Same-sex marriage in the United States Totally Explained

Everything about Same-sex Marriage In The United States totally explained

Same-sex marriage, also referred to as gay marriage, is a marriage between two persons of the same sex. Currently the federal government doesn't recognize same-sex marriage, under the Defense of Marriage Act, but same-sex marriage is currently recognized on the state level by two states, California and Massachusetts. The issue is a divisive political issue in the United States and elsewhere. The social movement to obtain the rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States for same-sex couples began in the early 1970s, and the issue became a prominent one in U.S. politics in the 1990s.

Legal issues

ť See Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States

Federal law

The legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage in the United States are complicated by the nation's federal system of government. Traditionally, the federal government didn't attempt to establish its own definition of marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage wasn't recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967 due to anti-miscegenation laws). With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, however, a marriage was explicitly defined as a union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law. (See

Support

Christopher Ott, a reporter for The Progressive, has characterized the social conservatives' predictions of legalized polygamy in states such as Massachusetts that have same-sex marriage as false. He confronts the common argument that same-sex marriage would devalue marriage as a whole by referencing other historical events such as allowing women to vote and stating that it didn't devalue the electoral process. Ott describes the prohibition of same-sex marriage as devaluing the American principle of equal treatment.

...you also have to wonder if he and other opponents to equal rights really understand the consequences of the amendments they support. Do they really want gay and lesbian couples separated at the emergency room door in the event of an accident or illness? Do they really think long-term couples should be denied the right to make medical or end-of-life decisions, which married couples take for granted? Do they really think that kids should be denied health coverage by one parent's health insurance because the law treats them as strangers? Do they really think it's fair for gay and lesbian people to pay the same taxes as everyone else, but to be denied the hundreds of rights, benefits and protections of marriage? Do they really think that a gay and lesbian couple that has been together for 50 years doesn't deserve the protections that non-gay newlyweds enjoy from day one?

On the other hand, the Economist magazine, while expressing support for the same sex marriage, argue that, attempt by liberal America to force Same-sex marriage through Supreme Court to be "yet another self-damaging act of judicial overreach". The magazine further argue that it's sensible to "concentrate on winning their battles in the court of public opinion and the chambers of the legislature."(External Link

)

Groups supporting or opposing same-sex marriage

Opposing Groups that oppose giving a legal status to same-sex marriages include:

Other politicians who have announced their support for same-sex marriage include Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel, former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, New York Governor David Paterson, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, former Vice President Al Gore, and Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy.
Several political parties such as the Communist Party USA, U.S. Green Party, the Socialist Party USA, and several state Democratic Parties, including the California Democratic Party, the Iowa Democratic Party, the Maine Democratic Party, the Massachusetts Democratic Party, and the Washington State Democratic Party also support gay marriage.

Supporting civil unions or domestic partnerships

Those supporting the creation of a legal status for same-sex couples in the form of civil union or domestic partnership legislation include some state governors, such as those of California, Connecticut, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington, the national Democratic Party, and President George W. Bush.

Popular opinion

ť See Same-sex marriage in the United States public opinion

Case law

United States case law regarding the spousal rights of gay or bisexual persons:

Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971) (upholding a Minnesota law defining marriage)

Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588 (Ky. 1973) (upholding a Kentucky law defining marriage)

Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187 (Wash. App. 1974)

Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1111 (affirming that same-sex marriage doesn't make one a "spouse" under the Immigration and Nationality Act)

De Santo v. Barnsley, 476 A.2d 952 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984)

In re Estate of Cooper, 564 N.Y.S.2d 684 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1990)

Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307 (D.C. 1995)

Storrs v. Holcomb, 645 N.Y.S.2d 286 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996) (New York doesn't recognize or authorize same-sex marriage) (this ruling has since been changed, New York does recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states)

In re Estate of Hall, 707 N.E.2d 201, 206 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998) (no same sex marriage will be recognized; petitioner claiming existing same-sex marriage wasn't in a marriage recognized by law)

Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194; 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999) (Common Benefits Clause of the state constitution requires that same-sex couples be granted the same legal rights as married persons)

Rosengarten v. Downes, 806 A.2d 1066 (Conn. 2002) (state won't recognize Vermont civil union)

Burns v. Burns, 560 S.E.2d 47 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman)

Frandsen v. County of Brevard, 828 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2002) (State constitution won't be construed to recognize same-sex marriage; sex classifications not subject to strict scrutiny under Florida constitution)

In re Estate of Gardiner, 42 P.3d 120 (Kan. 2002) (a post-op male-to-female transgendered person may not marry a male, because this person is still a male in the eyes of the law, and marriage in Kansas is recognized only between a man and a woman)

Standhardt v. Superior Court ex rel. County of Maricopa, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003) (no state constitution right to same-sex marriage)

Morrison v. Sadler, 2003 WL 23119998 (Ind. Super. Ct. 2003) (Indiana's Defense of Marriage Act is found valid)

Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2003) (denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated provisions of the state constitution guaranteeing individual liberty and equality, and wasn't rationally related to a legitimate state interest.)

Lewis v. Harris (New Jersey Supreme Court, 2006) (New Jersey is required to extend all rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples, but prohibiting same-sex marriage doesn't violate the state constitution; legislature has 180 days from October 25, 2006 to amend the marriage laws or create a "parallel structure.")

Andersen v. King County (Washington Supreme Court, 2006) (Washington's Defense of Marriage Act doesn't violate the state constitution)

Hernandez v. Robles

, 7 N.Y.3d 338 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006) (New York's marriage statutes don't permit same-sex marriage and are not unconstitutional).

Conaway v. Deane, (Md. 2007) (upholding state law defining marriage as between a "man" and a "woman," stemming from No. 44, Sept. Term 2006)

Martinez v. County of Monroe

(New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 2008) (The court ruled unanimously that because New York legally recognizes out-of-state marriages of opposite-sex couples, it must do the same for same-sex couples. The county is seeking leave to appeal the decision.(External Link

))

In re Marriage Cases (California Supreme Court, 2008) (The court ruled 4-3 that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is invalid under the equal protection clause of the California Constitution, and that full marriage rights, not merely domestic partnership, must be offered to same-sex couples.)Further Information

Get more info on 'Same-sex Marriage In The United States'.

External Link Exchanges

Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:

<a href="http://same-sex_marriage_in_the_united_states.totallyexplained.com">Same-sex marriage in the United States Totally Explained</a>

Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned.