionist Federation]] leaves the choice to individual rabbis.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.jrf.org/showres&rid=487
|title=FAQ's on Reconstructionist Approaches to Jewish ideas and Practices
|publisher=Jewish Reconstructionist Federation
|year=2008
|accessdate=2008-05-17
}}</ref>

Due to the ambivalent language about homosexuality in [[Buddhist]] teachings, there has been no official stance put forth regarding the issue of same-sex marriage.<ref>''The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: Issues. (May 20, 2008. [http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=291 ''Religious Groups' Official Positions on Same-Sex Marriage].</ref>

Some same-sex married couples have challenged religious organizations that exclude them from access to public facilities maintained by those organizations, such as schools, health care centers, social service agencies, summer camps, homeless shelters, nursing homes, orphanages, retreat houses, community centers, and athletic programs.<ref>[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340 Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story]</ref> Opponents of same-sex marriage have expressed concerns that this limits their religious freedoms.<ref name=BannedInBoston /><ref>[http://www.examiner.com/a-1324540~Roger_Severino__Legalizing_gay_marriage_will_spark_lawsuits_against_churches.html Commentary - Roger Severino: Legalizing gay marriage will spark lawsuits against churches]</ref> For example, conservatives worry that a Christian college would risk its tax-exempt status by refusing to admit a legally married gay couple to married-student housing.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/10/us/10beliefs.html?_r=2&oref=slogin Will Same-Sex Marriage Collide With Religious Liberty?]</ref> Some legal analysts suggest that religious groups that do not follow current law on religious grounds might lose their tax exemptions.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/09/AR2009040904063.html Faith Groups Increasingly Lose Gay Rights Fights]</ref>

[[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]] argue that by defining marriage as an opposite-sex institution, the state infringes upon the constitutional right to freedom of religion.<ref name=Glassman>Glassman, Anthony. (July 15, 2005). [http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories05/July/0715052.htm "Pro-Gay Marriage Amendment Focuses on Religious Freedom"] in ''The Gay People's Chronicle.''</ref><ref name=Dix>David Dix (April, 2004). [http://www.southsidepride.com/2004/04/articles/gaymarriage.html "Freedom of religion and gay marriage"] in ''Southside Pride: Phillips/Powderhorn/Nokomis/Riverside.''</ref><ref>Cline, A. [http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/MarriageSacred.htm "Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Marriage is a Sacred Religious Sacrament Gay Marriage Would Be a Sacrilege and Thus Must Be Banned?"]</ref>

===Arguments concerning children and the family===
{{main|LGBT parenting}}
{{POV-section|date=September 2008}}
Some opponents of same-sex marriage argue that a child should be raised by only a [[father]] and a [[mother]].<ref>[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0203/07/lkl.00.html Transcript of ''Larry King Live''], interview with Dr. James Dobson, March 7, 2002.</ref><ref>[http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1aba862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a ____ The Family: A Proclamation to the World]</ref> [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] argues for traditional gender roles in parenting, claiming they are foundational to parenting.<ref>[http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage The Divine Institution of Marriage]</ref> Based on research showing that, on average, children do best when raised by their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage,<ref>See e.g., Kristin Anderson Moore, et al., ''Marriage from a Child's Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children and What Can We Do About It?,''Child Trends Research Brief (June 2002)[http://www.childtrends.org/files/MarriageRB602.pdf]</ref> some argue that legal marriage is a way of encouraging monogamy and commitment by those who may create children through their sexual coupling.<ref name="savemarriageny2">[http://www.savemarriageny.org/UST_fall2004.pdf Document (4)<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> One prominent supporter of this viewpoint, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher, argues that "babies are most likely to grow to functioning adulthood when they have the care and attention of both their mother and their father."<ref name="savemarriageny2"/> [[Focus on the Family]] points to academic studies which state that children raised with both parents, as opposed to children raised by single mothers, increase children's cognitive and verbal skills, academic performance, involvement in or avoidance of high-risk behaviors and crime, and emotional and psychological health.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080212095450.htm Children Who Have An Active Father Figure Have Fewer Psychological And Behavioral Problems]</ref><ref>Pruett, K. "Fatherneed: Why father care is as essential as mother care for your child," New York: Free Press, 2000.</ref><ref>"The Effects of Father Involvement: A Summary of the Research Evidence," Father Involvement Initiative Ontario Network, Fall 2002 newsletter.</ref><ref>Anderson Moore, K. "Family Structure and Child Well-being" Washington, DC: Child Trends, 2003.</ref><ref>United States. National Center for Fathering, Kansas City, MO. Partnership for Family Involvement in Education. [http://www.ed.gov/pubs/parents/calltocommit/fathers.pdf A Call to Commitment: Fathers' Involvement in Children's Learning]. June, 2000</ref> However, another study has held that being without a resident father from infancy does not seem to have negative consequences for children.<ref name="Fatherless Followup" />

Research has found no major differences in parenting or child development between families headed by two mothers and other fatherless families.<ref name="Fatherless Followup">[http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/jcpp/2004/00000045/00000008/art00009 Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: a follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers at early adolescence]</ref><ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6630329?dopt=Abstract Children in lesbian and single-parent households: psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal.]</ref><ref name="Fatherless">[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9363577?dopt=Abstract Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: family relationships and the socioemotional development of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers.]</ref> However research has also shown children raised by single mothers or children raised by two mothers perceived themselves to be less cognitively and physically competent than their peers from father-present families.<ref name="Fatherless" /> Children without fathers had more interactions, severe disputes and depended more on their mothers. Sons showed more feminine but no less masculine characteristics of gender role behavior.<ref name="Fatherless Followup" /> Compared with young adults who had single mothers, men and women raised by two mothers were slightly more likely to consider the possibility of having a same-sex partner, and more of them had been involved in at least a brief [[same-sex relationship]], but there was no statistical difference in sexual identity of children compared to children of opposite-sex parents.<ref name="Fatherless" /> <ref>[http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25378540-2862,00.html Lesbian Lovers] Herald Sun April 24, 2009</ref>

A number of health and child-welfare organizations "support the parenting of children by lesbians and gay men, and condemn attempts to restrict competent, caring adults from serving as foster and/or adoptive parents." Such organizations include the Child Welfare League of America, North American Council on Adoptable Children, [[American Academy of Pediatrics]], [[American Psychiatric Association]], [[American Psychological Association]], and the [[National Association of Social Workers]].<ref name="aclu1">{{cite web
|url=http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/27496pub20061113.html
|title=Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting
|publisher=American Civil Liberties Union
|author=
|date=
|accessdate=2008-10-07
}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite press release
|url=http://www.apa.org/releases/gaymarriage.html
|title=APS Supports Legalization of Same-sex Civil Marriages...
|publisher=American Psychological Association
|date=2004-07-24
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref>
Noted Harvard political philosopher and legal scholar [[John Rawls]] supports same-sex marriage and does not believe that it would undermine the welfare of children.<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript1158.html PBS: Think Tank: Transcript for "John Rawls"]</ref>

Same-sex marriage opponents argue that mainstream health and mental health organizations have, in many cases, taken public positions on homosexuality<ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf The "Trojan Couch": How the Mental Health Associations Misrepresent Science]</ref><ref>[http://acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=10002&art=150&BISKIT=1384444439 A Brief History of the American College of Pediatricians]</ref> and same-sex marriage<ref>[http://narth.com/docs/masquerades.html When Activism Masquerades as Science: Potential Consequences of Recent APA Resolutions]</ref><ref>[http://narth.com/docs/endorsement.html On the APA Endorsement Of Gay Marriage]</ref> that are based on their own social and political views rather than the available science.

====Arguments concerning divorce rates====
[[Image:Wedded couple on Taiwan Pride 2006.jpg|thumb|Newly wedded same-sex couples in a public wedding at [[Taiwan Pride]] 2006.]]
Internationally, the most comprehensive study{{Fact|date=January 2009}} to date on the effect of same-sex marriage / partnership on heterosexual marriage and divorce rates was conducted looking at over 15 years of data from the Scandinavian countries. The study by researcher [[Darren Spedale]] found that 15 years after Denmark had granted same-sex couples the rights of marriage, rates of heterosexual marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of heterosexual divorce had gone down -- contradicting the concept that same-sex marriage would have a negative effect on traditional marriage.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Eskridge|first=William N. Jr.|coauthors=[[Darren Spedale|Spedale, Darren R.]]; and Ytterberg, Hans|title=Nordic Bliss? Scandinavian Registered Partnerships and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate|journal=Journals of Legal Scholarship: Issues in Legal Scholarship|issue=5|pages=article 4|publisher=The Berkeley Electronic Press|month=January|year=2004|url=http://www.svgla.org/index.php?module=documents&JAS_DocumentManager_op=downloadFile&JAS_File_id=5&2f8d38d14523aa8f4042065cde1a5216=964e204e9824d505541efa48eb2208b5|format=PDF|accessdate=2008-09-23|nopp=true}} (see pgs.29-31)</ref>

However, a study on short-term same-sex marriages/partnerships in Norway and Sweden found that divorce risks are higher in same-sex marriages than in opposite-sex marriages, and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more dynamic, than unions of gay men.<ref name="The Demographics of Same-Se">{{cite journal
|title=The Demographics of Same-Sex „Marriages“ in Norway and Sweden
|last=Andersson
|first=Gunnar
|url=http://www-same-sex.ined.fr/WWW/04Doc124Gunnar.pdf
|publisher=Demography
|volume=43
|number=1
|month=February|year=2006
|pages=79–98|format=PDF}} [http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:E_dDSKaxYhUJ:www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2004-018.pdf+Gunnar+%22The+Demographics+of+Same-Sex+Marriages%E2%80%9C+in+Norway+and+Sweden&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us Text version].</ref> The authors cited that this may be due to same-sex couples' "non-
involvement in joint parenthood," "lower exposure to normative pressure about the necessity of life-long unions," and differing motivations for getting married.<ref name="The Demographics of Same-Se"/> Another study regarding Swedish same-sex couples found that same-sex unions -- even when legally recognized -- tended to be of shorter duration than opposite-sex unions.<ref>http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/SSdivorcerisk.pdf</ref>

A multi-method, multi-informant comparison of community samples of committed gay male and lesbian (30 participants each) couples with both committed (50 young engaged and 40 older married participants) and non-committed (109 exclusively dating) heterosexual pairs was conducted in 2008.<ref>Roisman, Glenn I.; Clausell, Eric; Holland, Ashley; Fortuna, Keren; Elieff, Chryle. "Adult romantic relationships as contexts of human development: A multi-method comparison of same-sex couples with opposite-sex dating, engaged, and married dyads." ''Developmental Psychology,'' Vol 44(1), Jan 2008, 91-101.</ref> Specifically, in this study the quality of same- and opposite-sex relationships was examined at multiple levels of analysis via self-reports and partner reports, laboratory observations, and measures of physiological reactivity during dyadic interactions. Additionally, individuals in same-sex, engaged, and marital relationships were compared with one another on adult attachment security as assessed through the coherence of participants' narratives about their childhood experiences. Results indicated that individuals in committed same-sex relationships were generally not distinguishable from their committed heterosexual counterparts.

====Reproduction====
{{Globalize}}
{{seealso|Same-sex marriage and procreation}}

Those who advocate that marriage should be defined exclusively as the union of one man and one woman argue that opposite-sex couples provide the procreative foundation that is the chief building block of civilization. Social conservatives and others may see marriage not as a legal construct of the state, but as a naturally occurring "pre-political institution" that the state must recognize just as the government recognizes employment relationships; one such conservative voice reasons that "government does not create marriage any more than government creates jobs."<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/2939396.html
|title=Marriage and the Limits of Contract
|publisher=the Hoover Institution
|author=Jennifer Morse
|month=May|year=2005
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref> They argue that the definition proposed by same-sex marriage advocates changes the social importance of marriage from its natural function of reproduction into a mere legality or freedom to have sex.

In the United States, a common argument in various states' courts against allowing same-sex marriage has been the use of legal marriage to foster the state's interest in human reproduction. In ''[[Anderson et al. v. King County]]'', a case that challenged Washington's [[Defense of Marriage Act]], the [[Washington Supreme Court]] ruled 5 to 4 that the law was constitutional. The majority concluded that the legislature was entitled to believe that only allowing opposite-sex marriage "furthers procreation."<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003152467_webdoma26.html State Supreme Court upholds gay marriage ban]</ref> In response, a group of marriage advocates filed what became [[Washington Initiative 957 (2007)|Initiative 957]] which, if passed, would have made procreation a legal requirement for marriage in Washington State. The Maryland Supreme Court similarly ruled that it was permissible to confer the benefits of marriage only on opposite-sex couples because of their possibility of procreation."<ref name="MDCourtofAppealsOpinion" />

Some proponents of same-sex marriage 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.<ref>For example, Jonathan Rauch in "For Better or Worse?" in [[The New Republic]]. May 6, 1996. Reprinted in a book by Andrew Sullivan (editor) in 1997. ''Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con - A Reader.'' Vintage Books, a division of Random House, Inc., New York, and in Canada by Random House of Canada Limited, Toronto. Pages 175-176.</ref> Proponents also consider these laws restricting marriage to be unconstitutionally overinclusive, as gay and lesbian couples can have children either through natural or artificial means.<ref>For example, {{cite web |first= Brian |last=Cavner |url=http://familyfairness.org/article/marriage-is-for-procreation-myth-marriage-exclusionist-studies-statistics/ |title=The ‘Marriage is for Procreation’ Myth: The Futility of Marriage Exclusionist Studies and Statistics |accessdate=April 4 |accessyear=2009}}</ref>

The California Supreme Court ruled on May 15, 2008 that under California's constitution, gays and lesbians cannot be deprived of marriage rights due on grounds that marriage is solely for procreation;<ref>Supreme Court of California May 15, 2008. In re MARRIAGE CASES. Pages 72-79. Ct. App. 1/3 Nos. A110449, A110450, A110451, A110463, [Six consolidated appeals.]1 ) A110651, A110652, San Francisco County, JCCP No. 4365</ref> this decision was overturned in part by the passage of [[Proposition 8]] on November 5, 2008,<ref name="latimes.com">http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,1545381.story</ref><ref>http://www.cfac.org/content/index.php/cfac-news/commentary35/</ref>
which, in turn, has been questioned in court.<ref>http://www.dailytrojan.com/news/supreme_court_to_hear_prop_8_legal_challenge</ref>

===Arguments about tradition===
[[Stanley Kurtz]] from the [[Hoover Institution]] said that same-sex marriage separates the ideas of marriage and parenthood, thereby accelerating marital decline. He cites studies showing a substantial rise in the out-of-wedlock birthrates, for both firstborn and subsequent children in areas where same-sex unions are legal.<ref>{{cite web|
url=http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2004/03/10/death_of_marriage_in_scandinavia/
|title=Death of Marriage in Scandinavia
|first=Stanley
|last=Kurtz
|date=2004-03-10
|accessdate=2008-10-07
|publisher=[[Boston Globe]]}}</ref> In ''Conaway v. Deane,'' the Maryland Supreme Court ruled that the State has a legitimate interest in encouraging the traditional family structure in which children are born.<ref name="MDCourtofAppealsOpinion" />

