From S'pore LGBT encyclopedia
(Redirected from Gay marriage)
Jump to: navigation, search

Same-sex marriage (also known as gay marriage) is marriage between two people of the same biological sex and/or gender identity. Legal recognition of same-sex marriage or the possibility to perform a same-sex marriage is sometimes referred to as marriage equality or equal marriage, particularly by supporters.[1][2][3][4][5] The legalization of same-sex marriage is characterized as "redefining marriage" by many opponents.[6][7][8]

The first laws in modern times enabling same-sex marriage were enacted during the first decade of the 21st century. Template:As of, fifteen countries (Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark,[nb 1] France, Iceland, Netherlands,[nb 2] New Zealand,[nb 3] Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Uruguay) and several sub-national jurisdictions (parts of Mexico and the United States) allow same-sex couples to marry. A law has been passed by the Westminster Parliament in the United Kingdom, effective in England and Wales, which will be fully in force on 29 March 2014.[9][10] The Scottish parliament has passed a bill that allows same-sex marriages to take place from October 2014.[11] Polls in various countries show that there is rising support for legally recognizing same-sex marriage across race, ethnicity, age, religion, political affiliation, and socioeconomic status.[12]

File:World marriage-equality laws.svg
Template:Legend Template:Legend Template:Legend Template:Legend Template:Legend Template:Legend Template:Legend Regional outline: Traditional same-sex marriage which is not considered homosexual
(Colors higher in the list override those lower down.)

Introduction of same-sex marriage laws has varied by jurisdiction, being variously accomplished through a legislative change to marriage laws, a court ruling based on constitutional guarantees of equality, or by direct popular vote (via a ballot initiative or a referendum). The recognition of same-sex marriage is a political, social, human rights and civil rights issue, as well as a religious issue in many nations and around the world, and debates continue to arise over whether same-sex couples should be allowed marriage, or instead be allowed to hold a different status (a civil union), or be denied such rights.[13][14][15] Same-sex marriage can provide LGBT taxpayers with government services and make financial demands on them comparable to those afforded to and required of male-female married couples. Same-sex marriage also gives them legal protections such as inheritance and hospital visitation rights.[16]

Some analysts state that financial, psychological and physical well-being are enhanced by marriage, and that children of same-sex couples benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union supported by society's institutions.[17][18][19][20][21] Court documents filed by American scientific associations also state that singling out gay men and women as ineligible for marriage both stigmatizes and invites public discrimination against them.[22] The American Anthropological Association avers that social science research does not support the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon not recognizing same-sex marriage.[23]

Same-sex marriages can be performed in a secular civil ceremony or in a religious setting. Various faith communities around the world support allowing same-sex couples to marry or conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies; for example: Buddhism in Australia, Church of Sweden, Conservative Judaism, U.S. Episcopalians, Humanistic Judaism, Native American religions with a two-spirit tradition, Druids, the Metropolitan Community Church, Quakers, Reconstructionist Judaism, Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalists, the United Church of Canada, the United Church of Christ, and Wiccans, as well as various other progressive and modern Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and Jewish groups and various minor religions and other denominations.

Studies[edit]

Organizations[edit]

The American Psychological Association stated in 2004:[17]

The institution of civil marriage confers a social status and important legal benefits, rights, and privileges. ... Same-sex couples are denied equal access to civil marriage. ... Same-sex couples who enter into a civil union are denied equal access to all the benefits, rights, and privileges provided by federal law to married couples ... The benefits, rights, and privileges associated with domestic partnerships are not universally available, are not equal to those associated with marriage, and are rarely portable ... Denial of access to marriage to same-sex couples may especially harm people who also experience discrimination based on age, race, ethnicity, disability, gender and gender identity, religion, and socioeconomic status ... the APA believes that it is unfair and discriminatory to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage and to all its attendant benefits, rights, and privileges.

The American Sociological Association stated in 2004:[18]

... a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman intentionally discriminates against lesbians and gay men as well as their children and other dependents by denying access to the protections, benefits, and responsibilities extended automatically to married couples ... we believe that the official justification for the proposed constitutional amendment is based on prejudice rather than empirical research ... the American Sociological Association strongly opposes the proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

The Canadian Psychological Association stated in 2006:[20]

The literature (including the literature on which opponents to marriage of same-sex couples appear to rely) indicates that parents' financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union. As the CPA stated in 2003, the stressors encountered by gay and lesbian parents and their children are more likely the result of the way society treats them than because of any deficiencies in fitness to parent. The CPA recognizes and appreciates that persons and institutions are entitled to their opinions and positions on this issue. However, CPA is concerned that some are mis-interpreting the findings of psychological research to support their positions, when their positions are more accurately based on other systems of belief or values. CPA asserts that children stand to benefit from the well-being that results when their parents' relationship is recognized and supported by society's institutions.

The American Anthropological Association stated in 2005:[23]

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The American Academy of Pediatrics concluded in 2006, in an analysis published in the journal Pediatrics:[24] Template:Quote

The United Kingdom's Royal College of Psychiatrists has stated:[25] Template:Quote

Health[edit]

File:Major Alan G. Roger at Same-Sex Wedding Ceremony.jpg
A same-sex wedding ceremony in June 2006.

In 2010, a Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health study examining the effects of institutional discrimination on the psychiatric health of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) individuals found an increase in psychiatric disorders, including a more than doubling of anxiety disorders, among the LGB population living in states that instituted bans on same-sex marriage. According to the author, the study highlighted the importance of abolishing institutional forms of discrimination, including those leading to disparities in the mental health and well-being of LGB individuals. Institutional discrimination is characterized by societal-level conditions that limit the opportunities and access to resources by socially disadvantaged groups.[26][27]

Gay activist Jonathan Rauch has argued that marriage is good for all men, whether homosexual or heterosexual, because engaging in its social roles reduces men's aggression and promiscuity.[28][29] The data of current psychological and other social science studies on same-sex marriage in comparison to mixed-sex marriage indicate that same-sex and mixed-sex relationships do not differ in their essential psychosocial dimensions; that a parent's sexual orientation is unrelated to their ability to provide a healthy and nurturing family environment; and that marriage bestows substantial psychological, social, and health benefits. Same-sex couples and their children are likely to benefit in numerous ways from legal recognition of their families, and providing such recognition through marriage will bestow greater benefit than civil unions or domestic partnerships.[24][30]

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.[31][32] The study linked the passage of a 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.[33]

Opinion polling[edit]

Numerous polls and studies on the issue have been conducted, including those that were completed throughout the first decade of the 21st century. A consistent trend of increasing support for same-sex marriage has been revealed across the world. Much of the research that was conducted in developed countries in the first decade of the 21st century shows a majority of people in support of same-sex marriage. Support for legal same-sex marriage has increased across every age group, political ideology, religion, gender, race and region of various developed countries in the world.[34][35][36][37][38]

Recent polling in the United States has shown a further increase in the American public's support for same-sex marriage. When adults were asked in 2005 if they thought "marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages", 28 percent replied in the affirmative, while 68 percent replied in the negative (the remaining 4 percent stated that they were unsure). When adults were asked in March 2013 if they supported or opposed same-sex marriage, 50 percent said they supported same-sex marriage, while 41 percent were opposed, and the remaining 9 percent stated that they were unsure.[39]

Various detailed polls and studies on same-sex marriage that were conducted in several countries show that support for same-sex marriage generally increases with higher levels of education, and that younger people are more likely to support legalization than older generations.[40][41][42][43][44]

History[edit]

Template:Main

Ancient[edit]

The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire according to controversial[45] historian John Boswell.[46] These were usually reported in a critical or satirical manner.[47] Child emperor Elagabalus referred to his chariot driver, a blond slave from Caria named Hierocles, as his husband.[48] He also married an athlete named Zoticus in a lavish public ceremony in Rome amidst the rejoicings of the citizens.[49][50]

The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other males on different occasions. His first marriage was with one of his freedmen, Pythagoras, to whom Nero took the role of the bride.[51] Later, as a groom, Nero married Sporus, a young boy to replace his young teenage concubine who he had killed [52] and married him in a very public ceremony with all the solemnities of matrimony, after which Sporus was forced to pretend be the girl concubine that Nero had killed and act like they were really married.[52] A friend gave the "bride" away as required by law. The marriage was celebrated separately in both Greece and Rome in extravagant public ceremonies.[53]

