Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:57, 12 October 2009

Concerns regarding same-sex marriage and the family are at the forefront of the controversies over legalization of same-sex marriage. In the United States, an estimated 1 million to 9 million children have at least one lesbian or gay parent. Concern for these children and others to come are the basis for both opposition to and support for marriage for LGBT couples.

Arguments concerning children

Part of the LGBTQ rights series
Legal status of same-sex unions
Marriage 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 Netherlands New Zealand Norway Portugal Slovenia South Africa Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Thailand United Kingdom United States Uruguay Recognized Israel United States:  • American Samoa
Civil unions or registered partnerships but not marriage Bolivia Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Hungary Italy Latvia Monaco Montenegro San Marino United Kingdom:  • Bermuda  • Cayman Islands
Minimal recognition Bulgaria Cambodia China  • Hong Kong India Japan Lithuania Namibia Nepal Netherlands:  • Sint Maarten Poland Romania Slovakia
See also Same-sex union legislation Same-sex union court cases Timeline of same-sex marriage Recognition of same-sex unions in Africa Recognition of same-sex unions in Asia Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe Recognition of same-sex unions in the Americas Recognition of same-sex unions in Oceania Marriage privatization Divorce of same-sex couples Domestic partnership Military policy Adoption Listings by country LGBTQ rights by country or territory
Notes ^ 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. Neither performed nor recognized in Niue, Tokelau, or the Cook Islands. Neither performed nor recognized in six British Overseas Territories. ^ Neither performed nor recognized in some tribal nations of the US. Recognized but not performed in several other tribal nations and American Samoa. 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. ^ 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. 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. Guardianship agreements confer some limited legal benefits in China, including decisions about medical and personal care. Hong Kong provides inheritance, guardianship rights, and residency rights for foreign spouses of legal residents. Indian courts have recognised guru–shishya, nata pratha or maitri karar–type contractual relationships, but they are not legally binding. Most Japanese cities and prefectures issue partnership certificates, but they are not legally binding. Marriages conducted abroad between a Namibian national and a foreign spouse provide residency rights in Namibia. Romania provides hospital visitation rights through a "legal representative" status. Not yet in effect.
LGBTQ portal
v t e

Opponents of same-sex marriage claim that children (orphan or not) do best with both a mother and a father, and that therefore the state should encourage the traditional family structure by discouraging others. They argue that legal marriage is a way of encouraging monogamy and commitment by those who may create children through their sexual coupling. Stanley Kurtz of the Hoover Institution contends that same-sex marriage separates the ideas of marriage and parenthood, thereby accelerating marital decline. He points to studies showing a substantial rise in the out-of-wedlock birthrates for both firstborn and subsequent children in areas where same-sex unions are legal.

United States

As noted by Professor Judith Stacey of New York University: “Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights”. The American Academy of Pediatrics (2002), for example, has reported that “no data have pointed to any risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with one or more gay parents”, and assert that “Children who are born to or adopted by one member of a same-sex couple deserve the security of two legally recognized parents” Among these mainstream organizations in the United States are the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, Child Welfare League of America, the American Bar Association, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychoanalytic Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

In Conaway v. Deane, the Maryland Supreme Court ruled (2003) that the State has a legitimate interest in encouraging the traditional family structure in which children are born. The court then refrained from deciding whether this interest was served by status quo leaving it to the other branches to decide. The Massachusetts Supreme Court concluded in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that even if it were the case that children fare better within a traditional family, the argument against same-sex marriage is unsound because the state failed to show how banning same-sex marriages discouraged gay and lesbian individuals from forming families or how restricting marriage to heterosexual couples discouraged heterosexual individuals from having nonmarital children.

In 2005, the American Academy of Pediatrics stated in Pediatrics: "More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families."

In 2006, the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and National Association of Social Workers stated in an amicus brief presented to the Supreme Court of the State of California: "When comparing the outcomes of different forms of parenting, it is critically important to make appropriate comparisons. For example, differences resulting from the number of parents in a household cannot be attributed to the parents’ gender or sexual orientation. Research in households with heterosexual parents generally indicates that – all else being equal – children do better with two parenting figures rather than just one. The specific research studies typically cited in this regard do not address parents’ sexual orientation, however, and therefore do not permit any conclusions to be drawn about the consequences of having heterosexual versus nonheterosexual parents, or two parents who are of the same versus different genders. Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents. Amici emphasize that the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise. Allowing same-sex couples to legally marry will not have any detrimental effect on children raised in heterosexual households, but it will benefit children being raised by same-sex couples."

Canada

In 2006, the Canadian Psychological Association stated: "A review of the psychological research into the well-being of children raised by same-sex and opposite-sex parents continues to indicate that there are no reliable differences in their mental health or social adjustment and that lesbian mothers and gay fathers are not less fit as parents than are their heterosexual counterparts. The literature (including the literature on which opponents to marriage of same-sex couples appear to rely) 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."

Australia

In 2007, the Australian Psychological Society stated: "the family studies literature indicates that it is family processes (such as the quality of parenting and relationships within the family) that contribute to determining children’s wellbeing and ‘outcomes’, rather than family structures, per se, such as the number, gender, sexuality and co-habitation status of parents. The research indicates that parenting practices and children’s outcomes in families parented by lesbian and gay parents are likely to be at least as favourable as those in families of heterosexual parents, despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families."

In the United Kingdom, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and in Canada, the Canadian Psychological Association. The American Psychological Association supports adoption and parenting by same-sex couples, citing social prejudice as harming the psychological health of lesbians and gays while noting there is no empiric evidence that their parenting causes harm. The American Medical Association has issued a similar position supporting same-sex adoption, stating that while there is little evidence against LGBT parenting, lack of formal recognition can cause health-care disparities for children of same-sex parents.

Many opponents of same-sex marriage argue that mainstream health and mental health organizations have, in many cases, taken public positions on homosexuality and same-sex marriage that are based on their own social and political views rather than the available science. On the other hand, the Canadian Psychological Association "recognizes and appreciates that persons and institutions are entitled to their opinions and positions on this issue. However, CPA is concerned that some are mis-interpreting the findings of psychological research to support their positions, when their positions are more accurately based on other systems of belief or values."

Arguments concerning reproduction

Some same-sex marriage opponents argue that having and raising children is the underlying purpose of marriage, that homosexual unions implicitly lack the everyday ability of heterosexual couples to produce and raise offspring by natural means, that children within homosexual unions are disadvantaged in various ways, and that therefore homosexual unions cannot be recognized within the scope of "marriage". Variants to the argument include that marriage is defined as a union of man and a woman, and by definition cannot be otherwise.

Those who advocate that marriage should be defined exclusively as the union of one woman and one man argue that opposite-sex couples provide the procreative foundation that is the chief 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 just as the government recognizes employment relationships; one such conservative voice reasons that "government does not create marriages any more than government creates jobs." 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. Liberals contend that by expanding marriage to gay and lesbian individuals the state actually protects the rights of all married couples and, if they had any, of their children without discrimination while in no way affecting the rights of opposite sex married couples and their children, natural or adopted. They also counterclaim that the historic definition of marriage as a license to intercourse and as a license to the treating of a wife as a possession of her husband has already been changed by social progress reminding us that the legal equality men and women enjoy in modern marriage and that, in civilized society, it is no longer illegal to have sexual intercourse before marriage.

Some proponents of same-sex marriages argue that restrictive laws are underinclusive because they do not prohibit marriages between sterile opposite-sex couples or to women past menopause, the procreation argument cannot reasonably be used against same-sex marriages. Proponents also consider these laws restricting marriage to be unconstitutionally overinclusive, as gay and lesbian couples can have children either through natural or artificial means or by adoption.

The argument in this form is strongly contested and leaves a number of issues open to debate. These include application of the argument to infertile heterosexual couples or couples not wishing for children, as well as its application to homosexual unions where a family exists with children from previous relationships, adoption, artificial insemination or surrogacy. Social consequences are also heavily debated, including whether marriage should be defined in terms of procreation, and the argument draws strongly on religious views in some cases.

The focus of the argument is that relationships between same-sex couples should not be described as "marriages", and that a rationale for this is that the putative ability to have natural offspring should be a formal requirement for a couple to be able to marry.

In U.S. federal and state law

In the United States, a common argument raised in the courts against the recognition of same-sex marriages in equal protection cases has been the rational basis the state claims it has to foster the state's interest in human reproduction which, if rational only, legally justifies statutes that facially discriminates. Rational basis does not apply if the affect group is suspect, or if it involves a fundamental right. In that case strict scrutiny a much higher standard is applied. The fundamental right to marry one of one's own choice has become federally recognized after the Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia as was the right to procreate irrespective of marital status, but the court has never directly ruled on same-sex marriages. While sexual orientation is not considered a suspect class at the federal level, in some states it is. In California for example, sexual orientation is considered a suspect class, hence any state action affecting such group is reviewed under strict scrutiny. This standard shifts the burden of proof and requires that the state to not only show that the intent of the law challenged is not discriminatory but also show that the purpose the state wants to achieve with the law in question is narrowly tailored to that purpose and no other feasible plan could achieve the same purpose. The Supreme Court of California rejected the state's argument that the legislation served a narrowly permissible purpose to promote marital procreation because the court was not convinced anyone in California who is deciding to propose marriage, accept such a proposal, or beget a child ever considers whether their gay or lesbian neighbors had their unions recognized by the state as marriage; the majority also pointed out the state had in fact less questionable ways to encourage marriage and procreation in marriage (such as vouchers for infant needs or lower tax rates for married couple with children). Even though the legal meaning of marriage between opposite-sex couples had not been upset by the court's decision, the majority of voters subsequently amended their state's constitution to redefine marriage, in effect restoring the previous statutory definition. In Anderson et al. v. King County, a case that challenged Washington's Defense of Marriage Act, the Washington Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the law survive constitutional attack. The majority concluded that the legislature had rational basis, that is, it was entitled to believe, and to act on such belief, that only allowing opposite-sex marriages "furthers procreation." In response, a group of marriage advocates filed what became Initiative 957 which, if passed, would have made procreation a legal requirement for marriage in Washington State. The Maryland Supreme Court used similar grounds to rule that it was permissible to confer the benefits of marriage only on opposite-sex couples.

The argument in a legal context has been used to provide a rational basis needed to uphold statutes constitutionally challenged on equal protections grounds when no fundamental rights are at stake or when a nonsuspect class is affected. But if a court concludes that either a suspect class or a fundamental right is at stake, strict scrutiny, a much higher standard, is applied.

The issue of procreation highlights a biological inequality between heterosexual and homosexual couples, an inequality that is raised in American legal circles in light of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage in Federal law as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife". Congressional record, a House Report (H.R. 104-664 at 33, 104th Congress, 2nd Session, 1996), states that procreation is key to the requirement of a valid marriage being a union and of one man and one woman.

It has been suggested that Congress acted in anticipation to legal challenges based on the Defense of Marriage Act that might rely on a dicta made in a 1965 Supreme Court ruling, Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479) procreation is not essential to marriage:

Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Griswold v. Connecticut

The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled to uphold marriage laws that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman in that state, in the case Deane & Polyak v. Conaway. The court agreed with the state on the grounds that the state had a rational basis to believe that the current laws foster procreation and encouraged the traditional family and were therefore permissible. The court rejected plaintiff's claim that the law discriminated irrationally against them solely because of their sexual orientation citing that the link between marriage and procreation made those groups not similarly situated.

In California, sexual orientation is considered a suspect class, hence any state action is reviewed under strict scrutiny. This standard shift the burden of proof and requires that the state to not only show that the intent of the law challenged is not discriminatory but also show that the purpose the state wants to achieve with the law in question is narrowly tailored to that purpose and no other feasible plan could achieve the same purpose. The Supreme Court of California rejected the state's marriage procreation argument that the legislation served a narrowly permissible purpose because the court was not convinced anyone in California ever considers when proposing or accepting vows or when deciding to beget a child whether they should or not just because their gay or lesbian neighbors had their unions recognized by the state as marriage, the majority also pointed out the state had in fact less questionable ways to encourage procreation in marriage such as vouchers for infants needs or lower tax rates for married people with children. Even though the legal meaning of marriages between opposite sex couple had not been upset by the court's decision, the majority of voters subsequently amended their state's constitution to redefine marriage in effect restoring the previous statutory definition.

In July 2006, the Washington state Supreme Court upheld a state law that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, in the case Andersen v. King County , which was cited months later by the Maryland Supreme Court. The court ruling stated that state legislation failing to recognize same sex marriages had rational bases, one of which involved procreation and marriage. In response to Andersen, a group of marriage advocates filed Initiative 957 in January, 2007 which would have made procreation a requirement for legal marriage in Washington State.

In December 2005, a New York State appellate court rejected a lower court ruling that a state law not defining marriage as a union between a woman and a man but traditionally interpreted as such and hence not allowing the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples was unconstitutional. The appeals court argued that absent any indication to the contrary, the legislation had to specifically permit marriages between couples of the same sex for the county recorder to be able grant them lawfully. The appellate court summarily rejected that the more restrictive interpretation was contrary to the New York constitution resolving that even though New York lawmakers did not explicitly defined marriage as a heterosexual institution their intent was to be interpreted so. Furthermore, the court ruled that this implied intent relied on a legitimate state interest in promoting heterosexual marriages because those couples could procreate. New York, however, honors such marriages granted by other jurisdictions as a result of an executive order.

In June 2005, a New Jersey state appeals court, in the decision Lewis v. Harris, upheld a state law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, in part, by accepting that the marriage procreation link although maybe not wise wasn't irrational. However, in 2006, the New Jersey state Supreme Court unanimously overruled that decision, requiring the state to make available to all couples in New Jersey the equal protection of family laws irrespective of the gender of the participants but not necessarily the title.

In 2003, the Arizona Court of Appeals, in a decision "Standhardt v. Superior Court" (77 P.3d 451, 463-464) with regards to Arizona's state marriage law, a three judge panel concluded that the petitioners had failed to prove that the State's prohibition of same sex marriage is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest holding that the State has a legitimate interest in encouraging procreation and child-rearing within the marital relationship, and that limiting marriage to the union of one man and one woman is rationally related to that interest and that even assuming that the State's reasoning for prohibiting same sex marriage was debatable, it was not 'arbitrary' or 'irrational'.

In 1971, the Supreme Court of Minnesota, in the decision Baker v. Nelson (191 N.W.2d 185), ruled the state definition survived constitutional scrutiny. The case was appareled to the US Supreme Court who refused to hear the case for want of a substantial federal question.

Same-sex procreation is legal in every US state except Missouri. While many states have prohibited asexual reproduction and human cloning, most states have defined asexual reproduction as reproduction not initiated by the union of a sperm and an egg, language which presumably allows the use of "female sperm" and "male eggs", as well as genetically modified gametes. Missouri became the only state to prohibit same-sex conception and the use of modified gametes when voters narrowly enacted the Stem Cell Initiative in 2006. Florida and Mississippi are the only states where gay adoption is specific prohibited while Arkansas and Utah prohibit adoption by individuals that are single.

Controversy

Those who advocate that marriage should be defined exclusively as the union of one woman and one man argue that families provide the procreative foundation that is the chief 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 just as the government recognizes employment relationships; one such conservative voice reasons that "government does not create marriages any more than government creates jobs." 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. Social liberals contend that by expanding marriage to gay and lesbians individuals the state actually protects the rights of all married couples and, if they had any, of their children without discrimination while in no way affecting the rights of opposite sex married couples and their children, natural or adopted. They also counterclaim that the historic definition of marriage as a license to intercourse and as a license to the treating of a wife as a possession of their husband has already been changed by social progress reminding us that the legal equality men and women enjoy in modern marriage and that, in civilized society, it is no longer illegal to have sexual intercourse before marriage.

Some proponents of same-sex marriages argue that restrictive laws are underinclusive because they do not prohibit marriages between sterile opposite-sex couples or to women past menopause, the procreation argument cannot reasonably be used against same-sex marriages. Proponents also consider these laws restricting marriage to be unconstitutionally overinclusive, as gay and lesbian couples can have children either through natural or artificial means or by adoption.

Arguments concerning divorce rates

Internationally, the most comprehensive study to date on the effect of same-sex marriages / partnerships on opposite-sex marriage and divorce rates was conducted looking at over 15 years of data from the Scandinavian countries. The study by researcher Darren Spedale found that 15 years after Denmark had granted same-sex couples the rights of marriage, rates of opposite-sex marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of opposite-sex divorce had gone down – contradicting the concept that same-sex marriages would have a negative effect on traditional marriages.

However, a study on short-term same-sex marriages/partnerships in Norway and Sweden found that divorce risks are higher in same-sex marriages than in opposite-sex marriages. The authors stated that this may be due to same-sex couples' "relative non-involvement in joint parenthood and its lower exposure to normative pressure about the necessity of life-long unions".

A multi-method, multi-informant comparison of community samples of committed gay male and lesbian (30 participants each) couples with both committed (50 young engaged and 40 older married participants) and non-committed (109 exclusively dating) opposite-sex pairs was conducted in 2008. Specifically, in this study the quality of same- and opposite-sex relationships was examined at multiple levels of analysis via self-reports and partner reports, laboratory observations, and measures of physiological reactivity during dyadic interactions. Additionally, individuals in same-sex, engaged, and marital relationships were compared with one another on adult attachment security as assessed through the coherence of participants' narratives about their childhood experiences. Results indicated that individuals in committed same-sex relationships were generally not distinguishable from their committed opposite-sex counterparts.

References

1. What happens to kids raised by gay parents?, Mackenzie Carpenter, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 10, 2007.
2. Transcript of Larry King Live, interview with Dr. James Dobson, March 7, 2002.
3. The Family: A Proclamation to the World
4. University of St. Thomas Law Journal symposium entry by National Organization for Marriage president Maggie Gallagher
5. Kurtz, Stanley (2004-03-10). "Death of Marriage in Scandinavia". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2008-10-07.
6. cited in Cooper & Cates, 2006, p. 36; citation available on http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf
7. "Professional Organizations on GLBT Parenting".
8. ^ Harrell, Raker (2007-09-18). "Court of Appeals of Maryland Opinion on Frank Conaway, et al. v. Gitanjali Deane, et al., No. 44, Sept. Term 2006" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-01-25. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
9. Goodridge v. Department of Public Health - text of Massachusetts decision authorizing same-sex marriage
10. Pawelski, James G., Perrin, Ellen C., Foy, Jane M., Allen, Carole E., Crawford, James E., Del Monte, Mark, Kaufman, Miriam, Klein, Jonathan D., Smith, Karen, Springer, Sarah, Tanner, J. Lane, Vickers, Dennis L. The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children Pediatrics 2006 118: 349-364; available online: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349
11. Case No. S147999 in the Supreme Court of the State of California, In re Marriage Cases Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4365, Application for leave to file brief amici curiae in support of the parties challenging the marriage exclusion, and brief amici curiae of the American Psychological Association, California Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, and National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter in support of the parties challenging the marriage exclusion
12. ^ Marriage of Same-Sex Couples – 2006 Position Statement Canadian Psychological Association
13. 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
14. Royal College of Psychiatrists response to comments on Nolan Show regarding homosexuality as a mental disorder
15. Paige, R. U. (2005). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the legislative year 2004. Minutes of the meeting of the Council of Representatives July 28 & 30, 2004, Honolulu, HI. Retrieved November 18, 2004, from the World Wide Web http://www.apa.org/governance/. (To be published in Volume 60, Issue Number 5 of the American Psychologist.)
16. "Resolution on Sexual Orientation and Marriage", Study finds gay moms equally-good parents, July 2004.
17. "Position Statement: Adoption and Co-parenting of Children by Same-sex Couples", American Psychological Association, November 2002.
18. "AMA Policy regarding sexual orientation"
19. The "Trojan Couch": How the Mental Health Associations Misrepresent Science
20. A Brief History of the American College of Pediatricians
21. When Activism Masquerades as Science: Potential Consequences of Recent APA Resolutions
22. On the APA Endorsement Of Gay Marriage
23. Benne, Robert, and McDermott, Gerald. Speaking Out: Why Gay Marriage Would Be Harmful. Christianity Today 2006.
24. Jennifer Morse (2005). "Marriage and the Limits of Contract". the Hoover Institution. Retrieved 2007-03-08. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
25. Drucker, Peter. "Changing families and communities: an LGBT contribution to an alternative development path." Development in Practice 19.7 (15 Nov. 2009): 825-836. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 29 Sep. 2009
26. ^ For example, Jonathan Rauch in "For Better or Worse?" in The New Republic. May 6, 1996. Reprinted in a book by Andrew Sullivan (editor) in 1997. Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con - A Reader. Vintage Books, a division of Random House, Inc., New York, and in Canada by Random House of Canada Limited, Toronto. Pages 175-176.
27. For example, Cavner, Brian. "The 'Marriage is for Procreation' Myth: The Futility of Marriage Exclusionist Studies and Statistics". Retrieved April 4, 2009.
28. California in re marriage cases
29. Voters approve Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriages - Los Angeles Times
30. California First Amendment Coalition
31. State Supreme Court upholds gay marriage ban
32. http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/california_court_overturns_ban_on_gay_marriage_051408.pdf California in re marriage cases
33. Washington state Supreme Court's 62-page decision on same-sex marriages
34. text of 1971 Minnesota court decision on same-sex marriage
35. Jennifer Morse (2005). "Marriage and the Limits of Contract". the Hoover Institution. Retrieved 2007-03-08. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
36. For example, Cavner, Brian. "The 'Marriage is for Procreation' Myth: The Futility of Marriage Exclusionist Studies and Statistics". Retrieved April 4. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
37. Eskridge, William N. Jr. (2004). "Nordic Bliss? Scandinavian Registered Partnerships and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate" (PDF). Journals of Legal Scholarship: Issues in Legal Scholarship (5). The Berkeley Electronic Press: article 4. Retrieved 2008-09-23. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |nopp= ignored (|no-pp= suggested) (help) (see pgs.29-31)
38. ^ Andersson, Gunnar (2006). "The Demographics of Same-Sex „Marriages" in Norway and Sweden" (PDF). 43 (1). Demography: 79–98. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Text version.
39. Roisman, Glenn I.; Clausell, Eric; Holland, Ashley; Fortuna, Keren; Elieff, Chryle. "Adult romantic relationships as contexts of human development: A multi-method comparison of same-sex couples with opposite-sex dating, engaged, and married dyads." Developmental Psychology, Vol 44(1), Jan 2008, 91-101.

• Same-sex marriage