Social and Cultural
History of Marriage
Heterosexual
Marriage Throughout the World
There are several different types of marriage
recognized throughout the world. Monogamy, polygamy and polyandry
are some of the marriage contracts used throughout the world. Which
version of marriage is allowed depends on the geographical location,
religious make-up of the society, availability of males and females and
economic status of the society.
Monogamy
The only universally recognized form of marriage
that is acceptable in all societies is strict monogamy -- marriage between
two people. Only 20% of the world’s societies are considered strictly
monogamous, in which a person is married once in his or her life (Encarta
Online). The United States is not a strictly
monogamous society. Our society has serial monogamy, in which a
person may marry more than one person, so long as the person has only one
spouse at a time.
Polygamy, in which a man has more than
one wife, occurs in several cultures. The Muslim countries of the
Middle East, Asia and North Africa often have polygamous marriages. Muslim
men are allowed by law to have up to four wives. Polygamy is usually
only used by men who are wealthy enough to support more than one
wife. Historically, this type of marriage occurred in Native
American cultures before the introduction of European values.
Specialized versions of polygamy are...
Levirate, in which a man marries the
widow of his dead brother. This was described extensively in the
Bible and used mostly by ancient Hebrews in order to maintain a family
connection and alliance.
Sororate allows a man to marry one or more
of his wife’s sisters. This still occurs in the world today and is
generally used in the instance of the first wife’s death or if she is
barren.
Polyandry is a custom in which a woman
may have multiple husbands, but this occurrence is rare. Central Asian
cultures, southern India, Tibet and Sri Lanka are places where this form
of marriage occurs. Usually, it is because of a disproportionate
ratio of the genders. These are areas where female babies are not
wanted, and are often killed at birth. This results in a shortage of
women. Polyandry compensates for this shortage.
The different types of marriages listed above
show that marriage is not one set, unchangeable definition. Even in
male-female marriage practices, there are many variances in what is
acceptable. However, the average American citizen may not have such a
global awareness of marriage. This may in part be due to the
Christian heritage of the majority of US citizens. This country directs
the most marriage exposure to Christian church weddings. It may not
occur to many people that there are other traditions of marriage in other
countries that are considered equally valid. What this country
considers the most natural and normal is not necessarily a universal
standard. That the range of acceptable marriage practices may change
in the future is not an unprecedented possibility nor is it unrealistic to
expect changes. Marriage has never been an immutable and fixed
standard.
The way in which a marriage is decided changes
from place to place according to the societal and cultural attitudes
towards marriage. Religion and geography play a role in determining how
marriages develop. Infant betrothal, arranged marriages, and
marriage by individual choice are different ways that marriages are agreed
upon.
Infant betrothal and arranged marriages are a
common custom and were widely prevalent in the past. In India,
especially, parents decide the marriage partner of their child at
birth. In Judaic culture, it has been a common practice for a
young couple to meet each other for the first time on their wedding
day. Certain areas of India and China also reflect marriages that
occur while the two are strangers. Arranged marriages were typical
in the early United States and Europe until the middle of the 1900s.
In the past century, marriages in the United
States have been increasingly dictated by love, caring and personal
choice.
Heterosexual
Marriage in the United States
Marriage standards in the United States were
initially established from Judeo-Christian values and the traditions of
England and European heritage. However, these traditions have
evolved and changed over the years. What is viewed as marriage today
is a far cry from what was considered marriage thousands of years ago, 100
years ago or even a mere 30 years.
Heterosexual marriage began as a method of
firming tribal alliances, procreation and tracing inheritance
rights. Historical marriages documented in the Bible were barbarous,
in which women were seized during warfare to become wives. Parents
viewed their daughters as child-bearing commodities, and just as
frequently sold their children into slavery. Polygamy was frequent,
especially in early Biblical marriages, such as the stories of Solomon and
his "700 wives, princesses and 300 concubines,” as related in 1 Kings 11:3
(Revised Standard Version).
As time progressed, marriage was still used to
increase wealth and social standings of the families involved. Until
recent centuries, western culture marriages were arranged by the parents
of the young couple, sometimes while the children were still in their
teens. Marriages were most often arranged for two people of similar
social standing and religious backgrounds. Mixing religious
backgrounds were highly discouraged and socially unacceptable. In
England and early United States, wives were not legally allowed to inherit
money or property after the death of their husband, and all money and
property were given to the closest male relative. Young American
women raised in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries constantly added
clothing and furniture to their dowries, in order to enhance their
marriage-ability.
Times -- and the meaning of marriage -- have
been shifting. The United States and European countries have in recent
decades acquired a marriage connotation of romantic love, as opposed to
the purely material and familial contract it had been for thousands of
years. There have been many reasons posited for this evolution,
including the increase of population, development of industrialized
society and the changed view of the female role.
One reason posited for this change has been the
increase of world population. In the very beginnings of
civilization, survival and perpetuation of the species was of utmost
importance. At this point in time, it is especially clear that
too many offspring can be a drain on families and society. Many families
in today’s society realize it is not economically feasible to produce many
children, in that there are not enough resources to go around to provide
adequately for them. The advances in birth control allow women more
ability for planning and spacing their children. In the year 1800 the
average number of children born per woman was 7.0, which decreased
considerably to 2.0 in the early 1990s (Encarta ‘2005). It is no
longer necessary for every woman to bear a child in order to secure a
stable future population. Therefore, marriage is no longer the
procreative necessity it once was.
The change from an agricultural society to an
industrialized and business-oriented market has shifted marriage from
essential to optional. Industrialized societies that focus on
factory and business jobs are less dependent on large families for
success. Agricultural societies are dependent on large work forces,
but the United States in particular has been moving away from
agriculture-based livelihoods for many years. As the need for large
families is less, women are allowed more personal options in marrying and
bearing children.
The number of personal choices available to
women has influenced societal views of marriage. The increase of
women in the workplace and the societal approval of work outside the home
has given women more choices about their lives. Because it is now
acceptable for women to work, unmarried women no longer have to depend on
their families for survival nor do they need to marry in order to support
themselves. The loosening of sexual taboos on single mothers and
the availability of birth control have lent to more child-rearing choices
than were socially accepted in the past. Women now have a great deal
of choice in the area of careers, marriages and child-bearing that were
not available earlier.
Marriage and childrearing are no longer
necessities for individuals in the United States. Marriage has changed
from an essential part of life to an optional choice designed to enhance
life. It is now an individual choice that is not directly decided by the
parents or society. At one time, all aspects of a marriage union
were decided by outside parties. Now, people may choose to marry out
of their social standing, financial position, age group, race or religious
background. The gender of a marriage partner may be the next
category that will become open to individual choice.
Homosexual
Marriage
Research by the Yale historian John Boswell in
the book, Same-Sex Unions in Pre-modern Europe, explores the historical
context of homosexual marriages. His studies revealed that
homosexual marriage rites have been legally sanctioned and religiously
upheld for over 3,000 years in ancient African, Asian, Egyptian,
Greek, Mesopotamian, Native American and Roman cultures. The
social acceptance of same-gender relationships did not gain widespread
condemnation until the 13th century, when religious orders stepped in and
declared them immoral (Dorrell & Legal Marriage Court Cases,
1994,1996).
Paul Halsall, also a historian, supports the
findings of Boswell and unearthed other cultures’ acceptance of male-male
or female-female relationships. In his essay, Lesbian and Gay Marriage
through History and Culture, he documents the recognition of same-gender
couples in many cultures. He specifically lists, “Ancient Greece, Egypt,
Crete, Sparta, Thebes, Ancient Rome, China, Japan, Malay, Bali, Australia,
India, Native Americas (Chukchi, Koriaks, Kamchadale), New Mexico tribes,
Peru, Brazil, Medieval Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism” (Halsall,
1996). While certainly the couplings and the recognitions were not
everyday common occurrences, they were recorded as happening.
The role of the church in condoning homosexual
marriages is also evident, according to Boswell. The Catholic
Church, in particular, legitimized same-gender unions for over 1,500
years. This tradition was halted only in the 1800s. There were
over 100 liturgies specifically for same-gender marriages. Since
childbearing parts of marriage did not fit the same-gender unions, they
were removed. As a replacement, the liturgies praised the
companionable parts of marriage. For instance, a gay couple was
cited as celebrating "brotherhood.” (Dorrell, 1994)
Other religious denominations accept and
support same-gender commitments. Religious ceremonies for gay male
couples and lesbian couples have been performed in assorted religious
persuasions, including, Buddhist, Episcopalian, Reconstructionist, Jewish,
Reform Jewish, Presbyterian, Quaker, Unitarian and others (Where to Get a
Religious Blessing, 1995). It is noteworthy that while many of the
arguments against same-gender marriage pertain to religion, currently the
only instances where Americans can have same-gender marriage rites
performed are religious. The law does not recognize same-gender
marriages, but many churches do.
Female-female and male-male couples have
existed throughout history and exist in great numbers today. The
level of social recognition has varied through time, religions and
specific cultures. However, homosexual relationships are not a new
concept nor are they something that have just sprung out of the decaying
American society. They have always existed, however they may not
have always been a discussed topic nor have a great deal of couples wished
to be socially open with the true nature of their relationship.
Marriage in the United States has gone through many changes since the
establishment of the country, transcending many elements that were once
regulated, such as race of the couple. Making the gender of a
marriage partner open to personal choice should be the next step in the
evolution of marriage.
Legal Meaning Of
Marriage
Definitions
Many people are unaware of the definitions and
distinctions involved in discussing marriage. There are generally
four terms that are important to understand, legal marriage, ceremonial
marriage, common-law marriage and domestic partnership registration.
Legal Marriage is a
state-defined contract between a man and a woman. States have
between 160 and 250 different laws which govern almost every social
interaction.
Ceremonial Marriage, which
is usually performed in a church, is a ritual that blesses the
union. It does not involve civil laws, nor does it carry and legal
benefits, responsibilities, or content. It is merely a rite that may be
officiated by church officials, or anyone who wishes to do so.
Church officials may oversee the signing of legal marriage documents, but
that is the extent of their legal involvement. The church has no
control whatsoever over the legal content. Some churches “marry”
same-gender couples. However, all it means is that they have a ceremony
declaring the commitment of the couple and the approval of the
church. It does not have any legal meaning. When Americans hear of
“gay marriage ceremonies” in the media, it refers solely to ceremonial
marriage rites that may be done for personal reasons, not civil.
Anyone can have a ceremonial marriage at any time, officiated by anybody
off the street. It does not mean that the person is registered in
the government as legally married.
Common Law Marriage is only
available in 16 states. It allows for some civil laws of mutual
caretaking, financial issues, and responsibilities to children to be in
effect when opposite-sex couples live together for a specified period of
time. Same-gender couples are not included under this definition.
Domestic Partnership Registration allows opposite- and same-gender couples to go on public record.
Only a few cities offer this option. What this means theoretically
is that the couples can use the registration as proof that they have a
committed relationship. If companies in the area are willing they might
allow some of the civil marriage benefits to be extended to deeply
committed couples (for a sample domestic registration form, see Appendix
A). Benefits may be allowed by different city governments, companies
or universities. (For a list of places that extend domestic
partnerships, see Appendix B.) Domestic partnership is a relatively new
concept, and as of yet has no legal precedents.
Benefits Denied
Same-Gender Relationships
Homosexual couples in the United States are
only allowed to have ceremonial marriage, which means nothing in the eyes
of the law. Civil benefits of marriage are not automatically and
unquestioningly granted to same-gender partners as they are to married
male-female couples. Gay couples face different treatment and
discrimination in many areas that encompass workplace benefits, legal
agreements, housing concerns, tax issues, memberships rates, immigration
topics, medical benefits and legal protections.
A survey was developed and conducted by
Steve Bryant and Demian, Ed.D., co-directors of Partners Task Force For
Gay & Lesbian Couples, in 1988 and 1989. They specifically asked
questions to gay and lesbian couples about the types of discriminations
they received as a couple. The survey involved 1,266 couples.
Of that number, 706 were lesbian couples and 560 were gay male couples.
This table -- the results of the survey portion about discrimination -- is
an example of the prevalence of problems relating to non-married
status.
TYPES OF DISCRIMINATION ENCOUNTERED AS A COUPLE
|
|
Women
(%) |
Men (%) |
|
Employment benefits |
58 |
48 |
|
Taxes |
47 |
37 |
|
Insurance |
46 |
34 |
|
Membership |
20 |
11 |
|
Credit/banking |
15 |
10 |
|
Employment |
14 |
13 |
|
Housing |
11 |
11 |
|
Hotels |
6 |
6 |
|
Hospital visitation |
6 |
2 |
|
Adoption |
5 |
2 |
|
Foster care |
3 |
2 |
|
Other |
7 |
4 |
|
None/none indicated |
23 |
34 |
(Survey Results, 1996)
As the above information shows, the area where
the most discrimination occurred against same-gender couples is the
workplace. For one thing, legally married couples are given
employment and unemployment benefits. However, if a gay man was to
be transferred by his company to a job elsewhere, his gay partner would be
unable to claim unemployment benefits after leaving his job to move with
his partner. A wife leaving her job to follow her transferred
husband, or vice versa, is considered a valid reason to leave employment
but to follow a gay or lesbian mate is not recognized as legitimate by the
government when it comes to benefits. Bereavement leave is seldom
offered if the partner of a gay or lesbian relationship dies. If a
same-gender relationship is raising a child together, if that child is not
the biological child of an employee who dies, that child is not eligible
to receive dead parent benefits from a company. Companies often offer
benefits to children of legally married couples. Corporate health
insurance plans that may be extended to a spouse are not extended to gay
male and lesbian couples.
A case currently in the courts portrays
discrimination because gays and lesbians are not considered family.
In March of 1995, the Minneapolis Commission on Civil Rights found
probable cause to support charges that the Omni Northstar Hotel
discriminated against three former employees based on their sexual
orientation. Three individuals filed separate complaints. All
three charged that management required that gays and lesbians work during
holidays. The given rationale was that "gays don't have families"
(Association Executives Human Rights Caucus, 1995).
Marjorie Forlini, who worked as an AT&T
manager, and her partner Sandra Rovira lived together for 12 years and
even had a ceremonial marriage in 1977. Together, the two raised Ms.
Rovira’s two biological children, Frank and Alfred. Marjorie died of
cancer in 1989, in Sandra’s arms. At the time, the two children were
11 and 8. The provisions of the AT&T benefits plan offer a
year’s pay to unmarried, dependent children under age 23 whose parent was
a manager and who died of an illness. However, the company refused
to consider Rovira or her children for any type of benefits. The
company rationalized that even though their employee claimed the two
children as dependents on tax forms, as the children belonged to Rovira,
and the two women were not married, the children did not fit the benefits
package. The children did not receive a dime (Lewin,
1990).
Owning a home or renting an apartment can be
burdensome to a gay couple bereft of a marriage license. For
example, the wording of the Virginia Housing Development Authority makes
it impossible for same-gender couples to have a home loan through the
state housing agency. A single-family loan requires that the family
be related by blood, marriage or adoption (Gay Couples Excluded From Home
Loans, 1996).
If a married couple lives in an apartment,
should one spouse die, the other automatically retains ownership of the
lease. If a same-gender couple resides together in an apartment,
should the one whose name is on the lease die, the partner does not
automatically inherit the lease. Unless the family of the deceased
and the management of the apartment cooperates, there is a chance that the
partner may be forced to leave the apartment. This is simply because
the two are unable to have a marriage license granting automatic
inheritance of such things. Fortunately, in 1989, New York made gay
couples a family under rent control laws.
There are many small day-to-day things.
Club memberships are difficult to obtain at family rates for same-gender
partnerships. For instance, the YWCA or YMCA would make a homosexual
couple pay for two separate adult rates instead of a family plan, even if
the two are raising a child. Rent-a-car services make gay male and
lesbian partners pay individual rates, not family. Airline flight
pass benefits are not readily available to same-gender couples.
Hotel accommodations give breaks to families, however same-gender
relationships do not seem to count.
Until 1991, AAA Washington rent-a-car service
charged $45 for a year-long primary membership, and then $17 for an
associate membership. To qualify for an associate membership, one
had to be a spouse or dependent child under age 23. This, though,
was changed after Demian and his domestic partner, Steven Bryant, filed a
lawsuit of discrimination based on marital status. The two men had
been living together for ten years, yet the club refused to extend the
discount to Steven as an associate and instead charged him the full $45.
Said Demian, "It just didn't make sense to buy two full memberships for
the one vehicle we share'' (Auto Club Agrees, 1995). The change
occurred because Seattle law prohibits marital status discrimination in
public accommodations, and specifically extends protection to cohabiting
couples. Discrimination in membership is by no means an isolated
Seattle incident (Auto Club Agrees, 1995).
An article in Newsweek illustrates the loss of
airline benefits occurred to James D'Eramo and his lover Will Wake in New
York City. The two had a trip to Italy scheduled. However,
shortly before the date of the departure, Wake’s father died and they were
forced to cancel the trip. The policy of Alitalia Airlines and many
other airline services is that it issues a full ticket refund for
cancellation due to bereavement. Yet, the airline refused to refund
the tickets because the two were not legally related. On a positive
note, the tickets were both refunded after the two men became legal
domestic partners in New York (Richardson, 1993). This is an example
of how domestic partnership (and hopefully same-gender marriage) can
combat discrimination and add fairness to the treatment of committed
same-gender relationships.
Discrimination against same-gender couples in
immigration issues has led to the organization of the Lesbian and Gay
Immigration and Asylum Rights Task Force. The organization began in
1993 and is supported by the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. The
basis of the immigration complaint is the United States policy towards
spousal immigration. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
allows a foreign spouse to be immigrated into the US. The basis of
this act is that Americans have the right to live with their loved
ones. Currently, “loved ones” in American policy refer to those
related by marriage, blood or adoption. Gay and lesbian loved ones
do not count in the eyes of the law.
Rod Swift and Christopher Hughes have been
romantically involved since 1993. Swift is in charge of the “The
Equal Marriage Rights Home Page”. The site (no longer available) tracks
the progression of legislation about same-gender marriage, and received
recognition from the Freedom Award system. The largest problem their
relationship faces is non-recognition by their governments. Swift
lives in Perth, Western Australia. Hughes lives in Fort Worth,
Texas. If same-gender marriage were legal in the United States,
Swift would easily be able to join his lover. Needless to say, it is
currently impossible (Swift, 1996).
An engineer named David was temporarily
transferred to Japan for his job in 1990. There, he established a
relationship with a Japanese man, Hiro. They shared an apartment
until David was transferred back to the US. In order for Hiro to
immigrate to the US, David needed to sponsor his partner based on married
status. As they are both men, it was not possible. Now, they travel
to and from their homes at great expense, and for only limited times
(Lesbian and Gay Immigration and Asylum Rights Task Force, 1996).
Elena, an Argentine living in the United States
on a college scholarship, met her partner Karen through some mutual
friends. Her student visa and employment authorization expired after
five years. She could not find an employer willing to sponsor her,
but she could not bear to go back to Argentina. If she returned to
Argentina, she had no idea if she would ever be able to come back.
Instead, she stayed here and lives with Karen in a small apartment.
It is difficult for her to work without the proper papers, so the two have
to live off of Karen’s job. If the law recognized their relationship
as a valid, caring marriage commitment, Elena would be immediately granted
citizenship (Lesbian and Gay Immigration and Asylum Rights Task Force,
1996).
Medical issues that do not carry specific
monetary values are of critical importance to gay and lesbian couples,
most of which could be resolved by a marriage license. Hospital
visitation rights, especially in emergencies, are allowed only to
immediate family. A spouse counts, but a same-gender partner does
not. While many gays and lesbians are able to visit their partners,
the legal right to do so may be taken away at any point. This
problem is most evident when gay and lesbian couples have difficulties
with their parents. Sadly, parental disapproval of gay male and
lesbian relationships is all too common. Therefore, the parents of a
critically ill lesbian daughter or gay son may refuse to allow the
same-gender partner to visit. Parents may instruct the hospital not
to release health status updates to the same-gender partner. In
fact, the same-gender partner has no medical say at all pertaining to
their partner. Though a spouse may give permission for major surgery
to be performed in an emergency, a gay or lesbian partner may not, unless
equipped with the correct legal documents (again, requiring extensive
attorney agreements) and medical permission release forms. A
same-gender partner does not have next-of-kin status after death,
resulting in the blood family having possession of the body. The
blood family is allowed to dispose of the body and make funeral
arrangements, without any consultation or even informing the same-gender
partner. As if the death of a long-term lover is not enough cause
for grief, that gays and lesbians are not allowed to legally marry
multiplies the problems and discriminations faced in dealing with the
death of a loved one.
Karen Thompson and Sharon Kowalski had lived
together for four years until a tragedy occurred. Kowalski was
involved in a car accident in 1983, leaving her severely brain
damaged. Thomspon wished to care for her lover at home, but
Kowalski’s family stepped in. Kowalski was placed in a nursing
home. It took nearly ten years of legal disputes before Thompson won
the suit and was able to bring her lover home (Shenitz & Underwood,
1995).
Tax issues are a major financial concern.
Tax benefits on homes that are available to married couples are not
offered to same-gender partners. The IRS does not allow people to
electronically deposit tax refunds into the same joint checking account
unless provided with a marriage certificate. Even banking and credit
accounts can be treated differently if one is married. A couple that
lives together for years must go through the yearly tax hassle of being
considered legal strangers.
Legal agreements such as wills and powers of
attorney are another example of the disparity between legal and ceremonial
marriage. Legally married couples automatically inherit their
spouse’s property after his or her death. Same-gender couples must
pay thousands of dollars for extremely tight wills in order to leave their
property to their partners. Even if the couples pay a great deal for
the wills and take extensive precautions, should the family of a deceased
partner contest the will, blood-ties are most likely to prevail in
court. Powers of attorney and relationship agreements also are very
expensive and difficult to obtain for non-married, same-gender
couples. These are agreements that are automatically offered through
legal marriage. Life-insurance benefits are offered automatically to
one’s spouse, and to a same-gender partner only after a lot of legal
papers.
The courtroom and legal system is another place
where homosexual couples are treated differently because they are unable
to have civil marriage protections. Unmarried couples can be forced
to testify against one another in court. This disrupts the intimacy
of the couple, which is why legally married couples may choose not to
testify. Homosexual couples may be forced to repeat in court what
was said in private. The partner of a gay or lesbian is unable to
sue on the grounds of wrongful death. Also, in the event a person is
injured, a partner cannot sue for legal damages. In the unfortunate
event of an abusive relationship, many legal recourses to stop the abuse
is lacking because of the lack of marriage certificate.
These are only a few of the examples of lost
rights and responsibilities. There are over 200 rights and
responsibilities outlined in state statutes pertaining to marriage (for a
sample of specific state statutes, see Appendix C). Most rights are
denied to same-gender partners, even though they intermingle their homes,
families, finances and lives in ways identical to married straight
couples. Simply removing the gender requirement for marriage would
serve to extend the benefits to same-gender couples.
Domestic Partnership
Benefits and Detractions
Domestic partnership is available in a few
cities across the nation. It has been theorized that domestic
partnership could be a type of alternative marriage for same-gender
couples. However, a study of the domestic policies and how it
relates to the real world make it an unsatisfactory illusion of partial
equality.
There are certain benefits to this
arrangement. On the financial end, some of the benefits of
registering for this type of record are that some partners can gain health
insurance they would otherwise be unable to get. Discount prices for
health clubs or rental services can be arranged. Some funeral
parlors allow for domestic partners to make funeral decisions for their
ill partners. Due to recent New York legislation, domestic partners
can inherit leases from their partners for apartments in city housing
residential buildings. Domestic partnership in San Francisco lets
registered gay couples have hospital visitation, shared health plans and
bereavement leave for city employees but private employers are not
required to do so as well.
There are also social benefits that can be
garnered. Registering can lead to social recognition of same-gender
relationships, for as it is, many people are not aware of the prevalence
of gay couples. Negotiating partnership benefits in the workplace
can lead to helpful discussions and policies pertaining to discrimination
issues based on sexual orientation on the job. Some places also
allow partners to visiting rights for city jails and hospitals
There are major problems to domestic
partnerships that make it very unequal to legal marriage. Partner
benefits -- such as proceeds from insurance -- are subject to federal and
state income tax. Married partners are exempt from such taxes.
Trying to get a few benefits here and there can take years of meetings and
reports in a business setting. Getting any sort of benefits depends solely
on the community and each individual employer or business. The
registration does not offer benefits in and of itself. It can also
have the negative effect of proving financial interdependence (therefore,
responsibility for bankruptcy) while not receiving many of the positive
sides of civil
issues.
The establishment of same-gender marriage would
eliminate the stumbling blocks of domestic partnership. Making
marriage legal for gays and lesbians takes care of all the social and
financial problems at once, instead of taking years and years to make a
few progressions here and there. It takes a separate domestic
partnership lawsuit for each and every legal benefit, whereas marriage
would cover everything immediately. Legal marriage would encompass the
entire country, whereas domestic partnership is extended by each
individual community. Civil marriage would have precedents already
made, whereas domestic partnership is a shaky legal entity with virtually
zero legal precedents. For the moment, domestic partnership is
helping to start the recognition of same-gender partners. It is a
useful short term goal, but same-gender marriage is the most reliable and
legally binding method in the long term.
Same-Gender Marriage
Arguments
There are generally two levels of argument in
this issue. One presents arguments in favor of the marriage
and the other refutes arguments used against it. Arguments for same-gender
marriage are:
-
Marriage promotes stable relationships
-
Society should recognize families as such
-
Current laws discriminate based on gender
-
Couples wish to marry for love
-
Gays and lesbians are not allowed to receive the benefits of being married
-
It does not promote procreation
-
Homosexual couples are immoral
-
The cost of insuring AIDS patients would harm businesses
-
The legal system and domestic partnership should be used as substitutes to marriage
-
Gays and lesbians should not want to be married at all
Arguments For Same-gender Marriage
Same-gender families support each other emotionally and financially the same way heterosexual families do, so they should receive the same benefits. Lives are shared, taxes are paid and the everyday shared responsibilities of making a household work are evident. The only difference is that wives and husbands are eligible for over 150 rights while same-gender partners are legally considered mere roommates. In the event of a death of a wage-earner, gay and lesbian families have the same needs as any other grief-stricken family, as was illustrated by the story about Marjorie Forlini and Sandra Rovira. Simply stated, there are major benefits involved in legal marriage that same-gender partnerships do not receive merely because they are of the same gender. As same-gender partners function and support each other in identical ways that a married couple does, they should be allowed to receive the same rights and responsibilities.
Legal marriage promotes stability in a family unit -- regardless of gender. It encourages a devoted, monogamous relationship. A married couple, heedless of gender, is likely to be a strong union that pays taxes and contributes to the well being of the community. The benefits of legal marriage, such as security from being evicted in the case of a death or knowledge that both are covered adequately with insurance, can allow the couples to have confidence that their union is secure. Should gay marriages be legalized, it would promote monogamous relationships between committed partners. The purpose of legal marriage is to promote and protect a private relationship, therefore extending its benefits to private relationships between same-gender couples would achieve that end as well.
If the family agrees to consider themselves a family, others should too. Marriage for many homosexuals means that it is a public expression of a private reality. However, since society generally considers family to be made through either birth or marriage, those who consider themselves family are not always recognized as such. As gay and lesbian families function the same as heterosexual families they should be able to be recognized as a family though marriage. Marriage is recognized as an important relationship that denotes a family, so it should be offered to people who live together in loving, caring and stable relationships that consider themselves family. Society does not create families through marriage; it simply recognizes a family as a family. Same-gender marriage should be legal for gay and lesbian couples as it would simply recognize that two people have a committed relationship.
Current marriage laws discriminate based on gender. For instance, Suzy can marry John because he is a man but she cannot marry Sarah because she is a woman. The only reason that two men or two women cannot marry is because of the state of their genitalia. If marriage laws were gender-neutral, people could marry free from discrimination based on their gender. At one point in time, marriage was limited based on the color of the people’s skin. That too was discriminatory and overlooked the commitment of two people in love. Those laws were overturned as should be the laws against same-gender couples. Marriage laws should reflect the commitment of two people who love and support each other and should not be dependent solely upon bodily characteristics.
Another argument in favor of same-gender marriage is that homosexual couples want to marry for love, declare their commitment publicly, plus the financial benefits do not hurt! People in this society generally marry for love. When a man proposes to a woman, or vice versa, usually the response is not along the lines of, “Why yes! I would love to participate in the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage!” Marriage is recognized an emotional and loving commitment. As couples of the same gender love and care about one another, many would wish to marry to make that commitment final. A wedding is recognized by society as a sincere form of commitment and legal marriage makes that commitment concrete and seals the union. It could be argued that marriage in its most basic and personal level can add intimacy and romance to a relationship. Marriage can encourage long-term stability and prosperity to millions of gays and lesbians, not to mention deepen their personal fulfillment and commitment to one another. What is worse, infidelity and promiscuity, or two adults making and keeping wedding vows?
The simple fact of being legally married is enough to gain financial benefits. Even though a civil marriage does not necessarily change who the people are, how they live or how their household functions, the simple change in status from “single” to “married” can garner benefits. Steven Martin illustrates this in his column from the Iowa State Daily as he explains:
"My brother got married on Aug. 5. He now lives in married student housing on campus, and his car insurance rates dropped by $480 per year. My brother drives like a maniac. He's just as bad now as he was before he was married, yet his insurance company decided he's not as much of a risk now that he has that marriage license." (Martens,1995).
Throughout their lives, gay and lesbian couples are forced to maintain a “single” status and as such are not able to receive benefits. Marriage for same-gender couples would provide the benefits of being in a legally committed relationship.
Counter Arguments In Defense Of Same-Gender Marriage
That some people consider same-gender relationships “unnatural” is not a valid argument against it. The same argument has been unsuccessfully applied to other marriage relationships that are now legal. Claiming the unnaturalness of the union is a culturally and historically unenlightened position, because those who use it are generally unaware that the same argument was once used against interracial marriage. Even though interracial marriage was once considered unnatural, it is now perfectly legal. In 1967, a mere 30 years ago, the US Supreme Court overturned the laws against interracial marriages and voided laws in 16 states. The arguments against same-gender marriage and interracial marriage have been very similar. The important thing to bear in mind is that while many people once thought mixing the races was unnatural...society and the laws eventually changed to make it legal. The same could happen with gender restrictions.
Legislation about interracial marriage directly parallels the current legislation about same-gender marriage. In fact, the legislation speaks for itself. A recent bill passed in South Dakota refuses to recognize same-gender marriage, should it ever be legalized in other states. The South Dakota House Bill 1184 states, "Be it enacted by the legislature of the State of South Dakota:...any marriage between persons of the same gender is null and void from the beginning." (Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., [LLDEF] 1995). That statement conforms strikingly to the reasons against inter-racial marriage. According to the Virginia Code Annotated 20-57 in the 1960’s, "All marriages between a white person and a colored person shall be
The “unnatural” argument was also used against interracial marriage and such relationships were penalized as well. The most famous interracial marriage case was Loving v. Virginia. In 1958, Mildred Jeter (a black woman) and Richard Loving (a white male) married. They were arrested for violating the law Virginia law against interracial marriage. As it was a felony, the two faced up to five years imprisonment. The court that upheld the law argued that the marriage
The US Supreme Court, though, did not find that a sufficiently compelling argument, and struck down the racist laws. That was 30 years ago. Today, very similar attitudes are expressed when it is argued that men were not meant to marry men, nor women to marry women. It is evident that the view of interracial marriage as unnatural has eroded in our society. Therefore, it is entirely possible that the view of same-gender couples as unnatural is not a permanent societal standard. Claiming that same-gender unions are unnatural is as biased and bigoted as the past racist views towards interracial marriage.
That society has traditionally kept marriage for one man and one woman ignores the fact that traditions change. In the United States, we have had “traditions” that people must marry their own race. In traditions of our society, women were secondary to their husband and could not own their own property. Traditionally speaking, marriage outside of one’s faith was not an approved one. The choice of a marriage partner belongs to individuals; not the government, not the neighbors, not society, and not traditions.
Even though same-gender couples cannot have children, they should not be denied marriage for that reason. A common argument against legalized same-gender unions is that marriage was designed for procreation. Even in the context of heterosexual marriages, this argument is implausible. Raising children is not a legal requirement for marriage. If marriage were designed solely for procreation, then infertile men, sterile women, the elderly past child-bearing years, people with a history of genetic diseases and people who do not choose to have children would not be allowed to marry. In the early 1980s, of married or previously married women between ages 40 and 44, 7% were childless (Encarta, 1994). No one has ever dared to suggest that those 7% are not really married because they have no children. Bearing children is a personal choice, not a governmentally mandated requirement. Just as one’s marriage partner should be personal choice and not governmentally mandated.
Condemnations of homosexual relationships are rampant, especially the charge that recognizing same-gender couples as legal is promoting immorality. The American Psychological Association (APA) disagrees, in its released statement of its position on homosexuality in July of 1994. According to the APA:
Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals." (What Do Some, 1996).
It further goes on to state that research suggests homosexual orientation is decided early, perhaps before birth. It is found in 10% of the population, constantly across cultures irrespective of values or standards of each culture. Rates of homosexuality do not seem to change with new moral codes or social mores. Efforts to reverse homosexuals are simply social prejudice trying to sound scientific. While some people may label same-gender relationships as depraved based on their own feelings, the American Psychological Association does not view it as a medical or moral problem. This is not a new view, either. The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in the 1970s. Even the American Medical Association calls for "nonjudgmental recognition of sexual orientation by physicians” (What Do Some, 1996). Perhaps religious sentiment may inspire views of homosexuality as immoral. Nevertheless, nationally accredited medical, psychiatric and psychological associations do not share the view of homosexuality as immoral.
It has been suggested the underlying reason for gays and lesbians to seek marriage is to force employers to extend health insurance to AIDS-infected homosexuals. This argument is closely allied with the general misconception that homosexuality is always linked with AIDS, and AIDS is a “gay man’s disease”. Furthermore, this argument is based on the faulty premise that AIDS is a hideously costly disease. It is actually not overly expensive when compared to a wide variety of common illnesses. The insurance company Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield analyzed 10,483 cases of AIDS over a seven-year period, and concluded the lifetime health care cost of an AIDS patient is $65,000. However, an accident that causes a quadriplegic averages $570,000. A liver transplant is billed at $250,000 and a heart bypass is at $30,000 (Funded Retirement and Insurance Committee [FRIC], 1991). An interpretation of these numbers is that AIDS is less expensive than diseases and illnesses that occur cumulatively more often and affect more people than AIDS. Lifetime costs of an AIDS patient are roughly equivalent to lifetime costs of a person with cancer, or an individual with heart disease. Insurance coverage of AIDS is not the hideously devastating cost to the employer that it is often assumed.
Not only is AIDS cheaper than other frequent forms of employee illness, it is also much less frequent than suspected. HIV infection rate for homosexuals is no longer the epidemic it once was. The spread of HIV infection for gay males has slowed and reduced. Lesbians actually have the lowest rate of HIV contraction of all sexually active groups. In fact, companies, municipalities, and universities that offer same-gender benefits report that AIDS claims under life insurance are not a problem. A study done by the City of New York University (CUNY) observed the financial impact of domestic partnership registration on dozens of companies and they conclude that AIDS claims are rare (1993). The legalization of same-gender marriage would not radically increase the rate of AIDS insurance claims.
Inclusion of gay and lesbian partners may even be a benefit to employers, contrary to popular notion. The largest health care expense faced by businesses is pregnancy-related. When the FRIC did its report on the financial costs of domestic partnership for the University of Iowa, it found that of hospitalization charges, 27% were pregnancy related, making it the largest cost of hospitalization charges (1991). Neonatal hospital care and premature births particularly have very high price tags. In fact, the cost of a premature baby is usually 10 times more expensive than the lifetime treatment of an AIDS patient (Domestic Partnership Benefits, 1995). Gay/lesbian couples have a much lower rate of childbirth than straight married couples which makes them very good insurance risks. As childbearing is not a frequent occurrence in a gay or lesbian partnership, they are able to save employers money in the most expensive insurance area.
While some benefits similar to marriage may be received using the legal system, it is not a satisfactory option. Using the legal system to secure benefits is costly, time-consuming and often ineffective. This is with extensive use of lawyers, contacts with insurance agencies, meetings with employers, registration with the city, personal conferences with funeral parlors, very solid wills and other such legal papers. In essence, spending a lot of time, money, resources, and energy for arrangements that merely mimic marriage rights and responsibilities. Some of the benefits may be similar to marriage, but unlike legal marriage, anything gained though the legal system may be challenged by the blood family, a former spouse or even the government. As the courts tend to favor the extended family or the former spouse, many of the benefits are simply temporary and evaporate after the death of one partner. A marriage certificate would eliminate all the complications and drawbacks of other methods that try to gain security.
Contrary to popular assumption, domestic partnership is not a suitable substitute for marriage because it is realistically ineffective. Registering for partnership is not comparable to marriage, because the two are not even close to being the same thing. It is only available in certain places, and each place has its own ways and different places for recognizing it. The rights and responsibilities -- when they are recognized -- are usually limited. Even employers who grant domestic partner benefits usually do not extend all the benefits that married couples receive. Plus, it does not have any of the post-relationship securities granted marriage. In the event that the domestic partners break up, they do not have the same divorce proceedings and the split-up of property is not legally overseen. Should one partner die, the partner does not receive any of the automatic inheritance, survivorship or right to the body that married couples have. Allowing same-gender marriage would cover all that, and more, whereas domestic partnership is too cumbersome, limited and regional-specific to be equal to marriage.
A common argument in the gay and lesbian community against same-gender marriage focuses on the negative interpretation of marriage history. According to some, marriage has stood for oppression of women, inequality, patriarchy and heterosexual society, and should be avoided due to its linkages to heterosexist standards. However, to restate the purpose of legal marriage, this issue focuses on the legal and civil aspects of marriage. Namely, the over 150 rights and responsibilities of civil marriage. It is the legal benefits that are at stake here; the rights to division of property after death, survivor benefits, tax filing, social security, health benefits and other rights. It is somewhat difficult to consider something like joint ownership of a home (a benefit of marriage) to be a patriarchal notion. Legal marriage would give a same-gender couple the unquestionable right to visit their partner in the hospital, and to give consent to emergency medical procedures for a partner. It is difficult to see that as a symbol of oppression.
Those who think marriage is patriarchal or oppressive simply do not have to get married. Rather than inflicting their verdict of marriage on others, it is only fair that they should let the option open for those who choose to participate. An excellent summary of how the so-called “heterosexist bias” of marriage is not a reason to deny same-gender marriage is in the words of
Barbara J. Cox, about her ceremonial marriage to her female partner:
Yes, we must be aware of the oppressive history that weddings symbolize...But I find it difficult to understand how two lesbians, standing together openly and proudly, can be seen as accepting that institution? What is more anti-patriarchal and rejecting of an institution that carries the patriarchal power imbalance into most households than clearly stating that women can commit to one another with no man in sight? (Cox, 1996).
If someone finds marriage to be oppressive, then they may choose not to participate. Limiting the legal, civil options of people based on a subjective assessment on the intrinsic value of marriage is not fair to those who voluntarily wish to take part in it.
A criticism that may be used against gay marriages is that a relationship does not need anyone else to say it is valid and that gays and lesbians do not need marriage to make them feel socially equal. It is true that a relationship is validated and affirmed by the couple regardless of marital status. Yet, gays and lesbians still need legal marriage. When an unmarried couple says, “We are a valid, stable relationship!” they are unable to have access to insurance, health decisions, workplace benefits or contractual rights. A married couple that says, “We are a valid, stable relationship!” is legally entitled to all those benefits, plus the rest of the rights. Regardless of how deeply committed the couple is to one another emotionally, legal marriage confers stability to many aspects of financial and social life that are unavailable by mere mental confidence in the relationship.
Some people may argue that now is not the right time to fight for legal marriage based on lack of money, small chance for success and other issues that may be of higher priority. In response to this, there is never a “right” time to ignore bad policies that hurt people. Many gays and lesbians function identically as straight couples. Yet, they consistently lose out financially, legally, socially and sometimes physically. If the marriage issue is going too fast for some people, going too slow is allowing the discrimination and the loss of benefits to continue.
Recent Legal History
There are many progressive changes recognizing the validity of same-gender partnerships. Companies and businesses are extending benefits to couples, as are insurance companies. Governments at the district, county and state level are giving more protections to homosexual relationships than ever before. Plus, current events are facing the possibility of same-gender marriage in the new future, forcing politicians in particular to adopt stances on the issue. A look at the global perspective on gay marriage also gives an idea of possibilities for the future of this country.
Employer and Company Precedents
In the past decade there has been an increase in the usage of domestic partnership registrations and extension of spouse benefits to same-gender couples. An examination of three large firms that extend benefits, Ben and Jerry’s Homemade, Inc., Lotus Development Corporation and Levi Strauss Corporation, show that the results are not disruptive to the businesses. Insurance companies are also increasingly willing to cover same-gender partners. Service agencies are inclining towards domestic partner cooperation. There are both social and financial reasons for expanding the benefits requirements.
Ben and Jerry’s has offered unmarried couples -- both heterosexual and homosexual -- the same benefits given to married employees since 1989. There has been a mere 4% increase in employee benefits and there has been no increase in insurance premiums as a result (CUNY Study Group, 1993).
Since 1991, Lotus has offered full benefits to the “spousal equivalents” of homosexual employees (Spector, 1992). The explanation for the change is that same-gender partners "do not have the choice to legalize permanent and exclusive relationships through marriage" (CUNY Study Group, 1993). An evaluation of the company’s experience by the CUNY Study Group notes that insurance premiums were raised, however the change has not significantly increased insurance claims. The fear that AIDS claims would increase turned out to be unfounded (1992).
Levi Strauss, which employs upwards of 23,000 workers, extended domestic partnership benefits as of September in 1991. This makes it the largest business offering benefits to gays and lesbians. The senior vice president of human resources for Levi Strauss, Donna Goya, gave this rationale for the benefits policy, "This is really a discrimination issue. We realize that family structures are changing and want to respect this diversity" (Domesticated Bliss, 1992). One facilitation for this adjustment is that the company is mostly self-insured.
Until 1993, companies offering domestic partner benefits were only small insurance companies, or the companies were self-insured. The most positive steps towards female-female and male-male couple coverage has been occurring since 1993. One relatively large insurance agency, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, offers medical and dental benefits without cost to domestic partners. The only catch is that a group of 50 or more must sign up first (Factoids, 1995). Now, there are several national insurance agencies that allow benefits. These include Aetna, CIGNA, and Prudential (MacDonald, 1993).
There are service agencies that have been progressing towards positive same-gender recognitions. AAA Motor Clubs reduce the fees for a second membership, so far in only a few states. Avis Rent-A-Car does not charge a daily second driver fee for unmarried couples, as long as the two declare themselves to be a couple. National Car Rental (centered in Minneapolis) allows domestic partners to be authorized to drive the rented cars. This is a helpful policy to same-sex partners because it does not require extra fees or insurance.
There are several reasons for the changes that are taking place. One reason for companies to extend benefits is that it makes them more competitive in the market for good employees. Such changes are viewed as progressive by many groups and the company may receive publicity for its new policies. Another reason for the changes includes avoiding potential lawsuits in a society that is divided on gay rights issues. With the gaining acceptance of domestic partnership, companies are being pressured by communities to join.
The most convincing reason probably concerns the financial figures. Extending employee benefits to domestic partners has a very low price tag attached. Not only have employers over-estimated the number of same-gender partners who might sign on, they also found that costs were barely affected even when a sizable percentage sign up. For instance, Berkeley, California became the first city to offer domestic partnership benefits to employees in 1984. As of 1993, according the CUNY Group Study, 7% of the company’s employees used the registration. This makes it one of the largest percentages of usage. The insurance premium was raised by a mere 2%, which means about $2 per month per employee (1993). Employers have not found issuance of benefits to same-gender partners to be terribly disruptive to business.
Foreign Governments That Offer Benefits
Gay rights for committed couples are not a solely American issue. As it has been found that homosexuality occurs throughout the world, irrespective of the views of the cultures, many governments have considered gay issues in their legislature as well.
The world activity most relevant to this project is that of Denmark, as it has legalized same-gender marriage. About 3,000 homosexual couples have married in Denmark since it was made legal in October of 1989 (Legal Marriage Court Cases, 1996). According to an evaluation of the marriage requirements, one partner must be a citizen born in the country. Married homosexual couples have virtually equal benefits as heterosexual couples, except for a few restrictions. Same-gender couples are not allowed to adopt, receive artificial insemination, or have in-vitro fertilization. Nor are they allowed to have church weddings (Governments Offering Benefits, 1995). Many gays and lesbians are delighted with the legalization. In the words of Eigil Axgil, age 67, before marrying his partner Axel Axgil, 74, "We have been together 40 years and in these 40 years we were waiting for this” (Quotes on Same-Sex Couples, 1996). Finally, it is possible for a committed relationship of four decades to be deemed valid by the government.
Norway was the second country to legalize gay marriages. The third country to legalize partnerships was Sweden, which did so in January of 1995. Hungary followed soon after in March 1995, ruling that same-gender couples could have the benefits of common law marriage. All three countries have the same restrictions on child bearing. According to the Central Bureau of Statistics of Sweden, in the first year of legal marriages there have been registrations by 250 male couples and 80 female couples, for a grand total of 330 from January 1995 to January 1996 (Same Sex Marriages, 1996).
R
Conclusion
The history of marriage, throughout the world in general and the United States specifically, has been one of fluidity and constant change. The fluctuations have been due in part to changing religious beliefs, economic situations, and population levels. On the global level, there are many different forms of marriage that are acceptable within their own cultures, making it difficult to say that there is one universal standard for marriage-ability. Within this country, the changes of the institution of marriage has been evident. Legal marriage was once restricted to two white people of the same religious views and arranged by the couples’ parents. It was later extended to include blacks who chose to marry. Even 30 years ago, legal marriage underwent a major change and removed interracial marriages from the status of “felony”. Marriage has been changed to fit societal needs. Our society refuses to tolerate racial discrimination and has changed laws to recognize marriages regardless of race. Our society refuses to accept gender discrimination therefore also has the power and even the obligation to change laws to recognize marriages regardless of gender.
Legal marriages are protections of an intimate relationship for those who participate. Due to the fact that same-gender relationships are not legally recognized, such couples face different and discriminatory treatment when it comes to many financial issues such as workplace benefits, legal agreements, housing concerns, tax issues, memberships rates, immigration topics, medical benefits and legal protections. Even though two people, their friends and extended family, may recognize a same-gender partnership as family, that view is not reflected lawfully. Gay male and lesbian couples deserve equal benefits for equal relationships and legal registration to prove it.
Arguments against same-gender marriage based on personal emotions do not apply to the legal system and financial concerns have not surfaced in the real world. Religious interpretations of marriage, and individual moral beliefs are not valid reasons to continue legal practices that discriminate against people because of their sex. The financial arguments that the cost of extending benefits to same-gender partnerships would harm businesses has not been reflected in the companies that offer the benefits. Marriage should be extended to same-gender couples because the arguments against it focus on invalid personal feelings as well as faulty assumptions of financial complications.
While domestic partnership is not an adequate substitute for legal marriage, its developments show society’s change towards tolerance. Areas around the country are recognizing the registration of committed couples. Small firms and large companies are recognizing that the spousal equivalents of their employees deserve equal treatment. These small progressions are only the beginning, and legal marriage is needed to completely wipe out the contradictions and confusing policies of domestic partnership. Legal marriage would standardize policies and provide for exact requirements for society to follow, rather than the untested and non-precedented domestic partnership registration.
Bibliography
Anthropology Department - Defining Marriage, University of Manitoba, Department of Anthropology
Anthropology Department - Marriage Systems, University of Manitoba, Department of AnthropologyCity University of New York (CUNY) Study Group.
Executive Summary of the Report of the CUNY Study Group on Domestic Partnerships. October 1993.
Cox, Barbara J. - National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 1, Issue 1
A (Personal) Essay on Same-Sex Marriage by 1996.
Duffy, Jim When Marriage Between Gays was A Rite, Irish Times, August 11, 1998South African Law Reform Commission, December 2003
Intro, Chap 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Encarta Online Washington: Microsoft Corporation.
Foley, Dan. Press Release: Hawaii Supreme Court Turns Down Request To Reconsider; Historic Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Stands. 1993.
Funded Retirement and Insurance Committee.
University of Iowa Domestic Partner Coverage., 1991.Halsall, Paul. Lesbian and Gay Marriage through History and Culture. 1996.
Kearl, Michael C. Singlehood and Alternative Family Forms 2005
Lewin, Tamar. Suit Over Death Benefits Asks, What Is a Family?
MacDonald, Elizabeth M. Contract To Love. June 1993.
Martens, Steven. Same-sex Marriages Need Legal Standing. September 28, 1995.
Murdoch University, Recognition of Same Sex Marriage and footnotes, Sept 1994
Newsweek Article reprint
Domesticated Bliss. Newsweek, March 23, 1992.Partners Task Force for Gay & Lesbian Couples.
Auto Club Agrees to "Family Discount" for same-sex couples. 1995.
Survey Results — Attitudes Toward Legal Marriage 1996.Richardson, Lynda. Proud, Official Partners. August 1, 1993.
Spector, Barbara. Gay and Lesbian Scientists Seek Workplace Equality. March 2, 1992.
The Freedom To Marry. April 8, 1996.
Appendix A
Legal Precedents Timeline, 1971 - 1995
1971 In Baker v. Nelson, a gay couple argued that same-sex marriage was not specifically prohibited. In addition, the state marriage statute that is interpreted as opposite-sex marriage is unconstitutional based on the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments as it denies them liberty and property without due process nor equal protection of the law. In finding against plaintiffs the State Supreme Court judge said: "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis." Also it said that overturning of laws against interracial marriage laws couldn't be used as a precedent in sex issues, because "in common sense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex." It was not explained why the court felt gender was a "fundamental" difference and race was not.
1971, In Singer v. Hara it was argued that Washington State marriage statutes did not prohibit same-sex marriages. That they were denied a marriage license was argued to be against the state's Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) which forbade discrimination on the basis of sex. Also violations of their Eight, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court responded that it was because two men cannot have children. The court conceded many heterosexually married couple cannot/do not make children, but that was termed an imperfection in the law. The court said the plaintiffs were not denied a license because of gender, they were denied because of the nature of marriage itself.
1973 A female couple in Kentucky, in Jones v. Hallahan, tried to argue that the right to marry which had been established by the U.S. Supreme Court was discriminatory in that it had been applied only to opposite-sex marriages. They said the First Amendment claims right of free association and religion, and the Eighth Amendment was violated through cruel and unusual punishment. The court used the dictionary definition of marriage as being between two persons of the opposite sex. They said the plaintiffs couldn't marry "by their own incapability of entering into a marriage as that term is defined."
1975 The Arizona Supreme Court voided the marriage license granted a gay couple by a county clerk. The court cited the Bible, and the state legislature passed an emergency bill specifically banning same-sex marriage.
1975 A female couple in Ohio sued in Thorton v. Timmers after being denied a marriage license. The Washington, D.C., City Council considered but did not pass a bill providing for gay marriage.
3/75 In Colorado, six couples obtained marriage licenses before the issuance was stopped by the state attorney general. A court revoked all of the licenses in Adams v. Howerton. The licenses were revoked.
1984 A man sued his former partner when they broke up, in DeSanto v. Barnsley. He claimed that since Pennsylvania recognized common law marriages, their long-term relationship should likewise be recognized. The court did not agree.
1984 Berkeley, California, became the first U.S. city to extend spousal benefits to live-in same-sex partners of city employees.
1987 The American Civil Liberties Union committed to eliminating legal barriers preventing gays from marrying.
1989 The San Francisco Bar Association issued a statement in support of same-sex marriages.
1990 In Washington D.C., two partners sued for marriage, arguing the D.C. laws are gender neutral and the denial violates human rights. Dean v. D.C. was rejected by both a lower court and the appeals court. The court cited previous cases as well as the Bible. The D.C. Human Rights Commission testified that the marriage bureau violated city law by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The author of the city's Human Rights Act testified that the Council did not intend to forbid gay marriage. However, the court noted that the District had previously rejected a proposal explicitly recognizing same-sex marriage. The couple finally lost the case in 1995.
1990 A New York man died, leaving most of his estate to a former partner. The partner at the time of death sued as "surviving spouse," under New York inheritance law. In the Matter of Estate of Cooper the court stated that "persons of the same sex have no constitutional rights to enter unto a marriage with each other."
1990 Three Oahu couples applied for and were denied marriage licenses. The couples filed a law suit against the State of Hawaii in May of 1991, for denying them the right to marry someone of the same gender.
10/90 An Ohio county municipal court dismissed a suit for marriage.
8/91 In Hawaii, the suit against the State of Hawaii was dismissed by the state circuit court. The couples next appealed to the state supreme court.
1994 In Underwood v. Florida, the court upheld the clerk's refusal to issue a license.
1994 Texas State Representative Glen Maxey introduced legislation that would extend equal marital rights to same-sex partners. It did not get out of committee.
1994 A same-sex marriage case was brought in Wisconsin and is believed to be on hold pending a final decision in Hawai'i.
4/94 A male couple sued for marriage in Los Angeles, California. They lost the first round and are awaiting a resolution in the Baehr Hawai'i case.
6/94 In Montpelier, Vermont, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman could adopt her lesbian partner's two children. Prior, Vermont and most other states required that a blood parents rights be terminated in adoption unless the child is adopted by a step-parent. The argument was that a lesbian lover is not a step parent. The supreme court disagreed and ruled "We hold that when the family unit is comprised of the natural mother and her partner, and the adoption is in the best interests of the children, terminating the natural mother's rights is unreasonable and unnecessary."
5/94 The Hawaii Supreme Court decided (2-1-1) that the state could no longer recognize marriage on the basis of gender of either person involved. Discrimination due to gender by the government would be subject to the scrutiny applied to racial, ethnic and religious discrimination.
6/94 The Hawaii Supreme Court turned down the State Attorney General's request to reconsider its May 5, 1994, ruling that the State's refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples is unconstitutional. It made clear that the State must prove a "compelling interest" or lift the ban on same-sex marriages.
1994 A domestic partnership was recognized by State Farm insurance after a fire destroyed a couple’s home which had been insured only by one of the men.
1994 In Arizona, a same-sex marriage case Callender v. Corbett was brought by four couples. A Superior Court judge ruled against them, citing that any change in marriage law was a matter for the state legislature. An appeal is on hold pending a final decision in Hawai'i.
11/94 The IRS ruled that a multi-employer fund may offer health benefits to same-sex domestic partners without jeopardizing its tax-exempt status. However, the fund must limit its domestic partner benefit to just 3.4% of the amount it pays for all employee health benefits. Taxes are still paid on the benefits by the employee’s partner.
4/94 Four same-gender couples in Tucson, sued to overturn the Arizona State law against same-sex marriages. The judge ruled, denying their motion for a pre-trial ruling, saying that the legislature must decide the issue. The couples may appeal.
6/94 A gay couple in Ocean Springs, Mississippi, were refused a marriage license.
1995 An Alaskan male couple sued for legal marriage. The case is pending.
1995 Alaskan bill to not recognize certain out-of-state marriages failed in committee. An anti-domestic-partnership bill is pending.
1995 Utah passed a bill preventing recognition of certain out-of-state marriages.
2/95 South Dakota's House of Representatives passed a ban on legal same-sex marriages, but the measure failed by one vote in the state's senate. (Not that same-sex marriage was legal in the first place)
2/95 A Vermont couple, Patricia and Penny Rivers-McMahon, were issued a marriage license, but officials called to get it back and refused to legally record it. The couple say they may sue.
1/95 A District of Columbia appeals court ruled Craig Dean and Patrick Gill could not be married in the district. The couple is considering a further appeal.
3/95 The Constitutional Court of Hungary ruled that same-sex are now covered by the legal protection of common-law marriage.
3/95 Two Cambodian women were legally married according to a Reuters news service report from the Cambodian Daily newspaper.
Sources:
Foley, Dan. Hawaii Supreme Court Turns Down Request To Reconsider: Historic Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Stands. June 3, 1993.
Lesbian Wins Appeal on Vermont Adoption.
Partners Task Force for Gay & Lesbian Couples.
Factoids on Domestic Partnership Benefits.1996.
Disclaimer
The original document resides on Molly Joy's website. It is reprinted here in the event it is no longer available on the original site. This document was written in 1996, so any references to 'now' or 'currently' are possibly out of date, and therefore I took the liberty of removing only outdated hyperlinks and included some new ones as well as recent events. Special thanks go out to Molly for starting a very detailed write-up on her website. As well as for the numerous sources outlined in her page. Especially Demian of the
Partners Task Force for Gay & Lesbian Couples
Box 9685, Seattle, WA 98109-0685
Voice: (206) 935-1206
E-mail: demian@eskimo.com
Web: http://www.buddybuddy.com/toc.html
Homosexual couples deserve equal benefits
for equal relationships
The next section debates against
anti-gay marriage arguments. Arguments against same-gender marriage
are:
Same-gender unions are “unnatural”