===Arguments concerning equality===
{{Refimprovesect|date=September 2008}}
[[Image:San Francisco marriage protest.jpg|left|thumb|2004 San Francisco march in support of same-sex marriage]]
Some opponents of same-sex marriage (including some [[ex-gay]] organizations) argue that the opposite-sex definition of marriage is not unequal, unjust, or exclusionary because homosexuality is not genetic or unchangeable.<ref name=autogenerated1 /><ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20070113131953/http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000778.cfm 'Homosexuality Cannot Be Changed'|Is homosexuality really fixed and immutable as some argue?]</ref><ref>[http://www.massunitedfamilies.org/ufimass/aboutssm.cfm Massachusetts United Families<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref>[http://www.family.org.au/Journals/2003/challenge.htm The Challenge of Homosexuality<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> Same-sex marriage opponents support this position with research as well as anecdotal evidence regarding efforts to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions.<ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/senatecommittee.html Dr. Jeffrey Satinover Testifies Before Massachusetts Senate Committee Studying Gay Marriage<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref name="Psych">{{cite web
|url=http://www.aglp.org/pages/cfactsheets.html#Anchor-Gay-14210
|title=Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues
|author=[[American Psychiatric Association]]
|publisher=Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrics
|month=May|year=2000}}</ref> However, several analyses of such studies have argued that they contain statistical and methodological flaws.<ref>Ex-Gay Watch [http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/]</ref><ref>Davison, G.C. (1991). "Constructionism and morality in therapy for homosexuality." In J. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.), ''Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy'' (pp. 137-148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. </ref><ref>Haldeman, D.C. (1991). "Conversion therapy for gay men and lesbians: A scientific examination." In J. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.), ''Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy'' (pp. 149-160). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</ref><ref>Haldeman, D.C. (1994). "The practice and ethics of sexual orientation conversion therapy." ''Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,'' 62 (2), 221-227.</ref><ref>Martin, A.D. (1984). "The emperor's new clothes: Modern attempts to change sexual orientation." In T. Stein & E. Hetrick (Eds.), ''Innovations in psychotherapy with homosexuals,'' (pp. 24-57). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.</ref><ref>Rosenthal, R. (1966). Experimenter effects in behavioral research. East Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.</ref><ref>Sandfort, T. G. M., de Graaf, R., Bijl, R. V., & Schnabel, P. (2001). "Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders: Findings from the Netherlands mental health survey and incidence study (NEMESIS)." ''Archives of General Psychiatry,'' 58(1), 85-91.</ref><ref>Schroeder, M., & Shidlo, A. (2001). "Ethical issues in sexual orientation conversion therapies: An empirical study of consumers." ''Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy,'' 5(3-4), 131-166.</ref><ref>Shidlo, A., & Schroeder, M. (2002). Changing sexual orientation: A consumers' report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(3), 249-259.</ref><ref>Silverstein, C. (1991). "Psychological and medical treatments of homosexuality." In J. Gonsiorek & J. Weinrich (Eds.), ''Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy,'' (pp. 101-114). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</ref>

Many courts, including the New York Court of Appeals<ref>http://www2.law.columbia.edu/faculty_franke/Gender_Justice/Hernandez_Robles.pdf</ref> and the Maryland Supreme Court,<ref>Md. Ban On Gay Marriage Is Upheld; Law Does Not Deny Basic Rights, Is Not Biased, Court Rules;The Washington Post; By Lisa Rein and Mary Otto - Washington Post Staff Writers; Wednesday, September 19, 2007; Page A01</ref> have held an opposite-sex definition of marriage to be constitutional. The Maryland Supreme Court ruled that discrimination does not take place nor are constitutional rights denied in their laws that prohibit same-gender marriage; the court held that these laws protect the state's interest to have and protect children<ref>Md. Ban On Gay Marriage Is Upheld; Law Does Not Deny Basic Rights, Is Not Biased, Court Rules;The Washington Post; By Lisa Rein and Mary Otto - Washington Post Staff Writers; Wednesday, September 19, 2007; Page A01</ref>
and that "there is no fundamental right to marry a person of your own sex".<ref name="MDCourtofAppealsOpinion">{{cite web
|url=http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2007/44a06.pdf
|title=Court of Appeals of Maryland Opinion on ''Frank Conaway, et al. v. Gitanjali Deane, et al., No. 44, Sept. Term 2006''
|accessdate=2008-01-25
|last=Harrell
|first=Raker
|coauthors=
|date=2007-09-18
|work=
|format=
PDF|publisher=
}}</ref>

Others argue that an opposite-sex definition of marriage is inherently unequal. For instance, a heterosexual U.S. citizen who marries a foreign partner immediately qualifies to bring that person to the United States, while long-term gay and lesbian binational partners are denied the same rights, forcing foreign gay partners to seek expensive temporary employer or school-sponsored visas or face separation.<ref>See [http://www.immigrationequality.org/familyunvalued.php Immigration Equality] and [http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2006/05/01/family-unvalued Human Rights Watch]</ref> In the court cases leading up to the legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada, the restriction of legal marriage to opposite-sex couples was overturned because it was found to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, in violation of the equality guarantees of [[Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 15]] of the [[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]].

[[Image:Newlywed.jpg|right|thumb|Newlywed male same-sex couple at Gaypride 2006 in [[Reykjavik]].]]

Some opponents of extending marriage to same-sex couples claim that equality can be achieved with [[civil union]]s or other forms of legal recognition that do not go as far as to use the word "marriage" that is used for opposite-sex couples. The [[Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court]] in ''[[Goodridge v. Department of Public Health]]'' held, in contrast, that there is a fundamental dissimilitude between "civil marriage" and "civil union" indicated in the very choice of language.{{Fact|date=January 2009}}

Of all of the state supreme courts that have considered cases alleging that an opposite-sex definition of marriage is unconstitutional and discriminatory, only the high courts of California (later reversed by constitutional amendment<ref name="latimes.com"/>), Hawaii (later reversed by constitutional amendment), Connecticut (28-Oct-2008)<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/nyregion/11marriage.html</ref>, Iowa (3-Apr-2009)<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7981893.stm</ref>, Massachusetts(18-Nov-2003) <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56384-2003Nov18</ref>, New Jersey(25-Oct-2006) <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/nyregion/26marriagecnd.html</ref>, and Vermont (21-Dec-1999)<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/21/us/vermont-high-court-backs-rights-of-same-sex-couples.html</ref> -- have found such a definition to be unconstitutional and discriminatory (see [[Same-sex marriage in the United States]], [[Same-sex marriage status in the United States by state]], [[Proposition 8]], and [[Hawaii Constitutional Amendment 2 (1998)]]).<ref>[http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/05/15/california-court-legalizes-same-sex-marriage.html California Court Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage - US News and World Report<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>

====Parallels to interracial marriage====
Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that men and women are fundamentally different from one another, whereas interracial couples still fit within the "one man and one woman" definition of marriage.<ref name="mmarriage">{{cite video
|url=http://www.secureminnesotaformarriage.org/ss/live/index.php?action=viewprod&sid=64&pid=149&pageid=258
|title=The Battle for Marriage in Minnesota
|publisher=Minnesota for Marriage
|medium=Video
|format=MPEG-4; WM9
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref> Louisiana State University law professor Katherine Spaht holds that there is an inherent difference between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage because same-sex couples cannot procreate; Prof. Spaht characterizes the debate as follows: “The fundamental understanding of marriage has always been, by definition, a man and a woman. Never did Webster’s Dictionary define the term marriage in terms of the races."<ref>http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=17988</ref> Proponents of same-sex marriage make a comparison between [[racial segregation]] and segregation of homosexual and heterosexual marriage classifications in civil law.<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://hnn.us/articles/4708.html
|title=Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation
|publisher=History News Network of George Mason University
|author=Peggy Pascoe
|date=2004-04-19
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}} </ref> They argue that dividing the concept of same-sex marriage and different-sex marriage is tantamount to "[[separate but equal]]" policies (like that overturned in the U.S. Supreme Court case [[Brown v. Board of Education]]), or [[anti-miscegenation laws]] that were also overturned by the Supreme Court in 1967 in ''[[Loving v. Virginia]]''.

In 1972, after the Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling in ''[[Baker v. Nelson]]'' specifically distinguished ''Loving'' as not being applicable to the same-sex marriage debate, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question." This type of dismissal usually constitutes a decision [[on the merits]] of the case; as such, ''Baker'' appeared &mdash; at least for a time &mdash; to be binding precedent on all lower federal courts.

===Economic Effects on Same Sex Couples===
{{Refimprovesect|date=December 2008}}
{{Onesource|date=December 2008}}
{{POV-section|date=December 2008}}
Dr. M. V. Lee Badgett, an economist and associate professor at the [[University of Massachusetts Amherst]], has studied the impact of same-sex legal marriage on four groups.

'''Impact on same-sex couples:''' Badgett finds that exclusion from legal marriage has an economic impact on same-sex couples. According to a 1997 General Accounting Office study requested by Rep. [[Henry Hyde]] (R), at least 1,049 U.S. Federal laws and regulations include reference to marital status. A later 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office finds 1,138 statutory provisions "in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving 'benefits, rights, and privileges.'"<ref name=cbo1>{{cite paper
|url=http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5559
|title=The Potential Budgetary Impact of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages
|publisher=Congressional Budget Office
|format=.HTML; .PDF
|date=2004-06-21
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref> Many of these laws govern property rights, benefits, and taxation. Same-sex couples are ineligible for spousal and survivor Social Security benefits. Badgett's research finds the resulting difference in Social Security income for same-sex couples compared to opposite-sex married couples is US$5,588 per year. The federal ban on same-sex marriage and benefits through the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) extends to federal government employee benefits. According to Badgett's work, same-sex couples face other financial challenges against which legal marriage at least partially shields opposite-sex couples:

* potential loss of couple's home from medical expenses of one partner caring for another gravely ill one
* costs of supporting two households, travel, or emigration out of the U.S. for an American citizen unable to legally marry a non-US citizen
* higher cost of purchasing private insurance for partner and children if company is not one of 18% that offer domestic partner benefits
* higher taxes: unlike a company's contribution to an employee's spouse's health insurance, domestic partner benefits are taxed as additional compensation
* legal costs associated with obtaining domestic partner documents to gain some of the power of attorney, health care decision-making, and inheritance rights granted through legal marriage
* higher health costs associated with lack of insurance and preventative care: 20% of same-sex couples have a member who is uninsured compared to 10% of married opposite-sex couples
* current tax law allows a spouse to inherit an unlimited amount from the deceased without incurring an estate tax but an unmarried partner would have to pay the estate tax on the inheritance from her/his partner
* same-sex couples are not eligible to file jointly or separately as a married couple and thus cannot take the advantages of lower tax rates when the individual income of the partners differs significantly

While state laws grant full marriage rights (Massachusetts, Vermont) or some or all of the benefits under another name (New Jersey, California, etc.), these state laws do not extend the benefits of marriage on the Federal level, and most states do not currently recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions from other states.

