Same-sex marriage

Same-sex marriage is marriage between individuals who are of the same legal or biological sex. It is also called same-gender marriage, gay marriage, marriage equality (favored by proponents, along with just marriage), and homosexual marriage (sometimes favored by opponents). These terms are considered variously ambiguous, confusing, inappropriate, controversial, offensive, or loaded, depending on the audience.

Controversy

The moral legitimacy of marriage between two people of the same sex hinges on how the authoritative definition of marriage is derived. If marriage is to have a religious foundation, the interpretation of religious texts and traditions will be key; if marriage is a social institution, legal agreement, or even a purely economic coupling, then pragmatic arguments will have more force (though moral issues will no doubt still arise). Gay rights advocates assert that marriage is a right since it is a legal agreement on the governmental level which should not be restricted to opposite-sex couples. Their opponents assert that same-sex "marriage" is not itself a right and should not be allowed on moral and/or religious grounds, or on the grounds that it will lead to a breakdown of the definition of marriage or of civil society.

Related Topics:
Moral - Marriage - Social institution - Gay rights

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Most of the controversy centers around the government definition of marriage, rather than the blessing of same sex unions by individual religious organizations, which may or may not be recognized as civil marriages.

Related Topics:
Blessing of same sex unions - Civil marriage

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The debate is often perceived as being same sex marriage advocates vs. religious (especially fundamentalist) or moral opponents. However, corporations and other groups sometimes give opposition or support to same-sex marriage not on any religious or moral grounds but instead with the aim aquiring some material benefit for their position.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Those in favour of same-sex marriage argue that homosexuals contribute as much as heterosexuals to the funding for private and public family coverage even when they have no access to it, and that discrimination decreases productivity. They support the equalization of male-male, female-female, and male-female relationships, and being able to marry whomever one chooses is seen as a civil right that should not be abridged by the government.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Opponents answer that this view of marriage reduces marriage to little more than a means test for social benefits. They also see same-sex and male-female arrangements as inherently unequal, citing the fact that nothing less than humanity itself relies fully on the latter and not at all on the former, and trying to "equalize" such arrangements through force of law will only create gross social distortions to accommodate the gulf between such law and the observable facts of human nature.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Some countries and states/provinces have judicial rulings that set precedence for same sex marriage. However, popular majorities in some places continue to assert that the traditional concept of marriage cannot exist outside of a heterosexual relationship. To them, the male-female relationship has unique capacities and qualities that marriage was meant to recognize and foster that are not adequately acknowledged by the above definition.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Religious arguments

Some opponents object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds, arguing that extending marriage to same-sex couples undercuts the conventional meaning of marriage in various traditions or goes against the word of God, does not fulfill any procreational role, or sanctions a partnership centered around "aberrant" or "immoral" sexual acts. For example, James Dobson, in Marriage Under Fire and elsewhere, argues that legalization or even tolerance of same-sex "marriage" would redefine the family and lead to confusion in youths about their sexual identitieshttp://www.townhall.com/bookclub/dobson.html.

Related Topics:
Religious grounds - James Dobson - Marriage Under Fire

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Proponents suggest that, under the principles of religious pluralism and the separation of church and state, religious arguments should not be used to constitute the law.

Related Topics:
Religious pluralism - Separation of church and state

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

It should be noted that not all religious people oppose gay marriage. Reverend F. Russell Baker, of the United Church of Christ, who personally experienced discrimination because of his interracial marriage with an African-American woman shortly after the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws in the U.S., argues that

Related Topics:
F. Russell Baker - United Church of Christ - Interracial marriage - African-American - Miscegenation

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:Some of the same segregationists of the past are now the enthusiastic proponents of these new anti–gay marriage laws... f one listens carefully to the gay and lesbian community, one discovers that often after much turmoil, a person comes to the conclusion that they were created this way... No one ever said understanding God’s will for us would be easy... Jesus said we need to accept others, care for others, and love others just as God accepts, cares for, and loves

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

He concludes "There will come a time when we will look back upon for the shame it is. I hope it will be soon."http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail.asp?id=14948

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A fundamental concern of some people is that the legalization of same-sex marriage will lead to a direct attack via lawsuits against religions to force them to perform marriage ceremonies of which they do not approve, and additionally that established churches could be bankrupted by these types of lawsuits. This may be a realistic fear only in jurisdictions which restrict freedom of religion.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Societal arguments

Those who advocate that marriage should be defined exclusively as the union of one man and one woman argue that only a heterosexual union can provide the procreative foundation of the family unit that they see as the chief social building block of civilization. They argue that the definition proposed by same-sex marriage advocates changes the social importance of marriage from morality to mere custom, and may refer to themselves as "defenders" of traditional marriage. As any customary relationship may be considered "marriage", some argue that this then leads to undue legislative burden and an affront to the social value and responsibility of parenting one's own children.