It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[54] Furthermore, according to Susan Treggiari, "matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."[55] Still, the lack of legal validity notwithstanding, there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, but the exact frequency and nature of "same-sex unions" during that period is obscure.[56]

In 342 AD Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.[57]

Medieval[edit]

A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.[58]

Modern[edit]

During the Victorian Era, two women cohabiting was termed a Boston marriage.[59]

Contemporary[edit]

Denmark was the first state to recognize a legal relationship for same-sex couples, establishing "registered partnerships" very much like marriage in 1989.[60] In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation in the world to grant same-sex marriages.[61] Same-sex marriages are also granted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003),[62] Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010),[63] Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010), Denmark (2012), Brazil (2013), France (2013), Uruguay (2013) and New Zealand (2013). In Mexico, same-sex marriage is recognized in all 31 states but only performed in Mexico City, Quintana Roo and Chihuahua. In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated.[64] In the United States, eighteen states and the District of Columbia permit same-sex marriage, beginning with Massachusetts in 2004.[65][66] Additionally, per the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Windsor (2013), the federal government recognizes same-sex marriages performed in U.S. states where it is legal.

Timeline[edit]

Template:Expand list

2001 Netherlands (1 April)
2003 Belgium (1 June), Ontario (10 June), British Columbia (8 July)
2004 Sandoval County, New Mexico (20 February; discontinued, later reinstated by statewide legalization 19 December, 2013), Quebec (19 March), Massachusetts (17 May), Yukon (14 July), Manitoba (16 September), Nova Scotia (24 September), Saskatchewan (5 November), Newfoundland (21 December)
2005 New Brunswick (23 June), Spain (3 July), Canada [national] (20 July)
2006 South Africa (30 November)
2008 California (16 June, discontinued 5 November; reinstated 28 June 2013), Connecticut (12 November)
2009 Norway (1 January), Iowa (27 April), Sweden (1 May), Coquille Indian Tribe (Oregon) (May), Vermont (1 September)
2010 New Hampshire (1 January), District of Columbia (3 March), Mexican Federal District (4 March), Portugal (5 June), Iceland (27 June), Argentina (22 July)
2011 New York (24 July), Suquamish tribe (Washington) (1 August)
2012 Alagoas (6 January), Quintana Roo (May), Denmark (15 June), Sergipe (15 July), Espírito Santo (15 August), Caribbean Netherlands (10 October), Bahia (26 November), Brazilian Federal District (1 December), Washington (6 December), Piauí (15 December), Maine (29 December)
2013 Maryland (1 January), São Paulo (16 February), Ceará & Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians (Michigan) (15 March), Paraná (26 March), Mato Grosso do Sul (2 April), Rondônia (26 April), Santa Catarina & Paraíba (29 April), Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians (Michigan) (8 May), Brazil [national] (16 May), France (18 May), Santa Ysabel Tribe (California) (24 June), California (28 June), Delaware (1 July), Minnesota & Rhode Island (1 August), Uruguay (5 August), New Zealand (19 August), Doña Ana County, New Mexico (21 August), Santa Fe County, New Mexico (23 August), Bernalillo County, New Mexico (26 August), San Miguel County, New Mexico & Valencia County, New Mexico (27 August), Taos County, New Mexico (28 August), Los Alamos County, New Mexico (4 September), Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Washington) (5 September), Grant County, New Mexico (9 September), Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes (Oklahoma) (by October 10),[67][68] New Jersey (21 October), Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (15 November), Hawaii (2 December), New Mexico [Statewide] (19 December), Utah (20 December, discontinued 6 January 2014)
2014 Cook County, Illinois (21 February), England and Wales (13 March), Illinois [Statewide] (1 June)

International organisations[edit]

European Court of Human Rights[edit]

In 2010 the European Court of Human Rights ruled on Schalk and Kopf v Austria, a case involving an Austrian same-sex couple who were denied the right to marry.[69] The court found that their human rights had not been violated, with a result of 3 votes for and 4 votes against.[70]

British judge Sir Nicolas Bratza, then head of the European Court of Human Rights, delivered a speech in 2012 that signalled the court was ready to declare same-sex marriage a 'human right', as soon as enough countries fell into line.[71][72][73]

Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that: "Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right",[74] not limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

Same-sex marriage around the world[edit]

Template:Main Template:World homosexuality laws map Same-sex marriage is legally recognized nationwide in Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark,[nb 1] France, Iceland, the Netherlands,[nb 2] New Zealand,[nb 3] Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and Uruguay. In the United States, same-sex marriages are recognized on the federal level, though same-sex couples can only marry in sixteen of the fifty states and Washington D.C. In Mexico, same-sex marriages are only performed regularly in Mexico City and Quintana Roo, but these marriages are recognized by all Mexican states and by the Mexican federal government.[75] Israel does not recognize same-sex marriages performed on its territory, but recognizes same-sex marriages performed in foreign jurisdictions.

Legal recognition[edit]

Argentina[edit]

Template:Main On 15 July 2010, the Argentine Senate approved a bill extending marriage rights to same-sex couples. It was supported by the Government of President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and opposed by the Catholic Church.[76] Polls showed that nearly 70% of Argentines supported giving gay people the same marital rights as heterosexuals.[77] The law came into effect on 22 July 2010.

Australia[edit]

Template:Main On 22 October 2013, a bill was passed by the Parliament of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) legalising same-sex marriage in the ACT. However, the High Court claims that the legal change was never valid and an official reversal of the bill was announced on 12 December 2013. The High Court established that such a change to ACT legislation could not operate concurrently with the federal Marriage Act.[78]

Belgium[edit]

Template:Main Belgium became the second country in the world to legally recognize same-sex marriages when a bill passed by the Belgian Federal Parliament took effect on 1 June 2003. Originally, Belgium allowed the marriages of foreign same-sex couples only if their country of origin also allowed these unions, however legislation enacted in October 2004 permits any couple to marry if at least one of the spouses has lived in the country for a minimum of three months. A 2006 statute legalized adoption by same-sex spouses.

Brazil[edit]

Template:Main Brazil's Supreme Court ruled in May 2011 that same-sex couples are legally entitled to legal recognition of cohabitation (known as Template:Lang, what includes all family and married couple rights in Brazil since the same date), turning same-sex marriage legally possible as a consequence, and just stopping short of equalization of same-sex marriage (potentially confusing, marriage is termed Template:Lang in legal Brazilian Portuguese; a same-sex marriage is a Template:Lang).[79] Same-sex couples had their cohabitation issues converted into marriage in several Brazil states with the approval of a state judge. All legal Brazilian marriages were always recognized all over Brazil.[80]

In November 2012, the Court of Bahia equalized marriage in the state of Bahia.[81][82] In December 2012, the state of São Paulo likewise had same-sex marriage allowed in demand by Court order.[83] Same-sex marriages also became equalized in relation to mixed-sex ones between January 2012 and April 2013 by Court order in Alagoas, Ceará, Espírito Santo, the Federal District, Mato Grosso do Sul, Paraíba, Paraná, Piauí, Rondônia, Santa Catarina and Sergipe, and by municipal lawmaking in Santa Rita do Sapucaí, Minas Gerais; in Rio de Janeiro, the State Court facilitated its realization by district judges in agreement with the equalization (instead of ordering notaries to accept same-sex marriages in demand as all others).

On 14 May 2013, The Justice's National Council of Brazil issues a ruling requiring all civil registers of the country to perform same-sex marriages by a 14-1 vote, thus legalizing same-sex marriage in the entire country.[84][85][86] The resolution came into effect on 16 May 2013.[87][88]

In March 2013, polls suggested that 47% of Brazilians supported marriage equalization and 57% supported adoption equalization for same-sex couples.[89] Polls in June 2013 also supported the conclusion that the division of opinion between acceptance and rejection of same-sex marriage is in about equal halves. When the distinction between same-sex unions that are not termed marriages in relation to same-sex marriage is made, the difference in the numbers of approval and disapproval is still insignificant, below 1%; the most frequently reason for disapproval is the supposed 'unnaturalness' of same-sex relationships, followed by religious beliefs.[90][91]

Canada[edit]

Template:Main Legal recognition of same-sex marriage in Canada followed a series of constitutional challenges based on the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the first such case, Halpern v. Canada (Attorney General), same-sex marriage ceremonies performed in Ontario on 14 January 2001 were subsequently validated when the common law, mixed-sex definition of marriage was held to be unconstitutional. Similar rulings had legalized same-sex marriage in eight provinces and one territory when the 2005 Civil Marriage Act defined marriage throughout Canada as "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others."

Denmark[edit]

Template:Main On 7 June 2012, the Folketing (Danish parliament) approved new laws regarding same-sex civil and religious marriage. These laws permit same-sex couples to get married in the Church of Denmark. The bills received Royal Assent on 12 June and took effect on 15 June 2012.[92] Denmark was previously the first country in the world to legally recognize same-sex couples through registered partnerships in 1989.[93][94]

Template:Same-sex marriage map Europe

France[edit]

Template:Main Following the election of François Hollande as President of France in May 2012 and the subsequent legislative election in which the Socialist party took a majority of seats in the French National Assembly, the new Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault stated that a same-sex marriage bill has been drafted and would be passed.[95] The government introduced a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, Bill 344, in the National Assembly on 17 November 2012. Article 1 of the bill defining marriage as an agreement between two people was passed on 2 February 2013 in its first reading by a 249–97 vote. On 12 February 2013, the National Assembly approved the entire bill in a 329–229 vote.[96]

On 12 April 2013, the upper house of the French parliament voted to legalise same-sex marriage.[97] On 23 April 2013 the law was approved by the National Assembly in a 331–225 vote.[98] Law No.2013-404 grants same-sex couples living in France, including foreigners provided at least one of the partners has their domicile or residence in France, the legal right to get married. The law also allows the recognition in France of same-sex couples’ marriages that occurred abroad before the bill's enactment.[99]

Following the announcement of the French parliament's vote results, those in opposition to the legalisation of same-sex marriage in France participated in public protests. In both Paris and Lyon, violence erupted as protesters clashed with police; the issue has mobilised right-wing forces in the country, including neo-Nazis.[100]

The main right-wing opposition party UMP challenged the law in the Constitutional Council, which had one month to rule on whether the law conformed to the Constitution. The Constitutional Council had previously ruled that the issue of same-sex marriage was one for the legislature to decide [101] and there was only little hope for UMP to overturn the parliament's vote.

On 17 May 2013, the Constitutional Council declared the Bill legal in its entire redaction. President Hollande signed it into law on 18 May 2013.[102]

Iceland[edit]

Template:Main Same-sex marriage was introduced in Iceland through legislation establishing a gender-neutral definition of marriage introduced by the coalition government of the Social Democratic Alliance and Left-Green Movement. The legislation was passed unanimously by the Icelandic Althing on 11 June 2010, and took effect on 27 June 2010, replacing an earlier system of registered partnerships for same-sex couples.[103][104] Prime Minister Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir and her partner were among the first married same-sex couples in the country.[105]

Israel[edit]

Template:Main Israel's High Court of Justice ruled to honor same-sex marriages granted in other countries, in line with its recognition of other civil marriages; Israel does not recognize civil marriages performed under its own jurisdiction. A bill was raised in the Knesset (parliament) to rescind the High Court's ruling, but the Knesset has not advanced the bill since December 2006. A bill to legalize same-sex and interfaith civil marriages was defeated in the Knesset, 39–11, on 16 May 2012.[106]

File:Map of Mexico, gay rights.svg
State recognition of same-sex relationships in Mexico Template:Legend Template:Legend Template:Legend

Mexico[edit]

Template:Main On 21 December 2009, the Federal District's Legislative Assembly legalized same-sex marriages and adoption by same-sex couples. The law was enacted eight days later and became effective in early March 2010.[107] On 10 August 2010, the Mexican Supreme Court ruled that while not every state must grant same-sex marriages, they must all recognize those performed where they are legal.[108]

On 28 November 2011, the first two same-sex marriages occurred in Quintana Roo after it was discovered that Quintana Roo's Civil Code did not explicitly prohibit same-sex marriage,[109] but these marriages were later annulled by the governor of Quintana Roo in April 2012.[110] In May 2012, the Secretary of State of Quintana Roo reversed the annulments and allowed for future same-sex marriages to be performed in the state.[111]

Netherlands[edit]

Template:Main

The Netherlands was the first country to extend marriage laws to include same-sex couples, following the recommendation of a special commission appointed to investigate the issue in 1995. A same-sex marriage bill passed the House of Representatives and the Senate in 2000, taking effect on 1 April 2001.[112]

In the Netherlands' Caribbean special municipalities of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba, marriage is open to same-sex couples. A law enabling same-sex couples to marry in these municipalities passed and came into effect on 10 October 2012.[113] The Caribbean countries Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten, forming the remainder of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, do not perform same-sex marriages, but must recognize those performed in the Netherlands proper.

New Zealand[edit]

Template:Main On 14 May 2012, Labour Party MP Louisa Wall stated that she would introduce a private member's bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, allowing same-sex couples to marry.[114] The bill was submitted to the members' bill ballot on 30 May 2012.[115] It was drawn from the ballot and passed the first and second readings on 29 August 2012 and 13 March 2013, respectively.[116][117] The final reading passed on 17 April 2013 by 77 votes to 44.[118][119] The bill received Royal Assent from the Governor-General on 19 April and took effect on 19 August 2013.[120][121]

New Zealand marriage law only applies to New Zealand proper and the Ross Dependency in Antarctica. Other New Zealand territories, including Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau, have their own marriage law and do not perform nor recognise same-sex marriage.

Norway[edit]

Template:Main

Same-sex marriage became legal in Norway on 1 January 2009 when a gender neutral marriage bill was enacted after being passed by the Norwegian legislature in June 2008.[122][123] Norway became the first Scandinavian country and the sixth country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage.

Gender neutral marriage replaced Norway's previous system of registered partnerships for same-sex couples. Couples in registered partnerships are able to retain that status or convert their registered partnership to a marriage. No new registered partnerships may be created.

Portugal[edit]

Template:Main Template:See also Portugal created de facto unions (Template:Lang in legal European Portuguese) similar to common-law marriage for cohabiting opposite-sex partners in 1999, and extended these unions to same-sex couples in 2001. However, the 2001 extension did not allow for same-sex adoption, either jointly or of stepchildren.Template:Citation needed

On 8 January 2010, the parliament approved—126 votes in favor, 97 against and 7 abstentions—same-sex marriage. The Portuguese president promulgated the law on 8 April 2010 and the law was effective on 5 June 2010, making Portugal the eighth country to legalize nationwide same-sex marriage; however, adoption was still denied for same-sex couples.Template:Citation needed

On 24 February 2012, the parliament rejected two bills allowing same-sex couples to adopt children.[124] However, on 17 May 2013, the Portuguese parliament passed a law allowing same-sex married couples to adopt their partner's children (i.e. stepchild adoption). A law allowing full joint adoption was defeated with a 104-77 vote.[125]

File:Gay troue.jpg
Same-sex wedding in South Africa, 2007

South Africa[edit]

Template:Main Legal recognition of same-sex marriages in South Africa came about as a result of the Constitutional Court's decision in the case of Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie. The court ruled on 1 December 2005 that the existing marriage laws violated the equality clause of the Bill of Rights because they discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. The court gave Parliament one year to rectify the inequality. The Civil Union Act was passed by the National Assembly on 14 November 2006, by a vote of 230 to 41. It became law on 30 November 2006. South Africa is the fifth country, the first in Africa, and the second outside Europe, to legalize same-sex marriage.

Spain[edit]

Template:Main Spain was the third country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage, which has been legal since 3 July 2005, and was supported by the majority of the Spanish people.[126][127] In 2004, the nation's newly elected Socialist government, led by President José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, began a campaign for its legalization, including the right of adoption by same-sex couples.[128] After much debate, the law permitting same-sex marriage was passed by the Cortes Generales (Spain's bicameral parliament) on 30 June 2005. King Juan Carlos, who by law has up to 30 days to decide whether to grant Royal Assent to laws, indirectly showed his approval by signing it on 1 July 2005, the same day it reached his desk. The law was published on 2 July 2005.[129]

Sweden[edit]

Template:Main Same-sex marriage in Sweden has been legal since 1 May 2009, following the adoption of a new, gender-neutral law on marriage by the Swedish parliament on 1 April 2009, making Sweden the seventh country in the world to open marriage to same-sex couples nationwide. Marriage replaced Sweden's registered partnerships for same-sex couples. Existing registered partnerships between same-sex couples remained in force with an option to convert them into marriages.[130][131]

United Kingdom[edit]

Template:Main

Since 2005 same-sex couples have been allowed to enter into civil partnerships, a separate union which provides the legal consequences of marriage. In 2006 the High Court rejected a legal bid by a British lesbian couple who had married in Canada to have their union recognised as a marriage in the UK rather than a civil partnership. In September 2011, the Coalition government announced its intention to introduce same-sex civil marriage in England and Wales by the next general election in May 2015.[132] However, the UK government's Consultation for England and Wales did not include provision for religious ceremonies. In May 2012, three religious groups (Quakers, Liberal Judaism and Unitarians) sent a letter to David Cameron, asking that they be allowed to solemnise same-sex weddings.[133]

In June 2012 the UK government completed the Consultation to allow civil marriage for same-sex couples in England and Wales[134] In its response to the Consultation, the Government said that it now also intended "...to enable those religious organisations that wish to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies to do so, on a permissive basis only."[135] In December 2012, the Prime Minister announced that, whilst he favoured allowing same-sex marriage within a religious context, provision would be made guaranteeing no religious institution would be required to perform such ceremonies.[136] On 5 February 2013, the House of Commons debated the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, approving it in a 400–175 vote at the second reading.[137] The third reading took place on 21 May 2013, and was approved by 366 votes to 161.[138] On 4 June 2013 the Bill received its second reading in the House of Lords, after a blocking amendment was defeated by 390 votes to 148.[139] On 15 July 2013, the Bill was given a third reading by the House of Lords, meaning that it had been passed, and so it was then returned to Commons for the consideration of Lords' amendments. On 16 July 2013 the Commons accepted all of the Lords' amendments.[10] On 17 July 2013 the bill received Royal Assent becoming the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013.[10]

The Scottish Government conducted a three-month-long consultation which ended on 9 December 2011 and the analysis was published in July 2012.[140] Unlike the consultation held in England and Wales, Scotland considered both civil and religious same-sex marriage. Whilst the Scottish Government is in favour of same-sex marriage, it stated that no religious body would be forced to hold such ceremonies once legislation is enacted.[141] The Scottish Consultation received more than 77,000 responses, and on 27 June 2013 the Government published the Bill.[142] In order to preserve the freedom of both religious groups and individual clergy, the Scottish Government believes it necessary for changes to be made to the Equality Act 2010 and is in communication with the UK Government on this matter; thus, the first same-sex marriages in Scotland are not expected to occur until this has taken place.[143] Although the Scottish bill concerning same-sex marriage had been published, the 'Australian' reported that LGBT rights campaigners, celebrating outside the UK parliament on 15 July 2013 for the clearance of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill in the House of Lords, declared that they would continue the campaign to extend same-sex marriage rights to both Scotland and Northern Ireland,[144] rather than solely Northern Ireland, where there are no plans to introduce such legislation. On 4 February 2014 the Scottish Parliament overwhelmingly passed legislation legalising same-sex marriage in that country.[145] The bill received Royal Assent as the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 on 12 March 2014[146] and the first same-sex marriages are expected to occur in autumn 2014.[147]

United States[edit]

Template:Main Template:Samesex marriage in USA map

File:Marriage equality rally and banner at Unitarian church in Summit NJ.jpg
A rally at a Unitarian church advocating marriage equality in the state of New Jersey. The blue banner reads "Say 'I Do' to Marriage Equality".

On 26 June 2013, the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional for the federal government of the United States to deny federal benefits of marriage to married same-sex couples, if it is recognized or performed in a state that allows same-sex marriage.[148] However, same-sex couples can legally marry in sixteen states only (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington), the District of Columbia, and several Native American tribes, and receive state-level benefits.[149][150][151] Several states offer civil unions or domestic partnerships, granting all or part of the state-level rights and responsibilities of marriage.[152] Twenty-eight states have constitutional restrictions limiting marriage to one man and one woman.[153]

The U.S. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, attempting to define marriage for the first time solely as a union between a man and a woman for all federal purposes, and allowing states to refuse to recognize such marriages created in other states.[154] Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning (2005), holding that prohibiting recognition of same-sex relationships violated the Constitution, was overturned on appeal by the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006, which ruled that "laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples ... do not violate the Constitution of the United States." However this decision no longer has precedential effect after Windsor v. United States,[155] where the Supreme Court, stated that "DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment". The Washington Supreme Court, also in 2006, concluded that encouraging procreation within the framework of marriage can be seen as a legitimate government interest furthered by limiting marriage to between mixed-sex couples.[156]

In 2010, the U.S. District Court for Northern California ruled in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry.[157] Since then, eight federal courts have found that DOMA violates the U.S. Constitution in issues including bankruptcy, public employee benefits, estate taxes, and immigration.[158][159][160] Striking down Section 3 of DOMA in Windsor v. United States (2012), the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals became the first court[161] to hold sexual orientation to be a quasi-suspect classification, and determined that laws that classify people on such basis should be subject to intermediate scrutiny.[162]

President Barack Obama announced on 9 May 2012 that "I think same-sex couples should be able to get married"[163][164][165] Obama also supports the full repeal of DOMA,[166] and called the state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage in California (2008)[167] and North Carolina (2012) unnecessary.[168] In 2011, the Obama Administration concluded that DOMA was unconstitutional and directed the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) to stop defending the law in court.[169] Subsequently, Eric Cantor, Republican majority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, announced that the House would defend DOMA. The law firm hired to represent the House soon withdrew from defending the law, requiring the House to retain replacement counsel.[170] In the past two decades, public support for same-sex marriage has steadily increased,[34] and polls indicate that more than half of Americans support same-sex marriage.[34][171][172] Voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington approved same-sex marriage by referendum on 6 November 2012.[173]

In August 2010, Proposition 8 was found unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker. That ruling was appealed and later upheld by a federal appeals court in February 2012. Proposition 8 proponents then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and same-sex couples in California were not allowed to legally marry until the Supreme Court issued an opinion.[174] On 26 June 2013, the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v. Perry issued an opinion that the appellants did not have standing, and upheld the district court's order overturning Proposition 8.[175]

On 26 June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court also issued an opinion finding Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be unconstitutional.[176]

A poll conducted in 2013 showed a record high of 58% of the American people supporting legal recognition for same-sex marriage.[177][178]

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg officiated at a same-sex wedding during the 2013 Labor Day weekend in what is believed to be a first for a member of the Supreme Court.[179][180]

Uruguay[edit]

Template:Main Uruguay's Chamber of Deputies passed a bill on 12 December 2012, to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples.[181] The Senate passed the bill on 2 April 2013, but with minor amendments. On 10 April 2013, the Chamber of Deputies passed the amended bill by a two-thirds majority (71–22). The president promulgated the law on 3 May 2013 and it took effect on 5 August.[182]

National debates[edit]

Australia[edit]

Template:Main Australian federal law currently bans recognition of same-sex marriages, although as of 2013, the nation's smallest sub-jurisdiction (the Australian Capital Territory) has legalised same-sex marriage. However, the Commonwealth Government is currently challenging the constitutional and legal validity of the ACT's law. The federal Labor Party government officially changed its position to allow a conscience vote on same-sex marriage in 2011, despite then-Prime Minister Julia Gillard's opposition to such a vote.[183] The Liberal Party is opposed to same-sex marriage, and its leader Tony Abbott said he will block a conscience vote on the issue.[184]

In February 2010, the Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young's Marriage Equality Bill was rejected by the Senate.[185] Senator Hanson-Young re-introduced the bill to the Senate in September 2010. The bill will sit on a notice paper until the major parties agree to a conscience vote on it.[186] A Greens motion urging federal MPs to gauge community support for same-sex marriage was passed by the House of Representatives on 18 November 2010.[187]

The Australian Capital Territory is the first jurisdiction in Australia to legalise civil partnerships ceremonies for same-sex couples. However, they are not recognised in Australian jurisdictions outside of that territory. Registered partnerships are available in New South Wales, Tasmania, Queensland and Victoria. From 1 July 2009 Centrelink recognised same-sex couples equally regarding social security – under the common-law marriage, de facto status or unregistered cohabitation.[188]

In September 2010 Tasmania became the first Australian state to recognise same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, though only as de facto status.[189]

On 19 September 2012, a bill before the Australian House of Representatives to legalize same-sex marriage was defeated 42 to 98 votes.[190]

In June 2013, as one of his first speeches as new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd made it clear that he was proud to be the first ever Australian PM to support same-sex marriage, declaring he would consider a plebiscite or referendum on the issue, although he was defeated before he could take this action.

