[pending revision] | [pending revision] |
Undid revision 349106928 by
76.180.196.87 (
talk) MA,CT,NH,VT,IA |
Ballsdeepbob (
talk |
contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Image:Samesexmarriage.jpg|thumb|thumb|250px|right|Same-sex marriage ceremony]] |
[[Image:Samesexmarriage.jpg|thumb|thumb|250px|right|Same-sex marriage ceremony]] |
||
'''Same-sex marriage''', also referred to as '''gay marriage''', is [[marriage]] between two persons of the same sex. The [[federal government of the United States]] |
'''"Same-sex marriage"''', also referred to as '''gay marriage''', is a concept that gays believe where [["marriage"]] between two persons of the same sex is equal to the 6,000 year old definition of marriage between a man and a woman. The [[federal government of the United States]] and the majority of the states do not recognize the [[marriage]]s of same-sex couples and is prohibited from doing so by the [[Defense of Marriage Act]]. Nationwide, same-sex marriage is legal in three states as a result of a court ruling and in two others plus a district through a vote in their respective legislatures. |
||
Same-sex marriages are currently granted by five of the 50 [[U.S. states|states]], one [[Indian tribe]], and one [[federal district]]: |
Same-sex marriages are currently granted by five of the 50 [[U.S. states|states]], one [[Indian tribe]], and one [[federal district]]: |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
State(s) which previously granted same-sex marriage licenses: |
State(s) which previously granted same-sex marriage licenses: |
||
* In [[Same-sex marriage in California|California]], same-sex marriages were performed between June 16, 2008 and November 4, 2008, after the [[California Supreme Court]] held the statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the [[California Constitution|state constitution]]; however, the California |
* In [[Same-sex marriage in California|California]], same-sex marriages were performed between June 16, 2008 and November 4, 2008, after the [[California Supreme Court]] held the statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the [[California Constitution|state constitution]]; however, the California voters then approved a [[California Proposition 8 (2008)|voter initiative]] that reinstated the ban on same-sex marriage as part of California's constitution. The California Supreme Court upheld the voter-approved constitutional ban. Today, all same-sex unions are given the benefits of marriage under California law, although only those performed as marriages before November 5, 2008 are granted the designation "marriage".<ref>http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=5609563&content_id={913FF32C-BE83-428B-9DBE-82D429183E7E}¬oc=1</ref> |
||
States which recognize same-sex marriage but do not grant same-sex marriage licenses: |
States which recognize same-sex marriage but do not grant same-sex marriage licenses: |
"Same-sex marriage", also referred to as gay marriage, is a concept that gays believe where "marriage" between two persons of the same sex is equal to the 6,000 year old definition of marriage between a man and a woman. The federal government of the United States and the majority of the states do not recognize the marriages of same-sex couples and is prohibited from doing so by the Defense of Marriage Act. Nationwide, same-sex marriage is legal in three states as a result of a court ruling and in two others plus a district through a vote in their respective legislatures.
Same-sex marriages are currently granted by five of the 50 states, one Indian tribe, and one federal district:
State(s) which previously granted same-sex marriage licenses:
States which recognize same-sex marriage but do not grant same-sex marriage licenses:
The movement to obtain marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples in the United States began in the early 1970s. The issue became even more prominent in U.S. politics in the mid- 1990s with a public backlash toward the idea evidenced by Congress' passage of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. In the late 2000s, New England became the center of an organized push to legalize same-sex marriage in the U.S., with four of the six states comprising that region granting same-sex couples the legal right to marry. The issue remains politically divisive in the United States.
Part of the LGBT rights series |
![]() |
The legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage in the United States are complicated by the nation's federal system of government. Traditionally, the federal government did not attempt to establish its own definition of marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967 due to anti-miscegenation laws). With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, however, a marriage was explicitly defined as a union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law. (See 1 U.S.C. § 7.) Thus, no act or agency of the federal government currently recognizes same-sex marriage.
According to the federal government's Government Accountability Office (GAO), more than 1,138 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage by the federal government; areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.