One often overlooked aspect of same-sex marriage are the potential ''negative'' effects on same-sex couples. While the legal benefits of marriage are numerous, same-sex couples would face the same financial constraints of legal marriage as opposite-sex married couples. Such potential effects include the [[marriage penalty]] in taxation. Similarly, while social service providers usually do not count one partner's assets toward the income means test for welfare and disability assistance for the other partner, a legally married couple's joint assets are normally used in calculating whether a married individual qualifies for assistance.

===Economic Effects on the Economy as a Whole===

'''Impact on businesses:''' Dr. M. V. Lee Badgett's research estimates the potential impact on businesses of same-sex marriage legalization to be $2 billion to the wedding industry alone. Badgett derives this estimate by calculating the amount spent on weddings if a) half of same-sex couples marry and b) each couple spends 1/4 the average amount spent on an opposite-sex wedding (US$27,600 average wedding cost / 4=US$6,900 per same-sex couple).

'''Impact on employers''': In terms of employers where marriage opponents fear higher benefit costs, Badgett and Mercer Human Resources Consulting separately find less than 1% of employees with a same-sex partner sign up for domestic partner benefits when a company offers them. Badgett finds less than 0.3% of Massachusetts firms' employees signed up for spousal benefits when that state legalized same-sex marriage.

'''Impact on governments''': A 2004 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report examines the impact of allowing the 1.2 million Americans in same-sex domestic partnerships in the 2000 Census to marry and finds the impact to be comparatively small in terms of the huge Federal budget. While some spending on Federal programs would increase, these outlays would be offset by savings in other spending areas. The report predicts that if same-sex marriage was legalized in all 50 states and on the Federal level, the U.S. government would bring in a net surplus of US$1 billion per year over the next 10 years.<ref name=cbo1/>

Opposing Viewpoints research indicates that allowing marriage for same sex couples would stimulate the economy by increasing business activity, and thus increase sales tax revenues for the states where such marriages are permitted.<ref>[http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/research-same-sex-marriage-would-boost-economy-significantly Same-Sex Marriage Would Boost Economy Significantly]</ref> The Williams Institute of [[UCLA]] has conducted several studies which indicated allowing same sex marriage would increase business activity in relevant industries and also boost state income tax revenues.<ref>[http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/EconImpactCAMarriage.pdf The Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples on the California Budget]</ref>

===Impacts on Mental Health===

Recently, several psychological studies<ref>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. [http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/01/marriage-bans.html]</ref><ref>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), Oct 2007, 447-457.</ref><ref>
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), Jul 2007, 306-319.
</ref> 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.<ref>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), Aug 2007, 392-400.</ref>

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.<ref>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), Jan 2008, 40-54.</ref>

In the wake of the recent passage of same-sex marriage-banning legislation in Arizona, California and Florida, Rotosky says she expects similar trends to emerge. In California, which overturned its same-sex marriage ban in June only to have that decision reversed in November, the LGBT community is reportedly experiencing minority stress.<ref>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. [http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/01/marriage-bans.html]</ref><ref>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), Aug 2007, 392-400.</ref>

===Other arguments===
Another school of thought regarding same-sex marriage holds that same-sex marriage is a red herring designed to create legal principles under which sexual orientation will be treated as an immutable characteristic like race, and that, in the words of Maggie Gallagher of the ''[[National Review]]'', same-sex marriage advocates seek to use the law to "stigmatize, marginalize, and repress those who disagree with the government’s new views on marriage and sexual orientation."<ref>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGNmODNiMjI0MTQ1MTQwNGM4N2YyNmVhY2UyZTE0OWY=Redefinition Revolution by Maggie Gallagher on National Review Online<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>

Advocates for recognition of same-sex unions argue that there is no difference in the ability of same-sex and opposite-sex couples to make commitments and care for each other, and therefore the law of marriage should apply to both.<ref name="indegayforum1"/>

Dissidents to the same-sex marriage movement within the gay community argue that the pursuit of social recognition and legal benefits by means of marriage reinforces marriage as an institution of exclusion, because it extends rights and benefits to people on the basis of their relationship status.<ref>''The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life,'' Michael Warner, Harvard University Press</ref>

