Same-sex marriage in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Same-sex marriage, often called gay marriage, is a marriage between two persons of the same sex. The issue is a divisive political issue in the United States and elsewhere. The social movement to obtain the legal protections of civil marriage for same-sex couples began in the early 1970s, and the issue became a prominent one in U.S. politics in the 1990s.

The legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage in the United States are complicated by the nation's federal system of government. Traditionally, the federal government did not attempt to establish its own definition of marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967). With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, however, a marriage was explicitly defined as a union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law. (See 1 U.S.C. § 7.) Thus, no act or agency of the U.S. federal government currently recognizes same-sex marriage.

However, many aspects of marriage law affecting the day to day lives of inhabitants of the United States are determined by the states, not the federal government, and the Defense of Marriage Act does not prevent individual states from defining marriage as they see fit; indeed, most legal scholars believe that the federal government cannot impose a definition of marriage onto the laws of the various states by statute. Massachusetts has recognized same-sex marriage since 2004. Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey and California have created legal unions that, while not called marriages, are explicitly defined as offering all the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law to same-sex couples. Maine, Hawaii and the District of Columbia have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions.

In contrast, twenty-six states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Forty-three states have statutes defining marriage to two persons of the opposite-sex, including some of those that have created legal recognition for same-sex unions under a name other than "marriage."

Opponents of same-sex marriage have attempted to prevent individual states from recognizing such unions by amending the United States Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. In 2006, the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages, was approved by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, on a party line vote, and was debated by the full United States Senate, but was ultimately defeated in both houses of Congress.^[1]

[edit] The debate

[edit] Conservative publications

A writer of The Weekly Standard, Stanley Kurtz, adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute, blames same-sex marriage in the Netherlands for an increase in parental cohabitation contracts. He asserts that same-sex marriage has detached procreation from marriage in the Dutch mind and would likely do the same in the United States.

Using anecdotal evidence, such as a Dutch man and two women who entered a cohabitation agreement together, and a small Unitarian Church group that advocates polygamy, Kurtz states that allowing a monogamous same-sex marriage will create a social disorder that will eventually lead to polygamy.

...the American media are correct to report that the majority of Dutch citizens have accepted the innovation (same-sex marriage). The press has simply missed the meaning of that public shift. Broad Dutch acceptance of same-sex marriage means that marriage as an institution has been detached from the public mind. That is why the practice of parental cohabitation has grown so quickly in the Netherlands. By the same token, the shoulder shrug that followed the triple wedding (cohabitation) story shows that legalized group marriage in the Netherlands is a real possibility.

[edit] Liberal publications

Christopher Ott, a reporter for The Progressive, has characterized the social conservatives' predictions of legalized polygamy in states such as Massachusetts that have same-sex marriage as false. He confronts the common argument that same-sex marriage would devalue marriage as a whole by referencing other historical events such as allowing women to vote and stating that it did not devalue the electoral process. Ott describes the prohibition of same-sex marriage as devaluing the American principle of equal treatment.

...you also have to wonder if he and other opponents to equal rights really understand the consequences of the amendments they support. Do they really want gay and lesbian couples separated at the emergency room door in the event of an accident or illness? Do they really think long-term couples should be denied the right to make medical or end-of-life decisions, which married couples take for granted? Do they really think that kids should be denied health coverage by one parent's health insurance because the law treats them as strangers? Do they really think it's fair for gay and lesbian people to pay the same taxes as everyone else, but to be denied the hundreds of rights, benefits and protections of marriage? Do they really think that a gay and lesbian couple that has been together for 50 years does not deserve the protections that non-gay newlyweds enjoy from day one?

– ^[2]

[edit] Groups supporting and opposing same-sex marriage

See also: Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches

It is supported by an assortment of groups and individuals. Those supporting same-sex marriage include Alternatives to marriage project [2], the American Civil Liberties Union,^[3] the American Psychiatric Association,^{[citation needed]} the American Psychological Association,^{[citation needed]} Freedom to Marry,^[3] the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders,^[3] Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation,^[3] the Human Rights Campaign,^[3] Coretta Scott King [3], Lambda Legal,^[3] Marriage Equality USA [4], MassEquality,^[3] the Metropolitan Community Church,^{[citation needed]} National Center for Lesbian Rights,^[3] National Gay and Lesbian Task Force,^[3] National Organization for Women[5], Reform Judaism,^{[citation needed]} the Unitarian Universalist Association,^{[citation needed]} the United Church of Christ,^{[citation needed]} and United Farm Workers.^{[citation needed]}

Additionally, the mayors in 2006 of several large cities such as Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, and Seattle support same-sex marriage. Several political parties such as the Communist Party USA,^[4] U.S. Green Party, the United States Libertarian Party, the Socialist Party USA,^[5] and several state Democratic Parties also support gay marriage.

Those supporting the creation of a separate but equal legal status for same-sex couples in the form of civil union or domestic partnership legislation include some state governors such as those of California, Connecticut, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington, the national Democratic Party,^[6] and President George W. Bush.^[7]

Groups that oppose giving a legal status to same-sex marriages include the the American Family Association,^{[citation needed]} the Christian Coalition,^{[citation needed]} the Christian Voice,^{[citation needed]} the Church of God (Anderson, IN),^[8] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,^{[citation needed]} the Conservative Mennonite Conference^[9] the Evangelical Methodist Church,^[10] Family Research Council,^{[citation needed]} Focus on the Family,^{[citation needed]} the Hutterite Brethren,^[11], the Moral Majority,^{[citation needed]} NARTH,^{[citation needed]} the Orthodox Church in America,^[12] the Presbyterian Church USA,^[13] the Rabbinical Council of America,^[14] a majority of the Republican Party,^{[citation needed]} the Roman Catholic Church,^{[citation needed]} the Southern Baptist Convention^[15] the Seventh-day Adventist Church,^[16] Southern Baptist Convention,^[17] Unification Church,^{[citation needed]} and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (OU).^[14]

[edit] Popular opinion

See Same-sex marriage in the United States public opinion

[edit] Legal issues

See Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States

[edit] State level

See Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States by state

     Same sex marriage permitted
     Laws permitting civil unions or domestic partnerships
     Same sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships prohibited

[edit] Impact of foreign laws

The legalization of same sex-marriages across all of Canada (see same-sex marriage in Canada) has raised questions about U.S. law, due to Canada's proximity to the U.S. and the fact that Canada has no citizenship or residency requirement to receive a marriage certificate (unlike the Netherlands and Belgium). Canada and the U.S. have a history of respecting marriages contracted in either country.

Immediately after the June 2003 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in Ontario, a number of American couples headed or planned to head to the province in order to get married. A coalition of American national gay rights groups issued a statement asking couples to contact them before attempting legal challenges, so that they might be coordinated as part of the same-sex marriage movement in the United States.^{[citation needed]}

At present, same-sex marriages are recognized nationwide in the Netherlands (and possibly Aruba), Belgium, Spain, Canada and South Africa. Same-sex marriage conducted abroad is recognized in Israel.

[edit] 2004 presidential election

In the 2004 presidential election campaign, defining marriage became a campaign issue. Incumbent George W. Bush, the Republican Party candidate, supported creating a federal "one man and one woman" definition of marriage, through the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), while supporting state-sanctioned civil unions, reciprocal benefits, or domestic partnerships. Challenger John F. Kerry, the Democratic Party candidate, took a similar position supporting the "one man and one woman" definition on a state level while supporting civil unions, reciprocal benefits, and domestic partnerships. However, Kerry opposed the FMA.

During the 2004 Republican National Convention, the GOP platform called for "a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage".[6] After his re-election, President Bush indicated to the Washington Post that he saw little prospect for Congressional passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment to the federal Constitution unless the Defense of Marriage Act were ruled unconstitutional.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Case law

United States case law regarding the rights of homosexual persons:

• Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971) (upholding a Minnesota law defining marriage)
• Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588 (Ky. 1973) (upholding a Kentucky law defining marriage)
• Jennings v. Jennings, 315 A.2d 816, 820 n.7 (Md. Ct. App. 1974) ("marriage is between only one man and one woman.")
• Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187 (Wash. App. 1974)
• Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1111 (affirming that same-sex marriage does not make one a "spouse" under the Immigration and Nationality Act)
• De Santo v. Barnsley, 476 A.2d 952 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984)
• In re Estate of Cooper, 564 N.Y.S.2d 684 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1990)
• Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307 (D.C. 1995)
• Storrs v. Holcomb, 645 N.Y.S.2d 286 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996) (New York does not recognize or authorize same-sex marriage) (this ruling has since been changed, New York does recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states)
• In re Estate of Hall, 707 N.E.2d 201, 206 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998) (no same sex marriage will be recognized; petitioner claiming existing same-sex marriage was not in a marriage recognized by law)
• Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194; 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999) (Common Benefits Clause of the state constitution requires that same-sex couples be granted the same legal rights as married persons)
• Rosengarten v. Downes, 806 A.2d 1066 (Conn. 2002) (state will not recognize Vermont civil union)
• Burns v. Burns, 560 S.E.2d 47 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman)
• Frandsen v. County of Brevard, 828 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2002) (State constitution will not be construed to recognize same-sex marriage; sex classifications not subject to strict scrutiny under Florida constitution)
• In re Estate of Gardiner, 42 P.3d 120 (Kan. 2002) (a post-op male-to-female transgendered person may not marry a male, because this person is still a male in the eyes of the law, and marriage in Kansas is recognized only between a man and a woman)
• Standhardt v. Superior Court ex rel. County of Maricopa, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003) (no state constitution right to same-sex marriage)
• Morrison v. Sadler, 2003 WL 23119998 (Ind. Super. Ct. 2003) (Indiana's Defense of Marriage Act is found valid)
• Lewis v. Harris (New Jersey Supreme Court, 2006) (New Jersey is required to extend all rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples, but prohibiting same-sex marriage does not violate the state constitution; legislature has 180 days from October 25, 2006 to amend the marriage laws or create a "parallel structure.")
• Andersen v. King County (Washington Supreme Court, 2006) (Washington's Defense of Marriage Act does not violate the state constitution)

[edit] References

[edit] Bibliography

• Wolfson, Evan (2004). Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-7432-6459-2. 
• Chauncey, George (2004). Why Marriage?: The History Shaping Today's Debate over Gay Equality. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-00957-3. 
• Dobson, James C. (2004). Marriage Under Fire. Sisters, Or.: Multnomah. ISBN 1-59052-431-4. 

Same-sex marriage in the United States This box: view • talk • edit

Legalized: Massachusetts Law proposed: Connecticut - Illinois - Maine - New Jersey - New York - Rhode Island - Vermont  Civil unions permitted: Connecticut - New Jersey - Vermont  Domestic partnerships permitted: California - District of Columbia - Hawaii - Maine Prohibited by statute: Arizona - Connecticut - Delaware - Florida - Illinois - Indiana - Iowa - Maryland - Minnesota - New Hampshire - New York - North Carolina - Pennsylvania - Puerto Rico - Washington - West Virginia - Wyoming Prohibited by constitutional amendment: Alabama - Alaska - Arkansas - Colorado - Georgia - Hawaii - Idaho - Kansas - Kentucky - Louisiana - Michigan - Mississippi - Missouri - Montana - Nebraska - Nevada - North Dakota - Ohio - Oklahoma - Oregon - South Carolina - South Dakota - Tennessee - Texas - Utah - Virginia - Wisconsin Marriage undefined: New Mexico - Rhode Island

[edit] See also

[edit] In General

• Same-sex marriage
• Timeline of same-sex marriage

[edit] In USA

• Same-sex marriage in the United States public opinion
• Same-sex marriage status in the United States by state
• Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States
• Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States by state
• List of benefits of marriage in the United States
• Defense of Marriage Act
• Marriage Protection Act
• Defense of marriage amendment
• Federal Marriage Amendment
• Domestic partnerships in the United States
• Freedom to Marry Coalition

[edit] External links

• PollingReport.com Law and Civil Rights compendium

[edit] Supporting same-sex marriage

• Human Rights Campaign
• Marriage Equality USA
• Freedom to Marry
• National Organization for Women: Same-Sex Marriage is a Feminist Issue
• American Civil Liberties Union
• The Democratic Party GLBT Community
• Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD)

[edit] Opposing same-sex marriage

• Alliance for Marriage
• Religious Coalition for Marriage
• The Marriage Amendment Project
• DOMA Watch
• Eleven Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage, by. Dr. James Dobson