Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:54, 13 September 2009

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

Same-sex marriage is a term used to describe a legally or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender. Other terms used to describe this type of recognition include gay marriage or gender-neutral marriage.

Same-sex marriage is a civil rights, political, social, and/or religious issue in many western nations. The conflict arises from the term "marriage" being used to include same-sex relationships as well as an often-overlapping government-endorsed civil status with legal benefits.

Support for same-sex marriage is often based upon what is regarded as a universal human rights issue, equality under the law, and the goal of normalizing LGBT relationships.

Opposition to same-sex marriage is often based upon the inclusion of same-sex couples in the word marriage. Other reasons may include direct and indirect social consequences of same-sex marriages, parenting concerns, religious grounds, tradition, and/or homophobia.

History

Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies. Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) issued in 342 AD prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome, but the exact intent of the law and its relation to social practice is unclear, as only a few examples of same-sex marriage in that culture exist. It has been suggested that same-sex marriages between men in ancient Rome were not granted the same social and/or legal standing as heterosexual marriages.

In 1970, Jack Baker and James Michael McConnell applied for a marriage license in Hennepin County, Minnesota. They were denied and sued. The state won and the case, Baker v. Nelson, was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 1972 refused to hear it. In December 1984, Berkeley, California extended benefits created for married employees to unmarried couples regardless of gender. West Hollywood, California recognized domestic partnership in 1985. In October 1989, Denmark became the first nation to recognize same sex unions in the form of "registered partnerships."

Current status

In 2001, the Netherlands became the first modern nation to grant same-sex marriages.

Same-sex marriages are also granted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), and Sweden (2009). In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.

The Canadian Parliament approved the granting and recognition of same-sex marriages by defining marriage as “the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others” in July 2005. A Conservative Government motion inviting MPs to request repeal of same-sex marriage in Canada failed in December 2006, so same-sex marriages continue to be honored throughout the nation.

Australia bans recognition of same-sex marriages at the federal level, but the current Australian Labor Party government favors synchronized state and territory registered partnership legislation (as in Tasmania and Victoria). The Australian Capital Territory has civil unions.

New Zealand's Parliament rejected a bill that would have prohibited the recognition same-sex marriage in New Zealand in December 2005. However, New Zealand's Marriage Act 1955 still only recognizes marriage rights for opposite-sex couples. New Zealand's marriage laws consider transsexuals who have undergone reassignment surgery as having changed sex for legal purposes, following Family Court and High Court of New Zealand decisions in 1995.

Israel's High Court of Justice ruled to honor same-sex marriages granted in other countries even though Israel itself does not issue such licenses. A bill was raised in the Knesset (parliament) to rescind the High Court's ruling, but the Knesset has not advanced the bill since December 2006.

In France, in 2006, a 30-member nonquorum parliamentary commission of the French National Assembly published a 453-page Report on the Family and the rights of Children, which rejected same-sex marriages.

The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, Norway, and Sweden are the only countries in which the legal status of same-sex marriages are exactly the same as that of opposite-sex marriages, though South Africa is due to fully harmonize its marriage laws. Nepal's highest court, in November 2008, issued final judgment on matters related to LGBT rights. Based on the court recommendation the government announced its intention to introduce a same-sex marriage bill by 2010.

The granting and honoring of same-sex marriages is also currently being considered by several countries, such as in Portugal and Uruguay, where the recognition same-sex marriages is officially on the platforms of the political parties currently leading in the polls. Additional South American nations have taken up such proposals, with the Justice Minister of Argentina working to submit a gender neutral law draft before the Congress, while the Parliament of Venezuela debates a same-sex marriage bill. In Europe, the current governing party of Iceland has also recently hinted that it intends to reconstruct its marriage laws, thereby making them gender neutral. In early July, the minister of Slovenia announced that the country would likely legalize same-sex marriages in the near future after the government agreed that same-sex couples deserve to be entitled to all of the same benefits of opposite-sex couples. The new government of Luxembourg has also announced its intention to legalize same-sex marriage.

In the United States, although same-sex marriages are not recognized federally, same-sex couples can marry in six states. Additionally, several states offer civil unions or domestic partnerships, granting all or part of the state-level rights and responsibilities of marriage. In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage solely as a union between a couple of the opposite sex for all federal purposes and allowing for the nonrecognition amongst the states. President Barack Obama's political platform includes full repeal of the DOMA.

Civil unions and partnerships

The first same-sex union to be sanctioned by a state in modern history was in Denmark in 1989.

Civil unions, civil partnerships, domestic partnerships, and unregistered partnership/unregistered co-habitation or registered partnerships offer varying amounts of the benefits of marriage and are available in: Andorra, Australia, Colombia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay. They are also available in some parts of Argentina (Villa Carlos Paz, Río Cuarto, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Río Negro), Mexico (Coahuila and the Federal District), and the United States (including; California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, Wisconsin and Washington, and the federal District of Columbia).

A multitude of countries have adopted civil unions, civil partnerships and domestic partnerships for LGBT couples, while few have granted couples the right to being called 'married'. Such statuses are seen as conflicting views, while some people it enshrines a separate but equal status others have viewed it as effective alternative of marriage

In the United Kingdom, civil partnerships were introduced in 2005. The law gives civil partners 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 next-of-kin status and shared parenting responsibilities. Partnership ceremonies are performed by a marriage registrar in exactly the same manner as a secular civil marriage. In the first year, 16,100 ceremonies took place. Civil unions in New Zealand are identical to British civil partnerships in their association with equivalent spousal rights and responsibilities to full-fledged opposite-sex marriage.

In Australia, Commonwealth law prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriage. However, all states and territories provide a range of rights to same-sex cohabiting couples, equal to those afforded to opposite-sex de facto couples. These rights are gained without registration. Furthermore, formal domestic partnership registries exist in Tasmania, Victoria, and the Australian Capital Territory. Since November 2008, same-sex couples are recognized as de facto partners in a wide range of Commonwealth legislation, including superannuation, social security, health care and taxation. In 2007, Grace Abrams and Fiona Power became Australia's first legally recognized same-sex married couple after Grace Abrams had gender-modification surgery and was later officially granted a passport with female status.

Norway and Sweden did have registered partnerships, but got rid of them and then turned them into full civil marriage. In Denmark, Finland, and Iceland, a registered partnership is "nearly" equal to marriage, including legal joint adoption rights in Denmark and Iceland. Finland and Greenland have biological adoption only (no joint adoption). These partnership laws are short laws that state that wherever the word "marriage" appears in the country's law, it will now also be construed to mean "registered partnership", and wherever the word "spouse" appears, it will now also be construed to mean "registered partner" — thereby transferring the body of marriage laws onto same-sex couples in registered partnerships.

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.

International organizations

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

Despite their relative independence, few organizations currently recognize same-sex partnerships without condition. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the agencies of the United Nations voluntarily discriminate between opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages, as well as discriminating between employees on the basis of nationality. These 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 domestic partners of their staff, but even individuals who have entered into an opposite-sex civil union in their home country are not guaranteed full recognition of this union in all organizations. However, the World Bank does recognize domestic partners.

Transgender and intersex persons

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

When sex is defined legally, it may be defined by any one of several criteria: the XY sex-determination system, the type of gonads, or the type of external sexual features. Consequently, both transsexuals and intersexed individuals may be 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.

The problems of defining gender by the existence/non-existence of gonads or certain sexual features is complicated by the existence of surgical methods to alter these features. 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 births 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 surgery to address their sexual ambiguity.

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 may recognize a legal and official change of gender, which would allow a transsexual to be legally married in accordance with his or her 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 UK marriages are for mixed-sex couples and civil partnerships are for same-sex couples, a person must dissolve his/her marriage or civil partnership before obtaining a gender recognition certificate. Such persons are then free to enter or re-enter civil partnerships or marriages in accordance with their newly recognized gender identity.

In the United States, transsexual and intersexual marriages typically run into the complications detailed above. As definitions and enforcement of marriage are defined by the states, these complications vary from state to state.

Debates over terminology

Some proponents of same-sex marriages use the term "marriage equality" to stress that they seek equality as opposed to special rights. Some opponents argue that equating same-sex and opposite-sex marriages changes the meaning of marriage and its traditions. Alan Dershowitz and others have suggested reserving the word "marriage" for religious contexts as part of privatizing marriage, and in civil and legal contexts using a uniform concept of civil unions, in part to strengthen the separation between church and state. In the United States, one libertarian economist claims that the conflation of marriage with contractual agreements is itself a threat to marriage.

Use of scare quotes in print and online media

Some publications that oppose same-sex marriages adopt an editorial style policy of placing the word marriage in scare quotes ("marriage") when it is used in reference to same-sex couples. In the United States, the mainstream press has generally abandoned this practice. Some online publications, such as WorldNetDaily and Baptist Press, still follow the practice. Cliff Kincaid argues for use of scare quotes on the grounds that marriage is a legal status denied same-sex couples by most state governments. Same-sex marriage supporters argue that the use of scare quotes is an editorialization that implies illegitimacy.

Associated Press style recommends the usages marriage for gays and lesbians or in space-limited headlines gay marriage with no hyphen and no scare quotes. AP warns that the construct gay marriage can imply that marriage licenses offered to gay and lesbian couples are somehow legally different, as such it should be avoided as much as possible in favor of marriage for gays and lesbians.

Controversy

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, to sympathetic toleration, to indifference, to prohibition. Organizations opposed to same-sex marriages have argued that same-sex marriages are not marriages, that legalization of same-sex marriages will open the door for the legalization of polygamy, that recognition of same-sex marriages would erode religious freedoms, and that same-sex marriages deprive children of either a mother or a father. Other opponents of gay marriages hold that same-sex marriages are unnatural.

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. A 2004 Statement by the American Anthropological Association states that there is no evidence that society needs to maintain "marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution", and, further, that same-sex unions can "contribute to stable and humane societies." The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers state: "There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage.... Empirical research has consistently shown that lesbian and gay parents do not differ from heterosexuals in their parenting skills, and their children do not show any deficits compared to children raised by heterosexual parents.... f their parents are allowed to marry, the children of same-sex couples will benefit not only from the legal stability and other familial benefits that marriage provides, but also from elimination of state-sponsored stigmatization of their families."

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.

Judicial versus legislative

A "majority rules" position regards same-sex marriage as void and illegal unless it has been accepted by a simple majority of voters or of their elected representatives. In contrast, a civil-rights view holds that, after carefully studying both sides of the controversy, an impartial judiciary, in upholding its constitutional duties, should decide whether the right to marry regardless of the gender of the participants is constitutionally guaranteed.

In May 2008, in what would come to be called the In re Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court found the state's opposite-sex definition of marriage to be unconstitutional, reasoning that certain fundamental rights should be placed "beyond the reach" of popular votes and elected officials. In November 2008, the court's decision was later overturned in part by the passage of Proposition 8. After a court challenge was filed, California's Attorney General, Jerry Brown, urged the state supreme court to overturn Proposition 8 as unconstitutional, due to the "fundamental liberty interest" cited in the state Constitution as well as due to the manner it was ratified. On Tuesday, May 26, 2009, the state supreme court upheld the manner in which Proposition 8 was ratified and its immediate effect on the laws of the State of California as constitutionally valid. The court also held that since the common-law precedent did not warrant nor did the language of the proposition explicitly proscribed, retroactive application could not stand; hence, the 18,000 same-sex marriages legally granted by the state (and potentially marriages granted by other jurisdictions) before the measure passage remain valid. The governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger has announced that his administration will not defend proposition 8 in federal court citing his adherence to the civil rights stance on the issue.

Religious arguments

Arguments both in opposition to and in favor of same-sex marriages are often made on religious grounds and/or formulated in terms of religious doctrine.

Many objections to same-sex marriages are based upon religious grounds. Religious opponents of same-sex marriages sometimes claim that extending marriage rights to same-sex couples could undercut the conventional purpose of marriage, or would be contrary to God's will. Some religious advocates of "traditional marriage" contend that to call same-sex relationships "marriages" is a misnomer, because marriage necessarily involves the uniting of two members of the opposite sex. Other religious opponents argue that same-sex marriages would encourage individuals to act upon homosexual urges, rather than seeking help to overcome same-sex attraction.

Faith traditions based upon the Old Testament may have religious objections to same-sex marriages based on biblical passages such as Genesis 19:5, Leviticus 18:22, and Leviticus 20:13. Faith traditions based upon the New Testament may have religious objections based on biblical passages such as Romans 1, I Corinthians 6:8-10, and Jude 1:7. Religious groups that have been vocal and or active in their opposition to same-sex marriages include the Assemblies of God, Church of God in Christ, ] (also known as Mormons), the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference, the Conservative Mennonite Conference, the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, the Hutterite Brethren, the Orthodox Church in America, the Roman Catholic Church, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (OU), and the United Pentecostal Church International.

Support and affirmation of marriage rights for same-sex couples increasingly come from those who practice progressive Christianity. Some examples of religious organizations that are vocal supporters of marriage equality include the Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ "Marriage Equality and the UCC". and numerous progressive congregations within the mainline christian denominations. Some who hold to a more progressive Christian view claim that the word "homosexual" as found in many versions of the Bible used today is a transliteration and is not found in the original biblical texts, and that if the Bible does not reference 'homosexuals' it therefore cannot specifically ban marriage rights for them. Some progressive Christian churches also believe that biblical texts interpreted by some to discuss homosexuality refer only to specific sex acts and idolatrous worship which lack relevance to contemporary same-sex relationships. Some Christians support religious and legal recognition of same-sex marriages based on their belief that it is a biblical moral imperative or their belief that it follows a Christ-like commitment to the equality and dignity of all persons. It is believed by some that, "human sexual orientations, whether heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual, are a gift from God." Several Christian denominations support same-sex marriages and perform same-sex weddings. The three largest in North America are the Episcopal Church of the United States, the United Church of Canada and the United Church of Christ. In August of 2009 the Evangelical Lutheran Church In America, the United States' largest Lutheran church, adopted a "Social Statement On Human Sexuality".supporting the full inclusion of "publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same gender relationships" of both laypersons and clergy. The resolution, which will take effect in November, allows congregations to fully recognize same-sex relationships as marriages.

Religious arguments for and against marriage rights for same-sex couples are not always an issue of conservative faiths vs. progressive faiths. Some within self-identified conservative faith organizations such as the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), the Mennonite churches, and the Church of the Brethren hold to views favorable to, if not wholly inclusive of, same-sex marriage. "Quakers Support Same-Sex Marriage".

Some self-identified conservative leaders among traditionally conservative Orthodox church traditions such as the Old Catholic Church , the Church of Sweden , and the Church of Scotland also hold to views favorable to, if not wholly inclusive of same-sex marriage.

Judaism, like Christianity, contains varying views on the issue of marriage rights, both politically and religiously, for same-sex couples.Orthodox Judaism maintains the traditional Jewish bans on both sexual acts and marriages amongst members of the same sex. Some Conservative Jews reject recognition of same-sex unions as marriages, but permit celebration of commitment ceremonies, while others recognize same-sex marriage. Members of Reform Judaism support the inclusion of same-sex unions within the definition of marriage. The Jewish Reconstructionist Federation leaves the choice to individual rabbis.

Unitarian Universalists support same-sex marriage, and the church has long been active in supporting the cause of legalization.

Due to the ambivalent language about homosexuality in Buddhist teachings, there has been no official stance put forth regarding the issue of same-sex marriage.

Some same-sex married couples have challenged religious organizations that exclude them from access to public facilities maintained by those organizations, such as schools, health care centers, social service agencies, summer camps, homeless shelters, nursing homes, orphanages, retreat houses, community centers, and athletic programs. Opponents of same-sex marriages have expressed concerns that this limits their religious freedoms. For example, conservatives worry that a Christian college would risk its tax-exempt status by refusing to admit a legally married gay couple to married-student housing. Some legal analysts suggest that failure to reflect gay rights within their organizations may cost some religious groups their tax-exempt status.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State argue that by defining marriage as an opposite-sex institution, the state infringes upon the constitutional right to freedom of religion.

Arguments concerning children and the family

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (September 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Opponents of same-sex marriages 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. Proponents argue that legal marriage is a way of encouraging monogamy and commitment by those who may create children through their sexual coupling. Stanley Kurtz from the Hoover Institution contends that same-sex marriages separate the ideas of marriage and parenthood, thereby accelerating marital decline by citing 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. Focus on the Family points to academic studies which state that children raised with both parents, as opposed to children raised by single mothers, increase students' cognitive and verbal skills, academic performance, involvement in or avoidance of high-risk behaviors and crime, and emotional and psychological health.

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."

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."

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."

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”. Among these mainstream organizations are in the United States 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, the American Academy of Family Physicians, 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."

Argument concerning reproduction

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (September 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

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.

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 begect 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.

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, and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more dynamic, than unions of gay men. The authors cited that this may be due to same-sex couples' "non- involvement in joint parenthood," "lower exposure to normative pressure about the necessity of life-long unions," and differing motivations for getting married. Another study regarding Swedish same-sex couples found that same-sex unions – even when legally recognized – tended to be of shorter duration than opposite-sex 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.

Argument concerning marriage privatization

A libertarian argument for marriage privatization holds that the state has no role in defining the terms whereby individuals contract to arrange their personal relationships, regardless of sexual orientation. People holding this viewpoint argue that the state should have a limited role or no role in defining marriage, only in enforcing those contracts people construct themselves and willfully enter. Those following this line of reasoning believe that efforts to "legitimize" same-sex marriages as a state institution are backwards-looking, and will have the effect of expanding state influence into personal affairs where state influence already does not belong. People opposing same-sex marriages on these grounds, also support scaling back the definition by the state of contractual obligations between opposite sex partners to a same or similar degree.

Arguments concerning equality

Some opponents of same-sex marriage (including a number of ex-gay organizations) argue that the opposite-sex definition of marriage is not unequal, unjust, or exclusionary because they think that homosexuality is not genetic or unchangeable. Same-sex marriage opponents (including NARTH) support this position with their research as well as anecdotal evidence regarding efforts to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions. 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: "Sexual orientation has proved to be generally impervious to interventions intended to change it, which are sometimes referred to as “reparative therapy.” No scientifically adequate research has shown that such interventions are effective or safe. Moreover, because homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality, national mental health organizations do not encourage individuals to try to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Therefore, all major national mental health organizations have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation." The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated that it "shares the concern of both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association that positions espoused by bodies like the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) in the United States are not supported by science. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Furthermore so-called treatments of homosexuality as recommended by NARTH create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish," and added that "The best evidence for efficacy of any treatment comes from randomised clinical trials and no such trial has been carried out in this field."

For the purposes of U.S. constitutional law, the state cannot discriminate against a person that belongs to a class even when the individual has the ability not to belong to such a class. For example, a non-Christian person has the legal ability to become a Christian. Few would argue that the chosen nature of one's religious affiliation would allow the state to discriminate against non-Christians. Whether a group belongs to a suspect class is only used in determining the methodology, namely strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny or rational basis , courts must use to review the constitutionality of a given statute on equal protection challenge grounds.

Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage argues that same-sex unions are fundamentally different from opposite-sex unions. In Gallagher's view, this fundamental difference justifies a difference in the way same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions are treated under the law: "t's not discrimination to treat different things differently."

Only a few U.S. state courts ever considered constitutional challenges to laws defining marriage as an opposite-sex institution. Among them, the New York Court of Appeals and the Maryland Supreme Court have held an opposite-sex definition of marriage to be constitutional with regards to these states constitutions; in these cases the majorities declined to interpret the federal Constitution. The Maryland Supreme Court ruled that discrimination does not take place nor are constitutional rights denied in their laws that prohibit same-gender marriages; the court held that these state laws protect that state's interest to have and protect children and that in Maryland "there is no fundamental right to marry a person of your own sex".

Others argue that an opposite-sex definition of marriage is inherently unequal because it denies two consenting adults the right to marry the person they love, simply because of their sexual orientation. According to this argument, for the state to determine who a consenting adult can or cannot choose to marry infringes on a fundamental liberty interest. 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 are denied the same rights, forcing foreign gay partners to seek expensive temporary employer or school-sponsored visas or face separation. In the court cases leading up to the legalization of same-sex marriages in Canada, the restriction of legal marriage to opposite-sex couples was overturned because it was found to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, in violation of the equality guarantees of Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Some opponents of extending marriage to same-sex couples claim that equality can be achieved with civil unions or other forms of legal recognition that do not go as far as to use the word "marriage" that is used for opposite-sex couples. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health held, in contrast, that there is a fundamental dissimilitude between "civil marriage" and "civil union" indicated in the very choice of language.

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: "Gay men and lesbians form stable, committed relationships that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential respects. The institution of marriage offers social, psychological, and health benefits that are denied to same-sex couples. By denying same-sex couples the right to marry, the state reinforces and perpetuates the stigma historically associated with homosexuality. Homosexuality remains stigmatized, and this stigma has negative consequences. California’s prohibition on marriage for same-sex couples reflects and reinforces this stigma". They concluded: "There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage."

The following state supreme courts have held that an opposite-sex definition of marriage is unconstitutional and discriminatory being contrary to their state constitutions: Connecticut (28-Oct-2008), Iowa (3-Apr-2009), California (later reversed by constitutional amendment), Hawaii (later reversed by constitutional amendment), Massachusetts (18-Nov-2003), New Jersey (25-Oct-2006), and Vermont (21-Dec-1999) (see Same-sex marriage in the United States, Same-sex marriage status in the United States by state, Proposition 8, and Hawaii Constitutional Amendment 2 (1998)).

Parallels to interracial marriage

Proponents of same-sex marriages make a comparison between racial segregation and segregation of homosexual and heterosexual marriage classifications in civil family law. They argue that dividing the concept of same-sex marriage and different-sex marriage is tantamount to "separate but equal" policies (like that overturned in the U.S. Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education), or anti-miscegenation laws that were also overturned by the Supreme Court in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia.

Opponents of same-sex marriages argue that women and men are fundamentally different from one another, whereas interracial couples still fit within the "one woman and one man" definition of marriage. Louisiana State University law professor Katherine Spaht holds that there is an inherent difference between most interracial marriages and all same-sex marriages because same-sex couples cannot procreate whereas interracial couples most of the time can; Spaht characterizes 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."

In 1972, after the Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling in Baker v. Nelson 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 may constitute a decision on the merits of the case or constitute a matter not concerning Federal constitutional jurisdiction; as such, it is debatable whether Baker should be a binding precedent on all lower federal courts.

Legal effect on same sex couples

In general, the legal effect marriage has on same sex couples when marriage licenses are issued to them and honored by the states in which they live is indistinguishable from any other legal effect marriage has on any other couple under state law.

In the United States of America, same-sex marriages issued and honored by a state lack all of the same federal legal protections automatically bestowed upon heterosexual marriages under federal law.

Economic effects on same sex couples

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Dr. M. V. Lee Badgett, an economist and associate professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, has studied the impact of same-sex legal marriage on four 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. Henry Hyde (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.'" 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. 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-U.S. 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 (Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont) or some or all of the benefits under another name (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 marriage penalty 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.

Economic effects on the economy as a whole

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 a 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 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.

Opposing Viewpoints research indicates that allowing marriage for same sex couples would stimulate the economy by increasing business activity, and thus increase sales tax revenues for the states where such marriages are permitted. The Williams Institute of UCLA has conducted several studies which indicated allowing same sex marriage would increase business activity in relevant industries and also boost state income tax revenues.

Impacts on mental health

Recently, several psychological studies have shown that an increase in exposure to negative conversations and media messages about same-sex marriage creates a harmful environment for the LGBT population that may affect their health and well-being.

One study surveyed more than 1,500 lesbian, gay and bisexual adults across the nation and found that respondents from the 25 states that have outlawed same-sex marriage had the highest reports of "minority stress" — the chronic social stress that results from minority-group stigmatization — as well as general psychological distress. According to the study, the negative campaigning that comes with a ban is directly responsible for the increased stress. Past research has shown that minority stress is linked to health risks such as risky sexual behavior and substance abuse.

Two other studies examined personal reports from LGBT adults and their families living in Memphis, Tennessee, immediately after a successful 2006 ballot campaign banned same-sex marriage. Most respondents reported feeling alienated from their communities, afraid that they would lose custody of their children and that they might become victims of violence. The studies also found that families experienced a kind of secondary minority stress, says Jennifer Arm, a counseling graduate student at the University of Memphis.

Gay activist Jonathan Rauch has argued that marriage is good for all men, whether homosexual or heterosexual, because engaging in its social roles reduces men's aggression and promiscuity. After reviewing current psychological and other social science studies on same-sex marriage in comparison to opposite-sex marriage, Gregory M. Herek claims that the data indicate that same-sex and opposite-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. Herek concludes that same-sex couples 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.

See also

Documentaries and literature

• A Union in Wait
• Freedom to Marry
• Pursuit of Equality
• Marriage Equality USA
• The Gay Marriage Thing
• MTV's True Life: I'm Gay and I'm Getting Married

Footnotes

1. Marriage: Both Civil and Religious, Pamela Taylor, The Washington Post, July 31, 2009.
2. Marriage a Civil Right, not Sacred Rite, Susan Smith, The Washington Post, July 30, 2009; accessed 9/12/2009.
3. Abraham, Julie (May). "Public Relations: Why the Rush to Same-Sex Marriage? And Who Stands to Benefit?". The Women's Review of Books. 17 (8): 12–14. its most vocal advocates want gay marriage because marriage stands at the center of a system of legitimazation . {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
4. Azzolina, David (2003). "The End of Gay (and the Death of Heterosexuality).(Book Review)". Library Journal: 288. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |trans_title= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
5. Warner, Michael (1999). The Trouble with Normal. The Free Press. p. 80. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
6. A Clash of Rights? Gay Marriage and the Free Exercise of Religion, The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, May 21, 2009; accessed September 11, 2009.
7. Sharpton chides black churches over homophobia, gay marriage, Southern Voice, Dyana Bagby, January 27, 2006.
8. Frank: Scalia's legal opinions reveal his homophobia, CNN, March 25, 2009. Retrieved September 9, 2009.
9. Homophobia damaging lives across Europe-EU study, Sylvia Westall, Reuters, March 31, 2009
10. Craig A. Rimmerman; Clyde Wilcox (2007). The politics of same-sex marriage. University of Chicago Press. p. 234. ISBN 9780226720012. Clearly homophobia is at the heart of blanket opposition to gay rights policies.
11. Evan Gerstmann (2004). Same-sex marriage and the Constitution. Cambridge University Press. p. 56. ISBN 9780521009522. Keeping marriage heterosexual and dual gendered clearly has more widespread support than other homophobic policies.
12. Defu, Shen (1578-1642) Bizhouzhai Yutan
13. Hinsch, Bret (1990). Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China. Reed Business Information, Inc. ISBN 0520078691.
14. Kuefler, Mathew (2007). "The Marriage Revolution in Late Antiquity: The Theodosian Code and Later Roman Marriage Law". Journal of Family History. 32: 343–370. doi:10.1177/0363199007304424.
15. Eskridge, William N. (1993). "A History of Same-Sex Marriage". Virginia Law Review. 79 (7). {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
16. Legislative record of the same-sex marriage bill in Dutch and in French, by the Belgian Senate.
17. "Hindustan Times" (a news outlet in India) Article dated November 19, 2008
18. Canadians for Equal Marriage News Article dates December 7, 2006
19. "Executive summary of "Report on the Family and the Rights of Children" prepared by the French National Assembly, Paris, January 25, 2006" (PDF). 2006-01-25. Retrieved 2008-10-24.
20. Nepal’s highest court confirms full rights for LGBT people
21. Tears of Joy as Nepali Gays Transgender Persons at Supreme Court Decision
22. "Nepal Supreme Court orders full LGBT rights".
23. "Nepal SC approves same-sex marriage".
24. Nepal apex court okays same-sex marriage : iGovernment
25. ^ IOL Diário - Sócrates quer casamento gay e referendo à regionalização
26. Uruguayan Socialists Prepare "Homosexual Marriage" Legislation
27. Casamentos na próxima legislatura
28. Espectador.com
29. Aníbal Fernández supports parliamentary debate on same-sex marriages
30. Venezuela 'silent' on hate crimes rise
31. News and Articles < Prime Minister´s Office
32. Slovenia to legalize same-sex marriage soon: minister
33. The Station Network
34. | Portland Press Herald | Baldacci signs same-sex marriage into law
35. HB 436-FN-LOCAL – VERSION ADOPTED BY BOTH BODIES
36. HRC: LGBT Laws of NJ
37. HRC: LGBT Laws of Maryland
38. US CODE: Title 1,7. Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”
39. Barack Obama on LBGT Rights
40. NYC Protest and Civil Rights March Opposing Proposition 8, Andy Towle, Towelroad.com, November 13, 2008. Retrieved November 14, 2008.
41. Interview with Evan Wolfson, David Shankbone, Wikinews, September 30, 2007.
42. Honeymoon is over for gay weddings
43. Sweeping gay law reform finally passes
44. Limited govt equals freedom for same-sex couples
45. John R. Bohrer (2006-12-14). "NJ Civil Unions: Nothing to Celebrate". The Huffington Post.
46. "NATO Recruitment service". NATO. 2006-12-07. Archived from the original on 2007-03-23. Retrieved 2007-03-08.
47. "What are we looking for?". World Health Organization. Retrieved 2007-03-08.
48. "Jobs - Compensation & Benefits". The World Bank Group. Retrieved 2007-03-08.
49. "How common is intersex?". Intersex Society of North America. Retrieved 2007-03-08.
50. "Equal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples". Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell.
51. Austin Cline. "Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Marriage is a Sacred Religious Sacrament". About.com. Retrieved 2007-03-08.
52. Dershowitz, Alan M. (2003-12-03). "Government Should Quit the Marriage Business". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2007-03-08.
53. Morse, Jennifer Roback (2004-05-20). "Not a Social Contract". National Review. Retrieved 2007-03-08.
54. Erik Wemple (2008-02-25). "Washington Times Scare Quotes Are History". Washington City Paper. Retrieved 2008-07-28.
55. Kincaid, Cliff (2004-02-26). "Honest Versus Slanted Journalism". Accuracy In Media. Retrieved 2007-03-08.
56. Austin Cline. "Washington Times Dismisses Gay "Marriages"". About.com. Retrieved 2007-03-08.
57. http://www.savemarriageny.org/The%20Case%20Against%20Same-Sex%20Marriage%20and%20Civil%20Unions.pdf
58. http://www.nationformarriage.org/atf/cf/%7B39D8B5C1-F9FE-48C0-ABE6-1029BA77854C%7D/CatholicEnglish.pdf
59. ^ Banned in Boston
60. Protecting marriage to protect children - Los Angeles Times
61. "Anti-Gay Backlashes Are on 3 States' Ballots". The New York Times. 1992-10-04. Retrieved 2008-06-06.
62. See discussion of prenuptial and postmarital agreements at Findlaw
63. 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.
64. Statement on Marriage and the Family from the American Anthropological Association
65. ^ 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
66. "Poll: Calif. gay marriage ban driven by religion." By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer. Thursday, December 4, 2008.
67. "Divisions persist over gay marriage ban" By Rajesh Mirchandani, BBC News, Los Angeles. Wednesday, 12 November 2008.
68. In the Supreme Court of California: In re Marriage Cases. May 15, 2008. Pages 113-116. Ct. App. 1/3 Nos. A110449, A110450, A110451, A110463, 1 ) A110651, A110652, San Francisco County, JCCP No. 4365
69. Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer "Brown asks state high court to overturn Prop. 8" in The San Francisco Chronicle. Friday, December 19, 2008.
70. Lisa Leff, Associated Press Writer. "Jerry Brown urges court to void Prop. 8" in The Associated Press. Friday, December 19, 2008.
71. California high court upholds same-sex marriage ban, retrieved 5/27/09
73. Schwarzenegger decides against defending Prop. 8 in federal court - Los Angeles Times
74. 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).
75. "The Religious Right and Anti-Gay Speech: Messengers of Love or Purveyors of Hate?". Matthew Shepard Online Resources. Archived from the original on 2002-12-19.
76. ^ http://www.apacny.net/The%20Christian%20Case%20Against%20Same-Sex%20Marriage.pdf
77. Gay Marriage Questions
78. http://www.apacny.net/APACBiblicalPerspectiveSSMCU.pdf
79. America's Rabbi | Once Again Democrats Bow to “Unions”
80. Assemblies of God Position Paper on Homosexuality
81. [http://www.cogic.org/ Church Of God In Christ,
82. "The Divine Institution of Marriage". Retrieved 2008-09-23.
83. gender-news.com
84. "CMC Statement on Homosexuality". Conservative Mennonite Conference. Retrieved 2006-07-05.
85. "Hutterites take rare political stand against gay marriage". CBC News. 2005-02-18. Archived from the original on 2007-12-20. Retrieved 2006-07-05. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
86. "On Marriage, Family, Sexuality, and the Sanctity of Life". Orthodox Church in America. Retrieved 2006-07-05.
87. "The Seventh-Day Adventist Church and Homosexuality".
88. Article Not Found!
89. Same-Sex Marriage
90. http://www.mlp.org/
91. http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/
92. http://www.gaychurch.org/Gay_and_Christian_YES/the_bible_christianity_and_homosexuality_justin_cannon.htm
93. Rev. Elder Don Eastman (1990). "Homosexuality: Not A Sin, Not A Sickness – What The Bible Does and Does Not Say". Metropolitan Community Church. Retrieved 2008-11-23. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
94. http://www.gaychurch.org/Gay_and_Christian_YES/Other%20articles/justified_through_Christ.htm
95. http://www.gc2009.org/ViewLegislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=986&type=Final
96. http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com/
97. "Equality Rights". United Church of Canada. 2007. Retrieved 2008-11-09.
98. Episcopalians OK Gay Blessings - TIME
99. Marriage Equality
100. King, Michael A. Fractured Dance: Gadamer and a Mennonite Conflict over Homosexuality. C. Henry Smith Series, no. 3. Foreword by Herbert Simons. Telford, Pa.: Pandora Press, 2001.
101. http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/Church_agrees_to_bless_gay_partnerships.html?siteSect=105&sid=6817696&cKey=1150533957000&ty=st
102. http://www.thelocal.se/8899/20071025/
103. http://www.heraldscotland.com/church-of-scotland-general-assembly-upholds-appointment-of-gay-minister-1.910855
104. 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); 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).
105. 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)
106. 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).
107. "FAQ's on Reconstructionist Approaches to Jewish ideas and Practices". Jewish Reconstructionist Federation. 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-17.
108. "UUA: Support of the Right to Marry for Same-Sex Couples". www.uua.org. Retrieved 2009-04-07.
109. More same-sex couples find support for 'blessed unions' : Life : The Buffalo News
110. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: Issues. (May 20, 2008. Religious Groups' Official Positions on Same-Sex Marriage.
111. Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story
112. Commentary - Roger Severino: Legalizing gay marriage will spark lawsuits against churches
113. Will Same-Sex Marriage Collide With Religious Liberty?
114. Faith Groups Increasingly Lose Gay Rights Fights
115. Glassman, Anthony. (July 15, 2005). "Pro-Gay Marriage Amendment Focuses on Religious Freedom" in The Gay People's Chronicle.
116. David Dix (April, 2004). "Freedom of religion and gay marriage" in Southside Pride: Phillips/Powderhorn/Nokomis/Riverside.
117. Cline, A. "Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Marriage is a Sacred Religious Sacrament Gay Marriage Would Be a Sacrilege and Thus Must Be Banned?"
118. Transcript of Larry King Live, interview with Dr. James Dobson, March 7, 2002.
119. ____ The Family: A Proclamation to the World
120. Document (4)
121. Kurtz, Stanley (2004-03-10). "Death of Marriage in Scandinavia". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2008-10-07.
122. Children Who Have An Active Father Figure Have Fewer Psychological And Behavioral Problems
123. Pruett, K. "Fatherneed: Why father care is as essential as mother care for your child," New York: Free Press, 2000.
124. "The Effects of Father Involvement: A Summary of the Research Evidence," Father Involvement Initiative Ontario Network, Fall 2002 newsletter.
125. Anderson Moore, K. "Family Structure and Child Well-being" Washington, DC: Child Trends, 2003.
126. United States. National Center for Fathering, Kansas City, MO. Partnership for Family Involvement in Education. A Call to Commitment: Fathers' Involvement in Children's Learning. June, 2000
127. ^ 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)
128. ^ Goodridge v. Department of Public Health - text of Massachusetts decision authorizing same-sex marriage
129. 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
130. ^ Marriage of Same-Sex Couples – 2006 Position Statement Canadian Psychological Association
131. 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
132. cited in Cooper & Cates, 2006, p. 36; citation available on http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf
133. "Professional Organizations on GLBT Parenting".
134. Royal College of Psychiatrists response to comments on Nolan Show regarding homosexuality as a mental disorder
135. 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.)
136. "Resolution on Sexual Orientation and Marriage", Study finds gay moms equally-good parents, July 2004.
137. "Position Statement: Adoption and Co-parenting of Children by Same-sex Couples", American Psychological Association, November 2002.
138. "AMA Policy regarding sexual orientation"
139. The "Trojan Couch": How the Mental Health Associations Misrepresent Science
140. A Brief History of the American College of Pediatricians
141. When Activism Masquerades as Science: Potential Consequences of Recent APA Resolutions
142. On the APA Endorsement Of Gay Marriage
143. Jennifer Morse (2005). "Marriage and the Limits of Contract". the Hoover Institution. Retrieved 2007-03-08. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
144. California in re marriage cases
145. ^ Voters approve Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriages - Los Angeles Times
146. California First Amendment Coalition
147. State Supreme Court upholds gay marriage ban
148. 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.
149. For example, Cavner, Brian. "The 'Marriage is for Procreation' Myth: The Futility of Marriage Exclusionist Studies and Statistics". Retrieved April 4, 2009.
150. 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)
151. ^ 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.
152. http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/SSdivorcerisk.pdf
153. 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.
154. Lindenberger, M., "A Gay-Marriage Solution: End Marriage?" in Newsweek, Mar. 16, 2009.
155. Kinsella, S. "Libertarian View on Gay Marriage" in LewRockwell.com, June 6, 2006.
156. Boaz, D., speech to Commonwealth Club of California
157. 'Homosexuality Cannot Be Changed'|Is homosexuality really fixed and immutable as some argue?
158. Massachusetts United Families
159. The Challenge of Homosexuality
160. Dr. Jeffrey Satinover Testifies Before Massachusetts Senate Committee Studying Gay Marriage
161. American Psychiatric Association (2000). "Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues". Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrics. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
162. Royal College of Psychiatrists: Statement from the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Gay and Lesbian Mental Health Special Interest Group
163. Royal College of Psychiatrists: Psychiatry and LGB people
164. ^ An Interview With Maggie Gallagher, Head Of The National Organization For Marriage - Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views)
165. http://www2.law.columbia.edu/faculty_franke/Gender_Justice/Hernandez_Robles.pdf
166. ^ Md. Ban On Gay Marriage Is Upheld; Law Does Not Deny Basic Rights, Is Not Biased, Court Rules;The Washington Post; By Lisa Rein and Mary Otto - Washington Post Staff Writers; Wednesday, September 19, 2007; Page A01
167. See Immigration Equality and Human Rights Watch
168. Gay Marriage Is Ruled Legal in Connecticut - NYTimes.com
169. BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Iowa upholds gay marriage rights
170. Massachusetts Court: State Wrong to Ban Gay Marriage (washingtonpost.com)
171. New Jersey Court Backs Rights for Same-Sex Unions - New York Times
172. Vermont High Court Backs Rights of Same-Sex Couples - The New York Times
173. California Court Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage - US News and World Report
174. Peggy Pascoe (2004-04-19). "Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation". History News Network of George Mason University. Retrieved 2007-03-08.
175. The Battle for Marriage in Minnesota (MPEG-4; WM9) (Video). Minnesota for Marriage. Retrieved 2007-03-08.
176. Baptist Press - Bans on interracial marriage, same-sex ‘marriage’ - parallels? - News with a Christian Perspective
177. ^ "The Potential Budgetary Impact of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages" (.HTML; .PDF). Congressional Budget Office. 2004-06-21. Retrieved 2007-03-08. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
178. Same-Sex Marriage Would Boost Economy Significantly
179. The Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples on the California Budget
180. Price, M. "UPFRONT - Research uncovers the stress created by same-sex marriage bans" in Monitor on Psychology, Volume 40, No. 1, page 10, January 2009. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
181. Potoczniak, Daniel J.; Aldea, Mirela A.; DeBlaere, Cirleen"Ego identity, social anxiety, social support, and self​-​concealment in lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals." Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol 54(4), Oct 2007, 447-457.
182. Balsam, Kimberly F.; Mohr, Jonathan J. "Adaptation to sexual orientation stigma: A comparison of bisexual and lesbian/gay adults." Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol 54(3), Jul 2007, 306-319.
183. Rostosky, Sharon Scales; Riggle, Ellen D. B.; Gray, Barry E.; Hatton, Roxanna L. "Minority stress experiences in committed same​-​sex couple relationships." Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol 38(4), Aug 2007, 392-400.
184. Szymanski, Dawn M.; Carr, Erika R. "The roles of gender role conflict and internalized heterosexism in gay and bisexual men's psychological distress: Testing two mediation models." Psychology of Men & Masculinity, Vol 9(1), Jan 2008, 40-54.
185. Rauch, Jonathan. "For Better or Worse?" The case for gay (and straight) marriage. The New Republic, May 6, 1996.
186. Rauch, Jonathan (2004). Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, LLC.
187. ^ Herek, Gregory M. "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: A social science perspective." American Psychologist, Vol 61(6), Sep 2006, 607-621.

Bibliography

• Boswell, John (1995). The Marriage of Likeness: Same-sex Unions in Pre-modern Europe. New York: Simon Harper and Collins. ISBN 0-00-255508-5.
• Boswell, John (1994). Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe. New York: Villard Books. ISBN 0-679-43228-0.
• Caramagno, Thomas C. (2002). Irreconcilable Differences? Intellectual Stalemate in the Gay Rights Debate. Westport, CT: Praeger. ISBN 0-275-97721-8.
• Cere, Daniel (2004). Divorcing Marriage: Unveiling the Dangers in Canada's New Social Experiment. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. ISBN 0-7735-2895-4.
• Chauncey, George (2004). Why Marriage?: The History Shaping Today's Debate over Gay Equality. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-00957-3.
• Dobson, James C. (2004). Marriage Under Fire. Sisters, Or.: Multnomah. ISBN 1-59052-431-4. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |unused_data= (help); Text "Marriage under Fire: Why We Must Win This War" ignored (help)
• Larocque, Sylvain (2006). Gay Marriage: The Story of a Canadian Social Revolution. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company. ISBN 1-55028-927-6.
• Moats, David (2004). Civil Wars: A Battle For Gay Marriage. New York, NY: Harcourt, Inc. ISBN 0-15-101017-X.
• Rauch, Jonathan (2004). Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, LLC. ISBN 0-80507-815-0.
• Spedale, Darren (2006). Gay Marriage: For Better or For Worse? What We've Learned From the Evidence. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-518751-2.
• Truluck, Rembert S. (2000). Steps to Recovery from Bible Abuse. Gaithersburg, MD: Chi Rho Press, Inc. ISBN 1-888493-16-X.
• Wolfson, Evan (2004). Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-7432-6459-2.
• Robert P. George, Jean Bethke Elshtain (Eds.), ed. (2006). The Meaning of Marriage: Family, State, Market, And Morals. Dallas: Spence Publishing Company. ISBN 1-890626-64-3.
• Robert E. Goss, Amy Adams Squire Strongheart (Eds.), ed. (2008). Our Families, Our Values: Snapshots of Queer Kinship. New York, NY: The Harrington Park Press, An Imprint of the Haworth Press, Inc. ISBN 1-56023-910-7.
• Douglas Laycock, Anthony Picarello, Jr., Robin Fretwell Wilson (Eds.), ed. (2008). Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0-74256-326-X.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
• Andrew Sullivan (Editor), ed. (2004). Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con - A Reader, Revised Updated Edition. New York, NY: Vintage Books, a division of Random House, Inc. ISBN 1-40007-866-0. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)
• Oliver, Marylin Tower (1998). Gay and Lesbian Rights, A Struggle. Springfield, NJ: Enslow.
• Wedgewood, Ralpbh (1999). Homosexuality: Opposing Viewpoints. Dallas: Spence Publishing Company.

External links

This article's use of external links may not follow Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (August 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

• Google Map of "World homosexuality laws"
• Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships topic page from The New York Times
• Maggie Gallagher debates Gavin Newsom on gay marriage in a May 2009 interactive debate from NOW on PBS Online
• Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons
• LA Weekly feature, "California Supreme Court Set to Consider Gay Marriage," Feb. 2008 by Matthew Fleischer
• Today is Freedom to Marry Day - Just Don't Say "Gay Marriage"!, Evan Wolfson, Huffington Post, February 12, 2008.
• Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco California Supreme Court Opinion overturning ban on same-sex unions, May 15, 2008
• American Courts on Marriage: Is Marriage Discriminatory? 1998-2008, Joshua Baker, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, May 2008.
• Same-Sex Marriage: Developments in the Law", Emily Doskow, NOLO, 2008.
• "The Debate: The Bible and Gay Marriage" in Newsweek Religion Newsweek Web Exclusive, December 16, 2008.
• "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage" by David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch
• "Reactions to Raunch/Blankenhorn compromise"
• Varnum Et. Al. v Brien Polk County Iowa Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Overturns Ban on Gay Marriage 3Apr2009.
• * The Lame Case Against Gay Marriage - Essay on public opinion, religion, & the law

v t e Status of same-sex unions around the world
Africa	Angola Botswana Egypt Eswatini Kenya Lesotho Mauritius Mozambique Namibia Nigeria Seychelles South Africa United Kingdom Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Zimbabwe
Americas	Argentina Barbados Bolivia Brazil Canada Chile Colombia Costa Rica Cuba Denmark Greenland Ecuador El Salvador Honduras Mexico Netherlands Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Nicaragua Paraguay Suriname United Kingdom Bermuda Cayman Islands Falkland Islands South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands United States Puerto Rico U.S. Virgin Islands U.S. tribal nations Uruguay Venezuela
Asia	Bhutan Cambodia China Hong Kong India Indonesia Israel Japan Myanmar Nepal Philippines Russia Singapore South Korea Taiwan Thailand United Kingdom British Indian Ocean Territory Vietnam
Europe	Albania Andorra Armenia Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Faroe Islands Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Kosovo Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Moldova Monaco Montenegro Netherlands North Macedonia Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russia San Marino Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Ukraine United Kingdom Akrotiri and Dhekelia Gibraltar Guernsey Isle of Man Jersey
Oceania	Australia Fiji Micronesia New Zealand Palau United Kingdom Pitcairn Islands United States American Samoa Guam Northern Mariana Islands Vanuatu
Antarctica	United Kingdom British Antarctic Territory

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

v t e Constitutional amendments banning civil unions or same-sex marriages around the world
Same-sex marriage prohibited by constitutional amendment	Armenia Belarus Bolivia Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Central African Republic Croatia Democratic Republic of the Congo Dominican Republic Hungary Jamaica Kenya Kyrgyzstan Latvia Lithuania Moldova Mali Mongolia Montenegro Palau Poland Russia Rwanda Serbia Slovakia South Sudan Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine Zimbabwe
Same-sex marriage and civil unions prohibited by constitutional amendment	Honduras Paraguay

• Misplaced Pages neutral point of view disputes from September 2008
• Misplaced Pages external links cleanup from August 2009
• Same-sex marriage
• LGBT rights