Some same-sex marriage opponents take the view that legalization of same-sex marriage will open the door to the redefinition of marriage to include other legally recognized arrangements (such as polygamy) that would have unknown (and possibly detrimental) effects on children.<ref name="savemarriageny1"/><ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp Beyond Gay Marriage<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> ''[[The Weekly Standard]]'' commentator Stanley Kurtz argues allowing same-sex marriage blurs other common law precedents and will lead to the legalization of a variety of non-traditional relationships.<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp
|title=Beyond Gay Marriage
|publisher=Weekly Standard
|author=Stanley Kurtz
|date=2003-08-04
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref> One such non-traditional relationship is [[polyamory]]. [[Polyamory]] may be defined as a practice whereby a person has multiple simultaneous long-term loving relationships, in whatever form is chosen by those involved, with the knowledge and acceptance of their partners. This can include long-term stable [[group marriage]]s, or stable couples who have external partners as well as their 'primary' partners. Another example of a non-traditional relationship is a cohabitation contract; one such contract in the Netherlands sparked many comparisons with same-sex marriage on American conservative blogs in 2005.<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/494pqobc.asp
|title=Here Come the Brides
|publisher=The Weekly Standard
|author=Stanley Kurtz
|date=2005-12-26
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref>

==See also==
{{Col-begin}}
{{Col-2}}
*[[Adelphopoiesis]] (''"brother-making"'')
*[[Adoption by same-sex couples]]
*[[Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches]]
*[[Defense of Marriage Act]]
*[[Divorce of same-sex couples]]
*[[Heterosexism]]
*[[Homophobia]]
*[[LGBT rights in Europe]]
*[[List of LGBT couples]]
*[[Marriage gap]]
*[[Marriage#Rights and obligations relating to marriage|Marriage rights and obligations]]
*[[:Category:Marriage, unions and partnerships by country|Marriage, unions and partnerships by country]]
{{Col-2}}
{{Portal|LGBT|Portal LGBT.svg}}
*[[Mixed-orientation marriage]]
*[[Religion and sexuality]]
*[[United States Census, 2000#Gay and lesbian controversy|Same-sex controversy in the U.S. Census 2000]]
*[[Same-sex marriage and procreation]]
*[[Status of same-sex marriage]]
*[[Timeline of same-sex marriage]]
*[[Traditional marriage movement]]
*[[Uniting American Families Act]]
*[[LGBT retirement issues]]
{{Col-end}}
===Documentaries and literature===
*''[[A Union in Wait]]''
*''[[Freedom to Marry]]''
*''[[Pursuit of Equality]]''
*''[[Marriage Equality USA]]''
*''[[The Gay Marriage Thing]]''
*MTV's True Life: ''[[I'm Gay and I'm Getting Married]]''

==Footnotes==
{{Reflist|2}}
==References==
{{refbegin|1}}
*[http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/entry/Mass-governor-orders-26-gay-marriages-registered Mass. governor orders 26 gay marriages registered], Breaking Legal News, April 3, 2007
{{refend}}

==External links==
{{commonscat|Same-sex marriage}}
*[http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons]
*[http://www.newsweek.com/id/142307 Where Can Gays Wed? Newsweek's Interactive Map on same-sex marriage legislation in the United States by Marc Bain, Alicia Parlapiano and Xaquín G.V.]
*[http://www.laweekly.com/2008-02-28/news/the-marrying-kind/ ''LA Weekly'' feature, "California Supreme Court Set to Consider Gay Marriage," Feb. 2008 by Matthew Fleischer]
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-wolfson/today-is-freedom-to-marry_b_86282.html Today is Freedom to Marry Day - Just Don't Say "Gay Marriage"!], Evan Wolfson, ''[[Huffington Post]]'', February 12, 2008.
*[http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=447693&doc_no=S147999 ''Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco''] California Supreme Court Opinion overturning ban on same-sex unions, May 15, 2008
*[http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.May2008.pdf American Courts on Marriage: Is Marriage Discriminatory? 1998-2008], Joshua Baker, [[Institute for Marriage and Public Policy]], May 2008.
*[http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectId/6DF0766E-C4A3-4952-A542F5997196E8B5/118/304/190/ART/ Same-Sex Marriage: Developments in the Law"], Emily Doskow, NOLO, 2008.
*[http://www.newsweek.com/id/175223 "The Debate: The Bible and Gay Marriage" in ''Newsweek Religion''] Newsweek Web Exclusive, December 16, 2008.
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/opinion/22rauch.html?_r=3&ref=opinion "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage"] by David Blankenhorn and [[Jonathan Rauch]]
**[http://www.marriagedebate.com/2009/02/reactions-to-rauchblankenhorn.htm "Reactions to Raunch/Blankenhorn compromise"]
*[http://publicservice.evendon.net/VarnumEtAl_v_BrienPolkCoIAM.htm Varnum Et. Al. v Brien Polk County Iowa] Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Overturns Ban on Gay Marriage 3Apr2009.

