Same-sex marriage

The terms "gay marriage" and "homosexual marriage" may not be strictly accurate, in that one or both partners may not identify as gay or homosexual. "Homosexual" may also carry negative connotations. Supporters of same-sex marriage argue that the correct term is simply "marriage." In the context of same-sex marriages, and throughout this article, same-sex refers to two people of the same gender. In this context, same-sex is not synonymous with gay, lesbian, or homosexual, nor with bisexual, transgendered or transsexual, but "same-sex marriage" may, depending on the couple and the jurisdiction, refer to marriages between two adults from any of those groups.

Recently, the term "same-sex marriage" has been displacing "gay marriage," as the term is perceived as less value-laden and more inclusive of bisexuals and transsexual people - who in some states of the US and in other countries, are not allowed to change their assigned gender on their birth certificates following sex reassignment surgery.

In this article, the inclusive term "same-sex marriage" is used throughout. Where necessary for clarity, the terms "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual," and "transsexual" are used (there are a number of reasons for this; please see the talk page for more details).

The term "mixed marriage" usually does not refer to marriage of two persons of different genders, but to marriage of two persons of different religions, cultures or races.

History of same-sex unions

For detailed information, see History of homosexuality.

Asia

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

In China, especially in the southern province of Fujian where male love was especially cultivated, men would marry youths in elaborate ceremonies. The marriages would last a number of years, at the end of which the elder partner would help the younger find a (female) wife and settle down to raise a family.

See also:

Europe

There is a long history of same-sex unions in the western world. That many early western societies tolerated, and even celebrated, same sex relationships is well-known. Evidence of same-sex marriage, however, is less clear, but there exists some evidence, often controversial, of same-sex marriages in ancient Rome and Greece, and even in medieval Europe.

In ancient Rome, for example, the Emperor Nero is reported to have married, at different times, two other men in wedding ceremonies. Other Roman Emperors are reported to have done the same thing. The increasing influence of Christianity, which promoted marriage for procreative purposes, is linked with the increasing intolerance of homosexuality in Rome.

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

Americas

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

In Canada the issue of same-sex marriage has split the religious community with the United Church of Canada and some elements of the Anglican Church of Canada being supportive while Roman Catholics and most conservative denominations in opposition.

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

Africa

In Africa, among the Azande of the Congo, men would marry youths for whom they had to pay a bride-price to the father. These marriages likewise were understood to be of a temporary nature.

Current status of same-sex civil marriage

In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, there has been a growing movement in a number of countries to regard marriage as a right which should be extended to same-sex couples. Legal recognition of a marital union opens up a wide range of entitlements, including social security, taxation, inheritance and other benefits unavailable to couples unmarried in the eyes of the law. Restricting legal recognition to opposite-sex couples excludes same-sex couples from gaining legal access to these benefits, and while opposite-sex unmarried couples without other legal impediments have the option of marrying in law and so gaining access to these rights, that option is unavailable to same-sex couples. Similarly, though certain rights extending from marriage can be replicated by legal means (for example, by drawing up contracts), many cannot; thus, despite the presence of legal contracts, same-sex couples may still face insecurity in areas such as inheritance, hospital visitation and immigration. Lack of legal recognition also makes it more difficult for same-sex couples to adopt children.

At present, same-sex marriages are legal in only a few countries (see table, right). In Belgium and the Netherlands, same-sex marriage is fully legal. In Canada, same-sex marriage is currently legal in over half of the provinces and territories, covering approximately eighty-five percent of the population, and a federal bill to formally legalize same-sex marriage in Canada is pending (see same-sex marriage in Canada).

In the United States as of November 2004, only the state of Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriages, while the states of Vermont and New Jersey offer same-sex partners benefits similar to those of legally married couples. Seventeen other States have constitutional provisions that limit marriages to one man and one woman, while twenty-five States have statutes containing similar definitions. In the United States, the debate over whether or not to make same sex marriages legally binding remains one of the most polarizing and divisive political debates of the early 21st century and it is discussed with great passion all over the world. During 2004, 13 US States amended their constitutions to define marriage as being only between one man and one woman. Some people, including many gay rights advocates and some heterosexual same-sex marriage advocates, view restrictions such as these as being an example of the tyranny of the majority in action.

Currently no other country recognizes same-sex marriages as legally valid.

Europe

Same-sex civil marriages currently are legally recognized nationwide only in the Netherlands and Belgium.

The Swedish government is similarly preparing legislation to legalize same-sex marriage across the country [1].

Shortly after his election in June 2004 the Spanish Prime Minister confirmed his intention to push for legalization of same-sex marriage [2]. On 1 October 2004, the Spanish Government approved a bill to legalise same-sex marriage. The bill now needs parliamentary approval, and is expected to come into force in 2005. For more information see Same-sex marriage in Spain.

On 18 November 2004 the United Kingdom Parliament passed the Civil Partnership Act, which will come into force during 2005 and will allow same-sex couples to register their partnership. The Government stressed during the passage of the Bill that it is not same-sex marriage, and some gay activists have criticised the Act for not using the terminology of marriage. However, the rights and duties of partners under this legislation will be almost exactly the same as for married couples. An amendment proposing similar rights for family members living together was rejected. See Civil Union.

In May 2004, the largest opposition party in France, the French Socialist Party, announced its support for same-sex marriage. A poll by ELLE found that 64% of France supports same-sex marriage. [3]

North America

In Canada, court rulings in the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and Saskatchewan, as well as the Yukon Territory, have found the prohibition of same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional, thus legalizing it in those jurisdictions. The Canadian federal government has drafted amendments to the Canadian Marriage Act that would legalize same-sex marriage nationally.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the government has the authority to amend the definition of marriage, but did not rule on whether or not such a change is required by the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court stated that such a ruling is not necessary because the federal government had accepted the rulings of lower courts. The COurt also ruled that religious institutions could not be required to perform same-sex marriages. The government has indicated that it will propose the amendments in the Canadian House of Commons shortly.

As of November 11th, 2004 the Canadian federal government's immigration department considers same-sex marriages valid for the purposes of sponsoring a spouse to immigrate. See also CIC and Same-sex marriage in Canada

Same-sex marriage is legal in the US state of Massachusetts, following a November 2003 court ruling. The Superior Court of Washington State has also declared banning same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional and the case, Andersen v. Sims, is currently before the state Supreme Court in Olympia. [4] Several local government bodies in the United States are also performing same-sex marriages, on various degrees of legal footing. However, in 2004, 13 states passed referendums prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Conflicts may rise to a federal level if same-sex couples move to a state where same-sex marriage is illegal. In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, meant to prevent the courts from using the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause to bring same-sex marriage to states that have rejected it. In Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Supreme Court cited the Fourteenth Amendment's "due process" and "equal protection" clauses to strike down laws prohibiting interracial marriage, and in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) cited the same passages to strike down anti-sodomy laws.

On Feb. 24, 2004 President George W. Bush called for a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit same-sex marriages at the federal level.

Asia

King Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia announced in February 2004 that he believed his country ought to legalize same-sex marriage.

Other forms of same-sex partnership

The movement towards the legal recognition of same-sex marriages has resulted in changes in the law in many jurisdictions, though the extent of the changes have varied:

Civil unions provide most of the rights and responsibilities of same-sex marriage, but use a different name for the arrangement. They exist in several European countries (Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, and Switzerland) as well as in the U.S. state of Vermont, the Canadian provinces of Quebec and Nova Scotia, the Australian states of New South Wales, Western Australia, and Tasmania, and the city of Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Domestic partnerships or registered partnerships provide varying degrees of privileges and responsibilities, usually far fewer than those found in civil unions. Their purpose is not limited to same-sex arrangements and they exist in many jurisdictions.

Even in jurisdictions where they are not legally recognized, many gay and lesbian couples choose to have weddings (also called "commitment ceremonies" in this context) to celebrate and affirm their relationship, fulfilling the social aspect of a marriage. Such ceremonies have no legal validity, however, and as such do not deal with issues such as inheritance, property rights or social security.

Some writers have advanced the idea that the term "marriage" should be restricted to a religious context and that state and federal governments should not be involved in a religious rite. Some regard this as a governmental intrusion into religion; they believe that all statutes involving domestic contracts should replace the word "marriage" with "domestic partnership" and thus bypass the controversy of gender. This would then allow a domestic contract between any two individuals who have attained their majority.

Controversy

The moral legitimacy of marriage between two people of the same sex hinges on how the authoritative definition of marriage is derived. If marriage is to have a religious foundation, the interpretation of religious texts and traditions will be key; if marriage is a social institution or even a purely economic coupling, pragmatic arguments will have more force, though moral issues will no doubt still arise. Gay rights advocates assert that marriage is a right which should not be limited to opposite-sex couples. Their opponents assert that same-sex marriage cannot be allowed on moral and/or religious grounds, or on the grounds that it will lead to a breakdown of society.

The debate is often perceived as being same sex marriage advocates vs. religious (especially fundamentalist) or moral opponents. However, corporations and other fiscally concerned parties sometimes oppose same-sex marriages not on any religious or moral grounds but instead with the aim of preserving the status quo to avoid extending benefits, such as insurance coverage, to the same-sex spouses of their employees. Those in favour of same-sex marriage argue that gays and lesbians contribute as much as heterosexual people to the funding for private and public family coverage even when they have no access to it.

Competing definitions of "marriage"

Nearly all people at all times have defined "marriage" in such a way that at least one male and one female were involved. Some societies have from ancient times permitted a man to have multiple wives, but those wives had congress only with the man -- not each other. But some rare variations have existed, such as polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands) and "group marriage".

Though religions perform marriages based on their own doctrinal definitions, these may or may not be recognized by the government depending on local laws. Governments will often provide opportunity for state-sanctioned legal marriages that are entirely secular and without religious influence (commonly called 'civil marriages'). They may or may not be recognized by certain religions. Some countries require all marriages to be civil, and any religious ceremony is purely symbolic. Generally, it is the government's definition of marriage that the same-sex marriage debate centers around (see marriage).

A typical definition of marriage proposed by those who support same-sex marriage is as follows:

A socially sanctioned, voluntary, committed, legally contracted union, of two adult people, which the government and/or society recognizes by conferring certain rights, privileges and responsibilities, such as finances, taxes, and inheritance, child-raising, adoption, visitation, and medical decision-making.

For same-sex marriage proponents, the above achieves equalization of male-male, female-female, and male-female relationships. Being able to marry whomever one chooses is seen as a civil right that should not be abridged by the government.

Some countries and states/provinces have judicial rulings that set precedence for the above definition. However, popular majorities in some places continue to assert that the traditional concept of marriage cannot exist outside of a heterosexual relationship. To them, the male-female relationship has unique capacities and qualities that marriage was meant to recognize and foster that are not adequately acknowledged by the above definition.

Defenders of so-called "traditional marriage," that is, the union of one man and one woman, argue that only a heterosexual union can provide the procreative foundation of the family unit that they see as the chief social building block of civilization. They argue that the definition proposed by same-sex marriage advocates changes the social importance of marriage from morality to custom. As any customary relationship may be considered "marriage&quot some argue that this then leads to undue legislative burden and an affront to the social value and responsibility of parenting one's own children.

Some same-sex marriage proponents, such as Andrew Sullivan, argue that their definition retains enough moral underpinning to support the familial role marriage plays in society despite the absence of a direct (that is, unassisted by medical or social agencies) procreative element. Others argue that marriage no longer retains a procreative interest to the government, and that the other measures should replace marriage in ensuring parental responsibility.

The fact that changes in the customs and protocols of marriage often occur gives rise to the argument that marriage is dynamic, and same-gender acceptance is only the latest evolution of the institution. Some societies have from ancient times permitted spouses to have multiple concurrent marriages while many societies discourage this practice today. When a man legally takes more than one wife, it is called polygamy; when a woman marries multiple men, it is called polyandry. In polygamous and polyandrous marriages one person, a man or a woman, takes many spouses; these spouses are not married to each other, but are all married to the same person. Bigamy is the unlawful concurrent taking of more than one spouse. Marriages in which three or more people all marry each other are called "group marriages," and very rare.

There have been many ritual homosexual unions practiced historically that provide many of the same benefits entitled traditionally to marriages. Some cultures have considered a set of strictly defined and regulated homosexual qualities to denote a gender that transcended both male and female. As possesors of a third gender, such people could marry either men or women. Some people in the position to write the law for their country indulged themselves in calling some of their same-gender relationships a marriage, though they assumed no familial attachment. Calling a heterosexual union the same legal term as a homosexual union for a whole state or society is only a recent occurrence.

Arguments in opposition to same-sex marriage

Some opponents object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds, arguing that extending marriage to same-sex couples undercuts the conventional meaning of marriage in various traditions or goes against the word of God, does not fulfill any procreational role, or sanctions a partnership centered around "abberrant" or "immoral" sexual acts.

In countries with monogamous marriages only, some opponents also claim that allowing same-sex marriage will blur other common law precedents and lead to the legalization of polyamorous marriage, or to marriage between family members (incest), marriages of convenience contracted for tax or other reasons, or marriages between humans and non-humans. Some object on the grounds that same-sex couples should not be allowed to adopt or raise children or to have access to reproductive technologies, and that same-sex marriage would make such adoptions easier. Others simply do not recognize any pressing need for same-sex marriages.

A fundamental concern is that the legalization of same-sex marriage will lead to a direct attack via lawsuits against religions to force them to perform marriage ceremonies of which they do not approve, and additionally that established churches could be bankrupted by these types of lawsuits. This is a realistic fear only in jurisdictions which fail to recognise freedom of religion.

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

Some other people object to same-sex marriage on the grounds that the purpose of marriage is a procreative partnership and that the same-sex partnership is inherently sterile. Some who hold this view see marriage as the social codification of an evolved long-term mating strategy, with economic and legal benefits to facilitate family growth and stability. These people generally do not carry over their objections to sterile heterosexual couples.

Many other people, while tolerant towards the sexual behaviour of others, see no reason to alter their society or government's traditional attitudes towards marriage and family.

Arguments in support of same-sex marriage

Some churches, such as the Unitarian Universalist Association, advocate marriage rights for gays as well as straights.

Proponents of same-sex marriage point out that so-called "traditional" concepts of marriage have already given way to liberalization in other areas, such as the availability of divorce and the elimination of anti-miscegenation laws. They also suggest that many people in modern societies no longer subscribe to the religious beliefs which inform traditional limits upon marriage, and no longer wish these beliefs to constitute the law, and further that laws should be protected from religion under the principle of separation of church and state. In fact, some religions celebrate and perform same-sex weddings or commitment ceremonies already. In Canada, for example, the United Church of Canada, the country's largest Protestant denomination, has supported the legalization of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriages are also performed in Unitarian churches, some Reform synagogues, Quaker (Friends General Conference) congregations, and by the Metropolitan Community Church.

In the United States, proponents of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples point out that there are over 1,049 federal laws in which marital status is a factor. A legal denial of rights or benefits afforded to others, they say, directly contradicts the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution which provides for equal protection and substantive due process under the law, meaning that rights conferred to one person cannot be denied to another. In the 2003 case before the Supreme Court titled Lawrence v. Texas, the court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Many proponents of same-sex marriage have noted that this ruling paves the way for a subsequent decision invalidating state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Some conservative proponents of equal marriage also say that the institution of marriage would be strengthened by making it available to more people, and argue further that same-sex marriage would encourage gays and lesbians to settle down with one partner and raise families.

Supporters of same-sex marriage counter the claim that allowing such marriages will lead to the legalization of polygamous/group marriages and incestuous marriages by pointing out that allowing same-sex couples to marry does not change the restriction on the number of people who may contract a marriage, nor does it alter the restriction on consanguinous relationships. They also point out that marriages of convenience are already possible and -- in some cases --legal (so long as they are contracted between people of the opposite sex). As to the possibility of marriages between humans and non-humans, the argument that same-sex marriage will result in such unions is not taken seriously by most commentators.

Publicly noted Same-Sex unions

2004

September 10 - Toronto,Canada - Uzi Even, former Israeli Knesset member and Amit Kama, legal civil marriage

August 1 - Boston,Massachusetts - Cheryl Jacques, former Mass. State Senator and gay rights activist and Jennifer Chrisler, legal marriage

April 1 - Michael Hendricks and René Leboeuf, first same-sex couple to marry in Quebec

March 8 - San Francisco,California - Jackie Goldberg, State Assemblywoman and Sharon Sticker, later voided by California Supreme Court

February 26 - San Francisco,California - Rosie O'Donnell, Ex-TV Host and Kelli Carpenter, later voided by California Supreme Court

February 12 - San Francisco,California - Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, life-long gay activists, later voided by California Supreme Court

2003

November 15 - British Columbia,Canada - Ted Nebbeling former BC Cabinet Minister and Jan Holmberg, legal civil marriage

September 20 - Malibu,California - Melissa Etheridge, Grammy-award winning singer and actress Tammy Lynn Michaels, private union ceremony

2002

January 4 - Stockholm,Sweden - Per-Kristian Foss, Norwegian Finance minister (2001-) and Jan Erik Knarbakk, Norwegian legal union at the Norwegian Embassy

1989

October 1 - Copenhagen Denmark - Axel Axgil and Eigil Axgil, gay rights campaigners and business-men, legal civil union

Bibliography

Why Marriage?: The History Shaping Today's Debate Over Gay Equality by George Chauncey (Basic Books, 2004).
Marriage Under Fire: Why We Must Win This Battle by Dr. James Dobson (Multnomah, 2004)

External links

es:Matrimonio del mismo sexo fr:Mariage homosexuel zh:同性婚姻 nl:homohuwelijk ja:同性結婚