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.

Current status of same-sex civil marriage

In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, there has been a growing movement in a number of countries to regard civil-marriages as a right which should be extended to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation. Civil-marriages entail a wide range of entitlements, including social security, health insurance, taxation, inheritance and other benefits unavailable to couples unmarried in the eyes of the law. Restricting legal recognition to opposite-sex couples excludes same-sex couples from gaining legal access to these benefits. Similarly, though certain rights extending from marriage can be replicated by legal means (e.g. by drawing up contracts), many cannot; thus same-sex couples may still face insecurity in areas such as inheritance, hospital visitation and immigration. Lack of legal recognition also makes it more difficult for same-sex couples to adopt children.

Related Topics:
20th - 21st - Adopt children

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

At present, same-sex marriages are legal nationwide in only four countries: namely the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and Canada.

Related Topics:
Netherlands - Belgium - Spain - Canada

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Asia

In 2003 the government of the Republic of China (Taiwan) led by the Presidential office proposed legislation granting marriages to same-sex couples under the Human Rights Basic Law; however it faced opposition among cabinet members and has been stalled since. Currently Taiwan does not have any form of same-sex unions.

Related Topics:
2003 - Republic of China - Taiwan

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The National People's Congress, legislature of the People's Republic of China (PRC), proposed legislation allowing same-sex marriages in 2003. During the course of the debate the proposal failed to garner the 30 votes needed for a placement on the agenda. Same-sex marriage supporters have vowed to keep pressing for its passage in the PRC.

Related Topics:
National People's Congress - People's Republic of China - 2003

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Communist Party of the Philippines conducted the country’s first same-sex marriage in 2005; however it was not recognized by the government. Within the government there has been fierce debate on the issue of same-sex unions. Generally the Communist Party supports legislation allowing such marriages while the Roman Catholic Church opposes it.

Related Topics:
Communist Party - Philippines - 2005 - Roman Catholic Church

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The King of Cambodia, Norodom Sihanouk, announced in 2004 that he supports legislation granting marriages to same-sex couples. He is hugely revered among Cambodians; however since his proclamation there has been no legislative efforts to allow them.

Related Topics:
King - Cambodia - Norodom Sihanouk - 2004

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Europe

Same-sex civil marriages currently are legally recognized nationwide only in the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain. Belgium extends all the rights of marriage minus adoption to same-sex couples. Spain and the Netherlands, on the other hand, make no distinction whatsoever, and therefore, also extend adoption rights to same-sex couples.

Related Topics:
Netherlands - Belgium - Spain

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In late January 2005, the Swedish government put together a committee of the major political parties to study whether or not the country should allow same-sex marriages. http://www.gaynz.com/news/default.asp?dismode=article&artid=2188.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

After being elected in June 2004, Spanish prime minister Zapatero restated his pre-election pledge to push for legalization of same-sex marriage. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3548727.stm On 1 October, 2004, the Spanish Government approved a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, including adoption rights. The bill received full parliamentary approval on June 30, 2005 and passed into law on July 2. Polls suggest that 62% to 66% of Spain supports same-sex marriage. http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2005/04/21/5http://www.cadenaser.com/articulo.html?xref=20050701csrcsrsoc_3&type=Tes&anchor=http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/7887 For more information see Same-sex marriage in Spain.

Related Topics:
Spanish - Zapatero - 1 October - 2004 - June 30 - 2005 - July 2 - Same-sex marriage in Spain

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On 18 November 2004 the United Kingdom Parliament passed the Civil Partnership Act, which will come into force during 2005 and will allow same-sex couples to register their partnership. The Government stressed during the passage of the Bill that it is not same-sex marriage, and some gay activists have criticised the Act for not using the terminology of marriage. However, the rights and duties of partners under this legislation will be almost exactly the same as for married couples. An amendment proposing similar rights for family members living together was rejected. See Civil unions in the United Kingdom.

Related Topics:
18 November - 2004 - United Kingdom - Civil Partnership Act - 2005 - Civil unions in the United Kingdom

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In May 2004, the largest opposition party in France, the French Socialist Party, announced its support for same-sex marriage. A 2004 poll by ELLE found that 64% of France supports same-sex marriage and 49% supports adoption by same-sex couples. http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/06/060504frWed.htm See Same-sex marriage in France

Related Topics:
May 2004 - France - French Socialist Party - ELLE - Same-sex marriage in France

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

North America

Canada

Main article: Same-sex marriage in Canada

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In Canada, court rulings in the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the Yukon Territory, have found the prohibition of same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional, thus legalizing it in those jurisdictions. On July 20, 2005 the Canadian Parliament passed the Civil Marriage Act defining marriage nationwide as "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others." Canada is also the only country without a residency requirement for same-sex marriage.

Related Topics:
Canada - Ontario - British Columbia - Quebec - Manitoba - New Brunswick - Nova Scotia - Saskatchewan - Newfoundland and Labrador - Yukon Territory

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled, on a reference question (, 2004) that the government has the authority to amend the definition of marriage, but did not rule on whether or not such a change is required by the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court stated that such a ruling is not necessary because the federal government had accepted the rulings of lower courts. The Court also ruled that religious institutions could not be required to perform same-sex marriages.

Related Topics:
Supreme Court of Canada - Reference question - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The original case that lead to the legalisaton of same-sex marriage in Canada came from the act of Rev. Brent Hawkes of the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto who married two same sex couples within his congregation and then challenged the authorities to register these marriages.

Related Topics:
Rev. Brent Hawkes - Metropolitan Community Church - Toronto

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

As of November 11th, 2004 the Canadian federal government's immigration department considers same-sex marriages valid for the purposes of sponsoring a spouse to immigrate. See also CIC and Same-sex marriage in Canada Immigration authorities there had previously considered long-term same-sex relationships to be equivalent to similar heterosexual relationships as grounds for sponsorship.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Canadian federal government introduced a bill for a law called the Civil Marriage Act to legalize same-sex marriage nationally. This bill (Bill C-38) was passed by the Canadian House of Commons on June 28, 2005, despite heated and vocal opposition from the Conservative Party of Canada (the official opposition). It was then passed by the Senate on July 19, 2005 and received Royal Assent on July 20 2005. It is now the law across Canada.

Related Topics:
Federal - Bill C-38 - Canadian House of Commons - June 28 - 2005 - Conservative Party of Canada - Senate - July 19 - Royal Assent - July 20 - Canada

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Following the passage of Bill C-38, the government of Prince Edward Island initially refused to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples on the grounds that the wording on the necessary documents had not yet been updated and that this would not be able to be completed until the fall sitting of the legislature at the earliest http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/22/PEI-same-sex-050722.html http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/07/072305PEI.htm. The province did pledge that it would make the necessary changes. However, following complaints charging that the imposed delay was illegal and infringed the legal rights of same-sex couples, the province reversed its position and the first same-sex marriage on Prince Edward Island occurred on August 20, 2005 http://www.gaypei.com/docs/news/firstwedding.htm. The two territories without same-sex marriage had also previously indicated they would comply with federal law. The Alberta government, although strongly opposed, has stated that it will register same-sex marriages, but will work to protect those who oppose it on social, cultural or religious grounds.

Related Topics:
Prince Edward Island - Alberta

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

United States

Main article: Same-sex marriage in the United States

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

As of September 2005 in the United States, only the state of Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriage, while California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey and Vermont grant persons in same-sex unions a similar legal status to those in a civil marriage by domestic partnership, civil union or reciprocal beneficiary laws.

Related Topics:
Massachusetts - California - Connecticut - District of Columbia - Hawaii - Maine - New Jersey - Vermont

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Sixteen states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriagehttp://hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Your_Community&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=19449, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Twenty-seven states have legal statutes defining marriage to two persons of the opposite-sex. A small number of states ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent to civil marriage.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

During the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections the question of whether same-sex unions should be recognized by the government became a paramount wedge issue. A strong faction within the Republican Party, the Christian Right sought a federal amendment banning any recognition of same-sex unions by any name. This position was adopted by the party's platform. Ten of the states with amendments banning same-sex marriage passed during these elections.

Related Topics:
Wedge issue - Republican Party - Christian Right

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

President George W. Bush chose to support the Federal Marriage Amendment banning same-sex marriage while agreeing with the concept of federalism, that states themselves should settle other arrangements such as civil union, domestic partnership and reciprocal beneficiary. The Federal Marriage Amendment failed in the U.S. Senate by a greater than expected number, with several members of the Republican Party defying the party's platform.

Related Topics:
George W. Bush - Federal Marriage Amendment - Federalism

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Advocates of same-sex marriage gathered support from African-American associations, feminists, scientists, Jews, Hispanic groups, celebrities, labor unions and the gay rights movement. A few Democratic Party state platforms endorsed same-sex marriage as well. Fourteen states that attempted to ban same-sex marriage by constitutional amendment failed in 2004 and six have failed in 2005. http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Publications1/backlash_myth.pdf

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Courts in the state of Hawaii in 1993 ruled that same-sex couples were entitled to same rights as married opposite-sex couples under their state’s Equal Protection Clause. Polls at the time indicated that the majority of residents favored allowing same-sex marriage, possibly due to predominantly non-European demographics. After the ruling many traditionalist Christian organizations from the American South poured substantial funds into the state in a public relations blitz attacking the ruling, and in 1998, Hawaiian voters amended their state Constitution to give their legislature the right to restrict marriage rights. The legislature created reciprocal benefits for same-sex couples; however this type of partnership contained substantially less rights than a marriage.

Related Topics:
Hawaii - 1993 - American South - 1998 - Reciprocal benefits

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In a partial response to the rulings in Hawaii the United States Congress in 1996 passed the Defense of Marriage Act. (Regarding the name of the act, see below.) The Act is meant to prevent the courts from using the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause to bring same-sex marriage to states that have rejected it by forcing one state to recognize the marriages of another state.

Related Topics:
United States Congress - 1996 - Defense of Marriage Act - See below - Constitution - Full Faith and Credit clause

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In Alaska in 1998, a preliminary court ruling required state attorneys to demonstrate a compelling state interest for banning same-sex marriages. Before the court case could proceed, voters approved an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting same-sex unions.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Vermont Supreme Court in 1999 ruled that their state legislature must establish equal rights for same-sex couples similar to those of married opposite-sex couples. Legislators elected to create state level civil unions as what they argued was a middle-ground; this was signed into law by then-governor Howard Dean. The California legislature in 2003 approved legislation creating an equivalent of marriage on a state level for same-sex couples. Governor Gray Davis signed the domestic partnerships into law and it came into force in 2005.

Related Topics:
Vermont - 1999 - Civil unions - Howard Dean - California - 2003 - Gray Davis - Domestic partnerships - 2005

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on November 18, 2003, ruled in the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that same-sex marriages are allowed under the state’s Equal Protection Clause. The court stayed its ruling until May 17, 2004. Beginning on that date, hundreds of same-sex couples were legally married in Massachusetts.

Related Topics:
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court - November 18 - 2003 - Goodridge v. Department of Public Health - May 17

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Many municipalities in early 2004 wedded same-sex couples. These marriages took place in the states of California, New York, Oregon, New Mexico and New Jersey. All of them have been halted since and the marriages voided. New Jersey, District of Columbia and Maine legislators in 2004 approved domestic partnership laws granting same-sex couples all the same rights as a marriage on a state level. A Washington Court in 2004 ruled that the state must allow same-sex marriages. The ruling is currently pending an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Related Topics:
California - New York - Oregon - New Mexico - New Jersey - District of Columbia - Maine - 2004 - Washington

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Native American Cherokee Nation in 2004 issued a moratorium on same-sex marriages while they consider their validity after a lesbian couple applied for a marriage. Due to their tribal sovereignty theoretically if they allowed them the government would have to recognize it. The Tribal Council unanimously approved a Constitutional amendment stating that the Cherokee defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The couple have appealed to the judicial court, on grounds that their union predated the amendment.

Related Topics:
Cherokee - 2004 - Tribal sovereignty

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On February 4, 2005, a New York state judge ruled that New York had to allow same sex couples to wed. This ruling, which is stayed pending an appeal by New York City's mayor, Michael Bloomberg, would only apply to New York City, although a ruling unfavorable to the state's position by an appellate court would apply to a larger geographic area. See Same-sex marriage in New York. More recently, on March 15, 2005, the San Francisco County Superior Court ruled that California's state constitution forbids discrimination against same-sex couples wishing to be married, stating that there is "no rational purpose" for the ban and comparing it to racial segregation. As in New York, this ruling is stayed pending appeal. See Same-sex marriage in California.

Related Topics:
New York - New York City - Michael Bloomberg - Same-sex marriage in New York - Same-sex marriage in California

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On April 20, 2005, Connecticut became the first state in the Union that legalized same-sex civil unions without a court order. Legislators in Maryland approved a domestic partnership bill in 2005; however on May 22 the Governor vetoed the bill, legislators are now pursuing an override of the veto.

Related Topics:
April 20 - Connecticut - Maryland

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On May 12, 2005, a federal judge in Omaha struck down Nebraska's constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other same-sex relationships. U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon ruled that the ban, known as Initiative 416, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Related Topics:
May 12 - Omaha - Nebraska - Equal Protection Clause - 14th Amendment - U.S. Constitution

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Elsewhere in 2005 the Governor of Utah proposed reciprocal benefits for same-sex couples. The measure was defeated and he has promised to revisit the issue in 2006. Legislation creating domestic partnerships is currently pending in Arizona and New Mexico. Civil union bills are pending as well in Montana and Oregon. Courts are considering same-sex marriage in Florida and Maryland.

Related Topics:
Utah - Arizona - New Mexico - Montana - Oregon - Florida - Maryland

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On September 6, 2005, the California State Legislature became the first state legislative body to approve a same sex marriage bill. The legislation passed after an earlier defeat in the State Assembly in June of 2005. The legislation was, however, vetoed by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on September 29.

Related Topics:
September 6 - California - Arnold Schwarzenegger

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Potentially serious legal issues arise from the conflict between state domestic partnership/same-sex-marriage laws, and the structure of U.S. Federal law, which, under the Defense of Marriage Act, explicitly does not extend Federal law recognition to those unions. This means that, for example, though they may essentially be "married" under the law of some states, partners would not be entitled to spousal "collateral" rights to Social Security, to spouse benefits in the other partner's private employer pension (if that pension is governed by ERISA) and will not be treated as "spouses" for purposes of any Federal tax law.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Australia

Main article: Same-sex marriage in Australia

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Australia currently recognizes same-sex partnerships in all but two of its states: Victoria and South Australia. South Australia as of 2005 has legislation pending allowing the recognition of same-sex partnerships. Australian Prime Minister John Howard proposed an amendment to the marriage laws banning same-sex marriages, while allowing current domestic partnerships to continue to be determined on a state and territorial level: the same-sex marriage ban passed in 2004. He also barred same-sex couples from adopting children.

Related Topics:
Australia - South Australia - Prime Minister - John Howard

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

It can be argued that the Victorian Statute Law Amendment (Relationships) Act 2001 recognises domestic partnerships as being a couple who live together on a genuine domestic basis irrespective of gender. Whilst this is not explicit recognition of same-sex partnerships, the approach ensures equality of not only heterosexual and homosexual defacto or common law relationships, but other possible permutations which may or may not be based upon a sexual relationship.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Nevertheless, since other relationship issues such as compulsory Superannuation are governed federally, discrimination against gays remains and is unlikely to change in the near future.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Other forms of same-sex partnership

The movement towards the legal recognition of same-sex marriages has resulted in changes in the law in many jurisdictions, though the extent of the changes have varied:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• Civil unions provide varying degrees of the rights and responsibilities of same-sex marriage, but use a different name for the arrangement. They exist in several European countries (Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK) as well as in the U.S. states of Vermont and Connecticut, the Canadian provinces of Quebec and Nova Scotia, (although marriage is legal in both provinces), the Australian states of New South Wales, Western Australia, and Tasmania (the Australian Capital Territory recognises domestic partnerships with the same rights as civil unions), New Zealand and the city of Buenos Aires, Argentina.
• Domestic partnerships or registered partnerships also provide varying degrees of privileges and responsibilities, usually fewer than those found in civil unions. They are often available to opposite-sex couples and exist in many jurisdictions.

Even in jurisdictions where they are not legally recognized, many gay and lesbian couples choose to have weddings (also called "commitment ceremonies" in this context) to celebrate and affirm their relationship, fulfilling the social aspect of a marriage. Such ceremonies have no legal validity, however, and as such do not deal with issues such as inheritance, property rights or social security.

Related Topics:
Gay - Lesbian - Wedding

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Some writers have advanced the idea that the term "marriage" should be restricted to a religious context and that state and federal governments should not be involved in a religious rite. Some regard this as a governmental intrusion into religion; they believe that all statutes involving domestic contracts should replace the word "marriage" with "domestic partnership" and thus bypass the controversy of gender. This would then allow a domestic contract between any two individuals who have attained their majority.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Conservative critics like National Review's Jennifer Morse respond that the conflation of marriage with contractual agreements is itself a threat to marriage that "has undermined more heterosexual marriages than anything, with the possible exception of adultery." http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/morse200405200926.asp

Related Topics:
National Review - Jennifer Morse

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~