Misplaced Pages

Same-sex marriage: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:18, 15 May 2008 view sourceDeli nk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users78,799 editsm Reverted edits by 75.168.222.189 (talk) to last version by NawlinWiki← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:16, 4 January 2025 view source Cyanmax (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,133 edits →TimelineTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Marriage of persons of the same sex or gender}}
{{Mergefrom|Same-sex marriage and procreation|Talk:Same-sex marriage and procreation#Merger proposal|date=February 2008}}
{{redirect2|Marriage equality|gay marriage|other uses|marriage equality (disambiguation)|and|gay marriage (disambiguation)}}
{{LGBT}}
{{SSM}} {{pp-semi-indef}}
{{pp-move}}
'''Same-sex marriage''' is a term for a ]ally, ]ly, or ] recognized ] in which two people of the same sex live together as a family. Other terms for this type of relationship include "gay marriage," "gender-neutral marriage," "equal marriage," "lesbian marriage," "same-sex civil marriage," "marriage equality," "homosexual marriage," "single-sex marriage," "same-gender marriage," or just simply "marriage."
{{Use dmy dates|date=March 2019}}
{{Same-sex unions}}
{{LGBTQ sidebar|rights}}
<!--- *** Please consider achieving consensus on the talk (discussion) page first before editing the introduction. *** --->{{Discrimination sidebar}}


'''Same-sex marriage''', also known as '''gay marriage''', is the ] of two people of the same legal ]. {{As of|2025|post=,}} marriage between same-sex couples is legally performed and recognized in 37 countries, with a total population of 1.5<!--counting 1,532.722 M, including Nepal and Thailand but not Israel, 2023 UN data, out of 7,795.311M world (deducting 250M for systemic over-count in China) --> billion people (20%<!--19.66% including Nepal and Thailand--> of the world's population). The most recent jurisdiction to legalize same-sex marriage is ]. ] is set to begin performing same-sex marriages in January 2025.
== Debates over terminology ==
Proponents of same-sex marriage often use the term "equal marriage" to stress that they seek equality as opposed to special rights;<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/
|title = Equal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples
|publisher = Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell
}}</ref> the term "equal marriage" has also been used by feminists to describe any marriage, regardless of the sex of the partners, in which the partners have equal status within the marriage.<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www.now.org/issues/lgbi/marr-rep.html
|title = Same-Sex Marriage is a Feminist Issue
|publisher = National Organization for Women
|date= 17 May 2004
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref> Opponents argue that equating same-sex and opposite-sex marriage changes the meaning of marriage and its traditions.<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/MarriageSacred.htm
|title = Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Marriage is a Sacred Religious Sacrament
|publisher = About.com
|author = Austin Cline
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref> Some opponents use the term "homosexual marriage," and surveys have suggested that the word "homosexual" is more stigmatizing than the word "gay."<ref>{{cite news
|url = http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid17177.asp
|title = New Poll: Americans Ambivalent About Homosexuality
|publisher = the Advocate
|date= 24 May 2005
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref> Some publications that oppose same-sex marriage put the word marriage in ] when referring to it. One notable publication that practices this is '']''. ], a writer for the conservative American media watchdog group ], agrees with this method, arguing that "marriage" is a word that same-sex couples merely want to apply to themselves, but have no legal ability to do so in most states.<ref>{{cite news
|url = http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A466_0_2_0_C/
|title = Honest Versus Slanted Journalism
|publisher = Accuracy In Media
|author = Kincaid, Cliff
|date= 26 Feb 2004
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref> Same-sex marriage supporters argue that it is editorializing and implying inferiority, and point out that the quotes are even used when referring to same-sex marriages in locations where such unions are legal.<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://atheism.about.com/b/a/087136.htm
|title = Washington Times Dismisses Gay “Marriages”
|publisher = About.com
|author = Austin Cline
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref>


Same-sex marriage is legally recognized in a large majority of the world's ]; notable exceptions are ], ], ] and the ]. ] are not necessarily covered, though most states with same-sex marriage allow those couples to jointly adopt as other married couples can. Some countries, such as ] and ], restrict advocacy for same-sex marriage.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=VERPOEST |first=LIEN |date=2017 |title=The End of Rhetorics: LGBT policies in Russia and the European Union |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/26531664 |journal=Studia Diplomatica |volume=68 |issue=4 |pages=3–20 |jstor=26531664 |issn=0770-2965}}</ref> A few of these are among the 35 countries (as of 2023) that constitutionally define marriage to prevent marriage between couples of the same sex, with most of those provisions enacted in recent decades as a preventative measure. Other countries have constitutionally mandated ], which is generally interpreted as prohibiting marriage between same-sex couples.{{citation needed|date=June 2024}} In six of the former and most of the latter, homosexuality itself ].
Some have suggested reserving the word "marriage" for religious contexts, and in civil and legal contexts using a uniform concept of ]. ] professor ], for instance, wrote 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."<ref>{{cite news
|url = http://www.rossde.com/editorials/Dershowitz_marriage.html
|title = Government Should Quit the Marriage Business
|publisher = Los Angeles Times
|author = Dershowitz, Alan M.
|date= 3 Dec 2003
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref> Marriage proponents find such a suggestion impractical. "Why do we suddenly have to throw out the entire system, invent some whole new thing, just because gay people want to get married?," asks ] of ]. "I don’t actually see Alan Dershowitz doing anything about this, other than writing an article, because he probably rightly understands it would be an immense project to go around the country and convince 200 million plus people to trade in their marriage for something new and explain why we are doing this when we actually have a legal system that already clearly distinguishes between civil and religious marriage."<ref>, David Shankbone, September 30, 2007</ref> Conservative critics like '']'s'' ] 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."<ref>{{cite news
|url = http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/morse200405200926.asp
|title = ''Not'' a Social Contract
|publisher = National Review
|author = Morse, Jennifer Roback
|date= 20 May 2004
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref>
However, in the case of one state in which same-sex marriages are recognized, Massachusetts, there is a long history of marriage being regarded as purely a civil institution, as illustrated in Governor ]'s history '']'':
<blockquote>
May 12 was the first marriage in this place which, according to the laudable custom of the Low Countries, in which they had lived, was thought most requisite to be performed by the magistrate, as being a civil thing, upon which many questions about inheritances do depend, with other things most proper to their cognizance and most consonant to the Scriptures (Ruth iv) and nowhere found in the Gospel to be laid on the ministers as a part of their office.
<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1650bradford.html#New%20governor,%20first%20marriage
|title = Of Plymouth Plantation
|author = Bradford, William
|accessdate = 2007-08-29
}}</ref>
</blockquote>


There are records of marriage between men dating back to the ].<ref name="WilliamsRoman2">Williams, CA., ''Roman Homosexuality: Second Edition'', Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 280, p. 284.</ref> ]<ref name="auto">{{Cite news|last1=Padnani|first1=Amisha|author1-link=Amy Padnani|last2=Fang|first2=Celina|date=June 26, 2015|title=Same-Sex Marriage: Landmark Decisions and Precedents|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/26/us/samesex-marriage-landmarks.html|access-date=|issn=}}</ref><ref name="auto1">{{Cite web|last=Baume|first=Matt|date=March 1, 2019|title=Meet the Gay Men Whose 1971 Marriage Was Finally Recognized|url=https://www.advocate.com/people/2019/3/01/meet-gay-men-whose-1971-marriage-was-finally-recognized|access-date=|website=The Advocate|language=en}}</ref> are the first same sex couple in modern recorded history<ref name="auto2">] Archive (September 12, 2017). {{Cite web|url=https://archive.storycorps.org/interviews/dda002648/|title=Michael McConnell, Jack Baker, and Lisa Vecoli}}
== History ==
* Michael McConnell (75) and husband Jack Baker (75) talk with friend Lisa Vecoli (55) about having the first same-sex marriage legally recognized by a U.S. civil government in 1971, why they chose to get married, and what the response to their marriage was like.
{{main|History of same-sex unions}}
* JB describes the decades-long (46-year) process from the denial of their marriage license in 1971 until a second request that same year in ], ], was "declared to be in all respects valid" by Order of Gregory J. Anderson, Judge of District Court.</ref> known to obtain a ],<ref name="National Archives">Newsletter, "Hidden Treasures from the Stacks", ''The National Archives at Kansas City'', p.&nbsp;6 (September&nbsp;2013).
* </ref> have their marriage solemnized, which occurred on September 3, 1971, in ],<ref name="3Sept1971">Source: Blue Earth County
* Certificate 434960:
:* Applicants: James Michael McConnell and Pat Lyn McConnell
:* Date of Marriage: September 3, 1971
* Certified Copy: </ref> and have it legally recognized by any form of government.<ref name=ruling>"The September&nbsp;3, 1971 marriage of James Michael McConnell and Pat Lyn McConnell, a/k/a Richard John Baker, has never been dissolved or annulled by judicial decree and no grounds currently exist on which to invalidate the marriage."
* Sources: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW by Assistant Chief Judge Gregory Anderson, Fifth Judicial District, (page&nbsp;4);
* Copy: , File Number 07-CV-16-4559, "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Partial Summary Judgment" from Blue Earth County District Court in re James Michael McConnell et al. v. Blue Earth County et al. (September 18, 2018);
* from ''U of M Libraries'';
* McConnell Files, "America’s First Gay Marriage" (binder&nbsp;#4), Tretter Collection in GLBT Studies, ''U&nbsp;of&nbsp;M&nbsp;Libraries''.</ref><ref name="epilogue">Michael McConnell, with Jack Baker, as told to Gail Langer Karwoski, " {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150826235010/https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/the-wedding-heard-around-the-world |date=August 26, 2015 }}". University of Minnesota Press (2016). Reprint, "With A New Epilogue" (2020).</ref> The first law providing for marriage equality between same-sex and opposite-sex couples was ] in 2000 and took effect on 1 April 2001.<ref name="bloomberg-2014-12-04">{{Cite web |last=Winter |first=Caroline |date=December 4, 2014 |title=In 14 years, same-sex marriage has spread round the world |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-04/gay-marriage-same-sex-partners-can-wed-in-many-countries |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220113164339/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-04/gay-marriage-same-sex-partners-can-wed-in-many-countries |archive-date=13 January 2022 |access-date=2022-02-20 |publisher=Bloomberg}}</ref> The application of ] equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples has varied by jurisdiction, and has come about through legislative change to marriage law, court rulings based on constitutional guarantees of equality, recognition that marriage of same-sex couples is allowed by existing marriage law, and by direct popular vote, such as through ]s and ]s.<ref>{{Cite web |date=26 September 2013 |title=Same-sex Oklahoma couple marries legally under tribal law |url=http://www.koco.com/news/oklahomanews/around-oklahoma/samesex-oklahoma-couple-marries-legally-under-tribal-law/-/12530084/22553184/-/101ihp0z/-/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131022022830/http://www.koco.com/news/oklahomanews/around-oklahoma/samesex-oklahoma-couple-marries-legally-under-tribal-law/-/12530084/22553184/-/101ihp0z/-/index.html |archive-date=22 October 2013 |access-date=22 October 2013 |publisher=KOCO}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=19 June 2022 |title=Clela Rorex, former Boulder County Clerk who issued first same-sex marriage license in 1975 dies at 78 |url=https://www.coloradodaily.com/2022/06/19/former-boulder-county-clerk-who-issued-first-same-sex-marriage-license-in-1975-dies-at-78/}}</ref> The most prominent supporters of same-sex marriage are the world's major medical and ],<ref name="science" /><ref name="amici" /><ref name="cpa2006" /> along with ] and ] organizations,<ref name="bbc" /> while its most prominent opponents are ] groups.<ref name="religion" /> ] continually rising support for the recognition of same-sex marriage in all developed democracies and in many developing countries.


Scientific studies show that the financial, psychological, and physical well-being of gay people is enhanced by marriage, and that the children of same-sex parents benefit from being raised by married same-sex couples within a marital union that is recognized by law and supported by societal institutions. At the same time, no harm is done to the institution of marriage among heterosexuals.<ref>Molly Ball, 2024 May 13, ''Wall Street Journal'', </ref> Social science research indicates that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage stigmatizes and invites public discrimination against gay and lesbian people, with research repudiating the notion that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon restricting marriage to heterosexuals.<ref>Multiple sources:
== Current status ==
*{{Cite web |publisher=] |year=2004 |title=Resolution on Sexual Orientation and Marriage |url=http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/gay-marriage.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110511190536/http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/gay-marriage.pdf |archive-date=11 May 2011 |access-date=10 November 2010}}
{{main|Status of same-sex marriage}}
*{{cite web|url=http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf|title=Brief of the American Psychological Association, The California Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy as amici curiae in support of plaintiff-appellees&nbsp;– Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of California Civil Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW (Honorable Vaughn R. Walker)|access-date=5 November 2010|archive-date=13 April 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150413160709/http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf|url-status=live}}
[[Image:Same_sex_marriage_map_Europe_detailed.svg|thumb|left|Status of same-sex unions in Europe. {{legend|#980098|Same sex marriage recognised}}
*{{cite web|title=Marriage of Same-Sex Couples &nbsp;– 2006 Position Statement |url=http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Practice_Page/Marriage_SameSex_Couples_PositionStatement.pdf|publisher=]|access-date=28 September 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120707191052/http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Practice_Page/Marriage_SameSex_Couples_PositionStatement.pdf|archive-date=7 July 2012}}
{{legend|#0000FF|Civil unions recognised}}
*{{Cite journal|vauthors=Pawelski JG, Perrin EC, Foy JM |display-authors=etal |title=The effects of marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership laws on the health and well-being of children|journal=]|volume=118|issue=1|pages=349–64|date=July 2006|pmid=16818585|doi=10.1542/peds.2006-1279|s2cid=219194821 |doi-access= |issn=0031-4005}}
{{legend|#009800|Unregistered cohabitation recognised}}
*{{Cite journal |url=http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349 |title=The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children |journal=Pediatrics |volume=118 |issue=1 |pages=349–364 |access-date=7 July 2017 |doi=10.1542/peds.2006-1279 |pmid=16818585 |year=2006 |last1=Pawelski |first1=J. G. |last2=Perrin |first2=E. C. |last3=Foy |first3=J. M. |last4=Allen |first4=C. E. |last5=Crawford |first5=J. E. |last6=Del Monte |first6=M. |last7=Kaufman |first7=M. |last8=Klein |first8=J. D. |last9=Smith |first9=K. |last10=Springer |first10=S. |last11=Tanner |first11=J. L. |last12=Vickers |first12=D. L. |s2cid=219194821 |doi-access= |archive-date=1 May 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110501125053/http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Brief of Amici Curiae American Anthropological Association et al., supporting plaintiffs-appellees and urging affirmance&nbsp;– Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of California Civil Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW (Honorable Vaughn R. Walker) |url=http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus39.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101226182234/http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus39.pdf |archive-date=26 December 2010 |access-date=5 November 2010}}</ref><ref name="aaa" /> Same-sex marriage can provide those in committed same-sex relationships with relevant government services and make financial demands on them comparable to that required of those in opposite-sex marriages, and also gives them legal protections such as inheritance and hospital visitation rights.<ref>Handbook of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Administration and Policy&nbsp;— Page 13, Wallace Swan – 2004</ref> Opposition is based on claims such as that homosexuality is unnatural and abnormal, that the recognition of same-sex unions will promote homosexuality in society, and that children are better off when raised by opposite-sex couples. These claims are refuted by ], which show that homosexuality is a natural and normal variation in human sexuality, that ] is not a choice, and that children of same-sex couples fare just as well as the children of opposite-sex couples.<ref name="science">Multiple sources:
{{legend|#FFFF00|Issue under political consideration}}
*{{Cite web |last=Coghlan |first=Andy |date=16 June 2008 |title=Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190429012045/https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex/ |archive-date=29 April 2019 |access-date=5 April 2018 |website=]}}
{{legend|#FF9800|Unrecognised or unknown}}
*{{cite book|first1=Mary Ann |last1=Lamanna |first2=Agnes |last2=Riedmann |first3=Susan D. |last3=Stewart |title=Marriages, Families, and Relationships: Making Choices in a Diverse Society |publisher=] |isbn=978-1305176898 |year=2014 |page=82 |access-date=11 February 2016 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fofaAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA82 |quote=he APA says that sexual orientation is not a choice . (], 2010).|archive-date=30 November 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161130141623/https://books.google.com/books?id=fofaAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA82|url-status=live}}
{{legend|#FF0000|Same sex marriage banned}}]]
*{{cite journal |url=http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/349.full |title=The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children |journal=] |year=2006 |doi=10.1542/peds.2006-1279 |access-date=2 November 2013 |last1=Pawelski |first1=J. G. |last2=Perrin |first2=E. C. |last3=Foy |first3=J. M. |last4=Allen |first4=C. E. |last5=Crawford |first5=J. E. |last6=Del Monte |first6=M. |last7=Kaufman |first7=M. |last8=Klein |first8=J. D. |last9=Smith |first9=K. |last10=Springer |first10=S. |last11=Tanner |first11=J. L. |last12=Vickers |first12=D. L. |volume=118 |issue=1 |pages=349–364 |pmid=16818585 |s2cid=219194821 |doi-access=|archive-date=29 April 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190429011707/https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/349.full|url-status=live}}
*{{cite web|author1=] |author2=] |author3=] |author4=] |author5=] |author6=] |author7=] |author8=] |display-authors=etal |title=Brief of as ''Amici Curiae'' in Support of Petitioners |website=] |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/ObergefellHodges/AmicusBriefs/14-556_American_Psychological_Association.pdf |access-date=5 April 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190412074914/https://www.supremecourt.gov/ObergefellHodges/AmicusBriefs/14-556_American_Psychological_Association.pdf|archive-date=12 April 2019|url-status=dead}}
*{{cite news|first=Lindsey|last=Bever|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/07/children-of-same-sex-couples-are-happier-and-healthier-than-peers-research-shows|title=Children of same-sex couples are happier and healthier than peers, research shows|newspaper=]|date=7 July 2014|access-date=12 December 2018|archive-date=4 May 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190504054558/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/07/children-of-same-sex-couples-are-happier-and-healthier-than-peers-research-shows/|url-status=live}}
*{{cite journal |url=https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/349.full |title=The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children |last1=Pawelski |first1=James G. |last2=Perrin |first2=Ellen C. |last3=Foy |first3=Jane M. |last4=Allen |first4=Carole E. |last5=Crawford |first5=James E. |last6=Del Monte |first6=Mark |last7=Kaufman |first7=Miriam |last8=Klein |first8=Jonathan D. |last9=Smith |first9=Karen |last10=Springer |first10=Sarah |last11=Tanner |first11=J. Lane |last12=Vickers |first12=Dennis L. |quote=In fact, growing up with parents who are lesbian or gay may confer some advantages to children. |date=July 2006 |access-date=16 June 2019 |journal=] |publisher=] |volume=118 |issue=1 |pages=349–64 |pmid=16818585 |doi=10.1542/peds.2006-1279 |s2cid=219194821 |doi-access= |archive-date=1 May 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110501125053/http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349 |url-status=live }}</ref>
{{TOC limit|3}}


==Terminology==
Marriage, as defined by the civil law, is presently available to same-sex couples in five countries. ] was the first country to allow same-sex marriage in 2001. Same-sex marriages are also recognized in ], ], ] and ].
===Alternative terms===
], United States on 11 November 2017]]
Some proponents of the legal recognition of same-sex marriage—such as ] (founded in 1998), ] (founded in 2003), ], and ] - used the terms ''marriage equality'' and ''equal marriage'' to signal that their goal was for same-sex marriage to be recognized on equal ground with opposite-sex marriage.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Marriage Equality |url=http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/marriageequality/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141018065055/http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/marriageequality/ |archive-date=18 October 2014 |access-date=24 July 2012 |publisher=Garden State Equality}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Marriage 101 |url=http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/marriage-101#faq3 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100216021129/http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/marriage-101#faq3 |archive-date=16 February 2010 |access-date=28 September 2012 |publisher=]}}</ref><ref name="Pratt">{{Cite news |last=Pratt, Patricia |date=29 May 2012 |title=Albany area real estate and the Marriage Equality Act |work=Albany Examiner |url=http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:sid/iw.newsbank.com:AWNB:AENN&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rft_dat=13F21B414EDA8168&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated5&req_dat=0FB3382EE6AD1E46 |access-date=25 December 2012 |quote=On July 24, 2011 the Marriage Equality Act became a law in New York State forever changing the state's legal view of what a married couple is.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=13 December 2012 |title=Vote on Illinois marriage equality bill coming in January: sponsors |work=Chicago Phoenix |url=http://chicagophoenix.com/2012/12/13/illinois-marriage-equality-vote-january |url-status=live |access-date=23 December 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121226111510/http://chicagophoenix.com/2012/12/13/illinois-marriage-equality-vote-january/ |archive-date=26 December 2012}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Mulholland |first=Helene |date=27 September 2012 |title=Ed Miliband calls for gay marriage equality |work=The Guardian |location=London, UK |url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/sep/27/ed-miliband-gay-wedding-equality |url-status=live |access-date=23 December 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130928234116/http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/sep/27/ed-miliband-gay-wedding-equality |archive-date=28 September 2013}}</ref><ref name="Ring">{{Cite news |last=Ring, Trudy |date=20 December 2012 |title=Newt Gingrich: Marriage Equality Inevitable, OK |work=The Advocate |location=Los Angeles |url=http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2012/12/20/newt-gingrich-accepts-marriage-equality-inevitable |url-status=live |access-date=25 December 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121223062417/http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2012/12/20/newt-gingrich-accepts-marriage-equality-inevitable |archive-date=23 December 2012 |quote=He noted to HuffPo that he not only has a lesbian half-sister, LGBT rights activist ], but has gay friends who've gotten married in Iowa, where their unions are legal. Public opinion has shifted in favor of marriage equality, he said, and the Republican Party could end up on the wrong side of history if it continues to go against the tide.}}</ref> The ] recommends the use of ''same-sex marriage'' over ''gay marriage''.<ref>{{Cite tweet |number=1095408455479902211 |user=APStylebook |title=The term same-sex marriage is preferred over gay marriage. In places where it's legal, same-sex marriage is no different from other marriages, so the term should be used only when germane and needed to distinguish from marriages between heterosexual couples. #APStyleChat |author=APStylebook |date=12 February 2019 |access-date=13 December 2022 |language=en |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221019190133/https://twitter.com/apstylebook/status/1095408455479902211 |archive-date=19 October 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> In deciding whether to use the term ''gay marriage'', it may also be noted that not everyone in a same-sex marriage is gay &ndash; for example, some are bisexual &ndash; and therefore using the term ''gay marriage'' is sometimes considered erasure of such people.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/329975/one-lgbt-americans-married-sex-spouse.aspx|title=One in 10 LGBT Americans Married to Same-Sex Spouse|date=24 February 2021|website=Gallup }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://consciousstyleguide.com/when-bisexual-people-marry/|title=When Bisexual People Marry|first=Karen|last=Yin|date=8 March 2016 |website=Conscious Style Guide}}</ref>


===Use of the term ''marriage''===
At present, Massachusetts is the only state in the United States that allows same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses.<ref>See summary of current developments at stateline.org. Use search term "marriage."</ref> This is the result of a 4 to 3 decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in ''Goodridge v. Department of Health'', which found that the state constitution required same-sex couples be granted marriage licenses under the "common benefits" clause.<ref>The official version of this decision can be found at http://www.masslaw.com/signup/opinion.cfm?page=ma/opin/sup/1017603.htm.</ref> While there were initial efforts to limit the decision legislatively<ref>''In re Opinions of the Justices to the Senate'', 802 N.E.2d 565, 572 (Mass. 2004) (advisory opinion rejecting civil unions) which is available at http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/maglmarriage20304.html.</ref> or pass a state constitutional amendment reversing the decision,<ref>See Journal of the Massachusetts' Senate in Joint Session on Sept. 14, 2005 available at http://www.mass.gov/legis/journal/jsj091405.htm.</ref> ultimately marriage licenses began to be issued to same-sex couples. These couples enjoy all the benefits of Heterosexual couples under state law, including the right to inherit, sue for loss of consortium, and coverage under state insurance laws. These benefits do not, however, extend to matters controlled by federal law, such as the ability to file a joint income tax return or assert a claim as a dependent spouse under Social Security. This is due to the ], passed by Congress in 1996, which Act states, "`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'<ref></ref>
Anthropologists have struggled to determine a definition of ] that absorbs commonalities of the ] across cultures around the world.<ref name="Fedorak">{{Cite book |last=Fedorak |first=Shirley A. |title=Anthropology matters! |publisher=] |year=2008 |isbn=978-1442601086 |location=, Ont. |pages=Ch. 11; p. 174}}</ref><ref name="Gough">{{Cite journal |last=Gough |first=Kathleen E. |date=Jan–Jun 1959 |title=The Nayars and the Definition of Marriage |journal=The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland |volume=89 |issue=1 |pages=23–34 |doi=10.2307/2844434 |jstor=2844434}}</ref> Many proposed definitions have been criticized for failing to recognize the existence of same-sex marriage in some cultures, including those of more than 30 ], such as the ] and ].<ref name=Gough/><ref name="Africa">{{Cite book |last1=Murray |first1=Stephen O. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZjbESL6YWU0C&q=%22Woman-woman+marriage+in+Africa%22&pg=PA255 |title=Boy-wives and female husbands : studies of African homosexualities |last2=Roscoe, Will |publisher=St. Martin's |year=2001 |isbn=978-0312238292 |edition=1st pbk. |location=New York |access-date=28 October 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210204174244/https://books.google.com/books?id=ZjbESL6YWU0C&q=%22Woman-woman+marriage+in+Africa%22&pg=PA255 |archive-date=4 February 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Kikuyu">{{Cite journal |last1=Njambi |first1=Wairimu |last2=O'Brien, William |date=Spring 2001 |title=Revisiting "Woman-Woman Marriage": Notes on Gikuyu Women |url=http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/nwsa_journal/v012/12.1njambi.html |url-status=live |journal=] |volume=12 |issue=1 |pages=1–23 |doi=10.1353/nwsa.2000.0015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120113015023/http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=%2Fjournals%2Fnwsa_journal%2Fv012%2F12.1njambi.html |archive-date=13 January 2012 |access-date=28 September 2012 |s2cid=144520611}}</ref>


With several countries revising their marriage laws to recognize same-sex couples in the 21st century, all major English dictionaries have revised their definition of the word marriage to either drop gender specifications or supplement them with secondary definitions to include gender-neutral language or explicit recognition of same-sex unions.<ref>{{Cite news |date=24 May 2004 |title=Dictionaries take lead in redefining modern marriage |work=] |url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/may/24/20040524-103201-1169r |url-status=live |access-date=25 September 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120918034452/http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/may/24/20040524-103201-1169r/ |archive-date=18 September 2012}}</ref><ref name="ABA">{{Cite web |title=Webster Makes It Official: Definition of Marriage Has Changed |url=http://www.abajournal.com/news/webster_makes_it_official_definition_of_marriage_has_changed |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150427004101/http://www.abajournal.com/news/webster_makes_it_official_definition_of_marriage_has_changed |archive-date=27 April 2015 |access-date=28 September 2012 |publisher=]}}</ref> The '']'' has recognized same-sex marriage since 2000.<ref name="slate">{{Cite news |last=Redman |first=Daniel |date=7 April 2009 |title=Noah Webster Gives His Blessing: Dictionaries recognize same-sex marriage—who knew? |work=] |url=http://www.slate.com/id/2215628 |url-status=live |access-date=28 September 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110917032021/http://www.slate.com/id/2215628/ |archive-date=17 September 2011}}</ref>
While Massachusetts is the only state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, several other states - including ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] state, ] - and ] offer civil unions or domestic partnerships, which grant same-sex couples some or all of the same rights under state law granted to married couples. ], ], and ] recognize foreign marriage licenses, but do not grant them or any other form of same-sex relationship recognition. Twenty six states have amended their constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, with the language varying as to what legal rights, other than marriage, can be extended to same-sex couples.<ref>See webpage of the National Conference of State Legislatures at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/samesex.htm.</ref>


Opponents of same-sex marriage who want marriage to be restricted to pairings of a man and a woman, such as ], the ], and the ], use the term ''traditional marriage'' to mean opposite-sex marriage.<ref name="religion">{{Cite web |date=13 August 2008 |title=The Divine Institution of Marriage |url=https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/the-divine-institution-of-marriage |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190611071837/https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/the-divine-institution-of-marriage |archive-date=11 June 2019 |access-date=28 September 2012 |publisher=]}}</ref>
A New York appellate court ruled on ], ] that same-sex marriages performed outside state must be recognized as valid within the state. Same-sex couples are not permitted to wed in New York.<ref>See the New York Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/nyregion/02samesex.html</ref>
[[Image:Samesex marriage in USA.svg|left|thumb|'''Laws Regarding Same-Sex Partnerships in the United States'''
{{legend|#a9218e|Same sex marriages}}
{{legend|#00a651|Same sex unions}}
{{legend|#00b7f1|Foreign marriage licenses recognized}}
{{legend|#605ca8|Domestic Partnerships}}
{{legend|#ffff00|Statute bans Same-Sex Marriage}}
{{legend|#ff7f00|Constitution bans Same-Sex Marriage}}
{{legend|#ed1e24|Constitution bans Same-Sex Marriage and Union}}]]


==History==
At the federal level, Australia bans recognition of ], but the current federal ] government favours synchronised state and territory ] legislation (as in ]) although the ] favours the introduction of ] with official ceremonies. By stark contrast, ] was preserved when a proposed repeal bill failed at its first reading in ], while ]'s Parliament similarly heavily defeated a private members bill that would have prohibited ] in ]. However, as far as current ] goes, New Zealand's Marriage Act 1955 still recognises only heterosexual couples as marriageable (although it has also included ] who have undergone ] as the 'opposite sex' for these purposes, since ] and ] decisions in ].
{{Main|History of same-sex unions}}
{{For timeline}}
{{Broader|History of homosexuality}}


===Ancient===
]'s High Court of Justice ruled to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other countries, although it is still illegal to perform them within the country. A bill was raised in ] to rescind the Israeli High Court's ruling, but the Knesset has not advanced the bill since December ].
{{further|Homosexuality in ancient Rome}}
A reference to marriage between same-sex couples appears in the ], which was written in the 3rd century CE. The ] prohibited homosexual relations, and the Hebrews were warned not to "follow the acts of the land of Egypt or the acts of the land of Canaan" (Lev. 18:22, 20:13). The Sifra clarifies what these ambiguous "acts" were, and that they included marriage between same-sex couples: "A man would marry a man and a woman a woman, a man would marry a woman and her daughter, and a woman would be married to two men."<ref>Rabbi Joel Roth. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170824192248/https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/assets/public/halakhah/teshuvot/19912000/roth_homosexual.pdf |date=24 August 2017 }} ''rabbinicalassembly.org'' 1992.</ref>


A few scholars believe that in the early ] some male couples were celebrating ] in the presence of friends. Male–male weddings are reported by sources that mock them; the feelings of the participants are not recorded.<ref>Martial 1.24 and 12.42; Juvenal 2.117–42. Williams, ''Roman Homosexuality'', pp. 28, 280; Karen K. Hersh, ''The Roman Wedding: Ritual and Meaning in Antiquity'' (Cambridge University Press, 2010), p. 36; ], ''Power and Eroticism in Imperial Rome'' (Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 151ff.</ref> Various ancient sources state that the emperor ] celebrated two public weddings with males, once taking the role of the bride (with a ] ]), and once the groom (with ]); there may have been a third in which he was the bride.<ref>], ], ], and ] are the sources cited by Williams, ''Roman Homosexuality'', p. 279.</ref> In the early 3rd century AD, the emperor ] is reported to have been the bride in a wedding to his male partner. Other mature men at his court had husbands, or said they had husbands in imitation of the emperor.<ref>Williams, ''Roman Homosexuality'', pp. 278–279, citing Dio Cassius and ].</ref> ] did not recognize marriage between males, but one of the grounds for disapproval expressed in Juvenal's satire is that celebrating the rites would lead to expectations for such marriages to be registered officially.<ref name="auto4">Williams, ''Roman Homosexuality'', p. 280.</ref> As the empire was becoming Christianized in the 4th century, legal prohibitions against marriage between males began to appear.<ref name="auto4"/>
] and ] are the only countries where the legal status of same-sex marriage is exactly the same as that of opposite-sex marriage, though ] is due to fully harmonize its marriage laws. Other nations all have requirements or restrictions that apply to same-sex marriage that do not apply to opposite-sex marriage.


===Contemporary===
] shortly after the federal legalization of ], 2015]]
]<ref name="auto"/><ref name="auto1"/> are the first same sex couple in modern recorded history<ref name="auto2"/> known to obtain a ],<ref name="National Archives"/> have their marriage solemnized, which occurred on September 3, 1971, in ],<ref name="3Sept1971"/> and have it legally recognized by any form of government.<ref name="ruling" /><ref name="epilogue"/> Historians variously trace the beginning of the modern movement in support of same-sex marriage to anywhere from around the 1980s to the 1990s. During the 1980s in the ], the ] led to increased attention on the legal aspects of same-sex relationships.<ref>{{Cite news |date=March–April 2013 |title=How Same-Sex Marriage Came to Be |url=http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/03/how-same-sex-marriage-came-to-be |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190502173822/https://harvardmagazine.com/2013/03/how-same-sex-marriage-came-to-be |archive-date=2 May 2019 |access-date=28 March 2015 |website=]}}</ref> ] made the first case for same sex marriage in a major American journal in 1989,<ref name=intelligent>{{cite web|url=http://www.moreintelligentlife.com/story/andrew-sullivan-thinking-out-loud|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090425202254/http://www.moreintelligentlife.com/story/andrew-sullivan-thinking-out-loud|archive-date=25 April 2009 |title=Andrew Sullivan: Thinking. Out. Loud. |newspaper=Intelligent Life |date=Spring 2009 |access-date=24 October 2013|first=Johann |last=Hari}}</ref> published in ''The New Republic''.<ref name="groom">{{cite news|last=Sullivan|first=Andrew|title=Here Comes the Groom|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/11/gay_marriage_votes_and_andrew_sullivan_his_landmark_1989_essay_making_a.html|access-date=24 October 2013|newspaper=Slate|date=9 November 2012}}</ref>


In 1989, Denmark became the first country to legally recognize a relationship for same-sex couples, establishing ]s, which gave those in same-sex relationships "most rights of married heterosexuals, but not the right to adopt or obtain joint custody of a child".<ref>{{Cite news |last=Rule |first=Sheila |date=2 October 1989 |title=Rights for Gay Couples in Denmark |work=] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/02/world/rights-for-gay-couples-in-denmark.html |url-status=live |access-date=19 August 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304080523/http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/02/world/rights-for-gay-couples-in-denmark.html |archive-date=4 March 2016}}</ref> In 2001, the ] became the first country to broaden marriage laws to include same-sex couples.<ref name="bloomberg-2014-12-04" /><ref>{{Cite news |date=26 May 2009 |title=Same-sex marriage around the world |work=CBC News |location=Toronto |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/same-sex-marriage-around-the-world-1.799137 |url-status=live |access-date=6 October 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101125125134/http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/05/26/f-same-sex-timeline.html |archive-date=25 November 2010}}</ref> Since then, same-sex marriage has been established by law in 34 other countries, including most of the ] and ]. Yet its spread has been uneven — ] is the only country in ] to take the step; ] and ] are the only ones in ].<ref>{{Cite web |date=28 April 2021 |title=The Dutch went first in 2001; who has same-sex marriage now? |url=https://apnews.com/article/europe-africa-netherlands-job-cohen-western-europe-e08b053af367028737c9c41c492cc568 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210821101311/https://apnews.com/article/europe-africa-netherlands-job-cohen-western-europe-e08b053af367028737c9c41c492cc568 |archive-date=21 August 2021 |access-date=21 August 2021 |website=]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Sangwongwanich |first=Pathom |date=June 18, 2024 |title=Thai Same-Sex Marriage Bill Clears Final Hurdle With Senate Nod |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-18/thai-same-sex-marriage-bill-clears-final-hurdle-with-senate-nod?srnd=all |access-date=2024-06-18 |website=www.bloomberg.com}}</ref>
=== Civil unions ===
<!---Please add references in the main article before or after adding information to this table--->
{{main|Civil union}}


==Timeline==
The first same-sex union in modern history with government recognition was obtained in ] in ].
{{main|Timeline of same-sex marriage}}
The summary table below lists in chronological order the sovereign states (the ] and ]) that have legalized same-sex marriage. As of 2025, 37 states have legalized in some capacity.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Theil |first1=Michele |title=This map shows you where same-sex marriage is legal around the world – and there's a long way to go |url=https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/02/16/this-map-shows-you-where-same-sex-marriage-is-legal-around-the-world-and-theres-a-long-way-to-go/ |website=PinkNews |date=16 February 2024 |access-date=16 February 2024}}</ref>


Dates are when marriages between same-sex couples began to be officially certified, or when local laws were passed if marriages were already legal under higher authority.
]s, ], ], unregistered partnership/unregistered co-habitation or ]s offer varying amounts of the benefits of marriage and are available in: ], ] (except ] law), ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] (unregistered co-habitation since 1996; registered partnership from 2009), ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], the ] and ]. They are also available in '''some parts''' of ], ] (]), ], the ] states of ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] state, and the ] (Washington, D.C.).
] within the first month that marriage was opened to ] in the ] (2001)]]


{| class="wikitable"
In the United Kingdom, ] have identical legal status to a marriage, and partners gain all the same benefits and associated legal rights; ranging from tax exemptions and joint property rights, to ] status and shared parenting responsibilities. Partnership ceremonies are performed by a marriage registrar in exactly the same manner as a ] ].
|-
] are identical to British civil partnerships in their association with equivalent spousal rights and responsibilities to fully-fledged heterosexual marriage.
!2001
|{{flagicon|Netherlands}} ''']''' (1 April)
|-
!2002
|
|-
!2003
|{{flatlist}}
* {{flagicon|Belgium}} ''']''' (1 June)
* ] (10 June)
* ] (8 July)
{{endflatlist}}
|-
!2004
|{{flatlist}}
* ] (19 March)
* ] (17 May)
* ] (14 July)
* ] (16 September)
* ] (24 September)
* ] (5 November)
* ] (21 December)
{{endflatlist}}
|-
!2005
|{{flatlist}}
* ] (23 June)
* {{flagicon|Spain}} ''']''' (3 July)
* {{flagicon|Canada}} ''']''' (20 July)
{{endflatlist}}
|-
!2006
|{{flagicon|South Africa}} ''']''' (30 November)
|-
!2007
|
|-
!2008
|{{flatlist}}
*] (June 16, repealed November 5)
*] (12 November)
{{endflatlist}}
|-
!2009
|{{flatlist}}
* {{flagicon|Norway}} ''']''' (1 January)
* ] (27 April)
* {{flagicon|Sweden}} ''']''' (1 May)
* ] (20 May)
* ] (1 September)
{{endflatlist}}
|-
!2010
|{{flatlist}}
* ] (1 January)
* ] (3 March)
* ] (4 March)
* ] (29 April)
* {{flagicon|Portugal}} ''']''' (5 June)
* {{flagicon|Iceland}} ''']''' (27 June)
* {{flagicon|Argentina}} ''']''' (22 July)
{{endflatlist}}
|-
!2011
|{{flatlist}}
* ] (24 July)
* ] (1 August)
* ] (7 December)
{{endflatlist}}
|-
!2012
|{{flatlist}}
* ] (3 May)
* {{flagicon|Denmark}} ''']''' (15 June)
* ] (5 July)
* ] (11 July)
* ] (15 August)
* ] (10 October)
* ] (26 November)
* ] (1 December)
* ] (6 December)
* ] (9 December)
* ] (15 December)
* ] (29 December)
{{endflatlist}}
|-
!2013
|{{flatlist}}
* ] (1 January)
* ] (16 February)
* ] (15 March)
* ] (15 March)
* ] (26 March)
* ] (2 April)
* ] (26 April)
* ] (29 April)
* ] (29 April)
* ] (8 May)
* {{flagicon|Brazil}} ''']''' (16 May)
* {{flagicon|France}} ''']''' (18 May)
* ] (24 June)
* ] (28 June)
* ] (1 July)
* ] (1 August)
* ] (1 August)
* ] (1 August)
* {{flagicon|Uruguay}} ''']''' (5 August)
* {{flagicon|New Zealand}} ''']''' (19 August)
* ] (21 August)
* ] (23 August)
* ] (26 August)
* ] (27 August)
* ] (27 August)
* ] (28 August)
* ] (4 September)
* ] (5 September)
* ] (9 September)
* ] (18 October<!--3rd license since repeal of DOMA, first public marriage-->)
* ] (21 October)
* ] (1 November)
* ] (15 November)
* ] (2 December)
* ] (19 December)
* ] (20 December, repealed 6 January 2014)
{{endflatlist}}
|-
!2014
|{{flatlist}}
* ] (21 February)
* {{flagicon|England}} {{flagicon|Wales}} ] (13 March)
* ] (13 March)
* ] (19 May)
* ] (20 May)
* ] (1 June)
* ] (3 June)
* ] (3 June)
* ] (9 July)
* ] (16 July)
* ] (10 August)
* ] (17 September)
* ] (6 October)
* ] (6 October)
* ] (6 October)
* ] (6 October)
* ] (6 October)
* ] (6 October)
* ] (7 October)
* ] (9 October)
* ] (9 October)
* ] (9 October)
* ] (10 October)
* ] (12 October)
* ] (15 October)
* ] (17 October)
* ] (17 October)
* ] (17 October)
* ] (17 October)
* ] (17 October)
* ] (17 October)
* ] (21 October)
* ] (5 November)
* ] (6 November)
* ] (7 November)
* ] (12 November)
* ] (12 November)
* ] (14 November)
* ] (14 November)
* ] (19 November)
* ] (19 November)
* ] (20 November)
* ] (13 December)
* {{flagicon|Scotland}} ] (16 December)
{{endflatlist}}
|-
!2015
|{{flatlist}}
* {{flagicon|Luxembourg}} ''']''' (1 January)
* ] (5 January)
* ] (6 January)
* ] (24 February)
* ] (14 May)
* ] (15 May)
* ] (9 June)
* ] (10 June)
* ] (12 June)
* {{flagicon|United States}} ''']''' (26 June)
* ] (30 June)
* ] (7 July)
* ] (9 July)
* ] (13 July)
* ] (21 July)
* ] (3 August)
* ] (9 September)
* {{flagicon|Ireland}} ''']''' (16 November)
* ] (18 November)
* ] (23 December)
{{endflatlist}}
|-
!2016
|{{flatlist}}
* ] (2 February)
* {{flagicon|Greenland}} ] (1 April)
* {{flagicon|Colombia}} ''']''' (28 April)
* ] (6 May)
* ] (12 May)
* ] (20 May)
* ] (12 June)
* ] (23 June)
* ] (5 July)
* ] (22 July)
* ] (18 September)
* ] (13 October)
* ] (3 November)
* ] (9 December)
* ] (15 December)
{{endflatlist}}
|-
!2017
|{{flatlist}}
* ] (1 January)
* ] (4 January)
* ] (4 January)
* ] (4 January)
* ] (4 January)
* ] (4 January)
* ] (4 January)
* ] (4 January)
<!-- *** Please check discussion on talk page before adding Slovenia! *** -->
* {{flagicon|Finland}} ''']''' (1 March)
* ] (20 March)
* ] (22 March)
* ] (29 April)
* ] (2 May)
* ] (5 May, repealed 1 June 2018)
* ] (5 June)
* {{flagicon|Faroe Islands}} ] (1 July)
* ] (4 August)
* {{flagicon|Malta}} ''']''' (1 September)
* {{flagicon|Germany}} ''']''' (1 October)
* ] (25 October)
* ] (3 November)
* {{flagicon|Australia}} ''']''' (9 December)
* ] (20 December)
{{endflatlist}}
|-
!2018
|{{flatlist}}
* ] (16 February)
* ] (11 May)
* ] (14 June)
* ] (1 July)
* ] (26 August)
* ] (27 August)
* ] (23 November, repealed 14 March 2022)
{{endflatlist}}
|-
!2019
|{{flatlist}}
* {{flagicon|Austria}} ''']''' (1 January)
* ] (14 February)
* ] (1 March)
* ] (20 May)
* ] (21 May)
* {{flagicon|Taiwan}} ''']''' (24 May)
* ] (31 May)
* ] (11 June)
* ] (29 June)
* ] (by 5 July)
* {{flagicon|Ecuador}} ''']''' (8 July)
* ] (8 July)
* ] (8 July)
* ] (8 August)
* ] (16 August)
{{endflatlist}}
|-
!2020
|{{flatlist}}
* ] ]'''] (13 January)
* ] (23 April)
* {{flagicon|Costa Rica}} ''']''' (26 May)
* ] (3 July)
* ] (6 August)
* ] (25 December)
{{endflatlist}}
|-
!2021
|{{flatlist}}
* ] (30 June)
* ] (22 October)
* ] (13 November)
* ] (20 December)
* ] (30 December)
{{endflatlist}}
|-
!2022
|{{flatlist}}
* ] (4 March)
* {{flagicon|Chile}} ''']''' (10 March)
* ] (11 April)
* ] (18 April)
* ] (25 May)
* ] (13 June)
* {{flagicon|Switzerland}} ''']''' (1 July)
* {{flagicon|Slovenia}} ''']''' (8 or 9 July)
* ] (19 September)
* {{flagicon|Cuba}} ''']''' (27 September)
* ] (27 October)
* ] (2 November)
* ] (19 November)
* ] (21 December)
* ] ]'''] (31 December)
{{endflatlist}}
|-
!2023
|{{flatlist}}
* {{flagicon|Andorra}} ''']''' (17 February)
* ] (16 March)
* ] (23 May)
{{endflatlist}}
|-
!2024
|{{flatlist}}
* {{flagicon|Estonia}} ''']''' (1 January)
* {{flagicon|Greece}} ''']''' (16 February)
* {{flagicon|Aruba}} ] (12 July)
* {{flagicon|Curacao}} ] (12 July)
{{endflatlist}}
|-
!2025
|{{flatlist}}
* '''{{flagicon|Liechtenstein}} ] '''(1 January)
* ''''' {{Flagicon|Thailand}} ]''' (23 January)''
{{endflatlist}}
|}


==Same-sex marriage around the world==
] provides under all states, territories and two council areas either a registry system provided in; - ], ], ] and ]; or Unregistered partnership provided in; ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]. However, Commonwealth law provisions and statutes prohibit the recognition of civil unions, civil partnerships and same-gender marriages; fifty-eight (58) Legislative Acts of the Commonwealth use the phrase 'member of the opposite sex'. However, Commonwealth law still recognises same-sex partner under "interdependancy relationship" for anti-terrorism legislation, migration of same-sex partner, private superannuation schemes and Federal military and ADF services only.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.humanrights.gov.au/media_releases/2007/43_07.html |title = Simple changes could end discrimination for thousands of Australian couples |date= 21 Jun 2007 |accessdate = }}</ref> In 2007 Grace Abrams and Fiona Power became Australia's first legally recognised same sex married couple after Grace Abrams had gender modification surgery and was later officially granted a passport with female status.
{{Main|Legal status of same-sex marriage|Same-sex union legislation|Recognition of same-sex unions by country }}
] in ], celebrating the legalization of ]]]


Same-sex marriage is legally performed and recognized in 37 countries: ], ], ],{{efn|name=australia|text=Same-sex marriage is performed and recognized by law in continental Australia and in the non-self-governing possessions of ], ] and the ], which follow Australian law.}} ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ],{{efn|name=denmark|text=Same-sex marriage is performed and recognized by law in continental Denmark, the ] and ], which together make up the ].}} ],{{efn|name=ecuador|text=Same-sex marriage is performed and recognized throughout Ecuador, but such couples are not considered married for purposes of adoption and may not adopt children.}} ], ], ],{{efn|name=france|text=Same-sex marriage is performed and recognized by law in metropolitan France and in all ], which follow a single legal code.}} ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ],{{efn|name=mexico|text=Same-sex marriage is available in all jurisdictions, though the process is not everywhere as straightforward as it is for opposite-sex marriage and does not always include adoption rights.}} the ],{{efn|name=netherlands|text=Same-sex marriage is performed and recognized by law in ], the Caribbean municipalities of ], and the constituent countries of ], but not yet in Sint Maarten.}} ],{{efn|name=nz|text=Same-sex marriage is performed and recognized by law in ], but not in its possession of ], nor in the ] and ], which make up the ].}} ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], the ],{{efn|name=uk|text= Same-sex marriage is performed and recognized by law in all parts of the United Kingdom and in ], but not in its Caribbean possessions, namely ], ], the ], the ], ] and the ].}} the ],{{efn|name=usa|text=Same-sex marriage is performed and recognized by law in all ] of the US and in the ], in all overseas territories except ] (recognition only), and in all ] that do not have their own marriage laws, as well as in most nations that do. The largest of the dozen or so known exceptions among the federal reservations are ] and ], and the largest among the shared-sovereignty Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas are the ] and ]. These polities ban same-sex marriage and do not recognize marriages from other jurisdictions, though members may still marry under state law and be accorded all the rights of marriage under state and federal law.}} and ].<ref name="HRC">{{cite web |title=Marriage Equality Around the World |url=https://www.hrc.org/resources/marriage-equality-around-the-world |website=] |access-date=3 February 2024}}</ref> Same-sex marriage performed remotely or abroad is recognized with full marital rights by ].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2018 |title=Information for couples marrying outside the Rabbinate |url=http://rackmancenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Marriage-Outside-the-Rabbinate-Halperin-Kaddari-et-al-Rackman-Study-2018.pdf |access-date=November 10, 2023 |website=Rackman Center}}</ref>
A ] in ] is nearly equal to marriage, including legal adoption rights in Sweden and, since June, in Iceland as well. These partnership laws are short laws that state that wherever the word "marriage" appears in the country's law will now also be construed to mean "registered partnership" and wherever the word "spouse" appears will now also be construed to mean "registered partner" - thereby transferring the body of marriage laws onto same-sex couples in registered partnerships. In these countries, registered partnerships are generally called marriage in daily speech.


[[File:World marriage-equality laws.svg|thumb|center|upright=3|
In some countries with legal recognition the actual benefits are minimal. Many people consider civil unions, even those which grant equal rights, inadequate, as they create a separate status, and think they should be replaced by gender-neutral marriage.<ref>{{cite web
{{legend|#025|Marriage open to same-sex couples}}
|url = http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-bohrer/nj-civil-unions-nothing-_b_36351.html
{{legend|#90C|Same-sex marriage recognized with full rights when performed remotely or abroad}}
|title = NJ Civil Unions: Nothing to Celebrate
{{legend|#71C837|Legislation or binding domestic court ruling establishing same-sex marriage, but marriage is not yet provided for}}
|publisher = The Huffington Post
{{legend|#06F|Civil unions or domestic partnerships}}
|author = John R. Bohrer
{{legend|#9CF|Unregistered cohabitation or legal guardianship}}
|date= 14 Dec 2006
{{legend striped|#9CF|#EEE|Nonbinding certification|up=yes}}
|accessdate =
{{legend|#CAF|Limited recognition of marriage performed in certain other jurisdictions (residency rights for spouses)}}
}}</ref>
{{legend|#EEE|No legal recognition of same-sex unions}}
]]


Same-sex marriage will begin to be performed by ] in January 2025, and is under ] or the courts in ],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.elsalvador.com/noticias/nacional/sala-de-lo-constitucional-resolveria-demanda-sobre-matrimonio-igualitario-en-los-primeros-tres-meses-de-2020/674550/2020/|title=Sala de lo Constitucional resolvería demanda sobre matrimonio igualitario en los primeros tres messes de 2020|work=elsalvador.com|date=6 January 2020|language=es}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url= https://observador.cr/bukele-busca-que-se-apruebe-el-aborto-terapeutico-y-la-union-homosexual/|title= Bukele busca que se apruebe el aborto terapéutico y la unión homosexual|work=El Observador|date=18 August 2021|language=es}}</ref> ],<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://tg.la7.it/politica/diritti-matrimonio-egualitario-opinioni-a-confronto-scalfarotto-vs-bonaldi-vs-centinaio-09-03-2023-180977|title=Diritti: matrimonio "egualitario". Opinioni a confronto: Scalfarotto vs Bonaldi vs Centinaio|date=9 March 2023|access-date=10 March 2023|archive-date=10 March 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230310113805/https://tg.la7.it/politica/diritti-matrimonio-egualitario-opinioni-a-confronto-scalfarotto-vs-bonaldi-vs-centinaio-09-03-2023-180977|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.corriere.it/politica/23_marzo_10/da-zaia-centinaio-cosi-lega-cambia-diritti-lgbt-perche-pesa-l-effetto-francesca-a2e451f8-bf1b-11ed-a204-070182f2d425.shtml|title=Da Zaia a Centinaio: la Lega ora cambia sui diritti lgbt (e c'entra "l'effetto Francesca")|date=10 March 2023|access-date=10 March 2023|archive-date=10 March 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230310104916/https://www.corriere.it/politica/23_marzo_10/da-zaia-centinaio-cosi-lega-cambia-diritti-lgbt-perche-pesa-l-effetto-francesca-a2e451f8-bf1b-11ed-a204-070182f2d425.shtml|url-status=live}}</ref> ],<ref>{{cite web |title=Japan opposition party submits bill for same-sex marriage |url=https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2023/03/61f05630333c-japan-opposition-party-submits-bill-for-same-sex-marriage.html|publisher=]|date=6 March 2023|accessdate=31 May 2023}}</ref> ],{{efn|name=nepal|text=Nepal is waiting for a final decision by its supreme court, but meanwhile all local governments are ordered to temporarily register same-sex marriages in a separate record. In April 2024 the National ID and Civil Registration Department issued a circular to all local governments that they register such marriages. However, simply being registered does not grant same-sex couples the legal rights of marriage, and registered same-sex couples cannot inherit property, get tax subsidies, make spousal medical decisions, adopt children etc.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.dw.com/en/nepal-same-sex-couples-face-hurdles-on-road-to-recognition/a-69620274|title=Nepal: Same-sex couples face hurdles on road to recognition|work=DW|date=2024-07-10|first=Swechhya|last=Raut}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://kathmandupost.com/national/2023/12/03/how-court-laid-the-ground-for-same-sex-marriage-in-nepal|title=How court laid the ground for same-sex marriage in Nepal|first=Binod|last=Ghimire|date=2023-12-03|work=The Kathmandu Post}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.apcom.org/long-road-lasting-marriage-equality-nepal/|title=The Long Road to Lasting Marriage Equality in Nepal|work=APCOM|first=Manisha|last=Dhakal}}</ref>}} and ].<ref>{{Cite web |date=24 February 2022 |title=Diputada plantea iniciativa para el matrimonio civil igualitario en la Asamblea Nacional |url=https://elacarigueno.com/ini/diputada-plantea-iniciativa-para-el-matrimonio-civil-igualitario-en-la-asamblea-nacional/ |website=El Acarigueño |language=es |access-date=17 April 2022 |archive-date=20 May 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220520104213/https://elacarigueno.com/ini/diputada-plantea-iniciativa-para-el-matrimonio-civil-igualitario-en-la-asamblea-nacional/ |url-status=dead }}</ref>
=== International organizations ===
The terms of employment of the staff of ] (not businesses) are not, in most cases, governed by the laws of the country in which their offices are located. Agreements with the host country safeguard these organizations' impartiality with regard to the host and member countries. ] and ] practices, ] and environment, ] time, ] plans, ] and ], ], 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 ] unless he or she is a citizen of a NATO member state.<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www.nato.int/structur/recruit/info.htm
|title = NATO Recruitment service
|publisher = NATO
|date= 07 Dec 2006
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref> The ] has recently banned the recruitment of cigarette smokers.<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www.who.int/employment/recruitment/en/
|title = What are we looking for?
|publisher = World Health Organization
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref> Agencies of the ] coordinate some human resource policies amongst themselves.


]s are being considered in a number of countries, including ],<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/kosovo-promises-to-introduce-same-sex-unions-in-may/|title=Kosovo promises to introduce same-sex unions in May|first1=Alice|last1=Taylor|first2=Nick|last2=Alipour|date=26 April 2024|website=www.euractiv.com}}</ref> ],<ref>{{Cite news |date=23 October 2021 |title=Presentan proyecto de ley sobre el matrimonio igualitario entre personas del mismo sexo |newspaper=El Comercio |url=https://elcomercio.pe/politica/congreso/congreso-de-la-republica-presentan-proyecto-de-ley-sobre-el-matrimonio-igualitario-entre-personas-del-mismo-sexo-juntos-por-el-peru-somos-peru-partido-morado-nndc-noticia/?ref=ecr |access-date=2022-06-28 |publisher=elcomercio.pe}}</ref> ],<ref>{{Cite web|title=Padilla wants same-sex unions institutionalized |url=https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/841251/padilla-wants-same-sex-unions-institutionalized/story/ |first=Hana|last=Bordey|website=GMA News Online|date=11 August 2022}}</ref> and ].<ref></ref>
Despite their relative independence, few organizations currently recognise same-sex partnerships without condition. The ] (OECD) and the agencies of the ] voluntarily ] between opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages, as well as discriminating between employees on the basis of nationality. These organizations recognize same-sex marriages only if the country of citizenship of the employees in question recognizes the marriage. In some cases, these organizations do offer a limited selection of the benefits normally provided to opposite-sex married couples to de facto partners or ]s of their staff, but even individuals who have entered into an opposite-sex ] in their home country are not guaranteed full recognition of this union in all organizations. However, the ] does recognize domestic partners.<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTHRJOBS/0,,contentMDK:20522360~menuPK:1353209~pagePK:64262408~piPK:64262191~theSitePK:1058433,00.html
|title = Jobs - Compensation & Benefits
|publisher = The World Bank Group
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref>


On 12 March 2015, the ] passed a non-binding resolution encouraging EU institutions and member states to " on the recognition of same-sex marriage or same-sex civil union as a political, social and human and civil rights issue".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Duffy |first=Nick |date=13 March 2015 |title=UKIP and Tories abstain on EU motion to recognise same-sex marriage |url=http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/03/13/ukip-and-tories-abstain-on-eu-motion-to-recognise-same-sex-marriage/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150809064225/http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/03/13/ukip-and-tories-abstain-on-eu-motion-to-recognise-same-sex-marriage/ |archive-date=9 August 2015 |access-date=26 July 2015 |website=PinkNews}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Texts adopted – Thursday, 12 March 2015 – Annual report on human rights and democracy in the world 2013 and the EU policy on the matter |url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2015-0076+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150807122729/http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2F%2FEP%2F%2FTEXT+TA+P8-TA-2015-0076+0+DOC+XML+V0%2F%2FEN&language=EN |archive-date=7 August 2015 |access-date=26 July 2015 |publisher=European Parliament}}</ref>
=== Anticipated demand in the United Kingdom ===
In the ], the government is reported to have anticipated demand for same-sex civil partnerships as being around 11,000 to 22,000 by ]. However, this appears to have been an underestimate; as of December 2006 some 15,657 such partnerships had been registered in around 9 months.<ref>{{cite news
|url = http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1964183,00.html
|title = More than 15,500 civil partnerships prove popularity of legislation
|publisher = the Guardian
|author = Lucy Ward
|date= 5 Dec 2006
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref>


In response to the international spread of same-sex marriage, a number of countries have enacted preventative ], with the most recent being ] in 2023, and ] in 2024. In other countries, such restrictions and limitations are effected through legislation. Even before same-sex marriage was first legislated, some countries had constitutions that specified that marriage was between a man and a woman.
=== Transgender and Intersex persons ===
{{wikinews|Interview with gay marriage movement founder Evan Wolfson}}
When sex is defined legally, it may be defined by any one of several criteria: the ], the type of ]s, or the type of external sexual features. By all of these definitions both ]s and ]ed individuals are legally categorized into confusing gray areas, and could be prohibited from marrying partners of the "opposite" sex or permitted to marry partners of the "same" sex due to arbitrary legal distinctions. This could result in long-term marriages, as well as recent same-sex marriages, being overturned.


[[File:Constitutional bans on same-sex unions by country.svg|thumb|center|upright=3|
An example of the problem with chromosomal definition would be a woman with ] (CAIS), who would have a 46,XY karyotype, which is typically male. Although she may have been legally registered as female on her birth certificate, been raised as a female her entire life, have engaged in typical heterosexual female relationships, and may even have married before the status of her condition was known, using the chromosomal definition of sex could prevent or annul the marriage of a woman with this condition to a man, and similarly allow her to legally marry another woman. These same issues were faced by the ] to determine who qualified as a female for the women's competitions.<ref>{{cite paper
{{legend|#D40000|Same-sex marriage ] by secular constitution}}
|url = http://www.uksport.gov.uk/assets/File/Generic_Template_Documents/Standards_in_Sport/transsexuals.pdf
{{legend|#800000|Same-sex marriage banned by constitutionally mandated religious law}}
|title = Transsexual people and sport
{{legend|#CCCCCC|No constitutional ban}}
|publisher = UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport
]]
|format = .PDF
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref>


===International court rulings===
The problems of defining gender by the existence/non-existence of gonads or certain sexual features is complicated by the existence of ] to alter these features. Although it has not been exhaustively stated by a court, it is possible that a court could find that if a person has their gonads removed (not limited to a sex-change but also for medical disorder, such as ] or removing ]), they would enter a sexual limbo status and fail to meet either set of criteria, thus excluding them from any allowance to marriage. This situation could easily occur through exclusionary findings by separate courts in a state that already does not recognize transsexual marriages to people of the same sex as their birth-sex, as in the case of Linda Kantaras vs. Michael Kantaras. Basing the distinction on genital appearance is complicated by available ] converting typically male genitalia to typically female genitalia, which has advanced to the point where, even were a genital inspection necessary, many transgendered women would pass this inspection without question.


==== European Court of Human Rights ====
Requiring a surgical reassignment for definition of gender for the purpose of declaring a marriage valid comes with further problems. The ] is expensive and does not provide results as satisfactory as its counterpart; therefore many female-to-male transsexuals choose not to undergo this procedure. In a situation where genitalia legally defines gender and same-sex marriage is not permitted, the transsexual man would therefore only be allowed to legally marry another man if he wished to marry.
In 2010, the ] (ECHR) ruled in '']'', a case involving an Austrian same-sex couple who were denied the right to marry.<ref name="CASE OF SCHALK AND KOPF v. AUSTRIA">{{Cite web |title=HUDOC – European Court of Human Rights |url=http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-99605 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150911221342/http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-99605 |archive-date=11 September 2015 |access-date=26 July 2015}}</ref> The court found, by a vote of 4 to 3, that their human rights had not been violated.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Buyse |first=Antoine |date=24 June 2010 |title=Strasbourg court rules that states are not obliged to allow gay marriage |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/jun/24/european-court-of-human-rights-civil-partnerships |url-status=live |access-date=8 November 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131213205714/http://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/jun/24/european-court-of-human-rights-civil-partnerships |archive-date=13 December 2013}}</ref> The court further stated that same-sex unions are not protected under art. 12 of ECHR ("Right to marry"), which exclusively protects the right to marry of opposite-sex couples (without regard if the sex of the partners is the result of birth or of sex change), but they are protected under art. 8 of ECHR ("Right to respect for private and family life") and art. 14 ("Prohibition of discrimination").<ref>{{Cite book |last=Avram |first=Marieta |title=Drept civil Familia |date=2016 |publisher=Editura Hamangiu |isbn=978-606-27-0609-8 |location=Bucharest |language=Romanian |trans-title=Civil law Family}}</ref>


] states that: "Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right",<ref>{{Cite web |title=European Convention on Human Rights |url=http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140703060501/http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf |archive-date=3 July 2014 |access-date=25 July 2015 |website=ECHR.coe.int |publisher=European Court of Human Rights}}</ref> not limiting marriage to those in a heterosexual relationship. However, the ECHR stated in ''Schalk and Kopf v Austria'' that this provision was intended to limit marriage to heterosexual relationships, as it used the term "men and women" instead of "everyone".<ref name="CASE OF SCHALK AND KOPF v. AUSTRIA" /> Nevertheless, the court accepted and is considering cases concerning same-sex marriage recognition, e.g. ''Andersen v Poland''.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-218104 |website=ECHR |access-date=21 July 2022 |language=English|title=HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights }}</ref> In 2021, the court ruled in '']''—followed by later judgements concerning other member states—that countries must provide some sort of legal recognition to same-sex couples, although not necessarily marriage.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Palazzo |first1=Nausica |title=Fedotova and Others v. Russia : Dawn of a new era for European LGBTQ families? |journal=Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law |date=April 2023 |volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=216–228 |doi=10.1177/1023263X231195455|s2cid=261655476 }}</ref>
These complications are probably more likely than one would think at first glance; according to the highest estimates (Fausto-Sterling et al., 2000) perhaps 1 percent of live ]s exhibit some degree of sexual ambiguity, and between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births are ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention, including sometimes involuntary ] to address their sexual ambiguity.<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency
|title = How common is intersex?
|publisher = Intersex Society of North America
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref>


==== European Union ====
In any legal jurisdiction where marriages are defined without distinction of a requirement of a male and female, these complications do not occur, and some legal jurisdictions may recognize a legal and official change of gender, which would allow one to satisfy the requirement of either "male" or "female" according to their gender-identity within their legal definition of marriage. Although some legal jurisdictions continue to only recognize the "immutable traits determined at birth." (Linda Kantaras vs. Michael Kantaras)
{{further|Coman and Others v General Inspectorate for Immigration and Ministry of the Interior}}
On 5 June 2018, the ] ruled, in a case from ], that, under the specific conditions of the couple in question, married same-sex couples have the same residency rights as other married couples in an EU country, even if that country does not permit or recognize same-sex marriage.<ref>{{Cite web |title=EU court backs residency rights for gay couple in Romania |url=https://apnews.com/561b1bb4ecff48b598eb1c2c20db2735 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180612142617/https://apnews.com/561b1bb4ecff48b598eb1c2c20db2735 |archive-date=12 June 2018 |access-date=6 June 2018 |website=]|date=5 June 2018 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=5 June 2018 |title=Same-sex spouses have EU residence rights, top court rules – BBC |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44366898 |url-status=live |access-date=6 June 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190508223531/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44366898 |archive-date=8 May 2019}}</ref> However, the ruling was not implemented in Romania and on 14 September 2021 the ] passed a resolution calling on the ] to ensure that the ruling is respected across the EU.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Texts adopted – LGBTIQ rights in the EU – Tuesday, 14 September 2021 |url=https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0366_EN.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210916211040/https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0366_EN.html |archive-date=16 September 2021 |access-date=16 September 2021 |website=European Parliament |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=14 September 2021 |title=MEPs condemn failure to respect rights of same-sex partners in EU |language=en |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/14/meps-condemn-failure-respect-rights-same-sex-partners-eu |url-status=live |access-date=16 September 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210914132153/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/14/meps-condemn-failure-respect-rights-same-sex-partners-eu |archive-date=14 September 2021}}</ref>


==== Inter-American Court of Human Rights ====
{{main|Legal aspects of transsexualism}}
]
On 8 January 2018, the ] (IACHR) issued an advisory opinion that states party to the American Convention on Human Rights should grant same-sex couples accession to all existing domestic legal systems of family registration, including marriage, along with all rights that derive from marriage. The Court recommended that governments issue temporary decrees recognizing same-sex marriage until new legislation is brought in. They also said that it was inadmissible and discriminatory for a separate legal provision to be established (such as ]s) instead of same-sex marriage.<ref>{{Cite web |date=25 January 2018 |title=Major Advance for Marriage Equality and Gender Identity Rights in Latin America |work=San Francisco Bay Times |url=http://sfbaytimes.com/major-advance-marriage-equality-gender-identity-rights-latin-america/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180129141726/http://sfbaytimes.com/major-advance-marriage-equality-gender-identity-rights-latin-america/ |archive-date=29 January 2018 |access-date=13 April 2018 |publisher=Sfbaytimes.com}}</ref>


==Other arrangements==
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 upon the dissolution of their marriage
===Civil unions===
{{Main|Civil union}}
] against ], reject the notion of ], describing them as inferior to the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.<ref name="Towleroad">{{Cite web |last=Towle |first=Andy |date=13 November 2008 |title=NYC Protest and Civil Rights March Opposing Proposition 8 |url=http://www.towleroad.com/2008/11/we-did-it.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090213224331/http://www.towleroad.com/2008/11/we-did-it.html |archive-date=13 February 2009 |access-date=28 September 2012 |publisher=]}}</ref>]]


Civil union, ], ], ], unregistered partnership, and unregistered cohabitation statuses offer varying legal benefits of marriage. As of {{date}}, countries that have an alternative form of legal recognition other than marriage on a national level are: ], ], ], the ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ].<ref name="countries and states legal">{{Cite web |last=Pearson |first=Mary |title=Where is Gay Marriage Legal? |url=http://christiangays.com/marriage/legal.shtml |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120301004148/http://christiangays.com/marriage/legal.shtml |archive-date=1 March 2012 |access-date=20 February 2012 |publisher=christiangays.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Williams |first=Steve |title=Which Countries Have Legalized Gay Marriage? |url=http://www.care2.com/causes/which-countries-have-legalized-gay-marriage.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190429011118/https://www.care2.com/causes/which-countries-have-legalized-gay-marriage.html |archive-date=29 April 2019 |access-date=20 February 2012 |publisher=Care2.com (news.bbc.co.uk as source)}}</ref> Same-sex marriage performed remotely or abroad is recognized with full marital rights by ]. ] offers more limited rights. Additionally, various cities and counties in ] and ] offer same-sex couples varying levels of benefits, which include hospital visitation rights and others.
In countries with legal systems based on the ]s, being legally recognized as one's transitioned gender may require conditions of infertility, where if a transsexual were ever found to have had a child, it would result in a reversal of a legal sex change and spontaneous annulment of the marriage if that country does not recognize same-sex marriages.


Additionally, eighteen countries that have legally recognized same-sex marriage also have an alternative form of recognition for same-sex couples, usually available to heterosexual couples as well: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], the ], ], ], ], the ] and ].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Loi du 9 juillet 2004 relative aux effets légaux de certains partenariats. – Legilux |url=http://eli.legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/2004/07/09/n3 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160911061405/http://eli.legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/2004/07/09/n3 |archive-date=11 September 2016 |access-date=7 July 2017 |website=Eli.legilux.public.lu}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=12 March 2007 |title=Loi n° 99-944 du 15 novembre 1999 relative au pacte civil de solidarité |url=http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do;jsessionid=0F15B99854A4FE47659F950BE42DF000.tpdjo05v_3?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000005628705&dateTexte=vig |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190816215959/https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do;jsessionid=0F15B99854A4FE47659F950BE42DF000.tpdjo05v_3?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000005628705&dateTexte=vig |archive-date=16 August 2019 |access-date=7 July 2017 |website=Legifrance.gouv.fr |language=fr}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=WETTEN, DECRETEN, ORDONNANTIES EN VERORDENINGEN LOIS, DECRETS, ORDONNANCES ET REGLEMENTS |url=http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/mopdf/2000/03/02_1.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190429011144/http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/mopdf/2000/03/02_1.pdf |archive-date=29 April 2019 |access-date=7 July 2017 |website=Ejustice.jkust.fgov.be}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Civil Partnership Act 2004 |url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/33/contents |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190429011336/http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/33/contents |archive-date=29 April 2019 |access-date=5 July 2017 |website=Legislation.gov.uk}}</ref>
In the United States, transsexual and intersexual marriages typically run into the complications detailed above. As definitions and enforcement of marriage is defined by the state, these complications will vary from state to state. In Massachusetts no problem should arise in seeking to get a marriage, or enforcing that marriage, however marriage in states that have more prohibitive definitions, ''any'' marriage with a transsexual could face challenge in a court based on any number of criteria.


They are also available in parts of the United States (],{{efn|Legally available in the Arizona municipalities of Bisbee, Clarkdale, Cottonwood, Jerome, Sedona and Tucson.}} ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]) and Canada.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships |url=http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/same-sex-marriage-overview.aspx |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130610003023/http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/same-sex-marriage-overview.aspx |archive-date=10 June 2013 |access-date=20 February 2012 |publisher=National Conference of State Legislatures}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Ramstack, Tom |date=11 January 2010 |title=Congress Considers Outcome of D.C. Gay Marriage Legislation |work=AHN |url=http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7017501996?Congress%20Considers%20Outcome%20of%20D.C.%20Gay%20Marriage%20Legislation |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100620042439/http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7017501996?Congress%20Considers%20Outcome%20of%20D.C.%20Gay%20Marriage%20Legislation |archive-date=20 June 2010}}</ref>
(For discussions on the status of marriages involving transgendered persons see Julie A. Greenberg, Defining Male and Female: Intersexuality and the Collision Between Law and Biology, 41 Ariz. L. Rev. 265 (Summer 1999); and Michael L. Rosin, Intersexuality and Universal Marriage, 14 L. & Sex. 51 (2005) as well as the references they contain.)


===Non-sexual same-sex marriage===
== Controversy ==
====Kenya====
[[Image:World homosexuality laws.svg|thumb|Map showing the status of homosexuality laws of the world.
{{main|LGBT rights in Kenya}}
Female same-sex marriage is practiced among the ], ], ], ], and to a lesser extent neighboring peoples. About 5–10% of women are in such marriages. However, this is not seen as homosexual, but is instead a way for families without sons to keep their inheritance within the family.<ref>''Gender and Language in Sub-Saharan Africa,'' 2013:35</ref>


====Nigeria====
{{legend|#c0c0c0|No information}}
{{main|Recognition of same-sex unions in Nigeria}}
'''Homosexuality legal'''
Among the ] and probably other peoples in the south of the country, there are circumstances where a marriage between women is considered appropriate, such as when a woman has no child and her husband dies, and she takes a wife to perpetuate her inheritance and family lineage.<ref name="NigeriaTribune">{{Cite web |last=Igwe |first=Leo |date=19 June 2009 |title=Tradition of same gender marriage in Igboland |url=http://www.tribune.com.ng/19062009/opinion.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100111010506/http://www.tribune.com.ng/19062009/opinion.html |archive-date=11 January 2010 |website=Nigerian Tribune}}</ref>
{{legend|#57781f|Same sex marriages}}
{{legend|#99b453|Same sex unions}}
{{legend|#bed688|No same sex unions}}
{{legend|#7fbcff|International marriage licenses recognized}}
'''Homosexuality illegal'''
{{legend|#f9dc36|Minimal penalty}}
{{legend|#ec8028|Large penalty}}
{{legend|#e73e21|Life in prison}}
{{legend|#8c210f|Death penalty}}
{{legend|#a9a9a9|No info on penalty}}]]


== Studies ==
The ] stated on 26 February 2004:{{blockquote|text=The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.<ref name="aaa">{{Cite web |last=American Anthropological Association |author-link=American Anthropological Association |year=2004 |title=Statement on Marriage and the Family |url=http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/Statement-on-Marriage-and-the-family.cfm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150912104755/http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/Statement-on-Marriage-and-the-Family.cfm |archive-date=12 September 2015 |access-date=18 September 2015}}</ref>}}


Research findings from 1998 to 2015 from the ], ], ], the ], the ], ], the ], the ], ], ], the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, and independent researchers also support the findings of this study.<ref>{{Cite news |date=26 June 2015 |title=Same-sex marriage and children's well-being: Research roundup |work=Journalist's Resource |url=http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/same-sex-marriage-children-well-being-research-roundup |url-status=live |access-date=29 December 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160102172415/http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/same-sex-marriage-children-well-being-research-roundup |archive-date=2 January 2016}}</ref>{{vague|date=February 2021}}
The controversy over recognition of same-sex unions as marriages is a small, albeit very important, part of a larger controversy concerning the role of government in recognizing and regulating intimate relationships. While there are few instances of societies recognizing same-sex unions as marriage, the historical and anthropological record reveals a remarkable variety of treatment of same-sex unions ranging from sympathetic toleration to indifference to prohibition. The 2004 Statement by the ] relies upon this variety in reaching its conclusion that same-sex unions can "contribute to stable and humane societies":<ref></ref>
<blockquote>The results of more than a century of ] research on ]s, ] relationships, and ], across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either ] or viable ]s depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.</blockquote>


The overall socio-economic and health effects of legal access to same-sex marriage around the world have been summarized by Badgett and co-authors.<ref>{{Cite journal |doi = 10.1002/pam.22587|title = A review of the effects of legal access to same-sex marriage |journal = Journal of Policy Analysis and Management|year = 2024|last1=Badgett|first1=M.V. Lee|last2=Carpenter|first2=Christopher S.|last3=Lee|first3=Maxine J.|last4=Sansone|first4 = Dario|doi-access=free|hdl=10871/135707|hdl-access=free}}</ref> The review found that sexual minority individuals took-up legal marriage when it became available to them (but at lower rates than different-sex couples). There is instead no evidence that same-sex marriage legalization affected different-sex marriages. On the health side, same-sex marriage legalization increased health insurance coverage for individuals in same-sex couples (in the US), and it led to improvements in sexual health among men who have sex with men, while there is mixed evidence on mental health effects among sexual minorities. In addition, the study found mixed evidence on a range of downstream social outcomes such as attitudes toward LGBTQ+ people and employment choices of sexual minorities.
Some disagree with the idea of government recognition of any marriages, arguing that the personal relationships of citizens are not a proper issue of governmental concern. This view is often expressed by those who see the only legal issues related to marriage involving the nature and extent of parties’ consent to the relationship. Proponents of this view argue that the parties should define almost all aspects of the relationship, in much the same way that parties to other types of contracts are generally free to define the terms of their agreement. Prenuptial and postnuptial agreements arise among those holding this view.<ref>See discussion of prenutial and postmarital agreements at Findlaw </ref>


===Health===
Others, including many ] advocates, assert that legal recognition of marriage is based upon the government's interest in encouraging stable, committed relationships. Stable relationships reduce the need for society (sometimes through government) to provide support for its members. Each spouse safeguards the other's well being by, at times, acting as a nurse, banker, policeman, etc. Examples include demanding the keys to the car when one or the other has had too much to drink, or staying home to care for the other after surgery,<ref>This is recognized by the federal Family Medical Leave Act allowing employees to take time off to care for a spouse with a serious medical condition.</ref> or paying debts owed by a husband or wife.<ref>See Findlaw, Debts: Husbands and Wives </ref> Advocates for recognition of same-sex unions argue that there is no difference in the ability of same-sex and opposite-sex couples to make commitments and care for each other, and therefore the law of marriage should apply to both.<ref>Professor Dale Carpenter is a prominent spokesman for this view. For a better understanding of this view, see Professor Carpenter's writings at http://www.indegayforum.org/staff/show/91.html.</ref>


{{as of|2006}}, the data of current psychological and other social science studies on same-sex marriage in comparison to mixed-sex marriage indicate that same-sex and mixed-sex relationships do not differ in their essential psychosocial dimensions; that a parent's sexual orientation is unrelated to their ability to provide a healthy and nurturing family environment; and that marriage bestows substantial psychological, social, and health benefits. Same-sex parents and carers and their children are likely to benefit in numerous ways from legal recognition of their families, and providing such recognition through marriage will bestow greater benefit than civil unions or domestic partnerships.<ref name="aap2006" /><ref name="autogenerated4">Herek, Gregory M. "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: A social science perspective." ''American Psychologist,'' Vol 61(6), September 2006, pp. 607–21.</ref>{{update inline|date=December 2023}} Studies in the United States have correlated legalization of same-sex marriage to lower rates of HIV infection,<ref>{{Cite web |author=Elaine Justice |title=Study Links Gay Marriage Bans to Rise in HIV infections |url=http://www.emory.edu/home/news/releases/2009/06/study-links-gay-marriage-bans-to-rise-in-hiv-rate.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100409072056/http://www.emory.edu/home/news/releases/2009/06/study-links-gay-marriage-bans-to-rise-in-hiv-rate.html |archive-date=9 April 2010 |access-date=5 November 2010 |publisher=Emory University}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Peng |first=Handie |title=The Effect of Same-Sex Marriage Laws on Public Health and Welfare |journal=Userwww.service.emory.edu |url=https://emory.academia.edu/HandiePeng/Papers/430809/The_Effects_of_Same-Sex_Marriage_Laws_on_Public_Health_and_Welfare |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120220025915/http://emory.academia.edu/HandiePeng/Papers/430809/The_Effects_of_Same-Sex_Marriage_Laws_on_Public_Health_and_Welfare |archive-date=20 February 2012 |access-date=11 February 2012}}</ref> psychiatric disorders,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hasin |first=Deborah |title=Lesbian, gay, bisexual individuals risk psychiatric disorders from discriminatory policies |url=http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/cums-lgb030210.php |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130227012518/http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/cums-lgb030210.php |archive-date=27 February 2013 |access-date=20 September 2012 |publisher=]}}</ref><ref name="psychtoday">{{Cite news |last=Mustanski |first=Brian |date=22 March 2010 |title=New study suggests bans on gay marriage hurt mental health of LGB people |work=] |url=http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201003/new-study-suggests-bans-gay-marriage-hurt-mental-health-lgb-people |access-date=8 November 2010}}</ref> and ].<ref name="JAMA">{{Cite journal |last1=Raifman |first1=Julia |last2=Moscoe |first2=Ellen |last3=Austin |first3=S. Bryn |last4=McConnell |first4=Margaret |year=2017 |title=Difference-in-Differences Analysis of the Association Between State Same-Sex Marriage Policies and Adolescent Suicide Attempts|journal=JAMA Pediatrics |volume=171 |issue=4 |pages=350–356 |doi=10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.4529 |pmc=5848493 |pmid=28241285}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=20 February 2017 |title=Same-Sex Marriage Legalization Linked to Reduction in Suicide Attempts Among High School Students |url=https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2017/same-sex-marriage-legalization-linked-to-reduction-in-suicide-attempts-among-high-school-students.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190429010934/https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2017/same-sex-marriage-legalization-linked-to-reduction-in-suicide-attempts-among-high-school-students.html |archive-date=29 April 2019 |access-date=8 June 2018 |website=]}}</ref>
A third approach to marriage is based on the belief that the government's involvement in marriage arises from the consequences of sexual acts between men and women – namely the creation of children. Based on research showing that, on average, children do best when raised by their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage,<ref>See e.g., Kristin Anderson Moore, et al., ''Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children and What Can We Do About It?,''Child Trends Research Brief (June 2002)</ref> proponents argue that legal marriage is society’s way of encouraging monogamy and commitment by those who may create children through their sexual coupling. <ref>Maggie Gallagher is a prominent spokeswoman for this view. For an in-depth understanding of this view, see her blog at http://www.marriagedebate.com/.</ref> These advocates acknowledge that not every opposite couple is capable of creating a child through sexual acts, but they argue that all laws are over inclusive in some aspect and to create exact congruence marriage and child-bearing capacity would require unacceptable inquiries by government at the time of issuing marriage licences.<ref>This inquiries would necessarily include questions about the couple's present fertility and their intentions regarding childbearing.</ref> No such intrusion is necessary to conclude that no sexual act between same-sex partners will result in childbearing, and therefore it is proper to exclude these couples from the legal definition of marriage.


==Issues==
Opponents of marriage within the ] also object to the same-sex marriage movement, even though their concerns pertain to the institution of marriage, rather than to the gender of its participants. They argue that seeking marriage as a means to social benefits and recognition reinforces the exclusion of other persons, notably the single and those in families composed of three or more intimate partners, from these benefits.<ref>''The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life'', Michael Warner, Harvard University Press</ref> From this perspective same-sex marriage is a ] movement within LGBT politics.
{{See also|LGBT rights opposition}}
While few societies have recognized same-sex unions as marriages,{{update inline|date=January 2024}} the ] reveals a large range of attitudes towards same-sex unions ranging from praise, through full acceptance and integration, sympathetic toleration, indifference, prohibition and discrimination, to persecution and physical annihilation.{{citation needed|date=June 2018}} Opponents of same-sex marriages have argued that same-sex marriage, while doing good for the couples that participate in them and the children they are raising,<ref name="Laurie">{{Cite web |last=Laurie |first=Timothy |date=3 June 2015 |title=Bigotry or biology: the hard choice for an opponent of marriage equality |url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-03/laurie-bigotry-or-biology/6514156 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150604151718/http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-03/laurie-bigotry-or-biology/6514156 |archive-date=4 June 2015 |access-date=4 June 2015 |publisher=The Drum}}</ref> undermines a right of children to be raised by their biological mother and father.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Blankenhorn |first=David |date=19 September 2008 |title=Protecting marriage to protect children |work=Los Angeles Times |url=https://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-blankenhorn19-2008sep19,0,6057126.story |url-status=live |access-date=6 October 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090904154130/http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-blankenhorn19-2008sep19,0,6057126.story |archive-date=4 September 2009}}</ref> Some supporters of same-sex marriages take the view that the government should have no role in regulating personal relationships,<ref name="findlaw1">{{Cite web |title=See discussion of prenuptial and postmarital agreements at Findlaw |url=http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/marriage-agreements |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101025170627/http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/marriage-agreements/ |archive-date=25 October 2010 |access-date=5 November 2010 |publisher=Family.findlaw.com}}</ref> while others argue that same-sex marriages would provide social benefits to same-sex couples.{{efn|1=Dale Carpenter is a prominent spokesman for this view. For a better understanding of this view, see Carpenter's writings at {{Cite web |title=Dale Carpenter |url=http://www.indegayforum.org/staff/show/91.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061117201231/http://www.indegayforum.org/staff/show/91.html |archive-date=17 November 2006 |access-date=31 October 2006 |website=Independent Gay Forum}} }} The debate regarding same-sex marriages includes debate based upon social viewpoints as well as debate based on majority rules, religious convictions, economic arguments, health-related concerns, and a variety of other issues.{{citation needed|date=July 2017}}


=== Religious arguments === ===Parenting===
{{Main|LGBT parenting|Same-sex marriage and the family}}
] claims the 4th century Christian martyrs ] were united in the rite of ], or brother-making, which he calls an early form of religious same-sex marriage]]
]
Scientific literature indicates that parents' financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union (either a mixed-sex or same-sex union). As a result, professional scientific associations have argued for same-sex marriage to be legally recognized as it will be beneficial to the children of same-sex parents or carers.<ref name="amici">{{Cite web |title=Brief of the American Psychological Association, The California Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy as amici curiae in support of plaintiff-appellees&nbsp;– Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of California Civil Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW (Honorable Vaughn R. Walker) |url=http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150413160709/http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf |archive-date=13 April 2015 |access-date=5 November 2010}}</ref><ref name="cpa2006">{{Cite web |year=2006 |title=Marriage of Same-Sex Couples – 2006 Position Statement Canadian Psychological Association |url=http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Marriage%20of%20Same-Sex%20Couples%20Position%20Statement%20-%20October%202006%20(1).pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090419195945/http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Marriage%20of%20Same-Sex%20Couples%20Position%20Statement%20-%20October%202006%20%281%29.pdf |archive-date=19 April 2009}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |display-authors=etal |vauthors=Pawelski JG, Perrin EC, Foy JM |date=July 2006 |title=The effects of marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership laws on the health and well-being of children |journal=] |volume=118 |issue=1 |pages=349–64 |doi=10.1542/peds.2006-1279 |pmid=16818585 |s2cid=219194821 |doi-access=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Lamb |first=Michael |title=Expert Affidavit for U.S. District Court (D. Mass. 2009) |url=http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/pedersen-v-opm/2011-09-14-pedersen-lamb-rebuttal-afffidavit.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924022457/http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/pedersen-v-opm/2011-09-14-pedersen-lamb-rebuttal-afffidavit.pdf |archive-date=24 September 2015 |access-date=24 July 2012 |publisher=Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders}}</ref><ref name="AAP-Discovery">{{Cite web |date=22 March 2013 |title=Pediatricians: Gay Marriage Good for Kids' Health |url=http://news.discovery.com/human/health/pediatricians-gay-marriage-is-good-for-kids-health-130322.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141112053402/http://news.discovery.com/human/health/pediatricians-gay-marriage-is-good-for-kids-health-130322.htm |archive-date=12 November 2014 |access-date=11 April 2013 |publisher=news.discovery.com}}</ref>


Scientific research has been generally consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.<ref name=cpa2006/><ref name="AAP-Discovery" /><ref name="apsp">{{Cite web |title=Elizabeth Short, Damien W. Riggs, Amaryll Perlesz, Rhonda Brown, Graeme Kane: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Parented Families – A Literature Review prepared for The Australian Psychological Society |url=http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110304014530/http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf |archive-date=4 March 2011 |access-date=5 November 2010}}</ref><ref name="amici2010">{{Cite web |title=Brief of the American Psychological Association, The California Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and The American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiff-Appellees |url=http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150413160709/http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf |archive-date=13 April 2015 |access-date=28 September 2012 |publisher=]}}</ref> According to scientific literature reviews, there is no evidence to the contrary.<ref name="aap2006">{{Cite journal |last1=Pawelski |first1=J.G. |last2=Perrin |first2=E.C. |last3=Foy |first3=J.M. |last4=Allen |first4=C.E. |last5=Crawford |first5=J.E. |last6=Del Monte |first6=M. |last7=Kaufman |first7=M. |last8=Klein |first8=J.D. |last9=Smith |first9=K. |last10=Springer |first10=S. |last11=Tanner |first11=J.L. |last12=Vickers |first12=D.L. |year=2006 |title=The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children |journal=Pediatrics |volume=118 |issue=1 |pages=349–64 |doi=10.1542/peds.2006-1279 |pmid=16818585 |s2cid=219194821 |doi-access=}}</ref><ref name="herek">{{Cite journal |last=Herek, GM |date=September 2006 |title=Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: a social science perspective |url=http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/AP_06_pre.PDF |url-status=dead |journal=The American Psychologist |volume=61 |issue=6 |pages=607–21 |doi=10.1037/0003-066X.61.6.607 |pmid=16953748 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100610164736/http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/AP_06_pre.PDF |archive-date=10 June 2010}}</ref><ref name="How Does the Gender of Parents Matter?">{{Cite journal |last1=Biblarz, Timothy J. |last2=Stacey, Judith |date=February 2010 |title=How Does the Gender of Parents Matter? |url=http://www.famigliearcobaleno.org/public/documenti/file/How-Does-the-Gender-of-Parents-Matter.pdf |url-status=dead |journal=Journal of Marriage and Family |volume=72 |issue=1 |pages=3–22 |citeseerx=10.1.1.593.4963 |doi=10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130512111336/http://www.famigliearcobaleno.org/public/documenti/file/How-Does-the-Gender-of-Parents-Matter.pdf |archive-date=12 May 2013}}</ref><ref name="cpa2005">{{Cite web |title=Brief presented to the Legislative House of Commons Committee on Bill C38 by the Canadian Psychological Association – 2 June 2005. |url=http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/UserFiles/Documents/advocacy/brief.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121013225547/http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/advocacy/brief.pdf |archive-date=13 October 2012 |access-date=7 August 2018}}</ref>{{update inline|date=December 2023}}
Some opponents object to same-sex marriage on purely ]. Opponents often claim that extending marriage to same-sex couples will undercut the conventional purpose of marriage as interpreted by cultural, religious, and traditional understanding.<ref>See e.g., Southern Baptist Convention, ''On Same-Sex Marriage'' (adopted 2003) http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1128 (visited January 20, 2008).</ref> Furthermore, opponents argue that same-sex marriage cannot fulfill common procreational roles, and/or sanctions a partnership that is centered around sexual acts that their respective religion prohibits. For example, ], in ''Marriage Under Fire'' and elsewhere, states that legalization or even tolerance of same-sex marriage would redefine the family, damage traditional family unions, and lead to an increase in the number of homosexual couples.
The Roman Catholic Church also opposes recognition of same-sex unions, arguing that acts of sexual intimacy are only proper between a man and a woman, and that the proper setting for those acts is only within marriage. Government inclusion of any other unions within the definition of "marriage" would reflect a belief in the moral equivalence of acts between a husband and wife and acts between two men or two women; this belief many find erroneous, in turn, would form the basis for public education requirements<ref>David Parker, the father of a kindergarten child in a Massachusetts public school, was arrested for trespassing on school property after a meeting during which he objected to teaching kindergarten children about same-sex marriage. A copy of the complaint in federal district court related to this arrest can be found at http://www.lexingtoncares.org/lawsuit2006-04-27/lawsuit.pdf.</ref> and legal enforcement of that view through laws restricting the speech and action of those who continue to believe that sexual acts between members of the same sex are not morally acceptable.<ref>See Maggie Gallagher, ''Banned in Boston''11 Weekly Standard 33 (2006) at </ref> Inclusion of same-sex unions within the definition of marriage would also evidence rejection of the idea that, in general, it is best that children be raised by their biological mother and father, and that it is the community's interest in insuring the well-being of children that forms the basis for the government's licensure and involvement in marriage.<ref>The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ''Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons'' (2003) (visited January 20, 2008) (statement by Vatican department charged with promoting and safeguarding the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world).</ref>


Compared to heterosexual couples, same-sex couples have a greater need for ] or ] to become parents. Lesbian couples often use ] to achieve pregnancy, and ] (where one woman provides the egg and the other gestates the child) is becoming more popular in the 2020s, although many couples cannot afford it. ] is an option for wealthier gay male couples, but the cost is prohibitive. Other same-sex couples adopt children or raise the children from earlier opposite-sex relationships.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Goldberg |first1=Abbie E. |title=LGBTQ-parent families: Diversity, intersectionality, and social context |journal=Current Opinion in Psychology |date=February 2023 |volume=49 |pages=101517 |doi=10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101517|pmid=36502588 |s2cid=253665001 |url=https://commons.clarku.edu/faculty_psychology/4 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Leal |first1=Daniela |last2=Gato |first2=Jorge |last3=Coimbra |first3=Susana |last4=Freitas |first4=Daniela |last5=Tasker |first5=Fiona |title=Social Support in the Transition to Parenthood Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Persons: A Systematic Review |journal=Sexuality Research and Social Policy |date=December 2021 |volume=18 |issue=4 |pages=1165–1179 |doi=10.1007/s13178-020-00517-y|hdl=10216/132451 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>
] and some moderate Christians further claim that homosexuality goes against biblical teaching, and extend this to same-sex marriage. As an example, there is the Bible verse Genesis 19:5, which many Biblical scholars believe indicates that homosexual behavior led to the destruction of the ancient cities of ].<ref>{{cite book
| chapter = Genesis 19
| chapterurl = http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019%20;&version=31;
| title = New International Version
| publisher = BibleGateway.com
| accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref> Other passages are Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and in the New Testament of the Bible, I Corinthians 6:8-10 and Romans 1:24-27.<ref>{{cite book
| chapter = Romans 1:24-27
| chapterurl = http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:24-27%20&version=31
| title = New International Version
| publisher = BibleGateway.com
| accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref> While these passages do not define the institution of marriage, Genesis 2:22-24 reads as follows: "Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."<ref></ref> This passage is quoted by Jesus in the New Testament Gospel of Matthew.<ref></ref> However, other moderate and ] claim that Biblical passages concerning homosexual behavior are taken out of full textual, historical and cultural contexts, and are not applicable to homosexual relationships as we know them today. They view the passages about Sodom and Gomorrah as referring to systematic ] and inhospitality. They view the passages in Leviticus as part of the ] and strictly reserved to the Israelites of that time. Some of this Holiness Code is not practiced by contemporary Christians (e.g., prohibitions on wearing mixed fabrics, a proscription of the consumption of pork, the sacrifice of animals as atonement for sins), while other parts such as the prohibitions on incestuous relations still are. For some modern Christians, the passage in Romans is seen as relating more to specific instances of Greco-Roman temple sex acts and idolatrous worship and it is not intended to address contemporary homosexuality.<ref>{{cite paper
|url = http://members.cox.net/paulmcc/mcc/samegen.html
|title = Same Gender Sexual Behavior and the Scriptures
|publisher = Metropolitan Community Church of Topeka, authors and
|author = Loppnow, Rev. Jonathan; Evans, Rev. Paul C.
|format = .HTML; .SIT
|date= 7 Jan 1998
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}
</ref> Other modern Christians hold that Romans 1 proscribes all homosexual behavior, regardless of its relational context.<ref></ref>


====Adoption====
Judaism, like Christianity, reflects differing views between conservative and liberal adherents. Orthodox Judaism maintains the traditional Jewish bans on both sexual acts and marriage amongst members of the same sex. The Orthodox Union in the United States supports a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.<ref> Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, Orthodox Response to Same-Sex Marriage, NY Jewish Week (Mar. 26, 2004) http://www.ou.org/public_affairs/article/ou_resp_same_sex_marriage/ (visited January 20, 2008) (Rabbi Weinreb is the Vice President of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, one of the oldest and largest organizations of Orthodox Jews in the United States); Rabbinical Council of America, Joining with Three Other Orthodox Organizations, RCA Opposes Redefinition of Marriage in New York State (June 21, 2007) http://www.rabbis.org/news/index.cfm?type=policies (visited January 20, 2008).</ref> Conservative Jews reject recognition of same-sex unions as "marriage," but permit celebration of commitment ceremonies, in part as an expression their belief that scripture requires monogamy of all sexually active couples. <ref>Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, Homosexuality, Human Dignity, & Halakhah: A Combined Responsum for the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (approved by a majority of the Committee on Dec. 6, 2006) at http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/docs/Dorff_Nevins_Reisner_Final.pdf (visited January 20, 2008) (the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly is a committee of the international body of Conservative Rabbis).</ref> Members of Reform Judaism support the inclusion of same-sex unions within the definition of marriage. <ref>Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Civil Marriage for Gay and Lesbian Jewish Couples (adopted by the General Assembly 1997) http://urj.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=7214&pge_prg_id=29601&pge_id=4590 (visited January 20, 2008).</ref>
{{main|LGBT adoption}}
[[File:World same-sex adoption laws.svg|center|thumb|upright=3|Legal status of adoption by same-sex couples around the world: {{legend|#800080|Joint adoption allowed}}
{{legend|#ba75ff|Second-parent (stepchild) adoption allowed}}
{{legend|#CCCCCC|No laws allowing adoption by same-sex couples and no same-sex marriage}}
{{legend|#E4D69D|Same-sex marriage but adoption by married same-sex couples not allowed}}
]]
All states that allow same-sex marriage also allow the joint ] of children by those couples with the exception of Ecuador and a third of states in Mexico, though such restrictions have been ruled unconstitutional in Mexico. In addition, Bolivia, Croatia, Israel and Liechtenstein, which do not recognize same-sex marriage, nonetheless permit joint adoption by same-sex couples. Some additional states do not recognize same-sex marriage but allow stepchild adoption by couples in civil unions, namely the Czech Republic and San Marino.{{citation needed|date=December 2023}}


===Transgender and intersex people===
There are some people who, despite having a moral or religious stance that same-sex marriage is wrong, still feel that it is not their place to take their religious sentiments into the secular realm, and enforce their beliefs on others who may disagree. So, while these religious people do not approve of homosexual couples and continue to refuse to recognize their marriages from a religious aspect, they nevertheless recognize and tolerate their secular marriage.
{{synthesis|date=May 2017}}
{{See also|Transgender rights|Intersex human rights}}
The legal status of same-sex marriage may have implications for the marriages of couples in which one or both parties are ], depending on how sex is defined within a jurisdiction. Transgender and ] individuals may be prohibited from marrying partners of the "opposite" sex or permitted to marry partners of the "same" sex due to legal distinctions.{{citation needed|date=February 2021}} In any legal jurisdiction where marriages are defined without distinction of a requirement of a male and female, these complications do not occur. In addition, some legal jurisdictions recognize a legal and official change of gender, which would allow a transgender male or female to be legally married in accordance with an adopted gender identity.<ref>Bockting, Walter, Autumn Benner, and Eli Coleman. "Gay and Bisexual Identity Development Among Female-to-Male Transsexuals in North America: Emergence of a Transgender Sexuality." ''Archives of Sexual Behavior'' 38.5 (October 2009): 688–701. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 29 September 2009</ref>


In the United Kingdom, the '']'' allows a person who has lived in their chosen gender for at least two years to receive a gender recognition certificate officially recognizing their new gender. Because in the United Kingdom marriages were until recently only for mixed-sex couples and civil partnerships are only for same-sex couples, a person had to dissolve their civil partnership before obtaining a gender recognition certificate{{citation needed|date=February 2020}}, and the same was formerly true for marriages in England and Wales, and still is in other territories. Such people are then free to enter or re-enter civil partnerships or marriages in accordance with their newly recognized gender identity. In Austria, a similar provision requiring transsexual people to divorce before having their ] marker corrected was found to be unconstitutional in 2006.<ref>{{Cite web |date=5 July 2006 |title=Austria gets first same-sex marriage |url=http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/07/070506austria.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071017161302/http://365gay.com/Newscon06/07/070506austria.htm |archive-date=17 October 2007 |access-date=20 July 2008 |publisher=365gay.com}}</ref> In Quebec, prior to the legalization of same-sex marriage, only unmarried people could apply for legal change of gender. With the advent of same-sex marriage, this restriction was dropped. A similar provision including sterilization also existed in Sweden, but was phased out in 2013.<ref>{{Cite web |date=11 January 2013 |title=Sweden ends forced sterilization of trans |url=http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/sweden-ends-forced-sterilization-trans110113 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180612234631/https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/sweden-ends-forced-sterilization-trans110113/ |archive-date=12 June 2018 |access-date=10 October 2017 |website=gaystarnews.com}}</ref> In the United States, transgender and intersex marriages was subject to legal complications.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Deborah |first=Anthony |date=Spring 2012 |title=CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE: TRANSSEXUAL MARRIAGE AND THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN SEX AND LEGAL SEX. |journal=Texas Journal of Women & the Law |volume=21 |issue=2}}</ref> As definitions and enforcement of marriage are defined by the states, these complications vary from state to state,<ref>{{Cite news |last=Schwartz |first=John |date=18 September 2009 |title=U.S. Defends Marriage Law |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/us/19brfs-USDEFENDSMAR_BRF.html |url-status=live |access-date=29 September 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714172436/http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/us/19brfs-USDEFENDSMAR_BRF.html |archive-date=14 July 2014}}</ref> as some of them prohibit legal changes of gender.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Movement Advancement Project {{!}} Equality Maps |url=http://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190422164047/http://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps |archive-date=22 April 2019 |access-date=2019-04-19 |website=www.lgbtmap.org |language=en}}</ref>
Some modern religions and denominations perform same-sex weddings. At the 1996 ] ], delegates voted overwhelmingly that because of "the inherent worth and dignity of every person," same-sex couples should have the same freedom to marry that other couples have.<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www.uua.org/news/freedomtomarry/index.html
|title = Freedom to Marry, for All People
|publisher = Unitarian Universalist Association
|date= 2006
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www.femdomale.com/samesex/marriage/index.html
|title = Same-Sex "Marriage": Should America Allow "Gay Rights" Activists to Cross The Last Cultural Frontier?
|publisher = Christian Leadership Ministries
|author = Anton N. Marco
|date= 1999
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref>


=== Social arguments === ===Divorce===
{{Main|Divorce of same-sex couples}}
Those who advocate that marriage should be defined exclusively as the union of one man and one woman argue that heterosexual unions provide the procreative foundation of the family unit that is the chief social building block of civilization. Social conservatives and others may see marriage not as a legal construct of the state, but as a naturally occurring "pre-political institution" that the state must recognize as it recognizes other natural institutions such as jobs and families. "Government does not create marriage any more than government creates jobs."<ref>{{cite web
In the United States before the case of '']'', couples in same-sex marriages could only obtain a divorce in jurisdictions that recognized same-sex marriages, with some exceptions.<ref>{{Cite web |author=Matthew S. Coleman |date=16 September 2015 |title=Obergefell v. Hodges |url=http://www.einhornharris.com/familylawblog/obergefell-v-hodges |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151224103921/http://www.einhornharris.com/familylawblog/obergefell-v-hodges/ |archive-date=24 December 2015 |access-date=8 November 2015 |publisher=Einhorn Harris}}</ref>
|url = http://www.policyreview.org/apr05/morse.html
|title = Marriage and the Limits of Contract
|publisher = the Hoover Institution
|author = Jennifer Morse
|date= May 2005
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref> They argue that the definition proposed by same-sex marriage advocates changes the social importance of marriage from its natural function of reproduction into a mere legality or freedom to have sex. These sides of the argument 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.


===Judicial and legislative===
The dissent by Justice Martha Sosman in the decision of the Massachusetts high court that legalized same-sex marriage in that state makes a societal argument without specifying the harm that would occur from this change.<ref>{{cite web
{{Main|Conflict of marriage laws#Same-sex marriage}}
|url = http://911fantasy.blogspot.com/1995/12/transcript-of-martha-sossmans-dissent.html
There are differing positions regarding the manner in which same-sex marriage has been introduced into democratic jurisdictions. A "]" position holds that same-sex marriage is valid, or void and illegal, based upon whether it has been accepted by a simple majority of voters or of their elected representatives.<ref name="USA Today">{{Cite news |last=Leff |first=Lisa |date=4 December 2008 |title=Poll: Calif. gay marriage ban driven by religion |work=USA Today |agency=Associated Press |url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-12-04-gay-poll_N.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081208080418/http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-12-04-gay-poll_N.htm |archive-date=8 December 2008}} archived here.</ref>
|title = Transcript of Martha Sossman's Dissent
|publisher = blogspot.com
|date= 23 Dec 1995
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref> Asserting the '']'' 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 ], which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.
{{rquote|right|'''Marriage is a vocabulary, it’s a vehicle, an engine for a larger discussion that moves people’s understanding of who gay people are, why sex discrimination is wrong, why exclusion is wrong in America, that brings up discussion of the separation of church and state, that brings up discussion of whether there should be limitations or roles based on sex, or whether men and women should be treated equally.'''|]|<ref>, David Shankbone, '']'', September 30, 2007.</ref>}}
A common objection to same-sex marriage is that the purpose of marriage is a result of naturally occurring sexual attraction that leads to procreation, 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 ], the procreation argument cannot reasonably be used against same-sex marriage, particularly since technological advances allow gay couples to have their own related biological children.<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marint2.htm
|title = Is Same-Sex Marriage (SSM) a Bad Idea?
|publisher = Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
|author = B.A. Robinson
|date= 10 Apr 2004
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref>


In contrast, a ] view holds that the institution can be validly created through the ruling of an impartial judiciary carefully examining the questioning and finding that the right to marry regardless of the gender of the participants is guaranteed under the civil rights laws of the jurisdiction.<ref name="bbc">{{Cite news |last=Mirchandani, Rajesh |date=12 November 2008 |title=Divisions persist over gay marriage ban |work=BBC News |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7723645.stm |url-status=live |access-date=18 December 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140428173747/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7723645.stm |archive-date=28 April 2014}}</ref>
Another view is that all marriages should thus be viewed legally as "]s." These civil unions would then only receive the ] 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.


==Public opinion==
Dissidents to the same-sex marriage movement within the gay community argue that the pursuit of social recognition and legal benefits (e.g., health care insurance) by means of marriage reinforces marriage as an institution of exclusion, because it extends rights and benefits to people on the basis of their relationship status.<ref>''The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life,'' Michael Warner, Harvard University Press</ref> Some of these rights (e.g., health care insurance), they argue, should be made available to all people, including those who are single and those whose families are composed of three or more intimate partners. Some also argue that seeking marriage as a way of legitimating gay parenting reinforces cultural biases and discrimination against single parents. Lastly, some note that the same-sex marriage movement reinforces a cultural bias against being single in adulthood, treating it as abnormal, undesirable, or immature.
{{See also|Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States|Public opinion of same-sex marriage in Australia}}
[[File:Public Support of Same-Sex Marriage.svg|center|thumb|upright=3|Public opinion of same-sex marriage. Fraction in favor:<ref>For ease of comparison, only 'yes' and 'no' responses are counted. For old polling data, support figures have been adjusted upward @1%/year.</ref>
{{col-begin}}
{{col-break}}
{{legend|#58006e|5⁄6+}}
{{legend|#b000dc|2⁄3+}}
{{col-break}}
{{legend|#dd55ff|1⁄2+}}
{{legend|#f5cdff|1⁄3+}}
{{col-break}}
{{legend|#fcefff|1⁄6+}}
{{legend|#e0e0e0|<1⁄6}}
{{col-break}}
{{legend|#f0f0f0|no polls}}
{{col-end}}
]]


Numerous polls and studies on the issue have been conducted. A trend of increasing support for same-sex marriage has been revealed across many countries of the world, often driven in large part by a generational difference in support. Polling that was conducted in developed democracies in this century shows a majority of people in support of same-sex marriage. Support for same-sex marriage has increased across every age group, political ideology, religion, gender, race and region of various developed countries in the world.<ref name="Gallup2011">{{Cite web |last=Newport |first=Frank |date=20 May 2011 |title=For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage |url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140729043935/http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx |archive-date=29 July 2014 |access-date=25 September 2012 |publisher=]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Public Opinion: Nationally |url=http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/wp/who-supports-equality/a-majority-of-australians-support-marriage-equality |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110303043929/http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/wp/who-supports-equality/a-majority-of-australians-support-marriage-equality/ |archive-date=3 March 2011 |access-date=25 September 2012 |publisher=australianmarriageequality.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Gay Life in Estonia |url=http://www.globalgayz.com/europe/estonia/gay-life-in-estonia |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120716100828/http://www.globalgayz.com/europe/estonia/gay-life-in-estonia |archive-date=16 July 2012 |access-date=25 September 2012 |publisher=globalgayz.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Jowit |first=Juliette |date=12 June 2012 |title=Gay marriage gets ministerial approval |work=] |location=London |url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/jun/12/gay-marriage-receive-ministerial-approval |url-status=live |access-date=25 September 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190506173542/https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/jun/12/gay-marriage-receive-ministerial-approval |archive-date=6 May 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=24 February 2011 |title=Most Irish people support gay marriage, poll says |work=PinkNews |url=http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/24/most-irish-people-support-gay-marriage-poll-says |url-status=dead |access-date=25 September 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130926032112/http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/24/most-irish-people-support-gay-marriage-poll-says |archive-date=26 September 2013}}</ref>{{update inline|date=December 2021}}
Some same-sex marriage proponents, such as ], argue that same-sex marriage is moral enough to support the family-centered role that marriage plays in society despite the absence of biological children. Supporters also argue that the institution of marriage would be strengthened by making it available to more people, and furthermore 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.


Various detailed polls and studies on same-sex marriage that were conducted in several countries show that support for same-sex marriage significantly increases with higher levels of education and is also significantly stronger among younger generations, with a clear trend of continually increasing support.<ref name="Pew Survey 2023">{{cite web|url=https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/13/how-people-in-24-countries-view-same-sex-marriage/|title=How people in 24 countries view same-sex marriage|access-date=12 December 2023}}</ref>
Also, many people argue in favor of same-sex marriage because they say that sexual orientation is uncontrollable. They cite many scientific studies which claim <ref></ref> that no one can choose or change their sexual orientation, and that forbidding marriage between two people of the same sex is like forbidding marriage between two people of the same eye color, skin color, or nose length. Some believe that sexual orientation is genetically determined, just like these traits, and thus should not be cited as a basis for discrimination. In contrast, opponents of same-sex marriage (including some ] organizations) argue that homosexuality is not genetic or unchangeable.<ref></ref><ref></ref> Same-sex marriage opponents support this position with research as well as anecdotal evidence regarding efforts to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions.<ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref> Some opponents of same-sex marriage reason that if homosexuality is not genetic or unchangeable, then it is not unjust for government to define marriage as the union of one woman and one man.<ref>http://www.apacny.net/The%20Christian%20Case%20Against%20Same-Sex%20Marriage.pdf</ref>


;Greater support with youth
=== Arguments about tradition ===
] polling results from 32 countries found 21 with statistically higher support for same-sex marriage among those under 35 than among those over 35 in 2022–2023. Countries with the greatest absolute difference are placed to the left in the following chart. Countries without a significant generational difference are placed to the right.<ref name="Pew Survey 2023"/>
Proponents of same-sex marriage point out that "traditional" concepts of marriage in actuality have already undergone ].


<div style="overflow:auto">
Polygamy has been prohibited, married women are no longer considered the property of their husbands, ] is legal, ] within wedlock is allowed, and ] forbidding ] have been eliminated in most modern societies.
{{ #invoke:Chart | bar-chart
| height = 400
| width = 1200
| stack = 1
| group 1 = 33 : 52 : 37 : 34 : 52 : 43 : 35 : 57 : 54 : 64 : 48 : 47 : 59 : 62 : 71 : 73 : 34 : 20 : 5 : 90 : 15 : 89 : 87 : 82 : 80 : 79 : 74 : 53 : 36 : 31 : 5 : 2
| group 2 = 42 : 29 : 28 : 27 : 26 : 24 : 24 : 22 : 22 : 20 : 19 : 17 : 15 : 13 : 11 : 8 : 8 : 7 : 7 : 6 : 5 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0
| x legends = <small>Taiw</small> : <small>Mex</small> : <small>Sing</small> : <small>ROK</small> : <small>HK</small> : <small>Gre</small> : <small>Pol</small> : <small>Viet</small> : <small>Thai</small> : <small>Jap</small> : <small>Cam</small> : <small>Braz</small> : <small>USA</small> : <small>Arg</small> : <small>Ital</small> : <small>Oz</small> : <small>S. Af.</small> : <small>Sri Lanka</small> : <small>Keny</small> : <small>Swed</small> : <small>Malay</small> : <small>Neth</small> : <small>Spa</small> : <small>Fran</small> : <small>Germ</small> : <small>Cana</small> : <small>UK</small> : <small>India</small> : <small>Isra</small> : <small>Hung</small> : <small>Indo</small> : <small>Nigeria</small>
| colors = navy : blue
| group names = over 35 : additional support from those under 35
}}
</div>


A 2016 survey by the ] found similarly high support of same-sex marriage (63%) among 18–21-year-olds in an online survey of 18 countries around the world.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.varkeyfoundation.org/media/4487/global-young-people-report-single-pages-new.pdf|title=What the world's young people think and feel.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://aifs.gov.au/research/family-matters/no-100/who-supports-equal-rights-same-sex-couples|title=Who supports equal rights for same-sex couples? |website=Australian Institute of Family Studies}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=Jun 2, 2015 |title=Age is decisive factor when it comes to supporting same-sex marriage: LAPOP |url=https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2015/06/02/age-is-decisive-factor-when-it-comes-to-supporting-same-sex-marriage-lapop/ |access-date=2023-12-26 |website=Vanderbilt University |language=en-US}}</ref>
The fact that changes in the customs and protocols of marriage often occur gives rise to the argument that marriage is dynamic, and same-sex marriage is only the latest evolution of the institution.


{{ #invoke:Chart | bar-chart
=== Arguments concerning children ===
| height = 300
{{main|LGBT parenting}}
| width = 800
| stack = 1
| group 1 = 82 : 81 : 77 : 77 : 74 : 74 : 73 : 73 : 71 : 59 : 54 : 54 : 53 : 53 : 50 : 47 : 33 : 16
| x legends = <small>Germ</small> : <small>Cana</small> : <small>Oz</small> : <small>UK</small> : <small>NZ</small> : <small>Fran</small> : <small>Ital</small> : <small>Arg</small> : <small>USA</small> : <small>Braz</small> : <small>Chin</small> : <small>S. Af.</small> : <small>India</small> : <small>Jap</small> : <small>Isra</small> : <small>ROK</small> : <small>Turk</small> : <small>Nigeria</small>
| colors = navy
| group names = 18&ndash;21 year-olds
}}


(The sampling error is approx. 4% for Nigeria and 3% for the other countries. Because of legal constraints, the question on same-sex marriage was not asked in the survey countries of Russia and Indonesia.)
In opposing same-sex marriage in various state courts, a common key state's argument against allowing same-sex marriage has been the use of legal marriage to foster the state's interest in human reproduction. In '']'' in which several same-sex couples argued that the state of Washington's version of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional, the ] ruled 5 to 4 that the law was constitutional. Writing in the majority opinion, Justice Barbara Madsen wrote in 2006:
<blockquote>''The Legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are brought up in homes headed by children's biological parents.''</blockquote><p>


(See also ], ]) {{Same-sex marriage opinion polls worldwide}}


== See also ==
In responding to this argument in 2007, the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, a supporter of same-sex marriage, began a petition drive to place a ballot measure on the November 2007 ballot that would require opposite-sex couples who marry to have children within three years or have their marriages become legally unrecognized. Couples seeking a marriage license would also have to show they can produce children. The group admits this ballot initiative aims at calling attention to the Washington Supreme Court's decision in ''Anderson'' and the logical extension of this reasoning to childless and/or sterile heterosexual couples.<p>
{{Portal|LGBTQ|Human sexuality|Law}}
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
{{clear}}


==Notes==
In terms of numbers, the ] reports more than 600,000 same-sex couples (''unmarried domestic partners'' on the Census form) in the United States. The Census Bureau estimates that this number would be over 770,000 in 2005.<ref>{{cite paper
{{notelist|35em}}
|url = http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/SameSexCouplesandGLBpopACS.pdf
|title = Same-sex Couples and the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Population: New Estimates from the American Community Survey
|author = Gary J. Gates, PhD
|publisher = The Williams Institute of UCLA Law School
|format = .PDF
|date=October 2006
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref> While a post-Census study by UCLA economist Dr. M.V. Lee Badgett found that there was a significant undercount of same-sex couples in 2000, the Census reports that among the couples answering they are a same-sex couple: one-third of lesbian couples and one-fifth of gay male couples have children under 18 living in the home.<ref>{{cite paper
| url = http://www.iglss.org/media/files/c2k_leftout.pdf
| author = M. V. Lee Badgett, Ph.D; Marc A. Rogers, Ph.D.
| date= 2003
| format = .PDF
| title = Left Out of the Count: Missing Same-Sex Couples in Census 2000
| publisher = Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref>


==References==
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 arrangements 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, ], ], ], and the ].<ref name="aclu1">{{cite web
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}
|url = http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=17245&c=104
|title = BAD LINK <!-- Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting -->
|publisher = American Civil Liberties Union
|author =
|date =
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref> On July 28, 2004, the American Psychological Association's Council of Representatives adopted a resolution supporting legalization of same-sex civil marriages and opposes discrimination against lesbian and gay parents.<ref>{{cite press release
|url = http://www.apa.org/releases/gaymarriage.html
|title = APS Supports Legalization of Same-sex Civil Marriages...
|publisher = American Psychological Association
|date= 28 July 2004
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref>


==Bibliography==
=== Arguments concerning divorce rates ===
{{refbegin|30em}}
] 2006.]]
* {{Cite book |last=Boswell |first=John |title=The Marriage of Likeness: Same-sex Unions in Pre-modern Europe |publisher=Simon Harper and Collins |year=1995 |isbn=978-0-00-255508-1 |location=New York |author-link=John Boswell (historian)}}
{{limitedgeographicscope}}
* {{Cite book |last=Boswell |first=John |url=https://archive.org/details/samesexunionsinp00bosw |title=Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe |publisher=Villard Books |year=1994 |isbn=978-0-679-43228-9 |location=New York |author-link=John Boswell}}
{{Refimprove|date=July 2007}}
* {{Cite book |last=Brownson |first=James V. |url=https://archive.org/details/biblegendersexua0000brow |title=Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reforming the Church's Debate on Same-Sex Relationships |publisher=] |year=2013 |isbn=978-0-8028-6863-3 |url-access=registration}}
On an international scale, the most comprehensive study to date on the effect of same-sex marriage / partnership on heterosexual marriage and divorce rates was conducted looking at over 15 years of data from the Scandinavian countries. The study (later part of a book), by researcher ], found that, 15 years after Denmark had granted same-sex couples the rights of marriage, rates of heterosexual marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of heterosexual divorce had gone down - contradicting the concept that same-sex marriage would have a negative effect on traditional marriage.<ref>], William Eskridge and Hans Ytterberg ''Nordic Bliss? Scandinavian Registered Partnerships and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate'', Journals of Legal Scholarship:Issues in Legal Scholarship i.5, The Berkeley Electronic Press, January 2004 </ref>
* {{Cite book |last=Calò |first=Emanuele |title=Matrimonio à la carte&nbsp;— Matrimoni, convivenze registrate e divorzi dopo l'intervento comunitario |publisher=Giuffrè |year=2009 |location=Milano}}

* {{Cite book |last=Caramagno |first=Thomas C. |title=Irreconcilable Differences? Intellectual Stalemate in the Gay Rights Debate |publisher=Praeger |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-275-97721-4 |location=Westport, CT}}
All U.S. states submit monthly summaries of vital statistics on births, deaths, marriages, and divorces to the U.S. Center For Disease Control's National Center For Health Statistics (NCHS) who then prepares monthly and yearly reports. The following statistics are based on that NCHS material. Over three years have passed now since same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts and data from all of 2004 and 2005 are now available.
* {{Cite book |last=Cere |first=Daniel |url=https://archive.org/details/divorcingmarriag0000unse |title=Divorcing Marriage: Unveiling the Dangers in Canada's New Social Experiment |publisher=McGill-Queen's University Press |year=2004 |isbn=978-0-7735-2895-6 |location=Montreal |author-link=Daniel Cere |url-access=registration}}

* {{Cite book |last=Chauncey |first=George |url=https://archive.org/details/whymarriagehisto0000chau |title=Why Marriage?: The History Shaping Today's Debate over Gay Equality |publisher=Basic Books |year=2004 |isbn=978-0-465-00957-2 |location=New York |author-link=George Chauncey |url-access=registration}}
The current divorce trends in Massachusetts counter claims of same-sex marriage having a negative impact on traditional marriage. In fact, for several years now the Commonwealth has had the lowest divorce rate of any state in the union. In 2004 the Massachusetts divorce rate, at 2.2 per 1,000 residents per year, was considerably lower than the U.S. national average rate for that year, 3.8 per 1,000 and close to the national average of 2.0 back in 1940. In the first two years of same-sex marriage in the Bay State, the rate of divorce showed a steady decline making it likely that Massachusetts will continue to have the lowest divorce rate in the nation.
* {{Cite book |last=Dobson |first=James C. |url=https://archive.org/details/marriageunderfir00dobs |title=Marriage Under Fire |publisher=Multnomah |year=2004 |isbn=978-1-59052-431-2 |location=Sisters, Or. |author-link=James Dobson}}

* {{Cite book |title=The Meaning of Marriage: Family, State, Market, And Morals |publisher=Spence Publishing Company |year=2006 |isbn=978-1-890626-64-8 |editor-last=George |editor-first=Robert P. |location=Dallas |editor-last2=Elshtain |editor-first2=Jean Bethke |editor-link2=Jean Bethke Elshtain}}
States which have taken aggressive action against same-sex marriage have not done nearly as well during the two year period of legal same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. The preliminary data from 2004 and 2005—from the 17 U.S. states which have provided data on divorce for 2004 and 2005 and whose voters also passed state constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage—presents a striking picture: the group of U.S. states arguably most hostile to divorce, those which have passed both state laws and also state constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage, lag dramatically in terms of divorce rate improvement when compared to same-sex marriage-friendly states.
* {{Cite book |title=Our Families, Our Values: Snapshots of Queer Kinship |publisher=The Harrington Park Press, An Imprint of the Haworth Press, Inc. |year=2008 |isbn=978-1-56023-910-9 |editor-last=Goss |editor-first=Robert E. |editor-link=Robert Goss |location=New York, NY |editor-last2=Strongheart |editor-first2=Amy Adams Squire}}

* {{Cite book |last1=Greenwich, Alex |title=Yes Yes Yes: Australia's Journey to Marriage Equality |last2=Robinson, Shirleene |publisher=NewSouth Books |year=2018 |isbn=9781742235998 |location=Australia}}
Among those U.S. states that are most opposed to same-sex marriage which have also provided divorce data for the time period — Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Texas — the average divorce rate ( unadjusted for population changes ) for 2004 and 2005 increased 1.75%. This group contains 4 of the 5 states with the highest divorce rate increases in the U.S. during 2004 and the first 11 months of 2005.
* {{Cite book |last=Larocque |first=Sylvain |title=Gay Marriage: The Story of a Canadian Social Revolution |publisher=James Lorimer & Company |year=2006 |isbn=978-1-55028-927-5 |location=Toronto}}

* {{Cite book |title=Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. |year=2008 |isbn=978-0-7425-6326-1 |editor-last=Laycock |editor-first=Douglas |editor-link=Douglas Laycock |location=Lanham, MD |editor-last2=Picarello |editor-first2=Anthony Jr. |editor-last3=Wilson |editor-first3=Robin Fretwell}}
=== Arguments concerning equality ===
* {{Cite book |last=Moats |first=David |url=https://archive.org/details/civilwarsbattlef00moat |title=Civil Wars: A Battle For Gay Marriage |publisher=Harcourt, Inc. |year=2004 |isbn=978-0-15-101017-2 |location=New York, NY}}
].]]
* {{Cite book |last=Oliver |first=Marilyn Tower |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XXIFAAAACAAJ |title=Gay and lesbian rights: a struggle |publisher=Enslow Publishers |year=1998 |isbn=978-0-89490-958-0 |access-date=28 October 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210204174006/https://books.google.com/books?id=XXIFAAAACAAJ |archive-date=4 February 2021 |url-status=live}}
In the ], there are at least 1,138 federal laws "in which marital status is a factor."<ref>{{cite paper
* {{Cite book |last=Rauch |first=Jonathan |title=Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America |title-link=Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America |publisher=Henry Holt and Company, LLC |year=2004 |isbn=978-0-8050-7815-2 |location=New York, NY |author-link=Jonathan Rauch}}
|url = http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
* {{Cite book |last=Rugg, Sally |title=How Powerful We Are : Behind the scenes with one of Australia's leading activists |publisher=Hachette Australia |year=2019 |isbn=9780733642227 |location=Australia |oclc=1103918151}}
|title = Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior Report
* {{Cite book |last1=Smart |first1=Carol |title=Same sex marriages: new generations, new relationships. Genders and sexualities in the social sciences |last2=Heaphy |first2=Brian |last3=Einarsdottir |first3=Anna |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |year=2013 |isbn=9780230300231 |location=Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire}}
|publisher = United States General Accounting Office
* {{Cite book |last=Spedale |first=Darren |url=https://archive.org/details/gaymarriageforbe0000eskr |title=Gay Marriage: For Better or For Worse? What We've Learned From the Evidence |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-19-518751-9 |location=New York |author-link=Darren Spedale}}
|date= 2004
* {{Cite book |title=Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con&nbsp;— A Reader, Revised Updated Edition |publisher=Vintage Books, a division of Random House, Inc. |year=2004 |isbn=978-1-4000-7866-0 |editor-last=Sullivan |editor-first=Andrew |editor-link=Andrew Sullivan |location=New York, NY}}
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
* {{Cite book |last=Truluck |first=Rembert S. |title=Steps to Recovery from Bible Abuse |publisher=Chi Rho Press, Inc. |year=2000 |isbn=978-1-888493-16-0 |location=Gaithersburg, MD |author-link=Rembert S. Truluck}}
}}</ref> (See ] for a partial list) A denial of rights or benefits without substantive ], assert the proponents of same-sex marriage, directly contradicts the ] which provides for ] of all citizens. For instance, a heterosexual U.S. citizen who marries a foreign partner immediately qualifies to bring that person to the United States, while long-term gay and lesbian binational partners who have spent decades together are denied the same rights, forcing foreign gay partners to seek expensive temporary employer or school-sponsored visas or face separation. See and report on this and other forms of discrimination against same-sex couples.
* {{Cite book |last=Wolfson |first=Evan |url=https://archive.org/details/whymarriagematte00wolf |title=Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry |publisher=Simon & Schuster |year=2004 |isbn=978-0-7432-6459-4 |location=New York |author-link=Evan Wolfson |url-access=registration}}

In a 2003 case titled '']'', the Supreme Court held that the ] to private consensual sexual conduct was protected under the ]. The court noted "moral disapproval does not constitute a legitimate governmental interest under the Equal Protection Clause." 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 ] 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 ]s 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 ] in '']'', 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."'' For instance, in matters under federal purview such as immigration, a bi-national same-sex couple committed under civil union do not have the same rights as their married heterosexual counterparts in sponsoring their ] partner for ]. There is however, a bill pending in the ] since 2000, called ] pertaining to this discrimination.

=== Parallels to interracial marriage ===
Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that men and women are fundamentally different from one another, whereas interracial couples still fit within the "one man and one woman" definition of marriage.<ref name="mmarriage">{{cite video
|url = http://www.secureminnesotaformarriage.org/ss/live/index.php?action=viewprod&sid=64&pid=149&pageid=258
| title = The Battle for Marriage in Minnesota
| publisher = Minnesota for Marriage
| medium = Video
| format = MPEG-4; WM9
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref> Louisiana State University law professor Katherine Spaht has characterized the debate as follows: “the fundamental understanding of marriage has always been, by definition, a man and a woman. Never did Webster’s dictionary define the term marriage in terms of the races. There is an inherent difference between interracial marriage and same-sex “marriage” because homosexuals cannot procreate." ] Glenn Stanton told the Baptist Press that “knocking down bans on interracial marriage did not redefine marriage, it affirmed marriage by saying that any man has a right to marry any woman under the law. But what same-sex ‘marriage’ proponents seek to do is to radically redefine the very definition of marriage to say it’s not about gender. Marriage is about bringing the genders together, not keeping the races apart.”<ref>{{cite news
|url = http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17988
|title = Bans on interracial marriage, same-sex ‘marriage’ -- parallels?
|publisher = Baptist Press
|author = Michael Foust
|date= 2 Apr 2004
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref>

Proponents of same-sex marriage make a comparison between ] and segregation of homosexual and heterosexual marriage classifications in civil law.<ref>{{cite news
|url = http://hnn.us/articles/4708.html
|title = Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation
|publisher = History News Network of George Mason University
|author = Peggy Pascoe
|date= 19 Apr 2004
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}} </ref> They argue that dividing the concept of same-sex marriage and different-sex marriage is tantamount to "]" policies (like that overturned in the U.S. Supreme Court case ]), or ] that were also overturned by the Supreme Court in 1967 in '']''.

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

It is unclear whether ''Baker v. Nelson'' remains as a potential bar to the federal courts from hearing cases regarding same-sex marriage. The federal ] of 1996 (DOMA) simultaneously created (1) a federal definition of marriage, {{UnitedStatesCode|1|7}}, and (2) a new rule under the ] (passed pursuant to Congress's authority under the federal Constitution's ]), {{UnitedStatesCode|28|1738C}}, purporting to limit mandatory interstate recognition of same-sex marriages. By "federalizing" marriage with statutes that are susceptible of judicial scrutiny, Congress effectively — albeit perhaps unintentionally — expanded the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts, seemingly superseding Baker's dismissal "for want of a substantial federal question."

This loophole in jurisdiction recently came to light when a same-sex couple was granted standing to sue in federal district court on a claim that DOMA is unconstitutional under the federal Constitution. See ''Smelt v. County of Orange'', 374 F. Supp. 2d 861 (], 2005), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 447 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 396 (2006). In ''Smelt'', the district court applied Pullman abstention to one part of the claim, but it proceeded to the merits on another part, finding DOMA to be constitutional. The ] affirmed the district court on the abstention question, but it reversed the district court on the merits, holding that the couple lacked standing to sue. The Ninth Circuit raised the standing question '']'', but only because the couple had not demonstrated the requisite injury. The Ninth Circuit left open the possibility that another couple with a demonstrable injury could bring the same suit in the future. Importantly, ''Baker v. Nelson'' is mentioned nowhere in the Ninth Circuit's opinion; its continuing relevance is therefore highly suspect.

Beginning in 2003, members of Congress have annually introduced a "court-stripping" provision that would prevent all federal courts from hearing claims challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. See, e.g., Marriage Protection Act of 2003, H.R. 3313 (108th Cong., 1st Sess.). This proposed court-stripping provision has itself been challenged as being of dubious constitutionality. See Jason J. Salvo, Comment, Naked Came I: Jurisdiction-Stripping and the Constitutionality of House Bill 3313, 29 Seattle U. L. Rev. 963 (Summer 2006); Maxim O. Mayer-Cesiano, On Jurisdiction-Stripping: The Proper Scope of Inferior Federal Courts' Independence from Congress, 8 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 559 (May 2006); J. Spencer Jenkins, Note, 'Til Congress Do Us Part: The Marriage Protection Act, Federal Court-Stripping, and Same-Sex Marriage, 40 New Eng. L. Rev. 619 (Winter 2006); Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Note, The Marriage Protection Act: A Lesson in Congressional Over-Reaching, 50 N.Y. L. Sch. L. Rev. 809 (2005-2006); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Constitutional Limits to Court-Stripping, 9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 347 (Summer 2005); Theodore J. Weiman, Comment, Jurisdiction Stripping, Constitutional Supremacy, and the Implications of Ex Parte Young, 153 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1677 (2005).

=== Economic arguments ===
Economic arguments on the impact of same-sex marriage focus on the effects on same-sex couples, businesses, employers, and governments. Economist and associate professor at the University of Massachusetts (Amherst), Dr. M. V. Lee Badgett has studied the impact of same-sex legal marriage on all four of these groups.

'''Impact on Same-sex Couples:''' Badgett finds that exclusion from legal marriage has an economic impact on same-sex couples. According to a 1997 General Accounting Office study requested by Rep. ] (R), at least 1,049 U.S. Federal laws and regulations include reference to marital status. A later 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office finds 1,138 statutory provisions "in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving 'benefits, rights, and privileges.'" <ref name=cbo1>{{cite paper
|url = http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5559&sequence=0
|title = The Potential Budgetary Impact of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages
|publisher = Congressional Budget Office
|format = .HTML; .PDF
|date= 21 Jun 2004
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref> Many of these laws govern property rights, benefits, and taxation. Same-sex couples are ineligible for spousal and survivor Social Security benefits. Badgett's research finds the resulting difference in Social Security income for same-sex couples compared to opposite-sex married couples is US$5,588 per year. The federal ban on same-sex marriage and benefits through the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) extends to federal government employee benefits. For example, after the 2006 death of former Massachusetts Congressman ] (D), the first openly gay member of Congress, his legal spouse Dean Hara was denied the estimated $114,337 annual pension to which Hara would have been eligible if their Massachusetts marriage was recognized on the federal level. According to Badgett's work, same-sex couples face other financial challenges against which legal marriage at least partially shields opposite-sex couples:

* potential loss of couple's home from medical expenses of one partner caring for another gravely ill one

* costs of supporting two households, travel, or emigration out of the U.S. for an American citizen unable to legally marry a non-US citizen

* higher cost of purchasing private insurance for partner and children if company is not one of 18% that offer domestic partner benefits

* higher taxes: unlike a company's contribution to an employee's spouse's health insurance, domestic partner benefits are taxed as additional compensation

* legal costs associated with obtaining domestic partner documents to gain some of the power of attorney, health care decision-making, and inheritance rights granted through legal marriage

* higher health costs associated with lack of insurance and preventative care: 20% of same-sex couples have a member who is uninsured compared to 10% of married opposite-sex couples

* current tax law allows a spouse to inherit an unlimited amount from the deceased without incurring an estate tax but an unmarried partner would have to pay the estate tax on the inheritance from her/his partner

* same-sex couples are not eligible to file jointly or separately as a married couple and thus cannot take the advantages of lower tax rates when the individual income of the partners differs significantly

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

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

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

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

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

<blockquote>''Recognizing same-sex marriages would increase outlays for Social Security and for the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program, CBO estimates, but would reduce spending for Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, and Medicare. Effects on other programs would be negligible. Altogether, CBO concludes, recognizing same-sex marriages would affect outlays by less than $50 million a year in either direction through 2009 and reduce them by about $100 million to $200 million annually from 2010 through 2014.''<ref name=cbo1/></blockquote>

The CBO study counters the economic argument by some U.S. critics of same-sex marriage against governmental recognition on the grounds that the public should not have to shoulder the burden of increased taxes and insurance premiums to cover the associated costs.<ref>{{cite news
|url = http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004735
|title = For Better or for Worse?
|publisher = WSJ OpinionJournal
|author = Mary Ann Glendon
|date= 25 Feb 2004
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref>

=== Other arguments ===
'']'' commentator Stanley Kurtz argues allowing same-sex marriage blurs other common law precedents and will lead to the legalization of a variety of non-traditional relationships (see ]).<ref>{{cite news
|url = http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp
|title = Beyond Gay Marriage
|publisher = Weekly Standard
|author = Stanley Kurtz
|date= 4 Aug 2003
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref>

* ]. The gist of this argument is that the traditional definition of marriage involves two components, a commitment to one person of the opposite sex, and that changing one of these components (restricting it to members of opposite sexes) would necessarily lead to a change in the other component (restricting it to only one person).
* ]. Defined as the practice whereby a person has more than one long term ] in their life, with the knowledge and acceptance of others they are involved with, in whatever form is chosen by those involved. This can include long term stable ]s, or stable couples who have external partners as well as their 'primary' partner. A polyamorous civil union in the Netherlands in 2005 sparked many comparisons with gay marriage on American conservative blogs. Most practitioners of polyamory in the United States are skeptical of all forms of marriage, however.<ref>{{cite news
|url = http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/494pqobc.asp
|title = Here Come the Brides
|publisher = The Weekly Standard
|author = Stanley Kurtz
|date= 26 Dec 2005
|accessdate = 2007-03-08
}}</ref>
* ]uous marriages. The natural aversion most people feel toward incestuous relationships does not vary depending on sexual orientation, yet this is a logical consequence of redefining marriage to accommodate a group.
* ] for tax or other reasons. This however, seems to be more of an argument against government-sanctioned marriage in general, not just same-sex marriage.
* ]. Non-human animals, however, do not have the legal standing to consent into a marriage contract.

==See also==
{{commonscat|Same-sex marriage}}
{{Portal|LGBT|Portal LGBT.svg}}
* '']''
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] documentary about same-sex marriage equality in the United States
==Footnotes==
{{Reflist|2}}
==References==
{{refbegin|1}}
* , Breaking Legal News, April 3, 2007
{{refend}} {{refend}}


==External links== ==External links==
{{sister project links|auto=yes}}
*
<!--======================== {{No more links}} ============================
*, Evan Wolfson, '']'', February 12, 2008.
| PLEASE BE CAUTIOUS IN ADDING MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. Misplaced Pages |

| is not a collection of links nor should it be used for advertising. |
== Bibliography ==
| |
<div class="references-small">
| Excessive or inappropriate links WILL BE DELETED. |
* {{cite book | last = Boswell | first = John | authorlink = John Boswell (historian)| year = 1995 | title = The Marriage of Likeness: Same-sex Unions in Pre-modern Europe | publisher = Simon Harper and Collins | location = New York | id = ISBN 0-00-255508-5}}
| See ] & ] for details. |
* {{cite book | last = Wolfson | first = Evan | authorlink = Evan Wolfson | year = 2004 | title = Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry | publisher = Simon & Schuster | location = New York | id = ISBN 0-7432-6459-2}}
| |
* {{cite book | last = Boswell | first = John | authorlink = John Boswell | year = 1994 | title = Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe | publisher = Villard Books | location = New York | id = ISBN 0-679-43228-0}}
| If there are already plentiful links, please propose additions or |
* {{cite book | last = Farrow | first = Douglas| last = Cere | first = Daniel | authorlink = Daniel Cere | year = 2004 | title = Divorcing Marriage: Unveiling the Dangers in Canada's New Social Experiment | publisher = McGill-Queen's University Press| location = Montreal | id = ISBN 0-7735-2895-4}}
| replacements on this article's discussion page, or submit your link |
* {{cite book | last = Chauncey | first = George | authorlink = George Chauncey | year = 2004 | title = Why Marriage?: The History Shaping Today's Debate over Gay Equality | publisher = Basic Books | location = New York | id = ISBN 0-465-00957-3}}
| to the relevant category at the Open Directory Project (dmoz.org) |
* {{cite book | last = Dobson | first = James C. | authorlink = James Dobson | year = 2004 | title = Marriage Under Fire|Marriage under Fire: Why We Must Win This War | publisher = Multnomah | location = Sisters, Or. | id = ISBN 1-59052-431-4}}
| and link back to that category using the {{dmoz}} template. |
* {{cite book | last = Larocque | first = Sylvain | authorlink = Sylvain Larocque | year = 2006 | title = ] | publisher = James Lorimer & Company | location = Toronto | id = ISBN 1-55028-927-6}}
==={{No more links}}=========-->
* {{cite book | last = Spedale | first = Darren | authorlink = Darren Spedale | year = 2006 | title = Gay Marriage: For Better or For Worse? What We've Learned From the Evidence | publisher = Oxford University Press | location = New York | id = ISBN 0-19-518751-2}}
* {{cite book | editor = Robert P. George, ] (Eds.) | year = 2006 | title = The Meaning of Marriage: Family, State, Market, And Morals | publisher = Spence Publishing Company | location = Dallas | id = ISBN 1-890626-64-3}}
*Caramagno, Thomas C. "Irreconcilable Differences? Intellectual Stalemate in the Gay Rights Debate." Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002. ISBN 0-275-97721-8
</div>

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


{{Status of same-sex unions}}
]
{{Marriage amendments}}
]
{{Types of marriages}}
]
{{LGBTQ|state=collapsed|rights=expanded}}
{{Discrimination}}
{{Authority control}}


]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 05:16, 4 January 2025

Marriage of persons of the same sex or gender "Marriage equality" and "gay marriage" redirect here. For other uses, see marriage equality (disambiguation) and gay marriage (disambiguation).

Part of the LGBTQ rights series
Legal status of
same-sex unions
Marriage

Recognized

Civil unions or registered partnerships but not marriage
Minimal recognition
See also
Notes
  1. ^ Performed in the Netherlands proper (including the Caribbean Netherlands), as well as in Aruba and Curaçao. May be registered in Sint Maarten in such cases, but the rights of marriage are not guaranteed.
  2. Neither performed nor recognized in Niue, Tokelau, or the Cook Islands.
  3. Neither performed nor recognized in six British Overseas Territories.
  4. ^ Neither performed nor recognized in some tribal nations of the US. Recognized but not performed in several other tribal nations and American Samoa.
  5. Registered foreign marriages confer all marriage rights in Israel. Domestic common-law marriages confer most rights of marriage. Domestic civil marriage recognized by some cities.
  6. ^ The Coman v. Romania ruling of the European Court of Justice obliges the state to provide residency rights for the foreign spouses of EU citizens. Some member states, including Romania, do not follow the ruling.
  7. A "declaration of family relationship" is available in several of Cambodia's communes which may be useful in matters such as housing, but is not legally binding.
  8. Guardianship agreements confer some limited legal benefits in China, including decisions about medical and personal care.
  9. Hong Kong provides inheritance, guardianship rights, and residency rights for foreign spouses of legal residents.
  10. Indian courts have recognised guru–shishya, nata pratha or maitri karar–type contractual relationships, but they are not legally binding.
  11. Most Japanese cities and prefectures issue partnership certificates, but they are not legally binding.
  12. Marriages conducted abroad between a Namibian national and a foreign spouse provide residency rights in Namibia.
  13. Romania provides hospital visitation rights through a "legal representative" status.
  1. Not yet in effect.
LGBTQ portal
Part of a series on
LGBTQ topics
      
Sexual orientation and gender
History
General
Identities
Culture
Rights
Health
Social attitudes
Issues
Academic fields and discourse
LGBTQ portal
Part of a series on
Discrimination
Forms
Attributes
Social
Religious
Ethnic/national
Manifestations
Policies
Countermeasures
Related topics

Same-sex marriage, also known as gay marriage, is the marriage of two people of the same legal sex. As of 2025, marriage between same-sex couples is legally performed and recognized in 37 countries, with a total population of 1.5 billion people (20% of the world's population). The most recent jurisdiction to legalize same-sex marriage is Liechtenstein. Thailand is set to begin performing same-sex marriages in January 2025.

Same-sex marriage is legally recognized in a large majority of the world's developed countries; notable exceptions are Italy, Japan, South Korea and the Czech Republic. Adoption rights are not necessarily covered, though most states with same-sex marriage allow those couples to jointly adopt as other married couples can. Some countries, such as Nigeria and Russia, restrict advocacy for same-sex marriage. A few of these are among the 35 countries (as of 2023) that constitutionally define marriage to prevent marriage between couples of the same sex, with most of those provisions enacted in recent decades as a preventative measure. Other countries have constitutionally mandated Islamic law, which is generally interpreted as prohibiting marriage between same-sex couples. In six of the former and most of the latter, homosexuality itself is criminalized.

There are records of marriage between men dating back to the first century. Michael McConnell and Jack Baker are the first same sex couple in modern recorded history known to obtain a marriage license, have their marriage solemnized, which occurred on September 3, 1971, in Minnesota, and have it legally recognized by any form of government. The first law providing for marriage equality between same-sex and opposite-sex couples was passed in the continental Netherlands in 2000 and took effect on 1 April 2001. The application of marriage law equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples has varied by jurisdiction, and has come about through legislative change to marriage law, court rulings based on constitutional guarantees of equality, recognition that marriage of same-sex couples is allowed by existing marriage law, and by direct popular vote, such as through referendums and initiatives. The most prominent supporters of same-sex marriage are the world's major medical and scientific communities, along with human rights and civil rights organizations, while its most prominent opponents are religious fundamentalist groups. Polls consistently show continually rising support for the recognition of same-sex marriage in all developed democracies and in many developing countries.

Scientific studies show that the financial, psychological, and physical well-being of gay people is enhanced by marriage, and that the children of same-sex parents benefit from being raised by married same-sex couples within a marital union that is recognized by law and supported by societal institutions. At the same time, no harm is done to the institution of marriage among heterosexuals. Social science research indicates that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage stigmatizes and invites public discrimination against gay and lesbian people, with research repudiating the notion that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon restricting marriage to heterosexuals. Same-sex marriage can provide those in committed same-sex relationships with relevant government services and make financial demands on them comparable to that required of those in opposite-sex marriages, and also gives them legal protections such as inheritance and hospital visitation rights. Opposition is based on claims such as that homosexuality is unnatural and abnormal, that the recognition of same-sex unions will promote homosexuality in society, and that children are better off when raised by opposite-sex couples. These claims are refuted by scientific studies, which show that homosexuality is a natural and normal variation in human sexuality, that sexual orientation is not a choice, and that children of same-sex couples fare just as well as the children of opposite-sex couples.

Terminology

Alternative terms

Two men marry, surrounded by wedding party, in New Orleans, United States on 11 November 2017

Some proponents of the legal recognition of same-sex marriage—such as Marriage Equality USA (founded in 1998), Freedom to Marry (founded in 2003), Canadians for Equal Marriage, and Marriage for All Japan - used the terms marriage equality and equal marriage to signal that their goal was for same-sex marriage to be recognized on equal ground with opposite-sex marriage. The Associated Press recommends the use of same-sex marriage over gay marriage. In deciding whether to use the term gay marriage, it may also be noted that not everyone in a same-sex marriage is gay – for example, some are bisexual – and therefore using the term gay marriage is sometimes considered erasure of such people.

Use of the term marriage

Anthropologists have struggled to determine a definition of marriage that absorbs commonalities of the social construct across cultures around the world. Many proposed definitions have been criticized for failing to recognize the existence of same-sex marriage in some cultures, including those of more than 30 African peoples, such as the Kikuyu and Nuer.

With several countries revising their marriage laws to recognize same-sex couples in the 21st century, all major English dictionaries have revised their definition of the word marriage to either drop gender specifications or supplement them with secondary definitions to include gender-neutral language or explicit recognition of same-sex unions. The Oxford English Dictionary has recognized same-sex marriage since 2000.

Opponents of same-sex marriage who want marriage to be restricted to pairings of a man and a woman, such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Catholic Church, and the Southern Baptist Convention, use the term traditional marriage to mean opposite-sex marriage.

History

Main article: History of same-sex unions For a chronological guide, see Timeline of same-sex marriage. For broader coverage of this topic, see History of homosexuality.

Ancient

Further information: Homosexuality in ancient Rome

A reference to marriage between same-sex couples appears in the Sifra, which was written in the 3rd century CE. The Book of Leviticus prohibited homosexual relations, and the Hebrews were warned not to "follow the acts of the land of Egypt or the acts of the land of Canaan" (Lev. 18:22, 20:13). The Sifra clarifies what these ambiguous "acts" were, and that they included marriage between same-sex couples: "A man would marry a man and a woman a woman, a man would marry a woman and her daughter, and a woman would be married to two men."

A few scholars believe that in the early Roman Empire some male couples were celebrating traditional marriage rites in the presence of friends. Male–male weddings are reported by sources that mock them; the feelings of the participants are not recorded. Various ancient sources state that the emperor Nero celebrated two public weddings with males, once taking the role of the bride (with a freedman Pythagoras), and once the groom (with Sporus); there may have been a third in which he was the bride. In the early 3rd century AD, the emperor Elagabalus is reported to have been the bride in a wedding to his male partner. Other mature men at his court had husbands, or said they had husbands in imitation of the emperor. Roman law did not recognize marriage between males, but one of the grounds for disapproval expressed in Juvenal's satire is that celebrating the rites would lead to expectations for such marriages to be registered officially. As the empire was becoming Christianized in the 4th century, legal prohibitions against marriage between males began to appear.

Contemporary

Newly married couple in Minnesota shortly after the federal legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States, 2015

Michael McConnell and Jack Baker are the first same sex couple in modern recorded history known to obtain a marriage license, have their marriage solemnized, which occurred on September 3, 1971, in Minnesota, and have it legally recognized by any form of government. Historians variously trace the beginning of the modern movement in support of same-sex marriage to anywhere from around the 1980s to the 1990s. During the 1980s in the United States, the AIDS epidemic led to increased attention on the legal aspects of same-sex relationships. Andrew Sullivan made the first case for same sex marriage in a major American journal in 1989, published in The New Republic.

In 1989, Denmark became the first country to legally recognize a relationship for same-sex couples, establishing registered partnerships, which gave those in same-sex relationships "most rights of married heterosexuals, but not the right to adopt or obtain joint custody of a child". In 2001, the continental Netherlands became the first country to broaden marriage laws to include same-sex couples. Since then, same-sex marriage has been established by law in 34 other countries, including most of the Americas and Western Europe. Yet its spread has been uneven — South Africa is the only country in Africa to take the step; Taiwan and Thailand are the only ones in Asia.

Timeline

Main article: Timeline of same-sex marriage

The summary table below lists in chronological order the sovereign states (the United Nations member states and Taiwan) that have legalized same-sex marriage. As of 2025, 37 states have legalized in some capacity.

Dates are when marriages between same-sex couples began to be officially certified, or when local laws were passed if marriages were already legal under higher authority.

2001 Netherlands Netherlands (1 April)
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006 South Africa South Africa (30 November)
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025

Same-sex marriage around the world

Main articles: Legal status of same-sex marriage, Same-sex union legislation, and Recognition of same-sex unions by country

Same-sex marriage is legally performed and recognized in 37 countries: Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Uruguay. Same-sex marriage performed remotely or abroad is recognized with full marital rights by Israel.

  Marriage open to same-sex couples   Same-sex marriage recognized with full rights when performed remotely or abroad   Legislation or binding domestic court ruling establishing same-sex marriage, but marriage is not yet provided for   Civil unions or domestic partnerships   Unregistered cohabitation or legal guardianship   Nonbinding certification   Limited recognition of marriage performed in certain other jurisdictions (residency rights for spouses)   No legal recognition of same-sex unions

Same-sex marriage will begin to be performed by Thailand in January 2025, and is under consideration by the legislature or the courts in El Salvador, Italy, Japan, Nepal, and Venezuela.

Civil unions are being considered in a number of countries, including Kosovo, Peru, the Philippines, and Poland.

On 12 March 2015, the European Parliament passed a non-binding resolution encouraging EU institutions and member states to " on the recognition of same-sex marriage or same-sex civil union as a political, social and human and civil rights issue".

In response to the international spread of same-sex marriage, a number of countries have enacted preventative constitutional bans, with the most recent being Mali in 2023, and Gabon in 2024. In other countries, such restrictions and limitations are effected through legislation. Even before same-sex marriage was first legislated, some countries had constitutions that specified that marriage was between a man and a woman.

  Same-sex marriage banned by secular constitution   Same-sex marriage banned by constitutionally mandated religious law   No constitutional ban

International court rulings

European Court of Human Rights

In 2010, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in Schalk and Kopf v Austria, a case involving an Austrian same-sex couple who were denied the right to marry. The court found, by a vote of 4 to 3, that their human rights had not been violated. The court further stated that same-sex unions are not protected under art. 12 of ECHR ("Right to marry"), which exclusively protects the right to marry of opposite-sex couples (without regard if the sex of the partners is the result of birth or of sex change), but they are protected under art. 8 of ECHR ("Right to respect for private and family life") and art. 14 ("Prohibition of discrimination").

Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that: "Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right", not limiting marriage to those in a heterosexual relationship. However, the ECHR stated in Schalk and Kopf v Austria that this provision was intended to limit marriage to heterosexual relationships, as it used the term "men and women" instead of "everyone". Nevertheless, the court accepted and is considering cases concerning same-sex marriage recognition, e.g. Andersen v Poland. In 2021, the court ruled in Fedotova and Others v. Russia—followed by later judgements concerning other member states—that countries must provide some sort of legal recognition to same-sex couples, although not necessarily marriage.

European Union

Further information: Coman and Others v General Inspectorate for Immigration and Ministry of the Interior

On 5 June 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled, in a case from Romania, that, under the specific conditions of the couple in question, married same-sex couples have the same residency rights as other married couples in an EU country, even if that country does not permit or recognize same-sex marriage. However, the ruling was not implemented in Romania and on 14 September 2021 the European Parliament passed a resolution calling on the European Commission to ensure that the ruling is respected across the EU.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Alexandra Chávez and Michelle Avilés, the first same-sex couple to marry in Ecuador

On 8 January 2018, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) issued an advisory opinion that states party to the American Convention on Human Rights should grant same-sex couples accession to all existing domestic legal systems of family registration, including marriage, along with all rights that derive from marriage. The Court recommended that governments issue temporary decrees recognizing same-sex marriage until new legislation is brought in. They also said that it was inadmissible and discriminatory for a separate legal provision to be established (such as civil unions) instead of same-sex marriage.

Other arrangements

Civil unions

Main article: Civil union
Many advocates, such as this November 2008 protester at a demonstration in New York City against California Proposition 8, reject the notion of civil unions, describing them as inferior to the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Civil union, civil partnership, domestic partnership, registered partnership, unregistered partnership, and unregistered cohabitation statuses offer varying legal benefits of marriage. As of 7 January 2025, countries that have an alternative form of legal recognition other than marriage on a national level are: Bolivia, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Montenegro and San Marino. Same-sex marriage performed remotely or abroad is recognized with full marital rights by Israel. Poland offers more limited rights. Additionally, various cities and counties in Cambodia and Japan offer same-sex couples varying levels of benefits, which include hospital visitation rights and others.

Additionally, eighteen countries that have legally recognized same-sex marriage also have an alternative form of recognition for same-sex couples, usually available to heterosexual couples as well: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, France, Greece, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, the United Kingdom and Uruguay.

They are also available in parts of the United States (Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Nevada and Oregon) and Canada.

Non-sexual same-sex marriage

Kenya

Main article: LGBT rights in Kenya

Female same-sex marriage is practiced among the Gikuyu, Nandi, Kamba, Kipsigis, and to a lesser extent neighboring peoples. About 5–10% of women are in such marriages. However, this is not seen as homosexual, but is instead a way for families without sons to keep their inheritance within the family.

Nigeria

Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Nigeria

Among the Igbo people and probably other peoples in the south of the country, there are circumstances where a marriage between women is considered appropriate, such as when a woman has no child and her husband dies, and she takes a wife to perpetuate her inheritance and family lineage.

Studies

The American Anthropological Association stated on 26 February 2004:

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

Research findings from 1998 to 2015 from the University of Virginia, Michigan State University, Florida State University, the University of Amsterdam, the New York State Psychiatric Institute, Stanford University, the University of California-San Francisco, the University of California-Los Angeles, Tufts University, Boston Medical Center, the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, and independent researchers also support the findings of this study.

The overall socio-economic and health effects of legal access to same-sex marriage around the world have been summarized by Badgett and co-authors. The review found that sexual minority individuals took-up legal marriage when it became available to them (but at lower rates than different-sex couples). There is instead no evidence that same-sex marriage legalization affected different-sex marriages. On the health side, same-sex marriage legalization increased health insurance coverage for individuals in same-sex couples (in the US), and it led to improvements in sexual health among men who have sex with men, while there is mixed evidence on mental health effects among sexual minorities. In addition, the study found mixed evidence on a range of downstream social outcomes such as attitudes toward LGBTQ+ people and employment choices of sexual minorities.

Health

As of 2006, the data of current psychological and other social science studies on same-sex marriage in comparison to mixed-sex marriage indicate that same-sex and mixed-sex relationships do not differ in their essential psychosocial dimensions; that a parent's sexual orientation is unrelated to their ability to provide a healthy and nurturing family environment; and that marriage bestows substantial psychological, social, and health benefits. Same-sex parents and carers and their children are likely to benefit in numerous ways from legal recognition of their families, and providing such recognition through marriage will bestow greater benefit than civil unions or domestic partnerships. Studies in the United States have correlated legalization of same-sex marriage to lower rates of HIV infection, psychiatric disorders, and suicide rate in the LGBT population.

Issues

See also: LGBT rights opposition

While few societies have recognized same-sex unions as marriages, the historical and anthropological record reveals a large range of attitudes towards same-sex unions ranging from praise, through full acceptance and integration, sympathetic toleration, indifference, prohibition and discrimination, to persecution and physical annihilation. Opponents of same-sex marriages have argued that same-sex marriage, while doing good for the couples that participate in them and the children they are raising, undermines a right of children to be raised by their biological mother and father. Some supporters of same-sex marriages take the view that the government should have no role in regulating personal relationships, while others argue that same-sex marriages would provide social benefits to same-sex couples. The debate regarding same-sex marriages includes debate based upon social viewpoints as well as debate based on majority rules, religious convictions, economic arguments, health-related concerns, and a variety of other issues.

Parenting

Main articles: LGBT parenting and Same-sex marriage and the family
Gay couple with a child

Scientific literature indicates that parents' financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union (either a mixed-sex or same-sex union). As a result, professional scientific associations have argued for same-sex marriage to be legally recognized as it will be beneficial to the children of same-sex parents or carers.

Scientific research has been generally consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents. According to scientific literature reviews, there is no evidence to the contrary.

Compared to heterosexual couples, same-sex couples have a greater need for adoption or assisted reproductive technology to become parents. Lesbian couples often use artificial insemination to achieve pregnancy, and reciprocal in vitro fertilization (where one woman provides the egg and the other gestates the child) is becoming more popular in the 2020s, although many couples cannot afford it. Surrogacy is an option for wealthier gay male couples, but the cost is prohibitive. Other same-sex couples adopt children or raise the children from earlier opposite-sex relationships.

Adoption

Main article: LGBT adoption
Legal status of adoption by same-sex couples around the world:   Joint adoption allowed   Second-parent (stepchild) adoption allowed   No laws allowing adoption by same-sex couples and no same-sex marriage   Same-sex marriage but adoption by married same-sex couples not allowed

All states that allow same-sex marriage also allow the joint adoption of children by those couples with the exception of Ecuador and a third of states in Mexico, though such restrictions have been ruled unconstitutional in Mexico. In addition, Bolivia, Croatia, Israel and Liechtenstein, which do not recognize same-sex marriage, nonetheless permit joint adoption by same-sex couples. Some additional states do not recognize same-sex marriage but allow stepchild adoption by couples in civil unions, namely the Czech Republic and San Marino.

Transgender and intersex people

This article or section possibly contains synthesis of material that does not verifiably mention or relate to the main topic. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. (May 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
See also: Transgender rights and Intersex human rights

The legal status of same-sex marriage may have implications for the marriages of couples in which one or both parties are transgender, depending on how sex is defined within a jurisdiction. Transgender and intersex individuals may be prohibited from marrying partners of the "opposite" sex or permitted to marry partners of the "same" sex due to legal distinctions. In any legal jurisdiction where marriages are defined without distinction of a requirement of a male and female, these complications do not occur. In addition, some legal jurisdictions recognize a legal and official change of gender, which would allow a transgender male or female to be legally married in accordance with an adopted gender identity.

In the United Kingdom, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 allows a person who has lived in their chosen gender for at least two years to receive a gender recognition certificate officially recognizing their new gender. Because in the United Kingdom marriages were until recently only for mixed-sex couples and civil partnerships are only for same-sex couples, a person had to dissolve their civil partnership before obtaining a gender recognition certificate, and the same was formerly true for marriages in England and Wales, and still is in other territories. Such people are then free to enter or re-enter civil partnerships or marriages in accordance with their newly recognized gender identity. In Austria, a similar provision requiring transsexual people to divorce before having their legal sex marker corrected was found to be unconstitutional in 2006. In Quebec, prior to the legalization of same-sex marriage, only unmarried people could apply for legal change of gender. With the advent of same-sex marriage, this restriction was dropped. A similar provision including sterilization also existed in Sweden, but was phased out in 2013. In the United States, transgender and intersex marriages was subject to legal complications. As definitions and enforcement of marriage are defined by the states, these complications vary from state to state, as some of them prohibit legal changes of gender.

Divorce

Main article: Divorce of same-sex couples

In the United States before the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, couples in same-sex marriages could only obtain a divorce in jurisdictions that recognized same-sex marriages, with some exceptions.

Judicial and legislative

Main article: Conflict of marriage laws § Same-sex marriage

There are differing positions regarding the manner in which same-sex marriage has been introduced into democratic jurisdictions. A "majority rules" position holds that same-sex marriage is valid, or void and illegal, based upon whether it has been accepted by a simple majority of voters or of their elected representatives.

In contrast, a civil rights view holds that the institution can be validly created through the ruling of an impartial judiciary carefully examining the questioning and finding that the right to marry regardless of the gender of the participants is guaranteed under the civil rights laws of the jurisdiction.

Public opinion

See also: Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States and Public opinion of same-sex marriage in Australia
Public opinion of same-sex marriage. Fraction in favor:
  5⁄6+   2⁄3+   1⁄2+   1⁄3+   1⁄6+   <1⁄6   no polls

Numerous polls and studies on the issue have been conducted. A trend of increasing support for same-sex marriage has been revealed across many countries of the world, often driven in large part by a generational difference in support. Polling that was conducted in developed democracies in this century shows a majority of people in support of same-sex marriage. Support for same-sex marriage has increased across every age group, political ideology, religion, gender, race and region of various developed countries in the world.

Various detailed polls and studies on same-sex marriage that were conducted in several countries show that support for same-sex marriage significantly increases with higher levels of education and is also significantly stronger among younger generations, with a clear trend of continually increasing support.

Greater support with youth

Pew Research polling results from 32 countries found 21 with statistically higher support for same-sex marriage among those under 35 than among those over 35 in 2022–2023. Countries with the greatest absolute difference are placed to the left in the following chart. Countries without a significant generational difference are placed to the right.

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Taiw Mex Sing ROK HK Gre Pol Viet Thai Jap Cam Braz USA Arg Ital Oz S. Af. Sri Lanka Keny Swed Malay Neth Spa Fran Germ Cana UK India Isra Hung Indo Nigeria
  •   over 35
  •   additional support from those under 35

A 2016 survey by the Varkey Foundation found similarly high support of same-sex marriage (63%) among 18–21-year-olds in an online survey of 18 countries around the world.

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Germ Cana Oz UK NZ Fran Ital Arg USA Braz Chin S. Af. India Jap Isra ROK Turk Nigeria

(The sampling error is approx. 4% for Nigeria and 3% for the other countries. Because of legal constraints, the question on same-sex marriage was not asked in the survey countries of Russia and Indonesia.)

Opinion polls for same-sex marriage by country
  Same-sex marriage performed nationwide   Same-sex marriage performed in some parts of the country   Civil unions or registered partnerships nationwide   Civil unions or registered partnerships pending   Same-sex marriage rights pending   Same-sex sexual activity is illegal
Country Pollster Year For Against Neither Margin
of error 		Ref.
Albania Albania IPSOS 2023 26%
 73%
(74%) 		1%
Andorra Andorra Institut d'Estudis Andorrans 2013 70%
(79%) 		19%
(21%) 		11%
Antigua and Barbuda Antigua and Barbuda AmericasBarometer 2017 12% – –
Argentina Argentina Ipsos 2024 69%
(81%) 		16%
(19%) 		15% not sure ±5%
Pew Research Center 2023 67%
(72%) 		26%
(28%) 		7% ±3.6%
Armenia Armenia Pew Research Center 2015 3%
(3%) 		96%
(97%) 		1% ±3%
Aruba Aruba 2021 46%
Australia Australia Ipsos 2024 64%
(73%) 		25%
(28%) 		12% not sure ±3.5%
Pew Research Center 2023 75%
(77%) 		23% 2% ±3.6%
Austria Austria Eurobarometer 2023 65%
(68%) 		30%
(32%) 		5%
The Bahamas Bahamas AmericasBarometer 2015 11% – –
Belarus Belarus Pew Research Center 2015 16%
(16%) 		81%
(84%) 		3% ±4%
Belgium Belgium Ipsos 2024 69%
(78%) 		19%
(22%) 		12% not sure ±5%
Eurobarometer 2023 79% 19% 2% not sure
Belize Belize AmericasBarometer 2014 8% – –
Bolivia Bolivia AmericasBarometer 2017 35% 65% – ±1.0%
Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia and Herzegovina IPSOS 2023 26%
(27%) 		71%
(73%) 		3%
Brazil Brazil Ipsos (more urban/educated than representative) 2024 51%
(62%) 		31%
(38%) 		18% not sure ±3.5%
Pew Research Center 2023 52%
(57%) 		40%
(43%) 		8% ±3.6%
Bulgaria Bulgaria Eurobarometer 2023 17%
(18%) 		75%
(82%) 		8%
Cambodia Cambodia Pew Research Center 2023 57%
(58%) 		42% 1%
Canada Canada Ipsos 2024 65%
(75%) 		22%
(25%) 		13% not sure ±3.5%
Pew Research Center 2023 79%
(84%) 		15%
(16%) 		6% ±3.6%
Chile Chile Cadem 2024 77%
(82%) 		22%
(18%) 		2% ±3.6%
China China Ipsos (more urban/educated than representative) 2021 43%
(52%) 		39%
(48%) 		18% not sure ±3.5%
Colombia Colombia Ipsos (more urban/educated than representative) 2024 46%
(58%) 		33%
(42%) 		21% ±5%
Costa Rica Costa Rica CIEP 2018 35% 64% 1%
Croatia Croatia Eurobarometer 2023 42%
(45%) 		51%
(55%) 		7%
Cuba Cuba Apretaste 2019 63% 37% –
Cyprus Cyprus Eurobarometer 2023 50%
(53%) 		44%
(47%) 		6%
Czech Republic Czech Republic Eurobarometer 2023 60% 34% 6%
Denmark Denmark Eurobarometer 2023 93% 5% 2%
Dominica Dominica AmericasBarometer 2017 10% 90% – ±1.1%
Dominican Republic Dominican Republic CDN 37 2018 45% 55% -
Ecuador Ecuador AmericasBarometer 2019 23%
(31%) 		51%
(69%) 		26%
El Salvador El Salvador Universidad Francisco Gavidia 2021 82.5% –
Estonia Estonia Eurobarometer 2023 41%
(45%) 		51%
(55%) 		8%
Finland Finland Eurobarometer 2023 76%
(81%) 		18%
(19%) 		6%
France France Ipsos 2024 62%
(70%) 		26%
(30%) 		12% not sure ±3.5%
Pew Research Center 2023 82%
(85%) 		14%
(15%) 		4% ±3.6%
Eurobarometer 2023 79%
(85%) 		14
(%)
(15%) 		7%
Georgia (country) Georgia Women's Initiatives Supporting Group 2021 10%
(12%) 		75%
(88%) 		15%
Germany Germany Ipsos 2024 73%
(83%) 		18%
(20%) 		12% not sure ±3.5%
Pew Research Center 2023 80%
(82%) 		18% 2% ±3.6%
Eurobarometer 2023 84%
(87%) 		13%< 3%
Greece Greece Pew Research Center 2023 48%
(49%) 		49%
(51%) 		3% ±3.6%
Eurobarometer 2023 57%
(59%) 		40%
(41%) 		3%
Grenada Grenada AmericasBarometer 2017 12% 88% – ±1.4%c
Guatemala Guatemala AmericasBarometer 2017 23% 77% – ±1.1%
Guyana Guyana AmericasBarometer 2017 21% 79% – ±1.3%
Haiti Haiti AmericasBarometer 2017 5% 95% – ±0.3%
Honduras Honduras CID Gallup 2018 17%
(18%) 		75%
(82%) 		8%
Hong Kong Hong Kong Pew Research Center 2023 58%
(59%) 		40%
(41%) 		2%
Hungary Hungary Ipsos 2024 44%
(56%) 		35%
(44%) 		21% not sure ±5%
Pew Research Center 2023 31%
(33%) 		64%
(67%) 		5% ±3.6%
Eurobarometer 2023 42%
(45%) 		52%
(55%) 		6%
Iceland Iceland Gallup 2006 89% 11% –
India India Pew Research Center 2023 53%
(55%) 		43%
(45%) 		4% ±3.6%
Indonesia Indonesia Pew Research Center 2023 5% 92%
(95%) 		3% ±3.6%
Republic of Ireland Ireland Ipsos (more urban/educated than representative) 2024 68%
(76%) 		21%
(23%) 		10% ±5%
Eurobarometer 2023 86%
(91%) 		9% 5%
Israel Israel Pew Research Center 2023 36%
(39%) 		56%
(61%) 		8% ±3.6%
Italy Italy Ipsos 2024 58%
(66%) 		29%
(33%) 		12% not sure ±3.5%
Pew Research Center 2023 73%
(75%) 		25% 2% ±3.6%
Eurobarometer 2023 69%
(72%) 		27%
(28%) 		4%
Jamaica Jamaica AmericasBarometer 2017 16% 84% – ±1.0%
Japan Japan Kyodo News 2023 64%
(72%) 		25%
(28%) 		11%
Asahi Shimbun 2023 72%
(80%) 		18%
(20%) 		10%
Ipsos 2024 42%
(54%) 		31%
(40%) 		22% not sure ±3.5%
Pew Research Center 2023 68%
(72%) 		26%
(28%) 		6% ±2.75%
Kazakhstan Kazakhstan Pew Research Center 2016 7%
(7%) 		89%
(93%) 		4%
Kenya Kenya Pew Research Center 2023 9% 90%
(91%) 		1% ±3.6%
Kosovo Kosovo IPSOS 2023 20%
(21%) 		77%
(79%) 		3%
Latvia Latvia Eurobarometer 2023 36% 59% 5%
Liechtenstein Liechtenstein Liechtenstein Institut 2021 72% 28% 0%
Lithuania Lithuania Eurobarometer 2023 39% 55% 6%
Luxembourg Luxembourg Eurobarometer 2023 84% 13% 3%

Malaysia Malaysia

Pew Research Center 2023 17% 82%
(83%) 		1%
Malta Malta Eurobarometer 2023 74% 24% 2%
Mexico Mexico Ipsos (more urban/educated than representative) 2024 55% 29% 17% not sure ±3.5%
Pew Research Center 2023 63%
(66%) 		32%
(34%) 		5% ±3.6%
Moldova Moldova Europa Libera Moldova 2022 14% 86%
Montenegro Montenegro IPSOS 2023 36%
(37%) 		61%
(63%) 		3%
Mozambique Mozambique (3 cities) Lambda 2017 28%
(32%) 		60%
(68%) 		12%
Netherlands Netherlands Ipsos 2024 77% 15% 8% not sure ±5%
Pew Research Center 2023 89%
(90%) 		10% 1% ±3.6%
Eurobarometer 2023 94% 5% 2%
New Zealand New Zealand Ipsos 2023 70%
(78%) 		20%
(22%) 		9% ±3.5%
Nicaragua Nicaragua AmericasBarometer 2017 25% 75% – ±1.0%
Nigeria Nigeria Pew Research Center 2023 2% 97%
(98%) 		1% ±3.6%
North Macedonia North Macedonia IPSOS 2023 20%
(21%) 		78%
(80%) 		2%
Norway Norway Pew Research Center 2017 72%
(79%) 		19%
(21%) 		9%
Panama Panama AmericasBarometer 2017 22% 78% – ±1.1%
Paraguay Paraguay AmericasBarometer 2017 26% 74% – ±0.9%
Peru Peru Ipsos (more urban/educated than representative) 2024 36%
 44% 20% ±5%
Philippines Philippines SWS 2018 22%
(26%) 		61%
(73%) 		16%
Poland Poland Ipsos 2024 51%
(54%) 		43%
(46%) 		6%
Pew Research Center 2023 41%
(43%) 		54%
(57%) 		5% ±3.6%
United Surveys by IBRiS 2024 50%
(55%) 		41%
(45%) 		9%
Eurobarometer 2023 50% 45% 5%
Portugal Portugal Ipsos 2023 80%
(84%) 		15%
(16%) 		5%
Eurobarometer 2023 81% 14% 5%
Romania Romania Ipsos 2023 25%
(30%) 		59%
(70%) 		17% ±3.5%
Eurobarometer 2023 25% 69% 6%
Russia Russia Ipsos (more urban/educated than representative) 2021 17%
(21%) 		64%
(79%) 		20% not sure ±4.8%
FOM 2019 7%
(8%) 		85%
(92%) 		8% ±3.6%
Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Kitts and Nevis AmericasBarometer 2017 9% 91% – ±1.0%
Saint Lucia Saint Lucia AmericasBarometer 2017 11% 89% – ±0.9%
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Saint Vincent and the Grenadines AmericasBarometer 2017 4% 96% – ±0.6%
Serbia Serbia IPSOS 2023 24%
(25%) 		73%
(75%) 		3%
Singapore Singapore Ipsos (more urban/educated than representative) 2024 33% 46% 21% ±5%
Pew Research Center 2023 45%
(47%) 		51%
(53%) 		4%
Slovakia Slovakia Focus 2024 36%
(38%) 		60%
(62%) 		4%
Eurobarometer 2023 37% 56% 7%
Slovenia Slovenia Eurobarometer 2023 62%
(64%) 		37%
(36%) 		2%
South Africa South Africa Ipsos (more urban/educated than representative) 2024 53% 32% 13% ±5%
Pew Research Center 2023 38%
(39%) 		59%
(61%) 		3% ±3.6%
South Korea South Korea Ipsos 2024 36% 37% 27% not sure ±5%
Pew Research Center 2023 41%
(42%) 		56%
(58%) 		3%
Spain Spain Ipsos 2024 73%
(80%) 		19%
(21%) 		9% not sure ±3.5%
Pew Research Center 2023 87%
(90%) 		10% 3% ±3.6%
Eurobarometer 2023 88%
(91%) 		9%
(10%) 		3%
Sri Lanka Sri Lanka Pew Research Center 2023 23%
(25%) 		69%
(75%) 		8%
Suriname Suriname AmericasBarometer 2014 18% – –
Sweden Sweden Ipsos 2024 78%
(84%) 		15%
(16%) 		7% not sure ±5%
Pew Research Center 2023 92%
(94%) 		6% 2% ±3.6%
Eurobarometer 2023 94% 5% 1%
Switzerland Switzerland Ipsos 2023 54%
(61%) 		34%
(39%) 		13% not sure ±3.5%
Taiwan Taiwan CNA 2023 63% 37%
Pew Research Center 2023 45%
(51%) 		43%
(49%) 		12%
Thailand Thailand Ipsos (more urban/educated than representative) 2024 58% 29% 12% not sure ±5%
Pew Research Center 2023 60%
(65%) 		32%
(35%) 		8%
Trinidad and Tobago Trinidad and Tobago AmericasBarometer 2014 16% – –
Turkey Turkey Ipsos (more urban/educated than representative) 2024 18%
(26%) 		52%
(74%) 		30% not sure ±5%
Ukraine Ukraine Rating 2023 37%
(47%) 		42%
(53%) 		22% ±1.5%
United Kingdom United Kingdom YouGov 2023 77%
(84%) 		15%
(16%) 		8%
Ipsos 2024 66%
(73%) 		24%
(27%) 		10% not sure ±3.5%
Pew Research Center 2023 74%
(77%) 		22%
(23%) 		4% ±3.6%
United States United States Ipsos 2024 51%
(62%) 		32%
(39%) 		18% not sure ±3.5%
Pew Research Center 2023 63%
(65%) 		34%
(35%) 		3% ±3.6%
Uruguay Uruguay LatinoBarómetro 2023 78%
(80%) 		20% 2%
Venezuela Venezuela Equilibrium Cende 2023 55%
(63%) 		32%
(37%) 		13%
Vietnam Vietnam Pew Research Center 2023 65%
(68%) 		30%
(32%) 		5%

See also

Notes

  1. Same-sex marriage is performed and recognized by law in continental Australia and in the non-self-governing possessions of Norfolk Island, Christmas Island and the Cocos Islands, which follow Australian law.
  2. Same-sex marriage is performed and recognized by law in continental Denmark, the Faroe Islands and Greenland, which together make up the Realm of Denmark.
  3. Same-sex marriage is performed and recognized throughout Ecuador, but such couples are not considered married for purposes of adoption and may not adopt children.
  4. Same-sex marriage is performed and recognized by law in metropolitan France and in all French overseas regions and possessions, which follow a single legal code.
  5. Same-sex marriage is available in all jurisdictions, though the process is not everywhere as straightforward as it is for opposite-sex marriage and does not always include adoption rights.
  6. Same-sex marriage is performed and recognized by law in the continental Netherlands, the Caribbean municipalities of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba, and the constituent countries of Aruba and Curaçao, but not yet in Sint Maarten.
  7. Same-sex marriage is performed and recognized by law in New Zealand proper, but not in its possession of Tokelau, nor in the Cook Islands and Niue, which make up the Realm of New Zealand.
  8. Same-sex marriage is performed and recognized by law in all parts of the United Kingdom and in its non-Caribbean possessions, but not in its Caribbean possessions, namely Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands.
  9. Same-sex marriage is performed and recognized by law in all fifty states of the US and in the District of Columbia, in all overseas territories except American Samoa (recognition only), and in all tribal nations that do not have their own marriage laws, as well as in most nations that do. The largest of the dozen or so known exceptions among the federal reservations are Navajo and Gila River, and the largest among the shared-sovereignty Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas are the Creek and Citizen Potawatomi. These polities ban same-sex marriage and do not recognize marriages from other jurisdictions, though members may still marry under state law and be accorded all the rights of marriage under state and federal law.
  10. Nepal is waiting for a final decision by its supreme court, but meanwhile all local governments are ordered to temporarily register same-sex marriages in a separate record. In April 2024 the National ID and Civil Registration Department issued a circular to all local governments that they register such marriages. However, simply being registered does not grant same-sex couples the legal rights of marriage, and registered same-sex couples cannot inherit property, get tax subsidies, make spousal medical decisions, adopt children etc.
  11. Legally available in the Arizona municipalities of Bisbee, Clarkdale, Cottonwood, Jerome, Sedona and Tucson.
  12. Dale Carpenter is a prominent spokesman for this view. For a better understanding of this view, see Carpenter's writings at "Dale Carpenter". Independent Gay Forum. Archived from the original on 17 November 2006. Retrieved 31 October 2006.
  13. ^ Because some polls do not report 'neither', those that do are listed with simple yes/no percentages in parentheses, so their figures can be compared.
  14. Comprises: Neutral; Don't know; No answer; Other; Refused.
  15. ^

References

  1. VERPOEST, LIEN (2017). "The End of Rhetorics: LGBT policies in Russia and the European Union". Studia Diplomatica. 68 (4): 3–20. ISSN 0770-2965. JSTOR 26531664.
  2. Williams, CA., Roman Homosexuality: Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 280, p. 284.
  3. ^ Padnani, Amisha; Fang, Celina (26 June 2015). "Same-Sex Marriage: Landmark Decisions and Precedents". The New York Times.
  4. ^ Baume, Matt (1 March 2019). "Meet the Gay Men Whose 1971 Marriage Was Finally Recognized". The Advocate.
  5. ^ StoryCorps Archive (September 12, 2017). "Michael McConnell, Jack Baker, and Lisa Vecoli".
    • Michael McConnell (75) and husband Jack Baker (75) talk with friend Lisa Vecoli (55) about having the first same-sex marriage legally recognized by a U.S. civil government in 1971, why they chose to get married, and what the response to their marriage was like.
    • JB describes the decades-long (46-year) process from the denial of their marriage license in 1971 until a second request that same year in Blue Earth County, Minnesota, was "declared to be in all respects valid" by Order of Gregory J. Anderson, Judge of District Court.
  6. ^ Newsletter, "Hidden Treasures from the Stacks", The National Archives at Kansas City, p. 6 (September 2013).
  7. ^ Source: Blue Earth County
    • Applicants: James Michael McConnell and Pat Lyn McConnell
    • Date of Marriage: September 3, 1971
  8. ^ "The September 3, 1971 marriage of James Michael McConnell and Pat Lyn McConnell, a/k/a Richard John Baker, has never been dissolved or annulled by judicial decree and no grounds currently exist on which to invalidate the marriage."
    • Sources: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW by Assistant Chief Judge Gregory Anderson, Fifth Judicial District, (page 4);
    • Copy: Minnesota Judicial Branch, File Number 07-CV-16-4559, "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for Partial Summary Judgment" from Blue Earth County District Court in re James Michael McConnell et al. v. Blue Earth County et al. (September 18, 2018);
    • Available online from U of M Libraries;
    • McConnell Files, "America’s First Gay Marriage" (binder #4), Tretter Collection in GLBT Studies, U of M Libraries.
  9. ^ Michael McConnell, with Jack Baker, as told to Gail Langer Karwoski, "The Wedding Heard Heard 'Round the World: America's First Gay Marriage Archived August 26, 2015, at the Wayback Machine". University of Minnesota Press (2016). Reprint, "With A New Epilogue" (2020).
  10. ^ Winter, Caroline (4 December 2014). "In 14 years, same-sex marriage has spread round the world". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on 13 January 2022. Retrieved 20 February 2022.
  11. "Same-sex Oklahoma couple marries legally under tribal law". KOCO. 26 September 2013. Archived from the original on 22 October 2013. Retrieved 22 October 2013.
  12. "Clela Rorex, former Boulder County Clerk who issued first same-sex marriage license in 1975 dies at 78". 19 June 2022.
  13. ^ Multiple sources:
  14. ^ "Brief of the American Psychological Association, The California Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy as amici curiae in support of plaintiff-appellees – Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of California Civil Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW (Honorable Vaughn R. Walker)" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 13 April 2015. Retrieved 5 November 2010.
  15. ^ "Marriage of Same-Sex Couples – 2006 Position Statement Canadian Psychological Association" (PDF). 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 April 2009.
  16. ^ Mirchandani, Rajesh (12 November 2008). "Divisions persist over gay marriage ban". BBC News. Archived from the original on 28 April 2014. Retrieved 18 December 2008.
  17. ^ "The Divine Institution of Marriage". The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 13 August 2008. Archived from the original on 11 June 2019. Retrieved 28 September 2012.
  18. Molly Ball, 2024 May 13, Wall Street Journal, How 20 Years of Same-Sex Marriage Changed America
  19. Multiple sources:
  20. "Brief of Amici Curiae American Anthropological Association et al., supporting plaintiffs-appellees and urging affirmance – Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of California Civil Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW (Honorable Vaughn R. Walker)" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 26 December 2010. Retrieved 5 November 2010.
  21. ^ American Anthropological Association (2004). "Statement on Marriage and the Family". Archived from the original on 12 September 2015. Retrieved 18 September 2015.
  22. Handbook of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Administration and Policy — Page 13, Wallace Swan – 2004
  23. "Marriage Equality". Garden State Equality. Archived from the original on 18 October 2014. Retrieved 24 July 2012.
  24. "Marriage 101". Freedom to Marry. Archived from the original on 16 February 2010. Retrieved 28 September 2012.
  25. Pratt, Patricia (29 May 2012). "Albany area real estate and the Marriage Equality Act". Albany Examiner. Retrieved 25 December 2012. On July 24, 2011 the Marriage Equality Act became a law in New York State forever changing the state's legal view of what a married couple is.
  26. "Vote on Illinois marriage equality bill coming in January: sponsors". Chicago Phoenix. 13 December 2012. Archived from the original on 26 December 2012. Retrieved 23 December 2012.
  27. Mulholland, Helene (27 September 2012). "Ed Miliband calls for gay marriage equality". The Guardian. London, UK. Archived from the original on 28 September 2013. Retrieved 23 December 2012.
  28. Ring, Trudy (20 December 2012). "Newt Gingrich: Marriage Equality Inevitable, OK". The Advocate. Los Angeles. Archived from the original on 23 December 2012. Retrieved 25 December 2012. He noted to HuffPo that he not only has a lesbian half-sister, LGBT rights activist Candace Gingrich, but has gay friends who've gotten married in Iowa, where their unions are legal. Public opinion has shifted in favor of marriage equality, he said, and the Republican Party could end up on the wrong side of history if it continues to go against the tide.
  29. APStylebook (12 February 2019). "The term same-sex marriage is preferred over gay marriage. In places where it's legal, same-sex marriage is no different from other marriages, so the term should be used only when germane and needed to distinguish from marriages between heterosexual couples. #APStyleChat" (Tweet). Archived from the original on 19 October 2022. Retrieved 13 December 2022 – via Twitter.
  30. "One in 10 LGBT Americans Married to Same-Sex Spouse". Gallup. 24 February 2021.
  31. Yin, Karen (8 March 2016). "When Bisexual People Marry". Conscious Style Guide.
  32. Fedorak, Shirley A. (2008). Anthropology matters!. , Ont.: University of Toronto Press. pp. Ch. 11, p. 174. ISBN 978-1442601086.
  33. ^ Gough, Kathleen E. (January–June 1959). "The Nayars and the Definition of Marriage". The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. 89 (1): 23–34. doi:10.2307/2844434. JSTOR 2844434.
  34. Murray, Stephen O.; Roscoe, Will (2001). Boy-wives and female husbands : studies of African homosexualities (1st pbk. ed.). New York: St. Martin's. ISBN 978-0312238292. Archived from the original on 4 February 2021. Retrieved 28 October 2020.
  35. Njambi, Wairimu; O'Brien, William (Spring 2001). "Revisiting "Woman-Woman Marriage": Notes on Gikuyu Women". NWSA Journal. 12 (1): 1–23. doi:10.1353/nwsa.2000.0015. S2CID 144520611. Archived from the original on 13 January 2012. Retrieved 28 September 2012.
  36. "Dictionaries take lead in redefining modern marriage". The Washington Times. 24 May 2004. Archived from the original on 18 September 2012. Retrieved 25 September 2012.
  37. "Webster Makes It Official: Definition of Marriage Has Changed". American Bar Association. Archived from the original on 27 April 2015. Retrieved 28 September 2012.
  38. Redman, Daniel (7 April 2009). "Noah Webster Gives His Blessing: Dictionaries recognize same-sex marriage—who knew?". Slate. Archived from the original on 17 September 2011. Retrieved 28 September 2012.
  39. Rabbi Joel Roth. Homosexuality Archived 24 August 2017 at the Wayback Machine rabbinicalassembly.org 1992.
  40. Martial 1.24 and 12.42; Juvenal 2.117–42. Williams, Roman Homosexuality, pp. 28, 280; Karen K. Hersh, The Roman Wedding: Ritual and Meaning in Antiquity (Cambridge University Press, 2010), p. 36; Caroline Vout, Power and Eroticism in Imperial Rome (Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 151ff.
  41. Suetonius, Tacitus, Dio Cassius, and Aurelius Victor are the sources cited by Williams, Roman Homosexuality, p. 279.
  42. Williams, Roman Homosexuality, pp. 278–279, citing Dio Cassius and Aelius Lampridius.
  43. ^ Williams, Roman Homosexuality, p. 280.
  44. "How Same-Sex Marriage Came to Be". Harvard Magazine. March–April 2013. Archived from the original on 2 May 2019. Retrieved 28 March 2015.
  45. Hari, Johann (Spring 2009). "Andrew Sullivan: Thinking. Out. Loud". Intelligent Life. Archived from the original on 25 April 2009. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
  46. Sullivan, Andrew (9 November 2012). "Here Comes the Groom". Slate. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
  47. Rule, Sheila (2 October 1989). "Rights for Gay Couples in Denmark". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 19 August 2013.
  48. "Same-sex marriage around the world". CBC News. Toronto. 26 May 2009. Archived from the original on 25 November 2010. Retrieved 6 October 2009.
  49. "The Dutch went first in 2001; who has same-sex marriage now?". Associated Press. 28 April 2021. Archived from the original on 21 August 2021. Retrieved 21 August 2021.
  50. Sangwongwanich, Pathom (18 June 2024). "Thai Same-Sex Marriage Bill Clears Final Hurdle With Senate Nod". www.bloomberg.com. Retrieved 18 June 2024.
  51. Theil, Michele (16 February 2024). "This map shows you where same-sex marriage is legal around the world – and there's a long way to go". PinkNews. Retrieved 16 February 2024.
  52. "Marriage Equality Around the World". Human Rights Campaign. Retrieved 3 February 2024.
  53. "Information for couples marrying outside the Rabbinate" (PDF). Rackman Center. 2018. Retrieved 10 November 2023.
  54. "Sala de lo Constitucional resolvería demanda sobre matrimonio igualitario en los primeros tres messes de 2020". elsalvador.com (in Spanish). 6 January 2020.
  55. "Bukele busca que se apruebe el aborto terapéutico y la unión homosexual". El Observador (in Spanish). 18 August 2021.
  56. "Diritti: matrimonio "egualitario". Opinioni a confronto: Scalfarotto vs Bonaldi vs Centinaio". 9 March 2023. Archived from the original on 10 March 2023. Retrieved 10 March 2023.
  57. "Da Zaia a Centinaio: la Lega ora cambia sui diritti lgbt (e c'entra "l'effetto Francesca")". 10 March 2023. Archived from the original on 10 March 2023. Retrieved 10 March 2023.
  58. "Japan opposition party submits bill for same-sex marriage". Kyodo News. 6 March 2023. Retrieved 31 May 2023.
  59. Raut, Swechhya (10 July 2024). "Nepal: Same-sex couples face hurdles on road to recognition". DW.
  60. Ghimire, Binod (3 December 2023). "How court laid the ground for same-sex marriage in Nepal". The Kathmandu Post.
  61. Dhakal, Manisha. "The Long Road to Lasting Marriage Equality in Nepal". APCOM.
  62. "Diputada plantea iniciativa para el matrimonio civil igualitario en la Asamblea Nacional". El Acarigueño (in Spanish). 24 February 2022. Archived from the original on 20 May 2022. Retrieved 17 April 2022.
  63. Taylor, Alice; Alipour, Nick (26 April 2024). "Kosovo promises to introduce same-sex unions in May". www.euractiv.com.
  64. "Presentan proyecto de ley sobre el matrimonio igualitario entre personas del mismo sexo". El Comercio. elcomercio.pe. 23 October 2021. Retrieved 28 June 2022.
  65. Bordey, Hana (11 August 2022). "Padilla wants same-sex unions institutionalized". GMA News Online.
  67. Duffy, Nick (13 March 2015). "UKIP and Tories abstain on EU motion to recognise same-sex marriage". PinkNews. Archived from the original on 9 August 2015. Retrieved 26 July 2015.
  68. "Texts adopted – Thursday, 12 March 2015 – Annual report on human rights and democracy in the world 2013 and the EU policy on the matter". European Parliament. Archived from the original on 7 August 2015. Retrieved 26 July 2015.
  69. ^ "HUDOC – European Court of Human Rights". Archived from the original on 11 September 2015. Retrieved 26 July 2015.
  70. Buyse, Antoine (24 June 2010). "Strasbourg court rules that states are not obliged to allow gay marriage". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 13 December 2013. Retrieved 8 November 2013.
  71. Avram, Marieta (2016). Drept civil Familia [Civil law Family] (in Romanian). Bucharest: Editura Hamangiu. ISBN 978-606-27-0609-8.
  72. "European Convention on Human Rights" (PDF). ECHR.coe.int. European Court of Human Rights. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 July 2014. Retrieved 25 July 2015.
  73. "HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights". ECHR. Retrieved 21 July 2022.
  74. Palazzo, Nausica (April 2023). "Fedotova and Others v. Russia : Dawn of a new era for European LGBTQ families?". Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law. 30 (2): 216–228. doi:10.1177/1023263X231195455. S2CID 261655476.
  75. "EU court backs residency rights for gay couple in Romania". Associated Press. 5 June 2018. Archived from the original on 12 June 2018. Retrieved 6 June 2018.
  76. "Same-sex spouses have EU residence rights, top court rules – BBC". BBC News. 5 June 2018. Archived from the original on 8 May 2019. Retrieved 6 June 2018.
  77. "Texts adopted – LGBTIQ rights in the EU – Tuesday, 14 September 2021". European Parliament. Archived from the original on 16 September 2021. Retrieved 16 September 2021.
  78. "MEPs condemn failure to respect rights of same-sex partners in EU". The Guardian. 14 September 2021. Archived from the original on 14 September 2021. Retrieved 16 September 2021.
  79. "Major Advance for Marriage Equality and Gender Identity Rights in Latin America". San Francisco Bay Times. Sfbaytimes.com. 25 January 2018. Archived from the original on 29 January 2018. Retrieved 13 April 2018.
  80. Towle, Andy (13 November 2008). "NYC Protest and Civil Rights March Opposing Proposition 8". Towleroad. Archived from the original on 13 February 2009. Retrieved 28 September 2012.
  81. Pearson, Mary. "Where is Gay Marriage Legal?". christiangays.com. Archived from the original on 1 March 2012. Retrieved 20 February 2012.
  82. Williams, Steve. "Which Countries Have Legalized Gay Marriage?". Care2.com (news.bbc.co.uk as source). Archived from the original on 29 April 2019. Retrieved 20 February 2012.
  83. "Loi du 9 juillet 2004 relative aux effets légaux de certains partenariats. – Legilux". Eli.legilux.public.lu. Archived from the original on 11 September 2016. Retrieved 7 July 2017.
  84. "Loi n° 99-944 du 15 novembre 1999 relative au pacte civil de solidarité". Legifrance.gouv.fr (in French). 12 March 2007. Archived from the original on 16 August 2019. Retrieved 7 July 2017.
  85. "WETTEN, DECRETEN, ORDONNANTIES EN VERORDENINGEN LOIS, DECRETS, ORDONNANCES ET REGLEMENTS" (PDF). Ejustice.jkust.fgov.be. Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 April 2019. Retrieved 7 July 2017.
  86. "Civil Partnership Act 2004". Legislation.gov.uk. Archived from the original on 29 April 2019. Retrieved 5 July 2017.
  87. "Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships". National Conference of State Legislatures. Archived from the original on 10 June 2013. Retrieved 20 February 2012.
  88. Ramstack, Tom (11 January 2010). "Congress Considers Outcome of D.C. Gay Marriage Legislation". AHN. Archived from the original on 20 June 2010.
  89. Gender and Language in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2013:35
  90. Igwe, Leo (19 June 2009). "Tradition of same gender marriage in Igboland". Nigerian Tribune. Archived from the original on 11 January 2010.
  91. "Same-sex marriage and children's well-being: Research roundup". Journalist's Resource. 26 June 2015. Archived from the original on 2 January 2016. Retrieved 29 December 2015.
  92. Badgett, M.V. Lee; Carpenter, Christopher S.; Lee, Maxine J.; Sansone, Dario (2024). "A review of the effects of legal access to same-sex marriage". Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. doi:10.1002/pam.22587. hdl:10871/135707.
  93. ^ Pawelski, J.G.; Perrin, E.C.; Foy, J.M.; Allen, C.E.; Crawford, J.E.; Del Monte, M.; Kaufman, M.; Klein, J.D.; Smith, K.; Springer, S.; Tanner, J.L.; Vickers, D.L. (2006). "The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children". Pediatrics. 118 (1): 349–64. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-1279. PMID 16818585. S2CID 219194821.
  94. Herek, Gregory M. "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: A social science perspective." American Psychologist, Vol 61(6), September 2006, pp. 607–21.
  95. Elaine Justice. "Study Links Gay Marriage Bans to Rise in HIV infections". Emory University. Archived from the original on 9 April 2010. Retrieved 5 November 2010.
  96. Peng, Handie. "The Effect of Same-Sex Marriage Laws on Public Health and Welfare". Userwww.service.emory.edu. Archived from the original on 20 February 2012. Retrieved 11 February 2012.
  97. Hasin, Deborah. "Lesbian, gay, bisexual individuals risk psychiatric disorders from discriminatory policies". Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. Archived from the original on 27 February 2013. Retrieved 20 September 2012.
  98. Mustanski, Brian (22 March 2010). "New study suggests bans on gay marriage hurt mental health of LGB people". Psychology Today. Retrieved 8 November 2010.
  99. Raifman, Julia; Moscoe, Ellen; Austin, S. Bryn; McConnell, Margaret (2017). "Difference-in-Differences Analysis of the Association Between State Same-Sex Marriage Policies and Adolescent Suicide Attempts". JAMA Pediatrics. 171 (4): 350–356. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.4529. PMC 5848493. PMID 28241285.
  100. "Same-Sex Marriage Legalization Linked to Reduction in Suicide Attempts Among High School Students". Johns Hopkins University. 20 February 2017. Archived from the original on 29 April 2019. Retrieved 8 June 2018.
  101. Laurie, Timothy (3 June 2015). "Bigotry or biology: the hard choice for an opponent of marriage equality". The Drum. Archived from the original on 4 June 2015. Retrieved 4 June 2015.
  102. Blankenhorn, David (19 September 2008). "Protecting marriage to protect children". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 4 September 2009. Retrieved 6 October 2009.
  103. "See discussion of prenuptial and postmarital agreements at Findlaw". Family.findlaw.com. Archived from the original on 25 October 2010. Retrieved 5 November 2010.
  104. Pawelski JG, Perrin EC, Foy JM, et al. (July 2006). "The effects of marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership laws on the health and well-being of children". Pediatrics. 118 (1): 349–64. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-1279. PMID 16818585. S2CID 219194821.
  105. Lamb, Michael. "Expert Affidavit for U.S. District Court (D. Mass. 2009)" (PDF). Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. Archived (PDF) from the original on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 24 July 2012.
  106. ^ "Pediatricians: Gay Marriage Good for Kids' Health". news.discovery.com. 22 March 2013. Archived from the original on 12 November 2014. Retrieved 11 April 2013.
  107. "Elizabeth Short, Damien W. Riggs, Amaryll Perlesz, Rhonda Brown, Graeme Kane: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Parented Families – A Literature Review prepared for The Australian Psychological Society" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 March 2011. Retrieved 5 November 2010.
  108. "Brief of the American Psychological Association, The California Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and The American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiff-Appellees" (PDF). United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Archived (PDF) from the original on 13 April 2015. Retrieved 28 September 2012.
  109. Herek, GM (September 2006). "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: a social science perspective" (PDF). The American Psychologist. 61 (6): 607–21. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.6.607. PMID 16953748. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 June 2010.
  110. Biblarz, Timothy J.; Stacey, Judith (February 2010). "How Does the Gender of Parents Matter?" (PDF). Journal of Marriage and Family. 72 (1): 3–22. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.593.4963. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x. Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 May 2013.
  111. "Brief presented to the Legislative House of Commons Committee on Bill C38 by the Canadian Psychological Association – 2 June 2005" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 October 2012. Retrieved 7 August 2018.
  112. Goldberg, Abbie E. (February 2023). "LGBTQ-parent families: Diversity, intersectionality, and social context". Current Opinion in Psychology. 49: 101517. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101517. PMID 36502588. S2CID 253665001.
  113. Leal, Daniela; Gato, Jorge; Coimbra, Susana; Freitas, Daniela; Tasker, Fiona (December 2021). "Social Support in the Transition to Parenthood Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Persons: A Systematic Review". Sexuality Research and Social Policy. 18 (4): 1165–1179. doi:10.1007/s13178-020-00517-y. hdl:10216/132451.
  114. Bockting, Walter, Autumn Benner, and Eli Coleman. "Gay and Bisexual Identity Development Among Female-to-Male Transsexuals in North America: Emergence of a Transgender Sexuality." Archives of Sexual Behavior 38.5 (October 2009): 688–701. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 29 September 2009
  115. "Austria gets first same-sex marriage". 365gay.com. 5 July 2006. Archived from the original on 17 October 2007. Retrieved 20 July 2008.
  116. "Sweden ends forced sterilization of trans". gaystarnews.com. 11 January 2013. Archived from the original on 12 June 2018. Retrieved 10 October 2017.
  117. Deborah, Anthony (Spring 2012). "CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE: TRANSSEXUAL MARRIAGE AND THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN SEX AND LEGAL SEX". Texas Journal of Women & the Law. 21 (2).
  118. Schwartz, John (18 September 2009). "U.S. Defends Marriage Law". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 14 July 2014. Retrieved 29 September 2009.
  119. "Movement Advancement Project | Equality Maps". www.lgbtmap.org. Archived from the original on 22 April 2019. Retrieved 19 April 2019.
  120. Matthew S. Coleman (16 September 2015). "Obergefell v. Hodges". Einhorn Harris. Archived from the original on 24 December 2015. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
  121. Leff, Lisa (4 December 2008). "Poll: Calif. gay marriage ban driven by religion". USA Today. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 8 December 2008. archived here.
  122. For ease of comparison, only 'yes' and 'no' responses are counted. For old polling data, support figures have been adjusted upward @1%/year.
  123. Newport, Frank (20 May 2011). "For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage". Gallup. Archived from the original on 29 July 2014. Retrieved 25 September 2012.
  124. "Public Opinion: Nationally". australianmarriageequality.com. Archived from the original on 3 March 2011. Retrieved 25 September 2012.
  125. "Gay Life in Estonia". globalgayz.com. Archived from the original on 16 July 2012. Retrieved 25 September 2012.
  126. Jowit, Juliette (12 June 2012). "Gay marriage gets ministerial approval". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on 6 May 2019. Retrieved 25 September 2012.
  127. "Most Irish people support gay marriage, poll says". PinkNews. 24 February 2011. Archived from the original on 26 September 2013. Retrieved 25 September 2012.
  128. ^ "How people in 24 countries view same-sex marriage". Retrieved 12 December 2023.
  129. "What the world's young people think and feel" (PDF).
  130. "Who supports equal rights for same-sex couples?". Australian Institute of Family Studies.
  131. "Age is decisive factor when it comes to supporting same-sex marriage: LAPOP". Vanderbilt University. 2 June 2015. Retrieved 26 December 2023.
  132. ^ "Attitudes towards LGBTIQ+ people in the Western Balkans" (PDF). ERA – LGBTI Equal Rights Association for the Western Balkans and Turke. June 2023. Archived (PDF) from the original on 7 December 2024.
  133. "Un 70% d'andorrans aprova el matrimoni homosexual". Diari d'Andorra (in Catalan). 7 July 2013. Archived from the original on 27 February 2024.
  134. ^ "Cultura polítical de la democracia en la República Dominicana y en las Américas, 2016/17" (PDF). Vanderbilt University (in Spanish). 13 November 2017. p. 132. Archived (PDF) from the original on 13 December 2024.
  135. ^ LGBT+ PRIDE 2024 (PDF). Ipsos. 1 May 2024. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 June 2024. Retrieved 8 June 2024.
  136. ^ Gubbala, Sneha; Poushter, Jacob; Huang, Christine (27 November 2023). "How people in 24 countries view same-sex marriage". Pew Research Center. Archived from the original on 13 December 2024. Retrieved 12 December 2023.
  137. ^ "Religious Belief and National Belonging in Central and Eastern Europe" (PDF). Pew. Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 December 2024. Retrieved 11 May 2017.
  138. ^ "Religious belief and national belonging in Central and Eastern Europe - Appendix A: Methodology". Pew Research Center. 10 May 2017. Archived from the original on 28 November 2024. Retrieved 26 August 2017.
  139. "Bevolking Aruba pro geregistreerd partnerschap zelfde geslacht". Antiliaans Dagblad (in Dutch). 26 February 2021. Archived from the original on 10 December 2024.
  140. ^ "Discrimination in the European Union". TNS. European Commission. Archived from the original on 3 December 2024. Retrieved 8 June 2024. The question was whether same-sex marriage should be allowed throughout Europe.
  141. ^ "Barómetro de las Américas: Actualidad – 2 de junio de 2015" (PDF). Vanderbilt University. 2 July 2015.
  142. "63% está de acuerdo con la creación de una AFP Estatal que compita con las actuales AFPs privadas" (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 10 June 2024. Retrieved 10 June 2024.
  143. ^ LGBT+ PRIDE 2021 GLOBAL SURVEY (PDF). Ipsos. 16 June 2021. Archived (PDF) from the original on 3 December 2024. Retrieved 12 June 2023.
  144. https://www.ciep.ucr.ac.cr/images/INFORMESUOP/EncuestaEnero/Informe-encuesta-ENERO-2018.pdf
  145. "Encuesta: Un 63,1% de los cubanos quiere matrimonio igualitario en la Isla". Diario de Cuba (in Spanish). 18 July 2019. Archived from the original on 21 July 2019.
  146. Guzman, Samuel (5 February 2018). "Encuesta de CDN sobre matrimonio homosexual en RD recibe más de 300 mil votos - CDN - El Canal de Noticias de los Dominicanos" [CDN survey on homosexual marriage in DR receives more than 300 thousand votes] (in Spanish).
  147. America's Barometer Topical Brief #034, Disapproval of Same-Sex Marriage in Ecuador: A Clash of Generations?, 23 July 2019. Counting ratings 1–3 as 'disapprove', 8–10 as 'approve', and 4–7 as neither.
  148. "Partido de Bukele se "consolida" en preferencias electorales en El Salvador". 21 January 2021.
  149. "წინარწმენიდან თანასწორობამდე (From Prejudice to Equality), part 2" (PDF). WISG. 2022.
  150. "Más del 70% de los hondureños rechaza el matrimonio homosexual". Diario La Prensa (in Spanish). 17 May 2018.
  151. "Litlar breytingar á viðhorfi til giftinga samkynhneigðra" (PDF) (in Icelandic). Gallup. September 2006.
  152. Staff (13 February 2023). "64% favor recognizing same-sex marriage in Japan: Kyodo poll". Kyodo News. Retrieved 13 February 2023.
  153. Isoda, Kazuaki (21 February 2023). "Survey: 72% of voters in favor of legalizing gay marriages". The Asahi Shimbun. Retrieved 27 February 2023.
  154. Vogt, Desiree (March 2021). "Rückhalt für gleichgeschlechtliche Paare". Liechtensteiner Vaterland (in German).
  155. "Sondaj: chișinăuienii au devenit mai toleranți față de comunitatea LGBT". Radio Europa Liberă Moldova (in Romanian). 18 May 2022.
  156. "Most Mozambicans against homosexual violence, study finds". MambaOnline - Gay South Africa online. 4 June 2018., (full report)
  157. ^ LGBT+ PRIDE 2023 GLOBAL SURVEY (PDF). Ipsos. 1 June 2023. Archived (PDF) from the original on 30 November 2024. Retrieved 12 June 2023.
  158. "First Quarter 2018 Social Weather Survey: 61% of Pinoys oppose, and 22% support, a law that will allow the civil union of two men or two women". 29 June 2018. Retrieved 6 January 2019.
  159. "(Nie)dzielące związki: Polki i Polacy o prawach par jednopłciowych". More in Common. Retrieved 27 September 2024.
  160. Mikołajczyk, Marek (24 April 2024). "Tak dla związków partnerskich, nie dla adopcji [SONDAŻ DGP]". Dziennik Gazeta Prawna. Retrieved 25 April 2024.
  161. "Отношение к сексменьшинствам" (in Russian). ФОМ. June 2019.
  162. "Polovici slovenských občanov neprekážajú registrované partnerstvá pre páry rovnakého pohlavia". 27 March 2024.
  163. Strong, Matthew (19 May 2023). "Support for gay marriage surges in Taiwan 4 years after legalization". Taiwan News. Retrieved 19 May 2023.
  164. "Соціологічне дослідження до Дня Незалежності: УЯВЛЕННЯ ПРО ПАТРІОТИЗМ ТА МАЙБУТНЄ УКРАЇНИ (16-20 серпня 2023) Назад до списку" (in Ukrainian). 24 August 2023. Archived from the original on 13 December 2024.
  165. Simons, Ned (4 February 2023). "It's Ten Years Since MPs Voted For Gay Marriage, But Is There A 'Backlash'?". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 13 December 2024. Retrieved 5 February 2023.
  166. "Opinión sobre el matrimonio igualitario" [Opinion on equal marriage]. LatinoBarómetro. 10 June 2024.
  167. Antolínez, Héctor (2 March 2023). "Encuesta refleja que mayoría de venezolanos apoya igualdad de derechos para la población LGBTIQ". Crónica Uno (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2 December 2024. Retrieved 13 December 2024.

Bibliography

External links

Status of same-sex unions around the world
Africa
Americas
Asia
Europe
Oceania
Antarctica
Gay pride flag Constitutional amendments banning civil unions or same-sex marriages around the world Globe
Same-sex marriage prohibited by
constitutional amendment
Same-sex marriage and civil unions
prohibited by constitutional amendment
Types of marriages
Legal scenarios
Religious
Age
Arranged
Ceremonial
Circumstantial
basis
Death
Financial
Convenience
Other
De facto
Endogamy
Exogamy
Non-monogamous
Sexless
Other
LGBTQ topics
Symbols
Pride flags
Gender identity
Third sex / Third gender
Sexual identities
Sexual orientations
Related
History
LGBTQ history
Pre-modern era
16th to 19th century
20th century
21st century
LGBTQ rights by country or territory
LGBTQ rights topics
LGBTQ rights movements
Sexual orientation — Medicine, science and sexology
Societal attitudes
Prejudice and discrimination
Violence against LGBTQ people
Discrimination
Forms
Attributes
Social
Religious
Ethnic/National
Manifestations
Discriminatory
policies
Countermeasures
Related topics
Categories: