Same-sex marriage and Bureau d'études des postes et télécommunications d'outre-mer: Difference between pages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
→‎Arguments concerning equality: Added Maryland's ruling on Lawrence
 
m tidy up to common format
 
Line 1: Line 1:
The '''''Bureau d'études des postes et télécommunications d'outre-mer''''' (BEPTOM, Office of Oversea Posts and Telecommunications Studies in English) was a [[France|French]] public institution, financially autonomous. Linked to the French [[Minister of Cooperation]], its goal was to help in the [[Mail|postal]] and [[telecommunication]] areas the [[Overseas territory (France)|French Overseas territories]] and the newly independent states that asked for it. It operated from 1956 until late 1994.
[[Image:Weddinginholland.jpg|thumb|Two men marrying in [[Amsterdam]] within the first month that marriage was opened to [[Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands|same-sex couples]] in the [[Netherlands]] (2001)]]
'''Same-sex marriage''' (also referred to as '''gay marriage'''), is a term for a [[Law|legally]] or [[social]]ly, recognized [[marriage]] between two people of the same sex. "Same-sex marriage" and "gay marriage" are the most common terms used in news media and politics. Other terms used are included below.


In [[philately]], the office was notable as the [[postage stamp]] agency and printer of the late French colonies. It sold these issues to collectors at an agency in [[Paris]].
== Debates over terminology ==
[[Image:San Francisco marriage protest.jpg|240px|thumb|2004 San Francisco march in support of same-sex marriage]]
Some proponents of same-sex marriage use the term "equal marriage" to stress that they seek equality as opposed to special rights.<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/
|title = Equal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples
|publisher = Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell
}}</ref> Opponents argue that equating same-sex and opposite-sex marriage changes the meaning of marriage and its traditions.<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/MarriageSacred.htm
|title = Arguments Against Gay Marriage: Marriage is a Sacred Religious Sacrament
|publisher = About.com
|author = Austin Cline
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref> Furthermore they frequently use the term "homosexual marriage," and some surveys have suggested that the word "homosexual" is more stigmatizing than the word "gay."<ref>{{cite news
|url = http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid17177.asp
|title = New Poll: Americans Ambivalent About Homosexuality
|publisher = the Advocate
|date= 24 May 2005
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref>


Concerning telecommunications, its action was limited by the competition from French private companies in [[Francophone]] Africa.<ref name="Fullsack et Jaffré">Jean-Louis Fullsack and Bruno Jaffré, "Pour la refondation de la coopération publique bilatérale française dans le domaine des télécommunications ", May 2003, [http://www.csdptt.org/article288.html retrieved 7 February 2007].</ref>
Some have suggested reserving the word "marriage" for religious contexts, and in civil and legal contexts using a uniform concept of [[civil unions]]. [[Harvard Law School|Harvard Law]] professor [[Alan Dershowitz]], for instance, writes that such an arrangement would "strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in the hands of the church while placing a secular institution under state control."<ref>{{cite news
|url = http://www.rossde.com/editorials/Dershowitz_marriage.html
|title = Government Should Quit the Marriage Business
|publisher = Los Angeles Times
|author = Dershowitz, Alan M.
|date= 3 December 2003
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref> Some proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage on both sides find such a suggestion impractical. "Why do we suddenly have to throw out the entire system, invent some whole new thing, just because gay people want to get married?," asks [[Evan Wolfson]] of [[Freedom to Marry]] and a contributor to the landmark cases in Vermont and Massachusetts that led to the legalization of same-sex civil unions and marriages, respectively. "I don’t actually see Alan Dershowitz doing anything about this, other than writing an article, because he probably rightly understands it would be an immense project to go around the country and convince 200 million plus people to trade in their marriage for something new and explain why we are doing this when we actually have a legal system that already clearly distinguishes between civil and religious marriage."<ref>[http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Interview_with_gay_marriage_movement_founder_Evan_Wolfson Interview with Evan Wolfson], David Shankbone, September 30, 2007</ref> Conservative critics in the US like ''[[National Review]]'s'' [[Jennifer Morse]] contend 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," but has not cited specific evidence to support the claim.<ref>{{cite news
|url = http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/morse200405200926.asp
|title = ''Not'' a Social Contract
|publisher = National Review
|author = Morse, Jennifer Roback
|date= 20 May 2004
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref>

===Use of scare quotes in print and online media===
Some publications that oppose same-sex marriage adopt an editorial style policy of placing the word ''marriage'' in [[scare quotes]] ("marriage") when it is used in reference to same-sex couples. In the United States, the mainstream press has largely abandoned this practice. The last major U.S. print daily to employ this editorial style was ''[[The Washington Times]]'', which abandoned the policy in February 2008 at the behest of newly appointed editor [[John Solomon]]<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2008/02/25/washington-times-scare-quotes-are-history/ | title = Washington Times Scare Quotes Are History | Publisher = Washington City Paper | author = Erik Wemple | date = 25 February 2008 | accessdate = 2008-07-28}}</ref>.

Some online publications such as [[WorldNetDaily]] and [[Baptist Press]] still follow the practice. [[Cliff Kincaid]], editor of the conservative American media-watchdog group [[Accuracy in Media]] and president of an anti-[[United Nations|U.N.]] group called [[America's Survival]], agrees with this method, arguing that "marriage" is a legal status denied same-sex couples by most state governments.<ref>{{cite news
|url = http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A466_0_2_0_C/
|title = Honest Versus Slanted Journalism
|publisher = Accuracy In Media
|author = Kincaid, Cliff
|date= 26 February 2004
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref> Same-sex marriage supporters argue that the use of [[scare quotes]] is an editorialization that implies inferiority, and point out that the quotes are even used when referring to same-sex marriages in states where such unions are legal.<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://atheism.about.com/b/a/087136.htm
|title = Washington Times Dismisses Gay “Marriages”
|publisher = About.com
|author = Austin Cline
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref>

[[AP Stylebook| Associated Press style]], which professional journalists in the United States generally adopt, recommends the usages ''gay marriage'' and ''gay marriage amendment'' with no hyphen and no scare quotes.


== History ==
== History ==
From 1956, French Overseas posts and telecommunications were reorganized and decentralized consequently to the independence of the [[protectorate]]s of [[Morocco]] and [[Tunisia]], and in prevision of the independence of other oversea territories.<ref>Decree #56-1229 of 3 December 1956, modified by decree #57-481 of 4 April 1957, both quoted in the introduction of the 1994 decree suppressing the BEPTOM.</ref>
{{main|History of same-sex unions}}
The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. <ref> Suetonius ''Life of Nero'' 28-29; Martial ''Epigrams'' 1.24, 12.42; etc.</ref> The rise of Christianity changed attitudes to same-sex unions and led to the persecution of gays. {{Fact|[[User:Darimoma|Darimoma]] ([[User talk:Darimoma|talk]]) 02:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)|date=September 2008}} In the year 342, the Christian emperors [[Constantius II|Constantius]] and [[Constans]] declared same-sex marriage to be illegal.<ref> Theodosian Code 9.8.3: ''"When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion {quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam), what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment.''</ref> In the year 390, the Christian emperors [[Valentinian II]], [[Theodosius I]] and [[Arcadius]] declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be publicly burned alive. <ref> (Theodosian Code 9.7.6): All persons who have the shameful custom of condemning a man's body, acting the part of a woman's to the sufferance of alien sex (for they appear not to be different from women), shall expiate a crime of this kind in avenging flames in the sight of the people.</ref>

== Current status ==
{{main|Status of same-sex marriage}}
[[Image:Same sex marriage map Europe detailed.svg|thumb|'''Status of same-sex partnerships in Europe.''' {{legend|#980098|Same sex marriage recognised}}
{{legend|#0000FF|Civil unions recognised}}
{{legend|#009800|Unregistered cohabitation recognised}}
{{legend|#FFFF00|Issue under political consideration}}
{{legend|#FF9800|Unrecognised or unknown}}
{{legend|#FF0000|Same sex marriage banned}}]]

[[Image:Samesex marriage in USA.svg|right|thumb|'''Status of same-sex partnerships in the United States'''
{{legend|#a9218e|Same-sex marriages}}
{{legend|#00a651|Unions granting rights similar to marriage}}
{{legend|#605ca8|Unions granting limited/enumerated rights}}
{{legend|#00b7f1|Foreign same-sex marriages recognized}}
{{legend|#ffff00|Statute bans same-sex marriage}}
{{legend|#ff7f00|Constitution bans same-sex marriage}}
{{legend|#ed1e24|Constitution bans same-sex marriage ''and'' other kinds of same-sex unions}}]]
{{SSM}}
Marriage, as defined by the civil law, is currently available to same-sex couples in six countries. The [[Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands|Netherlands]] was the first country to allow same-sex marriage in 2001. Same-sex marriages are also legal in [[Same-sex marriage in Belgium|Belgium]], [[Same-sex marriage in Canada|Canada]], [[Same-sex marriage in Norway|Norway]], [[Same-sex marriage in South Africa|South Africa]] and [[Same-sex marriage in Spain|Spain]], along with two states in the United States, [[Massachusetts]] and recently [[California]] (for status in California see [[California Proposition 8 (2008)]]). In 2005, [[Same-sex marriage in Spain|Spain]] became the first country in the world to recognize same-sex marriage (including adoption rights) on equal terms and under the same law.

In [[1996]], [[Congress of the United States|the United States Congress]] passed the [[Defense of Marriage Act]] (DOMA) defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman amongst other stipulations.<ref>[http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/7.html US CODE: Title 1,7. Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> [[As of May 2007]], twenty-six states have passed constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage.<ref>http://hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Center&CONTENTID=28225&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm</ref>, eighteen of which prohibit the legal recognition of ''any'' same-sex union. Nineteen additional states have legal statutes that define "marriage" as a union of two persons of the opposite-sex.<ref>See webpage of the National Conference of State Legislatures at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/samesex.htm.</ref>
The territory of Puerto Rico ratified a similar statute in 1998. Nonetheless, some states are beginning to offer legal recognition to same-sex couples, whether in the form of marriage or as [[civil union]]s or [[domestic partnership]]s.

As of [[July 8]], [[2008]], [[Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts|Massachusetts]] and [[Same-sex marriage in California|California]] permit same-sex couples to marry. The states of [[Civil unions in Vermont|Vermont]], [[Civil unions in Connecticut|Connecticut]], [[Civil unions in New Jersey|New Jersey]] and [[Civil unions in New Hampshire|New Hampshire]] offer civil unions. Also, [[Domestic partnership in California|California]] and [[Domestic partnership in Oregon|Oregon]] have domestic partnership laws that grant all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. [[Domestic partnership in Maine|Maine]], [[Domestic partnership in Washington|Washington]], and [[Domestic partnership in District of Columbia|the District of Columbia]] grant certain ''limited'' benefits through domestic partnerships, and [[Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationships in Hawaii|Hawaii]] has reciprocal beneficiary laws.

At the federal level, Australia bans recognition of same-sex marriage, but the current federal [[Australian Labor Party]] government favours synchronised state and territory [[registered partnership]] legislation (as in [[Tasmania]]) although the [[Australian Capital Territory]] favours the introduction of [[civil unions]] with official ceremonies. By stark contrast, [[same-sex marriage in Canada]] was preserved when a proposed repeal bill failed at its first reading in [[2006]], while [[New Zealand]]'s Parliament similarly heavily defeated a private members bill that would have prohibited [[same-sex marriage in New Zealand]] in [[December 2005]]. However, as far as current [[jurisprudence]] goes, New Zealand's Marriage Act 1955 still recognises only opposite-sex couples as marriageable (although it has also included [[transsexuals]] who have undergone [[reassignment surgery]] as the 'opposite sex' for these purposes, since [[Family Court]] and [[High Court of New Zealand]] decisions in [[1995]].

[[Same-sex marriage in Israel|Israel]]'s High Court of Justice ruled to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other countries, although it is still illegal to perform them within the country. A bill was raised in [[Knesset]] to rescind the Israeli High Court's ruling, but the Knesset has not advanced the bill since December [[2006]]. (This makes the practice of same-sex marriage, as far as Israel is concerned, like the performance of a Reform or Conservative Jewish wedding.)

[[Same-sex marriage in Canada|Canada]], [[Same-sex marriage in Spain|Spain]] and [[Same-sex marriage in Norway|Norway]] are the only countries where the legal status of same-sex marriage is exactly the same as that of opposite-sex marriage, though [[Same-sex marriage in South Africa|South Africa]] is due to fully harmonize its marriage laws. Other nations all have requirements or restrictions that apply to same-sex marriage that do not apply to opposite-sex marriage.

=== Civil unions and partnerships ===
{{main|Civil union}}

The first same-sex union in modern history with government recognition was obtained in [[Denmark]] in [[1989]].

[[Civil union]]s, [[civil partnership]], [[domestic partnership]], unregistered partnership/unregistered co-habitation or [[registered partnership]]s offer varying amounts of the benefits of marriage and are available in: [[Andorra]], [[Australia]] (except [[Government of Australia|Commonwealth]] law), [[Colombia]], [[Croatia]], [[Czech Republic]], [[Denmark]], [[Finland]], [[France]], [[Germany]], [[Hungary]] (unregistered co-habitation since 1996; registered partnership from 2009), [[Iceland]], [[Israel]], [[Luxembourg]], [[New Zealand]], [[Portugal]], [[Slovenia]], [[Sweden]], [[Switzerland]], the [[United Kingdom]] and [[Uruguay]]. They are also available in '''some parts''' of [[Argentina]], [[Brazil]] ([[Rio Grande do Sul]]), [[Mexico]] (Federal District and Coahuila), the [[United States|U.S.]] states of [[California]], [[Connecticut]], [[Hawaii]], [[Maine]], [[New Hampshire]], [[New Jersey]], [[Oregon]], [[Vermont]], [[Washington]], and the [[District of Columbia]] (Washington, D.C.).

In the United Kingdom, [[civil partnerships]] have identical legal status to a marriage, and partners gain all the same benefits and associated legal rights; ranging from tax exemptions and joint property rights, to [[next-of-kin]] status and shared parenting responsibilities. Partnership ceremonies are performed by a marriage registrar in exactly the same manner as a [[secular]] [[civil marriage]].
[[Civil unions in New Zealand]] are identical to British civil partnerships in their association with equivalent spousal rights and responsibilities to fully-fledged opposite-sex marriage.

[[Australia]] provides under all states, territories and two council areas either a registry system provided in; - [[Sydney]], [[Melbourne]], [[Tasmania]] and [[Victoria (Australia)|Victoria]]; or Unregistered partnership provided in; [[Queensland]], [[South Australia]], [[Northern Territory]], [[Norfolk Island]], [[Western Australia]], [[Australian Capital Territory]] and [[New South Wales]]. However, Commonwealth law provisions and statutes prohibit the recognition of civil unions, civil partnerships and same-gender marriages; fifty-eight (58) Legislative Acts of the Commonwealth use the phrase 'member of the opposite sex'. However, Commonwealth law still recognises same-sex partner under "interdependancy relationship" for anti-terrorism legislation, migration of same-sex partner, private superannuation schemes and Federal military and ADF services only.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.humanrights.gov.au/media_releases/2007/43_07.html |title=Simple changes could end discrimination for thousands of Australian couples |date=21 June 2007 |accessdate=}}</ref> In 2007 Grace Abrams and Fiona Power became Australia's first legally recognised same sex married couple [http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/16/.htm] after Grace Abrams had gender modification surgery and was later officially granted a passport with female status.

A [[registered partnership]] in [[Scandinavia]] is nearly equal to marriage, including legal adoption rights in Sweden and, since June, in Iceland as well. These partnership laws are short laws that state that wherever the word "marriage" appears in the country's law will now also be construed to mean "registered partnership" and wherever the word "spouse" appears will now also be construed to mean "registered partner" - thereby transferring the body of marriage laws onto same-sex couples in registered partnerships. In these countries, registered partnerships are generally called marriage in daily speech.{{Fact|date=August 2008}}

In some countries with legal recognition the actual benefits are minimal. Many people consider civil unions, even those which grant equal rights, inadequate, as they create a separate status, and think they should be replaced by gender-neutral marriage.<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-bohrer/nj-civil-unions-nothing-_b_36351.html
|title = NJ Civil Unions: Nothing to Celebrate
|publisher = The Huffington Post
|author = John R. Bohrer
|date= 14 December 2006
|accessdate=
}}</ref>

=== International organizations ===
The terms of employment of the staff of [[international organizations]] (not businesses) are not, in most cases, governed by the laws of the country in which their offices are located. Agreements with the host country safeguard these organizations' impartiality with regard to the host and member countries. [[Recruitment|Hiring]] and [[firing]] practices, [[working hours]] and environment, [[holiday]] time, [[pension]] plans, [[health insurance]] and [[life insurance]], [[salaries]], expatriation benefits and general conditions of employment are managed according to rules and regulations proper to each organization. The independence of these organizations gives them the freedom to implement human resource policies which are even contrary to the laws of their host and member countries. A person who is otherwise eligible for employment in Belgium may not become an employee of [[NATO]] unless he or she is a citizen of a NATO member state.<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www.nato.int/structur/recruit/info.htm
|title = NATO Recruitment service
|publisher = NATO
|date= 7 December 2006
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref> The [[World Health Organization]] has recently banned the recruitment of cigarette smokers.<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www.who.int/employment/recruitment/en/
|title = What are we looking for?
|publisher = World Health Organization
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref> Agencies of the [[United Nations]] coordinate some human resource policies amongst themselves.

Despite their relative independence, few organizations currently recognise same-sex partnerships without condition. The [[Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development]] (OECD) and the agencies of the [[United Nations]] voluntarily [[discriminate]] between opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages, as well as discriminating between employees on the basis of nationality. These organizations recognize same-sex marriages only if the country of citizenship of the employees in question recognizes the marriage. In some cases, these organizations do offer a limited selection of the benefits normally provided to opposite-sex married couples to de facto partners or [[domestic partner]]s of their staff, but even individuals who have entered into an opposite-sex [[civil union]] in their home country are not guaranteed full recognition of this union in all organizations. However, the [[World Bank]] does recognize domestic partners.<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTHRJOBS/0,,contentMDK:20522360~menuPK:1353209~pagePK:64262408~piPK:64262191~theSitePK:1058433,00.html
|title = Jobs - Compensation & Benefits
|publisher = The World Bank Group
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref>

=== Transgender and intersex persons ===
{{main|Legal aspects of transsexualism}}

When sex is defined legally, it may be defined by any one of several criteria: the [[XY sex-determination system]], the type of [[gonad]]s, or the type of external sexual features. Consequently, both [[transsexual]]s and [[intersex]]ed individuals may be legally categorized into confusing gray areas, and could be prohibited from marrying partners of the "opposite" sex or permitted to marry partners of the "same" sex due to arbitrary legal distinctions. This could result in long-term marriages, as well as recent same-sex marriages, being overturned.

An example of the problem with chromosomal definition would be a woman with [[Androgen insensitivity syndrome|Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome]] (CAIS), who would have a 46,XY karyotype, which is typically male. Although she may have been legally registered as female on her birth certificate, been raised as a female her entire life, have engaged in heterosexual female relationships, and may even have married before the status of her condition was known, using the chromosomal definition of sex could prevent or annul the marriage of a woman with this condition to a man, and similarly allow her to legally marry another woman. These same issues were faced by the [[IOC]] to determine who qualified as a female for the women's competitions.<ref>{{cite paper
|url = http://www.uksport.gov.uk/assets/File/Generic_Template_Documents/Standards_in_Sport/transsexuals.pdf
|title = Transsexual people and sport
|publisher = UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport
|format = .PDF
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref>

The problems of defining gender by the existence/non-existence of gonads or certain sexual features is complicated by the existence of [[Gender Reassignment Surgery|surgical methods]] to alter these features. Although it has not been exhaustively stated by a court, it is possible that a court could find that if a person has their gonads removed (not limited to a sex-change but also for medical disorder, such as [[testicular cancer]] or removing [[intersex|sexual ambiguity]]), they would enter a sexual limbo status and fail to meet either set of criteria, thus excluding them from any allowance to marriage. This situation could easily occur through exclusionary findings by separate courts in a state that already does not recognize transsexual marriages to people of the same sex as their birth-sex, as in the case of Linda Kantaras vs. Michael Kantaras. Basing the distinction on genital appearance is complicated by available [[Sex reassignment surgery male-to-female|surgery]] converting typically male genitalia to typically female genitalia, which has advanced to the point where, even were a genital inspection necessary, many transgendered women would pass this inspection without question.

Requiring a surgical reassignment for definition of gender for the purpose of declaring a marriage valid comes with further problems. The [[Sex reassignment surgery female-to-male|female-to-male sex reassignment surgery]] is expensive and does not provide results as satisfactory as its counterpart; therefore many female-to-male transsexuals choose not to undergo this procedure. In a situation where genitalia legally defines gender and same-sex marriage is not permitted, the transsexual man would therefore only be allowed to legally marry another man if he wished to marry.

These complications are probably more likely than one would think at first glance; according to the highest estimates (Fausto-Sterling et al., 2000) perhaps 1 percent of live [[childbirth|birth]]s exhibit some degree of sexual ambiguity, and between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births are ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention, including sometimes involuntary [[surgery]] to address their sexual ambiguity.<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency
|title = How common is intersex?
|publisher = Intersex Society of North America
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref>

In any legal jurisdiction where marriages are defined without distinction of a requirement of a male and female, these complications do not occur, and some legal jurisdictions may recognize a legal and official change of gender, which would allow one to satisfy the requirement of either "male" or "female" according to their gender-identity within their legal definition of marriage. Although some legal jurisdictions continue to only recognize the "immutable traits determined at birth." (Linda Kantaras vs. Michael Kantaras)

In the United Kingdom, recent legislation (Gender Recognition Act 2004) allows a person who has lived in their chosen gender for at least two years to receive a gender recognition certificate officially recognizing their new gender. Because in the UK marriage is for mixed-sex couples and civil partnership is for same-sex couples, the person must dissolve their marriage or civil partnership before they can get their gender recognition certificate. They are then free to enter into a civil partnership or a marriage again with their former wife, husband, or civil partner.

In countries with legal systems based on the [[Napoleonic code]]s, being legally recognized as one's transitioned gender may require conditions of infertility, where if a transsexual were ever found to have had a child, it would result in a reversal of a legal sex change and spontaneous annulment of the marriage if that country does not recognize same-sex marriages.

In the United States, transsexual and intersexual marriages typically run into the complications detailed above. As definitions and enforcement of marriage is defined by the state, these complications will vary from state to state. In Massachusetts no problem should arise in seeking to get a marriage, or enforcing that marriage, however marriage in states that have more prohibitive definitions, ''any'' marriage with a transsexual could face challenge in a court based on any number of criteria.

{{wikinews|Interview with gay marriage movement founder Evan Wolfson}}

== Controversy ==
{{Globalize}}
{{Refimprovesect|date=September 2008}}
[[Image:World homosexuality laws.svg|thumb|Map showing the status of homosexuality laws of the world.

{{legend|#c0c0c0|No information}}
'''Homosexuality legal'''
{{legend|#57781f|Same sex marriages}}
{{legend|#99b453|Same sex unions}}
{{legend|#bed688|No same sex unions}}
{{legend|#7fbcff|International marriage licenses recognized}}
'''Homosexuality illegal'''
{{legend|#f9dc36|Minimal penalty}}
{{legend|#ec8028|Large penalty}}
{{legend|#e73e21|Life in prison}}
{{legend|#8c210f|Death penalty}}
{{legend|#a9a9a9|No info on penalty}}]]

The controversy over recognition of same-sex unions as marriages is part of a larger controversy concerning the role of government in recognizing and regulating intimate relationships. While there are few instances of societies recognizing same-sex unions as marriage{{Fact|[[User:Darimoma|Darimoma]] ([[User talk:Darimoma|talk]]) 03:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)|date=September 2008}}, the historical and anthropological record reveals a remarkable variety of treatment of same-sex unions ranging from sympathetic toleration to indifference to prohibition.{{Fact|[[User:Darimoma|Darimoma]] ([[User talk:Darimoma|talk]]) 03:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)|date=September 2008}} Some opponents of same-sex marriage argue that same-sex relationships are not marriages,<ref>http://www.savemarriageny.org/The%20Case%20Against%20Same-Sex%20Marriage%20and%20Civil%20Unions.pdf</ref> that legalization of same-sex marriage will open the door for the legalization of polygamy,<ref>http://www.nationformarriage.org/atf/cf/%7B39D8B5C1-F9FE-48C0-ABE6-1029BA77854C%7D/CatholicEnglish.pdf</ref> that legalization of same-sex marriage would erode religious freedoms,<ref>[http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp Banned in Boston<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> and that same-sex marriage deprives children of either a mother or a father.<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-blankenhorn19-2008sep19,0,2093869.story</ref> On the other hand, a 2004 Statement by the [[American Anthropological Association]] states that there is no evidence that society needs to maintain "marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution", and, further, that same-sex unions can "contribute to stable and humane societies."<ref>[http://www.aaanet.org/press/ma_stmt_marriage.htm Statement on Marriage and the Family from the American Anthropological Association]</ref> Further, some supporters of same-sex marriage take the view that the government should have no role in regulating personal relationships,<ref>See discussion of prenutial and postmarital agreements at Findlaw [http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/marriage-agreements/]</ref> while others argue that same-sex marriage would provide social benefits to same-sex couples.<ref>Professor Dale Carpenter is a prominent spokesman for this view. For a better understanding of this view, see Professor Carpenter's writings at http://www.indegayforum.org/staff/show/91.html.</ref>

The debate regarding same-sex marriage includes debate based upon social viewpoints as well as debate based on religious convictions, economic arguments, health-related concerns, and a variety of other issues.

=== Religious arguments ===
[[Image:Sergebac7thcentury.jpg|thumb|250px|Historian [[John Boswell (historian)|John Boswell]] claims the 4th century Christian martyrs [[Saints Sergius and Bacchus|Saint Sergius and Saint Bacchus]] were united in the rite of [[adelphopoesis]], or brother-making, which he calls an early form of religious same-sex marriage]]

====Christian opposition====
Some opponents object to same-sex marriage on [[homosexuality and religion|religious grounds]]. Opponents sometimes claim that extending marriage rights to same-sex couples could undercut the conventional purpose of marriage as interpreted by religious understanding.<ref>See e.g., Southern Baptist Convention, ''On Same-Sex Marriage'' (adopted 2003) http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1128 (visited January 20, 2008).</ref> Other opponents of same-sex marriage hold that same-sex marriage is contrary to God's will,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/robertson.html |title=The Religious Right and Anti-Gay Speech: Messengers of Love or Purveyors of Hate? |publisher=Matthew Shepard Online Resources}}</ref><ref name=autogenerated1>http://www.apacny.net/The%20Christian%20Case%20Against%20Same-Sex%20Marriage.pdf</ref> that it is unnatural<ref>{{cite web |url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE0DE1731F937A35753C1A964958260 |title=Anti-Gay Backlashes Are on 3 States' Ballots |date=1992-10-04 |accessdate=2008-06-06 |publisher=The New York Times}}</ref> and that it encourages unhealthy behavior.<ref>[http://www.balancedpolitics.org/same_sex_marriages.htm BalancedPolitics.org - Same Sex Marriages (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against)<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> Still others argue that same-sex marriage would encourage individuals to act upon homosexual urges, when such individuals ought to instead seek help to overcome the temptation toward homosexual behavior.<ref name=autogenerated1 /> Furthermore, opponents frequently argue that same-sex marriage cannot fulfill common procreational roles, and/or sanctions a partnership that is centered around sexual acts that their respective religion prohibits.{{Fact|date=September 2008}} For example, [[James Dobson]], in ''Marriage Under Fire'' and elsewhere, states that legalization or even tolerance of same-sex marriage would redefine the family, damage traditional family unions, and lead to an increase in the number of homosexual couples.
The Roman Catholic Church opposes recognition of same-sex unions, arguing that acts of sexual intimacy are only proper between a man and a woman, and that the proper setting for those acts is only within marriage. Secular government recognition of any other union within the definition of "marriage" would therefore reflect a belief in the moral equivalence of acts between a husband and wife and acts between two men or two women; this belief is contrary to Catholic doctrinal teaching and could in turn, it is feared, form the basis for public education requirements<ref>David Parker, the father of a kindergarten child in a Massachusetts public school, was arrested for trespassing on school property after a meeting during which he objected to teaching kindergarten children about same-sex marriage. A copy of the complaint in federal district court related to this arrest can be found at http://www.lexingtoncares.org/lawsuit2006-04-27/lawsuit.pdf.</ref> and legal enforcement of that view through laws restricting the actions of those who continue to believe that sexual acts between members of the same sex are not morally acceptable.<ref>See Maggie Gallagher, ''Banned in Boston''11 Weekly Standard 33 (2006) at [http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp?pg=1]</ref>

Catholic opponents also argue that inclusion of same-sex unions within the definition of marriage would also evidence rejection of the idea that, in general, it is best that children be raised by their biological mother and father, and that it is the community's interest in ensuring the well-being of children that forms the basis for the government's licensure and involvement in marriage.<ref>The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ''Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons'' (2003) [http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html] (visited January 20, 2008) (statement by Vatican department charged with promoting and safeguarding the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world).</ref>

[[Conservative Christianity|Conservatives]] and some moderate Christians further claim that homosexuality goes directly against biblical teaching, and extend this to same-sex marriage. Some Biblical scholars interpret Genesis 19:5 as indicating that homosexual behavior led to the destruction of the ancient cities of [[Sodom and Gomorrah]].<ref>{{cite book
| chapter = Genesis 19
| chapterurl = http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019%20;&version=31;
| title = New International Version
| publisher = BibleGateway.com
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref> Other passages interpreted as condemning homosexuality are Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and in the New Testament of the Bible, I Corinthians 6:8-10 and Romans 1:24-27.<ref>{{cite book
| chapter = Romans 1:24-27
| chapterurl = http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:24-27%20&version=31
| title = New International Version
| publisher = BibleGateway.com
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref> While these passages do not define the institution of marriage, Genesis 2:22-24 reads as follows: "Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%202:22-24&version=31 BibleGateway.com - Passage Lookup: Genesis 2:22-24<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> This passage is referred to by Jesus in the New Testament Gospel of Matthew.<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2019:4-5;&version=31; BibleGateway.com - Passage Lookup: Matthew 19:4-5<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> Furthermore, many Christians hold the belief that Romans 1 proscribes all homosexual behavior, regardless of its relational context.<ref>[http://www.ovrlnd.com/FalseDoctrine/Gay_Christians.html A Response to the 'Gay Christian' Movement<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>

====Christian acceptance====

Some moderate and [[Liberal Christianity|liberal Christians]] claim, however, that Biblical passages concerning homosexual behavior are taken out of full textual, historical and cultural contexts, and are not applicable to homosexual relationships as we know them today.{{Fact|date=September 2008}} They view the passages about Sodom and Gomorrah as referring to systematic [[rape]] and inhospitality.{{Fact|date=September 2008}} They view the passages in Leviticus as part of the [[Holiness Code]] and strictly reserved to the Israelites of that time.{{Fact|date=September 2008}} Some of this Holiness Code is not practiced by contemporary Christians (e.g., prohibitions on wearing mixed fabrics, a proscription of the consumption of pork, the sacrifice of animals as atonement for sins), while other parts such as the prohibitions on incestuous relations still are.{{Fact|date=September 2008}} For some modern Christians, the passage in Romans is seen as relating more to specific instances of Graeco-Roman temple sex acts and idolatrous worship and it is not intended to address contemporary homosexuality.<ref>{{cite paper
|url = http://members.cox.net/paulmcc/mcc/samegen.html
|title = Same Gender Sexual Behavior and the Scriptures
|publisher = Metropolitan Community Church of Topeka, authors and
|author = Loppnow, Rev. Jonathan; Evans, Rev. Paul C.
|format = .HTML; .SIT
|date= 7 January 1998
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}
</ref> Critics argue that this interpretation is not rooted in the Scriptural text, as nothing in the passage suggests that the commentary regarding homosexual behavior is directed solely at temple prostitution.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/dallas.html#Scriptural</ref>

Some modern religions and denominations perform same-sex weddings. At the 1996 [[Unitarian Universalism|Unitarian Universalist]] [[General Assembly (Unitarian Universalist Association)|General Assembly]], delegates voted overwhelmingly that because of "the inherent worth and dignity of every person," same-sex couples should have the same freedom to marry that other couples have.<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www.uua.org/news/freedomtomarry/index.html
|title = Freedom to Marry, for All People
|publisher = Unitarian Universalist Association
|year= 2006
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www.femdomale.com/samesex/marriage/index.html
|title = Same-Sex "Marriage": Should America Allow "Gay Rights" Activists to Cross The Last Cultural Frontier?
|publisher = Christian Leadership Ministries
|author = Anton N. Marco
|year= 1999
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref>

====Judaism====
Judaism, like Christianity, reflects differing views between conservative and liberal adherents. Orthodox Judaism maintains the traditional Jewish bans on both sexual acts and marriage amongst members of the same sex. The Orthodox Union in the United States supports a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.<ref> Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, Orthodox Response to Same-Sex Marriage, NY Jewish Week (Mar. 26, 2004) http://www.ou.org/public_affairs/article/ou_resp_same_sex_marriage/ (visited January 20, 2008) (Rabbi Weinreb is the Vice President of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, one of the oldest and largest organizations of Orthodox Jews in the United States); Rabbinical Council of America, Joining with Three Other Orthodox Organizations, RCA Opposes Redefinition of Marriage in New York State (June 21, 2007) http://www.rabbis.org/news/index.cfm?type=policies (visited January 20, 2008).</ref> Some Conservative Jews reject recognition of same-sex unions as marriage, but permit celebration of commitment ceremonies, in part as an expression their belief that scripture requires monogamy of all sexually active couples.<ref>Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, Homosexuality, Human Dignity, & Halakhah: A Combined Responsum for the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (approved by a majority of the Committee on Dec. 6, 2006) at http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/docs/Dorff_Nevins_Reisner_Final.pdf (visited January 20, 2008) (the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly is a committee of the international body of Conservative Rabbis).</ref> Members of Reform Judaism support the inclusion of same-sex unions within the definition of marriage.<ref>Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Civil Marriage for Gay and Lesbian Jewish Couples (adopted by the General Assembly 1997) http://urj.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=7214&pge_prg_id=29601&pge_id=4590 (visited January 20, 2008).</ref> The Jewish Reconstructionist Federation leaves the choice up to the individual rabbi.<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www.jrf.org/showres&rid=487
|title = FAQ's on Reconstructionist Approaches to Jewish ideas and Practices
|publisher = Jewish Reconstructionist Federation
|year= 2008
|accessdate=2008-05-17
}}</ref>

=== Arguments concerning children and the family ===
{{main|LGBT parenting}}
{{POV-section}}
Some opponents of same-sex marriage argue that a child should be raised by both a [[father]] and a [[mother]].<ref>[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0203/07/lkl.00.html Transcript of ''Larry King Live''], interview with Dr. James Dobson, [[March 7]], [[2002]].</ref><ref>[http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1aba862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a ____ The Family: A Proclamation to the World]</ref> [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] points to evidence which indicate "gender differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable" and "that fathers express more concern for the child’s longer-term development, while mothers focus on the child’s immediate well-being".<ref>[http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage The Divine Institution of Marriage]</ref> [[Focus on the Family]] points to academic studies which state that the presence of a father in the home increases children's cognitive and verbal skills, academic performance, involvement in or avoidance of high-risk behaviors and crime, and emotional and psychological health than children without a father.<ref name="Focus on the Family">[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions]</ref><ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080212095450.htm Children Who Have An Active Father Figure Have Fewer Psychological And Behavioral Problems]</ref><ref>Pruett, K. "Fatherneed: Why father care is as essential as mother care for your child," New York: Free Press, 2000.</ref><ref>"The Effects of Father Involvement: A Summary of the Research Evidence," Father Involvement Initiative Ontario Network, Fall 2002 newsletter.</ref><ref>Anderson Moore, K. "Family Structure and Child Well-being" Washington, DC: Child Trends, 2003.</ref><ref>United States. National Center for Fathering, Kansas City, MO. Partnership for Family Involvement in Education. [http://www.ed.gov/pubs/parents/calltocommit/fathers.pdf A Call to Commitment: Fathers' Involvement in Children's Learning]. June, 2000</ref> They also point to research which state the power and importance of the mother-child bond compared to children without a mother.<ref name="Focus on the Family" /><ref>B. Hunter, The Power of Mother Love. (Colorado Springs: Waterbrook Press, 1997).</ref><ref>Diane S. Feinberg, M.Ed. [http://www.dianefeinberg.com/article1.html The Importance of Mother and Child Attachment]</ref>

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 arrangements easier. A number of health and child welfare organizations, however, disagree. They include the Child Welfare League of America, North American Council on Adoptable Children, [[American Academy of Pediatrics]], [[American Psychiatric Association]], [[American Psychological Association]], and the [[National Association of Social Workers]].<ref name="aclu1">{{cite web
|url = http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=17245&c=104
|title = BAD LINK <!-- Too High A Price: The Case Against Restricting Gay Parenting -->
|publisher = American Civil Liberties Union
|author =
|date =
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref> On July 28, 2004, the American Psychological Association's Council of Representatives adopted a resolution supporting legalization of same-sex civil marriages and opposes discrimination against lesbian and gay parents.<ref>{{cite press release
|url = http://www.apa.org/releases/gaymarriage.html
|title = APS Supports Legalization of Same-sex Civil Marriages...
|publisher = American Psychological Association
|date= 28 July 2004
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref>
Noted Harvard political philosopher and legal scholar [[John Rawls]] supported gay marriage and did not believe that it would undermine the welfare of children.<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript1158.html pbs.org]</ref> Rawls, along with philosophers [[Robert Nozick]], [[Martha Nussbaum]], [[Cornel West]] and [[Susan Moller Okin]] among others, see same-sex marriage as a matter of justice within family and society.{{Fact|date=September 2008}}

In terms of numbers, the [[United States Census, 2000|2000 U.S. Census]] reports more than 600,000 same-sex couples (''unmarried domestic partners'' on the Census form) in the United States. The Census Bureau estimates that this number would be over 770,000 in 2005.<ref>{{cite paper
|url = http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/SameSexCouplesandGLBpopACS.pdf
|title = Same-sex Couples and the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Population: New Estimates from the American Community Survey
|author = Gary J. Gates, PhD
|publisher = The Williams Institute of UCLA Law School
|format = .PDF
|date=October 2006
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref> While a post-Census study by UCLA economist Dr. M.V. Lee Badgett found that there was a significant undercount of same-sex couples in 2000, the Census reports that among the couples answering they are a same-sex couple, one-third of lesbian couples and one-fifth of gay male couples have children under 18 living in the home.<ref>{{cite paper
| url = http://www.iglss.org/media/files/c2k_leftout.pdf
| author = M. V. Lee Badgett, Ph.D; Marc A. Rogers, Ph.D.
|year= 2003
| format = .PDF
| title = Left Out of the Count: Missing Same-Sex Couples in Census 2000
|publisher=Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref>

==== Arguments concerning divorce rates ====
{{limitedgeographicscope}}
[[Image:Wedded couple on Taiwan Pride 2006.jpg|thumb|One of four newly wedded same-sex couples in a public wedding at [[Taiwan Pride]] 2006.]]

Internationally, the most comprehensive study to date on the effect of same-sex marriage / partnership on heterosexual marriage and divorce rates was conducted looking at over 15 years of data from the Scandinavian countries. The study (later part of a book), by researcher [[Darren Spedale]], found that, 15 years after Denmark had granted same-sex couples the rights of marriage, rates of heterosexual marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of heterosexual divorce had gone down - contradicting the concept that same-sex marriage would have a negative effect on traditional marriage.<ref>{{cite journal | last = Eskridge | first = William N. Jr. | coauthors = [[Darren Spedale|Spedale, Darren R.]]; and Ytterberg, Hans | title = Nordic Bliss? Scandinavian Registered Partnerships and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate | journal = Journals of Legal Scholarship: Issues in Legal Scholarship | issue = 5 | pages = article 4 | publisher = The Berkeley Electronic Press | date = January 2004 | url = http://www.svgla.org/index.php?module=documents&JAS_DocumentManager_op=downloadFile&JAS_File_id=5&2f8d38d14523aa8f4042065cde1a5216=964e204e9824d505541efa48eb2208b5 | format = [[PDF]] | accessdate = 2008-09-23}} (see pgs.29-31)</ref>

A study on short-term same-sex marriages in Norway and Sweden found that divorce risks are higher in same-sex marriages than in opposite-sex marriages, and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more dynamic, than unions of gay men.<ref name="The Demographics of Same-Se">{{cite journal
|title=The Demographics of Same-Sex „Marriages“ in Norway and Sweden
|last=Andersson
|first=Gunnar
|url=http://www-same-sex.ined.fr/WWW/04Doc124Gunnar.pdf
|publisher=Demography
|volume=43
|number=1
|month=February | year=2006
|pages=79-98|format=PDF}} [http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:E_dDSKaxYhUJ:www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2004-018.pdf+Gunnar+%22The+Demographics+of+Same-Sex+Marriages%E2%80%9C+in+Norway+and+Sweden&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us Text version].</ref> The authors cited that this may be due to same-sex couples "non-
involvement in joint parenthood", "lower exposure to normative pressure about the necessity of life-long unions" as well as differing motivations for getting married.<ref name="The Demographics of Same-Se"/>

==== Reproduction ====
Those who advocate that marriage should be defined exclusively as the union of one man and one woman argue that heterosexual unions provide the procreative foundation of the family unit that is the chief social building block of civilization. Social conservatives and others may see marriage not as a legal construct of the state, but as a naturally occurring "pre-political institution" that the state must recognize as it recognizes other natural institutions such as jobs and families. "Government does not create marriage any more than government creates jobs."<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www.policyreview.org/apr05/morse.html
|title = Marriage and the Limits of Contract
|publisher = the Hoover Institution
|author = Jennifer Morse
|month= May | year= 2005
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref> They argue that the definition proposed by same-sex marriage advocates changes the social importance of marriage from its natural function of reproduction into a mere legality or freedom to have sex. 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.{{Fact|date=September 2008}} The dissent by Justice Martha Sosman in the decision of the Massachusetts high court that legalized same-sex marriage in that state makes a societal argument without specifying the harm that would occur from this change.<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://911fantasy.blogspot.com/1995/12/transcript-of-martha-sossmans-dissent.html
|title = Transcript of Martha Sossman's Dissent
|publisher = blogspot.com
|date= 23 December 1995
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref> Asserting the ''[[A priori and a posteriori (philosophy)|a priori]]'' importance of marriage as an institution, she questions whether the burden of proof that this would be harmless has been met. Her analysis can be seen as an example of [[precautionary principle]], which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.
{{rquote|right|'''Marriage is a vocabulary, it’s a vehicle, an engine for a larger discussion that moves people’s understanding of who gay people are, why sex discrimination is wrong, why exclusion is wrong in America, that brings up discussion of the separation of church and state, that brings up discussion of whether there should be limitations or roles based on sex, or whether men and women should be treated equally.'''|[[Evan Wolfson]]<ref>[http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Interview_with_gay_marriage_movement_founder_Evan_Wolfson Interview with Evan Wolfson], David Shankbone, ''[[Wikinews]]'', September 30, 2007.</ref>}}

Another argument in favor of traditional marriage is that it reflects the biological imperative and innate construct between males and females; that despite the natural desire to procreate, there is also a biological desire to mate with the opposite gender.{{Fact|date=September 2008}} This view posits that marriage has a universally important shared public meaning, that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.{{Fact|date=September 2008}} That core meaning is essential in influencing the forming of the individual identity to an extent that common sense readily comprehends.<ref>[http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/DJCLPP/index.php?action=showitem&id=24#H1N2 DJCLPP - Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>

Another approach to marriage is based on the belief that the government's involvement in marriage arises from the procreative potential of heterosexual relationships.{{Fact|date=September 2008}} A common objection to same-sex marriage is that the purpose of marriage is a result of naturally occurring sexual attraction that leads to procreation, and that the same-sex partnership is inherently sterile.{{Fact|date=September 2008}}

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.{{Fact|date=September 2008}} Based on research showing that, on average, children do best when raised by their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage,<ref>See e.g., Kristin Anderson Moore, et al., ''Marriage from a Child's Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children and What Can We Do About It?,''Child Trends Research Brief (June 2002)[http://www.childtrends.org/files/MarriageRB602.pdf]</ref> some argue that legal marriage is a way of encouraging monogamy and commitment by those who may create children through their sexual coupling.<ref>http://www.savemarriageny.org/UST_fall2004.pdf</ref><ref>Maggie Gallagher is a prominent spokeswoman for this view. For an in-depth understanding of this view, see her blog at http://www.marriagedebate.com/.</ref> One prominent supporter of this viewpoint, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher, argues that "marriage as a universal social institution is grounded in certain universal features of human nature. When men and women have sex, they make babies. Reproduction may be optional for individuals, but it is not optional for societies. Societies that fail to have “enough” babies fail to survive. And babies are most likely to grow to functioning adulthood when they have the care and attention of both their mother and their father."<ref>http://www.savemarriageny.org/UST_fall2004.pdf</ref>

In opposing same-sex marriage in various state courts, a common key state's argument against allowing same-sex marriage has been the use of legal marriage to foster the state's interest in human reproduction. In ''[[Anderson et al. v. King County]]'' in which several same-sex couples argued that the state of Washington's version of the [[Defense of Marriage Act]] (DOMA) was unconstitutional, the [[Washington Supreme Court]] ruled 5 to 4 that the law was constitutional. Writing in the majority opinion, Justice Barbara Madsen wrote in 2006:
<blockquote>''The Legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are brought up in homes headed by children's biological parents.''</blockquote>.{{Fact|date=September 2008}}

(See also [[Same-sex marriage in Washington]], [[Same-sex marriage and procreation]])

In responding to this argument in 2007, the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, a supporter of same-sex marriage, began a petition drive to place a ballot measure on the November 2007 ballot that would require opposite-sex couples who marry to have children within three years or have their marriages become legally unrecognized..{{Fact|date=September 2008}} Couples seeking a marriage license would also have to show they can produce children..{{Fact|date=September 2008}} The group admits this ballot initiative aims at calling attention to the Washington Supreme Court's decision in ''Anderson'' and the logical extension of this reasoning to childless and/or sterile heterosexual couples..{{Fact|date=September 2008}}

Some proponents of same-sex marriage also argue that because the law does not prohibit marriage between sterile heterosexual couples or to women past [[menopause]], the procreation argument cannot reasonably be used against same-sex marriage, particularly since technological advances allow gay couples to have their own related biological children.<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marint2.htm
|title = Is Same-Sex Marriage (SSM) a Bad Idea?
|publisher = Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
|author = B.A. Robinson
|date= 10 April 2004
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref> Some same-sex marriage proponents, such as [[Andrew Sullivan]], argue that same-sex marriage is moral enough to support the family-centered role that marriage plays in society despite the absence of biological children.{{Fact|date=September 2008}}

=== Social arguments ===
Another school of thought regarding social arguments against same-sex marriage holds that same-sex marriage is a red herring designed to create legal principles under which sexual orientation will be treated as an immutable characteristic like race, and that same-sex marriage advocates seek to use the law to "stigmatize, marginalize, and repress those who disagree with the government’s new views on marriage and sexual orientation."<ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGNmODNiMjI0MTQ1MTQwNGM4N2YyNmVhY2UyZTE0OWY= </ref>

Advocates of same-sex marriage oppose these social arguments. Some [[gay rights]] advocates assert that legal recognition of marriage is based upon the government's interest in encouraging stable, committed relationships..{{Fact|date=September 2008}} Advocates for recognition of same-sex unions argue that there is no difference in the ability of same-sex and opposite-sex couples to make commitments and care for each other, and therefore the law of marriage should apply to both.<ref>Professor Dale Carpenter is a prominent spokesman for this view. For a better understanding of this view, see Professor Carpenter's writings at http://www.indegayforum.org/staff/show/91.html.</ref>

Some disagree with the idea of government recognition of any marriages, arguing that the personal relationships of citizens are not a proper issue of governmental concern.{{Fact|date=September 2008}} This view is often expressed by those who see the only legal issues related to marriage involving the nature and extent of parties’ consent to the relationship.{{Fact|date=September 2008}} Proponents of this view argue that the parties should define almost all aspects of the relationship, in much the same way that parties to other types of contracts are generally free to define the terms of their agreement.{{Fact|date=September 2008}} Prenuptial and postnuptial agreements arise among those holding this view.<ref>See discussion of prenuptial and postmarital agreements at Findlaw [http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/marriage-agreements/]</ref>

Dissidents to the same-sex marriage movement within the gay community argue that the pursuit of social recognition and legal benefits by means of marriage reinforces marriage as an institution of exclusion, because it extends rights and benefits to people on the basis of their relationship status.<ref>''The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life,'' Michael Warner, Harvard University Press</ref> Some of these rights (e.g., health care insurance), they argue, should be made available to all people, including those who are single and those whose families are composed of three or more intimate partners.{{Fact|date=September 2008}}

Others hold that all marriages should be viewed legally as "[[civil union]]s."{{Fact|date=September 2008}}

=== Arguments about tradition ===
{{Unreferencedsection|date=June 2008}}

Proponents of same-sex marriage point out that "traditional" concepts of marriage in actuality have already undergone [[History of civil marriage in the U.S.|significant change]].

They argue that polygamy has been prohibited, married women are no longer considered the property of their husbands, [[divorce]] is legal, [[birth control|contraception]] within wedlock is allowed, and [[miscegenation|anti-miscegenation laws]] forbidding [[interracial marriage]] have been eliminated in most modern societies.

The idea that changes in the customs and protocols of marriage often occur gives rise to the argument that marriage is dynamic, and same-sex marriage is only the latest evolution of the institution.

Opponents of such a point of view note that the prohibition of [[interracial marriage]], opposition to [[polygamy]], legality of [[divorce]] and the concept of the wife as the property of the husband, have been dependent upon any given society, throughout history. None have been an historical norm, either as accepted or prohibited. These forms of marriage have had varying degrees of acceptance or formation throughout cultures, societies, and civilizations in recorded history. These opponents note that "marriage" between members of the same gender in historical incidence are speculative at best, and in fact have little if any historical record.

=== Arguments concerning equality ===
[[Image:Newlywed.jpg|left|thumb|Newlywed male same-sex couple at Gaypride 2006 in [[Reykjavik]].]]
{{refimprovesect|date=September 2008}}
Some argue in favor of same-sex marriage because they say that sexual orientation is uncontrollable.{{Fact|date=September 2008}} They cite many scientific studies which they claim<ref>[http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation]</ref> indicate that no one can choose or change their sexual orientation, and that forbidding marriage between two people of the same sex is like forbidding marriage between two people of the same eye color, skin color, or nose length.{{Fact|date=September 2008}} Some believe that sexual orientation is genetically determined, just like these traits, and thus should not be cited as a basis for discrimination.{{Fact|date=September 2008}} The [[American Psychiatric Association]] has stated "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime."<ref name="Psych">{{cite web
|url=http://www.aglp.org/pages/cfactsheets.html#Anchor-Gay-14210
|title=Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues
|author=[[American Psychiatric Association]]
|publisher=Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrics
|date=May 2000}}</ref>

Some opponents of same-sex marriage (including some [[ex-gay]] organizations) argue that sexual behavior is not genetic or unchangeable, reasoning that if homosexuality is not genetic or unchangeable, it is not unjust for government to define marriage as the union of one woman and one man.<ref>http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000778.cfm</ref><ref>http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000780.cfm</ref><ref>http://www.massunitedfamilies.org/ufimass/aboutssm.cfm</ref><ref>http://www.apacny.net/The%20Christian%20Case%20Against%20Same-Sex%20Marriage.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.family.org.au/Journals/2003/challenge.htm</ref> Same-sex marriage opponents support this position with research as well as anecdotal evidence regarding efforts to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions.<ref>http://www.narth.com/docs/senatecommittee.html</ref>

In Deane & Polyak v. Conaway, the Maryland Supreme Court ruled "There is no fundamental right to marry a person of your own sex".<ref name="MDCourtofAppealsOpinion">{{cite web
|url= http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2007/44a06.pdf
|title= Court of Appeals of Maryland Opinion on ''Frank Conaway, et al. v. Gitanjali Deane, et al., No. 44, Sept. Term 2006''
|accessdate=2008-01-25
|last= Harrell
|first= Raker
|coauthors=
|date= 2007-09-18
|work=
|publisher=
}}</ref> In the [[United States]], there are at least 1,138 federal laws "in which marital status is a factor."<ref>{{cite paper
|url = http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
|title = Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior Report
|publisher = United States General Accounting Office
|year= 2004
|accessdate=2007-03-08
|format=PDF}}</ref> (See [[Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States]] for a partial list) A denial of rights or benefits without substantive [[due process]], assert the proponents of same-sex marriage, directly contradicts the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution]] which provides for [[Equal Protection Clause|equal protection]] of all citizens. For instance, a heterosexual U.S. citizen who marries a foreign partner immediately qualifies to bring that person to the United States, while long-term gay and lesbian binational partners who have spent decades together are denied the same rights, forcing foreign gay partners to seek expensive temporary employer or school-sponsored visas or face separation. See [http://www.immigrationequality.org/familyunvalued.php Immigration Equality] and [http://hrw.org/reports/2006/us0506/ Human Rights Watch] report on this and other forms of alleged discrimination against same-sex couples.

In a 2003 case titled ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'', the Supreme Court held that the [[rights|right]] to private consensual sexual conduct was protected under the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]]. Both supporters and detractors of same-sex marriage have noted that this ruling paved the way for subsequent decisions invalidating state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. U.S. Supreme Court Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] noted as such in his dissenting opinion to ''Lawrence''.{{fact}} The Maryland Supreme Court ruled that the case did not establish the right to same-sex marriage.<ref name="MDCourtofAppealsOpinion" />

Some opponents of extending marriage to same-sex couples claim that equality can be achieved with [[civil union]]s or other forms of legal recognition that don't go as far as to use the word "marriage" that's used for opposite-sex couples. An opposing argument, used by the [[Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court]] in ''[[Goodridge v. Department of Public Health]]'', is the following: ''"the dissimilitude between the terms "civil marriage" and "civil union" is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status"'' and also that ''"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."'' For instance, in matters under federal purview such as immigration, a bi-national same-sex couple committed under civil union do not have the same rights as their married heterosexual counterparts in sponsoring their [[alien (law)|alien]] partner for [[permanent residency]].{{fact}} There is, however, a bill pending in the [[United States Congress]] since 2000, called [[Uniting American Families Act]] pertaining to this alleged discrimination.

Of all of the state supreme courts that have considered cases alleging that an opposite-sex definition of marriage is unconstitutional and discriminatory, only five -- the high courts of Hawaii (later reversed by constitutional amendment), Vermont, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and California -- have found opposite-sex marriage to be unconstitutional and discriminatory (see [[Same-sex marriage in the United States]], [[Same-sex marriage status in the United States by state]], and [[Hawaii Constitutional Amendment 2 (1998)]]).<ref>http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/05/15/california-court-legalizes-same-sex-marriage.html</ref>

Some opponents of same-sex marriage argue that a state’s decision to
define marriage as a relationship between one woman and one man does not discriminate against anyone; according to this view, the 48 states in the United States that do not allow same-sex marriage<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/26/business/main4383948.shtml?source=RSSattr=Business_4383948</ref> confer identical rights upon adult, unmarried persons: the right to marry any consenting, unrelated, unmarried adult of the opposite sex.<ref>http://www.apacny.net/MarriageTalkingPoints.pdf</ref>

=== Parallels to interracial marriage ===
Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that men and women are fundamentally different from one another, whereas interracial couples still fit within the "one man and one woman" definition of marriage.<ref name="mmarriage">{{cite video
|url = http://www.secureminnesotaformarriage.org/ss/live/index.php?action=viewprod&sid=64&pid=149&pageid=258
| title = The Battle for Marriage in Minnesota
| publisher = Minnesota for Marriage
| medium = Video
| format = MPEG-4; WM9
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref> Louisiana State University law professor Katherine Spaht has characterized the debate as follows: “the fundamental understanding of marriage has always been, by definition, a man and a woman. Never did Webster’s dictionary define the term marriage in terms of the races. There is an inherent difference between interracial marriage and same-sex “marriage” because homosexuals cannot procreate." {{rquote|right|'''Knocking down bans on interracial marriage did not redefine marriage, it affirmed marriage by saying that any man has a right to marry any woman under the law. But what same-sex ‘marriage’ proponents seek to do is to radically redefine the very definition of marriage to say it’s not about gender. Marriage is about bringing the genders together, not keeping the races apart.”|-[[Focus on the Family (United States)|Focus on the Family]]’s Glenn Stanton<ref>{{cite news
|url = http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17988
|title = Bans on interracial marriage, same-sex ‘marriage’ -- parallels?
|publisher = Baptist Press
|author = Michael Foust
|date= 2 April 2004
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref>}} Proponents of same-sex marriage make a comparison between [[racial segregation]] and segregation of homosexual and heterosexual marriage classifications in civil law.<ref>{{cite news
|url = http://hnn.us/articles/4708.html
|title = Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation
|publisher = History News Network of George Mason University
|author = Peggy Pascoe
|date= 19 April 2004
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}} </ref> They argue that dividing the concept of same-sex marriage and different-sex marriage is tantamount to "[[separate but equal]]" policies (like that overturned in the U.S. Supreme Court case [[Brown v. Board of Education]]), or [[anti-miscegenation laws]] that were also overturned by the Supreme Court in 1967 in ''[[Loving v. Virginia]]''.

In 1972, after the Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling in ''[[Baker v. Nelson]]'' specifically distinguished ''Loving'' as not being applicable to the same-sex marriage debate, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question." This type of dismissal usually constitutes a decision [[on the merits]] of the case; as such, Baker appeared &mdash; at least for a time &mdash; to be binding precedent on all lower federal courts.

It is unclear whether ''Baker v. Nelson'' remains as a potential bar to the federal courts from hearing cases regarding same-sex marriage. The federal [[Defense of Marriage Act]] of 1996 (DOMA) simultaneously created (1) a federal definition of marriage, {{UnitedStatesCode|1|7}}, and (2) a new rule under the [[Full Faith and Credit Act]] (passed pursuant to Congress's authority under the federal Constitution's [[Full Faith and Credit Clause]]), {{UnitedStatesCode|28|1738C}}, purporting to limit mandatory interstate recognition of same-sex marriages. By "federalizing" marriage with statutes that are susceptible to judicial scrutiny, Congress effectively — albeit perhaps unintentionally — expanded the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts, seemingly superseding Baker's dismissal "for want of a substantial federal question."

This loophole in jurisdiction recently came to light when a same-sex couple was granted standing to sue in federal district court on a claim that DOMA is unconstitutional under the federal Constitution. See ''Smelt v. County of Orange'', 374 F. Supp. 2d 861 ([[United States District Court for the Central District of California|C.D. Cal.]], 2005), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 447 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 396 (2006). In ''Smelt'', the district court applied Pullman abstention to one part of the claim, but it proceeded to the merits on another part, finding DOMA to be constitutional. The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]] affirmed the district court on the abstention question, but it reversed the district court on the merits, holding that the couple lacked standing to sue. The Ninth Circuit raised the standing question ''[[sua sponte]]'', but only because the couple had not demonstrated the requisite injury. The Ninth Circuit left open the possibility that another couple with a demonstrable injury could bring the same suit in the future. Importantly, ''Baker v. Nelson'' is mentioned nowhere in the Ninth Circuit's opinion; its continuing relevance is therefore highly suspect.

Beginning in 2003, members of Congress have annually introduced a "[[Jurisdiction stripping|court-stripping]]" provision that would prevent all federal courts from hearing claims challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. See, e.g., Marriage Protection Act of 2003, H.R. 3313 (108th Cong., 1st Sess.). This proposed court-stripping provision has itself been challenged as being of dubious constitutionality. See Jason J. Salvo, Comment, Naked Came I: Jurisdiction-Stripping and the Constitutionality of House Bill 3313, 29 Seattle U. L. Rev. 963 (Summer 2006); Maxim O. Mayer-Cesiano, On Jurisdiction-Stripping: The Proper Scope of Inferior Federal Courts' Independence from Congress, 8 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 559 (May 2006); J. Spencer Jenkins, Note, 'Til Congress Do Us Part: The Marriage Protection Act, Federal Court-Stripping, and Same-Sex Marriage, 40 New Eng. L. Rev. 619 (Winter 2006); Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Note, The Marriage Protection Act: A Lesson in Congressional Over-Reaching, 50 N.Y. L. Sch. L. Rev. 809 (2005-2006); Michael J. Gerhardt, The Constitutional Limits to Court-Stripping, 9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 347 (Summer 2005); Theodore J. Weiman, Comment, Jurisdiction Stripping, Constitutional Supremacy, and the Implications of Ex Parte Young, 153 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1677 (2005).

=== Economic arguments ===
Economic arguments on the impact of same-sex marriage focus on the effects on same-sex couples, businesses, employers, and governments.{{Fact|date=September 2008}}<!-- What about health care costs? --> Dr. M. V. Lee Badgett, an economist and associate professor at the [[University of Massachusetts Amherst]], has studied the impact of same-sex legal marriage on all four of these groups.

'''Impact on same-sex couples:''' Badgett finds that exclusion from legal marriage has an economic impact on same-sex couples. According to a 1997 General Accounting Office study requested by Rep. [[Henry Hyde]] (R), at least 1,049 U.S. Federal laws and regulations include reference to marital status. A later 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office finds 1,138 statutory provisions "in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving 'benefits, rights, and privileges.'"<ref name=cbo1>{{cite paper
|url = http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5559&sequence=0
|title = The Potential Budgetary Impact of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages
|publisher = Congressional Budget Office
|format = .HTML; .PDF
|date= 21 June 2004
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref> Many of these laws govern property rights, benefits, and taxation. Same-sex couples are ineligible for spousal and survivor Social Security benefits. Badgett's research finds the resulting difference in Social Security income for same-sex couples compared to opposite-sex married couples is US$5,588 per year. The federal ban on same-sex marriage and benefits through the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) extends to federal government employee benefits. For example, after the 2006 death of former Massachusetts Congressman [[Gerry Studds]] (D), the first openly gay member of Congress, his legal spouse Dean Hara was denied the estimated $114,337 annual pension to which Hara would have been eligible if their Massachusetts marriage was recognized on the federal level. According to Badgett's work, same-sex couples face other financial challenges against which legal marriage at least partially shields opposite-sex couples:

* potential loss of couple's home from medical expenses of one partner caring for another gravely ill one

* costs of supporting two households, travel, or emigration out of the U.S. for an American citizen unable to legally marry a non-US citizen

* higher cost of purchasing private insurance for partner and children if company is not one of 18% that offer domestic partner benefits

* higher taxes: unlike a company's contribution to an employee's spouse's health insurance, domestic partner benefits are taxed as additional compensation

* legal costs associated with obtaining domestic partner documents to gain some of the power of attorney, health care decision-making, and inheritance rights granted through legal marriage

* higher health costs associated with lack of insurance and preventative care: 20% of same-sex couples have a member who is uninsured compared to 10% of married opposite-sex couples

* current tax law allows a spouse to inherit an unlimited amount from the deceased without incurring an estate tax but an unmarried partner would have to pay the estate tax on the inheritance from her/his partner

* same-sex couples are not eligible to file jointly or separately as a married couple and thus cannot take the advantages of lower tax rates when the individual income of the partners differs significantly

While state laws grant full marriage rights (Massachusetts) or some or all of the benefits under another name (Vermont, New Jersey, California, etc.), these state laws do not extend the benefits of marriage on the Federal level, and most states do not currently recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions from other states.

One often overlooked aspect of same-sex marriage are the potential ''negative'' effects on same-sex couples. While the legal benefits of marriage are numerous, same-sex couples would face the same financial constraints of legal marriage as opposite-sex married couples. Such potential effects include the [[marriage penalty]] in taxation. Similarly, while social service providers usually do not count one partner's assets toward the income means test for welfare and disability assistance for the other partner, a legally married couple's joint assets are normally used in calculating whether a married individual qualifies for assistance.

'''Impact on businesses:''' Dr. M. V. Lee Badgett's research estimates the potential impact on businesses of same-sex marriage legalization to be $2 billion to the wedding industry alone. Badgett derives this estimate by calculating the amount spent on weddings if a) half of same-sex couples marry and b) each couple spends 1/4 the average amount spent on an opposite-sex wedding (US$27,600 average wedding cost / 4 = US$6,900 per same-sex couple).

'''Impact on employers''': In terms of employers where marriage opponents fear higher benefit costs, Badgett and Mercer Human Resources Consulting separately find less than 1% of employees with a same-sex partner sign up for domestic partner benefits when a company offers them. Badgett finds less than 0.3% of Massachusetts firms' employees signed up for spousal benefits when that state legalized same-sex marriage.

'''Impact on governments''': A 2004 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report examines the impact of allowing the 1.2 million Americans in same-sex domestic partnerships in the 2000 Census to marry and finds the impact to be comparatively small in terms of the huge Federal budget. While some spending on Federal programs would increase, these outlays would be offset by more savings in other spending areas. The report predicts that if same-sex marriage was legalized in all 50 states and on the Federal level, the U.S. government would bring in a net surplus of US$1 billion per year over the next 10 years.<ref name=cbo1/> In terms of specific programs' spending the report states:


During this process, the ''Bureau d'études des postes et télécommunications d'outre-mer'' was created. It can intervene when asked by oversea territories and independent states thank to four internal services.<ref name="Fullsack et Jaffré"/>
<blockquote>''Recognizing same-sex marriages would increase outlays for Social Security and for the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program, CBO estimates, but would reduce spending for Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, and Medicare. Effects on other programs would be negligible. Altogether, CBO concludes, recognizing same-sex marriages would affect outlays by less than $50 million a year in either direction through 2009 and reduce them by about $100 million to $200 million annually from 2010 through 2014.''<ref name=cbo1/></blockquote>


The [[postage stamp]] service prepared philatelic products. The operation and juridic affair service helped to organize postal and telecommunication networks in these countries, including the redaction of regulations and laws. The technical purchase service centralized orders from different countries to bargain over prices with French firms. The technical cooperation service trained the managers at CIPEC-PT, a post and telecommunication school in [[Toulouse]]. The CIPEC-PT declined with the opening of specialized training schools in Africa.
The CBO study counters the economic argument by some U.S. critics of same-sex marriage against governmental recognition on the grounds that the public should not have to shoulder the burden of increased taxes and insurance premiums to cover the associated costs.<ref>{{cite news
|url = http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004735
|title = For Better or for Worse?
|publisher = WSJ OpinionJournal
|author = Mary Ann Glendon
|date= 25 February 2004
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref>


In 1991, the general inspection wrote a report for the Minister of Indutry about the post and telecommunication cooperation.<ref name="Fullsack et Jaffré"/> Then, discussions with public and private actors of the sectors in France and Africa concluded to the disappearance of the BEPTOM, officially on 1st January 1995 following a decree signed by Prime Minister [[Édouard Balladur]] on 22 December 1995.<ref name="Décret 1994">Decree #94-1142 of 22 December 1994 on [http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnTexteDeJorf?numjo=INDX9400145D legifrance.gouv.fr] and on [http://www.admi.net/jo/19941228/INDX9400145D.html admi.net].</ref>
=== Health arguments ===


== Actions in the postal sector ==
Opponents of same-sex marriage have brought up concerns for the health of [[men who have sex with men]].<ref>[http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1136 Amsterdam AIDS Study Adds Fuel To Same-Sex Marriage Debate]</ref><ref>[http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02#edn12 Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples]</ref> A 2003 study found that most new HIV infections among homosexual men in Amsterdam occur within steady relationships.<ref>[http://www.aidsonline.com/pt/re/aids/fulltext.00002030-200305020-00012.htm;jsessionid=LQTMpphdG2Ph21ZTnyknxddXkZz8QysLVtrQHplJxv7b23P221Kb!353761397!181195628!8091!-1#P37 The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam]</ref> Men in registered partnerships with other men were also at an elevated cancer risk in Denmark.<ref>[http://171.66.121.65/cgi/content/full/157/11/966 Cancer in a Population-based Cohort of Men and Women in Registered Homosexual Partnerships]</ref> In general, men who have sex with men also have higher prevalence of [[HIV]], [[Hepatitis B]] virus, [[Hepatitis C]] virus, [[HHV-8]],<ref name="FDA">[http://www.fda.gov/Cber/faq/msmdonor.htm FDA Policy on Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men]</ref> [[syphilis]],<ref>[http://www.cdc.gov/std/syphilis/STDFact-MSM&Syphilis.htm#concern Syphilis & MSM (Men Who Have Sex With Men) - CDC Fact Sheet], Centers for Disease Control and Prevention</ref> and [[human papillomavirus]]<ref>{{cite news
The BEPTOM help to install, maintain and regulate postal networks included the creation of [[postage stamp]]s if the territories and countries asked for it. If they kept the choice of the subjects depicted on stamps, the BEPTOM brought the necessary expertise: French stamp designers and engravers and the French Post' printer plant, the ''[[Imprimerie des timbres-poste et des valeurs fiduciaires]]''.
|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/health/30virus.html
|title=New Vaccine for Cervical Cancer Could Prove Useful in Men, Too
|first=David
|last=Tuller
|date=[[January 30]], [[2007]]
|publisher=New York Times}}</ref>


The ''Agence des timbres-poste d'outre-mer'' (ATPOM, Overseas Postage Stamp Agency), located ''avenue de la Bourdonnais'' in [[Paris]], sold the stamps to collectors. It was a continuous activity started by the Minister of Colonies in the 1894, then at the ''[[Pavillon de Flore]]'' in the [[Palais du Louvre|Louvre Palace]], and after at different adresses: 10 rue du Mont-Thabor, rue Vaneau and 80 rue du Faubourg-Saint-Denis.<ref name="Timbroscopie 118">''[[Timbres magazine|Timbroscopie]]'' #118, November 1994, page 83.</ref> African post offices promoted their philately at low cost because the French philatelic press and stamp dealers contacted directly the ATPOM.
=== Other arguments opposing same-sex marriage ===
Some same-sex marriage opponents take the view that legalization of same-sex marriage will open the door to the redefinition of marriage to include other family forms such as polygamy; some are concerned that the same arguments used to advocate for same-sex marriage legislation could be used to advocate for other legally-recognized arrangments that would have unknown (and possibly detrimental) effects on children.<ref>http://www.savemarriageny.org/The%20Case%20Against%20Same-Sex%20Marriage%20and%20Civil%20Unions.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp</ref>''[[The Weekly Standard]]'' commentator Stanley Kurtz argues allowing same-sex marriage blurs other common law precedents and will lead to the legalization of a variety of non-traditional relationships (see [[Slippery-slope argument]]).<ref>{{cite news
|url = http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp
|title = Beyond Gay Marriage
|publisher = Weekly Standard
|author = Stanley Kurtz
|date= 4 August 2003
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref>


At the beginning of the 1990s, the oversea territories and African countries' post offices were inform of the project to close the BEPTOM. [[La Poste]] postage stamp agency, the [[Phil@poste|Postage Stamp and Philately National Service]], proposed its printing service to the [[Overseas collectivity|Overseas collectivities]], its subsidiaries in [[Mayotte]] and [[Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon]] and the independent public postal operators in [[New Caledonia]], [[French Polynesia]] and [[Wallis-et-Futuna]].<ref name="Timbroscopie 118"/>
* [[Polygamy]]. The gist of this argument is that the traditional definition of marriage involves two components, a commitment to one person of the opposite sex, and that changing one of these components (restricting it to members of opposite sexes) would necessarily lead to a change in the other component (restricting it to only one person).{{Fact|date=September 2008}}
* [[Polyamory]]. Defined as the practice whereby a person has more than one long term [[love|loving relationship]] in their life, with the knowledge and acceptance of others they are involved with, in whatever form is chosen by those involved. This can include long term stable [[group marriage]]s, or stable couples who have external partners as well as their 'primary' partner. A polyamorous civil union in the Netherlands in 2005 sparked many comparisons with gay marriage on American conservative blogs.<ref>{{cite news
|url = http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/494pqobc.asp
|title = Here Come the Brides
|publisher = The Weekly Standard
|author = Stanley Kurtz
|date= 26 December 2005
|accessdate=2007-03-08
}}</ref>
* [[Marriage of convenience|Marriages of convenience]] for tax or other reasons.
* [[Human-animal marriage]].{{Fact|date=September 2008}}


In Africa, BEPTOM helped post offices took two ways on the market of postage stamp creation: either they hired printers to print their philatelic program, or they gave an agency the contract of creating, printing and selling this program. Depending on the countries' financial possibilities and need in postage stamps for their interior market, some kept a controlled policy of stamp issues like [[Mali]] that hired reputed printers like [[Courvoisier]] and the Tunisian post. Others lost control of their issuing policy like [[Burkina Faso]]: agencies proposed on the philatelic market lots of stamps without any thematical links to the country. From the creation of the [[WADP Numbering System]] (''WNS'') and the discovery of [[illegal stamps]], never ordered by the countries they bore the name, former BEPTOM helped countries in Francophone Africa had retook charge of their philatelic programs.<ref name="Melot 2007">Michel Melot, "L'Afrique francophone, le nouvel eldorado des collectionneurs ?", article published in ''[[Timbres magazine]]'' #76, February 2007, pages 38-43.</ref>
==See also==
{{Col-begin}}
{{Col-2}}
* [[Adelphopoiesis]] (''"brother-making"'')
* [[Adoption by same-sex couples]]
* [[Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches]]
* [[Defense of Marriage Act]]
* [[Heterosexism]]
* [[List of LGBT couples]]
* [[Marriage gap]]
* [[Marriage#Rights and obligations relating to marriage|Marriage rights and obligations]]
* [[:Category:Marriage, unions and partnerships by country|Marriage, unions and partnerships by country]]
{{Col-2}}
{{Portal|LGBT|Portal LGBT.svg}}
* [[Mixed-orientation marriage]]
* [[Religion and sexuality]]
* [[United States Census, 2000#Gay and lesbian controversy|Same-sex controversy in the U.S. Census 2000]]
* [[Same-sex marriage and procreation]]
* [[Status of same-sex marriage]]
* [[Timeline of same-sex marriage]]
* [[Traditional marriage movement]]
* [[Uniting American Families Act]]
* [[LGBT retirement issues]]
{{Col-end}}
===Documentaries and literature===
* ''[[A Union in Wait]]''
* ''[[Pursuit of Equality]]''
* MTV's True Life: ''[[I'm Gay and I'm Getting Married]]''


== Actions in the telecommunication sector ==
==Footnotes==
By its actions financed partly with public subventions and unbilled to the helped countries, the BEPTOM competited with the [[Société française d'études de télécommunications]] and [[France Câbles et Radio]], even if the latter controlled the international communication market of around fifteen countries without financing and maintaining the interior network. Progressively, to respect competitors, the BEPTOM limited itself to urgency interventions and to help privatized [[France Télécom]] take step in these markets.<ref name="Fullsack et Jaffré"/>
{{Reflist|2}}
==References==
{{refbegin|1}}
* [http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/entry/Mass-governor-orders-26-gay-marriages-registered Mass. governor orders 26 gay marriages registered], Breaking Legal News, April 3, 2007
{{refend}}


After the BEPTOM disappeared, French associations, such as CSDPTT, continued the cooperative actions in Africa.
==External links==
{{commonscat|Same-sex marriage}}
*[http://www.newsweek.com/id/142307 Where Can Gays Wed? Newsweek's Interactive Map on same-sex marriage legislation in the United States by Marc Bain, Alicia Parlapiano and Xaquín G.V.]
*[http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/california-supreme-court-set-to-consider-gay-marriage/18429/ ''LA Weekly'' feature, "California Supreme Court Set to Consider Gay Marriage," Feb. 2008 by Matthew Fleischer]
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-wolfson/today-is-freedom-to-marry_b_86282.html Today is Freedom to Marry Day - Just Don't Say "Gay Marriage"!], Evan Wolfson, ''[[Huffington Post]]'', February 12, 2008.
*[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF ''Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco''] California Supreme Court Opinion overturning ban on same-sex unions, May 15, 2008
*[http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.May2008.pdf American Courts on Marriage: Is Marriage Discriminatory? 1998-2008], Joshua Baker, [[Institute for Marriage and Public Policy]], May 2008.


==References and sources==
== