Same-sex marriage in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references (ideally, using inline citations). Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2009) |
Same-sex marriage, also referred to as gay marriage, is a marriage between two persons of the same sex. Currently the federal government of the United States does not recognize same-sex marriage, under the Defense of Marriage Act, but same-sex marriage is currently legal in two states: Massachusetts and Connecticut. Same-sex marriage will be legal in Iowa on April 27, 2009 and Vermont on September 1, 2009.[1] Vermont was the most recent state to allow same-sex marriage as well as the first state to do so through legislative means.[2][3][4] The issue is a divisive political issue in the United States and elsewhere. The social movement to obtain the rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States for same-sex couples began in the early 1970s, and the issue became a prominent one in U.S. politics in the 1990s.
Contents |
[edit] Legal issues
[edit] Federal law
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; indeed, most legal scholars believe that the federal government cannot impose a definition of marriage onto the laws of the various states by statute.[citation needed]
The United States Supreme Court in 1972 dismissed Baker v. Nelson, a case originating in Minnesota, "for want of a substantial federal question". This is binding precedent, meaning that a state ban on same-sex marriage does not violate the United States Constitution.[5]
[edit] State law
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since November 18, 2003; in Connecticut since October 10, 2008;[6] and in California between June 17 and November 5, 2008. It will become legal in Iowa starting April 27, 2009;[7][8] and in Vermont starting September 1, 2009. 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 amending 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.[9]
On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of California issued a widely publicized 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.[10][11] Citing the 1948 California Supreme Court decision Perez v. Sharp, which reversed the interracial marriage ban, In re Marriage Cases struck down California's 1977 one-man, one-woman marriage law and a similar voter-approved 2000 law (which had passed by a margin of 61% to 39%) in a 4-3 ruling written by Chief Justice Ronald George). The Advocates for Faith and Freedom and the Alliance Defense Fund, among others, asked for a stay of the ruling,[12] but the court denied the requests[13][14] and its ruling took effect at 5:00 p.m. on June 16, 2008.[13] The court ruling in California gave rise to considerable opposition locally and nationally.[15] 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;[16] Florida and Arizona also placed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage on the November 2008 ballot. Proposition 8 was passed on Election Day 2008, as were the proposed marriage protection amendments in Florida and Arizona.[17] The California amendment is being challenged in a court proceeding.
As of January 1, 2009, New Jersey and New Hampshire have 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. Maine, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, Oregon, Washington, and Maryland 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, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman.[18] More than 40 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."[citation needed] Nineteen states ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent to civil marriage.[19] New York courts have repeatedly ruled that same-sex marriages conducted in states where they are legal must be recognized by New York, but that New York statute does not allow issuing of same-sex marriage licenses -- as a result New York now has same-sex divorces without same-sex weddings.
Same-sex couples have sued for the right to marry in Iowa.[20][21] The Iowa Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Varnum v. Brien on December 9, 2008, and a unanimous ruling was delivered on April 3, 2009, legalizing same sex marriage in that state, starting April 24,[22] although the date was later changed to April 27.
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 Senate and by a single vote in the house. Vermont became the first state in the United States to legalize same-sex marriage through legislation, as opposed to litigation. On the same day, the D.C. City Council unanimously passed a bill by a 12–0 vote that recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, although the bill is subject to Congressional approval.
