same sex marriage arguments essay

Should Gay Marriage Be Legal?

ARCHIVED WEBSITE

This site was archived on Dec. 15, 2021. A reconsideration of the topic on this site is possible in the future. 

On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is a right protected by the US Constitution in all 50 states. Prior to their decision, same-sex marriage was already legal in 37 states and Washington DC, but was banned in the remaining 13. US public opinion had shifted significantly over the years, from 27% approval of gay marriage in 1996 to 55% in 2015, the year it became legal throughout the United States, to 61% in 2019.

Proponents of legal gay marriage contend that gay marriage bans are discriminatory and unconstitutional, and that same-sex couples should have access to all the benefits enjoyed by different-sex couples.

Opponents contend that marriage has traditionally been defined as being between one man and one woman, and that marriage is primarily for procreation. Read more background…

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1 To deny some people the option to marry would be discriminatory and would create a second class of citizens. Same-sex couples should have access to the same benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. On July 25, 2014 Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Judge Sarah Zabel ruled Florida’s gay marriage ban unconstitutional and stated that the ban “serves only to hurt, to discriminate, to deprive same-sex couples and their families of equal dignity, to label and treat them as second-class citizens, and to deem them unworthy of participation in one of the fundamental institutions of our society.” [ 105 ] As well as discrimination based on sexual orientation, gay marriage bans discriminated based on one’s sex. As David S. Cohen, JD, Associate Professor at the Drexel University School of Law, explained, “Imagine three people—Nancy, Bill, and Tom… Nancy, a woman, can marry Tom, but Bill, a man, cannot… Nancy can do something (marry Tom) that Bill cannot, simply because Nancy is a woman and Bill is a man.” [ 122 ] Over 1,000 benefits, rights and protections are available to married couples in federal law alone, including hospital visitation, filing a joint tax return to reduce a tax burden, access to family health coverage, US residency and family unification for partners from another country, and bereavement leave and inheritance rights if a partner dies. [ 6 ] [ 86 ] [ 95 ] Married couples also have access to protections if the relationship ends, such as child custody, spousal or child support, and an equitable division of property. [ 93 ] Married couples in the US armed forces are offered health insurance and other benefits unavailable to domestic partners. [ 125 ] The IRS and the US Department of Labor also recognize married couples, for the purpose of granting tax, retirement and health insurance benefits. [ 126 ] An Oct. 2, 2009 analysis by the New York Times estimated that same-sex couples denied marriage benefits incurred an additional $41,196 to $467,562 in expenses over their lifetimes compared with married heterosexual couples. [ 7 ] Additionally, legal same-sex marriage comes with mental and physical health benefits. The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and others concluded that legal gay marriage gives couples “access to the social support that already facilitates and strengthens heterosexual marriages, with all of the psychological and physical health benefits associated with that support.” [ 47 ] A study found that same-sex married couples were “significantly less distressed than lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons not in a legally recognized relationship.” [ 113 ] A 2010 analysis found that after their states had banned gay marriage, gay, lesbian and bisexual people suffered a 37% increase in mood disorders, a 42% increase in alcohol-use disorders, and a 248% increase in generalized anxiety disorders. [ 69 ] Read More

Pro 2 Gay marriages bring financial gain to federal, state, and local governments, and boost the economy. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2004 that federally-recognized gay marriage would cut the budget deficit by around $450 million a year. [ 89 ] In July 2012 New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that gay marriage had contributed $259 million to the city’s economy in just a year since the practice became legal there in July 2011. [ 43 ] Government revenue from marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes in some circumstances (the so-called “marriage penalty”), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs. [ 4 ] In 2012, the Williams Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) found that in the first five years after Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in 2004, same-sex wedding expenditures (such as venue rental, wedding cakes, etc.) added $111 million to the state’s economy. [ 114 ] Read More

Pro 3 Legal marriage is a secular institution that should not be limited by religious objections to same-sex marriage. Religious institutions can decline to marry gay and lesbian couples if they wish, but they should not dictate marriage laws for society at large. As explained by People for the American Way, “As a legal matter, marriage is a civil institution… Marriage is also a religious institution, defined differently by different faiths and congregations. In America, the distinction can get blurry because states permit clergy to carry out both religious and civil marriage in a single ceremony. Religious Right leaders have exploited that confusion by claiming that granting same-sex couples equal access to civil marriage would somehow also redefine the religious institution of marriage… this is grounded in falsehood and deception.” [ 132 ] Nancy Cott, PhD, testified in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that “[c]ivil law has always been supreme in defining and regulating marriage.” [ 41 ] Read More

Pro 4 The concept of “traditional marriage” has changed over time, and the idea that the definition of marriage has always been between one man and one woman is historically inaccurate. Harvard University historian Nancy F. Cott stated that until two centuries ago, “monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion” of the world’s population, and were found only in “Western Europe and little settlements in North America.” [ 106 ] Official unions between same-sex couples, indistinguishable from marriages except for gender, are believed by some scholars to have been common until the 13th Century in many countries, with the ceremonies performed in churches and the union sealed with a kiss between the two parties. [ 106 ] Polygamy has been widespread throughout history, according to Brown University political scientist Rose McDermott, PhD. [ 106 ] [ 110 ] Read More

Pro 5 Gay marriage is a civil right protected by the US Constitution’s commitments to liberty and equality, and is an internationally recognized human right for all people. The NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), on May 21, 2012, named same-sex marriage as “one of the key civil rights struggles of our time.” [ 61 ] In 1967 the US Supreme Court unanimously confirmed in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man.” [60] In 2014, the White House website listed same-sex marriage amongst a selection of civil rights, along with freedom from employment discrimination, equal pay for women, and fair sentencing for minority criminals. [ 118 ] The US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in the 1974 case Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause” of the US Constitution. US District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 that Prop. 8 in California banning gay marriage was “unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.” [ 41 ] The Due Process Clause in both the Fifth and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution states that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” [ 111 ] The Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment states that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [ 112 ] Since 1888 the US Supreme Court has declared at least 14 times that marriage is a fundamental right for all. [ 3 ] Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees “men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion… the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.” [ 103 ] Amnesty International states that “this non-discrimination principle has been interpreted by UN treaty bodies and numerous inter-governmental human rights bodies as prohibiting discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. Non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation has therefore become an internationally recognized principle.” [ 104 ] Read More

Pro 6 Marriage is not only for procreation, otherwise infertile couples or couples not wishing to have children would be prevented from marrying. Ability or desire to create offspring has never been a qualification for marriage. From 1970 through 2012 roughly 30% of all US households were married couples without children, and in 2012, married couples without children outnumbered married couples with children by 9%. [ 96 ] 6% of married women aged 15-44 are infertile, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [ 97 ] In a 2010 Pew Research Center survey, both married and unmarried people rated love, commitment, and companionship higher than having children as “very important” reasons to get married, and only 44% of unmarried people and 59% of married people rated having children as a very important reason. [ 42 ] As US Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan noted, a marriage license would be granted to a couple in which the man and woman are both over the age of 55, even though “there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.” [ 88 ] Read More

Con 1 The institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as being between a man and a woman. Civil unions and domestic partnerships could provide the protections and benefits gay couples need without changing the definition of marriage. John F. Harvey, late Catholic priest, wrote in July 2009 that “Throughout the history of the human race the institution of marriage has been understood as the complete spiritual and bodily communion of one man and one woman.” [ 18 ] [ 109 ] In upholding gay marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee on Nov. 6, 2014, 6th US District Court of Appeals Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton wrote that “marriage has long been a social institution defined by relationships between men and women. So long defined, the tradition is measured in millennia, not centuries or decades. So widely shared, the tradition until recently had been adopted by all governments and major religions of the world.” [ 117 ] In the Oct. 15, 1971 decision Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court of Minnesota found that “the institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.” [ 49 ] Privileges available to couples in civil unions and domestic partnerships can include health insurance benefits, inheritance without a will, the ability to file state taxes jointly, and hospital visitation rights. [ 155 ] [ 156 ] New laws could enshrine other benefits for civil unions and domestic partnerships that would benefit same-sex couple as well as heterosexual couples who do not want to get married. 2016 presidential candidate and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina stated that civil unions are adequate as an equivalent to marriage: “Benefits are being bestowed to gay couples [in civil unions]… I believe we need to respect those who believe that the word marriage has a spiritual foundation… Why can’t we respect and tolerate that while at the same time saying government cannot bestow benefits unequally.” [ 157 ] 43rd US President George W. Bush expressed his support for same-sex civil unions while in office: “I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so… I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman. Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others.” [158] Read More

Con 2 Marriage is for procreation. Same sex couples should be prohibited from marriage because they cannot produce children together. The purpose of marriage should not shift away from producing and raising children to adult gratification. [ 19 ] A California Supreme Court ruling from 1859 stated that “the first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.” [ 90 ] Nobel Prize-winning philosopher Bertrand Russell stated that “it is through children alone that sexual relations become important to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.” [ 91 ] Court papers filed in July 2014 by attorneys defending Arizona’s gay marriage ban stated that “the State regulates marriage for the primary purpose of channeling potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring unions for the sake of joining children to both their mother and their father… Same-sex couples can never provide a child with both her biological mother and her biological father.” [ 98 ] Contrary to the pro gay marriage argument that some different-sex couples cannot have children or don’t want them, even in those cases there is still the potential to produce children. Seemingly infertile heterosexual couples sometimes produce children, and medical advances may allow others to procreate in the future. Heterosexual couples who do not wish to have children are still biologically capable of having them, and may change their minds. [ 98 ] Read More

Con 3 Gay marriage has accelerated the assimilation of gays into mainstream heterosexual culture to the detriment of the homosexual community. The gay community has created its own vibrant culture. By reducing the differences in opportunities and experiences between gay and heterosexual people, this unique culture may cease to exist. Lesbian activist M.V. Lee Badgett, PhD, Director of the Center for Public Policy and Administration at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, stated that for many gay activists “marriage means adopting heterosexual forms of family and giving up distinctively gay family forms and perhaps even gay and lesbian culture.” [14] Paula Ettelbrick, JD, Professor of Law and Women’s Studies, wrote in 1989, “Marriage runs contrary to two of the primary goals of the lesbian and gay movement: the affirmation of gay identity and culture and the validation of many forms of relationships.” [15] Read More

Con 4 Marriage is an outmoded, oppressive institution that should have been weakened, not expanded. LGBT activist collective Against Equality stated, “Gay marriage apes hetero privilege… [and] increases economic inequality by perpetuating a system which deems married beings more worthy of the basics like health care and economic rights.” [ 84 ] The leaders of the Gay Liberation Front in New York said in July 1969, “We expose the institution of marriage as one of the most insidious and basic sustainers of the system. The family is the microcosm of oppression.” [ 16 ] Queer activist Anders Zanichkowsky stated in June 2013 that the then campaign for gay marriage “intentionally and maliciously erases and excludes so many queer people and cultures, particularly trans and gender non-conforming people, poor queer people, and queer people in non-traditional families… marriage thinks non-married people are deviant and not truly deserving of civil rights.” [ 127 ] Read More

Con 5 Gay marriage is contrary to the word of God and is incompatible with the beliefs, sacred texts, and traditions of many religious groups. The Bible, in Leviticus 18:22, states: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination,” thus condemning homosexual relationships. [ 120 ] The Catholic Church, United Methodist Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, National Association of Evangelicals, and American Baptist Churches USA all oppose same-sex marriage. [ 119 ] According to a July 31, 2003 statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Pope John Paul II, marriage “was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman.” [ 54 ] Pope Benedict stated in Jan. 2012 that gay marriage threatened “the future of humanity itself.” [ 145 ] Two orthodox Jewish groups, the Orthodox Agudath Israel of America and the Orthodox Union, also oppose gay marriage, as does mainstream Islam. [ 13 ] [ 119 ] In Islamic tradition, several hadiths (passages attributed to the Prophet Muhammad) condemn gay and lesbian relationships, including the sayings “When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes,” and “Sihaq [lesbian sex] of women is zina [illegitimate sexual intercourse].” [ 121 ] Read More

Con 6 Homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, and, therefore, same sex marriage is immoral and unnatural. J. Matt Barber, Associate Dean for Online Programs at Liberty University School of Law, stated, “Every individual engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, who has adopted a homosexual identity, they know, intuitively, that what they’re doing is immoral, unnatural, and self-destructive, yet they thirst for that affirmation.” [ 149 ] A 2003 set of guidelines signed by Pope John Paul II stated: “There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family… Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.” [ 147 ] Former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee stated that gay marriage is “inconsistent with nature and nature’s law.” [ 148 ] J. Matt Barber, Associate Dean for Online Programs at Liberty University School of Law, stated, “Every individual engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, who has adopted a homosexual identity, they know, intuitively, that what they’re doing is immoral, unnatural, and self-destructive, yet they thirst for that affirmation.” [ 149 ] A 2003 set of guidelines signed by Pope John Paul II stated: “There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family… Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.” [ 147 ] Read More

Our Latest Updates (archived after 30 days)

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• Gay Marriage – Pros & Cons
• Pro & Con Quotes
• History of Gay Marriage
• Did You Know?
• Gay Marriage around the World
• Gay Marriage Timeline
• State-by-State History of Banning and Legalizing Gay Marriage
• Gay Marriage in the US Supreme Court: Obergefell v. Hodges

Cite This Page

• Artificial Intelligence
• Private Prisons
• Space Colonization
• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

Free law study resources

No notifications.

Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a law student and not by our expert law writers. View examples of our professional work here .

View full disclaimer

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. You should not treat any information in this essay as being authoritative.

Arguments for the Legalization of Same-sex Marriage

Info: 1588 words (6 pages) Essay Published: 26th Aug 2021

Reference this

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): US Law

To make a valid argument concerning the legalization of homosexual marriage, one must consider a few important factors. First, is whether or not the right to marry one that should be granted to everyone regardless of sexual orientation. Secondly, is sexual orientation an innate feature or a personal choice? Third, would legalizing homosexual marriage threaten the sanctity of the institution itself? Lastly, when making a judgment considering people’s rights, one must consider whether or not that judgment will infringe on the rights of others.

Marriage is important to all families and though civil unions do offer the same benefits and protections, they do not carry from state to state. Benefits such as joint ownership of property, insurance, tax filing status, and the ability to make important medical decisions are not given in homosexual relationships. For example, a gay couple gets into a car accident and one needs surgery of some kind, the partner may not even be able to have visitation rights at the hospital because he or she is not a legal spouse or considered an immediate family member. Just because a person’s relationship does not fit the state’s definition of what a marriage should look like, is it okay to deny them access to their loved ones?

Prohibiting same-sex marriages is an act of discrimination against a minority. There are many laws against minority discrimination including equal protection amendments, the Bill of Rights and anti-slavery laws. Denying the right to marry for a homosexual couple is the same as denying marriage to a Hispanic couple, or even an interracial couple. If civil unions were really the same, why don’t heterosexual couples get them?

On one hand, denying marriage to homosexuals is a violation of religious freedom, as religious and civil marriages are two separate institutions. The main cited reason for prohibiting the marriage of homosexuals is that most major religions consider homosexuality a sin. The Constitution, however, states that religious affiliation and even lack thereof, is to be protected. Civil unions and marriage by the state are not religious rites or activities. Is it to slight a religion to recognize activity as legal that it considers a sin? Hinduism, for example, states that to eat meat is to sin. Is it okay to make a law saying that Americans can no longer eat meat because of this?

On the other hand, as discussed in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Roger Severino explains that the legalization of gay marriage is in direct correlation with telling churches what they can and cannot do. He expresses the fear if gay marriage were to be legalized, churches could not only lose their tax-exempt statuses for refusing to marry people, but they could end up in legal trouble for discrimination. He also says that restricting a church’s right to discriminate would be an attack on their morals and freedom to practice their faith. However, there are already churches who will not allow homosexuals and people of other faiths to participate as part of their congregation, marry couples that have already been living together before marriage, or marry individuals who are single as a product of divorce and this has not affected their tax-exempt statuses or gotten them into legal troubles.

Many studies have been done on the subject of homosexuality and whether or not it is an innate phenomena or a personal choice. This subject needs to be explored to conclude whether or not subject of legalization of homosexual marriage can be treated as a civil right. If it is a personal choice than it could not be treated such. However, if enough evidence can be found that it was indeed, innate then, and only then, can it be treated as a civil rights issue.

According to an excerpt from the Human Genome Project published in the Journal of Homosexuality, “Nearly 50 years of psychiatric research have established that homosexuality is not voluntarily amenable to change.” A separate study published in Science News states that male sexual orientation is genetic, citing that in that study, genes played a role in thirty-one to seventy-four percent of the subjects. Another study from the Journal of the American Medical Association, concluded the same among women. Therefore, to treat someone as a second-class citizen because of their genetic predispositions can be considered discriminatory. It is the way they are born. To be honest, would someone really want to choose to lead a lifestyle where they will have less rights, be treated as a second-class citizen, and be patronized by their fellow students, co-workers and human-beings?

Another factor important to this topic is the role of bias in shaping legislation concerning homosexual marriage. A study published in College Teaching shows that the amount of exposure to LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) issues and lifestyle is in direct correlation with students’ amount of bias and support for equality legislation. After participating in diversity courses which discuss these issues, students showed less prejudice and more sympathy to the plight of LGBT individuals, and were more supportive of legislation which would ensure equal treatment of these individuals. Therefore, it is understood that LGBT education is just as important as the diversity education offered in schools today concerning race and culture.

According to most who oppose same-sex marriage, the idea of its legalization threatens the sanctity of the institution of marriage. If America were to allow homosexual couples to marry, that could clear the way for people to have multiple wives and husbands, people marrying objects or animals, or adults marrying children. However, what is missing in these arguments is what defines the ideal of marriage: two consenting adults. What two consenting adults decide is their ideal form of a relationship does not harm anyone in particular. For example, the legalization of interracial marriage has not made same-race marriages less valid or fulfilling. People did not stop getting married after interracial marriages became legal, and the divorce rate was not affected.

The biggest threat to the sanctity of marriage is the option of divorce, not homosexuality. A recent New York Times article shows that the divorce rate has actually lowered in states that do not have a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Since legalizing gay marriage in 2004, Massachusetts’ divorce rate has dropped twenty-one percent. In comparison, Alaska, which was the first state to make an amendment to its state constitution banning gay marriage in 1998, has had the largest increased divorce rate of over seventeen percent. Statistics show that race, religion, and age do not have a large impact on divorce rates and the divorce rate has been rising steadily despite the lack of recognition of homosexual relationships. In fact, sixty percent of all heterosexual marriages are doomed within their first ten years, and eighty percent within twenty years.

The legalization of homosexual marriage would actually encourage family values and discourage risky lifestyles. Problems such as sexually transmitted diseases which come to mind as associated with sexuality are hallmarks of promiscuity. Marriage encourages monogamy and faithfulness, the types of behaviours that should be encouraged. In his article for Time Andrew Sullivan writes, “For today’s generation of gay kids, all that changes. From the beginning, they will be able to see their future as part of family life…And as they date in adolescence and early adulthood, there will be some future anchor in their mind-set, some ultimate structure with which to give their relationships stability and social support…They [heterosexuals] have never doubted that one day they could marry the person they love.”

Lastly, when discussing the making of a law one needs to be sure to not tread on the rights of others. Would legalizing homosexual marriage affect the legal rights of anyone else? As stated before, a marriage is a legal binding contract between two consenting adults. Those involved in a wedding are the two people that are getting married, the magistrate or preacher or clerk that officiates the marriage, and any witnesses should they choose to attend. In the marriage ceremony or civil ceremony there is no one involved that is not willfully intent on being there. After the marriage license is signed, the last name of one or both of the individuals gets changed if they so choose, they now have a new tax filing status, they have the opportunity to hold joint property, medical decision-making and employee health benefits, etc. No one other than the two consenting adults has rights that change at that point in time. No one else’s rights get enhanced, diminished, or changed.

Concerning this legalization, maybe most importantly one should consider the feelings of the minority involved. In the poignant words of Emerson Collins, “Those who wish to ‘love the sinner and hate the sin’…you can’t. You can’t have it both ways. You cannot love me and hate who I am. It is ridiculous, because at the end of the day, if either of us controlled the government personally, saying that you would create society in a way that makes who I am less than who you are, negates your ability to say you love me.”

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Related Services

• Law Essay Writing Service

• Law Dissertation Writing Service

• Law Assignment Writing Service

Related Content

Content relating to: "US Law"

This selection of law essays, problem questions and case summaries is relevant to students within the US and for law students from outside the country wishing to learn more about the laws and legislature of the USA.

Related Articles

Washington University v Catalona | Analysis

NAME OF THE CASE Washington University v. Catalona, 490 F.3d 667 (8th Cir.(Mo.) 2007). YEAR AND COURT June 20, 2007. United States Court ......

The Doctrine of Judicial Review

In many countries with written constitutions, the doctrine of judicial review prevails. It means that the constitution is the supreme law of the ......

Police Racial Profiling in the US

Many individuals have reacted in different ways concerning the issue of police racial profiling. Some people have supported the issue of police racial profiling while others are against it. ...

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on LawTeacher.net then please:

Jurisdictions / Tags

Our academic writing and marking services can help you!

• Marking Service
• Samples of our Service
• Full Service Portfolio

Study Resources

Free resources to assist you with your legal studies!

• OSCOLA Referencing
• SQE Study Guide
• Legal Case Summaries
• Act Summaries
• Lecture Notes
• Problem Question Examples
• Law Study guides
• UK Law Blog

Freelance Writing Jobs

Looking for a flexible role? Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher?

Evidence is clear on the benefits of legalising same-sex  marriage

PhD Candidate, School of Arts and Social Sciences, James Cook University

Disclosure statement

Ryan Anderson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

James Cook University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

Emotive arguments and questionable rhetoric often characterise debates over same-sex marriage. But few attempts have been made to dispassionately dissect the issue from an academic, science-based perspective.

Regardless of which side of the fence you fall on, the more robust, rigorous and reliable information that is publicly available, the better.

There are considerable mental health and wellbeing benefits conferred on those in the fortunate position of being able to marry legally. And there are associated deleterious impacts of being denied this opportunity.

Although it would be irresponsible to suggest the research is unanimous, the majority is either noncommittal (unclear conclusions) or demonstrates the benefits of same-sex marriage.

Further reading: Conservatives prevail to hold back the tide on same-sex marriage

What does the research say?

Widescale research suggests that members of the LGBTQ community generally experience worse mental health outcomes than their heterosexual counterparts. This is possibly due to the stigmatisation they receive.

The mental health benefits of marriage generally are well-documented . In 2009, the American Medical Association officially recognised that excluding sexual minorities from marriage was significantly contributing to the overall poor health among same-sex households compared to heterosexual households.

Converging lines of evidence also suggest that sexual orientation stigma and discrimination are at least associated with increased psychological distress and a generally decreased quality of life among lesbians and gay men.

A US study that surveyed more than 36,000 people aged 18-70 found lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals were far less psychologically distressed if they were in a legally recognised same-sex marriage than if they were not. Married heterosexuals were less distressed than either of these groups.

So, it would seem that being in a legally recognised same-sex marriage can at least partly overcome the substantial health disparity between heterosexual and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons.

The authors concluded by urging other researchers to consider same-sex marriage as a public health issue.

A review of the research examining the impact of marriage denial on the health and wellbeing of gay men and lesbians conceded that marriage equality is a profoundly complex and nuanced issue. But, it argued that depriving lesbians and gay men the tangible (and intangible) benefits of marriage is not only an act of discrimination – it also:

disadvantages them by restricting their citizenship;

hinders their mental health, wellbeing, and social mobility; and

generally disenfranchises them from various cultural, legal, economic and political aspects of their lives.

Of further concern is research finding that in comparison to lesbian, gay and bisexual respondents living in areas where gay marriage was allowed, living in areas where it was banned was associated with significantly higher rates of:

mood disorders (36% higher);

psychiatric comorbidity – that is, multiple mental health conditions (36% higher); and

anxiety disorders (248% higher).

But what about the kids?

Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue that children raised in same-sex households perform worse on a variety of life outcome measures when compared to those raised in a heterosexual household. There is some merit to this argument.

In terms of education and general measures of success, the literature isn’t entirely unanimous. However, most studies have found that on these metrics there is no difference between children raised by same-sex or opposite-sex parents.

In 2005, the American Psychological Association released a brief reviewing research on same-sex parenting. It unambiguously summed up its stance on the issue of whether or not same-sex parenting negatively impacts children:

Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.

Further reading: Same-sex couples and their children: what does the evidence tell us?

Drawing conclusions

Same-sex marriage has already been legalised in 23 countries around the world , inhabited by more than 760 million people.

Despite the above studies positively linking marriage with wellbeing, it may be premature to definitively assert causality .

But overall, the evidence is fairly clear. Same-sex marriage leads to a host of social and even public health benefits, including a range of advantages for mental health and wellbeing. The benefits accrue to society as a whole, whether you are in a same-sex relationship or not.

As the body of research in support of same-sex marriage continues to grow, the case in favour of it becomes stronger.

• Human rights
• Same-sex marriage
• Same-sex marriage plebiscite

Want to write?

Write an article and join a growing community of more than 186,000 academics and researchers from 4,986 institutions.

Register now

Social Media

• Facebook Facebook Circle Icon
• Twitter Twitter Circle Icon
• Flipboard Flipboard Circle Icon
• RSS RSS Circle Icon
• Culture & Media
• Economy & Labor
• Education & Youth
• Environment & Health
• Human Rights
• Immigration
• LGBTQ Rights
• Politics & Elections
• Prisons & Policing
• Racial Justice
• Reproductive Rights
• War & Peace
• Series & Podcasts
• Presidential Debates
• Supreme Court

Biden Releasing Part of Bombs Shipment to Israel That Was Paused Over Rafah Raid

Amid climate crisis, global warming was glossed over in presidential debate, scotus ruling on homelessness may further endanger domestic violence survivors, immigrant rights advocate silky shah: debate rhetoric was “terrifying to see”, understanding the supreme court argument on same-sex marriage.

Of the nine justices, four are almost certainly in favor of marriage equality, four are philosophically and intellectually opposed, and one is likely for, but not certain.

Boston lawyer Mary Bonauto stood before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 28, 2015, hoping to make history. The civil rights project director at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), Bonauto has spearheaded the legal fight for recognition of the rights of same-sex couples to marry for 20 years. In Goodridge v. Department of Public Health , she convinced the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts to be the first state to recognize that right, doing so under its state constitution, the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Same-sex couples have been getting married in Massachusetts for more than a decade. Now, she seeks a ruling that the US Constitution protects the right to choose your marital partner, which will legalize same-sex marriage in all US states.

I can’t pretend to know what was going through Bonauto’s mind at this moment. Having argued once in the Supreme Court, on a much less important case, I can tell you what I would have been thinking: Damn! All the dreaming, the research, the memos, the briefs, the meetings, the strategy debates, the fights in state courts and state legislatures, the referenda, the wins, the losses, the celebrations, the tears, the incredible weddings, the clients, the lawyers and law students and others who did the work, the interviews, the speeches, the nights lying awake thinking about it, the days and weeks and months when we did nothing else, and we’re finally here. Let’s get it done.

“[S]tates do have primacy over domestic relations except that their laws must respect the constitutional rights of persons.”

Of the nine justices on the Court, Bonauto knew that the votes of four were virtually certain to be in her favor (Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan), four justices were philosophically and intellectually hostile to her position (Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Chief Justice Roberts) and one justice was a likely vote for her, but not certain (Justice Kennedy). Bonauto began with a very brief introduction, and then the justices (except for Thomas, who almost never speaks at oral argument) began to pepper her with questions and she was able to engage them directly on the legal issues to which she had devoted her life.

The justices and lawyers sometimes spoke in a sort of legal shorthand, coded language in which one or two words or phrases encapsulate complex and nuanced constitutional law arguments, some of which have been raging for decades. Frequently, what they were talking about would not be obvious to non-lawyers. The oral argument was not merely about constitutional law, however. It was also about messaging. No one wants a repetition of the controversy engendered by Roe v. Wade , and so both sides here were at pains to paint a potential ruling in their favor in terms acceptable to as many people as possible. Indeed, as it turned out, there was more emphasis on messaging than there was on constitutional law.

Based on the published transcript of the hearing, we can unpack what happened during Bonauto’s argument. She was representing the petitioners challenging the decisions of the courts below that had rejected same-sex marriage, and she was the lawyer who made the first argument. I imagine that she began her presentation anxious about the hostile questioning she would get from the conservative justices. But the first question was a softball from an expected ally, Justice Ginsburg, and it allowed her to set the stage for one of the major issues in the case – federalism. Ginsburg asked what Bonauto made of the fact that the Court has stressed that the federal government historically deferred to the states in matters of domestic relations.

The question of what issues are for the federal government to decide and what issues are for the states has been one of the principal recurring problems of our form of government since the Constitutional Convention. In 1787, the crucial issue was slavery and the compromises that were struck to allow the states to determine whether to permit it were what enabled the union to form. The federal government was given specifically enumerated powers, and all the residual power of government was left to the states.

If the argument is about the definition of marriage, one must ask who gets to define it.

Subsequently, the relationship between the states and the federal government was substantially altered by the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War, which conferred national citizenship on any person born within the United States and constrained the states from depriving any person of the equal protection of the law, or depriving anyone of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The power of the states was further eroded by Supreme Court decisions during the New Deal, which expansively interpreted the clause in the constitution that gives the federal government power to regulate interstate commerce. Conservatives, however, have continued to argue that small government is better than big government, and local government is better than national government. The states’ rights argument today centers around the idea that there are certain issues, such as domestic relations, that have traditionally belonged to the states and that things are better left that way.

Ginsburg could easily anticipate how Bonauto would answer her question and I assume she was giving the lawyer a chance to articulate her position on this issue before the argument really got started. Bonauto’s answer was simple and direct: “[S]tates do have primacy over domestic relations except that their laws must respect the constitutional rights of persons .” The italicized language was a verbatim quote from Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the Court in United States v. Windsor , the 2013 case in which the Court held that the definition in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of marriage as between a man and a woman unconstitutionally denied federal benefits to couples that had married in a state that recognized same-sex marriage. Undoubtedly this was no accident, as Bonauto knew that Kennedy’s vote was the crucial one she needed to win this case. She then went on, “[H]ere we have a whole class of people who are denied the equal right to be able to join in this very extensive government institution that provides protection for families.” So Bonauto came out of the gate immediately making two basic points: the legal argument that same-sex couples have been denied equal protection of the law, and the rhetorical assurance that her position is consistent with family values.

Chief Justice Roberts asked the next question and he quickly attempted to change the nature of the debate. He asked whether the plaintiffs were really seeking to “join” an institution or whether they wanted to redefine it, given that marriage had historically been defined as a unity between a man and woman. Roberts’ apparent strategy was to shift the discussion from one about rights, and whether a class of people had been denied their rights, to a discussion about definitions. To the extent a persuasive case could be made that this is all just about the definition of marriage, an argument can be made that no one’s rights have been violated.

If the argument is about the definition of marriage, however, one still must ask who gets to define it, a matter to which Kennedy immediately turned, in the process revealing one of his hesitations about voting for Bonauto’s position. He said, “This definition [marriage is between a man and a woman] has been with us for millennia. And it – it’s very difficult for the Court to say, oh, well, we – we know better.” With this Kennedy put a very big problem on the table: whether the Supreme Court abuses its power in our democracy. This has also been a question of historic magnitude.

“People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it’s imposed on them by the courts.”

From the beginning of the progressive era at the end of the 19th century, the Supreme Court had struck down as unconstitutional numerous legislative enactments regulating business, a practice it finally ceased in 1937 following the Great Depression and New Deal reforms. The received wisdom of most contemporary lawyers is that by invalidating those statutes based on its laissez faire economic philosophy, the Court usurped the role of the legislature in making policy decisions. Today, when the Court is called upon to recognize new rights, a question that inevitably arises is whether the justices are simply making law, ordinarily the job of the legislature, based on their own political or philosophical views. Major decisions that some citizens found liberating, such as Brown v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade , were viewed as tyrannical exercises of power and deeply resented by others. Based on his decisions in earlier cases, including Lawrence v. Texas , where the Court struck down the state’s sodomy law, which only applied to homosexual sex, it is clear that Kennedy is respectful of the dignity of homosexuals and concerned about their rights. But he is worried about the Court’s institutional position.

Other justices also voiced their concern about this issue. Later in the argument, Scalia raised the issue forcefully, saying, “Well, the – the issue, of course, is – is – is not whether there should be same-sex marriage, but who should decide the point … and you’re asking us to – to decide it for this society.” When Bonauto pointed out that some state courts had recognized same-sex marriage under their state constitutions, Scalia countered, “[T]hat’s not the people deciding it. It’s – it’s judges deciding it.”

Roberts noted how rapidly same-sex marriage has been accepted across broad elements of society. But he cautioned, “[T]hat sort of quick change has been a characteristic of this debate, but if you prevail here, there will be no more debate. I mean, closing of debate can close minds, and – and it will have a consequence on how this new institution is – is accepted. People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it’s imposed on them by – by the courts.” Here we can see the shadow that Roe v. Wade cast on the same-sex marriage argument – apprehension about how much controversy a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage would engender. Scalia and Roberts were articulating their deeply held ideological views about constitutional law – that the Court should play a limited role. But they were also making a rhetorical point: If we vote against Bonauto’s position, it’s not simply because we don’t like same-sex marriage; it’s because we want the people to decide.

Bonauto argued throughout her presentation that the definition of marriage must change because society itself has changed. Thinking about this in the days after the hearing, I wished the argument had been made even more pointedly. Bonauto might have said, “We’re not asking the Court to change the definition of marriage. We have already done that. All the millions of gay men and women who have come together in committed couples and raised children and made homes for themselves and participated as partners in their communities have done that. We just want the Court to recognize the reality of the society in which we live.”

As it developed, Ginsburg explained the decisive relevance of social change for same-sex marriage. Alito had repeatedly asked Bonauto how she accounted for the fact that until the end of the 20th century there had never been a culture that recognized marriage between two people of the same sex. She said, “times can blind,” and emphasized that it took over a hundred years after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment for the Court to recognize that classifications on the basis of sex violated the US Constitution. But Ginsburg, who came to the Court after a lifetime as a feminist academic and a litigator for equal rights for women, provided the underlying explanation. It’s worth quoting her entire statement:

But you wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn’t possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him. There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn’t – wouldn’t fit into what marriage was once.

When one of the justices is helping you at oral argument, you want to run with it and Bonauto did so. She immediately agreed with Ginsburg, adding that under the European system of coverture a woman’s legal identity was absorbed into that of her husband. She argued, “And again, because of equality and changing social circumstances, all of those gender differences in the rights and responsibilities of the married pair have been eliminated. And that, of course, is a system in which committed, same-sex couples fit quite well.”

Alito hammered away in repeated questions about the millennia-old definition of marriage to dramatize what Bonauto was asking the Court to do, but to make a separate point as well. In recent cases in which the Court has protected the rights of homosexuals, it relied on the principle that a bare legislative “desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot justify disparate treatment of that group.” In 2013, the Court held the definition of marriage in DOMA unconstitutional because it found that the principal purpose of the law was to “impose inequality.” In 2003, it ruled the Texas law that made sodomy a crime unconstitutional because “moral disapproval of a group” is not a legitimate government interest that would justify a law challenged on equal protection grounds.

And in 1996, it had struck down an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that deprived homosexuals of protection under state anti-discrimination laws because the Court concluded it was “born of animosity toward the class of persons affected.” Petitioners had argued in their brief that some state laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples were based on animosity toward the LGBTQ community. Alito was making the point that many states defined marriage as between a man and a woman not with the intent of disparaging homosexuals, but simply because for millennia that is what marriage has been. In this way, he was distinguishing this case from the three just described, presumably in order to argue there was no basis in the Court’s precedents for a ruling requiring states to allow same-sex marriage.

The laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman are not neutral on their face; they explicitly exclude same-sex marriage.

Alito’s argument has no force beyond its rhetorical appeal. In essence he is saying, “Why should we have to change the laws? No one did anything wrong; no one intended to cause any harm.” It’s true that the Supreme Court has recently emphasized the need to find culpability on the part of public officials for plaintiffs to win money damages in civil rights cases, but this was not a suit for damages. There is a doctrine that requires proof of intent to discriminate when an equal protection challenge is made to a statute, regulation or practice that is neutral on its face, but operates in practice to disadvantage a minority group. But that doctrine was not in play here. The laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman are not neutral on their face; they explicitly exclude same-sex marriage. Bonauto did not have to prove there was any intent to harm homosexuals to invalidate these statutes.

What, then, did Bonauto have to establish in order to have these laws struck down as unconstitutional? Surprisingly, the justices never squarely addressed that question during her argument. The petitioners claimed that laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples both violated the right of homosexuals to equal protection of the law, and denied them liberty without due process of law, both protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Constitutional law with respect to these claims is very complicated, but the justices did not ask Bonauto directly about the issues. The justices did not inquire about whether the laws could be sustained as long as there was any rational basis for them, or whether the states had to show there was a compelling government interest that the laws served, which would be a much higher standard for the states to meet. That standard would be required either if the Court concluded that homosexuals deserved protection similar to that afforded to people of color, or if it considered the right to choose a same-sex marital partner to be a “fundamental” liberty interest.

Forests have been felled to produce the paper on which these issues have been written about, and Bonauto was no doubt well prepared to talk about them. In their brief, the petitioners had argued that the higher standard applied, both because homosexuals deserved that level of protection from the law and because the right to marry had already been recognized as a fundamental liberty interest by the Court. They also claimed they were entitled to have the laws struck down under the lower standard because there was no rational or legitimate interest served by excluding same-sex couples from marriage. The issue of what the state’s interest in denying marriage to same-sex couples might be was explored at greater length in questions the moderate justices put to the lawyer defending the states’ laws, but not in questions to Bonauto.

There was just one point in the questioning that offered Bonauto an opportunity to articulate her position on the crucial Fourteenth Amendment issues. Justice Breyer took up Justice Alito’s point that the law everywhere for thousands of years has limited marriage to a man and a woman, even among societies where there was no discrimination against LGBTQ people, and asked pointedly why “nine people outside the ballot box” should require states that don’t want to do it to change their definition of marriage to include LGBTQ people. He asked why those states could not at least wait until they could see whether such a change was harmful to marriage in states that have made the change.

Alito asked whether recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry would lead to marriages between siblings.

Bonauto said this is a question of individual liberty, citing the case of Loving v. Virginia , where the Supreme Court struck down the law against interracial marriage. This could have led to several questions probing the finer points of the fundamental liberty interest analysis. Instead, two of the conservative justices wasted most of the remainder of Bonauto’s time for argument on marginal issues. Alito repeatedly asked whether recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry would lead to marriages between siblings, or between a group of two men and two women. But drawing those lines to protect the legitimate interests of society is not that difficult.

Scalia, a devout Catholic, stated that he was “concerned about the wisdom of this Court imposing through the Constitution a – a requirement of action which is unpalatable to many of our citizens for religious reasons.” He then asked several times whether a minister would be required to conduct a same-sex marriage even if he had religious objections to doing so. This was a frivolous argument, as Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer all demonstrated by pouncing on the issue, with Breyer pedantically citing the First Amendment’s proscription that “Congress shall make no law respecting the freedom of religion.” As Bonauto pointed out, the minister would have a First Amendment right to decline to perform the ceremony. Scalia, of course, is smart enough to know that, yet he used up almost 20 percent of Bonauto’s total time on this. It would appear that he was either burning up her time on purpose, or simply pandering to an audience of the religious right.

One of the challenges of oral argument for the advocate is to be able to make her essential points while at the same time answering the questions of the justices, which may or may not be of general importance. Bonauto was able at one point to move from her response to Alito’s group marriage questions to return to the “wait and see” issue Breyer had raised. She argued that “wait and see” is not a justification for failing to act under the Fourteenth Amendment because in the meantime the petitioners would be denied an opportunity to marry and would be confined to second-class status under the US Constitution. “Waiting is not neutral,” she said.

We don’t rely on popular voting to decide whether fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution must be protected.

Roberts responded by conceding that the consequences of waiting are not neutral, but made the point referred to above that the pace of change has been rapid and made his pitch for the advantages of allowing the people to vote. The answer to Roberts is, as the Court has said in numerous cases, that we don’t rely on popular voting to decide whether fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution must be protected. The essence of a constitutional democracy is that certain liberties and freedoms are guaranteed protection despite the fact that a majority might at some point in time wish to deny them to an unpopular minority. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., arguing on behalf of the US government, in support of the petitioners, later made this point as he closed his argument. He said, “But what these gay and lesbian couples are doing is laying claim to the promise of the Fourteenth Amendment now … it is simply untenable … to suggest that … they can be required to wait until the majority decides that it is ready to treat gay and lesbian people as equals.”

Bonauto closed her argument with a strong emphasis on the individual liberty issue, saying, “[I]n terms of the question of who decides, it’s not about the Court versus the states. It’s about the individual making the choice to marry and with whom to marry, or the government.”