==Bibliography==
<div class="references-small">
*{{cite book|last=Boswell|first=John|authorlink=John Boswell (historian)|year=1995|title=The Marriage of Likeness: Same-sex Unions in Pre-modern Europe|publisher=Simon Harper and Collins|location=New York|isbn=0-00-255508-5}}
*{{cite book|last=Boswell|first=John|authorlink=John Boswell|year=1994|title=Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe|publisher=Villard Books|location=New York|isbn=0-679-43228-0}}
*{{cite book|last=Caramagno|first=Thomas C.|year=2002|title=Irreconcilable Differences? Intellectual Stalemate in the Gay Rights Debate|publisher=Praeger|location=Westport, CT|isbn=0-275-97721-8}}
*{{cite book|last=Cere|first=Daniel|authorlink=Daniel Cere|year=2004|title=Divorcing Marriage: Unveiling the Dangers in Canada's New Social Experiment|publisher=McGill-Queen's University Press|location=Montreal|isbn=0-7735-2895-4}}
*{{cite book|last=Chauncey|first=George|authorlink=George Chauncey|year=2004|title=Why Marriage?: The History Shaping Today's Debate over Gay Equality|publisher=Basic Books|location=New York|isbn=0-465-00957-3}}
*{{cite book|last=Dobson|first=James C.|authorlink=James Dobson|year=2004|title=Marriage Under Fire|publisher=Multnomah|location=Sisters, Or.|isbn=1-59052-431-4|unused_data=|Marriage under Fire: Why We Must Win This War}}
*{{cite book|last=Larocque|first=Sylvain|year=2006|title=[[Gay Marriage|Gay Marriage: The Story of a Canadian Social Revolution]]|publisher=James Lorimer & Company|location=Toronto|isbn=1-55028-927-6}}
*{{cite book|last=Moats|first=David|year=2004|title=Civil Wars: A Battle For Gay Marriage|publisher=Harcourt, Inc.|location=New York, NY|isbn=0-15-101017-X}}
*{{cite book|last=Rauch|first=Jonathan|authorlink=Jonathan Rauch|year=2004|title=Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America|publisher=Henry Holt and Company, LLC|location=New York, NY|isbn=0-80507-815-0}}
*{{cite book|last=Spedale|first=Darren|authorlink=Darren Spedale|year=2006|title=Gay Marriage: For Better or For Worse? What We've Learned From the Evidence|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=New York|isbn=0-19-518751-2}}
*{{cite book|last=Truluck|first=Rembert S.|year=2000|title=Steps to Recovery from Bible Abuse|publisher=Chi Rho Press, Inc.|location=Gaithersburg, MD|isbn=1-888493-16-X}}
*{{cite book|last=Wolfson|first=Evan|authorlink=Evan Wolfson|year=2004|title=Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry|publisher=Simon & Schuster|location=New York|isbn=0-7432-6459-2}}
*{{cite book|editor=Robert P. George, [[Jean Bethke Elshtain]] (Eds.)|year=2006|title=The Meaning of Marriage: Family, State, Market, And Morals|publisher=Spence Publishing Company|location=Dallas|isbn=1-890626-64-3}}
*{{cite book|editor=Robert E. Goss, Amy Adams Squire Strongheart (Eds.)|year=2008|title=Our Families, Our Values: Snapshots of Queer Kinship|publisher=The Harrington Park Press, An Imprint of the Haworth Press, Inc.|location=New York, NY|isbn=1-56023-910-7}}
*{{cite book|editor=Douglas Laycock, Anthony Picarello, Jr., Robin Fretwell Wilson (Eds.)|year=2008|title=Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.|location=Lanham, MD|isbn=0-74256-326-X}}
*{{cite book|editor=[[Andrew Sullivan]] (Editor)|year=2004|title=Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con - A Reader, Revised Updated Edition|publisher=Vintage Books, a division of Random House, Inc.|location=New York, NY|isbn=1-40007-866-0}}
</div>

{{Same-sex marriage}}
{{Marriage amendments}}
{{LGBT|history=yes|culture=yes|rights=yes}}

<!--Categories-->
[[Category:Marriage]]
[[Category:LGBT rights]]
[[Category:Same-sex marriage]]
[[Category:Articles with images not understandable by color blind users]]

<!--Other languages-->
[[af:Burgerlike verbintenis]]
[[ar:زواج مثلي]]
[[br:Dimezioù etre paotred pe etre maouezed]]
[[bg:Еднополов брак]]
[[ca:Matrimoni homosexual]]
[[de:Gleichgeschlechtliche Ehe]]
[[es:Matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo]]
[[eo:Samedzeco]]
[[fr:Mariage homosexuel]]
[[gl:Matrimonio entre persoas do mesmo sexo]]
[[ko:동성 결혼]]
[[hi:समलैंगिक विवाह]]
[[it:Matrimonio omosessuale]]
[[he:נישואים חד-מיניים]]
[[mk:Брак меѓу исти полови]]
[[nl:Homohuwelijk]]
[[ja:同性結婚]]
[[no:Likekjønnet ekteskap]]
[[pl:Małżeństwo osób tej samej płci]]
[[pt:Casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo]]
[[ro:Căsătorie între persoane de acelaşi sex]]
[[ru:Однополый брак]]
[[sl:Istospolna partnerska zveza]]
[[sh:Istopolni brak]]
[[fi:Samaa sukupuolta olevien avioliitto]]
[[sv:Samkönat äktenskap]]
[[tr:Eşcinsel evlilik]]
[[vi:Hôn nhân đồng tính]]
[[wuu:同性婚姻]]
[[zh:同性婚姻]]
[[sq:Martesat homoseksuale]]

Revision as of 16:01, 1 May 2009

Same-sex marriage and gay marriage are terrible sinns.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage&oldid=287269795"