Detailed summary: see Template:Same-sex legal relationships in USA
[edit] Impact of foreign laws
The nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada has raised questions about US law, due to Canada's proximity to the US and the fact that Canada has no citizenship or residency requirement to receive a marriage certificate (unlike the Netherlands and Belgium). 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 headed or planned to head 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]
Same-sex marriages are recognized nationwide in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, and, beginning in May 2009, in Sweden. Same-sex marriage conducted abroad is recognized in Israel, France, the state of New York, and Dutch same-sex marriages are recognized in Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles.[23]
[edit] Debate
[edit] Support
Same-sex marriage supporters make several arguments in support of their position. Some argue that same-sex marriage is a matter of equality, and that the rights of those involved in same-sex relationships are violated if same-sex unions are not legally recognized.[24] Advocates of same-sex marriage sometimes liken prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past prohibitions on interracial marriage.[25] Some same-sex marriage supporters argue that same-sex marriage should be allowed because same-sex marriage does no harm to families or society,[26] provides important benefits for same-sex partners and their children,[27] and extends a civil right to a minority group.[28]
Christopher Ott, a reporter for The Progressive, has characterized the social conservatives' predictions of legalized polygamy in states such as Massachusetts that have same-sex marriage as false.[citation needed] He confronts the common argument that same-sex marriage would devalue marriage as a whole by referencing other historical events such as allowing women to vote and stating that it did not devalue the electoral process.[citation needed] Ott describes the prohibition of same-sex marriage as devaluing the American principle of equal treatment.[citation needed]
The Economist magazine, while expressing support for the same sex marriage, argued that attempts to force same-sex marriage through the Supreme Court constitute "yet another self-damaging act of judicial overreach". The magazine further argues that it is sensible for proponents of same-sex marriage to "concentrate on winning their battles in the court of public opinion and the chambers of the legislature."[29]
Mayors of several large cities such as Atlanta,[30] Boston,[31] Chicago,[32] Los Angeles,[33] New York City,[34] Salt Lake City,[35] San Francisco,[36] San Diego[37] and Seattle[38] publicly support same-sex marriage.
Several political parties such as the Communist Party USA,[39] U.S. Green Party[citation needed], the Socialist Party USA,[40] and several state Democratic Parties, including the California Democratic Party,[41] the Connecticut Democratic Party[citation needed], the Iowa Democratic Party,[42] the Illinois Democratic Party, the Maine Democratic Party,[43] the Massachusetts Democratic Party,[44] the Michigan Democratic Party[citation needed], the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party[citation needed], the New York Democratic Party[citation needed], the New Jersey Democratic Party[citation needed], the Oregon Democratic Party[citation needed], the Pennsylvania Democratic Party[citation needed], the Rhode Island Democratic Party[citation needed], the Vermont Democratic Party[citation needed], the Washington State Democratic Party,[45] and the Wisconsin Democratic Party[46] also support gay marriage.
[edit] Supporting civil unions or domestic partnerships
Those supporting the creation of a legal status for same-sex couples in the form of civil union or domestic partnership legislation include some state governors, such as Arnold Schwarzenegger of California,[47] Jack Markell of Delaware,[48] Charlie Crist of Florida,[49] John Baldacci of Maine,[50] John H. Lynch of New Hampshire,[51] Bill Richardson of New Mexico,[52] Ted Kulongoski of Oregon,[53] Jon Huntsman of Utah,[54] and Christine Gregoire of Washington[55]; the national Democratic Party;[56] Republican Former President George W. Bush,[57][58][59] and sitting Democratic President Barack Obama.[60] However, after the 2008 elections, reports surfaced which indicated that Barack Obama had, in past years, stated in writing that he supported same-sex marriage.[61]
[edit] Opposition
See Traditional marriage movement