We cannot, in this piece, conduct a similarly detailed analysis of the argument of Verrilli, who supported Bonauto’s position, or Attorney John J. Bursch, who represented the states and defended the laws that exclude same-sex couples from marrying. Although there was much that was interesting in those arguments, we must content ourselves with two points here. The first will summarize the essence of Bursch’s defense of the current marriage statutes, and the second will identify the issue that this writer believes will determine the outcome in this case.

Although Bursch may be a very good lawyer, the transcript of the argument demonstrates that he was in over his head in this case. Maybe it’s the hand that he was dealt. It’s not easy to argue against a result that appears to be historically inevitable. Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts may end up voting for same-sex marriage because he doesn’t want to be remembered as someone who stood against the tide of history. The difficult challenge for Bursch was to come up with some legitimate state interest that justifies limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. The one he chose was that allowing same-sex marriages will undercut the principal rationale for opposite-sex marriages, namely to encourage such marriages so that children will be born within families with married parents. If we delink marriage from procreation, in this view, fewer people will marry to have children. As Bursch put it, “But the reason why there’s – there’s harm if you change the definition because, in people’s minds, if marriage and creating children don’t have anything to do with each other, then what do you expect? You expect more children outside of marriage.”

To be fair, this isn’t just Bursch’s argument. This is the best that everyone who opposes same-sex marriage could come up with. To put it bluntly, it’s a stupid argument, with no logical or empirical support, and the moderate justices had a field day poking holes in it. The only way it has any traction, and then not much, is to make the argument one step removed, so to speak. In other words, Bursch argued that the Court itself did not have to buy the argument; all they had to do was agree that rational voters could reach this conclusion, and that such a rational decision by the voters would justify the law. But even that is a stretch. Moreover, if a majority of the Court continues to say that marriage is a fundamental liberty interest, the justification for laws restricting access to marriage has to be more than minimally rational.

The key issue in the same-sex marriage argument is most likely to be human dignity.

The key issue in the same-sex marriage argument is most likely to be human dignity. Bonauto began her argument by saying that as a result of putting marriage off limits to same-sex couples, “the stain of unworthiness that falls on individuals and families contravenes the basic constitutional commitment to equal dignity.” Verrilli began his argument by stating, “The opportunity to marry is integral to human dignity.” Now what is interesting is that “dignity” is not a value that is mentioned in the US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, although dignity is a value that is explicitly protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly, is found in many constitutions adopted more recently than that of the United States, and is highly important in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Justice Kennedy has shown a great deal of interest in these sources in his previous decisions, and in his practice of teaching at the Salzburg, Austria, summer program on international legal studies for 25 years.

In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey , in the decisive opinion in which Kennedy joined Justices O’Connor and Souter writing the opinion for the Court affirming the right to choose an abortion originally established by Roe v. Wade , they wrote that “choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.” In Lawrence v. Texas , where Kennedy wrote the opinion for the Court holding the sodomy law of Texas unconstitutional, he cited that language from the Casey opinion and added that adults are free to choose a homosexual relationship “in the confines of their homes and their private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.”

During Bursch’s argument, Kennedy engaged him in a discussion of dignity that runs over several pages of the transcript. Bursch was concerned enough about the issue to deny five separate times that the states had any desire to deny dignity to anyone. Kennedy’s emphasis on dignity was paramount. He stated near the beginning of Bursch’s argument, “Same-sex couples say, of course, we understand the nobility and the sacredness of the marriage. We know we can’t procreate, but we want the other attributes of it in order to show that we, too, have a dignity that can be fulfilled.” Later he said, “I thought that was the whole purpose of marriage. It bestows dignity on both man and woman in a traditional marriage … It’s dignity bestowing, and these parties say they want to have that – that same ennoblement.”

It is risky to predict the outcome of Supreme Court cases based on what the justices say at the oral argument. But Kennedy’s commitment to the principle of human dignity and his understanding of its role in protecting intimate relationships run deep. If Bonauto and her colleagues succeed in winning the right for same-sex couples to marry, we can expect strong language from Kennedy defending the decision as essential to support human dignity. And an opinion on that ground will move US constitutional law closer to modern world jurisprudence that recognizes dignity as a preeminent value requiring protection.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

An Overview of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

by David Masci, Senior Research Fellow, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ignited a nationwide debate in late 2003 when it ruled that the state must allow gay and lesbian couples to marry. Almost overnight, same-sex marriage became a major national issue, pitting religious and social conservatives against gay-rights advocates and their allies. Over the next year, the ensuing battle over gay marriage could be heard in the halls of the U.S. Congress, in dozens of state legislatures and in the rhetoric of election campaigns at the national and state level.

The debate over same-sex marriage shows no signs of abating. In California, for instance, a high-profile case challenging the constitutionality of a state law banning same-sex marriage was argued before the state’s highest court in early March 2008, with a decision expected by May. 1 A similar suit is on the verge of being decided by Connecticut’s Supreme Court. In addition, Florida will hold a referendum during the November 2008 election on a state constitutional amendment that would prohibit gay marriage. Other states, such as Arizona and Indiana, are considering putting similar referenda on the November ballot.

Supporters of same-sex marriage contend that gay and lesbian couples should be treated no differently than their heterosexual counterparts and that they should be able to marry like anyone else. Beyond wanting to uphold the principle of nondiscrimination and equal treatment, supporters say that there are very practical reasons behind the fight for marriage equity. They point out, for instance, that homosexual couples who have been together for years often find themselves without the basic rights and privileges that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual couples who legally marry — from the sharing of health and pension benefits to hospital visitation rights.

Social conservatives and others who oppose same-sex unions assert that marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of a healthy society because it leads to stable families and, ultimately, to children who grow up to be productive adults. Allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed, they argue, will radically redefine marriage and further weaken it at a time when the institution is already in deep trouble due to high divorce rates and the significant number of out-of-wedlock births. Moreover, they predict, giving gay couples the right to marry will ultimately lead to granting people in polygamous and other nontraditional relationships the right to marry as well.

The American religious community is deeply divided over the issue of same-sex marriage. The Catholic Church and evangelical Christian groups have played a leading role in public opposition to gay marriage, while mainline Protestant churches and other religious groups wrestle with whether to ordain gay clergy and perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Indeed, the ordination and marriage of gay persons has been a growing wedge between the socially liberal and conservative wings of the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches, leading some conservative congregations and even whole dioceses to break away from their national churches. 2

Polls show that frequency of worship service attendance is a factor in the opposition to gay marriage. According to an August 2007 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 55% of Americans oppose gay marriage, with 36% favoring it. But those with a high frequency of church attendance oppose it by a substantially wider margin (73% in opposition vs. 21% in favor). Opposition among white evangelicals, regardless of frequency of church attendance, is even higher — at 81%. A majority of black Protestants (64%) and Latino Catholics (52%) 3 also oppose gay marriage, as do pluralities of white, non-Hispanic Catholics (49%) and white mainline Protestants (47%). Only among Americans without a religious affiliation does a majority (60%) express support.

However, a 2006 Pew survey found that sizable majorities of white mainline Protestants (66%), Catholics (63%) and those without a religious affiliation (78%) favor allowing homosexual couples to enter into civil unions that grant most of the legal rights of marriage without the title. The general public also supports civil unions (54% in favor vs. 42% in opposition). As with gay marriage, white evangelicals (66%), black Protestants (62%) and frequent church attenders (60%) stand out for their opposition to civil unions. 4

The same-sex marriage debate is not solely an American phenomenon. Many countries, especially in Europe, have grappled with the issue as well. And since 2001, four nations — the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and South Africa — have legalized gay marriage. In addition, the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec in Canada now allow same-sex couples to legally marry. 5

The Debate Begins

Gay Americans have been calling for the right to marry, or at least to create more formalized relationships, since the 1960s, but same-sex marriage has only emerged as a national issue in the last 15 years. The spark that started the debate came from Hawaii in 1993 when the state’s Supreme Court ruled that an existing law banning same-sex marriage would be unconstitutional unless the state government could show that it had a compelling reason for discriminating against gay and lesbian couples.

Even though this decision did not immediately lead to the legalization of gay marriage in the state (the case was sent back to a lower court for further consideration), it did spark a nationwide backlash. Over the next decade, legislatures in more than 40 states passed what are generally called Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs), which define marriage solely as the union between a man and a woman. Today, 42 states have DOMAs on the books. In addition, in 1996 the U.S. Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, a federal DOMA that defines marriage for purposes of federal law as the union between a man and a woman. The law also asserts that no state can be forced to legally recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

Beginning in the late 1990s, Alaska, Nebraska and Nevada amended their state constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. These constitutional changes were aimed at taking the issue out of the hands of judges. Conservatives, in particular, feared that without constitutional language specifically defining marriage, many judges would take it upon themselves to read other constitutional provisions broadly and “create” a right to same-sex marriage.

Amid widespread efforts in many states to prevent same-sex marriage, there was at least one notable victory for gay-rights advocates during this period. In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that gay and lesbian couples are entitled to all of the rights and protections associated with marriage. However, the court left it up to the state legislature to determine how to grant these rights to same-sex couples. The following year, the Vermont legislature approved a bill granting gay and lesbian couples the right to form civil unions. Under Vermont’s law, same-sex couples who enter into a civil union accrue all the rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage, though they are not technically married.

The Goodridge Case and its Aftermath

Although the debate over gay marriage for a while seemed to fade from the public eye, the issue was suddenly and dramatically catapulted back into the headlines in November 2003 when the highest state court in Massachusetts ruled that the state’s constitution guaranteed gay and lesbian couples the right to marry. Unlike the Vermont high court’s decision four years earlier, the ruling in this case, Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health , left the legislature no options, requiring it to pass a law granting full marriage rights to same-sex couples. 6

In the days and weeks following the 2003 Massachusetts decision, some cities and localities — including San Francisco, CA; Portland, Ore.; and New Paltz, N.Y. — began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. Television images of long lines of same-sex couples waiting for marriage licenses outside of government offices led some social conservatives and others to predict that same-sex marriage would soon be a reality in many parts of the country. But these predictions proved premature.

To begin with, all the marriage licenses issued to gay couples outside of Massachusetts were later nullified since none of the mayors and other officials involved had the authority to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. More significantly, the Massachusetts decision led to another major backlash at the federal and state level. In the U.S. Congress, conservative lawmakers, with support from President Bush, attempted to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have banned same-sex marriage nationwide. But efforts to obtain the two-thirds majority needed in both houses to pass the amendment fell short in 2004 and again in 2006.

Gay-marriage opponents had better luck at the state level, where voters in 13 states passed referenda in 2004 amending their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. Ten more states took the same step in 2005 and 2006, bringing the total number of states with amendments prohibiting gay marriage to 26. So far, voters in only one state — Arizona in 2006 — have rejected a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. And only New Mexico, New York and Rhode Island have no law either banning or allowing gay marriage.

The same-sex marriage debate may have had an impact on the outcome of the 2004 presidential election. Ohio, which in 2004 was holding a referendum on a constitutional ban on gay marriage, was the state that ultimately gave President Bush the electoral votes he needed to beat Sen. John Kerry. Bush, who narrowly won the state, opposed gay marriage and supported a federal constitutional amendment banning it. Kerry also came out against gay marriage but opposed the constitutional ban and supported civil unions. It has been noted that the president’s share of the black vote in Ohio (16%) was more than his share of the black vote nationwide (11%). Many political analysts attribute Bush’s narrow victory in Ohio at least in part to the fact that some pastors, particularly black pastors, made same-sex marriage a campaign issue, prompting more of their congregants to vote for Bush.

Most of the states that approved constitutional amendments banning gay marriage are in the more socially conservative South and Midwest. In more socially liberal states, the cause for same-sex marriage has fared somewhat better. Since 2005, three Northeastern states — Connecticut, New Hampshire and New Jersey — have joined Vermont and passed laws authorizing civil unions. In addition, Maine, Oregon, Washington state and California have enacted domestic partnership statutes that grant many, though not all, the benefits of marriage to registered domestic partners. In 2006, the California legislature also passed legislation authorizing same-sex marriage — so far the only state legislature to do so. But the measure was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said that the issue was best left to the courts.

But state high courts have, so far, declined to follow Massachusetts’ lead and mandate same-sex marriage. Indeed, in the last two years, a number of top courts in more socially liberal states –New York, Washington state and Maryland — have rejected arguments in favor of gay unions. Thus Massachusetts remains the only state that allows same-sex marriage; more than 10,000 gay and lesbian couples have married there since 2004.

The immediate future of the same-sex marriage debate appears, to a large degree, to mirror the recent past. On one hand, gay-rights advocates are now pushing for court victories in California and Connecticut. Meanwhile, opponents are looking to the November 2008 election, seeking to have constitutional gay-marriage bans placed on the ballot in as many as 10 states, including Arizona and Indiana. No one knows how these various efforts will ultimately end. But it is a safe bet that the issue will likely remain a part of the nation’s political and legal landscape for years to come.

Find More Resources on Gay Marriage at pewresearch.org/pewresearch-org/religion

1 See From Griswold to Goodridge : The Constitutional Dimensions of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate .

2 See Religious Groups’ Official Positions on Gay Marriage .

3 See: “ Changing Faiths: Latinos and the Transformation of American Religion ,” Pew Forum and Pew Hispanic Center, conducted in 2006 and published in 2007.

4 See A Stable Majority: Most Americans Still Oppose Same-Sex Marriage .

5 See Same-Sex Marriage: Redefining Marriage Around the World .

6 See From Griswold to Goodridge : The Constitutional Dimensions of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate .

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Religion & Social Values
• Same-Sex Marriage

Support for legal abortion is widespread in many places, especially in Europe

Public opinion on abortion, 8 in 10 americans say religion is losing influence in public life, how people around the world view same-sex marriage, the pope is concerned about climate change. how do u.s. catholics feel about it, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

The story of marriage equality is more complicated — and costly — than you remember

Danielle Kurtzleben

Same-sex marriage supporters wear "Just married" shirts while celebrating the U.S Supreme Court ruling regarding same-sex marriage on June 26, 2015 in San Francisco. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images hide caption

Same-sex marriage supporters wear "Just married" shirts while celebrating the U.S Supreme Court ruling regarding same-sex marriage on June 26, 2015 in San Francisco.

Americans' views on same-sex marriage have undergone a revolution in a few short decades.

Public opinion on the issue swung so swiftly and decisively — and so little uproar resulted once it was legal nationwide — that one might easily assume the march toward marriage equality was a neat, steady progression.

But it was in fact a decades-long project that moved in fits and starts. As with pretty much any other political movement, there was disorganization and internal squabbling — many in the LGBTQ+ community didn't even see marriage equality as a priority (or even a worthy goal at all) a couple of decades ago.

And, as with other political movements, copious amounts of money provided a lot of the momentum.

All of that is recounted in The Engagement , journalist Sasha Issenberg's exhaustive, engrossing account of the decades-long fight for marriage equality. The NPR Politics Podcast 's Danielle Kurtzleben spoke with him for the show's regular book club feature. Their conversation is transcribed below and is edited for length and clarity.

Danielle Kurtzleben: Let's start with a very basic question: Why was this book important to write for you? Was the goal just to lay out the history of same-sex marriage, or was it something bigger?

Sasha Issenberg: I came to realize as I was working on it, that this was a kind of history of the American culture wars over the last generation — basically over my lifetime.

You know, I'm 41 years old. I started work on this 10 years ago, and it was the point when we were starting to talk about this as the defining civil rights movement of my generation, and I realized I'd been alive for the whole life of this as an issue. And I did not understand how it had emerged, and in many ways eclipsed not only other concerns to the LGBT community, but lots of other points of conflict or tension within our politics. It came in many ways to dominate American social policy debates for much of my adult life.

More same-sex couples eligible for Social Security survivors benefits

DK: This book also gets at how many of the people fighting for marriage equality were in the same boat, but rowing in different directions, is maybe a way of putting it. What are some good examples of how strategy got so messy?

SI: One thing that I think we as political journalists do terribly, and are often unaware of how terribly we do it, is write about conflicts within movements. You'll read or hear stories that say, 'the labor movement is doing X' or 'evangelicals are doing Y,' and anybody who has spent any time talking to labor leaders or evangelical clergy will realize that they spend much more time often bickering among themselves than they do necessarily thinking about how to work in a unified way.

As I dug into this history, that really became clear. What we would call the "gay rights movement" or the "LGBT community," that's a very big coalition, and there are a whole lot of different constituencies: gay men and lesbians who are invested in marriage, [as well as] bisexual and transgender people who often could marry the people that they love, regardless of what state law was about marriage.

And within the LGBT community, there are a lot of different policy concerns. You go back to the 1990s when this debate emerged, and there were people whose top priority was desegregating military and government service so openly gay people could serve, or who wanted just basic nondiscrimination protections, [like] writing sexual orientation into hate crimes laws.

And one of the sort of remarkable parts of the story is not just how ultimately gay marriage campaigners triumphed over opponents of same-sex marriage, but how within their own LGBT community and political movement, they raised the issue of marriage so that it went higher and higher on the list of priorities.

More Republican leaders try to ban books on race, LGBTQ issues

Frankly, a lot of that was driven by money. I told the story of a circle of very wealthy donors led by Tim Gill, who had been a software pioneer. And [he] decides that a lot of his philanthropy is going to be about gay rights. And marriage is the issue that resonates most with him.

Tim Gill attends a charity event to support LGBTQ youth in New York City on June 1, 2015. Bennett Raglin/Getty Images for GLSEN hide caption

And he ends up bringing together a circle of like-minded donors, almost all of whom are men who have either made their money through founding companies or through inheritance, who are very concerned about marriage — I think in part because very wealthy people spend a lot of time worrying about estate planning.

They build an infrastructure that is focused on marriage above — and maybe at the expense of — some of these other priorities and help bring together some of the leading lawyers and strategists in the movement.

I write about a meeting that they had in the spring of 2005, when a lot of gay rights activists saw this cause at a low point, and they set out a path to get a winning case before the Supreme Court within 20 years.

That forced other, established gay rights groups like the Human Rights Campaign or the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force to adjust their priorities, because they realized that the major money within their community cared about marriage. And if they weren't doing marriage work, they were going to lose out on some of that funding.

The U.S. Navy has christened a ship named after slain gay rights leader Harvey Milk

DK: Let's talk about the Supreme Court, which of course is a huge part of this book. You really get at the complex relationship between the Supreme Court and public opinion, and this is the thing that I'm always curious about: is it something justices pay attention to, and how does it affect them?

SI: We have a tough time figuring out what justices pay attention to because they're often not in real time public about their thoughts. But all the folks who are working on this issue operated from the assumption that the justices were not operating in some sort of vacuum — purposeful or inadvertent — in which they were oblivious to what was going on in the world around them.

And so in that 2005 strategy meeting I mentioned, they map out a 20-year path to a successful Supreme Court decision. What is seen as wildly optimistic at that point is getting before the Supreme Court in 2025. What they assumed was that the court would be willing to take bold stands for civil rights, as it has in its history, but that they did not want to be seen as working from a minority position — that the court wanted to be in a position where they were happy sort of reining in outlier states, as they did when they struck down school segregation, for example.

Plaintiff Jim Obergefell holds a photo of his late husband John Arthur as he speaks to members of the media after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage rights on June 26, 2015 outside the court in Washington, D.C. Alex Wong/Getty Images hide caption

Plaintiff Jim Obergefell holds a photo of his late husband John Arthur as he speaks to members of the media after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage rights on June 26, 2015 outside the court in Washington, D.C.

DK: But why would the court be worried about public opinion if they're ruling on constitutionality?

As people have said, the court gets its legitimacy from the other branches of government, from state and local governments, and thus from the public. And so, whatever the joke was that the Supreme Court doesn't have any army — they have no ability to enforce their decisions with anything other than both the public and governments that will go along and accept them.

One of the things I certainly expected after the Supreme Court ruled in 2015, that there would be more examples of local resistance in conservative states, mostly in the South and the rural West, where I thought there would be county clerks, county executives, governors, state attorneys general who said, "We will not enforce this order." And ultimately almost all of them dropped their opposition pretty quickly. I think that is a sign of a legitimacy that the court has earned over years by not taking decisions that public opinion and local politicians would not be willing to sustain. I think that's the big deal that we've had since the founding of the republic that gives court decisions their force.

DK: Another big question that I think a lot of us have continually had is, how exactly did opinion on same-sex marriage change? It has swung so decisively towards marriage equality during our lifetimes.

SI: Yeah, this is one of the things that drew me into this mystery 10 years ago. I was having a lot of conversations with pollsters who would tell me they had not seen opinion on a single issue move as quickly as it moved on marriage. And at that point, attitudes were moving 4 or 5 percentage points a year, only in one direction.

People now, in part, I think because of pop culture or general cultural acceptance, feel more comfortable coming out than they did a generation ago. People are realizing that they know people who are gay. Social scientists call this "contact theory" — the idea that we become more sympathetic or friendly due to the concerns of people once we've had personal contact with them. And it becomes a lot easier to be open, I think, to the arguments for same-sex marriage and more resistant to the arguments that were made against it when you know somebody in your life who is gay or lesbian and see the fundamental humanity of them, and in a certain way, the fundamental modesty of the demand for them to share their life with somebody they love.

Latin America

Chile's congress approves same-sex marriage by an overwhelming majority.

DK: There's one question that we got from various listeners, including Vidya Ravella. She asked, "What's the action plan for all the legal challenges that are expected? If there's a concerted effort to overturn this right, as is expected, this is the next fight, particularly if Roe is overturned this summer."

So before we even get to this question, maybe let's back up and ask how likely do you think it is that Obergefell could be overturned?

I do not think that there is any serious likelihood that the core holding of Obergefell , that the fundamental right to marry should extend to same-sex couples, is in doubt. And I think a large part of that is that it is politically unappealing. There's not a political demand for it the way there is a political demand for a change in abortion laws around the country.

I certainly understand why the fear is there for folks. But I think it's worth looking at the intersection of law and politics. Since the Obergefell decision, there were three Supreme Court justices appointed by a Republican president. Many people wanted to know their positions on Roe v. Wade . Nobody cared [about] their positions on Obergefell . Groups are focused on other issues now. Once you get to a point where these justices see 70% of the country looking the other way, regardless of what their sort of personal preferences might be, I think that that becomes a really significant impediment to them taking up this cause.

DK: Does that make marriage equality a unique issue, in that it's much harder to make the case that a same-sex marriage infringes upon your personal rights if you are in a heterosexual marriage? It's harder to make that case than, for example, to make the case that abortion opponents do, that an abortion hurts someone, or as another example, that affirmative action takes something away from someone. Is marriage equality just in its own class?

SI: You can look back at the history of social movements in the United States as on one hand, as these sort of contests over public values, over justice, liberty, freedom, privacy, fairness. You can also often read them very clearly as competitions for scarce resources.

So when women demanded property rights, husbands and fathers saw that as a challenge to their wealth. When women and African Americans demanded the vote, white men saw it as a threat to their political power, and the effort to expand rights or opportunities for immigrants has been seen by native-born people as a threat to their jobs and public benefits. Desegregation of schools set up this rivalry for places in neighborhood institutions on which people saw their property values implicated.

As you say, affirmative action, maybe in the purest sense, sets up a rivalry for jobs or places in academic institutions. Even the Americans with Disabilities Act may force landlords or developers to shift some of their budgets to paying for things that they might not have wanted to pay for. In every case, the majority had to give something up, something tangible to the demands of justice by a minority, right? And I think that that is a really important difference here, and I think made it very difficult to sustain opposition to this, because there weren't really stakeholders on the other side.

Religious, Governmental and Social Views on Same-Sex Marriage Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Religious and social views on same-sex marriage, government legislation and same-sex marriages, legal rights and non-discrimination, reference list.

The concept of same-sex marriage is considered to be a union that is recognized by the state in both a social and legal context wherein the marriage of two individuals of the same sex is considered to be legally and socially binding. It must be noted though that its inception and implementation within a few U.S. states and countries have only been established within the past decade and a half.

In fact, the very concept itself is widely considered to be the result of the gay rights movement that gained popularity in the U.S. during the early 1960s which subsequently spread to a worldwide gay community as a direct result of its popularity and the freedoms it entailed.

What must be understood though is that while the concept of same-sex marriage exists it is not widely accepted within the general population; in fact, it is often considered to be a social aberration which has actually resulted in delays in its widespread acceptance and institution as a standard practice (Sherkat et al., 2010).

An examination of the underlying factors behind this apparent resistance to the implementation of same-sex marriage as a standard social institution reveals that religious and social precedent play distinct roles in promoting the idea that allowing same-sex marriage is an aberration towards what is normal (Ellison et al. 2011). It must be noted though that such arguments are based on historical precedent rather than factual evidence indicating that same-sex marriage is actually bad for society.

Further examination of the issue reveals that there are actually no adverse effects beyond that of social aesthetics in implementing same-sex marriages. Society is already well aware and has somewhat accepted the fact that same-sex relationships do, in fact, exist. Extending such relationships towards a legalized union does no apparent harm to society and thus can be considered an inherent right of an individual.

It is on this basis of inherent rights that various countries and states in the U.S. have begun to adopt new forms of legislation that actually allow same-sex civil unions (marriages) since it is argued that people have an inherent right to choose who they want to marry with religious and social institutions having no right to interfere with a person’s inherent freedoms.

What must be understood is that the basis for the creation of recent legislation allowing same-sex unions is not one where the unions are inherently approved of based on the predilections of the individual actors or groups that brought about the legislation in the first place but rather are a direct result of responding to the request of a community within a nation who are advocating their right to a civil union bases on their inherent human rights which the state has the responsibility to uphold.

The basis for this apparent social abhorrence behind the act is actually the result of two distinct factors, namely: religion and the adherence to traditional partnerships within society.

Religion, particularly Christian and Muslim groups, are thoroughly against the concept of same-sex marriage and due to their population majority within society with both groups numbering in the 2 billion to 3 billion range this means that a large percentage of community already has developed the preconceived notion that same-sex marriages are a travesty and are against the natural order.

It must be noted though that while a majority of Middle Eastern countries are thoroughly against the concept of same-sex marriages a large percentage of countries, of whom most of the population is inclined towards Christianity, are actually more tolerant of the concept of lesbians, gays, bi-sexual and transsexuals (LGBT) (Ellison et al. 2011).

This tolerance though, should not be considered as thorough acceptance since LGBT groups within such countries still experience various forms of harassment and discrimination. An examination of the different arguments presented by religious groups against the act of same-sex marriages usually coincides with various references towards religious texts which specifically state that same-sex marriages are not allowed within their respective religions (Healy, 2011).

The attitude of religious groups has extended towards presenting the message that LGBTs are an aberration to the natural order of the world and as such claim that these individuals will not go to heaven and are destined for hell (Healy, 2011). While such messages are highly inappropriate, they are actually keeping with the rather conservative nature of religious groups who are usually at odds with liberal ideas of which same-sex marriages are extensions of.

Another factor that has caused delays towards the adoption of same-sex marriages as a standard practice is the traditional idea of man-woman partnerships within society. As noted by institutional theory, people are more likely to adhere to traditional financial, economic, government or social institutions despite their inefficiency and the presence of better alternatives due to the fact that they have been around for such a long period of time.

This longevity is thus equated towards stability which most people consider vital in everyday existence. When applying this particular concept towards the establishment of same-sex marriages as a new social institution it becomes obvious that people would initially be against it and would not immediately accept it due to the fact that it is relatively new and that they prefer to stick to traditional social institutions as their basis for defining what is and what is not acceptable within society (Sherkat et al., 2010).

As such it can be seen that religion and traditional societal concepts are one of the inherent problems behind widespread acceptance of the practice of same-sex marriage however what must be understood is that while religions and established social norms are inherent parts of society they are categorized under influential aspects of society rather than binding legal institutions (Messerli, 2011).

Religions and societal norms cannot enact legislation in government, they can be thought of as methods to influence the creation of legislation but in the end individual actors or groups within the government are the primary creators of all legislation and as such it is only them that can determine whether the act of same-sex marriage can be considered legal or not.

This is one of the reasons why same-sex marriages are increasingly being allowed in various U.S. states and countries since most legislators and individual actors who help enact legislation take into consideration factors such as inherent individual and human rights when they legalize certain practices and cannot allow themselves to be influenced by social and religious advocacy since when creating effective legislation what is needed is not a person’s religious or social orientation but rather a consideration of the moral and ethical standards behind the creation of the new law or piece of legislation.

On the other hand this also explains why same-sex marriages are not allowed within various Middle Eastern countries since religion and the creation of government laws and pieces of legislation often overlap with the concept of “Shariah law” often taking precedent resulting in individuals being unduly influenced by the necessity of making sure new laws and enacted legislation often stays true to religious concepts and opinions.

When examining arguments in support of same-sex marriage terms such as “inherent human rights” and “non-discrimination” are often used as methods of justification for same-sex marriages. It is argued that people have an inherent human right to freely marry who they choose to and as such the state should support such unions. This particular argument is based on the freedom of choice, which is cited in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which most states ascribe to (Barry, 2011).

What must be understood is that states have the inherent responsibility to uphold the basic human rights of its citizens. While some states such as China, the Middle East and several countries within Africa do limit certain human rights in favor of national security the fact remains that states that are set in a more democratic orientation (such as the U.S.) do often take into account the individual rights if its citizens in shaping new pieces of legislation (Glass et al., 2011).

Since the right to choose is a basic human right, it is used as method of justifying same-sex marriages since people are entitled to choose who they wish to marry (Glass et al., 2011). What must be understood is that before any legislation is passed that condones a particular action sufficient impetus must be proven to show that such actions are beneficial towards society, the state and are methods of upholding individual rights.

In the case of same-sex marriages this took the form of establishing the fact that a sufficiently large LGBT community is in place within a particular country/state and that same-sex relationships do occur on a regular basis so as to justify the creation of legislation that allows civil unions between same-sex couples.

When examining the justification behind the creation of legislation allowing same-sex civil unions it is often the case that such pieces of legislation are created since it is necessary for the government to uphold individual and community rights, in this particular case it is the inherent human right of same-sex couples to get married (Barry, 2011).

Another factor that should be taken into consideration (which is often expressed by the LGBT community) is their right not to be discriminated against by the government.

The 1960 gay rights movement that occurred as a direct result of the influences of the 1960 Civil Rights movement resulted in the passing of various forms of legislation that made discrimination on the basis of gender illegal within the United States. This particular piece of legislation is often utilized as a basis for the creation of legislation within states to allow same-sex marriage since to limit marriage to people of opposite genders is taken as a form of discrimination under the law.

While it may be true that individual states have the prerogative to subjectively interpret the law based on their inherent predilections that fact remains that it has been noticeable that states are often siding against religious and social groups and are in effect interpreting the law to allow same-sex civil unions.

What must be understood is that from a legislative standpoint, same-sex marriages should be allowed by the law since states need to uphold the individual rights of their citizens. Same-sex marriage is thus continuing to be interpreted under the basis of an inherent right and as such is one of the reasons why individual states within the U.S. as well as other countries are beginning to allow same-sex civil unions.

While it may be true that religious and social institutions vilify the practice the fact remains that the right to choose who to marry is an inherent human right that states need to uphold. As such, the creation of legislation allowing same-sex marriages can be considered an evolution in the way in which the terminology of the institution of marriage is formulated so as to take into consideration the inherent human right of individuals who wish to marry despite being of the same gender.

Barry, P. (2011). Same-Sex Marriage and the Charge of Illiberality. Social Theory & Practice , 37(2), 333-357. Retrieved from EBSCO host .

Ellison, C. G., Acevedo, G. A., & Ramos-Wada, A. I. (2011). Religion and Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage Among U.S. Latinos. Social Science Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing Limited) , 92(1), 35-56.

Glass, C. M., Kubasek, N., & Kiester, E. (2011). Toward A ‘European Model’ of Same – Sex Marriage Rights: A Viable Pathway for the U.S.?. Berkeley Journal of International Law , 29(1), 132-174. Retrieved from EBSCO host .

Healy, M. (2011). St. Paul, Ephesians 5 and same-sex marriage. Homiletic & Pastoral Review , 111(8), 12. Retrieved from EBSCO host .

Messerli, J. (2011). Should same-sex marriages be legalized? . Web.

Sherkat, D. E., de Vries, K., & Creek, S. (2010). Race, Religion, and Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage. Social Science Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing Limited) , 91(1), 80-98.

• Factors Influencing Perception on Same-sex marriage in the American Society
• Same-Sex Marriage National Legalization
• Gay Marriage Legalization
• Chinese Censorship Block Chinese People from Creativity
• Federalist Paper Number 10
• Citizenship History and Development
• Texas Concealed Weapons: Pros and Cons
• Paul Loeb's Soul of Citizen
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, October 10). Religious, Governmental and Social Views on Same-Sex Marriage. https://ivypanda.com/essays/same-sex-marriage-3/

"Religious, Governmental and Social Views on Same-Sex Marriage." IvyPanda , 10 Oct. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/same-sex-marriage-3/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Religious, Governmental and Social Views on Same-Sex Marriage'. 10 October.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Religious, Governmental and Social Views on Same-Sex Marriage." October 10, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/same-sex-marriage-3/.

1. IvyPanda . "Religious, Governmental and Social Views on Same-Sex Marriage." October 10, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/same-sex-marriage-3/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Religious, Governmental and Social Views on Same-Sex Marriage." October 10, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/same-sex-marriage-3/.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The Fundamental Argument for Same-Sex Marriage

1999, Journal of Political Philosophy

Related Papers

Rowman & Littlefield International

Louise Richardson-Self

http://www.rowmaninternational.com/books/justifying-same-sex-marriage There is massive public interest in same-sex marriage, a controversial topic that is rarely out of the media. This book investigates the extent to which legalizing same-sex marriage can contribute to ending the discrimination and social stigma faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender men and women (LGBT) in the Western world. This issue breaks down into several further questions: can marriage equality be defended without reinforcing the idea that marriage is the most/only valuable form of intimate relationship? Can marriage equality be defended without further marginalizing non-conforming LGBT people? What kind of equality should LGBT people strive for? What critical agency might they lose when this equality is achieved? What institutional legacies should we embrace? The book focuses on human rights arguments supporting same-sex marriage and questions whether they are likely to both justify legal change and encourage shifts in the sociopolitical reception of LGBT people. After critically analyzing various arguments in favor of same-sex marriage, the author puts forward a justification that allows for marriage equality and does not result in the assimilation of queer identities into heteronormative identity.

Nelson Tebbe

159 University of Pennsylvania Law Review PENNumbra 21 (2010)Professors Tebbe and Widiss revisit the arguments they made in "Equal Access and the Right to Marry" and emphasize their belief that distinguishing between different-sex marriage and same-sex marriage is inappropriate. They lament the sustained emphasis on the equal-protection and substantive-due-process challenges in the Perry litigation and suggest that an equal-access approach is more likely to be successful on appeal.Professor Shannon Gilreath questions some of the fundamental premises for same-sex marriage. He challenges proponents to truly reflect on "what there is to commend marriage to Gay people," and points to his own reversal on the question as evidence. Though he stands fully in opposition to critics of same-sex marriage who use the stance to veil attacks on equality generally, Gilreath argues that marriage can be seen as a further institutionalization of gays and lesbians that risks "a...

Journal of Social Philosophy

Richard McDonough

The present paper takes its point of departure from “McDonough’s Logical Argument” (hereafter MLA) that “gays” have traditionally had the same marital rights as “straights”, namely to marry one eligible person of the opposite gender. The present paper argues that, although it might not seem so at first glance, MLA is consistent with full legal rights being accorded to “Same Sex Marriage” (SSM). That is, MLA takes no stand on the substantive issue whether SSM should be legalized, but is merely an attempt to make a purely logical point about the “individuation” (the precise specification) of the right to marry. An illuminating social science fiction example is provided to show that MLA is neutral on the legalization of SSM. The paper argues that philosophical argument per se is largely impotent on these kinds of issues, and that the justification for legalizing SSM is to be found, rather, in the democratic process.

Andrzej Waleszczyński

This article defends the thesis that, in light of the postulates of liberal ethics, it is not possible to put forward universal arguments in support of any form of marriage. The existing forms of marriage should be either deemed unjust or founded on specific arguments recognized within a particular political community and determining the understanding of justice in a particular society. It defends the thesis that the requirement of universality, and consequently of impartiality, is not met, since behind every form of marriage there is a certain " minimum " anthropological approach. Marriage is discussed as a privilege granted to particular groups by the political community. The comments are made with reference to the discussion between Krzysztof Saja and Tomasz Sieczkowski concerning the problem of discrimination against same-sex couples in Polish legislation.

same Sex marriages

cholwe mwanakaba

Politics & Gender

Lorna Bracewell

Revista Direito Gv

Awwal Magashi

As an avenue to guarantee and ensure the enjoyment of right to freedom of private and family life, spouses have been permitted and encouraged by various laws to get married to one another. The concept of marriage has been generally understood and confined within the following meaning: “a legal union between a male and a female with a view to becoming husband and wife. ” Such definition precludes any unionism that may occur between same-sex couples in a manner contrary to the law and public policy. In the recent past, the Government of Nigeria has signed into law a bill known as “Same-Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Bill, 2011”. The Bill prohibits a marriage between two same couples and all sort of matters connected therewith such as forming a union that has to do with same-sex marriage. The prohibition has been supported by the religious declarations, people’s culture, public policy and morals in the country. The passage of the Bill into law has attracted series of condemnations by some ...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

International Journal of Law in Context

Mark D. White

Adrian Alex Wellington

Richard Wingfield

Kenneth Bauzon

New Oxford Review

William Newton

Maxime Rowson

Gregg Strauss

Macarena Saez

Robert Leckey

Glenn Routledge

Ben Williamson

The Sydney law review

Adiva Sifris

Richard L Wilson

Daniele Gallo

Michele Di Bari

Journal of Law and Politics

Peter Brian Barry

25 DUKE J. COMP. & INT'L L. 125 (Fall 2014)

Ivana Isailovic

Shannon Holzer

Federica Liveriero

Heather Wyatt-Nichol

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

Sue Wilkinson

Tyler LeFevre

Australian Feminist Studies

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Explained: Arguments for Same-Sex Marriage

Arguments for same-sex marriage: benefits for lgbt members and the society as a whole, promotion of the principle of secularism, arguments against religious justifications, legal arguments for same-sex marriage, preference for marriage over civil union, other benefits to same-sex couples.

And like in any other marriages, married same-sex couples are, on average, healthier and happier than their cohabiting counterparts or singles based on several studies. Allowing same-sex couples to marry could also further promote the acceptance of the LGBT community and minimize discrimination and bigotry against its members. It is very important to remember that several members of the community have experienced anxiety and depression because of the way society has treated them.

The Importance of Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage for LGBT Community Members and the Society as a Whole

• Gay Marriage: Theological and Moral Arguments
• Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
• Focus Areas
• Religious and Catholic Ethics

Gay Marriage

Theological and moral arguments.

A theological approach that might open up the possibility for greater Christian acceptance of, and ecclesiastical approval for, same sex unions.

Same Sex Marriage Essay

Same Sex Marriage

Gay Couples Should Have the Same Rights As Married Couples Professor PHI 210 June 6, 2013 Same-sex marriage is a topic that has become increasingly more debatable throughout time. America has been said to be the “land of the free,” but when it comes to homosexual couples, it is far from that. If same-sex marriage was legalized, many positive outcomes could emerge from it; the society would be closer to equality, adoption would increase, gained social support for families would develop

Biological Sex-Marriage: “An Alteration to Humanity” Submitted by: Ellicia Jiona Candelaria Submitted to: Mrs. Joan Bataclan ABSTRACT Biological Sex-Marriage: “An Alteration to Humanity” This study describes the advantages and also the disadvantages of couples of the same sex being married. It aims to explore how it affects the society and most importantly the church. Same-sex marriage, popularly known as gay marriage, is a socially or legally reorganized wedlock between two persons of similar

The Marriage Of Same Sex Marriage

years, anxiety toward obviously pervasive same-sex unions reached a peak when the state passed a law promising punishment to anyone entering a same-sex marriage. Today, romantic love between same-sex couples remains largely opposed to the political norm in modern-day America, but American tradition provides for some freedom for praiseworthy and devoted same-sex unions within communities, where the elders officially decide what constitutes an acceptable marriage. The idea has precedence in Scandinavia

11/8/06 Argument Essay Same-Sex Marriage: Not a Match for Society Marriage, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is “the legal relationship into which a man and a woman enter with purpose of making a home and raising a family” (358).Although most people in the United States, including myself, agree on that definition, there are a select few who do not. Some feel same-sex marriage should be legalized; I disagree! I disagree because of its effects on children, its unnaturalness, and its religious immorality

Same Sex Marriage Is the definition of marriage being threatened in the United States? President Bill Clinton signed the federal Defense of Marriage Act into law on September 21, 1996. This Act defined marriage at the federal level as between a man and a woman. The federal DOMA statute ensured that no state would be forced to recognize gay marriages performed in other states and prevented same-sex couples from receiving federal protections and benefits given to married heterosexual couples. On

Same-Sex Marriage

• 4 Works Cited

who puts bread on the table, and perfectly groomed caucasian children who can do no harm. Over time, this image has been altered a bit. The children may have darkened a bit and may have no longer been caucasian because of laws passing interracial marriages around the 20th century due to Loving V. Virginia (Melina Patria). By the 1960s, the women’s rights movement was in full motion switching male and female roles drastically(Human right’s watch). The home may have no longer been spacious and big with

Supporters of gay marriage argue around the concept of equality in America. Our country is said to be found on the principle that all men are created equal, so that make it hypocritical to deny the rights of homosexuals, as it was hypocritical to deny freedom to African Americans or to prohibit women 's suffrage. Supporters also believe that Gays should be allows the same benefits as regular married couples. For instance, only through marriage do same sex couples have the rights to their partner

• 5 Works Cited

Same sex marriage has been a topic on the rise throughout the U.S. It is what some of us may consider one of the more important topics of discussion for this time period. So far 17 states out of 50 have declared same sex marriage legal (States, 2013). Same sex marriage should be legal throughout the U.S. because same sex couples have a civil right to get married, along with a right to have access to the same benefits as heterosexual couples, and to be treated as equals without fear of discrimination

• 11 Works Cited

Same-sex marriage has continuously been contradicted throughout our nation and so the arguments never seem to cease. Some argue the legality of same-sex marriage while others suggest that it compromises the sacredness of marriage. Various religious groups and their supporters in the U.S. tend to either support same-sex marriage or greatly oppose it, depending on their viewpoints and beliefs. Thus, the constant, bitter arguments between these parties. These two groups constantly argue over the validity

married happily in Hawaii. Same-sex marriage is starting to be legalized in states and accepted by many along with that many people are against the idea, same-sex marriage also promotes change and growth. November 21st, 2013 Illinois legalizes same-sex marriage (McDermott). This is an effect that will change the future because there is now a new light it peoples eyes. They now can get married. This may seem like an insignificant feat but it is not. Now when someone in a same-sex relationship gets injured

Popular Topics

• Samsung Essay
• Samuel Adams Essay
• Samuel Beckett Essays
• Samurai Essay
• Sarbanes-Oxley Act Essay
• Sarty Essay
• Satire Essays
• Saudi Arabia Essay
• Sausage Essay
• Savage Inequalities Essay

Same-sex marriage: What you need to know

• Marriage and Relationships

Are same-sex marriages different from heterosexual marriages?

Like heterosexuals, many lesbian, gay, and bisexual people want to form stable, long-lasting relationships and many of them do. In fact, researchers have found that the majority of lesbian, and gay, adults are in committed relationships and many couples have been together 10 or more years.

Scientists have found that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-sex partners largely resemble those of heterosexual partnerships . Like heterosexual couples, same-sex couples form deep emotional attachments and commitments. Same-sex and heterosexual couples alike face similar issues concerning intimacy, love, loyalty, and stability, and they go through similar processes to address those issues. Empirical research also shows that lesbian and gay couples have levels of relationship satisfaction similar to or higher than those of heterosexual couples.

How do laws that limit marriage to heterosexuals affect gay and lesbian people?

Being denied the right to marry reinforces the stigma associated with a minority sexual identity. Researchers have found that living in a state where same-sex marriage is outlawed can lead to chronic social stress and mental health problems . Psychologists are particularly concerned that such stigma may undermine the healthy development of adolescents and young adults.

The families and friends of lesbian and gay couples who are denied marriage rights may also experience negative physical and mental health consequences similar to those experienced by their loved ones.

Do same-sex couples make fit parents?

The vast majority of scientific studies that have directly compared lesbian and gay parents with heterosexual parents have consistently shown that the same-sex couples are as fit and capable parents as heterosexual couples , and that their children are just as psychologically healthy and well adjusted. For instance, one recent study found that children of same-sex couples do just as well in school as children of heterosexual couples, and these children are equally popular among their peers.

Why is marriage so important?

Marriage bestows economic and social support to couples in committed relationships, which can result in substantial health benefits . Researchers have found that married men and women generally experience better physical and mental health than comparable cohabiting couples. Additionally, same-sex couples in legal unions are more likely to remain in a committed relationship than those denied marriage rights.

Taken together, the research shows that there’s no scientific basis for denying marriage rights to same-sex couples, and doing so can adversely affect them as well as their family and friends.

For more information, visit APA’s marriage and family issues for LGBT people page.

This fact sheet is based on APA’s amicus brief in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry and APA’s Public Interest Government Relations Office fact sheet on Marriage Equality and LGBT Health.

Related reading

• Marriage and Family Issues for LGBT People
• Understanding transgender people, gender identity and gender expression
• Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators and School Personnel
• Insufficient Evidence that Sexual Orientation Change Efforts Work, Says APA
• Sexual orientation and gender diversity

You may also like

Good Disagreement: The Same-Sex Marriage Debate Shows We Still Have a Long Way to Go

Joel Harrison

• X (formerly Twitter)

Joel Harrison is Senior Lecturer in the Macquarie Law School, Macquarie University, Sydney.

Australia has now completed its postal survey "vote" on whether marriage should be redefined at law to include the union of two persons of the same sex. 61.6% are in favour of the change.

In the wake of the result, we should spend time reflecting on the nature of the debate and what lessons it may hold for civic - and civil - engagement. In particular, what did this debate reveal about our capacity for respectful conversation ?

Advocates on both sides of the question repeatedly used this term as an aspiration, also indicating that there was a conversation to be had. However, both No and Yes groups claimed offence, vilification and bullying .

This is not surprising. I want to suggest at least two structural and conceptual reasons why the postal survey was ill-suited to engendering respectful conversation. Both reasons transcend the current issue of same-sex marriage, relating more generally to how we engage in moral debates.

First, the debate was characterised by an emphasis on "getting out the vote" or marshalling one's own side; and second, claims of offence and bigotry are how we often stake a political argument in an age focused on rights (or, more specifically, rights-talk of a certain brand).

In contrast, I want to consider an alternative. A truly respectful conversation will be one that sees the task before us as a collective endeavour. In this case: a quest, however contested, to understand the relationship between the good of marriage, the ends of the person, and the goal of politics or formation of a community. In such a conversation, we are responsible to each other in at least two ways: first, rather than simply asserting a subjective right, we are all seeking to understand an objective, shared good, one central to our political community or common life; second, as such, we may see the other person not as an enemy (the "religious bigot" or the "radical gay propagandist"), but as an interlocutor refining our own argument or offering something for contemplation.

But such a conversation arguably also requires shared space for deliberation. We not only need a shared language or goal, but sites for encountering one another in order to cultivate the sense that the other person is someone whose flourishing I have an interest in or care for.

This kind of conversation was arguably not evident recently in Australia, but it is possible.

"Get out the vote"

The very use of a plebiscite - or, in this case, a postal survey - was contentious . In our parliamentary democracy, persons are elected to take part in deliberation orientated towards passing laws for the common good. This entails exercising wisdom - leading popular opinion as much as reflecting on it - in order to discern what that good requires. Indeed, such an exercise requires being attentive to different communities and their claims.

Instead, before reaching this form of deliberation, we have had a postal survey. Here, deliberation is largely replaced with attempting to marshal one's side or "get out the vote." Campaigners have been explicit , stating they were targeting those likely to have sympathy for their position.

This follows from reducing moral and political deliberation down to, ultimately, a yes-no binary. Of course, there may be attempts to engage with and persuade those who disagree, but such attempts are surely rarer when the task is simply one of securing votes.

Doing so can largely take the form of galvanising the base with (sometimes ambiguous) horror stories, explosive wording, "right side of history" claims, or blatant attempts to engage in civic alienation - determining who are the friends and who are the enemies. Such galvanising tactics have typified the Coalition for Marriage , campaigning for a No vote. Its repeated exhortations against "radical gay sex" during the postal survey can only be understood as attempts to rally the troops against a spectre of ambiguous import.

Indeed, the act of persuasion becomes almost entirely an appeal to caution, if not fear. Of course, changing the definition of marriage does raise important questions concerning education and religious liberty. But the Coalition for Marriage's campaign, judging by its publicly available resources, explicitly targeted these concerns alone and did so more in the vein of political slogans - flyers and videos to stir those already committed or those amenable to the messaging. Perhaps ironically, given it is the Coalition for Marriage, material on what marriage is and why this is a good - indeed, something attractive - did not feature heavily in its campaign. Such attempts were instead made by individuals .

Within this context, appeals to respectful conversation appear to have a distinct meaning. They largely seem to concern the liberty to state a view, arguably in order to marshal the base, with the proviso that this must not amount to vilification. Here, the postal survey, with its crystallising of our current debate into a push for Yes and No votes, highlighted how for some the political task has become simply the goal of winning through securing numbers.

Rights-talk

But there is, I think, a second reason why respectful conversation has become difficult: the reigning concepts employed arguably hinder it. In our current debate, rights-talk is particularly prominent. In one banal sense, this is inevitable. Amending the Marriage Act 1961 would create a new rights-claim, entailing a duty on the part of the state to recognise a union between any two persons under the Act as a valid legal marriage.

But the appeal to rights ordinarily says much more than this; typically rights-talk is appealed to as the justification for changing the Marriage Act . For example, in her Monthly essay , Senator Penny Wong principally refers to the "equal treatment of people" which requires "granting the same rights."

What, then, does equality of rights mean? Of course, rights discourse is complicated by different strands or traditions of argument that shape the purpose and content of rights-claims; there is no settled meaning. For example, some have argued that a right to marry is a right to participate in a conditioned role or responsibility that entails certain duties to the spouse and children. On this (typically more Catholic) view, the duty is primary. The purpose of marriage is inferred from the natural relations between men and women, and the building of a community; marriage exists to sustain children and a tradition. But appeals to rights in the current debate typically draw from a different tradition of argument - call it liberal egalitarian .

Senator Wong goes on to appeal to Obergefell , the United States Supreme Court's decision holding that states must extend the status of marriage to same-sex couples. For the majority in that decision, Justice Kennedy stated, "the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy." This was not the Court's sole proposition; however, it was the guiding light or principle. A right is linked to the "liberty ... to define and express ... identity." Marriage is cast as one form of intimate decision central to this. It thus serves the underlying goal of what others have referred to as self-actualisation, self-fashioning, or facilitating different lifestyles. Equality consequently means equal regard or respect for a person's (at least intimate) choices.

Rights-talk is often characterised as a neutral language, transcending different religious and non-religious views. It appears well-suited to the reality of no single view achieving universal acceptance. But I suggest that rights-talk of the kind just described, arguably a dominant strand, can engender conflict and inhibit dialogue.

A person may argue that a choice is not conducive to human flourishing, personally and socially. However, if rights are directed towards equal respect for an individual's freedom to cultivate his or her understanding of the good life, then this moral claim may be characterised as imposing an "external preference" (to borrow from the late Ronald Dworkin) upon the ethical preferences of another individual. Such claims then register in public discourse, and legal decisions, as statements that the other is of less worth because an ethical choice is not being respected.

Framed in this way, rights-talk can contribute to what Steven Smith has called a "discourse of denigration." The strongest available argument is to cast one's opponent as engaging in hate. Thus the prevalence of "bigot" in public discourse. Of course, such bigotry and denigration does exist - homophobia is real, as is animus against religious persons. But the label is frequently extended to an opposing view as such. The person arguing marriage is a union between persons of the opposite sex is not simply raising a definitional or ontological argument, but is rights-limiting, imposing a preference on the freedom of another, and thus denigrating another's identity. In return, this precipitates a counter-claim of bigotry, sourced both in the original claim - labelling one's opponent a bigot is itself a form of bigotry - and any attendant denial of the right to religious liberty.

Unsurprisingly, then, much of our current political argument registers as claims of offence and protest. By this I do not mean protest necessarily linked to a shared good - for example, care of the planet or a cessation of war. Rather, what we now increasingly see in a debate like this is the potential for an almost wholly "negative" phenomenon of protesting against offence occasioned by the rejection of one's own ethical choices. Solidarity is found - and votes marshalled - in mutual offence at, for example, someone believing that children are ideally raised by a biological father and mother or questioning the influence of a person's religious beliefs.

This is deeply ironic. Rights-talk of the kind I am discussing is grounded in equal regard for another's identity. And yet what we actually have much of the time is mutual disrespect . Indeed, if rights-talk refers to respecting an individual's self-actualisation or ethical freedom, then we arguably do not need to engage the substance of the person's actual argument. Rather, each claim is simply a matter of respecting, as far as possible, self-defining.

This presents questions of law: how do we "balance" what are arguably structurally similar claims, if our concern is ethical freedom, namely same-sex marriage and religious liberty? But we are arguably beyond respecting - by, in fact, engaging - the other person's substantive view.

Good disagreement

The alternative is to understand our conversation as a shared endeavour. I have argued that our current debate has two features: politics as simply an interest in securing one's base to win, and a focus on a rights discourse that reflects arguments of personal autonomy and private choice. In contrast, focusing together on the substantive moral question (what is marriage? how does it relate to our common life?) allows, I suggest, for a kind of displaced agreement. Participants may not agree on a particular conclusion - here, whether marriage can extend to a same-sex couple. Nevertheless, they may agree in part, agree on the moral vocabulary, or agree that the differing party is conscientiously pursuing a real human good. This would contribute to what the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, calls "good disagreement."

A conversation of this kind can be fruitful. Here, I am drawing from the structuring of debates within parts of the Anglican Communion. Some churches have grappled with what it means to disagree, while nevertheless seeking and affirming a "right" position. While these debates are not perfect, I think they offer potential insights for our political communities.

Consider, first, how the argument of "traditionalists" argument clearly points to two matters that may make a "revisionist" pause: the status of objective goods in our common life, and the importance of marriage to a civil society independent of the sway of government and market.

Traditionalists argue marriage points to a fundamental unity-in-differentiation. Marriage draws together the two halves of the human race (as the typical cases) in a union that gives positive meaning to gender difference: we need each other, which is then most centrally expressed in the common endeavour of procreation and child-rearing. On this account, marriage is fundamentally "traditional." As John Milbank has argued, it entails forming kinship structures, transmitting virtue and a tradition, and the continuity of humanity itself from one generation to the next.

Framed in this way, the traditionalist argument clearly points to genuine, desirable human goods. Indeed, importantly, it typically contends that marriage is an objective good purposed towards particular ends. This raises a fundamental question in our debates: are there goods whose nature or shaping is not simply a matter of individual will?

Liberal-egalitarian rights-talk in this field can be construed as respecting the choice to enter into a status (marriage). However, there is also more than a hint that this respect extends to the individual's own understanding of what that status is. Such a determination is part of a person's capacity to "define one's own concept of existence." Some commentators then echo this by grounding marriage in contract, which casts marriage as an agreement entailing the allocation of rights and duties as determined by individual willing.

For the traditionalist, this is rank individualism. It adopts a mistaken view of freedom as the absence of restraint, rather than the pursuit of what is truly good. And this view, at one with a neo-liberal focus on choice, then clearly relates to changing practices of child-bearing, which in turn affects the political meaning of the family.

On the traditionalist account, marriage as an objective good entails the potential for a child who is uniquely of these two people. Marriage is political because it is the basis for forming and extending communities; it is our first society. But uncoupling marriage from gender-differentiation (for example, rendering it a matter of contract) potentially transforms parenthood from a matter of natural affinity, with a relative independence and authority, into a subject under the sway of commercial enterprise, contractual design, and state regulation and recognition.

Revisionists can and have responded to these claims.

For example, I have noted previously a consistent thread of argument that characterises marriage as a school of virtue. Marriage on this account is a humanising act - it teaches us, through intimacy with a spouse, what it means to be a person, rightly formed. It orientates us towards our right end of human flourishing - a life characterised by fidelity, patience and charity, for example. It teaches us the disciplines necessary to achieve this. It awakens "knowing yourself to be seen in a certain way: as significant, as wanted." And, in turn, it entails learning to accord and recognise the worth of the other. Thus the Book of Common Prayer states, "With my body, I thee worship."

Grounded in such mutual love and support, the marriage partners can then be a gift to the community. On this, the biopolitical concern of state and market sway over parenthood can be accepted as real, but not inevitable. As a gift to our common life, the marriage may not entail child-rearing at all, or, if it does, it may focus on adoption as a vocation. (Indeed, this would be consistent with biblical images of marriage, which typically do not depend on child-bearing, but point to faithfulness and a place for erotic desire.)

Importantly, here traditionalist claims are not "overcome" by an appeal to rights discourse. Rather, the traditionalist claims are taken seriously, as a partner seeking common meaning. This means the revisionist argument, focused in this way, also discusses marriage as an objective good fundamental to our common life. As Sarah Coakley has noted, it remains "traditional."

I am suggesting, then, that a more respectful conversation - if that is our goal - is furthered by attending to and cultivating a shared language. Here our disagreements may not amount to simply claims of rights-limited, but rather contested conclusions in a shared project: understanding marriage and its importance. Indeed, each side may then be pointing to something right, something of a shared concern or even desire. This does not mean agreement, but it does point to the possibility of some shared norms. And if there can be mutual recognition of the other's argument this should make us more open to the possibility of conscientious difference and disagreement, even as we continue to seek to persuade.

But a respectful conversation arguably requires more than attentiveness to the contours of a debate; it requires a context for this. It requires, in other words, time, space and encounter - all things that arguably were lacking in the compressed context of a postal survey.

For those who see same-sex marriage as a pressing matter of justice, the wait has been too long. This is understandable, but if we are to take conscientious difference seriously and engender a respectful conversation, then time is needed. One unfortunate characteristic of the current debate is the absence of the rhetorical virtue of decorum . Speaking generally, John Perry describes "the arrogant assumption by some that they have been there from the beginning and therefore control the terms of discussion, as well as the foolishness of the newcomer who doesn't wait and listen for long enough to hear what the argument is about." Simply understanding the moral claims, lines of argument and implications from argument found in this debate takes time. But the need for time extends also to building relationships across an "opposing" side.

Reflecting on the parallel debates in the Anglican Communion, Justin Welby refers to "an honest reinforcement of the bonds of relationship." Our moral debates, while fraught, are also an exercise in virtue . Respecting the other person in conversation means cultivating the capacity to care for the other person. This is consistent with understanding our conversation as shared . We share a common life, and so should be concerned with sustaining bonds of trust and even affection. We may come to understand our interlocutors as not simply the holder of a competing view, but as someone who as a member of my community may be a gift to me. They may illuminate a question in surprising ways. Moreover, they may contribute to what Iris Murdoch called "moral perfection." Through active attending to the other person, I may come to see them "justly and lovingly" - virtues that, as she argued, are fundamental to being a person.

That would typically mean cultivating shared spaces for encounter. We may think of this tangibly. Rather than the echo chamber of social media, let alone the world of robocalls and pamphleteering, actively attending to those who share with us the project of discerning and debating right is more likely done in the act of sitting at a table (or in a pew), at which the other person is immediately before us and concrete.

This is not to say that conversation will lead to some kind of middle-of-the-road agreement. Such conversations are not divorced from pursuing the truth. Indeed, from a perspective of Christian political ethics, if not more widely, we are concerned with articulating right - that is, asking what justice requires, understood as discerning right relations within a created order. This requires engaging in criticism where justice goes awry and then arguing for what is right.

However, Christian thought emphasises within this the cultivation of virtues. We are in right relationship not simply when we have reinforced a position with those in agreement, but when we have acted out of an attentive love or else care for mutual flourishing. Respectful conversation consequently means understanding that what is cultivated - the character of the person and of the polity - is an end in itself.

Breaking News

Opinion: As conservatives target same-sex marriage, its power is only getting clearer

• Copy Link URL Copied!

It’s been two years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Dobbs case that overturned the federal right to an abortion, and the troubling concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas in which he expressed a desire to “revisit” other landmark precedents, including the freedom to marry for same-sex couples, codified nationally by the Obergefell Supreme Court decision, nine years ago Wednesday

Since that ruling, the LGBTQ+ and allied community has done much to protect the fundamental freedom to marry — passing the Respect for Marriage Act in Congress in 2022; sharing their stories this year to mark the 20th anniversary of the first state legalization of same-sex marriages, in Massachusetts; and in California , Hawaii and Colorado launching ballot campaigns to repeal dormant but still-on-the-books anti-marriage constitutional amendments.

California Democratic Party endorses ballot measures on same-sex marriage, taxes, rent control

The party’s executive board voted Sunday on which measures they would endorse.

May 19, 2024

This winter, I worked with a team at the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law to survey nearly 500 married LGBTQ+ people about their relationships. Respondents included couples from every state in the country; on average they had been together for more than 16 years and married for more than nine years. Sixty-two percent married after the court’s 2015 Obergefell marriage decision, although their relationships started before before that. More than 30% of the couples had children and another 25% wanted children in the future.

One finding that jumped out of the data: Almost 80% of married same-sex couples surveyed said they were “very” or “somewhat” concerned about the Obergefell decision being overturned. Around a quarter of them said they’d taken action to shore up their family’s legal protections — pursuing a second-parent adoption, having children earlier than originally planned or marrying on a faster-than-expected timeline — because of concerns about marriage equality being challenged. One respondent said, “We got engaged the day that the Supreme Court ruled on the Dobbs decision and got married one week after.”

World & Nation

Same-sex marriage ruling creates new constitutional liberty

The Supreme Court’s historic ruling Friday granting gays and lesbians an equal right to marry nationwide puts an exclamation point on a profound shift in law and public attitudes, and creates the most significant and controversial new constitutional liberty in more than a generation.

June 26, 2015

As we examined the survey results, it became clearer than ever why LGBTQ+ families and same-sex couples are fighting so hard to protect marriage access — and the answer is really quite simple: The freedom to marry has been transformative for them. It has not only granted them hundreds of additional rights and responsibilities, but it has also strengthened their bonds in very real ways.

Nearly every person surveyed (93%) said they married for love; three-quarters added that they married for companionship or legal protections. When asked how marriage changed their lives, 83% reported positive changes in their sense of safety and security, and 75% reported positive changes in terms of life satisfaction. “I feel secure in our relationship in a way I never thought would be possible,” one participant told us. “I love being married.”

The evolution of same-sex marriage

I’ve been studying LGBTQ+ people and families for my entire career — and even still, many of the findings of the survey touched and inspired me.

Individual respondents talked about the ways that marriage expanded their personal family networks, granting them (for better and worse!) an additional set of parents, siblings and loved ones. More than 40% relied on each other’s families of origin in times of financial or healthcare crisis, or to help out with childcare. Some told of in-laws who provided financial assistance to buy a house, or cared for them while they were undergoing chemotherapy for cancer.

Analysis:: Antonin Scalia’s dissent in same-sex marriage ruling even more scornful than usual

The legal world may have become inured to wildly rhetorical opinions by Justice Antonin Scalia, but his dissent in the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision Friday reaches new heights for its expression of utter contempt for the majority of his colleagues.

And then there was the effect on children. Many respondents explained that their marriage has provided security for their children, and dignity and respect for the family unit. Marriage enabled parents to share child-rearing responsibilities — to take turns being the primary earner (and carrying the health insurance), and spending more time at home with the kids.

The big takeaway from this study is that same-sex couples have a lot on the line when it comes to the freedom to marry — and they’re going to do everything possible to ensure that future political shifts don’t interfere with their lives. As couples across the country continue to speak out, share their stories — and in California, head to the ballot box in November to protect their hard-earned freedoms — it’s clear to me that it’s because they believe wholeheartedly, and with good reason, that their lives depend on it.

Abbie E. Goldberg is an affiliated scholar at the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law and a psychology professor at Clark University, where she directs the women’s and gender studies.

More to Read

Opinion: Interracial marriage went from criminal to commonplace. Could it go back?

June 9, 2024

Newsom urges California voters to protect same-sex marriage amid Supreme Court distrust

June 7, 2024

The U.S. has caught up to California on views of LGBTQ+ rights, poll shows

June 6, 2024

A cure for the common opinion

Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

More From the Los Angeles Times

Opinion: Joe Biden has always put duty to country first. Will he do it again now?

Granderson: Debate showed Biden and Trump are terrible, but not equally so

June 28, 2024

Opinion: Did Hawaii just pave the way for court enforcement of California’s climate promises?

Is city status right for East Los Angeles?

Same Sex Marriage Argumentative Essay, with Outline

Published by gudwriter on January 4, 2021 January 4, 2021

Example 1: Gay Marriages Argumentative Essay Outline

Introduction.

Same-sex marriage should be legal because it is a fundamental human right. To have experts write for you a quality paper on same sex marriage, seek help from a trusted academic writing service where you can buy research proposals online with ease and one you can be sure of getting the best possible assistance available

Elevate Your Writing with Our Free Writing Tools!

Did you know that we provide a free essay and speech generator, plagiarism checker, summarizer, paraphraser, and other writing tools for free?

Paragraph 1:

Same-sex marriage provides legal rights protection to same sex couples on such matters as taxes, finances, and health care.

• It gives them the right to become heirs to their spouses and enjoy tax breaks just like heterosexual married couples.
• It makes it possible for them to purchase properties together, open joint accounts, and sign documents together as couples.

Paragraph 2:

Same sex marriage allows two people in love to happily live together.

• Homosexuals deserve to be in love just like heterosexuals.
• The definition of marriage does not suggest that it should only be an exclusive union between two people of opposite sexes.

Perhaps you may be interested in learning about research proposals on human trafficking .

Paragraph 3:

Same sex marriage gives homosexual couples the right to start families.

• Gay and lesbian partners should be allowed to start families and have their own children.
• A family should ideally have parents and children.
• It is not necessary that the parents be a male and female.  

Paragraph 4:

Same sex marriage does not harm the institution of marriage and is potentially more stable.

• Legalization of civil unions or gay marriages does not  negatively impact abortion rates, divorce, or marriage.
• Heterosexual marriages have a slightly higher dissolution rate on average than opposite sex marriages.

Paragraph 5:

Opponents of same sex marriage may argue that it is important for children to have a father and mother for a balanced upbringing.

• They hold that homosexual couples only have one gender influence on children.
• They forget that that children under the parental care of same sex couples get to mingle with both male and female genders in various social places.

Paragraph 6:

Opponents may also argue that same-sex marriages reduce sanctity of marriage.

• To them, marriage is a religious and traditional commitment and ceremony.
• Unfortunately, such arguments treat marriage as a man-wife union only.
• They fail to recognize that there are people who do not ascribe to any tradition(s) or religions.
• Same sex marriage is a human right that should be enjoyed just like traditional heterosexual marriages.
• It protects the legal rights of lesbian and gay couples and allows them to actualize their love in matrimony.
• It enables them to exercise their right to start families and bring up children.
• It is only fair that all governments consider legalizing same sex marriages.

Read on the best motivational speech ideas .

Argumentative Essay on Same Sex Marriage

For many years now, same-sex marriage has been a controversial topic. While some countries have legalized the practice, others still consider it not right and treat it as illegal. Same-sex marriage is defined as a marriage or union between two people of the same sex, such as a man and a man. Some countries have broadened their perspective on this issue even though for many years, it has never been legally acknowledged, with some societies even considering it a taboo. The United Kingdom, Spain, France, Argentina, the Netherlands, and recently the United States are some of the countries that have legalized it (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). Irrespective of any arguments, same-sex marriage should be legal because it is a fundamental human right.

First, same-sex marriage, if recognized by society, provides legal rights protection to same sex couples on such matters as taxes, finances, and health care. If people live together in a homosexual relationship without being legally married, they do not enjoy the security to protect what they have worked for and saved together. In case one of them dies, the surviving partner would have no right over the property under the deceased’s name even if they both funded its acquisition (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). Legalizing same-sex unions would cushion homosexual partners from such unfortunate situations. They would have the right to become heirs to their spouses and enjoy tax breaks just like heterosexual married couples. Legalization would also make it possible for them to purchase properties together, open joint accounts, and sign documents together as couples.

Same sex marriage also allows two people in love to become one in a matrimonial union and live happily together. Denying homosexual couples the right to marry is thus denying them the right to be in love just like heterosexuals do. Moreover, the definition of marriage does not suggest that it should only be an exclusive union between two people of opposite sexes. According to Gerstmann (2017), marriage is a formally or legally recognized union between two people in a personal relationship. As per this definition, people should be allowed to marry once they are in love with each other irrespective of their genders. Reducing marriage to a union between a man and woman is thus a direct infringement into the rights of homosexuals.

Additionally, gay marriages give homosexual couples the right to start families. Just like heterosexual couples, gay and lesbian partners should be allowed to start families and have their own children. Essentially, a family should ideally have parents and children and it is not necessary that the parents be a male and female. Same sex partners can easily adopt and bring up children if their marriage is legalized and recognized by the society in which they live (Gerstmann, 2017). As one would concur, even some heterosexual couples are not able to sire their own children and resort to adopting one or even more. This is a right that should be extended to same sex couples too given that they may not be able to give birth on their own.

Further, same sex marriage does no harm whatsoever to the institution of marriage, and is potentially more stable. According to a 2009 study, legalization of civil unions or gay marriages does not in any way negatively impact abortion rates, divorce, or marriage (Langbein & Yost, 2009). This makes it quite uncalled for to argue against or prohibit gay marriages. In yet another study, only 1.1 percent of legally married gay couples end their relationships as compared to the 2 percent annual divorce rate among opposite-sex couples (Badgett & Herman, 2011). This implies that heterosexual marriages have a slightly higher dissolution rate on average than opposite sex marriages. It could then be argued that gay marriages are more stable than traditional man-woman marriages. The two types of marriages should thus be given equal chance because neither affects the other negatively. They also have more or less equal chances of succeeding if legally recognized and accepted.

Opponents of same sex marriage may argue that it is important for children to have a father and a mother. They may say that for children to have a good balance in their upbringing, they should be influenced by a father and a mother in their developmental years. Such arguments hold that homosexual couples only have one gender influence over the lives of children and that this is less fulfilling (Badgett, 2009). However, the arguments fail to recognize that children under the parental care of same sex couples get to mingle with both male and female genders in various social places. At school, the children get to be cared for and mentored by both male and female teachers who more or less serve almost the same role as parents.

Those who are opposed to same sex unions may also argue that such marriages reduce sanctity of marriage. To them, marriage is a religious and traditional commitment and ceremony that is held very sacred by people. They contend that there is need to do everything possible to preserve marriage because as an institution, it has been degrading slowly over time. Their concern is that traditional marriages are being devalued by same sex marriages which are swaying people away from being married and instead choosing to live with same sex partners (Nagle, 2010). It is clear here that such arguments treat marriage as a man-woman union only and are thus not cognizant of the true meaning of marriage. Moreover, they fail to recognize that traditions and religions should not be used against same sex couples because there are people who do not ascribe to any tradition(s) or religions.

Same sex marriage is a human right that should be enjoyed just like traditional heterosexual marriages. It protects the legal rights of lesbian and gay couples and allows them the well-deserved opportunity of actualizing their love in matrimony. In addition, it enables them to exercise their right to start families and bring up children. Arguments made against this form of marriage, such as that it undermines traditional marriages, are based on opinions and not facts. Moreover, it is not important for a child to have a father and a mother because there are other places in which they actively interact with people of different sexes. As such, it is only fair that all governments consider legalizing gay marriages.

Badgett, M. V., & Herman, J. L. (2011).  Patterns of relationship recognition by same-sex couples in the United States [PDF]. The Williams Institute. Retrieved from https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Marriage-Dissolution-FINAL.pdf .

Badgett, M. V. (2009). When gay people get married: what happens when societies legalize same-sex marriage . New York, NY: NYU Press.

Gerstmann, E. (2017). Same-sex marriage and the constitution . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Langbein, L., & Yost, M. A. (2009). Same-sex marriage and negative externalities.  Social Science Quarterly , 90(2), 292-308.

Nagle, J. (2010). Same-sex marriage: the debate . New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group.

Winter, B., Forest, M., & Senac, R. (2017). Global perspectives on same-sex marriage: a neo-institutional approach . New York, NY: Springer.

Explore a persuasive essay about strengthening community handled by our tutors following the prompt provided.

Example 2: Sample Essay Outline on Same Sex Marriages

Thesis:  Same sex marriage, just like opposite sex marriage, should be legal.

Pros of Same Sex Marriage

Same sex couples are better at parenting.

• Children brought up by same sex couples do better in terms of family cohesion and overall health.
• Children under the guardianship of lesbian mothers perform better academically and socially.

Same sex marriage reduces divorce rates.

• The divorce rates in a state were reduced significantly after the state legalized gay marriages. Higher divorce rates were recorded in states where gay marriages are prohibited.
• Divorce is not good for family cohesion.

Same sex marriage increases psychological wellbeing.

• Bisexuals, gays, and lesbians feel socially rejected if society views same-sex marriages as illegal or evil.
• After some states banned this kind of marriage, bisexuals, gays, and lesbians living there experienced increased anxiety disorders.

Cons of Same Sex Marriage

Same sex marriages may diminish heterosexual marriages.

• It could be possible for children in homosexual families to think that same sex unions are more fulfilling.
• They might want to become homosexuals upon growing up.

For a holistic development, a child should have both mother and father.

• Absence of a father or a mother in a family leaves a gaping hole in the life of a child.
• A child needs to learn how to relate with both male and female genders right from when they are born.

Other non-typical unions may be encouraged by same sex unions.

• People who get involved in such other acts as bestiality and incest may feel encouraged.
• They might start agitating for their “right” to get married to animals for instance.

Why Same Sex Marriage Should Be Legal

Paragraph 7:

Marriage is a fundamental human right.

• All individuals should enjoy marriage as a fundamental right.
• Denying one the right to marry a same sex partner is akin to denying them their basic right.

Paragraph 8:

Marriage is a concept based on love.

• It is inaccurate to confine marriage to be only between a man and woman.
• Marriage is a union between two people in love with each other, their gender or sexual orientation notwithstanding.

Paragraph 9:

opponents of same-sex marriage argue that a relationship between same-sex couples cannot be considered marriage since marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

• However, this definitional argument is both conclusory and circular.
• It is in no way logical to challenge gay marriage based on this archaic marriage definition.

Same sex marriage should be legalized by all countries in the world. In the U.S., the debate surrounding its legalization should die off because it is irrelevant. People have the right to marry whoever they like whether they are of the same sex.

Same Sex Marriage Essay Example

The idea of same sex marriage is one of the topics that have been widely debated in the United States of America. It has often been met with strong opposition since the majority of the country’s citizens are Christians and Christianity views the idea as evil. On the other hand, those who believe it is right and should be legalized have provided a number of arguments to support it, including that it is a fundamental human right. This debate is still ongoing even after a Supreme Court ruling legalized this type of marriage. However, this debate is unnecessary because same sex marriage, just like opposite sex marriage, should be legal.

It has been proven through studies that same sex couples are better at parenting. A University of Melbourne 2014 study indicated that compared to children raised by both mother and father, children brought up by same sex couples do better in terms of family cohesion and overall health. Similarly, the journal  Pediatrics  published a study in 2010 stating that children under the guardianship of lesbian mothers performed better academically and socially (Gerstmann, 2017). The children also experienced fewer social problems.

Same sex marriages also reduce divorce rates. According to Gerstmann (2017), the divorce rates in a state were reduced significantly after the state legalized gay marriages. This was as per the analysis of the before and after divorce statistics. Likewise, higher divorce rates were recorded in states where gay marriages are prohibited. Generally, divorce is not good for family cohesion especially in terms of caring for children. Children need to grow up under the care of both parents hence the need for their parents to stay together.

In addition, same sex marriage increases psychological wellbeing. This is because bisexuals, gays, and lesbians feel socially rejected if society views same-sex marriages as illegal or evil. A study report released in 2010 showed that after some states banned this kind of marriage, bisexuals, gays, and lesbians living there experienced a 248% rise in generalized anxiety disorders, a 42% increase in alcohol-use disorders, and a 37% rise in mood disorders (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). In this respect, allowing such marriages would make them feel normal and accepted by society.

Same sex marriages may diminish heterosexual marriages and the longstanding marriage culture in society. Perhaps, it could be possible for children in homosexual families to think that same sex unions are more fulfilling and enjoyable than opposite-sex relationships. As a result, they might want to become homosexuals upon growing up. This would mean that standardized marriages between opposite sexes face a bleak future (Nagle, 2010). Such a trend might threaten to throw the human race to extinction because there would be no procreation in future generations.

Same sex unions also fall short because for a holistic development, a child should have both a mother and a father. Absence of a father or a mother in a family leaves a gaping hole in the life of a child. The two major genders in the world are male and female and a child needs to learn how to relate with both of them right from when they are born (Nagle, 2010). A father teaches them how to live alongside males while a mother teaches them how to do the same with females.

Further, other non-typical unions may be encouraged by same sex unions. If the marriages are accepted worldwide, people who get involved in such other acts as bestiality and incest may feel encouraged (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). They might even start agitating for their “right” to get married to animals, for instance. This possibility would water down and deinstitutionalize the whole concept of consummation and marriage. This would further diminish the existence of heterosexual marriages as people would continue to find less and less importance in them.

Same sex unions should be legal because marriage is a fundamental human right. It has been stated by the United States Supreme Court fourteen times since 1888 that all individuals should enjoy marriage as a fundamental right (Hertz & Doskow, 2016). In making these judgments, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the Due Process Clause protects as one of the liberties the freedom to make personal choice in matters of marriage. The Court has maintained that this free choice is important as it allows free men to pursue happiness in an orderly manner. Thus, denying one the right to marry a same sex partner is akin to denying them their basic right.

People should also be legally allowed to get into same sex unions since marriage is a concept based on love. It is traditionally inaccurate to confine marriage to be only between a man and a woman. The working definition of marriage should be that it is a union between two people in love with each other, their gender or sexual orientation notwithstanding (Hertz & Doskow, 2016). Making it an exclusively man-woman affair trashes the essence of love in romantic relationships. If a man loves a fellow man, they should be allowed to marry just like a man and a woman in love may do.

As already alluded to, opponents of same-sex marriage argue that a relationship between same-sex couples cannot be considered marriage since marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Based on this traditional definition of marriage, they contend that gay and lesbian couples should not marry. However, as noted by Carpenter (2005), this definitional argument is both conclusory and circular and is thus seriously flawed and fallacious. It is in no way logical to challenge gay marriage based on this archaic marriage definition. That marriage only happens when one man and one woman come together in a matrimony is a constricted view of the institution of marriage. Moreover, there are no reasons accompanying the definition showing that it is the right one or should be the only one (Carpenter, 2005). Therefore, it should be expanded to include same-sex couples. The lack of reasons to support it makes it defenseless thus weak.

Same sex marriages should be legalized by all countries in the world. In the U.S., the debate surrounding its legalization should die off because it is irrelevant. People have the right to marry whoever they like whether they are of the same sex or not. Just like love can sprout between a man and a woman, so can it between a man and a fellow man or a woman and a fellow woman. There is absolutely no need to subject gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to unnecessary psychological torture by illegalizing same sex marriage.

Carpenter, D. (2005). Bad arguments against gay marriage.  Florida Coastal Law Review , VII , 181-220.

Gerstmann, E. (2017).  Same-sex marriage and the constitution . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hertz, F., & Doskow, E. (2016).  Making it legal: a guide to same-sex marriage, domestic partnerships & civil unions . Berkeley, CA: Nolo.

Nagle, J. (2010).  Same-sex marriage: the debate . New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group.

Winter, B., Forest, M., & Senac, R. (2017).  Global perspectives on same-sex marriage: a neo-institutional approach . New York, NY: Springer.

Example 3: Same Sex Marriage Essay

Same Sex Marriage Essay- Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage. Discuss how the idea of gay marriage has changed over the last decade and show the progression of the movement.

Changing Attitudes on Same Sex Marriage Essay Outline

Introduction 

Thesis:  Gay marriage was regarded as an abomination in the early years, but in recent times the attitude of the society towards same-sex marriage is gradually changing.

In 1965, 70% of Americans were opposed to same-sex marriage.

• They cited its harmfulness to the American life.
• Prevalence of AIDS among gay people further increased this opposition.

Social gay movements contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

• Gay movements increased the exposure of members of the society to gay marriage while showing their sufferings.
• Through social movements, the society saw the need for equality and fair treatment of gay persons.

Political movements in support of gay marriage have as well contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

• Political bodies and politicians pushed for equality of gay people in efforts to garner political mileage.
• The influence of politicians changed the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

The incidence of gay people, particularly in the United States has contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

• Increase in the number of gay persons pushed people into accepting gay marriage.
• The media contributed in gathering compassion from members of the society by evidencing the sufferings of gay people.

The judiciary upheld the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.

• In 2014, 42 court rulings were made in favor of gay marriage.
• There are more than 30 states today with policies in support of same-sex marriage.

The increased push for the freedom of marriage contributed to changing the attitude on gay marriage.

• The Supreme Court ruling in 1987 that stopped governments from restricting the freedom of marriage worked in favor of same-sex marriage.

Paragraph 7: 

Supporters of same sex marriage have also increasingly argued that people should be allowed to marry not necessarily based on their gender but on the love between them.

• Restricting marriage to a union between heterosexual couples only creates a biased view of human sexuality.
• An adult should be allowed the freewill to seek for the fulfillment of love by starting a relationship with a partner of whichever gender of their choosing.

Gay marriage has been the subject of social, political and religious debates for many years but over the past two decades, the attitude of the society towards same-sex marriage has changed. Social gay movements and increased incidence of gay people has compelled the community to accept and tolerate gay marriages. The judiciary has as well contributed to this change in attitude by pushing the freedom and right to marriage.

Changing Attitudes on Same Sex Marriage Sample Essay

In the early years, gay marriage was an abomination and received criticism from many members of society. The principal reason as to why many people in society were objected to gay marriage was that it went against religious and societal values and teachings (Decoo, 2014). However, over the past three decades, the perception of society towards the practice has changed. The degree of its social tolerance and acceptance has gradually improved. In the 2000s, numerous social and political lobby groups pushed for a change in insolences towards gay marriage (Decoo, 2014). Though these lobby groups have tried to advocate for the rights of gay people, their principal focus was to change people’s attitudes towards homosexuality.

According to a study conducted in the year 1965 investigating the attitudes of Americans towards gay marriage, seventy percent of the respondents were opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage citing its harmfulness to the American life. Most Americans felt that the practice went against the social and moral values of the American society. In the years between 1975 and 1977, the number of Americans who were not objected to gay marriage increased (Decoo, 2014). However, this number decreased in the years of 1980, when the prevalence of AIDS among gay people hit alarming levels. In the years that followed, the attitudes of the American society towards gay marriage rapidly changed.

The rise of gay social movements has contributed significantly to a change in attitude of the society towards gay marriage. In the early years, people were not exposed to issues of same-sex marriage, but the gay social movements focused on increasing the exposure of gay marriage, while advocating for their equal treatment (Keleher & Smith, 2018). These movements were able to reveal the injustices and unfair treatment that gays were exposed to, and how such unfair treatment tarnishes the image of the society (Keleher & Smith, 2018). The movements persuaded the society to embark on ways of addressing injustices meted out on gay people. Through highlighting these injustices, members of the society acknowledged the need for reforms to bring about impartiality and non-discrimination in marriage.

Political movements in support of gay marriage have as well contributed to changing the attitude of the society towards the practice. As a matter of fact, one of the strategies that gay social movements employed in their advocacy for gay rights were political maneuvering (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The lobby groups approached aspiring politicians, who would advocate for equal rights of gays to garner political mileage. With time, politicians would use the subject to attack their competitors who were opposed to the idea of same sex marriage (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). This increased political support for gay marriage influenced members of the society into changing their attitude towards the same.

The ever increasing number of gays, particularly in the United States, has contributed to a change in the attitude of the world society towards gay marriage. As the number of gays increased in the U.S., it became hard for members of the society to continue opposing this form of marriage (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). Many families had at least one or more of their family members who would turn out to be gay. The perception of gay people by such families would therefore change upon learning that their loved ones were also gay (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The media also played a significant role in gathering compassion from the members of the society by portraying the injustices that gay people experienced (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The society would as a result be compelled to sympathize with gays and lesbians and thus change their stance on same-sex marriage.

Further, the judiciary has also contributed to the change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage. There were states in the U.S. that initially illegalized same sex marriages, prompting gay people to file discrimination lawsuits (Coontz, 2014). Reports indicate that in the year 2014, there were more than 42 court rulings that ruled in favor of same-sex couples (Coontz, 2014). Some critics of same-sex marriage termed these rulings as judicial activism. They argued that the judiciary was frustrating the will of the American society, which was opposed to same-sex marriage (Coontz, 2014). Following these rulings and the increased advocacy for equality and fair treatment of gay people, some states implemented policies is support of same-sex marriage (Coontz, 2014). Today, the entire United States treats the practice as legal, as was determined by the Supreme Court back in 2015.

The increased push for the freedom of marriage has also contributed to changing the attitude on gay marriage. In the early years, there were states, especially in the United States, that opposed interracial marriages, so that a white could not marry an African-American, for instance (Coontz, 2014). In the years before 1967, there were states that restricted people with tuberculosis or prisoners from getting married. Other states also discouraged employers from hiring married women. However, in 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that state governments had no right to deny people of their freedom of marriage (Coontz, 2014). When such laws were regarded as violations of human rights, gay people also termed the restriction of same-sex marriage as a violation of their liberty and freedom to marry.

Supporters of same sex marriage have also increasingly argued that people should be allowed to marry not necessarily based on their gender but on the love between them and their decision as two adults. According to such people, restricting marriage to a union between heterosexual couples only creates a biased view of human sexuality. For example, they point out that this extreme view fails to acknowledge that gay couples also derive fulfilment from their romantic relationships (Steorts, 2015). They additionally contend that an adult should be allowed the freewill to seek for this fulfillment by starting a relationship with a partner of whichever gender of their choosing. Whether they love a man or a woman should not be anybody’s concern. The argument also notes that gay couples who have come out clearly demonstrate that they are happy in their relationships.

Gay marriage has been the subject of social, political, and religious debates for many years but over the past two decades, the attitude of the society towards it has significantly changed. Social gay movements and increased numbers of gay people has compelled the community to accept and tolerate the practice. The judiciary has as well contributed to this change in attitude by pushing the freedom and right to marriage, thereby finally making the practice legal in the United States.

Coontz, S. (2014). “Why America changed its mind on gay marriageable”.  CNN . Retrieved June 23, 2020 from  http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/13/opinion/coontz-same-sex-marriage/index.html

Decoo, E. (2014).  Changing attitudes toward homosexuality in the United States from 1977 to 2012 . Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.

Demock, M., Doherty, C., & Kiley, J. (2013). Growing support for gay marriage: changed minds and changing demographics.  Gen ,  10 , 1965-1980.

Keleher, A. G., & Smith, E. (2008). Explaining the growing support for gay and lesbian equality since 1990. In  Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA .

Steorts, J. L. (2015). “An equal chance at love: why we should recognize same-sex marriage”.  National Review . Retrieved June 23, 2020 from  https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/05/yes-same-sex-marriage-about-equality-courts-should-not-decide/

Our article explores the intricacies of same-sex marriage discourse, offering a debated essay with a structured outline. Explore our speech writer generator free tool and create a good speech.

More examples of Argumentative Essays written by our team of professional writers

• American Patriotism Argumentative Essay
• Argumentative Essay On Marijuana Legalization
• Euthanasia Argumentative Essay Sample
• Argumentative Essay on Abortion – Sample Essay
• Gun Control Argumentative Essay – Sample Essay
• Can Money Buy Happiness Argumentative Essay
• Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay
• Illegal Immigration Argumentative Essay

If you are having any issues choosing a suitable topic for your argumentative essay, worry no more for we have a variety of argumentative topics  to choose from and convince others of your position. Y ou can also get college homework help from Gudwriter and receive a plagiarism free paper written from scratch.

Special offer! Get 20% discount on your first order. Promo code: SAVE20

Related Posts

Free essays and research papers, artificial intelligence argumentative essay – with outline.

Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay Outline In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become one of the rapidly developing fields and as its capabilities continue to expand, its potential impact on society has become a topic Read more…

Synthesis Essay Example – With Outline

The goal of a synthesis paper is to show that you can handle in-depth research, dissect complex ideas, and present the arguments. Most college or university students have a hard time writing a synthesis essay, Read more…

Examples of Spatial Order – With Outline

A spatial order is an organizational style that helps in the presentation of ideas or things as is in their locations. Most students struggle to understand the meaning of spatial order in writing and have Read more…

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Same Sex Marriage Essay for Students

Introduction

The same-sex marriage has sparked both emotional and political clashes between supporters and opponents for years. Although it has been regulated through law and religion in many countries around the world, legal and social responses often range from celebration to criminalisation of the pair.

Essay No - 1

Marriage equality – importance of same sex union.

Back in 2018, the Supreme Court of India passed a watershed judgement that was ordained to go down the archives of the country’s history. In spite of the majoritarian prejudices prevalent in India directed towards the LGBT community, the apex court revoked the draconian and out-dated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. 

This Section, in typically vague and diplomatic terms, belittled homosexuality and criminalised intercourse that goes against the “laws of nature”. It was incorporated into the Indian Penal Code under the British Raj in 1861, and it took the Indian judiciary system 70 years since independence, to abrogate the law and decriminalise homosexuality. 

Nonetheless, the landmark decision was met with euphoria from its proponents, especially the activists who fought for the cause for more than a decade, wrangling with society and courts to attain equality in the eyes of the law. Even though a marriage equality essay is far from sight in a time when it is legal to marry the person one loves irrespective of their gender identity or sex, the decision by Supreme Court portends its occurrence. 

Equality in Marriage

Equality in marriage is an idea, which propagates that all marriages notwithstanding whether it is a Sapphic marriage or gay marriage or heterogeneous matrimony are equal and should enjoy similar rights and status in society.

Unfortunately, our society’s construct is such that we grow up with the idea that only a man and woman can be bound in matrimony. And while doing so, we overlook the multitudes of individuals that associate with different sexual preferences and gender identities. 

While the western world marches toward inclusive societies, where individuals are treated as equals irrespective of their sexuality or gender, we still are in the embryonic stages towards such acceptance. 

If one searches for same-sex marriage essay or statistics, one will find that support for marriage equality in countries like the USA hovers above 60%, a data presented by Pew Research Center. And if one were to rummage through the same statistics for India, it is a dismal 18%, according to a poll by Mood of the Nation (MOTN) in 2019.

Importance of Same-Sex Marriage

Because no change is appreciated until it contributes to the betterment of society in one way or another, proponents of an inclusive society have long contested its importance in same-gender marriage essays and discourses.

We are an overpopulated country and encouragement of marriage equality and an increase in same-sex matrimonies would lead to lower population growth. At the same time, it might witness a growth in adoptions of orphans, which is a significant move towards a holistic society. 

And last but not the least it would be an encouraging shift towards adherence to the laws of human rights, which dictates that no human should live under discrimination, fear, or oppression. 

The seeds of prejudice prevalent in our society, however, will not change overnight. Our traditions and social construct are vastly different from those of western societies. A change in mindset is a process that might take decades and even centuries. 

Nonetheless, the change should begin somewhere. And awareness that every human is equal and their preferences and choices about who they love and marry should not be a ground for discrimination is quintessential to that change. 

Essay No - 2

Same-gender marriage: a threat or blessing for the reunion of two people.

Marriage or wedlock is the cultural union of two people for a lifetime. Considered an integral part of one’s life, it involves both legal and social formalities performed by the two families in concern. Besides, it also comprises regulations and obligations to be followed by the spouses and their children as well as their immediate family members.

However, there have been instances where marriage equality essays have been spoken of by many. These are instances where marriage between couples of the same gender is considered inappropriate. Nevertheless, the global society is evolving and people are coming out of the closet more often than ever before.

How Does the World Perceive?

Most communities are becoming liberal in terms of being more accepting in nature. People by and large are taking a stand to abide by their sexuality. It is no more a matter of shame that has to be kept hidden or shut behind the doors.

Multiple same sex marriage essay has come up sighting the incidents where the couple were accepted by their respective families. In addition, the act of legalization of same-sex marriage has been going on since the past two decades with great vigour.

Countries like the Netherlands, Spain, and Belgium had legalised it in the wake of the 2000s, while other countries such as Canada, South Africa, and Norway followed suit in the upcoming years.

The marriage equality essay has been in the limelight because more people are opening up about the benefits and importance of such marriages in today’s world. The reasons that have fuelled such a dramatic change can be listed below as -

People can be themselves and do not have to try hard to get accepted for who they are.

They are proud of both their individuality as well as sexuality and do not have to wear a mask.

They can plan for the future instead of having to succumb to societal pressure.

Same-sex couples now have the opportunity to live with their loved ones happily, without having to take cover. 

The spread of the same gender marriage essay has been a saviour for many who were not aware of the changes that are taking place all around the world. It has not only made the LGBTQ community aware but also encouraged them to evaluate themselves and take the plunge to raise their voices too. They can now take a stand for themselves and feel relieved that they are not discriminated against anymore.

What is the Scope in the Future?

Although a significant part of the world including countries like Taiwan, Germany, USA, etc. have been able to match the steps with the advancing surrounding; there is still a section who has not. Even now, marriage equality essays and other online content create backlash.

Therefore, it is essential that more people come forward and join hands to the cause of being united in terms of accepting the bond between people. 

Essay No – 3

Same-sex marriage - the changing attitude of modern society.

Most religions and cultures accept that marriage is not a trivial matter but is a key to the pursuit of happiness. However, they still openly criticise the practice of same-sex weddings. Fortunately, the stigma related to homophobia and LGBTQ community is slowly but surely lessening. Better education, introduction to different cultures, and an open mindset played a critical role in this development. 

Let’s discuss the changing attitude of today’s society and the benefits a culture might enjoy in this same-sex marriage essay.

The History of Same-Sex Marriage

During the mid-20 th century, historian Johann Jakob Bachofen and Lewis Henry Morgan made systematic analyses of the marriage and kinship habits in different cultures. They noted that most cultures expressed support towards a heteronormative form of marriage that revolves around union between opposite-sex partners. However, all these cultures practised some form of flexibility while following these ideals. 

Scholars like historian John Boswell often declared that same-sex unions were recognised in medieval Europe, but the most notable changes were introduced during the late 20 th century. 

An Accepting Society

A more stable society was created over the years, with a better understanding of each other and acceptance for the different. As the culture opened its arms to learn about others, it also learned about minority groups such as the LGBT community. Similar to racial equality, or the equality movement for women, growing acceptance of that community ultimately made the commune much more stable. 

Many consider that same-sex unity will only benefit the homosexual community. However, it leaves a much more profound impact on the overall society. To begin with, it will reduce homophobia by a significant margin. Acknowledging a homosexual relationship will also reduce hate crimes in countries like India. There are many research papers and marriage equality essays available that show how communities that allow an individual to choose their partner to enjoy a significantly less rate of crime. 

The Economic Boost

An unlikely benefit of same-sex marriage and a compassionate society towards homosexuals is the economic boost. For one, the wedding and marriage industry is the biggest beneficiary of same-sex marriage, as it increases their customer base by a significant margin. It also allows several business providers to service them, and helps the travel and tourism industry by boosting the number of honeymoon goers.

For example, businesses in New York enjoyed almost 260 million dollars boost within a year when same-sex marriage was legalised. Similar effects were also found in other countries.

Even though India still hasn’t shaken the stigma attached to a same-sex relationship, somewhat modern society is slowly learning to accept the diversity of human nature. With the help of the government, activists, and hundreds of individuals creating and posting blogs, same-gender marriage essays on the internet, society is gradually becoming an understanding and nurturing entity for everyone.

FAQs on Same Sex Marriage Essay for Students

1. Which countries have legalized same-sex marriage and when?

With the advancement in the thought process of people, many countries have passed laws in favor of same-sex marriage, thereby legalizing it in their countries. The first countries to legalize same-sex marriage before 2010 were the Netherlands who legalized it in 2001, Belgium legalized it in 2003, Canada and Spain legalized it in 2005, South Africa in 2006, Sweden and Norway in 2009 and Iceland, Argentina, and Portugal legalized same-sex marriage in 2010. Later on, Denmark legalised it in 2012, and countries like Uruguay, New Zealand, France, and Brazil in 2013, Ireland, Luxembourg, and the United States in 2015, Colombia in 2016,  Malta, Germany, and Finland in 2017, Australia in 2018 and Ecuador and Austria in 2019. The recent country to legalize same-sex marriage is the United Kingdom. Thus, now people have started accepting the idea of same-sex marriages across the world.

2. What is the importance of same-sex marriage and why should it be legalized?

As the world is progressing we all must understand that each one of us is a human being and before labelling us with our caste and love preference, we must learn to respect each other. In this progressing era as more people with same-sex preference are coming up it has become more important to accept and legalize same-sex marriage because of the following reasons:

It will give people a chance to be themselves and enjoy their own individuality.

It will make people understand that loving a person of the same sex is not wrong or abnormal.

It will teach people that it is better for people to spend their lives with someone they love and not with the person whom they don’t even like.

This will make this place a much happier space to be in.

It gives people with homosexuality a hope of a happy life.

3. What is the status of same-sex marriage in India?

Same-sex marriage in India is still not encouraged. In India, neither the laws are lenient nor the people are broad-minded to accept it happening around them. The legal and community barriers never give these people a chance to prove themselves. Indian society is not very welcoming to changes that are different from the customs and culture they have practised till now. Thus, any change in these cultural laws gives rise to an outburst of anger in the country which makes legalising these issues even more sensitive and challenging for the law. India still needs time to get accustomed to the concept of same-sex marriage. However, not knowing about the concept is a different thing, and completely opposing it is different, therefore, awareness about such issues is very necessary for the developing countries so that people can first understand the pros and cons of it and then either accept it or reject it. Not only in India, but in other countries also, the idea of same-sex marriage is not accepted because they think it is against their religion. People opposing the LGBTQ community to get the right to marry their lovers take away the very basic human right of such people. There has been a long-lasting war for the members of the LGBTQ community for their rights. Although there have been some positive results in recent years, for example, the end of Section 377, which criminalizes homosexuality. However, India still has a long way to go in terms of the LGBTQ community and their rights.

4. What approaches can be used to legalize same-sex marriage?

Same-sex marriage is currently not taken in kind words by the people but slowly and steadily the things are changing and people are able to change their perspective with respect to the LGBT community. Legalizing same-sex marriage in a country like India where a number of religions and customs are practiced is really difficult. Therefore, few approach switch can help legalize same-sex marriage without hurting any religion are that the existing laws are interpreted in such a way that they legalize same-sex marriage, LGBT can be regarded as a different community which has customs of its own that permits same-sex marriage, making amendments in the Act itself or all the religions can individually interpret their marriage laws in such a way that same-sex marriage becomes in accordance with their religion.

5. Briefly discuss your view on same-sex marriages?

Same-sex marriage refers to the marriage of the same sex which is similar to heterosexual marriages in terms of rituals and proceedings. Same-sex marriages should not be ashamed of and are justified because after all love knows no boundaries. The community must be made aware of this concept so that they can appreciate and celebrate the union of two loving souls without considering their gender. The community as a whole must attempt to legalize and accept same-sex marriage with respect to the laws, religion, and customs of the country. In the coming years, there is a ray of hope that same-sex marriages will also be celebrated just like normal marriages in India.

Opinion Are the justices re-examining same-sex marriage?

Majority’s ruling in an immigration case could signal an appetite to revisit marriage equality.

Is the Supreme Court’s conservative majority plotting to chip away at the right to same-sex marriage or other constitutional protections? The liberal justices seem to think so and issued an ominous warning to that effect in a dissent on Friday as part of an otherwise obscure immigration case.

The case, Department of State v. Muñoz , involves Sandra Muñoz, a California woman and U.S. citizen, whose husband, Luis Asencio-Cordero, a citizen of El Salvador, wanted to enter the United States to live with his wife and child, also a U.S. citizen. An officer at the U.S. Consulate in San Salvador refused him entry, finding that Asencio-Cordero was a member of the MS-13 gang, partly on the basis of his religious tattoos. Asencio-Cordero denied gang membership.

Under U.S. immigration law, noncitizens don’t have the right to challenge visa denials in court. But Muñoz claimed that the refusal to give her husband a visa infringed what she said was her fundamental right to live with her spouse in the United States, part of the protection of the right to marriage that the court has said is guaranteed under the Constitution.

The court rejected that argument. “A citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority .

Such a right, she said, is not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and traditions,” citing a 1997 case that has become the touchstone for determining (or, in the case of abortion , limiting) the scope of constitutional rights not specifically outlined in the text.

You can guess the reason for the liberal justices’ worry here. The first sentence in the dissent, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, comes from Obergefell v. Hodges , the 2015 case establishing the right of same-sex couples to marry. That was a 5-4 decision by a far different court; two members of the majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have now been replaced, by Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Barrett.

The majority could have disposed of this case, Sotomayor argued, simply by declaring that Muñoz had received all the process she was due — an explanation from authorities about why the visa was refused. (Justice Neil M. Gorsuch made the same point, concurring in the outcome, but not joining the majority opinion.)

“That could and should have been the end of it,” Sotomayor said. “Instead, the majority swings for the fences.” Its approach to the constitutional right to marriage, she warned, is inconsistent with the understanding it outlined in Obergefell — and its assurances in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , its 2022 decision eliminating constitutional protection for abortion rights, that other precedents were not at risk.

The majority in Dobbs disclaimed any interest in revisiting other decisions, including Obergefell, grounded in unenumerated rights. (Justice Clarence Thomas would have gone all the way, undoing decisions establishing protection for married couples to obtain contraceptives, for gay couples to engage in sexual behavior, and for same-sex marriage.)

“Despite the majority’s assurance two Terms ago that its eradication of the right to abortion ‘does not undermine … in any way’ other entrenched substantive due process rights such as the right to marry,’ ‘the right to reside with relatives,’ and ‘the right to make decisions about the education of one’s children,’ the Court fails at the first pass,” Sotomayor warned.

Most immediately, she said, the risk is to same-sex couples, who often can’t safely live together in other countries. Yet she intimated there was more going on here. The majority, she said, “makes the same fatal error it made in Dobbs ,” requiring “too careful” a description of the claimed “fundamental liberty interest.” This reads like the first salvo in the battle over the scope of unenumerated constitutional rights unleashed by Dobbs.

The majority responded that the dissenters were leaping to unwarranted conclusions. Its basic message to the liberals was that they should chill out. “To be clear: Today’s decision does not remotely call into question any precedent of this Court, including those protecting marriage as a fundamental right,” Barrett wrote in a footnote.

So, how fearful should we be about the threat to same-sex marriage? If the question were to come up for the first time today, I doubt the court would reach the same result as in Obergefell and declare a sweeping new constitutional right. At the same time — and, yes, I know how cavalierly they tossed aside precedent in Dobbs — I doubt that even this court is about to upend the national legal landscape again and eliminate the right to marriage equality.

Still, Barrett and her fellow conservative justices are clearly not inclined to any broad reading of the Constitution and its unenumerated rights. As Gorsuch and the dissenters pointed out, they could have ducked the constitutional question and decided Muñoz on narrower grounds. Instead, they opted to reiterate the importance of restricting constitutional protections to only those “deeply rooted in history and tradition.” Was this a signal? An invitation? That the liberal justices are nervous should worry us all.

20 years of marriage rights for same-sex couples. Research disputes apocalyptic fears

Some LGBTQ+ advocates are cautiously optimistic about the election.

NEWTON, Mass. -- The love story of Marueen Brodoff and Ellen Wade runs nearly half a century, never mind that the state of Massachusetts only recognized their union for the last 20 years.

"We were married in our hearts a long time before that," said Brodoff, who was among the very first same-sex couples in the United States to legally wed.

"Were we trailblazers? No, we didn't feel that way," she told ABC News in an interview at the family's Newton, Massachusetts, home. "But we did feel like we had a story to tell."

Two decades after the first LGBTQ+ Americans entered into legal marriages in Massachusetts -- the first state to extend the right to same-sex couples -- their stories have become a familiar part of the tableau of American families, helping to transform public opinion and dispel fears about the consequences of the social shift.

Of the 1.2 million same-sex couple households in the U.S. as of 2021, roughly 710,000 were married, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

A strong majority of Americans (71%) think same-sex marriage should be legal, according to the latest Gallup polling. Nearly 30 years ago, barely a quarter of the public held a supportive view.

"It's a recognition by the state, by the community, by your friends, by your workplace, that you're in this relationship, and that it's a very important relationship," Wade said, "and that you're entitled to be treated the same as the person that sits next to you at work and is in a heterosexual relationship."

A groundbreaking analysis of 96 studies over the last 20 years conducted by the RAND Corporation last month – the first and most extensive report of its kind – finds that the impact of extending marriage rights to same-sex couples in the U.S. has been "consistently positive."

"The benefits to same sex couples were unambiguous and very strong," said Benjamin Karney, a UCLA psychology professor and co-author of the report.

Data show clear gains in mental health, economic well-being, physical health and relationship stability among married LGBTQ families, Karney said. Studies have also noted a drop in hate crime rates for LGBTQ+ individuals since the extension of marriage rights.

Researchers also scrutinized claims raised by same-sex marriage opponents years ago that allowing gays and lesbians to legally marry would affect the development of children, undermine a key social institution and diminish the benefits of marriage for different-sex couples.

"Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society," then-President George W. Bush said shortly after Massachusetts granted the first marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004.

"The children of America have a right to have a mother and a father," warned then-Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, in testimony before Congress on the expansion of marriage rights in Massachusetts. "It may affect the development of children and thereby future society as a whole."

Karney said RAND found "no evidence" to support those claims and others.

"On the contrary, what we found is that whenever there's a significant effect on different sex marriage, it was a positive effect," Karney said. "In the years immediately following a state legalizing marriage for same sex couples, there was a slight rise in marriage rates for different sex couples."

"Critics might have different new arguments," Karney added, "but they can't rehash the old arguments because the data seems pretty clear."

Sarah Parshall Perry, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank helping set the agenda for a potential second term for former President Donald Trump, said most Republicans have abandoned efforts to rollback LGBTQ+ marriage rights.

"I don't think any conservatives worth their salt – any conservative scholars are calling for that. Precedent is precedent for a reason," she said, referring to the 2015 landmark Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that guaranteed marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide.

LGBTQ+ rights advocates aren't so confident.

"I don't think that we can take any of our rights for granted," said Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign. "If the last couple of years have taught us anything, it's that it is within the ability of the Supreme Court in a single day to work to roll back our rights of the last 20 years, 40 years, 50 years."

When the Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion to the Dobbs ruling openly calling for reconsideration of other longstanding precedents, including those involving marriage and contraception.

Robinson said there is cautious optimism among community leaders and allies in this high-stakes election year.

More than 500 anti-LGBTQ+ bills were introduced in state legislative sessions this year, according to the ACLU . But less than 7% have become law, in a notable decline from last year when more than 13% were enacted.

"Our community, when we show up, when we show up at the ballot box, when we show up in state legislatures, equality wins every single time," Robinson said.

Perry, the Heritage Foundation legal fellow, said "political will" to restrict LGBTQ+ rights has waned on the right in a campaign year with more pressing issues like inflation, crime and abortion rights.

"As we go into an election year, the stakes are significantly higher and will play, I believe, very much into the national dialogue as opposed to simply at the state level," she said.

As debates over LGBTQ+ equality continue – particularly in the areas of transgender health care and sports participation – Brodoff and Wade said living out and proud as a family is the best way they can continue momentum toward greater acceptance.

"If you know families like us, your opinions are more likely to change," said Kate Brodoff.

"Partly what the answer is to people who are skeptical is that marriage and the rights of marriage, and to build strong, stable, loving families – It's at the core of not just LGBTQ people want, it's sort of it's what marriage is about," said Wade.

Asked about the secret behind their nearly five decade bond, Wade added, "I think we kind of tried to take each other as we are and accept what we can't change."

Related Topics

Trending reader picks.

Air Lingus pilots launch industrial action

• Jun 26, 5:52 AM

Hospital uses holograms for doctor-patient visits

• Jun 26, 3:31 PM

NYC church redefines acceptance for LGBTQ+ people

• Jun 26, 2:42 PM

Travis Kelce joins Taylor Swift on stage in London

• Jun 23, 5:38 PM

Supreme Court poised to issue key rulings

• Jun 27, 12:09 PM

ABC News Live

24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

America Got Gay Marriage, but It Came at a Cost

By Omar G. Encarnación

Mr. Encarnación is the author of the forthcoming book “Framing Equality: The Politics of Gay Marriage Wars.”

It’s a strange time for gay rights in America. As the country nears the 10th anniversary of the legalization of gay marriage nationwide, support for it has risen to 70 percent of the American public. But at the same time, L.G.B.T.Q. people are being targeted in ways not seen since the days of Save Our Children , Anita Bryant’s infamous 1977 campaign against gay rights that depicted gay men as human garbage and pedophiles.

In recent years, Republican-controlled state legislatures have banned drag shows, gender-affirming care for minors and adults , and the teaching of sexual orientation from kindergarten through the third grade, including the passage of Florida’s “ Don’t Say Gay” law . Panic about “ grooming ,” a homophobic slur that exploits people’s worst fears about gay people and children, is having a moment .

Even Obergefell v. Hodges , the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage nationally, is under attack. In 2020, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas cast doubt on the legality of the ruling, which could yet go the same way as Roe v. Wade. The Respect for Marriage Act , passed by Congress in 2022, did not codify the ruling into law and would provide scant protection.

Clearly, marriage equality was not enough to bring full equality to L.G.B.T.Q. Americans. It would be wishful to think it could, perhaps. But the gay marriage campaign was a major missed opportunity to expand L.G.B.T.Q. equality. When compared with its foreign counterparts, the American campaign was notable for one thing: the extraordinary modesty of its framing.

The approach was good enough to make gay marriage the law of the land. Yet by failing to make a more ambitious case for equality across the board, as other countries did, the campaign limited the transformative power of gay marriage and created an opening for today’s backlash.

Inspired by the civil rights movement’s struggle for equality under the law, the campaign — which ran for roughly two decades until the ruling in 2015 — was framed around rights and benefits. It spotlighted the rights denied to same-sex couples, including tax deductions, inheritance provisions and hospital visitation privileges.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Bangor Daily News

Maine news, sports, politics, election results, and obituaries

The power of same-sex marriage is clear, even as fears rise that these unions will be outlawed

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on  bangordailynews.com

Abbie E. Goldberg is an affiliated scholar at the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law and a psychology professor at Clark University, where she directs the women’s and gender studies. She wrote this column for the Los Angeles Times.

It’s been two years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Dobbs case that overturned the federal right to an abortion, and the troubling concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas in which he expressed a desire to “revisit” other landmark precedents, including the freedom to marry for same-sex couples, codified nationally by the Obergefell Supreme Court decision, nine years ago Wednesday.

Since that ruling, the LGBTQ+ and allied community has done much to protect the fundamental freedom to marry — passing the Respect for Marriage Act in Congress in 2022; sharing their stories this year to mark the 20th anniversary of the first state legalization of same-sex marriages, in Massachusetts; and in California, Hawaii and Colorado launching ballot campaigns to repeal dormant but still-on-the-books anti-marriage constitutional amendments.

This winter, I worked with a team at the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law to survey nearly 500 married LGBTQ+ people about their relationships. Respondents included couples from every state in the country; on average they had been together for more than 16 years and married for more than nine years. Sixty-two percent married after the court’s 2015 Obergefell marriage decision, although their relationships started before that. More than 30 percent of the couples had children and another 25 percent wanted children in the future.

One finding that jumped out of the data: Almost 80 percent of married same-sex couples surveyed said they were “very” or “somewhat” concerned about the Obergefell decision being overturned. Around a quarter of them said they’d taken action to shore up their family’s legal protections — pursuing a second-parent adoption, having children earlier than originally planned or marrying on a faster-than-expected timeline — because of concerns about marriage equality being challenged. One respondent said, “We got engaged the day that the Supreme Court ruled on the Dobbs decision and got married one week after.”

As we examined the survey results, it became clearer than ever why LGBTQ+ families and same-sex couples are fighting so hard to protect marriage access — and the answer is really quite simple: The freedom to marry has been transformative for them. It has not only granted them hundreds of additional rights and responsibilities, but it has also strengthened their bonds in very real ways.

Nearly every person surveyed (93 percent) said they married for love; three-quarters added that they married for companionship or legal protections. When asked how marriage changed their lives, 83 percent reported positive changes in their sense of safety and security, and 75 percent reported positive changes in terms of life satisfaction. “I feel secure in our relationship in a way I never thought would be possible,” one participant told us. “I love being married.”

I’ve been studying LGBTQ+ people and families for my entire career — and even still, many of the findings of the survey touched and inspired me.

Individual respondents talked about the ways that marriage expanded their personal family networks, granting them (for better and worse!) an additional set of parents, siblings and loved ones. More than 40 percent relied on each other’s families of origin in times of financial or health care crisis, or to help out with child care. Some told of in-laws who provided financial assistance to buy a house, or cared for them while they were undergoing chemotherapy for cancer.

And then there was the effect on children. Many respondents explained that their marriage has provided security for their children, and dignity and respect for the family unit. Marriage enabled parents to share child-rearing responsibilities — to take turns being the primary earner (and carrying the health insurance), and spending more time at home with the kids.

The big takeaway from this study is that same-sex couples have a lot on the line when it comes to the freedom to marry — and they’re going to do everything possible to ensure that future political shifts don’t interfere with their lives.

As couples across the country continue to speak out, share their stories, it’s clear to me that it’s because they believe wholeheartedly, and with good reason, that their lives depend on it.

More articles from the BDN

• Environment
• Information Science
• Social Issues
• Argumentative
• Cause and Effect
• Classification
• Compare and Contrast
• Descriptive
• Exemplification
• Informative
• Controversial
• Exploratory
• What Is an Essay
• Length of an Essay
• Generate Ideas
• Types of Essays
• Structuring an Essay
• Outline For Essay
• Essay Introduction
• Thesis Statement
• Body of an Essay
• Writing a Conclusion
• Essay Writing Tips
• Drafting an Essay
• Revision Process
• Fix a Broken Essay
• Format of an Essay
• Essay Examples
• Essay Checklist
• Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Research Paper
• Write My Research Paper
• Write My Essay
• Custom Essay Writing Service
• Admission Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Essay
• Academic Ghostwriting
• Write My Book Report
• Case Study Writing Service
• Dissertation Writing Service
• Coursework Writing Service
• Lab Report Writing Service
• Do My Assignment
• Buy College Papers
• Capstone Project Writing Service
• Buy Research Paper
• Custom Essays for Sale

Can’t find a perfect paper?

• Free Essay Samples

Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

Updated 25 October 2023

Downloads 51

Category Law ,  Sociology

Topic Gay Marriage

Over the last few decades

Same-sex marriages; termed as the marriage of two individuals of the same gender in a civil or rather a religious ceremony, has been one of the most contentious, multifaceted and highly debated contemporary issues in not only the public but also the religious, political, and criminal justice arenas. Although same-sex marriage has been regulated through customs, religion, and law in most global nations, legal and social responses have ranged from criminalization to celebration consequently sparking up both emotional and political clashes thus, between the opponents and supporters of the institution. Generally, opponents of same-sex marriages argue on the basis of the institution being abnormal and unnatural; hence, violating the natural law, moreover, many argue that children are better off when raised by opposite sex couples as households of same-sex couples lack the appropriate gender role models and endorse what they term as unconventional sexuality as a highly varied option (301). However, I strongly oppose this assertion; this paper therefore examines some of the arguments for same-sex marriages, arguments against, as well as counterarguments.

Arguments for Same-Sex Marriages

Creation of a more accepting society.

Perhaps one of the primary benefits of not only recognizing but also accepting same-sex marriages is based on the fact that it creates a more accepting society; hence, less discrimination. Concerning this, by affirming the fundamental human rights of various minority groups such as the LGBT group, this enables contemporary societies to open up a way for other political, cultural, or any other minority group inclusive of revolutionary ideologies therefore, Just as racial equality initiated the rise of women's liberation, ultimately, genuine gay liberation has the potential of spawning liberation trends that lead to more stable societies. Moreover, acknowledging; the legality of same-sex marriages or relationships, and normalizing them ultimately reduces homophobia as well as discrimination and violence against the LGBT group. As pointed out by Joe Valentine in the story, families with same-sex couples tend to face stigmatization therefore by supporting such unions ultimately this stigmatization will gradually reduce; hence, creating a society that is more diverse, accepting, and democratic (Pp. 305).

Creation of Stable and Better Homes for Foster Children

Another advantage of same-sex marriages as highlighted by the story is the fact that they provide better and stable homes for children as in the story Doreen Price provides Joe Valentine with a stable home despite of his father's absence together with Deb Valentine; Joe's mother (Pp. 305). Today, one of the major social problems facing the contemporary world is shortage of adoptive parents, as a result, loving adoptive parents, thus regardless of being gay or straight is better that the already crowded foster care system. Therefore, same-sex marriages are beneficial as they increase the pool of couples who have the capability of adopting children consequently, removing them from the child welfare system into more loving and stable homes. This is ultimately a pro for not only children in the foster care system but also for a country as it significantly reduces the taxpayer's financial burden. There are other numerous advantages linked to same-sex adoptive parents, for example, same sex couples are more likely to be not only motivated but also more committed and involved as compared heterosexual couples, this is due to the fact that they rarely become parents by mare accident since they actively choose to work hard in order to become parents as opposed to heterosexual couples who record a high accidental pregnancy rate (Pp. 306). Moreover, like in the case of Joe Valentine, children raised in same-sex marriages are also likely to be open-minded, tolerant, more sympathetic to differences, and ultimately most of the believe in equality for all human beings as opposed to children raised in traditional opposite sex households (Pp. 305). With regard to foster children, since most same-sex couples experienced bias, prejudice, or discrimination at some point in their lives they are able to relate better to kids in the child welfare system with somewhat troubled pasts. Furthermore, as evidenced by Joe Valentine's story of growing up in same-sex marriage, children of same-sex couples show little or no differences in mental health, achievement as well as social functioning among other measurers (Pp. 307).

Basic Human Right

Conclusively, in accordance to the universal Declaration of Human Right article 16 both women and men that that have attained full any have the right to not only marry but also to create a family without any type of limitation due to nationality, religion, and race. Therefore, it is only right to recognize and accept same-sex marriages as people also have the right to freedom of expression which allows individuals to express their sexual orientation as well as their gender identity without any type of hindrance. Therefore, denying individuals from the LGBT community the right to marry and establish their own only serves to discriminate, hurt, and deprive same-sex couples inclusive of their family's equal dignity as other human beings. It also serves to label and treat them as somewhat second-class citizens who, to a great extent are not deemed worthy of participation in one of society's most fundamental institutions. Furthermore, unfair or discriminatory treatment against same-sex couples not only harms the couple but also their children, therefore, by denying parents their civil rights these children are also denied numerous rights. Therefore, allowing same-sex marriages will promote the raring untainted children that will grow up to become successful members of the society such as in the case of Joe Valentine.

Deadline is approaching?

Wait no more. Let us write you an essay from scratch

Related Essays

Related topics.

Find Out the Cost of Your Paper

Type your email

By clicking “Submit”, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy policy. Sometimes you will receive account related emails.

Historicizing Same-Sex Marriage Debate in the Legal Periphery: Savigny, Nakagawa, and the Korean Marriage

33 Minn. J. Int'l L. (Forthcoming, 2024)

55 Pages Posted: 21 Jun 2024

Rama Hyeweon Kim

Harvard Law School

Date Written: June 13, 2024

Global advocates for incorporating same-sex marriage into local family laws often argue for it using universal language of rights and nondiscrimination. They also contrast progressive countries with those that are behind in this respect. This Article resists a thin comparison driven by a universalist impulse and instead engages in an exploration of “local” family law in South Korea. Using the recent Seoul High Court decision that extended spousal coverage of national health insurance to same-sex couples as an entry point, the Article offers brief histories of two distinct legal ideas and developments within Korean family law, both involving a deep and constant engagement with foreign laws. These two deeply rooted, conflicting legal ideas shape the ongoing conversation about same-sex marriage.

The first story traces back to the German jurist Friedrich Carl von Savigny’s idea that family law is part and parcel of a moral, customary, and therefore mandatory order that regulates one’s status. Introduced via Japan and central to classical understandings of marriage in Korean legal thought, this idea has persisted in Korea and is utilized in arguments against same-sex marriage. The second story traces a contradicting trend in Korean law: the jurisprudence of de facto marriage, linked to Japanese jurist Nakagawa Zennosuke and understood to embrace modernist tendencies. Contrary to the classical notion that family law is customary and mandatory, de facto marriage eases certain rules of marriage and embraces non-conventional families.

Keywords: Same-Sex Marriage, Legal Transplant, Comparative Law, Family Law, History of Legal Thought, Legal Development in East Asia, Korean Law

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Rama Hyeweon Kim (Contact Author)

Harvard law school ( email ).

Cambridge, MA 02138

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, legal history ejournal.

Subscribe to this free journal for more curated articles on this topic

Comparative Law & Trans-National Studies eJournal

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Women, Gender & the Law eJournal

Family & children's law ejournal, asian law ejournal, law & society: private law - family law ejournal, sexuality & the law ejournal.

Church of England faces threat of split over stance on gay couples

• Medium Text

• Some threaten to establish 'parallel province' within Church
• Separately, 11 bishops express discontent with plans
• Church of England's governing body due to meet July 5-9

Sign up here.

Reporting by Muvija M Editing by Peter Graff

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

World Chevron

Russia protests to Japan about joint exercises with NATO countries

Russia protested to Japan on Friday about Tokyo's plans to hold joint military exercises on the island of Hokkaido and accused Prime Minister Fumio Kishida of placing his country "on a path to dangerous escalation".