China[edit]

Template:Main The Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China explicitly defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. No other form of civil union is recognized. The attitude of the Chinese government towards homosexuality is believed to be "three nos": "No approval; no disapproval; no promotion." The Ministry of Health officially removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 2001.

Li Yinhe, a sociologist and sexologist well known in the Chinese gay community, has tried to legalize same-sex marriage several times, including during the National People's Congress in 2000 and 2004 (Legalization for Same-Sex Marriage 《中国同性婚姻合法化》 in 2000 and the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 《中国同性婚姻提案》 in 2004). According to Chinese law, 35 delegates' signatures are needed to make an issue a bill to be discussed in the Congress. Her efforts failed due to lack of support from the delegates. A government spokesperson, when asked about Li Yinhe's proposal, said that same-sex marriage was still too "ahead of its time" for China. He argued that same-sex marriage was not recognized even in many Western countries, which are considered much more liberal in social issues than China.[191] This statement is understood as an implication that the government may consider recognition of same-sex marriage in the long run, but not in the near future.

Colombia[edit]

Template:Main On 26 July 2011, the Constitutional Court of Colombia ordered the Congress to pass the legislation giving same-sex couples similar rights to marriage by 20 June 2013. If such a law is not passed by then, same-sex couples will be granted these rights automatically.[192][193]

In October 2012 Senator Armando Benedetti introduced a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. It initially only allowed for civil unions, but he amended the text.[194] The Senate's First Committee approved the bill on 4 December 2012.[195][196] On 24 April 2013, the bill was defeated in the full Senate on a 51–17 vote.[197]

On 24 July 2013, a judge sanctioned a legal domestic partnership between two gay men. The union has been variously described as a "civil union" and a "marriage", although a former top judge suggested it is "an unnamed contract that is not matrimony".[198]

Finland[edit]

Template:Main In 2010, Minister of Justice Tuija Brax said her Ministry was preparing to amend the Marriage Act to allow same-sex marriage by 2012.[199] On 27 February 2013, the bill was rejected by the Legal Affairs Committee of the Finnish Parliament by 9 to 8. A citizens' initiative was launched on 19 March to put the issue before Parliament.[200] The initiative gathered the required 50,000 signatures of Finnish citizens in one day and exceeded 107,000 signatures by the time the media reported the figures.[201] The campaign collected 166,000 signatures and the initiative was presented to the Parliament in December 2013.Template:R The initiative went to introductory debate on 20 February 2014 and was sent again to the Legal Affairs Committee.Template:RTemplate:R

Germany[edit]

Template:Main

Since 1 August 2001, Germany has registered partnerships (Eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft) for same-sex couples, providing most but not all rights of marriage. In 2004, this act was amended to include adoption rights (stepchild adoption only) and to reform previously cumbersome dissolution procedures with regard to division of property and alimony. Attempts to give equal rights to registered partners or to legalize same-sex marriage have generally been blocked by the CDU/CSU, the main party in government since 2005. All other main parties (SPD, The Greens, The Left and FDP) support full LGBT equality. The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany has however issued various rulings in favor of equal rights for same-sex registered partners (such as joint tax filing benefits), requiring the governing coalition to change the law.

Ireland[edit]

Template:Main Ireland made civil partnerships for same-sex couples legal in January 2011.[202][203] The present Government of Ireland established a Constitutional Convention in December 2012 tasked with considering wide-ranging changes to the Irish constitution, and one of the issues the Convention will address and make recommendations to the Government on is same-sex marriage.[204] On 14 April 2013 the Convention voted in favour of same-sex marriage by a margin of 79 percent.[205] The Government has pledged to respond publicly to recommendations arising from the Convention and will indicate a date for referendum where it is considered necessary.[206]

A 2012 poll revealed that nearly three-quarters of the Irish public favour amending the Irish constitution to allow same-sex couples to legally marry.[207] On 5 November 2013, it was announced that a referendum to legalize same-sex marriage will be held in the first half of 2015.[208]

Luxembourg[edit]

Template:Main The current government of Luxembourg intends to legalize same-sex marriage by the end of 2014.[209]

Nepal[edit]

Template:Main In November 2008, Nepal's highest court issued final judgment on matters related to LGBT rights, which included permitting same-sex couples to marry. Same-sex marriage and protection for sexual minorities were to be included in the new Nepalese constitution required to be completed by 31 May 2012.[210][211] However, the legislature was unable to agree on the constitution before the deadline and was dissolved after the Supreme Court ruled that the term could not be extended.[212]

Taiwan[edit]

Template:Main The Taipei High Administrative Court has asked for advice from the country's Council of Grand Justices on legally recognizing the marriage application of a gay couple.[213]

Turkey[edit]

In the process of rewriting the Turkish constitution, the opposition party BDP called for the liberalization of marriage policies to include same-sex marriage. The largest opposition party in the Turkish parliament, CHP, supported the idea. The largest party in the parliament, the AKP, opposes same-sex marriage, although Premier Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the leader of the AKP, supported full equal rights for LGBT citizens in 2002, the year he launched his party. In response to a request from BDP, a parliamentary discussion of same-sex marriage is anticipated when all political parties gather in committees to establish a new constitution.[214][215] In a poll of Turkish attitudes towards sexuality, 3.6% of Turks supported same-sex marriages.[216]

Vietnam[edit]

Template:Main In Vietnam, currently only a marriage between a man and a woman is recognized. Vietnam's Ministry of Justice began seeking advice on legalizing same-sex marriage from other governmental and non-governmental organizations in April and May 2012, and planned to further discuss the issue at the National Assembly in Spring 2013.[217] However, in February 2013, the Ministry of Justice requested that the National Assembly avoid action until 2014.[218] At a hearing to discuss marriage law reforms in April 2013, deputy minister of health Nguyen Viet Tien proposed that same-sex marriage be made legal immediately.[219]

The Vietnamese government abolished an administrative fine imposed on same-sex weddings in 2013.[220] The policy will be enacted on Nov 11, 2013. The 100,000-500,000 VND ($24USD) fine will be abolished. Although same-sex marriages are not permitted in Vietnam, the policy will decriminalize the relationship, habitual privileges such as household registry, property, child raising, and co-habitual partnerships are recognized.[221]

In June 2013, the National Assembly began formal debate on a proposal to establish legal recognition for same-sex marriage.[222]

International organizations[edit]

The terms of employment of the staff of international organizations (not commercial) in most cases are not governed by the laws of the country where their offices are located. Agreements with the host country safeguard these organizations' impartiality.

Despite their relative independence, few organizations recognize same-sex partnerships without condition. The agencies of the United Nations recognize same-sex marriages if and only if the country of citizenship of the employees in question recognizes the marriage.[223] In some cases, these organizations do offer a limited selection of the benefits normally provided to mixed-sex married couples to de facto partners or domestic partners of their staff, but even individuals who have entered into an mixed-sex civil union in their home country are not guaranteed full recognition of this union in all organizations. However, the World Bank does recognize domestic partners.[224]

Non-sexual same-sex marriage[edit]

Several traditional societies in Africa have traditionally allowed non-sexual marriage between two women. These arrangements usually involve one woman taking the role of a man and marrying another woman to secure her inheritance, and are not seen as homosexual.

Kenya[edit]

Template:Main Female same-sex marriage is practiced among the Gikuyu, Nandi, Kamba, Kipsigis, and to a lesser extent neighboring peoples. Approximately 5–10% of women are in such marriages. However, this is not seen as homosexual, but is instead a way for families without sons to keep their inheritance within the family.[225] The laws criminalizing homosexuality are generally specific to men, though in 2010 the prime minister called for women to be arrested as well.

Nigeria[edit]

Template:Main In Nigeria, homosexual activity between men, but not between women, is illegal. In 2006, Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo introduced legislation that prohibits same-sex marriages and criminalizes anyone who "performs, witnesses, aids or abets" such ceremonies.[226] Among the Igbo people and probably other peoples in the south of the country, there are circumstances where a marriage between women is considered appropriate, such as when a woman has no child and her husband dies, and she takes a wife to perpetuate her inheritance and family lineage.[227]

Other legally recognized same-sex unions[edit]

Template:Main

File:New York City Proposition 8 Protest outside LDS temple 20.jpg
Many advocates, such as this protester at a demonstration in New York City against California Proposition 8, reject the notion of civil unions, describing them as inferior to the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.[228]

Civil union, civil partnership, domestic partnership, registered partnership, unregistered partnership, and unregistered cohabitation statuses offer varying legal benefits of marriage and are available to same-sex couples in: Andorra, Australia, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.[229][230]

They are also available in parts of Mexico (Coahuila and Mexico City) and the United States (California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, and Wisconsin).[231][232] In some countries with these legal recognitions, the actual benefits are minimal. Many people consider civil unions, even those that grant equal rights, inadequate because they create a separate status, and believe they should be replaced by gender-neutral marriage.[233]

Issues[edit]

Parenting[edit]

Template:Main Scientific literature indicates that parents' financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union (either a mixed-sex or same-sex union). As a result, professional scientific associations have argued for same-sex marriage to be legally recognized as it will be beneficial to the children of same-sex couples.[19][20][21][234][235][236]

Scientific research has been generally consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.[20][236][237][238] According to scientific literature reviews, there is no evidence to the contrary.[24][239][240][241]

Adoption[edit]

File:World same-sex adoption laws.svg
Legal status of adoption by same-sex couples around the world. Template:Legend Template:Legend Template:Legend See file info for questionable cases.

Template:Main Most same-sex-marriage states allow the joint adoption of children by same-sex couples, while Portugal is a long-standing exception to this rule. In addition, several states which do not have marriage equality nonetheless permit joint adoption by unmarried same-sex couples: The United Kingdom, Western Australia, New South Wales, and Tasmania within Australia, Coahuilla and Chihuahua in Mexico, a number of US states (Colorado, Indiana, Nevada, Oregon), and in at least a few cases, Israel. Several additional states allow second-parent ('step-child' or 'step-parent') adoption by unmarried same-sex couples.

Surrogacy and IVF treatment[edit]

Template:Main A gay or bisexual man has the option of surrogacy, the process in which a woman bears a child for another person through artificial insemination or carries another woman's surgically implanted fertilized egg to birth. A lesbian or bisexual woman has the option of artificial insemination.[242][243]

Transgender and intersex people[edit]

Template:See also When sex is defined legally, it may be defined by any one of several criteria: the XY sex-determination system, the type of gonads, the type of external sexual features, or the person's social identification. Consequently, both transsexuals and intersexed individuals may be legally categorized into confusing gray areas, and could be prohibited from marrying partners of the "opposite" sex or permitted to marry partners of the "same" sex due to legal distinctions. This could result in long-term marriages, as well as recent same-sex marriages, being overturned.

The problems of defining gender by the existence/non-existence of gonads or certain sexual features is complicated by the existence of surgical methods to alter these features. Estimates[244] run as high as 1 percent of live births exhibiting some degree of sexual ambiguity, and between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births being ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention, including sometimes involuntary surgery to address their sexual ambiguity.[245]

In any legal jurisdiction where marriages are defined without distinction of a requirement of a male and female, these complications do not occur. In addition, some legal jurisdictions recognize a legal and official change of gender, which would allow a transsexual to be legally married in accordance with an adopted gender identity.[246]

In the United Kingdom, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 allows a person who has lived in their chosen gender for at least two years to receive a gender recognition certificate officially recognizing their new gender. Because in the UK marriages are for mixed-sex couples and civil partnerships are for same-sex couples, a person must dissolve his/her marriage or civil partnership before obtaining a gender recognition certificate. Such people are then free to enter or re-enter civil partnerships or marriages in accordance with their newly recognized gender identity. In Austria, a similar provision requiring transsexual people to divorce before having their legal sex marker corrected was found to be unconstitutional in 2006.[247]

In Quebec prior to the legalization of same-sex marriage, only unmarried people could apply for legal change of gender. With the advent of same-sex marriage, this restriction was dropped. A similar provision including sterilization also existed in Sweden, but was phased out in 2013.

In the United States, transsexual and intersexual marriages typically run into similar complications. As definitions and enforcement of marriage are defined by the states, these complications vary from state to state.[248]

Divorce[edit]

Template:Main

Controversies[edit]

Template:See also While few societies have recognized same-sex unions as marriages, the historical and anthropological record reveals a large range of attitudes towards same-sex unions ranging from praise, through full acceptance and integration, sympathetic toleration, indifference, prohibition and discrimination, to persecution and physical annihilation. Opponents of same-sex marriages have argued that recognition of same-sex marriages would erode religious freedoms,[249] and that same-sex marriage, while doing good for the couples that participate in them and the children they are raising, undermines a right of children to be raised by their biological mother and father.[250] Some supporters of same-sex marriages take the view that the government should have no role in regulating personal relationships,[251] while others argue that same-sex marriages would provide social benefits to same-sex couples.[252] The debate regarding same-sex marriages includes debate based upon social viewpoints as well as debate based on majority rules, religious convictions, economic arguments, health-related concerns, and a variety of other issues.

Religion[edit]

Template:Main

Arguments on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate are still often made on religious grounds and/or formulated in terms of religious doctrine.[253] One source of controversy is whether same-sex marriage affects freedom of religion.[249][254][255][256][257] Some religious organizations may refuse to provide employment, public accommodations, adoption services, and other benefits to same-sex couples.[258] Some governments include freedom of religion provisions in marriage equality laws.[259]

The world's largest religions vary widely in their views on same-sex marriage. For example, among larger Christian denominations the Roman Catholic Church's official position is to oppose same-sex marriage,[260] as does the Orthodox Church, some Protestant churches, a majority of Muslims,[261] Hindu nationalists, and Orthodox Jews. Buddhism is considered to be ambivalent on the subject as a whole.[262] On the other hand, many churches and denominations, including a number of progressive and liberal Christians,[263] Muslims,[264] Buddhists,[265] Jews, and Hindus, as well as modern Hindu communities[266] and Buddhism in Australia[267] support same-sex marriage. Some smaller religions, as well as groups (religious or not) who embrace humanism, are also considered to be supportive.[268]

Terminology[edit]

Anthropologists have struggled to determine a definition of marriage that absorbs commonalities of the social construct across cultures around the world.[269][270] Many proposed definitions have been criticized for failing to recognize the existence of same-sex marriage in some cultures, including in more than 30 African cultures, such as the Kikuyu and Nuer.[270][271][272]

With several countries revising their marriage laws to recognize same-sex couples in the 21st century, all major English dictionaries have revised their definition of the word marriage to either drop gender specifications or supplement them with secondary definitions to include gender-neutral language or explicit recognition of same-sex unions.[273][274] The Oxford English Dictionary has recognized same-sex marriage since 2000.[275]

Alan Dershowitz and others have suggested reserving the word marriage for religious contexts as part of privatizing marriage, and in civil and legal contexts using a uniform concept of civil unions, in part to strengthen the separation between church and state.[276] Jennifer Roback Morse, the president of the anti-same-sex marriage group National Organization for Marriage's Ruth Institute project,[277] claims that the conflation of marriage with contractual agreements is a threat to marriage.[278]

Some proponents of legal recognition of same-sex marriage, such as Freedom to Marry and Canadians for Equal Marriage, use the terms marriage equality and equal marriage to indicate that they seek equal benefit of marriage laws as opposed to special rights.[279][280]

Opponents of same-sex marriage such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the Southern Baptist Convention use the term traditional marriage to mean marriages between one man and one woman.[281][282][283] Anti-same-sex-marriage activist Maggie Gallagher argues that equating same-sex and mixed-sex marriages changes the meaning of marriage and its traditions.[284]

Some publications that oppose same-sex marriage, such as WorldNetDaily and Baptist Press, have an editorial style policy of placing the word marriage in scare quotes ("marriage") when it is used in reference to same-sex couples.Template:Citation needed In the United States, the mainstream press has generally abandoned this practice.[285] Cliff Kincaid of the conservative Accuracy in Media argues for use of quotation marks on the grounds that marriage is a legal status denied same-sex couples by most state governments.[286] Same-sex marriage supporters argue that the use of scare quotes is an editorialization that implies illegitimacy.[287]

Associated Press style recommends the usages marriage for gays and lesbians or in space-limited headlines gay marriage with no hyphen and no scare quotes. The Associated Press warns that the construct gay marriage can imply that marriages of same-sex couples are somehow legally different from those of mixed-sex couples.[288][289]

Judicial and legislative[edit]

Template:Main There are differing positions regarding the manner in which same-sex marriage has been introduced into democratic jurisdictions. A "majority rules" position holds that same-sex marriage is valid, or void and illegal, based upon whether it has been accepted by a simple majority of voters or of their elected representatives.[290] In contrast, a civil rights view holds that the institution can be validly created through the ruling of an impartial judiciary carefully examining the questioning and finding that the right to marry regardless of the gender of the participants is guaranteed under the civil rights laws of the jurisdiction.[291]

Same-sex marriages in popular culture[edit]

Same-sex marriages and relationships have been a theme in several fictional story arcs, mythology, cult classics, and video games.

Games[edit]

Same-sex marriage is possible in an increasing number of modern video games including: Fable II,[292] The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim,[293] Fallout 2,[294] and The Sims 3.[295]

Comics[edit]

In issue #51 of the Astonishing X-Men comic series, the superhero Jean-Paul Beaubier marries his partner Kyle Jinadu, making him the first superhero in a mainstream comic book to have a same-sex marriage.[296]

Television[edit]

Same-sex marriages have also been depicted, usually in a positive light in modern times, in US television shows including The Simpsons, Family Guy, Modern Family, Queer as Folk, Glee, and The New Normal.[297][298]

See also[edit]

Documentaries and literature[edit]

History[edit]

Religion[edit]

Notes[edit]

Template:Reflist

References[edit]

Template:Reflist

Bibliography[edit]

Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reforming the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships by James V. Brownson ( Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2013)

External links[edit]

Template:Wikinewscat Template:Commons category

Template:Status of same-sex unions Template:Marriage amendments

Template:LGBT
  1. Template:Cite news
  2. Template:Cite news
  3. Template:Cite web
  4. Template:Cite news
  5. Template:Cite news
  6. Template:Cite news
  7. Template:Cite web
  8. Template:Cite news
  9. Template:Cite news
  10. 10.0 10.1 10.2 Template:Cite news
  11. Template:Cite news
  12. See
  13. Template:Cite news
  14. Template:Cite news
  15. Template:Cite web
  16. Handbook of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Administration and Policy — Page 13, Wallace Swan - 2004
  17. 17.0 17.1 Template:Cite web
  18. 18.0 18.1 Template:Cite web
  19. 19.0 19.1 Template:Cite web
  20. 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 Template:Cite web
  21. 21.0 21.1 Template:Cite journal available online: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349
  22. Template:Cite web
  23. 23.0 23.1 Template:Cite web
  24. 24.0 24.1 24.2 Template:Cite doi
  25. Template:Cite web
  26. Template:Cite web
  27. Template:Cite news
  28. Template:Cite web
  29. Rauch, Jonathan (2004). Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, LLC.
  30. Herek, Gregory M. "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: A social science perspective." American Psychologist, Vol 61(6), September 2006, 607–621.
  31. Template:Cite web
  32. Template:Cite web
  33. Template:Cite journal
  34. 34.0 34.1 34.2 Template:Cite web
  35. Template:Cite web
  36. Template:Cite web
  37. Template:Cite news
  38. Template:Cite news
  39. Template:Cite web
  40. Template:Cite web
  41. Template:Cite web
  42. Template:Cite web
  43. Template:Cite news
  44. Template:Cite web
  45. Shaw criticises Boswell's methodology and conclusions as disingenuous Template:Cite journal
  46. Template:Cite book
  47. Template:Cite web
  48. Bunson, M., Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire,Infobase Publishing, 2009, p. 259.
  49. Dio Cassius Epitome 80.5, 80.14, 80.15, 80.16; Herodian Roman History 5.6.1–5.6.2. Old Translation of passage at: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/80*.html http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/herodian_05_book5.htm
  50. Template:Cite book
  51. Williams, CA., Roman Homosexuality: Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 284.
  52. 52.0 52.1 Nero missed her so greatly after her death that on learning of a woman who resembled her he at first sent for her and kept her; but later he caused a boy of the freedmen, whom he used to call Sporus, ... "he formally "married" Sporus, and assigned the boy a regular dowry according to contract;" q.v., Suetonius Nero 28; Dio Cassius Epitome 62.28 Old Translation of passage at:http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/62*.html
  53. Dio Cassius Epitome 62.28, 62.13. Old Translation of passage at: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/62*.html
  54. Corbett, The Roman Law of Marriage (Oxford, 1969), pp. 24–28; Treggiari, Roman Marriage (Oxford, 1991), pp. 43–49.; "Marriages where the partners had conubium were marriages valid in Roman law (iusta matrimonia)" [Treggiari, p. 49]. Compare Ulpian (Tituli Ulpiani) 5.3–5: "Conubium is the capacity to marry a wife in Roman law. Roman citizens have conubium with Roman citizens, but with Latins and foreigners only if the privilege was granted. There is no conubium with slaves"; compare also Gaius (Institutionum 1:55–56, 67, 76–80).
  55. Treggiari, Roman Marriage (Oxford, 1991), p. 5.
  56. Template:Cite journal
  57. Template:Cite journal
  58. Template:Cite web
  59. Template:Cite web
  60. Template:Cite news
  61. Template:Cite news
  62. Template:Cite web and Template:Cite web
  63. Template:Cite news
  64. Template:Cite news
  65. Template:Cite web
  66. Template:Cite web
  67. Native American tribes challenge Oklahoma gay marriage ban, Al Jazeera, October 22, 2013
  68. Template:Cite web
  69. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-99605#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-99605%22]}Template:Dead link
  70. Template:Cite news
  71. Template:Cite news
  72. Template:Cite web
  73. Template:Cite web
  74. http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdfTemplate:Dead link
  75. Template:Cite news
  76. Template:Cite news
  77. Template:Cite news
  78. Template:Cite news
  79. Template:Cite news
  80. Template:Cite news
  81. Template:Cite web
  82. Template:Cite news
  83. Template:Cite news
  84. http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/cidades,cnj-obriga-cartorios-a-celebrar-casamento-entre-homossexuais,1031678,0.htm
  85. Decisão do CNJ obriga cartórios a fazer casamento homossexual
  86. CNJ obriga cartórios a converterem união estável gay em casamento
  87. Template:Pt icon DIÁRIO DA JUSTIÇA CONSELHO NACIONAL DE JUSTIÇA Edição nº 89/2013
  88. Template:Pt icon Regra que obriga cartórios a fazer casamento gay vale a partir do dia 16
  89. Almost half of Brazilian internet users support gay marriage – The Christian Post in Portuguese Template:Pt icon
  90. 62% of people aren't approving of gay marriage, according to poll – Telelistas Template:Pt icon
  91. A majority of Brazilians is against same-sex marriage and regards church as the most trustworthy institution, reveals research – Gospel+ Template:Pt icon
  92. Template:Cite news
  93. The Registered Partnership Act
  94. Rule, Sheila (2 October 1989). "Rights for Gay Couples in Denmark". The New York Times. Retrieved 7 June 2012.
  95. Template:Cite web
  96. Template:Cite news
  97. Template:Cite news
  98. Template:Cite web
  99. Template:Cite news
  100. Template:Cite news
  101. Template:Cite web
  102. Communiqué de presse - 2013-669 DC - Loi ouvrant le mariage aux couples de personnes de même sexe, Constitutional Council of France, retrieved on 17 May 2013
  103. Template:Cite news
  104. Template:Cite news
  105. Template:Cite news
  106. Template:Cite news
  107. Template:Cite news
  108. Template:Cite news
  109. Template:Cite web
  110. Template:Cite news
  111. Template:Cite news
  112. Template:Nl icon Template:Cite web
  113. Template:Cite news
  114. Template:Cite web
  115. Template:Cite news
  116. Template:Cite news
  117. NZ legalises same-sex marriage
  118. Gay marriage bill passed
  119. Legislation to legalise same-sex marriage passed in Parliament this week has become law
  120. Template:Cite news
  121. Template:Cite news
  122. Template:Cite news
  123. Template:Cite web
  124. [1]Template:Dead link
  125. Template:Cite news
  126. Template:Cite web
  127. Template:Cite news
  128. Template:Es icon Template:Cite web
  129. Template:Cite news
  130. Template:Cite news
  131. Template:Cite news
  132. Pink News: Religious groups urge Cameron
  133. Template:Cite news
  134. UK Government website: response to Consultation
  135. BBC Gay Marriage:Cameron backs Church role
  136. Template:Cite web
  137. Template:Cite news
  138. Template:Cite web
  139. Template:Cite news
  140. Template:Cite web
  141. Scottish Government: Same-sex marriage bill
  142. BBC: Scotland's Gay Marriage Bill published
  143. Template:Cite news
  144. BBC Website
  145. Template:Cite news
  146. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named BBC_News
  147. Template:Cite web
  148. Template:Cite news
  149. Template:Cite news
  150. Template:Cite news
  151. Template:Cite web
  152. Template:Cite news
  153. Template:Cite web
  154. [2]Template:Dead link
  155. Template:Cite court
  156. Template:Cite court
  157. Template:Cite web
  158. Template:Cite web
  159. Template:Cite news
  160. Template:Cite web
  161. Windsor v. United States, 12-2335-cv(L), 18 October 2012.
  162. Template:Cite web
  163. Template:Cite web
  164. Template:Cite news
  165. Template:Cite webTemplate:Dead link
  166. Template:Cite web
  167. Template:Cite news
  168. Template:Cite news
  169. Template:Cite news
  170. Template:Cite web
  171. Template:Cite web
  172. Template:Cite web
  173. Template:Cite web
  174. "Hollingsworth et al. v. Perry et al.". Supreme Court of the United States Syllabus. Retrieved 28 June 2013.
  175. "United States v. Windsor, Executor of the Estate of Speyer, et. al." Supreme Court of the United States Syllabus. Retrieved 28 June 2013.
  176. Template:Cite web
  177. Template:Cite web
  178. Template:Cite news
  179. Template:Cite web
  180. Template:Cite web
  181. Same-sex marriage bill comes into force in Uruguay
  182. Template:Cite news
  183. Template:Cite news
  184. Template:Cite news
  185. Template:Cite web
  186. Template:Cite news
  187. Template:Cite web
  188. Template:Cite news
  189. Template:Cite news
  190. Template:Cite web
  191. DECISION C-577/11 The homosexuals have the right to form a family
  192. Template:Cite news
  193. Template:Es icon "Matrimonio gay" empieza a ser tramitado en Senado
  194. Gay marriage bill passes first hurdle
  195. Template:Es icon Por primera vez una comisión del Congreso aprueba el matrimonio gay
  196. Template:Cite news
  197. Template:Cite news
  198. Template:Cite news
  199. Template:Cite web
  200. Template:Cite web
  201. civil partnerships
  202. Template:Cite web
  203. Template:Cite web
  204. Template:Cite web
  205. Template:Cite web
  206. Template:Cite web
  207. Template:Cite news
  208. Template:Cite web
  209. Template:Cite web
  210. Template:Cite news
  211. Template:Cite news
  212. Template:Cite news
  213. Template:Cite web
  214. Template:Cite web
  215. Template:Cite web
  216. Template:Cite news
  217. Template:Cite news
  218. Template:Cite news
  219. Template:Cite web
  220. S.Sarkar, Gaystar News. Oct 13,2013.'It's final Gay wedding fines to go in Vietnam.' http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/it%E2%80%99s-final-gay-wedding-fines-go-vietnam131013 retrieved Oct 13, 2013
  221. Template:Cite web
  222. Template:Cite web
  223. Template:Cite web
  224. Gender and Language in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2013:35
  225. Template:Cite web
  226. Template:Cite web
  227. Template:Cite web
  228. Template:Cite web
  229. Template:Cite web
  230. Template:Cite news
  231. Template:Cite news
  232. Template:Cite web
  233. Template:Cite web
  234. 236.0 236.1 Template:Cite web
  235. Template:Cite web
  236. Template:Cite web
  237. Template:Cite journal
  238. Template:Cite journal
  239. Template:Cite web
  240. The Fertility Sourcebook, Third Edition – Page 245, M. Sara Rosenthal – 2002
  241. An Introduction to Family Social Work – Page 348, Donald Collins, Catheleen Jordan, Heather Coleman – 2009
  242. (Fausto-Sterling et al., 2000)
  243. Template:Cite web
  244. Bockting, Walter, Autumn Benner, and Eli Coleman. "Gay and Bisexual Identity Development Among Female-to-Male Transsexuals in North America: Emergence of a Transgender Sexuality." Archives of Sexual Behavior 38.5 (October 2009): 688–701. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 29 September 2009
  245. Template:Cite web
  246. Template:Cite news
  247. 249.0 249.1 Template:Cite news
  248. Template:Cite news
  249. Template:Cite web
  250. Dale Carpenter is a prominent spokesman for this view. For a better understanding of this view, see Carpenter's writings at http://www.indegayforum.org/staff/show/91.html.
  251. Template:Cite web
  252. Template:Cite news
  253. Template:Cite book
  254. Template:Cite journal
  255. Template:Cite web
  256. Template:Cite web
  257. Template:Cite news
  258. Template:Cite news
  259. Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage in Islam on Patheos
  260. Mettanando Bhikkhu (13 July 2005). Religion and Same-Sex Marriage. The Buddhist Channel: Bringing Buddha Dharma Home - Issues. The Bangkok Post
  261. Some examples of religious organizations voicing their support for marriage equality include Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Episcopal Church of the United States, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Evangelical Lutheran Church In America and the Unitarian Universalist church
  262. Reformed Islam: Between hatred and critical thinking retrieved 22 June 2012
  263. Template:Cite web
  264. Vanita, Ruth (2008). "Homosexuality and Hinduism." GALVA - The Gay and Lesbian Vaishnava Association, Inc.
  265. Template:Cite web
  266. *Toward a new political humanism — Page 146
    • Voices from the pagan census — Page 79
    • The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements — Page 383
  267. Template:Cite book
  268. 270.0 270.1 Template:Cite journal
  269. Template:Cite book
  270. Template:Cite journal
  271. Template:Cite news
  272. Template:Cite web
  273. Template:Cite news
  274. Template:Cite news
  275. Template:Cite web
  276. Template:Cite news
  277. Template:Cite web
  278. Template:Cite web
  279. Template:Cite web
  280. Template:Cite news
  281. Template:Cite news
  282. Gallagher, Maggie. "Traditional Marriage Trifecta in the Making?." Human Events 64.36 (20 October 2008): 17–17. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 30 September 2009
  283. Template:Cite news
  284. Template:Cite news
  285. Template:Cite web
  286. Template:Cite news
  287. Template:Cite news
  288. Template:Cite news archived here [3].
  289. Template:Cite news
  290. Template:Cite web
  291. Template:Cite web
  292. Template:Cite news
  293. Template:Cite web
  294. Template:Cite news
  295. Template:Cite web
  296. Template:Cite web


Cite error: <ref> tags exist for a group named "nb", but no corresponding <references group="nb"/> tag was found, or a closing </ref> is missing