Related Topics:
Morality - Custom

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Some other people object to same-sex marriage on the grounds that the purpose of marriage is a procreative partnership and that the same-sex partnership is inherently sterile. Some who hold this view see marriage as the social codification of an evolved long-term mating strategy, with economic and legal benefits to facilitate family growth and stability. These people generally do not carry over their objections to sterile heterosexual couples.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Some same-sex marriage proponents, such as Andrew Sullivan, argue that same-sex marriage retains enough moral underpinning to support the familial role marriage plays in society despite the absence of a direct (that is, unassisted by medical or social agencies) procreative element. Also that the institution of marriage would be strengthened by making it available to more people, and argue further that same-sex marriage would encourage gays and lesbians to settle down with one partner and raise families. Others argue that marriage no longer retains a procreative function of the government since many governments offer child tax-credits and assistance regardless of marital status.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Some libertarians object to same-sex marriage because they are opposed to any form of state-sanctioned marriage, including opposite-sex unions. They are not necessarily opposed to the idea of a same-sex wedding itself, only that the government should not have any role in the event, nor for that matter should government approval be sought for opposite-sex marriages. See Libertarian perspectives on gay rights.

Related Topics:
Libertarians - Libertarian perspectives on gay rights

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Arguments about tradition

There have been many ritual homosexual unions practiced historically that provide many of the same benefits entitled traditionally to marriages. Some cultures have considered a set of strictly defined and regulated homosexual qualities to denote a gender that transcended both male and female. As possessors of a third gender, such people could marry either men or women. Some people in the position to write the law for their country indulged themselves in calling some of their same-gender relationships a marriage, though they assumed no familial attachment. Calling a heterosexual union the same legal term as a homosexual union for a whole state or society is only a recent occurrence.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

With some notable exceptions, most societies have utilized a definition of marriage that included at least one man and one woman. Some societies have from ancient times permitted spouses to have multiple concurrent marriages (polygamy). In polygamous marriages one person, a man (polygyny) or a woman (polyandry), takes many spouses of the opposite sex; these spouses are not married to each other, but are all married to the same person. Group marriages in which three or more people all marry each other have been very rare. Many societies discourage the practice of polygamy nowadays.

Related Topics:
Polygamy - Polygyny - Polyandry - Group marriage

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Proponents of same-sex marriage point out that so-called "traditional" concepts of marriage in actuality have already undergone significant change (see History of Civil Marriage in the U.S.). Besides the abolition of polygamy in most modern societies, for example, married women are also no longer considered the property of their husbands (see the legal rights of women), divorce is legal, contraception within wedlock is allowed (Griswold v. Connecticut in U.S.), and anti-miscegenation laws forbidding interracial marriage have been eliminated.

Related Topics:
History of Civil Marriage in the U.S. - Legal rights of women - Divorce - Contraception - Griswold v. Connecticut - Anti-miscegenation laws - Interracial marriage

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The fact that changes in the customs and protocols of marriage often occur gives rise to the argument that marriage is dynamic, and same-gender acceptance is only the latest evolution of the institution.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Arguments about inability to prohibit certain kinds of sex

Some http://www.sodomylaws.org/lawrence/lweditorials058.htm have made the parallel that equality in marriage would lead to an inability to ban certain kinds of sex, such as sodomy, even if it applied to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Court said that banning contraception violated "the right of marital privacy." In Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), it extended the same privacy rights to unmarried people.

Related Topics:
Sodomy - Griswold v. Connecticut - Eisenstadt v. Baird

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

As the argument goes, if marriage is extended to homosexuals, then "the right of marital privacy" would mandate that sodomy must be permitted even if the state wishes to prohibit it for health reasons. Some claim that this argument is now moot due to the 2003 case titled Lawrence v. Texas.

Related Topics:
Sodomy - Lawrence v. Texas

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Some opponents also claim that allowing same-sex marriage will blur other common law precedents and lead to the legalization of various other perceived undesirable marriages including:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• incestuous marriages: The counter-argument is that allowing same-sex couples to marry does not alter the restriction on consanguinous relationships.
• marriages of convenience for tax or other reasons: The counter-argument is that these are already legal between people of the opposite sex.
• marriages between humans and animals. Non-human animals, however, do not have the legal standing to consent into a marriage contract. This argument is not taken seriously by most commentators, and may be often considered insulting in comparing homosexual humans with animals.
• polygamous/group marriages. The counter-argument is that allowing same-sex couples to marry does not change the restriction on the number of people who may contract a marriage. Furthermore, because of the reciprocal nature of many spousal rights and responsibilities, it would not be possible to give three-person groups equal rights and responsibilities as two-person groups. For example, if a government gives medical coverage to spouses of service members, then a service member with thirty spouses would either receive benefits far more valuable than one with only one spouse would or not all that service member's spouses would receive coverage.

Supporters of same-sex marriage state that, in the jurisdictions that have afforded legal recognition of same-sex unions, the dire consequences foretold by opponents have not come to pass.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Some object on the grounds that same-sex couples should not be allowed to adopt or raise children or to have access to reproductive technologies, and that same-sex marriage would make such adoptions easier. Others simply do not recognize any pressing need for same-sex marriages.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Many people, while tolerant towards the sexual behaviour of others, see no reason to alter their society or government's traditional attitudes towards marriage and family. This could be considered an application of the precautionary principle.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Arguments concerning equality

In the United States, proponents of marriage equality point out that there are over 1,049 federal laws in which "rights, benefits, and privileges are contingent on marital status" (United States General Accounting Office). See Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States for a partial list. A denial of rights or benefits without substantive due process, assert the proponents of marriage equality, directly contradicts the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution which provides for equal protection of all citizens.

Related Topics:
United States - Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States - Due process - 14th Amendment of the US Constitution - Equal protection

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In a 2003 case titled Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court held that the right to private consensual sexual conduct was protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. Both supporters and detractors of same-sex marriage have noted that this ruling paved the way for subsequent decisions invalidating state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia noted as such in his dissenting opinion to Lawrence.

Related Topics:
Lawrence v. Texas - Right - Antonin Scalia

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Some opponents of extending marriage to same-sex couples claim that equality can be achieved with civil unions or other forms of legal recognition that don't go as far as to use the word "marriage" that's used for opposite-sex couples. An opposing argument, used by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, is the following: "the dissimilitude between the terms "civil marriage" and "civil union" is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status" and also that "The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."

Related Topics:
Civil union - Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court - Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Some proponents of Same-sex marriage make a comparison between racial segregation and segregation of homosexual and heterosexual marriage classifications in civil law. They argue that dividing the concept of same sex marriage and differrent sex marriage is tantamount to "separate but equal" policies (like that overturned in the US Supreme Court case Brown Vs Board of Education, or anti-miscegenation laws (that were also overturned).

Related Topics:
Racial segregation - Separate but equal - Brown Vs Board of Education - Anti-miscegenation

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A brief presented by Cardinal Marc Ouellet, archbishop of Quebec, opposing the legal recognition of same-sex couples, argued that the decision to give such legal recognition is based on a false understanding of the meaning of equality between persons, as well as human dignity, and that "The equality and dignity of persons do not depend on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or marital status. Their dignity and equality are based on the simple fact that they are members of the human race. To respect their dignity, neither the state nor society is obliged to legally accept their 'lifestyle' that has no reason to be publicly recognized as a social value." http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=74331

Related Topics:
Cardinal - Marc Ouellet - Quebec

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

One fundamental problem for any law banning same-sex marriage is defining the terms "man" and "woman". If defined genetically, both transsexuals and intersexed individuals would be prohibited from marrying partners of the "opposite" sex and therefore from heterosexual marriage. Just as recent same-sex marriages have been quickly overturned as null and void, so too could extant, long term marriages. More than one in one hundred newborns are to some degree physically aberrant from their genetic sex, with most of them undergoing some degree of surgical alteration. Making allowances for "medical circumstances" would prove difficult, as homosexuality is certainly to some extent biological and probably genetically influenced. In the United Kingdom, recent legislation allows transsexual persons to be officially recognized in their new gender, but this has the effect of annulling any previous marriage. However the couple will now be able to register a civil partnership, to come into force immediately on the dissolution of their marriage.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Further, in the final chapter of "Same- Sex Marriage? A Christian Ethical Analysis", http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0829815600/002-0754145-3034402?v=glance liberal Pastor Marvin Ellison advocates that "marriage" should not just be limited to two people (regardless of gender) because this sets up inequalities in rights for people involved in polyamorous relationships.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~