Opposition to same sex marriage in the United States tends to be associated with the religious right, though it is by no means limited to this group; social conservatives,[62][63] the Roman Catholic Church,[64][65] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,[66] many Muslims,[67] and the Orthodox branch of Judaism[68][69] also support the "traditional," opposite-sex only definition of marriage. Prominent Evangelical Christian opponents of same-sex marriage have included Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Jerry Falwell. Organizations that support a "traditional" definition of marriage include the Alliance Defense Fund, Alliance for Marriage, American Family Association, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, National Organization for Marriage, Orthodox Church in America, Rabbinical Council of America,[70] and the national Republican Party.[71]
Current President of the United States Barack Obama opposed gay marriage when he was senator of Illinois and also opposed a federal ban on gay marriage, arguing states should decide.[72] On the other hand, Obama has also opposed California's constitutional ban on gay marriage, in addition to supporting gay marriage during his Illinois Senate race, making his position on the issue a point of controversy.[73]
Those who oppose same-sex marriage offer a variety of reasons for their position. Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that same-sex relationships are not marriages,[74] that same-sex marriage is contrary to the best interests of children because it deprives children of either a mother or a father,[75][76][77][78] that legalization of same-sex marriage will open the door for the legalization of polygamy[79][80] or marriages between humans and animals,[81] and that legalization of same-sex marriage would erode religious freedoms.[82][83][84] Other opponents of same-sex marriage hold that same-sex marriage is contrary to God's will,[85][86] that it is unnatural,[87] that it encourages unhealthy behavior,[88] and that it harms the family structure of society. Still others argue that same-sex marriage would increase the prevalence of homosexual behavior,[89] or would encourage individuals to act upon homosexual urges, when such individuals ought to instead seek help to overcome the temptation toward homosexual behavior.[86] Some same-sex marriage opponents take the view that an opposite-sex only definition of marriage does not treat anyone unequally because unmarried adults are free to marry any unrelated, unmarried, consenting adult of the opposite sex.[90] Others argue that same-sex relationships are intrinsically different from marriages, and that any comparison with interracial marriage is unjustified.[91]
A writer of The Weekly Standard, Stanley Kurtz, adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute, blames same-sex marriage in the Netherlands for an increase in parental cohabitation contracts. He asserts that same-sex marriage has detached procreation from marriage in the Dutch mind and would likely do the same in the United States.
...the American media are correct to report that the majority of Dutch citizens have accepted the innovation [same-sex marriage]. The press has simply missed the meaning of that public shift. Broad Dutch acceptance of same-sex marriage means that marriage as an institution has been detached from the public mind. That is why the practice of parental cohabitation has grown so quickly in the Netherlands. By the same token, the shoulder shrug that followed the triple wedding [polyamory] story shows that legalized group marriage in the Netherlands is a real possibility.[92]
[edit] Popular opinion
[edit] Timeline of major events
- Oct. 10, 1972: The United States Supreme Court dismisses Baker v. Nelson "for want of a substantial federal question".
- May 5, 1993: The Hawaii State Supreme Court rules that statute limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is presumed to be unconstitutional unless the state can show that it is justified by compelling state interests and that the statute is narrowly drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgements of rights under the Hawaii Constitution.
- Sept. 21, 1996: President Clinton signs into law the Defense of Marriage Act, denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
- Dec. 19, 1997: The Hawaii State Supreme Court affirms that statute limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is in violation of the equal protection clause of the Hawaii Constitution.
- Nov. 3, 1998: Hawaii voters amend Hawaii Constitution to give legislature the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.
- Dec. 20, 1999: The Vermont Supreme Court holds that exclusion of same-sex couples from benefits and protections incident to marriage under state law violated common benefits clause of Vermont Constitution.
- Nov. 18, 2003: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court gives the state legislature 180 days to enact same-sex marriage.
- Feb. 11, 2004: The Massachusetts legislature completes the first step in a process that would ban same-sex marriage. The process is not continued.
- Feb. 12 – Mar. 11, 2004: San Francisco gives out same-sex marriage licenses
- May 17, 2004: Same-sex marriage starts in Massachusetts
- August 12, 2004: The Supreme Court of California rules that the San Francisco marriages are void
- Sept. 29, 2005: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes same-sex marriage
- Oct. 12, 2007: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes same-sex marriage
- May 15, 2008: The Supreme Court of California overturns the state's ban on gay-marriage
- June 16, 2008: Same-sex marriage starts in California
- Oct. 10, 2008: The Supreme Court of Connecticut orders same-sex marriage legalized
- Nov. 4, 2008: Proposition 8 stops same-sex marriage in California
- Nov. 12, 2008: Same-sex marriage starts in Connecticut
- Apr. 3, 2009: The Iowa Supreme court legalizes same-sex marriage
- Apr. 6, 2009: Same-sex marriage is passed by the Vermont legislature, and then vetoed by the governor
- Apr. 7, 2009: The Vermont legislature overrides the governor's veto of same-sex marriage
- Apr. 27, 2009: Same-sex marriage to start in Iowa
- June 3, 2009: The Supreme Court of California must rule by this day on the legal status of same-sex marriage in California
- Sept. 1, 2009: Same-sex marriage to start in Vermont
[edit] Case law
United States case law regarding the spousal rights of gay or bisexual persons:
- Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971) (upholding a Minnesota law defining marriage)
- Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588 (Ky. 1973) (upholding a Kentucky law defining marriage)
- Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187 (Wash. App. 1974)
- Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1111 (affirming that same-sex marriage does not make one a "spouse" under the Immigration and Nationality Act)
- De Santo v. Barnsley, 476 A.2d 952 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984)
- In re Estate of Cooper, 564 N.Y.S.2d 684 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1990)
- Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993) (ruled that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated equal protection clause of Hawaii state constitution, prompting a state constitutional amendment and the Defense of Marriage Act)
- Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307 (D.C. 1995)
- Storrs v. Holcomb, 645 N.Y.S.2d 286 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996) (New York does not recognize or authorize same-sex marriage) (this ruling has since been changed, New York does recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states)
- In re Estate of Hall, 707 N.E.2d 201, 206 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998) (no same sex marriage will be recognized; petitioner claiming existing same-sex marriage was not in a marriage recognized by law)
- Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194; 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999) (Common Benefits Clause of the state constitution requires that same-sex couples be granted the same legal rights as married persons)
- Rosengarten v. Downes, 806 A.2d 1066 (Conn. Ct. App. 2002) (Vermont civil union cannot be dissolved in Connecticut)
- Burns v. Burns, 560 S.E.2d 47 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman)
- Frandsen v. County of Brevard, 828 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2002) (State constitution will not be construed to recognize same-sex marriage; sex classifications not subject to strict scrutiny under Florida constitution)
- In re Estate of Gardiner, 42 P.3d 120 (Kan. 2002) (a post-op male-to-female transgendered person may not marry a male, because this person is still a male in the eyes of the law, and marriage in Kansas is recognized only between a man and a woman)
- Standhardt v. Superior Court ex rel. County of Maricopa, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003) (no state constitution right to same-sex marriage)
- Morrison v. Sadler, 2003 WL 23119998 (Ind. Super. Ct. 2003) (Indiana's Defense of Marriage Act is found valid)
- Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003) (denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated provisions of the state constitution guaranteeing individual liberty and equality, and was not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.)
- Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.2d 196 (N.J. 2006) (New Jersey is required to extend all rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples, but prohibiting same-sex marriage does not violate the state constitution; legislature given 180 days from October 25, 2006 to amend the marriage laws or create a "parallel structure.")
- Andersen v. King County, 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006) (Washington's Defense of Marriage Act does not violate the state constitution)
- Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006) (New York's marriage statutes do not permit same-sex marriage and are not unconstitutional).
- Conaway v. Deane, 932 A.2d 571 (Md. 2007) (upholding state law defining marriage as between a "man" and a "woman,")
- Martinez v. County of Monroe, 850 N.Y.S.2d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) (The court ruled unanimously that because New York legally recognizes out-of-state marriages of opposite-sex couples, it must do the same for same-sex couples. The county is seeking leave to appeal the decision.[3])
- In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008) (The court ruled that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is invalid under the equal protection clause of the California Constitution, and that full marriage rights, not merely domestic partnership, must be offered to same-sex couples.)
- Varnum v. Brien, ___ N.W.2d ___, No. 07-1499 (Ia. 2009) (Barring same-sex couples from marriage, the court ruled, violates the equal protection provisions of the Iowa Constitution. Equal protection requires full marriage, rather than civil unions or some other substitute, for same-sex couples.)
[edit] See also
- A Union In Wait (documentary)
[edit] In general
[edit] In the United States
- Same-sex marriage in the United States public opinion
- Same-sex marriage status in the United States by state
- Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States
- Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States by state
- Same-sex unions in the United States
- List of benefits of marriage in the United States
- Defense of Marriage Act
- Marriage Protection Act
- Defense of marriage amendment
- Federal Marriage Amendment
- Domestic partnerships in the United States
- Freedom to Marry Coalition
- Marriage Equality USA
[edit] References
- ^ [1] Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override
- ^ [2] Vermont lawmakers legalize gay marriage
- ^ Gay Marriage Is Ruled Legal in Connecticut New York Times
- ^ http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090403/NEWS/90403010 Iowa Supreme Court upholds Hanson's ruling; marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman
- ^ Murdoch, et al., p. 171
- ^ "State Supreme Court Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage", Hartford Courant
- ^ http://www.365gay.com/news/iowa-supreme-court-strikes-down-gay-marriage-ban/
- ^ http://www.365gay.com/news/iowa-gay-marriages-delayed/
- ^ "Senate blocks same-sex marriage ban", CNN, June 7, 2006, (Accessed July 5, 2006)
- ^ California same-sex marriage ban struck down
- ^ Mintz, Howard (15 May 2008). "California Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage" (in en). Mercury News. http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_9269719. Retrieved on 2008-05-15.
- ^ California's top court legalizes gay marriage
- ^ a b "California Supreme Court Denies Rehearing and Stay in Marriage Cases" (PDF). 2008-06-04. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/NR31-08.PDF. Retrieved on 2008-06-04.
- ^ latimes.com, California Supreme Court refuses to delay gay marriage
- ^ Statement by the Catholic bishops of CA; Patrick J. Buchanan, “Post-Christian America: Marriage ruling another streetlight on our ‘darkening path to perdition”
- ^ nytimes.com, Gay Couples Rejoice at Ruling
- ^ "Bans in 3 States on Gay Marriage"
- ^ "Number of states", NYTimes.com
- ^ Statewide Marriage Prohibitions plus Kansas http://www.kslib.info/constitution/art15.html
- ^ "Gay marriage decisions ripe in Calif., Conn.", Stateline.org
- ^ Freedom to Marry | Maps, Freedom to Marry
- ^ Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman
- ^ Dutch island fights marriage ruling
- ^ http://www.freedomtomarry.org/get_informed/marriage_basics/faq.php
- ^ http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-01-25-couples_x.htm
- ^ https://www.prideagenda.org/IssuesExplained/MarriageandFamilyProtection/QuickFacts/AnswerstoCommonQuestions/tabid/194/Default.aspx
- ^ http://www.lambdalegal.org/publications/factsheets/five-key-reasons-for-marriage-equality.html
- ^ http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/espuelas.prop.eight/
- ^ http://www.economist.com/world/na/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=9441511
- ^ http://www.sovo.com/2004/12-31/news/localnews/mecca.cfm
- ^ http://brighton-community.blogspot.com/2008/03/mayor-menino-supports-zoning-rule-to.html
- ^ http://www.chicagopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/1324321
- ^ http://www.insidesocal.com/politics/2008/10/mayor-supports-fight-against-p.html
- ^ http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/30/ny.gaymarriage/index.html
- ^ http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/19/gay.marriage.impact.ap/index.html
- ^ http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZmLBrL36NObNyMR0ghXN7vB5hYwD945NQP80
- ^ http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-09-20-san-diego-mayor_N.htm
- ^ http://seattle.gov/news/detail.asp?ID=4166
- ^ "Election Platform 2004". Communist Party USA. http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/589/1/3. Retrieved on 2006-07-05.
- ^ "Socialist Party Platform: Human Rights". Socialist Party USA. http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/humanrights.html. Retrieved on 2006-07-05.
- ^ ""California Democrats Present Our Blueprint for the Golden State"" (PDF). California Democratic Party. http://www.cadem.org/atf/cf/%7BBF9D7366-E5A7-41C3-8E3F-E06FB835FCCE%7D/2008%20Platform%20Combined%20%20Final.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-05-15.
- ^ "2008 Iowa Democratic Party Platform". Iowa Democratic Party. http://www.iowademocrats.org/home/media/platform.pdf. Retrieved on 2009-02-19.
- ^ "2006 MDP Platform". Maine Democratic Party. http://www.mainedems.org/about/platform-rules.aspx. Retrieved on 2008-03-17.
- ^ "Massachusetts Democratic Party Platform". Massachusetts Democratic Party. http://www.massdems.org/about/platform.cfm. Retrieved on 2008-03-17.
- ^ "Platform of the Democratic Party of Washington" (PDF). Washington State Democratic Convention. http://www.wa-democrats.org/files/Platform%20and%20Executive%20Summary%20of%20the%20Democratic%20Party%20of%20Washington%20-%20June%203,%202006.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-03-17.
- ^ "Marriage by civil ceremony must be permitted for unmarried couples of marriageable age without regard to sex." "Human Concerns", Democratic Party of Wisconsin.
- ^ Roehr, Bob (05 October 2005). "Schwarzenegger Vetoes Same-Sex Marriage". Windy City Media Group. http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=9639. Retrieved on 2009-04-12.
- ^ http://www.delawareliberal.net/2008/11/29/marriage-equality-and-civil-unions/
- ^ Bousquet, Steve (29 July 2006). "Crist: Gay civil unions 'fine'". St. Petersburg Times. http://www.sptimes.com/2006/07/29/State/Crist__Gay_civil_unio.shtml. Retrieved on 2009-04-13.
- ^ Abel, David (24 March 2009). "Same-sex marriage bills gain in New England". The Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2009/03/24/same_sex_marriage_bills_gain_in_ne/?page=2. Retrieved on 2009-04-13.
- ^ Liebowitz, Sarah (21 April 2007). "Candidates dance at civil unions". Concord Monitor. http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070421/REPOSITORY/704210326/1043/NEWS01. Retrieved on 2009-04-12.
- ^ http://www.issue2008.com/campaign/candidates/bill-richardson-candidates/
- ^ http://www.tedforgov.com/2005/10/his_belief_in_e.html
- ^ Roche, Lisa (10 February 2009). "Huntsman calls self 'moderating voice' on many issues". Deseret News. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705284093,00.html. Retrieved on 2009-04-13.
- ^ La Corte, Rachel (27 April 2007). "Gregoire signs domestic partnership measure into law". Seattle Times. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003675942_webdomestic21.html. Retrieved on 2009-04-12.
- ^ "Democratic Party 2004 Platform" (PDF). http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf. see page 42
- ^ Hunter, Melanie (27 October 2004). "Bush Tolerates Civil Unions, Thinks States Should Decide". Cybercast News Service. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200410%5CCUL20041027b.html. Retrieved on 2008-03-07.
- ^ Bumiller, Elisabeth (26 October 2004). "Bush Says His Party Is Wrong to Oppose Gay Civil Unions". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/26/politics/campaign/26gay.html. Retrieved on 2008-03-07.
- ^ "Bush's gay union stance irks conservatives". Associated Press. 26 October 2004. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6338458/. Retrieved on 2008-03-07.
- ^ http://change.gov/agenda/civil_rights_agenda/
- ^ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/15/report-obama-changed-view-gay-marriage/
- ^ Home | National Organization for Marriage
- ^ Conservative Party of New York State
- ^ New York State Catholic Conference - The Official Public Policy Voice of the Catholic Conference of the Empire State
- ^ Catholic League: For Religious and Civil Rights
- ^ http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/church-responds-to-california-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision
- ^ http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_151_200/same_sex_marriage_and_marriage_i.htm
- ^ Jewish Law - LawPolicy ("Agudath Israel of America - Policy Paper")
- ^ Caucus For America | Battling for the Soul of America
- ^ name="orthjew">Same-Sex Marriage, Rabbinical Council of America. (Accessed July 5, 2006)
- ^ "Republican Party 2004 Platform" (PDF). http://www.gop.com/images/2004platform.pdf.
- ^ http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.samesexmarriage.html
- ^ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/15/report-obama-changed-view-gay-marriage/
- ^ http://www.savemarriageny.org/The%20Case%20Against%20Same-Sex%20Marriage%20and%20Civil%20Unions.pdf
- ^ http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/Nat_Post_gay_rights_childrens_right_Margaret_Somerville_14JUL05.aspx
- ^ NYFCF
- ^ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38331
- ^ http://www.atoday.com/most-powerful-argument-against-samesex-marriage
- ^ http://www.nationformarriage.org/atf/cf/%7B39D8B5C1-F9FE-48C0-ABE6-1029BA77854C%7D/CatholicEnglish.pdf
- ^ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66302
- ^ http://mediamatters.org/items/200504150005
- ^ Banned in Boston
- ^ http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/issues/traditionalfamily/samesexmarriage.aspx?cid=4558
- ^ http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg2201es.cfm
- ^ "The Religious Right and Anti-Gay Speech: Messengers of Love or Purveyors of Hate?". Matthew Shepard Online Resources. http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/robertson.html.
- ^ a b http://www.apacny.net/The%20Christian%20Case%20Against%20Same-Sex%20Marriage.pdf
- ^ "Anti-Gay Backlashes Are on 3 States' Ballots". The New York Times. 1992-10-04. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE0DE1731F937A35753C1A964958260. Retrieved on 2008-06-06.
- ^ BalancedPolitics.org - Same Sex Marriages (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against)
- ^ http://www.narth.com/docs/legalizing.html
- ^ http://www.apacny.net/APACBiblicalPerspectiveSSMCU.pdf
- ^ http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/gallagher200407130859.asp
- ^ "Stanley Kurtz Bangs Drum About Polyamory and Bisexuality". Poly Greens News. 2006-01-07. http://www.polygreens.org/?p=59.
[edit] Bibliography
- Chauncey, George (2004). Why Marriage?: The History Shaping Today's Debate over Gay Equality. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-00957-3.
- Murdoch, Joyce and Deb Price (2001). Courting Justice: Gay Men and Lesbians v. the Supreme Court. New York, Basic Books. ISBN 0465015131.
- Dobson, James C. (2004). Marriage Under Fire. Sisters, Or.: Multnomah. ISBN 1-59052-431-4.
- Wolfson, Evan (2004). Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-7432-6459-2.
[edit] External links
- Where Can Gays Wed? Newsweek's Interactive Map on same-sex marriage legislation in the United States, June 2008 by Marc Bain, Alicia Parlapiano and Xaquín G.V.
- LA Weekly feature, "California Supreme Court Set to Consider Gay Marriage," Feb. 2008 by Matthew Fleischer
- PollingReport.com Law and Civil Rights compendium
- American Courts on Marriage: Is Marriage Discriminatory? 1998-2008, Joshua Baker, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, May 2008.
[edit] Supporting same-sex marriage
- Human Rights Campaign
- Marriage Equality USA
- Freedom to Marry
- National Organization for Women: Same-Sex Marriage is a Feminist Issue
- American Civil Liberties Union
- The Democratic Party GLBT Community
- Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD)
[edit] Opposing same-sex marriage
- Alliance Defense Fund
- Alliance for Marriage
- American Family Association
- Caucus for America
- Concerned Women for America
- Family Research Council
- Focus on the Family
- Liberty Counsel
- National Organization for Marriage
- Renew America
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
