
#REDIRECT same-sex marriage
#REDIRECT Same-sex marriage
Discussions prior to December 2004 are archived at Talk: Same-sex marriage/archive and Talk: Same-sex marriage/archive2 ==Disputes on the inclusion of "platonic love" and "asexual same-sex marriage"== Please stop spinboy's vandalism against platonic love same-sex marriage! --User:Asexual same-sex marriage :First, please sign your posts using four tildes (~), like this:~~~~ .
:Second, you clearly have an agenda; agendas don't belong in Wikipedia articles. You have an opportunity to explain why you think the particular information you wish to include in the article should be included. Please do so below to initiate the discussion. Please note, comments like "spinboy is a vandal" (he is not) should not be part of the discussion. User:Exploding Boy 22:17, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
::This does not seem to contain any relevant discussion on how to improve the article. Spinboy has nothing to do with it; anyone can edit articles here. If you have specific suggestions for improving the article, state them here, so we can discuss them. Do not launch Wikipedia:No personal attacks, please. User:JRM 22:16, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
:The edits you are making, Asexual, have nothing to do with this article. If you want an article on asexual same-sex marriage or platonic sex-sex marraige, then start one instead of vandalising this one. User:Spinboy 22:25, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
ok friends. My suggestion is to add a single quote about platonic love same-sex marriage in this article.
Just a quote saying: Platonic love same-sex marriage is considered to be a same-sex marriage variation. Is this such a big deal? I think you are against NPOV, and you are supporting the tyrany of the majority of the same-sex gay married people. User:Asexual same-sex marriage 22:35, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
:First of all, I totally dispute your claim that there is any such thing as a "tyranny of the majority of the same-sex gay married people," insofar as I even understand what you mean when you say that.
:According to Wikipedia's article on Platonic love,
::::Platonic love is an affectionate relationship into which the sexual element does not enter, especially in cases where one might easily assume otherwise.
What does this have to do with marriage? By including this in the same-sex marriage article you are suggesting that marriages contracted between people of the same sex might only be for ... what? Tax purposes? Nobody is arguing that people who are not in particular types of relationships should be allowed to marry. Should roommates marry? Also, what does platonic love specifically have to do with same-sex marriages? Why ''this'' article and not another? User:Exploding Boy 22:28, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
Marriage has to do with love, not sex! Platonic love is a form of love, according to what we believe the strongest one. As long as marriage is primarily love and not sex, people who are loved eachother with platonic love should be married, and their rights as couples should be legaly recognized. And of course their relashionship should be distinguished from the homosexual relashionships, which are based on sexual behavior. There is "tyrrany of the majority of the same-sex gay married people" because as you can see gays do not recognise our relashionship and they dont want for us to be distinguished from them as a separate same-sex category in this article.Gays also dont want for our same-sex couples to have the same legal rights they have. User:Asexual same-sex marriage 05:24, Dec 8 ,2004 (UTC)
: Marriage may either have to do with love, or with sex, or with personal emotional benefits as each couple sees fit, or with benefits that society bestows to the new family unit, or for religious obligations, or for whatever reason. That's not the issue really. The issue is that "platonic marriages" (and it's called "platonic marriage", it's not called "platonic love marriage") has nothing to do with same-sex couples inherently. It can be a reference to any kind of marriage. So why are you interested in bringing up this subcategory of marriages in general up in *this* article?
: In short I'm not seeing any value added in adding specific mentions of "platonic same-sex marriages" any more than it'd be worthwhile to add "platonic interracial marriages" or "platonic polygamous marriages". Sure, these things may exist. But reference to "platonic marriage" belongs to the Marriage article proper. Has nothing to do with *same-sex* marriages specifically -- nor is there much sense in dividing between the same-sex variation of platonic marriages from the different-sex variation. User:Aris Katsaris 06:32, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:: No my friend, you are wrong. There is not any problem in any society for opossite-sex platonic lovers. They can marry eachother, no-one will blame them and they will get their legal rights as a couple. The problem resides only in same-sex platonic lovers, they cannot be married and get legal rights. Thats why we want to focus in same-sex marriage and not in marriage in general. Thats why we want our no-gay group to be mentioned and to be distinguished, in this specific same-sex marriage article. I hope that our minority rights will be respected by the majority of the gays who seem to protect this article. User:Asexual same-sex marriage 19:24, Dec 8 ,2004 (UTC)
::: Don't call me "my friend", please. As for "There is not any problem in any society for opossite-sex platonic lovers. They can marry eachother, no-one will blame them and they will get their legal rights as a couple. " Yes, that's the issue of same-sex marriage as contrasted to hetero-sex marriage in general. As I said it has nothing specifically to do with the *platonic variation*. So, *no*. And as for your claims about the "majority of the gays", I'm quite straight myself, and I still think your arguments flawed. The fact that not all partners in a same-sex marriage need identify as gay or bi is already mentioned in the article. User:Aris Katsaris 01:14, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
An interesting sidelight on this is that the new UK legislation for Civil Partnerships would be equally applicable to platonic same-sex relationships as to gay or lesbian relationships. Almost the only differences between UK Civil Partnerships and marriage are that a Civil Partnership can't be annulled on the grounds of non-consummation, or dissolved on grounds of adultery. So in the UK at least same-sex platonic "marriage" has been recognised in law, although not by that name. However on the main point of this debate, surely the best solution is to have a separate article about the platonic relationships, with a cross-reference to this one. User:Ross Burgess 10:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
: Thats fine for UK. So you agree that same-sex platonic "marriage" should also be mentioned in this article right? User:Asexual same-sex marriage 19:24, Dec 8 ,2004 (UTC)
:Agreed, the UK's laws would apply equally, however, there are two exceptions to the law, which stipulates that neither caregivers nor siblings could enter into the civil unions[http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/11/111704LordsPartner.htm]. There is nothing saying that a platonic relationship could not exist between these groups, so there is some small limit there. Nevertheless, creating a separate article for platonic relationships of any sort would be the best course. User:Arcuras 15:00, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
:: The point is not to create a separate article. It is a matter of accuracy of this article. Same-sex platonic "marriage" IS a same-sex marriage variation, thats why it should be mentioned here in this article. User:Asexual same-sex marriage 19:27, Dec 8 ,2004 (UTC)
::No there's nothing in the legislation banning care givers. The only restrictions are that the two people must be of the same sex, and cannot be siblings, or related in various other ways - the restrictions are the same as for marriage. I presume the advocates of non-sexual same-sex marriage would not want this extended to close relatives, who in any case have a relationship recognised in law for various purposes. User:Ross Burgess 18:17, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Could we please stop using the buzz phrase "tyrrany(sic) of the majority of the same-sex gay married people"? The phrase is doing nothing more then confusing whatever message you're trying to get across... and, frankly, it's making my brain hurt. Typically "tyranny of the Majority" is a point of view that suggests most government policies etc favor the majority, while oppress/repress the minority [http://www.planetpapers.com/forums/showthread.php?ID=335]. Considering that "the same-sex gay married people" don't make up the government (TINC), and that GLBTAQ people are far from being a majority, it really doesn't fit appropriately. User:Arcuras 15:01, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
:::User:Asexual same-sex marriage wrote: "homosexual relashionships . . . are based on sexual behavior." There's your answer right there. That is a non-neutral and patently false statement. User:Exploding Boy 17:32, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
:::: This is a conversation, and we may are allowed to make some false statements. But you are doing false statements inside articles, by refusing to accept same-sex platonic "marriage" as a same-sex marriage variation in this same-sex marriage article.User:Asexual same-sex marriage 19:24, Dec 8 ,2004 (UTC)
:::::But you aren't allowed to make false statements in the article. And in the end, marriage isn't about sex or platonic love. It's about two people dedicated to spending their lives together. A voluntary union of two people. So weather it be a sexual relationship or platonic one doesn't matter. This article says nothing about sex. User:Spinboy 18:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:::::: If this same-sex marriage article isn't about sex, then please remove all the follwoing words from it.Gay, lesbian, homosexual, bisexual, transgendered, transsexual. Will you? Otherwise as long as you insist to mention sexual behaviors in this article, you have to add platonic love also as the non-sex same-sex marriage variation.User:Asexual same-sex marriage 19:28, Dec 8 ,2004 (UTC)
:::::::Gay, lesbian, etc isn't about sexual behaviours. It's about identification, and saying who you are, mainly because society demands it. If society didn't demand it, it wouldn't be here. This article is about two members of the same gender getting married. User:Spinboy 19:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am beginning to strongly suspect that ASSM is just having a bit of fun. However, I'm prepared to humour him/her/them for a ''little'' bit longer.
We aren't allowed to make false statements when we're discussion what changes should be made to a Wikipedia article, which by definition should be both factual and neutral. My argument is basically this: so-called "platonic marriage" (which really needs properly defining, by the way) is not equivalent to same-sex marriage, nor is it a subset of same-sex marriage. It strikes me that platonic marriage is at its essence a marriage of convenience; perhaps, if there's a marriage of convenience article, that's where it should go.
:Well. A marriage of convenience happens only to oposite-sex married people. Our ASSM marriage is not yet recognised by anyone, so it cannot be a marriage of convenience! We, the ASSM people, think that gay-lesbian same-sex marriage is actualy a marriage of sexual convenience. User:Asexual same-sex marriage 19:29, Dec 8 ,2004 (UTC)
:: Your statement that same-sex marriage is about sex and 'a marriage of sexual convenience' strikes me either as ignorant and uninformed or vaguely homophobic. The reason gay people reject the word homosexual is that it focuses on sex instead of attraction, affection or orientation. It seems clearer and clearer you are pushing an agenda here, though it may not blated in various other ways - the restrictions are the same as for marriage. I presume the advocates of non-sexual same-sex marriage would not want this extended to close relatives, who in any case have a relationship recognised in law for various purposes. User:Ross Burgess 18:17, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Could we please stop using the buzz phrase "tyrrany(sic) of the majority of the same-sex gay married people"? The phrase is doing nothing more then confusing whatever message you're trying to get across... and, frankly, it's making my brain hurt. Typically "tyranny of the Majority" is a point of view that suggests most government policies etc favor the majority, while oppress/repress the minority [http://www.planetpapers.com/forums/showthread.php?ID=335]. Considering that "the same-sex gay married people" don't make up the government (TINC), and that GLBTAQ people are far from being a majority, it really doesn't fit appropriately. User:Arcuras 15:01, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
:::User:Asexual same-sex marriage wrote: "homosexual relashionships . . . are based on sexual behavior." There's your answer right there. That is a non-neutral and patently false statement. User:Exploding Boy 17:32, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
:::: This is a conversation, and we may are allowed to make some false statements. But you are doing false statements inside articles, by refusing to accept same-sex platonic "marriage" as a same-sex marriage variation in this same-sex marriage article.User:Asexual same-sex marriage 19:24, Dec 8 ,2004 (UTC)
:::::But you aren't allowed to make false statements in the article. And in the end, marriage isn't about sex or platonic love. It's about two people dedicated to spending their lives together. A voluntary union of two people. So weather it be a sexual relationship or platonic one doesn't matter. This article says nothing about sex. User:Spinboy 18:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:::::: If this same-sex marriage article isn't about sex, then please remove all the follwoing words from it.Gay, lesbian, homosexual, bisexual, transgendered, transsexual. Will you? Otherwise as long as you insist to mention sexual behaviors in this article, you have to add platonic love also as the non-sex same-sex marriage variation.User:Asexual same-sex marriage 19:28, Dec 8 ,2004 (UTC)
:::::::Gay, lesbian, etc isn't about sexual behaviours. It's about identification, and saying who you are, mainly because society demands it. If society didn't demand it, it wouldn't be here. This article is about two members of the same gender getting married. User:Spinboy 19:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am beginning to strongly suspect that ASSM is just having a bit of fun. However, I'm prepared to humour him/her/them for a ''little'' bit longer.
We aren't allowed to make false statements when we're discussion what changes should be made to a Wikipedia article, which by definition should be both factual and neutral. My argument is basically this: so-called "platonic marriage" (which really needs properly defining, by the way) is not equivalent to same-sex marriage, nor is it a subset of same-sex marriage. It strikes me that platonic marriage is at its essence a marriage of convenience; perhaps, if there's a marriage of convenience article, that's where it should go.
:Well. A marriage of convenience happens only to oposite-sex married people. Our ASSM marriage is not yet recognised by anyone, so it cannot be a marriage of convenience! We, the ASSM people, think that gay-lesbian same-sex marriage is actualy a marriage of sexual convenience. User:Asexual same-sex marriage 19:29, Dec 8 ,2004 (UTC)
:: Your statement that same-sex marriage is about sex and 'a marriage of sexual convenience' strikes me either as ignorant and uninformed or vaguely homophobic. The reason gay people reject the word homosexual is that it focuses on sex instead of attraction, affection or orientation. It seems clearer and clearer you are pushing an agenda here, though it may not be the one that seems most apparent. User:Autiger 20:59, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have trouble with the very concept of "platonic marriage" to begin with; it's usually expected that marriage will include some degree of sexual relationship, isn't it? I mean, I'm not suggesting that sex is a requisite for marriage, but even in marriages where people eventually cease sexual activity, there has normally been some degree of such activity, no? I mean, I love my best friend dearly, but our relationship is not marriage-like -- sex changes things, and those changes remain even when the sex stops.
User:Exploding Boy 18:54, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
:
:it is usually expected that marriage includes some degree of sexual relationship, but we are the exception of the rule, and the reason why this usually word exists in marriage definition. User:Asexual same-sex marriage 19:29, Dec 8 ,2004 (UTC)
:I think ASSM is a jerk and is being annoying. I agree with you here, Exploding Boy. User:Spinboy 19:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:: I am glad that your only argument is that we are jerks. Anyway, when this 24 hours period ends, we are going to revert the same-sex marriage article again.User:Asexual same-sex marriage 19:29, Dec 8 ,2004 (UTC)
That would still violate the spirit of the 3rv policy, and could still get you blocked. I advise against it. User:Exploding Boy 20:49, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
:::In that case, we'll hold a vote. And if you keep reverting if the vote doesn't go in your favour, then you'll likely be banned. User:Spinboy 20:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:::: User:Arcuras wrote: "Could we please stop using the buzz phrase "tyrrany(sic) of the majority of the same-sex gay married people"?" . Tell us Arcuras, do you still beleive that there is no tyranny of the majority of the same-sex gay-lesbian married people? I hope not, as long as you can see this tyrany in action now. Please support us Arcuras, and we are not going to exclude the non-platonic love from this article, as long as ASSM group respects all minorities, in contrast of what the gay-lesbians are doing. User:Asexual same-sex marriage 21:55, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
:::::It is impossible to answer this question as it is impossible to determine what you mean. Therefore, until you fully explain exactly what you are asking of me, I'm not even going to try. User:Arcuras 21:54, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
:::::: Let me explain. There is a poll taking place below, and the A-SSM group is a minority here. The GL-SSM people dont want A-SSM minority to be mentioned in this article even if this is an obvious accuracy error. This is clearly an example of the tyranny of the majority of GL-SSM people. We are feeling very sorry about that, because GL-SSM people are also a minority themselves in society and they often demand society to respect their own minority rights. But in the other hand GL-SSM people do not seem to respect the A-SSM minority inside SSM community. GL-SSM people demand to be treated well as minorities in society, but in the same time they oppress their own SSM minorities, and especially our A-SSM minority group. User:Asexual same-sex marriage 21:57, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
:::::::I don't think that people are being unreasonable here. Create a new article for the information you have and then we'll add in a link to it. The question is not whether this information should be part of wikipedia but where it should be in wikipedia. I think that a line or two mentioning the issue should be included somewhere in the article. If you start a new article on the topic I for one will help you build it (You'll need to tell me the name of any such article :) . User:Barnaby dawson 22:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::::::I am having several problems with what you're stating, ASSM:
:::::#You continue to refer to yourself as a group. This is troublesome because this "group" has only one username, and the consistent textual styling of your writing leaves me to assume that it is a single person entering this information. As such, it seems to be as if an individual were trying to impose their own political agenda onto Wikipedia, whatever that agenda may be.
:::::#I gave you a definition of exactly what tyranny of the majority means, in the hopes that you would understand that you are horribly misusing the term and only confusing the issue. You seemingly refuse to drop the term, and, further, your usage of the term has actually increased, leaving the impression that you are doing so deliberately, a tactic which many self-proclaimed trolls utilize.
:::::#You have repetitively assumed that the people who are "against" you are all gay, and thus pushing their ideals onto the article. This is quite false, I can assure you.
:::::#The article here is about people who identify as part of the GLBTAQ community, and their desire to have equal rights of marriage... the only reason why "same-sex" enters into the equation is because it's easier then tacking on "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, Androgyny, Queer" every time we mention it, and because it is essentially correct. What you seem to be pushing for appears to be a style of "marriage of convenience", two people who get married solely for the monetary and social benefits of such an arrangement. This happens in straight marriage, and it will probably happen in "GLBTAQ" marriage... even though people really shouldn't.
:::::# and finally, before you stormed into here, I'd never heard of the community you say you represent... and this strikes me as odd as I've done extensive research on my own into "GLBTAQ" issues as a journalist for my university newspaper, but also for 4 of my mid-level university courses. Further, I can find no associations, groups, or affiliations in any way related to your cause or group on the internet, leaving me to wonder if the reason why I've not heard of this "movement" before, is because it has been fabricated by an individual or individuals for some unknown motive.
::::::Now, with all that said, I would have absolutely no problem helping contribute to an article based around what you seem to be pushing. I would have no problem making a mention of that article here. But that material doesn't pertain directly to this issue, and thus should be on its own, separate page. This article is starting to get too long as it is.
::::::User:Arcuras 22:55, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
I completely agree, and suggest (again) that "asexual marriage" belongs in the marriage of convenience article, not here. User:Exploding Boy 22:58, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
I don't know whether it helps, but amongst non-sexual marriages we may mention the Shakers, who I believe did not have sex, so their married couples lived like brother and sister. Also of course in at least Roman Catholic teaching the marriage of the Virgin Mary and Joseph was a non-sexual one, in which they provided love and support to one another, but without consummating the marriage.
: Let me repeat it, I hope for the last time. We are talking about (asexual) same-sex marriage. All your arguments are about asexual straight (opposite-sex) marriage, so they do not belong to this conversation. User:Asexual same-sex marriage 05:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::Why can't you create a new article on the subject? User:Spinboy 06:31, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::: Let me repeat it, I hope for the last time. It is a matter of accuracy and fairness. Same-sex marriage is about marriage between two persons of same sex. If you mention interracial same-sex marriages you have to mention same-race same-sex marriages too. If you mention interreligious same-sex marriages you have to mention religious same-sex marriages too. If you mention same-sex marriages of convenience, you have to mention inconvenient same-sex marriages too. As a result of all those arguments, and as long as you insist to mention Gay-Lesbian same-sex marriages inside the article you have to mention also Asexual same-sex marriages too. Thats all. Anything else is just unfair and as long as this unfairness is voted, it is just a form of tyranny of the majority of gay-lesbian married and straight married people against us. User:Asexual same-sex marriage 15:59, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::::If you've read through the article, you would have noticed that we do not mention interracial, interreligious, or "convieniance" marriages. We do not mention these things, because that is not what the article is about. The article is about same-sex marriage... the only reason why gay/lesbian/bi/whatever is mentioned is because those are the people who want to be married, and are unable to under the current laws. ''Whether the married couple screw after they are married is not even part of the argument, nor the article... it is simply assumed''. Your continuing arguments are only further proving that you are trying to push some sort of agenda onto the article, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Make a seperate article about your "cause", and we will gladly let you link to it here.
::::User:Arcuras 16:47, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
::::: User:Arcuras said :"the only reason why gay/lesbian/bi/whatever is mentioned is because those are the people who want to be married, and are unable to under the current laws. " You just said it! Let me inform you that we (the ASSM people) also want to be married and we are unable to under current laws. So why you are not leting us to be mentioned too? You said gay/lesbian/bi/whatever. We are the "whatever", and we have a name : ASSM! You are actually the one who is pushing some sort of agenda against us! User:62.38.173.142 17:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:::::: Thanks anonymous for your support! Please get a name, and vote for us! User:Asexual same-sex marriage 18:05, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:::::: Neither of you seem to be getting the point here... the article is not about the specific relationships involved. It is about the marriage. The information ASSM is pushing to include is about the relationships, and I reiterate: 'this is not what the article is about'. User:Arcuras 18:18, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
The problem is you continue to conflate homo/bi/trans-sexuality with ''sex'', when that is not the case at all. At this point I think it's quite clear that the majority of regular contributors to this page disagree with your position and see no need for the addition of the information you seek to include. Let's not let this drag on forever. User:Exploding Boy 16:51, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
:No offense, but please don't be absurd. You may have trouble with the concept of "platonic" marriages, but they've existed for thousands of years. Some people were sexually dysfunctional physically or emotionally but nonetheless wanted to look like family men. Others stayed platonic even in marriage because of their religious beliefs (Some gnostic groups for example, I believe). In an altruist variation, in older times the occasional aged man may have taken kindly to a young pregnant unmarried women and agreed to marry them and raise the child as his own, and thus remove from her the stigma even with the understanding that there'd be no sex. And ofcourse many were and are indeed may have been marriages of convenience. The problem isn't with this guy talk of platonic marriages, the problem is that he feels platonic variation of same-sex marriages is so inherently different than the hetero variation that it warrants a mention in *this* article. Yes, you may love your best friend dearly, but I'm guessing the main reason your relationship isn't marriage-like is NOT because of the lack of sex but rather because you've not made a lifelong commitment to each other to support each other and be a family together. User:Aris Katsaris
::Please place posts at the bottom of the page where they will be seen and can be responded to. User:Exploding Boy 17:25, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
:User:Exploding Boy said: "the majority of regular contributors to this page disagree with your position". Thats true. We are going to respect the decision of the tyrranic majority of wikipedia community, simply because the mentor of platonic love, our master Socrates teached us to respect the decision of the majority even if this decision is a tyrannic one. User:Asexual same-sex marriage 18:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::Riiight. Just so you know, you're not endearing yourself to anyone by calling them tyrants. User:Exploding Boy 19:21, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
:: Let me propose you something ASSM. Insteed of using the tyranic Majority rule in order to extract the decision from this poll, why dont you try the Average rule? User:213.16.157.99 16:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
===Vote===
Shall we include "platonic love" and "asexual same-sex marriage" in the article? User:Spinboy 20:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
====Oppose====
*I vote no. User:Spinboy 20:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
* User:Exploding Boy 20:49, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
* Vote no. User:Autiger 21:01, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
* Oppose. User:Arcuras 21:55, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
* No but create a separate article on the subject if one doesn't already exist. User:Barnaby dawson 21:58, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
* No. User:Kevintoronto 22:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
* No mention of sexual practices or activities is necessary at all; from the legal point of view, sexual activity and marriage are pretty much seperate subjects, since both heterosexual and homosexual relationships may be active or inactive sexually. --User:JpgordonUser talk:Jpgordon 23:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
* No, for the same reason we don't bother to mention interracial same-sex marriages, interreligious same-sex marriages, same-sex marriages of convenience, and any other such variation. User:Aris Katsaris 01:08, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
* No - the fact that this debate is taking place reveals that there is a real subject here worthy of inclusion, but it logically belongs to another article, which could well be cross-referenced from this one. User:Ross Burgess 05:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
* What Aris said, plus asexual marriage can cover asexual marriages of all kinds. - User:UtherSRG 18:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
====Support====
* User:Asexual same-sex marriage 21:49, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
I oppose::Nic
== "So-called" ==
I'm not sure that the most recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Same-sex_marriage&curid=92656&diff=0&oldid=0 reversion] is right. The phrase
:so-called \"traditional\" marriage
is either redundant or POV. Either the quotes should go or the so-called should go. My first reaction on reading the quotes is that they are sneer quotes, and are thus non-neutral; however, I do accept that the intent of the quotes might also be to indicate that they are someone else's words. Regardless, the "so-called" functions in the same way as sneer quotes. It might be better to use
:\"traditional marriage\"
since the entire phrase is what conceivably is questionable.
--User:JpgordonUser talk:Jpgordon 00:25, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::I'd be fine with so-called traditional marriage. User:Exploding Boy 00:36, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
==Montrealis Deletion Of How Marriage Effects Gay Families==
====Civil Marriage & Gay Families====
With the advent of recent medical breakthroughs that have opened a wide array of choices available to same-sex couples to have biological children or adopt, the denial of marriages to same-sex couples can have detrimental effects not only on the adults within these families but children as well. Hospital visitation issues, end-of-life decision making and access/barriers to health care can all be attributed to the denial of marriage.
The Main Procedures Used For Lesbians & Gay Men To Reproduce Are:
* In vitro fertilization
* Surrogacy
gay in long term relationships are now increasingly opting to raise family. Many methods have been devised to allow them to have biological children. Some couples elect to have a close relative (sometimes a sister), good friend, or contract an individual to either obtain an egg for a surrogate or give birth through in vitro fertilization. In the cases of a good friend or a contracted entity the child is only biologically related to one partner. However in the cases of a blood relative such as a sister of one partner who donates an egg that is fertilized with the other partner's sperm and placed into a surrogate the child is biologically related to both partners.
lesbian can also produce biological children through similar manners. Some elect to have one partner donate an egg which is fertilized with a blood relative of the other partner, sometimes a brother. The egg is then placed into the partner who did not donate the egg. In essence one partner gives birth to her partner's and sometimes brother's biological child. This is not to be confused with incest since the child is not a biological offspring of a brother and sister, rather it is a biological offsrping of the brother and the sister's partner. The sister only acts as a vehicle of the birth.
These procedures can be costly. And many same-sex couples choose adoption instead. However adoption does not produce a child that is biologically related in any manner.
---- I added the above text under arguments in favor of same-sex marriage. It was deleted by another wiki. Why was it deleted? The wiki left no explanation. I feel it should be included because children of same-sex couples are affected by marriages. What do you think? Should it be included? And why was it deleted?
:I'm not sure it's appropriate to the article. Perhaps a seperate article on gay families should be started, but it's not really related to the marriage issue. User:Spinboy 04:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:I'd agree with User:Spinboy. While interesting information, it has more to do with same-sex relationships, as couples don't nessisarily have to be married to adopt/etc. User:Arcuras 06:10, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
:I have to partially disagree with Spin. Gay families with children are related to the issue because the rhetoric common to anti-gay marriage initiatives like FMA is that they are "to protect families." The irony is that it destroys gay families as the writer here has been described. While perhaps too much information on the subject, it is a counterpoint to one of the arguments against. The whole of the addition should probably be in a separate article on the subject (which in fact deserves a full treatment) and a short summary (couple of sentences) linked to that article. User:Autiger 06:47, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::Perhaps then we should leave the first paragraph in place and put the exact details in another article. I'm not sure how to start a new article so I will let you guys fix that. Thanks for the help.
:::Ok, I can help get that started. User:Autiger 07:29, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I apologize for removing the section on gay families. It was unintentional; the section wasn't present in the most recent diff, but I guess when I clicked revert, it got rid of all previous edits by the same user. Mea culpa. To explain myself, I saw an anon user changing mentions of "homosexuality" to "same-sex orientation," an expression often used by ex-gay groups, so I figured it was a troll. My mistake. - User:Montrealais 15:21, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== "Marriage Equality" ==
Someone recently added "marriage equality" to the also-know-ases, at the top. First of all, "equal marriage" is more in line with the other terms given. However, I'm wondering if this term should be included at all. It's a rather loaded term. Maybe it should be disclaimed .. something like, "Supporters of same-sex marriage often use the term 'Equal Marriage' .." Yadda, yadda, something along those lines. Thoughts? --User:Azkar 06:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:I think considering the context of the article, the term is fine. --User:Spinboy 06:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
==Unidentified user==
An unidentified user with IP number 80.53.83.194 posted the following to the article page. I think the material whilst possibly useful does not belong where it was placed. It is also in the wrong voice for an encyclopedia. As such I replicate it here and remove it from the main page: User:Barnaby dawson 09:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I found informations about recognition of same sex partnerships in other countries,like: Switzerland (6-3-04,at the national level), Luxembourg (9-01-04), Lichtenstein (2002), Bazilian's region RIO GRANDE DE SUL(03-04,as result of court decision) & national parliament passed legistlation giving recognition to lesbian and gay coupels late last year. Other countries recognised unregistered cohabitation, like: Hungary (1996), Israel (2004), Croatia (2003), Austria (2003,as result of court decision), some Italian's regions recognised "coppie di fatto" (since 2004, Toscania, Emillia Romagna, Umbria...)[ www.gay.tv, www.gaynews.it ] And other countries consider to recognise same sex coupels, like: Greece ('05), Hungary ('07), Slovenia ('05), Austria, Czech Republic ('07){this country faild Partner Bill 4rd time in 12 February 2005, but started work on new one. Expect introdused it in 2 years.}, South Australia State ('05){by Liberals}, Poland ('05), Ireland ('05), South Africa ('05) and many Latin American countries includ: Panama, Peru, Chile, Brasil {Civil Marriage), Argentina {Civil Marriage), Colombia, Costa Rica, Uruguay, Paraguay, Mexico City, Taiwan (Civil Marriage) many US's States... (Most of this countries have introdused Bills in their parliaments in 2004)
+
+ You will find more informations on this, there:
+
+ http://www.gaypasg.org/GayPASG/Legal%20joinings%20and%20recognition%20of%20same-sex%20couples.htm
+
+ http://www.stonewall.org.uk/stonewall/information_bank/partnership/international/countries_list.html?CFID=845464&CFTOKEN=13653633
+
+ http://www.equality-network.org/FAQ.shtml
+
+ http://www.rklambda.at/dokumente/news_2004/News-en-PA-041202-spoe-gleichstellung.pdf
+
+ http://www.rklambda.at/
+
+ http://www.iglhrc.org/site/iglhrc/section.php?id=5&detail=521
+
+ http://www.iglhrc.org/site/iglhrc/section.php?id=5&detail=512
+
+ http://uk.gay.com/headlines/7566
+
+ http://www.iglhrc.org/site/iglhrc/content.php?type=1&id=91
:Yes, that definitely belongs in the Talk page. It's useful information though and might lead to substantial revision of the article.--User:AladdinSE 05:11, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
== Re-edit maps ==
Hey guys, I was wondering if somebody could edit the map, so it can show the real spread of civil unions for the moment. Right now the map looks quite incomplete, compared to the info in Civil union. According to that article, civil unions are also legalised in Croatia, Hungary, Austria, etc. Thank you all! :) User:84.252.31.40 19:41, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hey, could someone put a key or legend for the US map?
==Competing definitions of marriage==
I have no sources at the moment, so I'll leave the article alone, but it is highly inaccurate to state that there are competing definitions of marriage at all. Suffragists did not have a different definition of the vote than anti-suffragists and sexists, just who could do it. Also inaccurate: "Nearly all people at all times have defined 'marriage' in such a way that at least one male and one female were involved." User:Hyacinth 01:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Whether nearly all people have or have not defined marriage differently, that some people define marriage as a relationship exclusively between a man and a woman while others define marriage as a relationship between two (or sometimes more!) people would suggest at least two competing definitions; arranged marriages vs. our modern, Western romantic ideal vs. marriage as essentially property exchange would suggest three more axes of comparison; while marriage as a relationship between adults vs. marriage as a relationship between two ideally (though not necessarily) post pubescent people would suggest two more comparisons. I'm not saying there is no common thread(s?) throughout all these ideas of what a marriage is, but the way they are structured around that thread is different in each case, and the resistance people adhering to one "definition" have to accepting other "definitions" suggests there is something fundamentally different about each, at least on a subjective level. -User:Sethmahoney 02:49, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
:The traditional definition of marriage does not prohibit who can get married, only whom one can get married ''to''. Unlike the suffrage example, same-sex marriage advocates do indeed have a different definition of marriage. I thought this much was clear. Authr 03:45, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
== News from Oregon ==
Oregon Supreme Court has voided the 3000 marriages made before the Oregon Constitutional referendum banning same-sex marriage: http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/wireStory?id=670029
User:Evertype 17:33, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
== Why Spain on maps? ==
Why is Spain indicated as having same-sex marriage already? The bill is still before parliament (it just passed the lower house, and might become law by the summer). Let's not get ahead of ourselves. - User:Montrealais 19:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**Yeah, it should be removed from the list. It's not legal there yet, but hopefully and likely will be soon. User:Bremen 14:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
== North America image ==
The text under the image is misleading, because in Canada, marraige is national, not by province, except for the courts. I'm not entirely sure how to reword this. --User:Spinboy 20:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
== asexual marriage and terminology ==
I hate to reraise the topic of asexual marriage, the discussion of which I was absent from but looked quite venemous, but I have some concerns about the text's exclusion of heterosexuals in same-sex relationships, and hope for a reasonable discussion on the topic. While I personally feel that sexuality is not a required part of love, and am prepared to argue the point, it doesn't seem like that is a relevant issue. There are heterosexuals who may wish to engage in such a marriage, and no-one is seriously proposing excluding asexual partnerships from recieving marriage licenses- an exclusion that, aside from being based on sexuality, would also have to exlude the ugly, elderly, and others. And, obviously, there are known cases of homosexuals marrying heterosexuals of the opposite sex and loving them deeply.
Factual accuracy, therefore, seems to dictate that asexual marriages shouldn't be excluded on the basis of one's personal opinion of them. I see little reason to mention the term 'asexual marriage' explicitly, but I would also not like to see it expressedly excluded. For this reason, I think we should either edit the wording so as to not limit same-sex marriage soley to the groups mentioned, or add 'heterosexual' to the list. User:Juan Ponderas 20:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:I disagree with you on this. The article is about legislative and court actions to legalize same-sex marriage, and following the movement. It also talks about homosexual people because that's what is out there. If we start including asexual marriage, it becomes origional research, which WP:WIN. --User:Spinboy 20:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::The movement, first of all, would legalize it for both. When you say that homosexuals are the only ones out there, what do you mean? That they are the only ones that would take advantage of it? I think I can prove that false. User:Juan Ponderas 21:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::No, I'm saying homosexuals are the only ones fighting for it. I have yet to see anything on two brothers fighting for the right to get married for example. And if that were the case, it's not within the scope of this article. --User:Spinboy 21:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::::Why is it relevant who is fighting for same-sex marriage when we are simply defining what they are fighting for, which includes the rights of heterosexuals in such a relationship? No advocates propose excluding them, and some actively support it; I've been told by a homosexual gay rights activist that they believed love shouldn't be based on sexuality. User:Juan Ponderas 21:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::::I've already argued this, I'm not going to rehash arguments that have already been made, and you can easily read for yourself. A consensus was already reached about this issue. --User:Spinboy 22:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:I can sympathize with not wanting to rehash arguments, but there flaws in your method. Reaching a consensus once should not close an issue; someone may come with better arguments. A better method in the first place would be to arrange arguments in a wiki fashion, as we are trying to do at a Wikidebate project, see [http://forum.for-pgh.org/wiki/index.php?title=Affirmative_action here] for a sample.
:However, this is not the issue. I read all the arguments made before, and did not see mine. Most focused on the nature of asexual relationships, which I am not trying to prove. My goal, furthermore, is not the same as User: ASSM ; I seek no mention of 'platonic' marriages.
:Here's my proposal for a change in text:
::"The terms "gay marriage" and "homosexual marriage" may not be strictly accurate, in that one or both partners may not identify as gay or homosexual. Rather, depending on the couple and the jurisdiction, such same-sex marriages may include persons of different orientations, including bisexuals, transexuals, and transgendered persons. Therefore, in the context of same-sex marriages and throughout this article, ''same-sex'' refers strictly to two people of the same sex, and is therefore not synonymous with ''gay'' or ''homosexual''.
::The term "same-sex marriage" has recently been displacing "gay marriage," both to be free of any possible negative connotations carried by "homosexual", and to be more inclusive of groups such as bisexuals and transsexual people - who in some states of the US and in other countries, are not allowed to change their assigned gender on their birth certificates following sex reassignment surgery."
:No mention made of asexual relationships. For reasons ''I'' stated earlier, I don't believe there are grounds to deliberately have the text exclude them. If you disagree with ''this'', I expect discussion on it, or I will make the aforementioned changes in the article. Yours cordially, User:Juan Ponderas
::I disagree, I've already stated my reasons. --User:Spinboy 03:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::And I stated my counterarguments, which were unaddressed. I'll organize them, to make them easily assessible. But first, it is necessary to frame the debate. It seems there has been three proposals, which I'll state with their implied meanings:
*Current Model: Same-sex marriages include gay, bi, trans, but no others.
*User ASSM: Same-sex marriage includes those groups, as well as 'platonic' partnerships.
*My proposal: Same-sex marriages include gay, bi, and trans, and possibly others.
:::Of course, they are stated so obviously, but that is what they mean. Since you are proposing the value judgement, that same-sex marriages are limited to those groups, I believe you have the burden of proof. So now, I'll try to arrange the arguments. Feel free to edit or add arguments below. User:Juan Ponderas
::::I'll let others add to it before I do, because if it's just you and me, there's no consensus on your proposal, since so far no one else is participating. --User:Spinboy 17:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::::Spinboy, are your thoughts on the matter still the same? Everyone who's offered input has expressed support for my proposal, and it doesn't look like anyone else is coming. User:Juan Ponderas
=== Debate ===
'Proposition'
This article should pass judgement on whether same-sex marriage includes those in the groups not currently mentioned by excluding them, as opposed to leaving the question open.
'Pro'
*The article is about legislative and court actions to legalize same-sex marriage, and following the movement.
**Same-sex marriage, as it would be legalized by this movement, would not limit it to the groups mentioned.
*Homosexuals are the only ones fighting for it.
**It is irrelevant who is fighting for same-sex marriage when we are simply defining what they are fighting for, which includes the rights of heterosexuals in such a relationship. Homosexuals do not advocate limiting same-sex marriage to the groups mentioned, and some I have met recognize other groups. And then there's me, and User: ASSM, etc...
'Con'
* Clearly, where same-sex marriage is legal, it is defined such that people of any sexuality could marry another person of the same sex. So I don't see any reason to exclude non gay/bi marriages from the article, either explicitly or implicitly. Basically, I agree with Juan Ponderas. User:Cadr 15:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why do we have to be specific at all? Same-sex marriage is by definition a marriage between two people of the same sex. User:Exploding Boy 16:08, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
This again?? Oi... alright. When one generally talks about same-sex marriage, two assumptions are made: 1) those who will be married are gay/lez (or one of those + a bisexual individual of the same sex), and that, 2) these two individuals are having sex. If the second assumption is false, that is called a troubled marriage. If the first is false, it is reasonable to assume then that the second is also false. This then would be called a marriage of convenience.
''However'', regardless of the above, firstly, User:ASSM was a troll what was pushing an agenda and an apparent neologism upon Wikipedia... none of which Wikipedia is about. Unless we can find some sort of outside corroboration that there is a sect of asexual individuals who have asexual same-sex/gendered life partners(?) and wish to marry them, we would be furthering the agenda left behind by a departed troll. All of my investigations have turned up absolutely no lobby group nor mention across any webspace of any such group of individuals, nor have the two university professors who study GLBTetc sexuality and culture that I talked to heard of any such group or movement. User:Arcuras 02:21, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
: But it's a straightforward issue of terminology. If two people of the same sex were to get married without any intention of having sex, it would still undoubtably be a ''same-sex marriage''. Therefore, an article on the concept of same-sex marriage should not explicitly exclude this possibility. I'm not saying that it should be explicitly discussed either, just not ruled out. User:Cadr 13:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
::A marriage between two people of the same sex When one generally talks about same-sex marriage, two assumptions are made: 1) those who will be married are gay/lez (or one of those + a bisexual individual of the same sex), and that, 2) these two individuals are having sex. If the second assumption is false, that is called a troubled marriage. If the first is false, it is reasonable to assume then that the second is also false. This then would be called a marriage of convenience.
::Your assumptions are way off. I can't even begin to count the ways. User:Exploding Boy 15:19, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
:::Well, the second assumption is more towards marriage in general. When you look at two married people, do you not assume that they have, are having, or will be having sex at some point? User:Arcuras 18:35, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
::::It's irrelevant. Whether they are having sex, have had sex, are intending or were intending to have sex, they are married. Thus, the definition of same-sex marriage should not exclude couples who aren't going to have sex for whatever reason. User:Cadr 18:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Similarly, whether one or both partners identify as bi, gay/lesbian or heterosexual is not the issue; it's whether they are of the same sex. User:Exploding Boy 21:00, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
== Netanyahu same-sex marriage? ==
In the section "Publicly noted same-sex unions" also Benjamin_Netanyahu is listed, but his page does mentions a marriage with his third wife. Is that vandalism? User:Nova77 01:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
This is incorrect and has been edited. I don't know ''what'' the motives were for the listing.
== Categories ==
I thought people interested in this issue (on both sides) would want to vote on the deletion of the following four categories created to house anti-gay people and groups' articles:
*pro-family
*pro-US Constitution
*pro-marriage
*pro-first amendment
Some (including me) are arguing that the names are POV and that the categories should be removed. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_June_19 Here] is the vote.
User:harry491 User_talk:harry491 02:22, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Same-sex marriage (also called gay marriage, marriage equality, and often just marriage by its proponents, and—usually by its opponents—homosexual marriage) refers to a marriage between two individuals of the same gender (for #Other forms of same-sex partnership distinct from marriage, see the articles linked in that section). == Terminology == The terms "gay marriage" and "homosexual marriage" may not be strictly accurate, in that one or both partners may not identify as gay or homosexual. Rather, depending on the couple and the jurisdiction, such same-sex marriages may include persons of different orientations, including bisexuals, transsexuals, and transgendered persons. Therefore, in the context of same-sex marriages and throughout this article, ''same-sex'' refers strictly to two people of the same sex, and is not synonymous with gay or homosexual. The term "same-sex marriage" has recently been displacing "gay marriage," both to be free of any possible negative connotations carried by "homosexual", and to be more inclusive of groups such as bisexuals and transsexual people - who in some states of the US and in other countries, are not allowed to change their assigned gender on their birth certificates following sex reassignment surgery. Supporters of same-sex marriage argue that the correct term is simply "marriage," though such usage often confuses others in coversation or debate. In this article, the inclusive term "same-sex marriage" is used throughout. Where necessary for clarity, the terms "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual," and "transsexual" are used (there are a number of reasons for this; please see the talk:same-sex marriage for more details). The term "mixed marriage" usually does not refer to marriage of two persons of different genders, but to marriage of two persons of different religions, cultures or races. ==History of same-sex unions== ''For detailed information, see History of homosexuality.'' ===Asia=== Same-gender romantic love or sexual desire has been recorded from ancient times in the east. Such desire often took the form of same-sex unions, usually between men, and often included some difference in age (there is far less information available on relationships among women in ancient times. There are a number of possible reasons for this: an attitude that women were not important enough to write about; or that same-sex attraction between women was not valued as it was between men; or that women were not afforded equal status with men, so that, while men were free to pursue sexual and romantic pleasure both within and without marriage, women often were not). In China, especially in the southern province of Fujian where male love was especially cultivated, men would marry youths in elaborate ceremonies. The marriages would last a number of years, at the end of which the elder partner would help the younger find a (female) wife and settle down to raise a family. See also: * Homosexuality in China * Homosexuality in Japan ===Europe=== [[Image:Sergebac7thcentury.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Saints Sergius and Bacchus. 7th Century icon. Officers of the Rome in Syria who were tortured to death for their refusal to worship Roman Mythology. Bacchus is thought to have died from severe torture while Sergius survived the original torture to be beheaded. They are the protectors of the Byzantine Army with a feast day of October 7th. Yale historian John Boswell considers the saints to be an example of an early Christian same-sex union reflective of tolerant History of Early Christianity and Homosexuality toward homosexuality based on this icon depicting what some claim is a religious wedding with Jesus as best man and still surviving writings [http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/unions.html] [http://www.gay.ru/english/life/religion/] [http://www.hp.uab.edu/image_archive/ull/ulld.html] [http://www.antinopolis.org/litcalendar-4.html] [http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/sergius1.html].]] There has been a long history of same-sex unions in the western world. That many early western societies tolerated, and even celebrated, same-sex relationships is well-known. Evidence of same-sex marriage, however, is less clear, but there exists some evidence, often controversial, of same-sex marriages in ancient Rome and Greece, and even in medieval Europe. In ancient Rome, for example, the Emperor Nero is reported to have married, at different times, two other men in wedding ceremonies. Other Roman Emperors are reported to have done the same thing. The increasing influence of Christianity, which promoted marriage for procreative purposes and the Roman use of sexuality as a form of dominance as well as a means to conquer through rape a male enemy has been linked with the increasing intolerance of homosexuality in Rome. Finally, in Europe during Hellenic times, pederasty relationships between Hellenic Greece men (''erastes'') and youths (''eromenos'') who had come of age were analogous to marriage in several aspects. The age of the youth was similar to the age at which women married (the mid-teens), and the relationship could only be undertaken with the consent of the father. This consent, just as in the case of a daughter's marriage, was contingent on the suitor's social standing. The relationship, just like a marriage, consisted of very specific social and religious responsibilities, and also had an erotic component. === Americas === Same-sex marriage has been documented in many societies that were not subject to Christianity influence. In North America, among the Native American societies, it has taken the form of two-spirit-type relationships, in which some members of the tribe, from an early age, heed a calling to take on female gender with all its responsibilities. They are prized as wives by the other men in the tribe, who enter into formal marriages with these two-spirit men. They are also respected as being especially powerful shamans. In the United States during the nineteenth century, there was recognition of the relationship of two women making a long-term commitment to each other and cohabitating, referred to at the time as a Boston marriage; however, the general public at the time likely assumed that sexual activities were not part of the relationship. In Canada the issue of same-sex marriage has split the religious community with the United Church of Canada and some elements of the Anglican Church of Canada being supportive while Roman Catholics and most conservative denominations in opposition. In 2002, the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster in British Columbia (which includes Greater Vancouver) began allowing its churches to Blessing of same sex unions in marriage-like ceremonies. In response, bishops from Africa, Asia and Latin America, representing more than one-third of Anglican Communion members worldwide, cut their relations with the diocese. Reform Judaism, the largest branch of Judaism outside Israel allows religious weddings for same-sex couples within their synagogues provided they are both adherents of the Jewish faith. === Africa === In Africa, among the Azande of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, men would marry youths for whom they had to pay a bride-price to the father. These marriages likewise were understood to be of a temporary nature. ==Current status of same-sex civil marriage== In the late 20th century and early 21st century centuries, there has been a growing movement in a number of countries to regard civil-marriages as a right which should be extended to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation. Civil-marriages entail a wide range of entitlements, including social security, health insurance, taxation, inheritance and other benefits unavailable to couples unmarried in the eyes of the law. Restricting legal recognition to opposite-sex couples excludes same-sex couples from gaining legal access to these benefits, and while opposite-sex unmarried couples without other legal impediments have the option of marrying in law and so gaining access to these rights, that option is unavailable to same-sex couples. Similarly, though certain rights extending from marriage can be replicated by legal means (for example, by drawing up contracts), many cannot; thus, despite the presence of legal contracts, same-sex couples may still face insecurity in areas such as inheritance, hospital visitation and immigration. Lack of legal recognition also makes it more difficult for same-sex couples to adoption. At present, same-sex marriages are legal in only one country (see table, right). In the Netherlands, same-sex marriage is fully legal. In Canada, same-sex marriage is currently legal in over half of the provinces and territories, covering approximately eighty-five percent of the population, and Bill C-38, a federal bill to formally legalize same-sex marriage across Canada, is before Parliament. (see Same-sex marriage in Canada). In the United States as of April 2005, only the state of Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriages, while the states of Vermont, Maine, Hawaii, California, New Jersey, Connecticut, and the District of Columbia offer same-sex partners benefits similar to those of legally married couples. Eighteen other States have constitutional provisions that limit marriages to one man and one woman, while twenty-five States have statutes containing similar definitions. In the United States, the debate over whether or not to make same sex marriages legally binding remains one of the most polarizing and divisive political debates of the early 21st century and it is discussed with great passion all over the world. During 2004, 13 US States amended their constitutions to define marriage as being only between one man and one woman. Some people, including many gay rights advocates and some heterosexual same-sex marriage advocates, view restrictions such as these as being an example of the tyranny of the majority in action. ===Europe=== Same-sex civil marriages currently are legally recognized nationwide only in the Netherlands . Belgium extends all the rights of marriage minus adoption to same-sex couples. In late January 2005, the Sweden government put together a committee of the major political parties to study whether or not the country should allow same-sex marriages. [http://www.gaynz.com/news/default.asp?dismode=article&artid=2188]. Shortly after his election in June 2004, Spain prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero confirmed his intention to push for legalization of same-sex marriage [http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~2151089,00.html]. On 1 October 2004, the Spain Government approved a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. The bill also allows same-sex couples to officially adopt children, a provision not found in similar bills passed in other countries. The bill now needs parliamentary approval, and is expected to come into force in 2005. About 62% of the country supports legalization of same-sex marriage, according to an Instituto Opina/Cadena Ser opinion poll taken May 2005.[http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=7276] For more information see ''Same-sex marriage in Spain''. On 18 November 2004 the United Kingdom Parliament passed the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which will come into force during 2005 and will allow same-sex couples to register their partnership. The Government stressed during the passage of the Bill that it is ''not'' same-sex marriage, and some gay activists have criticised the Act for not using the terminology of marriage. However, the rights and duties of partners under this legislation will be almost exactly the same as for married couples. An amendment proposing similar rights for family members living together was rejected. See Civil Union. In May 2004, the largest opposition party in France, the French Socialist Party, announced its support for same-sex marriage. A poll by ELLE found that 64% of France supports same-sex marriage. [http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=204455&AG] === North America === ====Canada==== ''Main article: Same-sex marriage in Canada'' In Canada, court rulings in the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador as well as the Yukon , have found the prohibition of same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional, thus legalizing it in those jurisdictions. According to [http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/demo02.htm Statistics Canada] this amounts to roughly 87% of the country by population. Canada is also the only country without a residency requirement for same-sex marriage. The Canadian federal government has introduced amendments to the Canadian ''Marriage Act'' that would legalize same-sex marriage nationally. This bill Bill C-38 is presently before the Canadian House of Commons (as of February 1, 2005.) [[Image:Hendricks-leboeuf.jpg|left|thumb|Michael Hendricks and René Leboeuf become the first same-sex couple to same-sex marriage in Quebec, April 1, 2004.]] The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled, on a reference question (Re: Same-Sex Marriage, 2004) that the government has the authority to amend the definition of marriage, but did not rule on whether or not such a change is required by the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court stated that such a ruling is not necessary because the federal government had accepted the rulings of lower courts. The Court also ruled that religious institutions could not be required to perform same-sex marriages. As of November 11th, 2004 the Canadian federal government's immigration department considers same-sex marriages valid for the purposes of sponsoring a spouse to immigrate. ''See also [http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/sponsor/index.html CIC] and Same-sex marriage in Canada'' Immigration authorities there had previously considered long-term same-sex relationships to be equivalent to similar heterosexual relationships as grounds for sponsorship. ====United States==== ''Main article: Same-sex marriage in the United States'' [[Image:R_odonnell_marriage.jpg|right|thumb|Rosie O'Donnell and wife Kelli Carpenter speaking after their wedding on February 26, 2004 in San Francisco, California.]] Courts in the state of Hawaii in 1993 ruled that same-sex couples were entitled to same rights as married opposite-sex couples under their state’s Equal Protection Clause. Polls at the time indicated that the majority of residents favored allowing same-sex marriage. Many have attributed this to the state’s demographics being predominantly non-European and the strong influence of the native’s cultural religious beliefs holding homosexuality in a neutral light. After the ruling many traditionalist Christian organizations from the American South poured substantial funds into the state in a public relations blitz attacking the ruling. In a partial response to the rulings in Hawaii the United States Congress in 1996 passed the Defense of Marriage Act. Given the federal system in the United States, issues could arise if a same-sex couple legally married in one state were to move to a state where same-sex marriage is illegal. The Defense of Marriage Act is meant to prevent the courts from using the United States Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause to bring same-sex marriage to states that have rejected it. In ''Loving v. Virginia'' (1967), the Supreme Court cited the Fourteenth Amendment's "due process" and "equal protection" clauses to strike down laws prohibiting interracial marriage, and in ''Lawrence v. Texas'' (2003) cited the same passages to strike down anti-sodomy laws. Hawaiian voters in 1998 amended their state Constitution to give their legislature the right to restrict marriage rights. The legislature created reciprocal benefits for same-sex couples; however this type of partnership contained substantially less rights than a marriage. An Alaska court in 1998 ruled in favor of a same-sex couples declaring marriage a fundamental right. Opponents in the same year placed a Constitutional Amendment banning such unions on the ballot. Voters approved the ban. The Vermont Supreme Court in 1999 ruled that their state legislature must establish equal rights for same-sex couples similar to those of married opposite-sex couples. Legislators elected to create state level civil-unions as what they argued was a middle-ground. The California legislature in 2003 approved legislation creating an equivalent of marriage on a state level for same-sex couples. Governor Gray Davis signed the domestic partnerships into law and it came into force in 2005. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on November 18, 2003, ruled in the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that same-sex marriages are allowed under the state’s Equal Protection Clause. The court stayed its ruling until May 17, 2004. Beginning on that date, hundreds of same-sex couples were legally married in Massachusetts. Many municipalities in early 2004 wedded same-sex couples. These marriages took place in the states of California, New York, Oregon, New Mexico and New Jersey. All of them have been halted since and the marriages voided. New Jersey, District of Columbia and Maine legislators in 2004 approved domestic partnership laws granting same-sex couples all the same rights as a marriage on a state level. A Washington Court in 2004 ruled that the state must allow same-sex marriages. The ruling is currently pending an appeal to the state Supreme Court. The Native American Cherokee Nation in 2004 issued a moratorium on same-sex marriages while they consider their validity after a lesbian couple applied for a marriage. Due to their tribal sovereignty theoretically if they allowed them the government would have to recognize it. In response to the court rulings twenty seven states proposed Constitutional Amendments banning same-sex marriages in 2004. Out of the 27, legislators and voters approved them in thirteen states while defeating them in 14. President George Bush backs an amendment to the federal Constitution banning same-sex marriages. The amendment failed passage in 2004. In November of 2004 the President announced he supported civil unions. On February 4, 2005, a New York state judge ruled that New York had to allow same sex couples to wed. This ruling, which is stayed pending an appeal by New York City's mayor, Michael Bloomberg, would only apply to New York City, although a ruling unfavorable to the state's position by an appellate court would apply to a larger geographic area. See Same-sex marriage in New York. More recently, on March 15, 2005, the San Francisco County Superior Court ruled that California's state constitution forbids discrimination against same-sex couples wishing to be married, stating that there is "no rational purpose" for the ban and comparing it to racial segregation. As in New York, this ruling is stayed pending appeal. See Same-sex marriage in California. On April 20, 2005, Connecticut became the first state in the Union that legalized same-sex civil unions without a court order. Legislators in Maryland approved a domestic partnership bill in 2005; however on May 22 the Governor vetoed the bill, legislators are now pursuing an override of the veto. On May 12, 2005, a federal judge in Omaha struck down Nebraska's sweeping ban on same-sex marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other same-sex relationships. U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon ruled that the ban, known as Initiative 416, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This is the first state constitutional provision banning same-sex marriage to be ruled unconstitutional. Elsewhere in 2005 the Governor of Utah proposed reciprocal benefits for same-sex couples. The measure was defeated and he has promised to revisit the issue in 2006. Legislation creating domestic partnerships is currently pending in Arizona and New Mexico. Civil union bills are pending as well in Montana and Oregon. Courts are considering same-sex marriage in Florida and Maryland. === Asia === In 2003 the Taiwanese government led by the Presidential office proposed legislation granting marriages to same-sex couples under the Human Rights Basic Law; however it faced opposition among cabinet members and has been stalled since. Currently Taiwan does not have any form of same-sex unions. The Chinese Parliament in 2003 proposed legislation allowing same-sex marriages. During the course of the debate the proposal failed to garner the 30 votes needed for a placement on the agenda. Same-sex marriage supporters have vowed to keep pressing for its passage in the People's Republic of China. The Communist Party of the Philippines conducted the country’s first same-sex marriage in 2005; however it was not recognized by the government. Within the government there has been fierce debate on the issue of same-sex unions. Generally the Communist Party supports legislation allowing such marriages while the Roman Catholic Church opposes it. The Monarch of Cambodia, Norodom Sihanouk, announced in 2004 that he supports legislation granting marriages to same-sex couples. He is hugely revered among Cambodians; however since his proclamation there has been no legislative efforts to allow them. New Zealand passed legislation in 2004 recognizing civil unions for same-sex couples. Australia currently recognizes same-sex partnerships in all but two of its territories: Victoria and South Australia. South Australia as of 2005 as legislation pending allow the recognition of same-sex partnerships. Australian Prime Minister John Howard proposed an amendment to the marriage laws banning same-sex marriages, while allowing current domestic partnerships to continue to be determined on a state and territorial level, the same-sex marriage ban passed in 2004. ===Other forms of same-sex partnership=== The movement towards the legal recognition of same-sex marriages has resulted in changes in the law in many jurisdictions, though the extent of the changes have varied: * Civil unions provide most of the rights and responsibilities of same-sex marriage, but use a different name for the arrangement. They exist in several European countries (Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK) as well as in the U.S. states of Vermont and Connecticut, the Canadian provinces of Quebec and Nova Scotia, (although marriage is legal in both provinces), the Australian Australian States and Territories of New South Wales, Western Australia, and Tasmania, New Zealand and the city of Buenos Aires, Argentina. * Domestic partnerships or registered partnerships provide varying degrees of privileges and responsibilities, usually far fewer than those found in civil unions. Their purpose is not limited to same-sex arrangements and they exist in many jurisdictions. Even in jurisdictions where they are not legally recognized, many gay and lesbian couples choose to have weddings (also called "commitment ceremonies" in this context) to celebrate and affirm their relationship, fulfilling the social aspect of a marriage. Such ceremonies have no legal validity, however, and as such do not deal with issues such as inheritance, property rights or social security. Some writers have advanced the idea that the term "marriage" should be restricted to a religious context and that state and federal governments should not be involved in a religious rite. Some regard this as a governmental intrusion into religion; they believe that all statutes involving domestic contracts should replace the word "marriage" with "domestic partnership" and thus bypass the controversy of gender. This would then allow a domestic contract between any two individuals who have attained their majority. Conservative critics like ''National Review's'' Jennifer Morse respond that the conflation of marriage with contractual agreements is itself a threat to marriage that "has undermined more heterosexual marriages than anything, with the possible exception of adultery."[http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/morse200405200926.asp] ==Controversy== The moral legitimacy of marriage between two people of the same sex hinges on how the authoritative definition of marriage is derived. If marriage is to have a religious foundation, the interpretation of religious texts and traditions will be key; if marriage is a social institution, legal agreement, or even a purely economic coupling, then pragmatic arguments will have more force (though moral issues will no doubt still arise). Gay rights advocates assert that marriage is a right since it is a legal agreement on the governmental level which should not be restricted to opposite-sex couples. Their opponents assert that same-sex marriage cannot be allowed on moral and/or religious grounds, or on the grounds that it will lead to a breakdown of society. The debate is often perceived as being same sex marriage advocates vs. religious (especially fundamentalist) or moral opponents. However, corporations and other fiscally concerned parties sometimes oppose same-sex marriages not on any religious or moral grounds but instead with the aim of preserving the status quo to avoid extending benefits, such as insurance coverage, to the same-sex spouses of their employees. Many religious groups facilitate religious same-sex marriages. Those in favour of same-sex marriage argue that gays and lesbians contribute as much as heterosexual people to the funding for private and public family coverage even when they have no access to it, and that discrimination decreases productivity. ===Competing definitions of "marriage"=== With some notable exceptions, most societies have utilized a definition of marriage that included at least one man and one woman. Some societies have from ancient times permitted a man to have multiple wives, but those wives had congress only with the man -- not each other. But some rare variations have existed, such as polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands) and "group marriage". Though religions perform marriages based on their own doctrinal definitions, these may or may not be recognized by the government depending on local laws. Governments will often provide opportunity for state-sanctioned legal marriages that are entirely secular and without religious influence (commonly called "civil marriages"). They may or may not be recognized by certain religions. Some countries require all marriages to be civil, and any religious ceremony is purely symbolic. Generally, it is the government's definition of marriage that the same-sex marriage debate centers around (see marriage). A typical definition of ''marriage'' proposed by those who support same-sex marriage is as follows: :A socially sanctioned, voluntary, committed, lawly contracted union, of two adult people, which the government and/or society recognizes by conferring certain rights, privileges and responsibility, such as finances, taxes, and inheritance, child-raising, adoption, visitation, and medicine decision-making. For same-sex marriage proponents, the above achieves equalization of male-male, female-female, and male-female relationships. Being able to marry whomever one chooses is seen as a civil right that should not be abridged by the government. Some countries and states/provinces have judicial rulings that set precedence for the above definition. However, popular majorities in some places continue to assert that the traditional concept of marriage cannot exist outside of a heterosexual relationship. To them, the male-female relationship has unique capacities and qualities that marriage was meant to recognize and foster that are not adequately acknowledged by the above definition. Defenders of so-called "traditional marriage", that is, the union of one man and one woman, argue that only a heterosexual union can provide the procreative foundation of the family unit that they see as the chief social building block of civilization. They argue that the definition proposed by same-sex marriage advocates changes the social importance of marriage from Sexual morality to custom. As any customary relationship may be considered "marriage" some argue that this then leads to undue legislative burden and an affront to the social value and responsibility of parenting one's own children. Some same-sex marriage proponents, such as Andrew Sullivan, argue that their definition retains enough moral underpinning to support the familial role marriage plays in society despite the absence of a direct (that is, unassisted by medical or social agencies) procreative element. Others argue that marriage is no longer retains a procreative function of the government since many governments offer child tax-credits and assistance regardless of martial status. The fact that changes in the customs and protocols of marriage often occur gives rise to the argument that marriage is dynamic, and same-gender acceptance is only the latest evolution of the institution. Some societies have from ancient times permitted spouses to have multiple concurrent marriages (polygamy) while many societies discourage this practice today. When a man legally takes more than one wife, it is called polygyny; when a woman marries multiple men, it is called polyandry. In polygynous and polyandrous marriages one person, a man or a woman, takes many spouses; these spouses are not married to each other, but are all married to the same person. Bigamy is the ''unlawful'' concurrent taking of more than one spouse. Marriages in which three or more people all marry each other are called "group marriages", and are very rare. There have been many ritual homosexual unions practiced historically that provide many of the same benefits entitled traditionally to marriages. Some cultures have considered a set of strictly defined and regulated homosexual qualities to denote a gender that transcended both male and female. As possesors of a third gender, such people could marry either men or women. Some people in the position to write the law for their country indulged themselves in calling some of their same-gender relationships a marriage, though they assumed no familial attachment. Calling a heterosexual union the same legal term as a homosexual union for a whole state or society is only a recent occurrence. One fundamental problem for any law banning same-sex marriage is defining the terms "man" and "woman". If defined genetically, both transsexuals and intersexed individuals would be prohibited from marrying partners of the "opposite" sex and therefore from heterosexual marriage. Just as recent same-sex marriages have been quickly overturned as null and void, so too could extant, long term marriages. More than one in one hundred newborns are to some degree physically aberrant from their genetic sex, with most of them undergoing some degree of surgical alteration. Making allowances for "medical circumstances" would prove difficult, as homosexuality is certainly to some extent biological and probably genetically influenced. In the United Kingdom, recent legislation allows transsexual persons to be officially recognized in their new gender, but this has the effect of annulling any previous marriage. However the couple will now be able to register a civil partnership, to come into force immediately on the dissolution of their marriage. ===Arguments in opposition to same-sex marriage=== Some opponents object to same-sex marriage on religion and homosexuality, arguing that extending marriage to same-sex couples undercuts the conventional meaning of marriage in various traditions or goes against the word of God, does not fulfill any procreational role, or sanctions a partnership centered around "aberrant" or "immoral" sexual acts. Many religious conservatives also believe that gays and lesbians are sinners who are undeserving of certain rights including legal recognition of their unions. Since most nations have monogamous marriages only, some opponents also claim that allowing same-sex marriage will blur other common law precedents and lead to the legalization of polyamory marriage, or to marriage between family members (incest), marriages of convenience contracted for tax or other reasons, or marriages between humans and non-humans. Some object on the grounds that same-sex couples should not be allowed to adopt or raise children or to have access to reproductive technologies, and that same-sex marriage would make such adoptions easier. Others simply do not recognize any pressing need for same-sex marriages. A fundamental concern is that the legalization of same-sex marriage will lead to a direct attack via lawsuits against religions to force them to perform marriage ceremonies of which they do not approve, and additionally that established churches could be bankrupted by these types of lawsuits. This is a realistic fear only in jurisdictions which fail to recognise freedom of religion. Some other people object to same-sex marriage on the grounds that the purpose of marriage is a procreative partnership and that the same-sex partnership is inherently sterile. Some who hold this view see marriage as the social codification of an evolved long-term mating strategy, with economic and legal benefits to facilitate family growth and stability. These people generally do not carry over their objections to sterile heterosexual couples. Many other people, while tolerant towards the sexual behaviour of others, see no reason to alter their society or government's traditional attitudes towards marriage and family. This could be considered an application of the precautionary principle. === Arguments in support of same-sex marriage === [[Image:Civil marriage is a civil right.JPG|right|thumb|250px|Some churches, such as the Unitarian Universalist Association, advocate marriage rights for gays as well as straights.]] Proponents of same-sex marriage point out that so-called "traditional" concepts of marriage in actuality have already undergone significant change (see History of Civil Marriage in the U.S.). In most modern societies, for example, married women are no longer considered the property of their husbands (see the legal rights of women), divorce is legal, contraception within wedlock is allowed (Griswold v. Connecticut in U.S.), and miscegenation forbidding interracial marriage have been eliminated. Proponents suggest that, under the principles of religious pluralism and the separation of church and state, conservative religious arguments should not be used to constitute the law. Religious same-sex marriages are already performed in Unitarian Universalist churches, some Reform synagogues, Quaker (Friends General Conference) congregations, and by the Metropolitan Community Church. In Canada, for example, the United Church of Canada, the country's largest Protestant denomination, has supported the legalization of same-sex marriage. In the United States, proponents of marriage equality point out that there are over 1,049 federal laws in which "rights, benefits, and privileges are contingent on marital status" ([http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf|United States General Accounting Office] pdf). Some of the rights conferred in marriage include: * family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital * next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims * survivor benefits, social security, and bereavement leave after a spouse's death * spousal health insurance, life insurance, and veteran's benefits * marital tax breaks and the tax-free transfer of property between spouses * child custody to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce * joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records * adoption rights * domestic violence intervention * immigration and residency priority for spouses from other countries * access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods A legal denial of rights or benefits without substantive due process, assert the proponents of marriage equality, directly contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which provides for equal protection of all citizen across social class. In a 2003 case titled ''Lawrence v. Texas'', the Supreme Court held that the right to private consensual sexual conduct was protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. Both supporters and detractors of same-sex marriage have noted that this ruling paved the way for subsequent decisions (ie. Goodridge v. Department of Health) invalidating state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia noted as much in his dissenting opinion to Lawrence. Some conservatism proponents of equal marriage like Andrew Sullivan also say that the institution of marriage would be strengthened by making it available to more people, and argue further that same-sex marriage would encourage gays and lesbians to settle down with one partner and raise families. Supporters of same-sex marriage counter slippery slope arguments that allowing such marriages will not alter the legalization of other, perceived undesirable marriages that are currently prohibited including: * incestuous marriages, because allowing same-sex couples to marry does not alter the restriction on consanguinous relationships. * Marriage of convenience as these are already legal (between people of the opposite sex). * Zoophilia (Note: this argument is not taken seriously by most commentators), since non-humans do not have the legal standing to consent into a marriage contract. * Poly relationship, because allowing same-sex couples to marry does not change the restriction on the number of people who may contract a marriage. Furthermore, because of the reciprocal nature of many spousal rights and responsibilities, it would not be possible to give three-person groups equal rights and responsibilities as two-person groups. For example, if a government gives medical coverage to spouses of service members, then a service member with thirty spouses would either receive benefits far more valuable than one with only one spouse would ''or'' not all that service member's spouses would receive coverage. Finally, supporters state that, in the jurisdictions that have afforded legal recognition of same-sex unions, the dire consequences foretold by opponents have not come to pass. It should be noted that not all religious people oppose gay marriage. Reverend F. Russell Baker, of the United Church of Christ, who personally experienced discrimination because of his interracial marriage with an African-American woman shortly after the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws in the U.S., argues that :[J]ust as people were worked up by unscrupulous politicians about interracial marriage in the 1960s—politicians whose only contribution was spreading fear and mistrust and hatred so that they could solidify their political base—we had something similar occurring during this last campaign [in 2004]... numerous religious leaders noted for their narrow legalistic religious traditions and their judgments on the behaviors of others, vehemently criticizing those who they could not understand. Some of the same segregationists of the past are now the enthusiastic proponents of these new anti–gay marriage laws... [I]f one listens carefully to the gay and lesbian community, one discovers that often after much turmoil, a person comes to the conclusion that they were created this way... No one ever said understanding God’s will for us would be easy... Jesus said we need to accept others, care for others, and love others just as God accepts, cares for, and loves He concludes "There will come a time when we will look back upon [banning gay marriage in eleven states] for the shame it is. I hope it will be soon."[http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail.asp?id=14948] Arguments that gays and lesbians are sinners and thus undeserving of recognition of their unions, expounded by conservatives, neglect the consideration that very rarely is anyone completely without sin, a concept underpinning much of Christian theology: "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23). Adherence to this principle woujld seem to require that no one should deserve the right of legal recognition of their unions. Moreover, in many places, it is legal for mixed-sex criminals to be married (see Turner v. Safley). === Arguments in opposition to state-sanction of marriage === Some libertarianism object to same-sex marriage because they are opposed to any form of state-sanctioned marriage, including opposite-sex unions. They are not necessarily opposed to the idea of a same-sex wedding itself, only that the government should not have any role in the event, nor for that matter should government approval be sought for opposite-sex marriages. ====Same-sex Marriage & Gay Families==== With the advent of recent medical breakthroughs that have opened a wide array of choices available to same-sex couples to have biological children or adopt, the denial of marriages to same-sex couples can have detrimental effects not only on the adults within these families but children as well. Hospital visitation issues, end-of-life decision making and access/barriers to health care can all be attributed to the denial of marriage. gay in long-term relationships are now increasingly opting to raise family. Many methods have been devised to allow them to have biological children. Some couples elect to have a close relative (sometimes a sister), good friend, or contract an individual to either obtain an egg for a surrogate or give birth through in vitro fertilization. In the cases of a good friend or a contracted entity the child is only biologically related to one partner. However in the cases of a blood relative such as a sister of one partner who donates an egg that is fertilized with the other partner's sperm and placed into a surrogate the child is biologically related to both partners. lesbian can also produce biological children through similar means. Some elect to have one partner donate an egg which is fertilized with a blood relative of the other partner, sometimes a brother. The egg is then placed into the partner who did not donate the egg. In essence one partner gives birth to her partner's and sometimes brother's biological child. This is not to be confused with incest since the child is not a biological offspring of a brother and sister, rather it is a biological offspring of the brother and the sister's partner. The sister only acts as a vehicle of the birth. These procedures can be costly, and many same-sex couples choose adoption instead. However adoption does not produce a child that is biologically related in any manner. ==Publicly noted same-sex unions== ===2004=== * December - Ipswich,Massachusetts - Arthur J. Finkelstein, right-wing political operative responsible for the elections of New York Governor George Pataki, former United States Senate Jesse Helms, former US Senator Al D'Amato. * September 10 - Toronto, Canada - Uzi Even, former Israeli Knesset member, and Amit Kama, legal civil marriage * August 1 - Boston, Massachusetts - Cheryl Jacques, former Mass. State Senator and gay rights activist, and Jennifer Chrisler, legal marriage * April 1 - Michael Hendricks and René Leboeuf, first same-sex couple to marry in Quebec * March 8 - San Francisco, California - Jackie Goldberg, State Assemblywoman, and Sharon Sticker, later voided by California Supreme Court * February 26 - San Francisco, California - Rosie O'Donnell, Ex-TV Host, and Kelli Carpenter, later voided by California Supreme Court * February 12 - San Francisco, California - Del Martin and P
Same-Sex Marriage
#REDIRECT same-sex marriage
Same-sex Marriage
#REDIRECT Same-sex marriage
Same-sex marriage
Discussions prior to December 2004 are archived at Talk: Same-sex marriage/archive and Talk: Same-sex marriage/archive2 ==Disputes on the inclusion of "platonic love" and "asexual same-sex marriage"== Please stop spinboy's vandalism against platonic love same-sex marriage! --User:Asexual same-sex marriage :First, please sign your posts using four tildes (~), like this:
Same-sex marriage
Same-sex marriage (also called gay marriage, marriage equality, and often just marriage by its proponents, and—usually by its opponents—homosexual marriage) refers to a marriage between two individuals of the same gender (for #Other forms of same-sex partnership distinct from marriage, see the articles linked in that section). == Terminology == The terms "gay marriage" and "homosexual marriage" may not be strictly accurate, in that one or both partners may not identify as gay or homosexual. Rather, depending on the couple and the jurisdiction, such same-sex marriages may include persons of different orientations, including bisexuals, transsexuals, and transgendered persons. Therefore, in the context of same-sex marriages and throughout this article, ''same-sex'' refers strictly to two people of the same sex, and is not synonymous with gay or homosexual. The term "same-sex marriage" has recently been displacing "gay marriage," both to be free of any possible negative connotations carried by "homosexual", and to be more inclusive of groups such as bisexuals and transsexual people - who in some states of the US and in other countries, are not allowed to change their assigned gender on their birth certificates following sex reassignment surgery. Supporters of same-sex marriage argue that the correct term is simply "marriage," though such usage often confuses others in coversation or debate. In this article, the inclusive term "same-sex marriage" is used throughout. Where necessary for clarity, the terms "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual," and "transsexual" are used (there are a number of reasons for this; please see the talk:same-sex marriage for more details). The term "mixed marriage" usually does not refer to marriage of two persons of different genders, but to marriage of two persons of different religions, cultures or races. ==History of same-sex unions== ''For detailed information, see History of homosexuality.'' ===Asia=== Same-gender romantic love or sexual desire has been recorded from ancient times in the east. Such desire often took the form of same-sex unions, usually between men, and often included some difference in age (there is far less information available on relationships among women in ancient times. There are a number of possible reasons for this: an attitude that women were not important enough to write about; or that same-sex attraction between women was not valued as it was between men; or that women were not afforded equal status with men, so that, while men were free to pursue sexual and romantic pleasure both within and without marriage, women often were not). In China, especially in the southern province of Fujian where male love was especially cultivated, men would marry youths in elaborate ceremonies. The marriages would last a number of years, at the end of which the elder partner would help the younger find a (female) wife and settle down to raise a family. See also: * Homosexuality in China * Homosexuality in Japan ===Europe=== [[Image:Sergebac7thcentury.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Saints Sergius and Bacchus. 7th Century icon. Officers of the Rome in Syria who were tortured to death for their refusal to worship Roman Mythology. Bacchus is thought to have died from severe torture while Sergius survived the original torture to be beheaded. They are the protectors of the Byzantine Army with a feast day of October 7th. Yale historian John Boswell considers the saints to be an example of an early Christian same-sex union reflective of tolerant History of Early Christianity and Homosexuality toward homosexuality based on this icon depicting what some claim is a religious wedding with Jesus as best man and still surviving writings [http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/unions.html] [http://www.gay.ru/english/life/religion/] [http://www.hp.uab.edu/image_archive/ull/ulld.html] [http://www.antinopolis.org/litcalendar-4.html] [http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/sergius1.html].]] There has been a long history of same-sex unions in the western world. That many early western societies tolerated, and even celebrated, same-sex relationships is well-known. Evidence of same-sex marriage, however, is less clear, but there exists some evidence, often controversial, of same-sex marriages in ancient Rome and Greece, and even in medieval Europe. In ancient Rome, for example, the Emperor Nero is reported to have married, at different times, two other men in wedding ceremonies. Other Roman Emperors are reported to have done the same thing. The increasing influence of Christianity, which promoted marriage for procreative purposes and the Roman use of sexuality as a form of dominance as well as a means to conquer through rape a male enemy has been linked with the increasing intolerance of homosexuality in Rome. Finally, in Europe during Hellenic times, pederasty relationships between Hellenic Greece men (''erastes'') and youths (''eromenos'') who had come of age were analogous to marriage in several aspects. The age of the youth was similar to the age at which women married (the mid-teens), and the relationship could only be undertaken with the consent of the father. This consent, just as in the case of a daughter's marriage, was contingent on the suitor's social standing. The relationship, just like a marriage, consisted of very specific social and religious responsibilities, and also had an erotic component. === Americas === Same-sex marriage has been documented in many societies that were not subject to Christianity influence. In North America, among the Native American societies, it has taken the form of two-spirit-type relationships, in which some members of the tribe, from an early age, heed a calling to take on female gender with all its responsibilities. They are prized as wives by the other men in the tribe, who enter into formal marriages with these two-spirit men. They are also respected as being especially powerful shamans. In the United States during the nineteenth century, there was recognition of the relationship of two women making a long-term commitment to each other and cohabitating, referred to at the time as a Boston marriage; however, the general public at the time likely assumed that sexual activities were not part of the relationship. In Canada the issue of same-sex marriage has split the religious community with the United Church of Canada and some elements of the Anglican Church of Canada being supportive while Roman Catholics and most conservative denominations in opposition. In 2002, the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster in British Columbia (which includes Greater Vancouver) began allowing its churches to Blessing of same sex unions in marriage-like ceremonies. In response, bishops from Africa, Asia and Latin America, representing more than one-third of Anglican Communion members worldwide, cut their relations with the diocese. Reform Judaism, the largest branch of Judaism outside Israel allows religious weddings for same-sex couples within their synagogues provided they are both adherents of the Jewish faith. === Africa === In Africa, among the Azande of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, men would marry youths for whom they had to pay a bride-price to the father. These marriages likewise were understood to be of a temporary nature. ==Current status of same-sex civil marriage== In the late 20th century and early 21st century centuries, there has been a growing movement in a number of countries to regard civil-marriages as a right which should be extended to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation. Civil-marriages entail a wide range of entitlements, including social security, health insurance, taxation, inheritance and other benefits unavailable to couples unmarried in the eyes of the law. Restricting legal recognition to opposite-sex couples excludes same-sex couples from gaining legal access to these benefits, and while opposite-sex unmarried couples without other legal impediments have the option of marrying in law and so gaining access to these rights, that option is unavailable to same-sex couples. Similarly, though certain rights extending from marriage can be replicated by legal means (for example, by drawing up contracts), many cannot; thus, despite the presence of legal contracts, same-sex couples may still face insecurity in areas such as inheritance, hospital visitation and immigration. Lack of legal recognition also makes it more difficult for same-sex couples to adoption. At present, same-sex marriages are legal in only one country (see table, right). In the Netherlands, same-sex marriage is fully legal. In Canada, same-sex marriage is currently legal in over half of the provinces and territories, covering approximately eighty-five percent of the population, and Bill C-38, a federal bill to formally legalize same-sex marriage across Canada, is before Parliament. (see Same-sex marriage in Canada). In the United States as of April 2005, only the state of Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriages, while the states of Vermont, Maine, Hawaii, California, New Jersey, Connecticut, and the District of Columbia offer same-sex partners benefits similar to those of legally married couples. Eighteen other States have constitutional provisions that limit marriages to one man and one woman, while twenty-five States have statutes containing similar definitions. In the United States, the debate over whether or not to make same sex marriages legally binding remains one of the most polarizing and divisive political debates of the early 21st century and it is discussed with great passion all over the world. During 2004, 13 US States amended their constitutions to define marriage as being only between one man and one woman. Some people, including many gay rights advocates and some heterosexual same-sex marriage advocates, view restrictions such as these as being an example of the tyranny of the majority in action. ===Europe=== Same-sex civil marriages currently are legally recognized nationwide only in the Netherlands . Belgium extends all the rights of marriage minus adoption to same-sex couples. In late January 2005, the Sweden government put together a committee of the major political parties to study whether or not the country should allow same-sex marriages. [http://www.gaynz.com/news/default.asp?dismode=article&artid=2188]. Shortly after his election in June 2004, Spain prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero confirmed his intention to push for legalization of same-sex marriage [http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~2151089,00.html]. On 1 October 2004, the Spain Government approved a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. The bill also allows same-sex couples to officially adopt children, a provision not found in similar bills passed in other countries. The bill now needs parliamentary approval, and is expected to come into force in 2005. About 62% of the country supports legalization of same-sex marriage, according to an Instituto Opina/Cadena Ser opinion poll taken May 2005.[http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=7276] For more information see ''Same-sex marriage in Spain''. On 18 November 2004 the United Kingdom Parliament passed the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which will come into force during 2005 and will allow same-sex couples to register their partnership. The Government stressed during the passage of the Bill that it is ''not'' same-sex marriage, and some gay activists have criticised the Act for not using the terminology of marriage. However, the rights and duties of partners under this legislation will be almost exactly the same as for married couples. An amendment proposing similar rights for family members living together was rejected. See Civil Union. In May 2004, the largest opposition party in France, the French Socialist Party, announced its support for same-sex marriage. A poll by ELLE found that 64% of France supports same-sex marriage. [http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=204455&AG] === North America === ====Canada==== ''Main article: Same-sex marriage in Canada'' In Canada, court rulings in the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador as well as the Yukon , have found the prohibition of same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional, thus legalizing it in those jurisdictions. According to [http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/demo02.htm Statistics Canada] this amounts to roughly 87% of the country by population. Canada is also the only country without a residency requirement for same-sex marriage. The Canadian federal government has introduced amendments to the Canadian ''Marriage Act'' that would legalize same-sex marriage nationally. This bill Bill C-38 is presently before the Canadian House of Commons (as of February 1, 2005.) [[Image:Hendricks-leboeuf.jpg|left|thumb|Michael Hendricks and René Leboeuf become the first same-sex couple to same-sex marriage in Quebec, April 1, 2004.]] The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled, on a reference question (Re: Same-Sex Marriage, 2004) that the government has the authority to amend the definition of marriage, but did not rule on whether or not such a change is required by the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court stated that such a ruling is not necessary because the federal government had accepted the rulings of lower courts. The Court also ruled that religious institutions could not be required to perform same-sex marriages. As of November 11th, 2004 the Canadian federal government's immigration department considers same-sex marriages valid for the purposes of sponsoring a spouse to immigrate. ''See also [http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/sponsor/index.html CIC] and Same-sex marriage in Canada'' Immigration authorities there had previously considered long-term same-sex relationships to be equivalent to similar heterosexual relationships as grounds for sponsorship. ====United States==== ''Main article: Same-sex marriage in the United States'' [[Image:R_odonnell_marriage.jpg|right|thumb|Rosie O'Donnell and wife Kelli Carpenter speaking after their wedding on February 26, 2004 in San Francisco, California.]] Courts in the state of Hawaii in 1993 ruled that same-sex couples were entitled to same rights as married opposite-sex couples under their state’s Equal Protection Clause. Polls at the time indicated that the majority of residents favored allowing same-sex marriage. Many have attributed this to the state’s demographics being predominantly non-European and the strong influence of the native’s cultural religious beliefs holding homosexuality in a neutral light. After the ruling many traditionalist Christian organizations from the American South poured substantial funds into the state in a public relations blitz attacking the ruling. In a partial response to the rulings in Hawaii the United States Congress in 1996 passed the Defense of Marriage Act. Given the federal system in the United States, issues could arise if a same-sex couple legally married in one state were to move to a state where same-sex marriage is illegal. The Defense of Marriage Act is meant to prevent the courts from using the United States Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause to bring same-sex marriage to states that have rejected it. In ''Loving v. Virginia'' (1967), the Supreme Court cited the Fourteenth Amendment's "due process" and "equal protection" clauses to strike down laws prohibiting interracial marriage, and in ''Lawrence v. Texas'' (2003) cited the same passages to strike down anti-sodomy laws. Hawaiian voters in 1998 amended their state Constitution to give their legislature the right to restrict marriage rights. The legislature created reciprocal benefits for same-sex couples; however this type of partnership contained substantially less rights than a marriage. An Alaska court in 1998 ruled in favor of a same-sex couples declaring marriage a fundamental right. Opponents in the same year placed a Constitutional Amendment banning such unions on the ballot. Voters approved the ban. The Vermont Supreme Court in 1999 ruled that their state legislature must establish equal rights for same-sex couples similar to those of married opposite-sex couples. Legislators elected to create state level civil-unions as what they argued was a middle-ground. The California legislature in 2003 approved legislation creating an equivalent of marriage on a state level for same-sex couples. Governor Gray Davis signed the domestic partnerships into law and it came into force in 2005. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on November 18, 2003, ruled in the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that same-sex marriages are allowed under the state’s Equal Protection Clause. The court stayed its ruling until May 17, 2004. Beginning on that date, hundreds of same-sex couples were legally married in Massachusetts. Many municipalities in early 2004 wedded same-sex couples. These marriages took place in the states of California, New York, Oregon, New Mexico and New Jersey. All of them have been halted since and the marriages voided. New Jersey, District of Columbia and Maine legislators in 2004 approved domestic partnership laws granting same-sex couples all the same rights as a marriage on a state level. A Washington Court in 2004 ruled that the state must allow same-sex marriages. The ruling is currently pending an appeal to the state Supreme Court. The Native American Cherokee Nation in 2004 issued a moratorium on same-sex marriages while they consider their validity after a lesbian couple applied for a marriage. Due to their tribal sovereignty theoretically if they allowed them the government would have to recognize it. In response to the court rulings twenty seven states proposed Constitutional Amendments banning same-sex marriages in 2004. Out of the 27, legislators and voters approved them in thirteen states while defeating them in 14. President George Bush backs an amendment to the federal Constitution banning same-sex marriages. The amendment failed passage in 2004. In November of 2004 the President announced he supported civil unions. On February 4, 2005, a New York state judge ruled that New York had to allow same sex couples to wed. This ruling, which is stayed pending an appeal by New York City's mayor, Michael Bloomberg, would only apply to New York City, although a ruling unfavorable to the state's position by an appellate court would apply to a larger geographic area. See Same-sex marriage in New York. More recently, on March 15, 2005, the San Francisco County Superior Court ruled that California's state constitution forbids discrimination against same-sex couples wishing to be married, stating that there is "no rational purpose" for the ban and comparing it to racial segregation. As in New York, this ruling is stayed pending appeal. See Same-sex marriage in California. On April 20, 2005, Connecticut became the first state in the Union that legalized same-sex civil unions without a court order. Legislators in Maryland approved a domestic partnership bill in 2005; however on May 22 the Governor vetoed the bill, legislators are now pursuing an override of the veto. On May 12, 2005, a federal judge in Omaha struck down Nebraska's sweeping ban on same-sex marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other same-sex relationships. U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon ruled that the ban, known as Initiative 416, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This is the first state constitutional provision banning same-sex marriage to be ruled unconstitutional. Elsewhere in 2005 the Governor of Utah proposed reciprocal benefits for same-sex couples. The measure was defeated and he has promised to revisit the issue in 2006. Legislation creating domestic partnerships is currently pending in Arizona and New Mexico. Civil union bills are pending as well in Montana and Oregon. Courts are considering same-sex marriage in Florida and Maryland. === Asia === In 2003 the Taiwanese government led by the Presidential office proposed legislation granting marriages to same-sex couples under the Human Rights Basic Law; however it faced opposition among cabinet members and has been stalled since. Currently Taiwan does not have any form of same-sex unions. The Chinese Parliament in 2003 proposed legislation allowing same-sex marriages. During the course of the debate the proposal failed to garner the 30 votes needed for a placement on the agenda. Same-sex marriage supporters have vowed to keep pressing for its passage in the People's Republic of China. The Communist Party of the Philippines conducted the country’s first same-sex marriage in 2005; however it was not recognized by the government. Within the government there has been fierce debate on the issue of same-sex unions. Generally the Communist Party supports legislation allowing such marriages while the Roman Catholic Church opposes it. The Monarch of Cambodia, Norodom Sihanouk, announced in 2004 that he supports legislation granting marriages to same-sex couples. He is hugely revered among Cambodians; however since his proclamation there has been no legislative efforts to allow them. New Zealand passed legislation in 2004 recognizing civil unions for same-sex couples. Australia currently recognizes same-sex partnerships in all but two of its territories: Victoria and South Australia. South Australia as of 2005 as legislation pending allow the recognition of same-sex partnerships. Australian Prime Minister John Howard proposed an amendment to the marriage laws banning same-sex marriages, while allowing current domestic partnerships to continue to be determined on a state and territorial level, the same-sex marriage ban passed in 2004. ===Other forms of same-sex partnership=== The movement towards the legal recognition of same-sex marriages has resulted in changes in the law in many jurisdictions, though the extent of the changes have varied: * Civil unions provide most of the rights and responsibilities of same-sex marriage, but use a different name for the arrangement. They exist in several European countries (Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK) as well as in the U.S. states of Vermont and Connecticut, the Canadian provinces of Quebec and Nova Scotia, (although marriage is legal in both provinces), the Australian Australian States and Territories of New South Wales, Western Australia, and Tasmania, New Zealand and the city of Buenos Aires, Argentina. * Domestic partnerships or registered partnerships provide varying degrees of privileges and responsibilities, usually far fewer than those found in civil unions. Their purpose is not limited to same-sex arrangements and they exist in many jurisdictions. Even in jurisdictions where they are not legally recognized, many gay and lesbian couples choose to have weddings (also called "commitment ceremonies" in this context) to celebrate and affirm their relationship, fulfilling the social aspect of a marriage. Such ceremonies have no legal validity, however, and as such do not deal with issues such as inheritance, property rights or social security. Some writers have advanced the idea that the term "marriage" should be restricted to a religious context and that state and federal governments should not be involved in a religious rite. Some regard this as a governmental intrusion into religion; they believe that all statutes involving domestic contracts should replace the word "marriage" with "domestic partnership" and thus bypass the controversy of gender. This would then allow a domestic contract between any two individuals who have attained their majority. Conservative critics like ''National Review's'' Jennifer Morse respond that the conflation of marriage with contractual agreements is itself a threat to marriage that "has undermined more heterosexual marriages than anything, with the possible exception of adultery."[http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/morse200405200926.asp] ==Controversy== The moral legitimacy of marriage between two people of the same sex hinges on how the authoritative definition of marriage is derived. If marriage is to have a religious foundation, the interpretation of religious texts and traditions will be key; if marriage is a social institution, legal agreement, or even a purely economic coupling, then pragmatic arguments will have more force (though moral issues will no doubt still arise). Gay rights advocates assert that marriage is a right since it is a legal agreement on the governmental level which should not be restricted to opposite-sex couples. Their opponents assert that same-sex marriage cannot be allowed on moral and/or religious grounds, or on the grounds that it will lead to a breakdown of society. The debate is often perceived as being same sex marriage advocates vs. religious (especially fundamentalist) or moral opponents. However, corporations and other fiscally concerned parties sometimes oppose same-sex marriages not on any religious or moral grounds but instead with the aim of preserving the status quo to avoid extending benefits, such as insurance coverage, to the same-sex spouses of their employees. Many religious groups facilitate religious same-sex marriages. Those in favour of same-sex marriage argue that gays and lesbians contribute as much as heterosexual people to the funding for private and public family coverage even when they have no access to it, and that discrimination decreases productivity. ===Competing definitions of "marriage"=== With some notable exceptions, most societies have utilized a definition of marriage that included at least one man and one woman. Some societies have from ancient times permitted a man to have multiple wives, but those wives had congress only with the man -- not each other. But some rare variations have existed, such as polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands) and "group marriage". Though religions perform marriages based on their own doctrinal definitions, these may or may not be recognized by the government depending on local laws. Governments will often provide opportunity for state-sanctioned legal marriages that are entirely secular and without religious influence (commonly called "civil marriages"). They may or may not be recognized by certain religions. Some countries require all marriages to be civil, and any religious ceremony is purely symbolic. Generally, it is the government's definition of marriage that the same-sex marriage debate centers around (see marriage). A typical definition of ''marriage'' proposed by those who support same-sex marriage is as follows: :A socially sanctioned, voluntary, committed, lawly contracted union, of two adult people, which the government and/or society recognizes by conferring certain rights, privileges and responsibility, such as finances, taxes, and inheritance, child-raising, adoption, visitation, and medicine decision-making. For same-sex marriage proponents, the above achieves equalization of male-male, female-female, and male-female relationships. Being able to marry whomever one chooses is seen as a civil right that should not be abridged by the government. Some countries and states/provinces have judicial rulings that set precedence for the above definition. However, popular majorities in some places continue to assert that the traditional concept of marriage cannot exist outside of a heterosexual relationship. To them, the male-female relationship has unique capacities and qualities that marriage was meant to recognize and foster that are not adequately acknowledged by the above definition. Defenders of so-called "traditional marriage", that is, the union of one man and one woman, argue that only a heterosexual union can provide the procreative foundation of the family unit that they see as the chief social building block of civilization. They argue that the definition proposed by same-sex marriage advocates changes the social importance of marriage from Sexual morality to custom. As any customary relationship may be considered "marriage" some argue that this then leads to undue legislative burden and an affront to the social value and responsibility of parenting one's own children. Some same-sex marriage proponents, such as Andrew Sullivan, argue that their definition retains enough moral underpinning to support the familial role marriage plays in society despite the absence of a direct (that is, unassisted by medical or social agencies) procreative element. Others argue that marriage is no longer retains a procreative function of the government since many governments offer child tax-credits and assistance regardless of martial status. The fact that changes in the customs and protocols of marriage often occur gives rise to the argument that marriage is dynamic, and same-gender acceptance is only the latest evolution of the institution. Some societies have from ancient times permitted spouses to have multiple concurrent marriages (polygamy) while many societies discourage this practice today. When a man legally takes more than one wife, it is called polygyny; when a woman marries multiple men, it is called polyandry. In polygynous and polyandrous marriages one person, a man or a woman, takes many spouses; these spouses are not married to each other, but are all married to the same person. Bigamy is the ''unlawful'' concurrent taking of more than one spouse. Marriages in which three or more people all marry each other are called "group marriages", and are very rare. There have been many ritual homosexual unions practiced historically that provide many of the same benefits entitled traditionally to marriages. Some cultures have considered a set of strictly defined and regulated homosexual qualities to denote a gender that transcended both male and female. As possesors of a third gender, such people could marry either men or women. Some people in the position to write the law for their country indulged themselves in calling some of their same-gender relationships a marriage, though they assumed no familial attachment. Calling a heterosexual union the same legal term as a homosexual union for a whole state or society is only a recent occurrence. One fundamental problem for any law banning same-sex marriage is defining the terms "man" and "woman". If defined genetically, both transsexuals and intersexed individuals would be prohibited from marrying partners of the "opposite" sex and therefore from heterosexual marriage. Just as recent same-sex marriages have been quickly overturned as null and void, so too could extant, long term marriages. More than one in one hundred newborns are to some degree physically aberrant from their genetic sex, with most of them undergoing some degree of surgical alteration. Making allowances for "medical circumstances" would prove difficult, as homosexuality is certainly to some extent biological and probably genetically influenced. In the United Kingdom, recent legislation allows transsexual persons to be officially recognized in their new gender, but this has the effect of annulling any previous marriage. However the couple will now be able to register a civil partnership, to come into force immediately on the dissolution of their marriage. ===Arguments in opposition to same-sex marriage=== Some opponents object to same-sex marriage on religion and homosexuality, arguing that extending marriage to same-sex couples undercuts the conventional meaning of marriage in various traditions or goes against the word of God, does not fulfill any procreational role, or sanctions a partnership centered around "aberrant" or "immoral" sexual acts. Many religious conservatives also believe that gays and lesbians are sinners who are undeserving of certain rights including legal recognition of their unions. Since most nations have monogamous marriages only, some opponents also claim that allowing same-sex marriage will blur other common law precedents and lead to the legalization of polyamory marriage, or to marriage between family members (incest), marriages of convenience contracted for tax or other reasons, or marriages between humans and non-humans. Some object on the grounds that same-sex couples should not be allowed to adopt or raise children or to have access to reproductive technologies, and that same-sex marriage would make such adoptions easier. Others simply do not recognize any pressing need for same-sex marriages. A fundamental concern is that the legalization of same-sex marriage will lead to a direct attack via lawsuits against religions to force them to perform marriage ceremonies of which they do not approve, and additionally that established churches could be bankrupted by these types of lawsuits. This is a realistic fear only in jurisdictions which fail to recognise freedom of religion. Some other people object to same-sex marriage on the grounds that the purpose of marriage is a procreative partnership and that the same-sex partnership is inherently sterile. Some who hold this view see marriage as the social codification of an evolved long-term mating strategy, with economic and legal benefits to facilitate family growth and stability. These people generally do not carry over their objections to sterile heterosexual couples. Many other people, while tolerant towards the sexual behaviour of others, see no reason to alter their society or government's traditional attitudes towards marriage and family. This could be considered an application of the precautionary principle. === Arguments in support of same-sex marriage === [[Image:Civil marriage is a civil right.JPG|right|thumb|250px|Some churches, such as the Unitarian Universalist Association, advocate marriage rights for gays as well as straights.]] Proponents of same-sex marriage point out that so-called "traditional" concepts of marriage in actuality have already undergone significant change (see History of Civil Marriage in the U.S.). In most modern societies, for example, married women are no longer considered the property of their husbands (see the legal rights of women), divorce is legal, contraception within wedlock is allowed (Griswold v. Connecticut in U.S.), and miscegenation forbidding interracial marriage have been eliminated. Proponents suggest that, under the principles of religious pluralism and the separation of church and state, conservative religious arguments should not be used to constitute the law. Religious same-sex marriages are already performed in Unitarian Universalist churches, some Reform synagogues, Quaker (Friends General Conference) congregations, and by the Metropolitan Community Church. In Canada, for example, the United Church of Canada, the country's largest Protestant denomination, has supported the legalization of same-sex marriage. In the United States, proponents of marriage equality point out that there are over 1,049 federal laws in which "rights, benefits, and privileges are contingent on marital status" ([http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf|United States General Accounting Office] pdf). Some of the rights conferred in marriage include: * family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital * next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims * survivor benefits, social security, and bereavement leave after a spouse's death * spousal health insurance, life insurance, and veteran's benefits * marital tax breaks and the tax-free transfer of property between spouses * child custody to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce * joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records * adoption rights * domestic violence intervention * immigration and residency priority for spouses from other countries * access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods A legal denial of rights or benefits without substantive due process, assert the proponents of marriage equality, directly contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which provides for equal protection of all citizen across social class. In a 2003 case titled ''Lawrence v. Texas'', the Supreme Court held that the right to private consensual sexual conduct was protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. Both supporters and detractors of same-sex marriage have noted that this ruling paved the way for subsequent decisions (ie. Goodridge v. Department of Health) invalidating state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia noted as much in his dissenting opinion to Lawrence. Some conservatism proponents of equal marriage like Andrew Sullivan also say that the institution of marriage would be strengthened by making it available to more people, and argue further that same-sex marriage would encourage gays and lesbians to settle down with one partner and raise families. Supporters of same-sex marriage counter slippery slope arguments that allowing such marriages will not alter the legalization of other, perceived undesirable marriages that are currently prohibited including: * incestuous marriages, because allowing same-sex couples to marry does not alter the restriction on consanguinous relationships. * Marriage of convenience as these are already legal (between people of the opposite sex). * Zoophilia (Note: this argument is not taken seriously by most commentators), since non-humans do not have the legal standing to consent into a marriage contract. * Poly relationship, because allowing same-sex couples to marry does not change the restriction on the number of people who may contract a marriage. Furthermore, because of the reciprocal nature of many spousal rights and responsibilities, it would not be possible to give three-person groups equal rights and responsibilities as two-person groups. For example, if a government gives medical coverage to spouses of service members, then a service member with thirty spouses would either receive benefits far more valuable than one with only one spouse would ''or'' not all that service member's spouses would receive coverage. Finally, supporters state that, in the jurisdictions that have afforded legal recognition of same-sex unions, the dire consequences foretold by opponents have not come to pass. It should be noted that not all religious people oppose gay marriage. Reverend F. Russell Baker, of the United Church of Christ, who personally experienced discrimination because of his interracial marriage with an African-American woman shortly after the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws in the U.S., argues that :[J]ust as people were worked up by unscrupulous politicians about interracial marriage in the 1960s—politicians whose only contribution was spreading fear and mistrust and hatred so that they could solidify their political base—we had something similar occurring during this last campaign [in 2004]... numerous religious leaders noted for their narrow legalistic religious traditions and their judgments on the behaviors of others, vehemently criticizing those who they could not understand. Some of the same segregationists of the past are now the enthusiastic proponents of these new anti–gay marriage laws... [I]f one listens carefully to the gay and lesbian community, one discovers that often after much turmoil, a person comes to the conclusion that they were created this way... No one ever said understanding God’s will for us would be easy... Jesus said we need to accept others, care for others, and love others just as God accepts, cares for, and loves He concludes "There will come a time when we will look back upon [banning gay marriage in eleven states] for the shame it is. I hope it will be soon."[http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail.asp?id=14948] Arguments that gays and lesbians are sinners and thus undeserving of recognition of their unions, expounded by conservatives, neglect the consideration that very rarely is anyone completely without sin, a concept underpinning much of Christian theology: "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23). Adherence to this principle woujld seem to require that no one should deserve the right of legal recognition of their unions. Moreover, in many places, it is legal for mixed-sex criminals to be married (see Turner v. Safley). === Arguments in opposition to state-sanction of marriage === Some libertarianism object to same-sex marriage because they are opposed to any form of state-sanctioned marriage, including opposite-sex unions. They are not necessarily opposed to the idea of a same-sex wedding itself, only that the government should not have any role in the event, nor for that matter should government approval be sought for opposite-sex marriages. ====Same-sex Marriage & Gay Families==== With the advent of recent medical breakthroughs that have opened a wide array of choices available to same-sex couples to have biological children or adopt, the denial of marriages to same-sex couples can have detrimental effects not only on the adults within these families but children as well. Hospital visitation issues, end-of-life decision making and access/barriers to health care can all be attributed to the denial of marriage. gay in long-term relationships are now increasingly opting to raise family. Many methods have been devised to allow them to have biological children. Some couples elect to have a close relative (sometimes a sister), good friend, or contract an individual to either obtain an egg for a surrogate or give birth through in vitro fertilization. In the cases of a good friend or a contracted entity the child is only biologically related to one partner. However in the cases of a blood relative such as a sister of one partner who donates an egg that is fertilized with the other partner's sperm and placed into a surrogate the child is biologically related to both partners. lesbian can also produce biological children through similar means. Some elect to have one partner donate an egg which is fertilized with a blood relative of the other partner, sometimes a brother. The egg is then placed into the partner who did not donate the egg. In essence one partner gives birth to her partner's and sometimes brother's biological child. This is not to be confused with incest since the child is not a biological offspring of a brother and sister, rather it is a biological offspring of the brother and the sister's partner. The sister only acts as a vehicle of the birth. These procedures can be costly, and many same-sex couples choose adoption instead. However adoption does not produce a child that is biologically related in any manner. ==Publicly noted same-sex unions== ===2004=== * December - Ipswich,Massachusetts - Arthur J. Finkelstein, right-wing political operative responsible for the elections of New York Governor George Pataki, former United States Senate Jesse Helms, former US Senator Al D'Amato. * September 10 - Toronto, Canada - Uzi Even, former Israeli Knesset member, and Amit Kama, legal civil marriage * August 1 - Boston, Massachusetts - Cheryl Jacques, former Mass. State Senator and gay rights activist, and Jennifer Chrisler, legal marriage * April 1 - Michael Hendricks and René Leboeuf, first same-sex couple to marry in Quebec * March 8 - San Francisco, California - Jackie Goldberg, State Assemblywoman, and Sharon Sticker, later voided by California Supreme Court * February 26 - San Francisco, California - Rosie O'Donnell, Ex-TV Host, and Kelli Carpenter, later voided by California Supreme Court * February 12 - San Francisco, California - Del Martin and P