Same-sex marriage

Same-sex marriage is marriage between persons who are legally of the same characteristic sex. Other terms include "gay marriage," "homosexual marriage," "same-gender marriage," "gender-neutral marriage," and "equal marriage."

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, opposing efforts to legalize and ban same-sex marriage made it a topic of debate all over the world. At present, same-sex marriages are legally performed and recognized in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and Canada, and the U.S. state of Massachusetts. On 1 December, 2005, South Africa’s Constitutional Court extended marriage to include same-sex couples which will go into effect by December 2006.

Civil unions, Registered partnerships, and other legal recognitions of same-sex couples, which offer some if not all the rights and obligations that attach to marriage, are available in: Argentina, Brazil, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the Australian Capital Territory and the states of New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania, and Western Australia , and the U.S. states of California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, Vermont, and the District of Columbia.

Debates over terminology

Proponents of same-sex marriage commonly argue that the correct term for same-sex marriage is simply "marriage." Opponents argue that would equate same-sex to opposite-sex marriage which they claim is a misunderstanding of the traditional meaning of marriage. They further assert that it is a threat to the institution of marriage in its opposite-sex form.

Some have suggested abolishing the word "marriage" (or reserving it to a religious context) and refering to the civil aspect of all marriages as civil partnerships. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, for instance, wrote in a 2003 editorial in the Los Angeles Times that such an arrangement would "strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in the hands of the church while placing a secular institution under state control." [1] Conservative critics like National Review's Jennifer Morse contend that the conflation of marriage with contractual agreements is itself a threat to marriage that "has undermined more heterosexual marriages than anything, with the possible exception of adultery." [2]

The terms "gay marriage," "straight marriage," and all others implying sexual orientation, although popular with the media, are viewed by some as inaccurate. They claim that sexual orientation has rarely been a legal or religious qualification for marriage (a gay man could still marry a woman). Rather, the relevant qualification is the characteristic sexes of the parties to the marriage.

Opponents of same-gender marriage usually call their initiatives "Defense of Marriage". Supporters see this as being very much akin to calling an attempt to suppress an unpopular religion "Defense of Freedom of Religion."

History of same-sex unions

For detailed information, see History of homosexuality and Same-sex marriage timeline.

Asia

Same-gender romantic love or sexual desire has been recorded since ancient times in the entirety of the continent of Asia, right from the Middle East to South Asia to East Asia. Such desire often took the form of same-sex unions, usually between men, and often included some difference in age (there is far less information available on relationships among women in ancient times. There are a number of possible reasons for this: an attitude that women were not important enough to write about; or that same-sex attraction between women was not valued as it was between men; or that women were not afforded equal status with men, so that, while men were free to pursue sexual and romantic pleasure both within and without marriage, women often were not).

In China, especially in the southern province of Fujian where male love was especially cultivated, men would marry youths in elaborate ceremonies. The marriages would last a number of years, at the end of which the elder partner would help the younger find a (female) wife and settle down to raise a family. Generally, this practice was reflective of the value Chinese culture placed on the reciprocal relationship between benevolent elders teaching and guiding the obedient younger members of society See also:

• Homosexuality in China
• Homosexuality in Japan

Classical Europe

Main article: Pederasty

There has been a long history of same-sex unions in the Western world. That many early western societies tolerated, and even celebrated, same-sex relationships is well-established, though not necessarily well-known. Evidence of same-sex marriage, however, is less clear, but there exists some evidence, often controversial, of same-sex marriages in ancient Rome and Greece.

In Hellenic Greece, the common pederastic relationships between Greek men (erastes) and youths (eromenos) who had come of age were, it has been argued, analogous to marriage in several aspects. The age of the youth was similar to the age at which women married (the mid-teens), and the relationship could only be undertaken with the consent of the father. This consent, just as in the case of a daughter's marriage, was contingent on the suitor's social standing. The relationship, just like a marriage, consisted of very specific social and religious responsibilities, and also had a sexual component.

In ancient Rome, the Emperor Nero is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. Other Roman Emperors, including Diocletian, are reported to have done the same.

Increasingly influential Christianity promoted marriage for procreative purposes, combined with the Roman use of sexuality as a form of dominance, as well as a means to conquer a male enemy through rape, have been linked with the increasing intolerance of homosexuality in Rome.

See also Historical pederastic couples

Christian Europe

In medieval Europe, homosexual relations were much less open or accepted than in the classical world. However, much like the courtly love a knight might bear for his lady, deep, passionate friendship between people of the same sex was not only possible but celebrated. The "love" in such relationships has traditionally been assumed to be Platonic; but modern scholars often question this. As part of the remains of a floor of a Dominican church in Istanbul were found two gravestones marking the resting places of two knights of the royal chamber of Richard II — Sir William Neville and Sir John Clanvowe, who died days apart in October 1391. Each of their shields holds an identical coat of arms both knights' familial arms side-by-side: "impaled," that is to say, like a married couple's. Thus the companionship and formal union associated with marriage are present; the only doubt is whether sex itself was. [3]

North America

Same-sex marriage has been documented in many societies that were not subject to Christian influence. In North America, among the Native American societies, it has taken the form of two-spirit-type relationships, in which some male members of the tribe, from an early age, heed a calling to take on female gender with all its responsibilities. They are prized as wives by the other men in the tribe, who enter into formal marriages with these two-spirit men. They are also respected as being especially powerful shamans.

In the United States during the nineteenth century, there was recognition of the relationship of two women making a long-term commitment to each other and cohabitating, referred to at the time as a Boston marriage; however, the general public at the time likely assumed that sexual activities were not part of the relationship.

Africa

In Africa, among the Azande of the Congo, men would marry youths for whom they had to pay a bride-price to the father. These marriages likewise were understood to be of a temporary nature. In Ancient Egypt, Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum are considered by many to be the first male couple in history. They shared the title of Overseer of the Manicurists in the Palace of King Niussere during the Fifth Dynasty of Egyptian pharaohs, and are listed as "royal confidantes" in their joint tomb. [4]

Current status of same-sex religious marriage

Most Abrahamic religions disapprove of same-sex marriages. However, some churches and denominations support these unions.

In Canada, the issue of same-sex marriage has split the religious community, with the United Church of Canada, the country's largest Protestant denomination, and some elements of the Anglican Church of Canada being supportive.

In 2002, the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster in British Columbia (which includes Greater Vancouver) began allowing its churches to bless same-sex unions in marriage-like ceremonies. In response, bishops from Africa, Asia and Latin America, representing more than one-third of Anglican Communion members worldwide, cut their relations with the diocese.

Reform Judaism, the largest Jewish religious tradition, permits rabbis to bless same-sex unions within their synagogues, though it does not use the words "wedding" or "marriage" in this context.

On July 4, 2005, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ approved a resolution affirming equal marriage rights regardless of gender. The leadership of this denomination made claims like "the 1.3 million member UCC became the largest Christian denomination to approve marriage equality", despite the Synod's lack of authority to speak for the denomination's largely autonomous congregations. The specifics of the resolution did not change any church's religious marriage policies, but urged UCC congregations to advocate for civil marriage equality. In keeping with the polity of that denomination, doctrinal matters like wedding policies remain under the authority of each local congregation.

Religious same-sex wedding ceremonies are already performed in Unitarian Universalist churches, some Reform and Reconstructionist Jewish synagogues, some Quaker congregations (mostly associated with unprogrammed meetings; see the main article), and by the Metropolitan Community Church.

Jodo Shinshu, the dominant form of Buddhism in Japan (with a significant presence in the United States), states "there is no basic difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality" [5]. In accordance with that principle it offers religious rites for same-sex couples. This tradition of accepting same-sex relationships dates back to ancient Japan with only a brief discontinuance during the early 1900s (when Western nations suggested a proscription).

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. 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.

Africa

In December 2005, in the case of Minister of Home Affairs v. Fourie, the Constitutional Court of South Africa ruled unanimously that it was unconstitutional to prevent people of the same-gender from marrying when marriage was permitted for people of opposite gender, and gave Parliament one year to "rework laws allowing same-sex unions". If Parliament does not act, the words "or spouse" will be added to the Marriage Act to allow these unions.

South Africa is in the process of reorganizing certain government departments to support gay marriages. As of July 2005, the Department of Home Affairs had completed the design and printing of new forms to allow for same-sex couples to apply for immigration and residence benefits. Several same-sex couples are already legally recognized as married, based on the definition of "spouse" in South Africa's Immmigration Act of 2002.

Asia

In 2003, the government of the Republic of China, (ROC, aka 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 ROC does not have any form of same-sex unions.

The National People's Congress, legislature of the People's Republic of China (PRC, aka China), 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.

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.

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 have been no legislative efforts to allow them.

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.

A poll conducted by EOS Gallup Europe in 2003 found that 57 percent of the population in the then 15-member European Union supports same-sex marriage. The support among the members states who joined in 2004 is much lower (around 28 percent), meaning that 53 percent of citizens in the 25-member EU support legalising same-sex marriage. [6]

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. [7] See Same-sex marriage in France

After being elected in June 2004, Spanish prime minister Zapatero restated his pre-election pledge to push for legalization of same-sex marriage. [8] 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. [9][10][11] For more information see Same-sex marriage in Spain.

On 18 November 2004 the United Kingdom Parliament passed the Civil Partnership Act, which came into force in December 2005 and allows 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. The press is widely referring to these unions as "gay marriage." [12] [13] See Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom.

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. [14]. The conclusion of the committee shall be brought to the government no later than March 30, 2007. [15]

In December 2005, the Latvian Parliament passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. President Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga signed the amendment shortly afterwards, making Latvia the third (after Poland and Lithuania) member state of the European Union to constitutionally define marriage as solely a union between a man and a woman. [16]

North America

Canada

Main article: Same-sex marriage in Canada In Canada between 2003 and 2005, federal 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, found the prohibition of same-sex marriage to be contrary to the Charter of Rights, 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. As of November 11th, 2004 the Canadian federal government's immigration department, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC), considers same-sex marriages performed in Canada 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.

United States

Main article: Same-sex marriage in the United States Currently in the United States, only Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriage, Vermont and Connecticut offer civil unions, California, New Jersey, Maine, and the District of Columbia grant benefits through domestic partnerships, and Hawaii has reciprocal beneficiary laws. Seventeen states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage[17], twenty-seven states have legal statutes defining marriage to two persons of the opposite-sex. 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, although it is debated whether that clause would even have such an effect without the Act. In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court decided Baker v. Vermont, ruling that their state legislature must establish identical 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 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on November 18, 2003, ruled in the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples violates 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.

Cherokee

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. On December 22, 2005, the Judicial Appeals Tribunal of the Cherokee Nation dismissed an injunction against the lesbian couple filed by members of the Tribal Council to stop the marriage. The couple still has to file the marriage certificate for the marriage to become legal. However, there are no plans to complete the filing.

Australia

Main article: Same-sex marriage in Australia

In 2004, Australian Prime Minister John Howard proposed an amendment to the marriage laws, so that Australian same-sex marriages and overseas same-sex unions would not be recognised as marriages under Australian law - effectively this banned same sex marriage in Australia. He also attempted to bar same-sex couples from adopting children from overseas - however this part of his legislation was rejected by the Labor Party as they felt adoption was a matter to be handled by the States and Territories - and this was not passed. In the end, the Liberal Party and the Labor Party supported the same sex marriage ban, and it was passed on 13 August 2004.

On the state level, Australia currently recognizes same-sex partnerships in all but two of its states: Victoria and South Australia.

Western Australia, Tasmania, and the Australian Capital Territory allow same-sex couples to adopt children from within these states, although Tasmania requires same-sex couples to have a prior relationship with the child being adopted (e.g. through being related to the child).

International Organizations

The terms of employment of the staff of international organizations are not, in most cases, governed by the laws of the country in which their offices are located. Agreements with the host country safeguard these organizations' impartiality with regard to the host and member countries. Hiring and firing practices, working hours and environment, holiday time, pension plans, health insurance and life insurance, salaries, expatriation benefits and general conditions of employment are managed according to rules and regulations proper to each organization. The independence of these organizations gives them the freedom to implement human resource policies which are even contrary to the laws of their host and member countries. A person who is otherwise eligible for employment in Belgium may not become an employee of NATO unless he or she is a citizen of a NATO member state. The World Health Organization has recently banned the recruitment of cigarette smokers. Agencies of the United Nations coordinate some human resource policies amongst themselves.

Despite their relative independence, no organization currently recognises same-sex partnerships without condition. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the agencies of the United Nations voluntarily discriminate between opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages, as well as discriminating between employees on the basis of nationality. These organisations recognize same-sex marriages only if the country of citizenship of the employees in question recognizes the marriage. In some cases, these organizations do offer a limited selection of the benefits normally provided to straight married couples to de facto partners or domestic partners of their staff, but even individuals who have entered into an opposite-sex civil union in their home country are not guaranteed full recognition of this union in all organizations.

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.

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.

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 acquiring some material benefit for their position. The prominence of many religious organisations, and the scriptural basis of their opposition to same-sex marriage, has led many advocates of Separation of Church & State to support the legalisation of gay marriage on the grounds that governments do not have the right to legislate on religious issues.

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, stating that nothing less than perpetuation of humanity itself relies fully on the latter and not at all on the former, and trying to "equalize" such arrangements through force of law will only create gross social distortions to accommodate the gulf between such law and the observable facts of human nature.

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, 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 identities[18].

Some Christians further allege that same-sex marriage goes against Romans 1:24-27.

Proponents suggest that since marriages are conducted by the power invested in the celebrant by the state, under the principles of religious pluralism and the separation of church and state, religious arguments should not be used to constitute the law.

It should be noted that not all religious people oppose gay marriage. Some churches and denominations, listed above, perform same-sex weddings. Members of these religions, including straight members, may view laws banning same-sex marriage as a violation of their religious freedom.

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.

Social arguments

Those who advocate that marriage should be defined exclusively as the union of one man and one woman argue that only a heterosexual union can provide the procreative foundation of the family unit that they see as the chief social building block of civilization. They argue that the definition proposed by same-sex marriage advocates changes the social importance of marriage from 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.

The dissent by Justice Martha Sosman in the decision of the Massachusetts high court[19] that mandated gay marriage for that state makes a societal argument without specifying the harm that would occur from this change. Asserting the a priori importance of marriage as an institution, she questions whether the burden of proof that this would be harmless has been met. Her analysis can be seen as an example of Precautionary Principle.

A common objection to same-sex marriage is to hold that the purpose of marriage is a procreative partnership and that the same-sex partnership is inherently sterile. Some who hold this view see marriage as the social codification of an evolved long-term mating strategy, with economic and legal benefits to facilitate family growth and stability. Others argue that because the law does not prohibit marriage between sterile heterosexual couples, or to women past menopause, the procreation argument cannot reasonably be used against same-sex marriage. [20]

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

Some philosophers object to same-sex marriage because of their inherent sterility. However, due to the legality of opposite-sex marriages in which one or both partners are sterile, these philosophers believe that all marriages should thus be lowered to "civil unions". These civil unions would then only receive the benefits of marriage which do not require expenditures from the government (e.g. tax breaks), and any monetary benefits would only be awarded based on the number of children living in a household.

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

Arguments about tradition

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.

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.

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 [21] 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.

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.

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 identical rights and responsibilities as two-person groups. For example, if a government gives medical coverage to spouses of service members, then a service member with thirty spouses would either receive benefits far more valuable than one with only one spouse would or not all that service member's spouses would receive coverage. Of course, this argument suffers some when it is seen that service members with various numbers of children have no such difficulties.

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.

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 children

Some object on the grounds that same-sex couples should not be allowed to adopt or raise children or to have access to reproductive technologies, and that same-sex marriage would make such adoptions easier. A number of health and child welfare organizations, however, disagree. They include the Child Welfare League of America, North American Council on Adoptable Children, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers. (See [22]) 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. (See [23])

Arguments concerning equality

In the United States, 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.

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.

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

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

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., compares same-sex marriage opponents to racial segregationists of the 1960's by arguing that:

He concludes "There will come a time when we will look back upon [banning gay marriage in eleven states] for the shame it is. I hope it will be soon."[24]

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." [25]

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

Further, in the final chapter of "Same- Sex Marriage? A Christian Ethical Analysis", [26] 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.

Miscellaneous

The etiquette of addressing same-sex couples is often questioned. Some people with friends who are in a same-sex marriage are unsure as to how to address them, since in English and other languages, married people may use a different form of address from single ones. Etiquette writer Judith Martin (Miss Manners) counsels that where the spouses have taken one name, they may be addressed as The Messrs. John and Richard Doe or Mmes. Alice and Carol Roe; otherwise, they may be addressed individually, as is done for other married couples with different surnames. [27]

Marriage organizers see legalization as a business opportunity, and claim that homosexual couples are interested in sophisticated ceremonies, both due to lack of established traditions and because of the enthusiasm that they have been building for years.

In a 2005 episode of The Simpsons ("There's Something About Marrying"), Springfield legalized gay marriage to attract the pink dollar.

Another popular cartoon show, Drawn Together included an episode featuring gay marriage in 2005. Two of the characters, Spanky Ham and Xandir, have a fake gay marriage to extend (gay) Xandir's health benefits to (straight) Spanky Ham.