However, many aspects of marriage law affecting the day to day lives of inhabitants of the United States are determined by the states, not the federal government, and the Defense of Marriage Act does not prevent individual states from defining marriage as they see fit.
The United States Supreme Court in 1972 dismissed Baker v. Nelson, a case originating in Minnesota, "for want of a substantial federal question". The Defense of Marriage Act, as well as marriage laws in 45 states, could be affected by the outcome of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a case challenging the validity of California's Proposition 8 under the United States Constitution. [5]
See Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state
Five state governments offer same-sex marriage: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire. [6] In all five cases this has been achieved through legislation or court ruling. [6] As of November 2009, when legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in Maine was defeated by referendum, same-sex marriage had been defeated in all 31 states in which it had been directly put to a popular vote. [6] Thirty states have passed constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage. [6]
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since November 18, 2003; in Connecticut since October 10, 2008 (having previously legalized civil unions in October 2005); [7] in Iowa since April 27, 2009; [8] [9] in Vermont since September 1, 2009; and in New Hampshire since January 1, 2010.
Same-sex marriage is recognized only at the state level, as the federal Defense of Marriage Act explicitly bars federal recognition of such marriages.
Opponents of same-sex marriage have attempted to prevent individual states from recognizing same-sex unions by attempting to amend the United States Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. In 2006, the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages, was approved by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, on a party-line vote, and was debated by the full United States Senate, but was ultimately defeated in both houses of Congress. [10]
The right to marry was first extended to same-sex couples by a United States jurisdiction on November 18, 2003, in Massachusetts by a state Supreme Judicial Court ruling. [11]
On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of California issued a decision in which it effectively legalized same-sex marriage in California, holding that California's existing opposite-sex definition of marriage violated the constitutional rights of same-sex couples. [12] [13] Same-sex marriage opponents in California placed a state constitutional amendment known as Proposition 8 on the November ballot for the purpose of restoring an opposite-sex definition of marriage; [14] Proposition 8 was passed on Election Day 2008, as were proposed marriage-limiting amendments in Florida and Arizona. [15] The California amendment was challenged in a court proceeding, but was upheld by the state supreme court, in a 6-1 vote, on May 26, 2009. The court ruled, however, that the approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place in 2008 would remain valid. On October 12, 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 54, which allowed all out-of-state same-sex marriages to be given the benefits of marriage under California law, although only those performed before November 5, 2008 will be granted the designation "marriage". The validity of Proposition 8 under the United States Constitution is currently being challenged in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which could potentially have an effect on all same-sex marriage bans nationwide.
On October 10, 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned the state's civil-unions statute (2005), as unconstitutionally discriminating against same-sex couples, and required the state to recognize same-sex marriages.
Same-sex marriage was legalized in Iowa following the unanimous ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court in Varnum v. Brien on April 3, 2009. [16] This was initially to take effect on April 24, but the date was changed to April 27 for administrative reasons. [9]
On April 7, 2009, Vermont legalized same-sex marriage through legislation. The Governor had previously vetoed the measure, but the veto was overridden by the Legislature. Vermont became the first state in the United States to legalize same-sex marriage through legislation, as opposed to litigation, albeit without the governor's signature. On the same day, the City Council of the federal District of Columbia passed a bill by a 12–1 vote that recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. [17]
On May 6, 2009, Maine became the fifth state to legalize same-sex marriage. [18] The legislation was overturned by referendum in November 2009. [6]
On June 3, 2009, New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage. [19]
As of June 1, 2009, New Jersey has created legal unions that, while not called marriages, are explicitly defined as offering all the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state (though not federal) law to same-sex couples. Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Washington have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions.
As of January 1, 2009, thirty states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, defining civil marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman. [20] More than forty states explicitly restrict marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, including some of those that have created legal recognition for same-sex unions under a name other than "marriage", e.g., civil unions and domestic partnerships.[ citation needed] Nineteen states ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent to civil marriage. [21] New York courts have ruled that same-sex marriages conducted in states where they are legal must be recognized by those states, but that the state statutes do not allow the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses — as a result New York now has same-sex divorces without allowing same-sex weddings. [22] New Jersey only recognized same-sex marriages for the purpose of divorce, otherwise they are converted to Civil Unions. [23]
Pennsylvania state senator John Eichelberger plans to introduce a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania. However, Senator Daylin Leach has introduced a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage. [24] [25]
Same-sex marriage conducted abroad is recognized in the U.S. States of New York, California, Rhode Island, and Maryland, and in Washington, D.C..
The nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada has raised questions about U.S. law, because of Canada's proximity to the U.S. and the fact that Canada has no citizenship or residency requirement to receive a marriage certificate (unlike Belgium and the Netherlands). Canada and the U.S. have a history of respecting marriages contracted in either country.
Immediately after the June 2003 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in Ontario, a number of American couples went or planned to go to the province in order to get married. A coalition of American national gay rights groups issued a statement asking couples to contact them before attempting legal challenges, so that they might be coordinated as part of the same-sex marriage movement in the United States.[ citation needed]
Barack Obama has stated that he is against same-sex marriage [26] while remaining sympathetic to human-rights. [27] The president "supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage." [27] He opposes a federal mandate for same-sex marriage, but also opposes the proposed federal ban [28] on gay marriage, arguing that the individual states should decide. [29] [30] Obama opposed Proposition 8—California's constitutional ban on gay marriage—in 2008, and may have made comments in support of same-sex marriage during his Illinois Senate race in the 1990s, [31] while he subsequently opposed same-sex marriage in the 2008 presidential election. [32]
Same-sex marriage supporters make several arguments in support of their position. Gail Mathabane likens prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past prohibitions on interracial marriage. [33] Fernando Espuelas argues that same-sex marriage should be allowed because same-sex marriage extends a civil right to a minority group. [34]
Christopher Ott argues against the position that same-sex marriage would devalue marriage as a whole by referencing other historical events such as allowing women to vote and describes the prohibition of same-sex marriage as devaluing the American principle of equal treatment. [35]
David Blankenhorn holds that same-sex marriage harms the family structure of society, and that same-sex marriages deprive children of either a mother or a father. [36] Maggie Gallagher takes the view that same-sex relationships are intrinsically different from marriages, and that any comparison with interracial marriage is unjustified. [37] Some opponents to same-sex marriage argue that judicial rulings such as the California Supreme Court's decision in the In re Marriage Cases has amounted to unconstitutional judicial activism.[ citation needed]
Dr. M. V. Lee Badgett, an economist and associate professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, has studied the impact of same-sex legal marriage on same-sex couples. According to a 1997 General Accounting Office study requested by Rep. Henry Hyde (R), at least 1,049 U.S. Federal laws and regulations include reference to marital status. [38] A later 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office finds 1,138 statutory provisions "in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving 'benefits, rights, and privileges.'" [39] Many of these laws govern property rights, benefits, and taxation. Same-sex couples are ineligible for spousal and survivor Social Security benefits. [39] Badgett's research finds the resulting difference in Social Security income for same-sex couples compared to opposite-sex married couples is US$5,588 per year. The federal ban on same-sex marriage and benefits through the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) extends to federal government employee benefits. [39] According to Badgett's work, same-sex couples face other financial challenges against which legal marriage at least partially shields opposite-sex couples. [40]
While state laws grant full marriage rights ( Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont) or some or all of the benefits under another name ( New Jersey, Washington, California, etc.), these state laws do not extend the benefits of marriage on the Federal level, and most states do not currently recognize same-sex marriages, domestic partnerships, or civil unions from other states.
One often overlooked aspect of same-sex marriage are the potential negative effects on same-sex couples. While the legal benefits of marriage are numerous, same-sex couples would face the same financial constraints of legal marriage as opposite-sex married couples. Such potential effects include the marriage penalty in taxation. [39] Similarly, while social service providers usually do not count one partner's assets toward the income means test for welfare and disability assistance for the other partner, a legally married couple's joint assets are normally used in calculating whether a married individual qualifies for assistance. [39]
The 2004 Congressional Budget Office] study, working from an assumption "that about 0.6 percent of adults would enter into same-sex marriages if they had the opportunity" (an assumption in which they admitted "significant uncertainty") estimated that legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the United States "would improve the budget's bottom line to a small extent: by less than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years". This result reflects an increase in net government revenues (increased income taxes due to marriage penalties more than offsetting decreased tax revenues arising from postponed estate taxes). Marriage recognition would increase the government expenses for Social Security and Federal Employee Health Benefits but that increase would be more than made up for by decreased expenses for Medicaid, Medicare, and Supplemental Security Income. [39]
Several psychological studies [41] [42] [43] have shown that an increase in exposure to negative conversations and media messages about same-sex marriage creates a harmful environment for the LGBT population that may affect their health and well-being.
One study surveyed more than 1,500 lesbian, gay and bisexual adults across the nation and found that respondents from the 25 states that have outlawed same-sex marriage had the highest reports of "minority stress" — the chronic social stress that results from minority-group stigmatization — as well as general psychological distress. According to the study, the negative campaigning that comes with a ban is directly responsible for the increased stress. Past research has shown that minority stress is linked to health risks such as risky sexual behavior and substance abuse. [44]
Two other studies examined personal reports from LGBT adults and their families living in Memphis, Tennessee, immediately after a successful 2006 ballot campaign banned same-sex marriage. Most respondents reported feeling alienated from their communities, afraid that they would lose custody of their children and that they might become victims of violence. The studies also found that families experienced a kind of secondary minority stress, says Jennifer Arm, a counseling graduate student at the University of Memphis. [45]
In 2009, a pair of economists at Emory University tied the passage of state bans on same-sex marriage in the US to an increase in the rates of HIV infection. [46] [47] The study linked the passage of same-sex marriage ban in a state to an increase in the annual HIV rate within that state of roughly 4 cases per 100,000 population.
United States case law regarding same-sex marriage:
{{{inline}}}
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |unused_data=
(
help); Text "Marriage under Fire: Why We Must Win This War" ignored (
help)[pending revision] | [pending revision] |
Undid revision 349106928 by
76.180.196.87 (
talk) MA,CT,NH,VT,IA |
Ballsdeepbob (
talk |
contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Image:Samesexmarriage.jpg|thumb|thumb|250px|right|Same-sex marriage ceremony]] |
[[Image:Samesexmarriage.jpg|thumb|thumb|250px|right|Same-sex marriage ceremony]] |
||
'''Same-sex marriage''', also referred to as '''gay marriage''', is [[marriage]] between two persons of the same sex. The [[federal government of the United States]] |
'''"Same-sex marriage"''', also referred to as '''gay marriage''', is a concept that gays believe where [["marriage"]] between two persons of the same sex is equal to the 6,000 year old definition of marriage between a man and a woman. The [[federal government of the United States]] and the majority of the states do not recognize the [[marriage]]s of same-sex couples and is prohibited from doing so by the [[Defense of Marriage Act]]. Nationwide, same-sex marriage is legal in three states as a result of a court ruling and in two others plus a district through a vote in their respective legislatures. |
||
Same-sex marriages are currently granted by five of the 50 [[U.S. states|states]], one [[Indian tribe]], and one [[federal district]]: |
Same-sex marriages are currently granted by five of the 50 [[U.S. states|states]], one [[Indian tribe]], and one [[federal district]]: |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
State(s) which previously granted same-sex marriage licenses: |
State(s) which previously granted same-sex marriage licenses: |
||
* In [[Same-sex marriage in California|California]], same-sex marriages were performed between June 16, 2008 and November 4, 2008, after the [[California Supreme Court]] held the statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the [[California Constitution|state constitution]]; however, the California |
* In [[Same-sex marriage in California|California]], same-sex marriages were performed between June 16, 2008 and November 4, 2008, after the [[California Supreme Court]] held the statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the [[California Constitution|state constitution]]; however, the California voters then approved a [[California Proposition 8 (2008)|voter initiative]] that reinstated the ban on same-sex marriage as part of California's constitution. The California Supreme Court upheld the voter-approved constitutional ban. Today, all same-sex unions are given the benefits of marriage under California law, although only those performed as marriages before November 5, 2008 are granted the designation "marriage".<ref>http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=5609563&content_id={913FF32C-BE83-428B-9DBE-82D429183E7E}¬oc=1</ref> |
||
States which recognize same-sex marriage but do not grant same-sex marriage licenses: |
States which recognize same-sex marriage but do not grant same-sex marriage licenses: |
"Same-sex marriage", also referred to as gay marriage, is a concept that gays believe where "marriage" between two persons of the same sex is equal to the 6,000 year old definition of marriage between a man and a woman. The federal government of the United States and the majority of the states do not recognize the marriages of same-sex couples and is prohibited from doing so by the Defense of Marriage Act. Nationwide, same-sex marriage is legal in three states as a result of a court ruling and in two others plus a district through a vote in their respective legislatures.
Same-sex marriages are currently granted by five of the 50 states, one Indian tribe, and one federal district:
State(s) which previously granted same-sex marriage licenses:
States which recognize same-sex marriage but do not grant same-sex marriage licenses:
The movement to obtain marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples in the United States began in the early 1970s. The issue became even more prominent in U.S. politics in the mid- 1990s with a public backlash toward the idea evidenced by Congress' passage of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. In the late 2000s, New England became the center of an organized push to legalize same-sex marriage in the U.S., with four of the six states comprising that region granting same-sex couples the legal right to marry. The issue remains politically divisive in the United States.
Part of the LGBT rights series |
![]() |
The legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage in the United States are complicated by the nation's federal system of government. Traditionally, the federal government did not attempt to establish its own definition of marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967 due to anti-miscegenation laws). With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, however, a marriage was explicitly defined as a union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law. (See 1 U.S.C. § 7.) Thus, no act or agency of the federal government currently recognizes same-sex marriage.
According to the federal government's Government Accountability Office (GAO), more than 1,138 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage by the federal government; areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.
However, many aspects of marriage law affecting the day to day lives of inhabitants of the United States are determined by the states, not the federal government, and the Defense of Marriage Act does not prevent individual states from defining marriage as they see fit.
The United States Supreme Court in 1972 dismissed Baker v. Nelson, a case originating in Minnesota, "for want of a substantial federal question". The Defense of Marriage Act, as well as marriage laws in 45 states, could be affected by the outcome of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a case challenging the validity of California's Proposition 8 under the United States Constitution. [5]
See Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state
Five state governments offer same-sex marriage: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire. [6] In all five cases this has been achieved through legislation or court ruling. [6] As of November 2009, when legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in Maine was defeated by referendum, same-sex marriage had been defeated in all 31 states in which it had been directly put to a popular vote. [6] Thirty states have passed constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage. [6]
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since November 18, 2003; in Connecticut since October 10, 2008 (having previously legalized civil unions in October 2005); [7] in Iowa since April 27, 2009; [8] [9] in Vermont since September 1, 2009; and in New Hampshire since January 1, 2010.
Same-sex marriage is recognized only at the state level, as the federal Defense of Marriage Act explicitly bars federal recognition of such marriages.
Opponents of same-sex marriage have attempted to prevent individual states from recognizing same-sex unions by attempting to amend the United States Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. In 2006, the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages, was approved by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, on a party-line vote, and was debated by the full United States Senate, but was ultimately defeated in both houses of Congress. [10]
The right to marry was first extended to same-sex couples by a United States jurisdiction on November 18, 2003, in Massachusetts by a state Supreme Judicial Court ruling. [11]
On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of California issued a decision in which it effectively legalized same-sex marriage in California, holding that California's existing opposite-sex definition of marriage violated the constitutional rights of same-sex couples. [12] [13] Same-sex marriage opponents in California placed a state constitutional amendment known as Proposition 8 on the November ballot for the purpose of restoring an opposite-sex definition of marriage; [14] Proposition 8 was passed on Election Day 2008, as were proposed marriage-limiting amendments in Florida and Arizona. [15] The California amendment was challenged in a court proceeding, but was upheld by the state supreme court, in a 6-1 vote, on May 26, 2009. The court ruled, however, that the approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place in 2008 would remain valid. On October 12, 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 54, which allowed all out-of-state same-sex marriages to be given the benefits of marriage under California law, although only those performed before November 5, 2008 will be granted the designation "marriage". The validity of Proposition 8 under the United States Constitution is currently being challenged in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which could potentially have an effect on all same-sex marriage bans nationwide.
On October 10, 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned the state's civil-unions statute (2005), as unconstitutionally discriminating against same-sex couples, and required the state to recognize same-sex marriages.
Same-sex marriage was legalized in Iowa following the unanimous ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court in Varnum v. Brien on April 3, 2009. [16] This was initially to take effect on April 24, but the date was changed to April 27 for administrative reasons. [9]
On April 7, 2009, Vermont legalized same-sex marriage through legislation. The Governor had previously vetoed the measure, but the veto was overridden by the Legislature. Vermont became the first state in the United States to legalize same-sex marriage through legislation, as opposed to litigation, albeit without the governor's signature. On the same day, the City Council of the federal District of Columbia passed a bill by a 12–1 vote that recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. [17]
On May 6, 2009, Maine became the fifth state to legalize same-sex marriage. [18] The legislation was overturned by referendum in November 2009. [6]
On June 3, 2009, New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage. [19]
As of June 1, 2009, New Jersey has created legal unions that, while not called marriages, are explicitly defined as offering all the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state (though not federal) law to same-sex couples. Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Washington have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions.
As of January 1, 2009, thirty states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, defining civil marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman. [20] More than forty states explicitly restrict marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, including some of those that have created legal recognition for same-sex unions under a name other than "marriage", e.g., civil unions and domestic partnerships.[ citation needed] Nineteen states ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent to civil marriage. [21] New York courts have ruled that same-sex marriages conducted in states where they are legal must be recognized by those states, but that the state statutes do not allow the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses — as a result New York now has same-sex divorces without allowing same-sex weddings. [22] New Jersey only recognized same-sex marriages for the purpose of divorce, otherwise they are converted to Civil Unions. [23]
Pennsylvania state senator John Eichelberger plans to introduce a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania. However, Senator Daylin Leach has introduced a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage. [24] [25]
Same-sex marriage conducted abroad is recognized in the U.S. States of New York, California, Rhode Island, and Maryland, and in Washington, D.C..
The nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada has raised questions about U.S. law, because of Canada's proximity to the U.S. and the fact that Canada has no citizenship or residency requirement to receive a marriage certificate (unlike Belgium and the Netherlands). Canada and the U.S. have a history of respecting marriages contracted in either country.
Immediately after the June 2003 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in Ontario, a number of American couples went or planned to go to the province in order to get married. A coalition of American national gay rights groups issued a statement asking couples to contact them before attempting legal challenges, so that they might be coordinated as part of the same-sex marriage movement in the United States.[ citation needed]
Barack Obama has stated that he is against same-sex marriage [26] while remaining sympathetic to human-rights. [27] The president "supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage." [27] He opposes a federal mandate for same-sex marriage, but also opposes the proposed federal ban [28] on gay marriage, arguing that the individual states should decide. [29] [30] Obama opposed Proposition 8—California's constitutional ban on gay marriage—in 2008, and may have made comments in support of same-sex marriage during his Illinois Senate race in the 1990s, [31] while he subsequently opposed same-sex marriage in the 2008 presidential election. [32]
Same-sex marriage supporters make several arguments in support of their position. Gail Mathabane likens prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past prohibitions on interracial marriage. [33] Fernando Espuelas argues that same-sex marriage should be allowed because same-sex marriage extends a civil right to a minority group. [34]
Christopher Ott argues against the position that same-sex marriage would devalue marriage as a whole by referencing other historical events such as allowing women to vote and describes the prohibition of same-sex marriage as devaluing the American principle of equal treatment. [35]
David Blankenhorn holds that same-sex marriage harms the family structure of society, and that same-sex marriages deprive children of either a mother or a father. [36] Maggie Gallagher takes the view that same-sex relationships are intrinsically different from marriages, and that any comparison with interracial marriage is unjustified. [37] Some opponents to same-sex marriage argue that judicial rulings such as the California Supreme Court's decision in the In re Marriage Cases has amounted to unconstitutional judicial activism.[ citation needed]
Dr. M. V. Lee Badgett, an economist and associate professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, has studied the impact of same-sex legal marriage on same-sex couples. According to a 1997 General Accounting Office study requested by Rep. Henry Hyde (R), at least 1,049 U.S. Federal laws and regulations include reference to marital status. [38] A later 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office finds 1,138 statutory provisions "in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving 'benefits, rights, and privileges.'" [39] Many of these laws govern property rights, benefits, and taxation. Same-sex couples are ineligible for spousal and survivor Social Security benefits. [39] Badgett's research finds the resulting difference in Social Security income for same-sex couples compared to opposite-sex married couples is US$5,588 per year. The federal ban on same-sex marriage and benefits through the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) extends to federal government employee benefits. [39] According to Badgett's work, same-sex couples face other financial challenges against which legal marriage at least partially shields opposite-sex couples. [40]
While state laws grant full marriage rights ( Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont) or some or all of the benefits under another name ( New Jersey, Washington, California, etc.), these state laws do not extend the benefits of marriage on the Federal level, and most states do not currently recognize same-sex marriages, domestic partnerships, or civil unions from other states.
One often overlooked aspect of same-sex marriage are the potential negative effects on same-sex couples. While the legal benefits of marriage are numerous, same-sex couples would face the same financial constraints of legal marriage as opposite-sex married couples. Such potential effects include the marriage penalty in taxation. [39] Similarly, while social service providers usually do not count one partner's assets toward the income means test for welfare and disability assistance for the other partner, a legally married couple's joint assets are normally used in calculating whether a married individual qualifies for assistance. [39]
The 2004 Congressional Budget Office] study, working from an assumption "that about 0.6 percent of adults would enter into same-sex marriages if they had the opportunity" (an assumption in which they admitted "significant uncertainty") estimated that legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the United States "would improve the budget's bottom line to a small extent: by less than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years". This result reflects an increase in net government revenues (increased income taxes due to marriage penalties more than offsetting decreased tax revenues arising from postponed estate taxes). Marriage recognition would increase the government expenses for Social Security and Federal Employee Health Benefits but that increase would be more than made up for by decreased expenses for Medicaid, Medicare, and Supplemental Security Income. [39]
Several psychological studies [41] [42] [43] have shown that an increase in exposure to negative conversations and media messages about same-sex marriage creates a harmful environment for the LGBT population that may affect their health and well-being.
One study surveyed more than 1,500 lesbian, gay and bisexual adults across the nation and found that respondents from the 25 states that have outlawed same-sex marriage had the highest reports of "minority stress" — the chronic social stress that results from minority-group stigmatization — as well as general psychological distress. According to the study, the negative campaigning that comes with a ban is directly responsible for the increased stress. Past research has shown that minority stress is linked to health risks such as risky sexual behavior and substance abuse. [44]
Two other studies examined personal reports from LGBT adults and their families living in Memphis, Tennessee, immediately after a successful 2006 ballot campaign banned same-sex marriage. Most respondents reported feeling alienated from their communities, afraid that they would lose custody of their children and that they might become victims of violence. The studies also found that families experienced a kind of secondary minority stress, says Jennifer Arm, a counseling graduate student at the University of Memphis. [45]
In 2009, a pair of economists at Emory University tied the passage of state bans on same-sex marriage in the US to an increase in the rates of HIV infection. [46] [47] The study linked the passage of same-sex marriage ban in a state to an increase in the annual HIV rate within that state of roughly 4 cases per 100,000 population.
United States case law regarding same-sex marriage:
{{{inline}}}
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |unused_data=
(
help); Text "Marriage under Fire: Why We Must Win This War" ignored (
help)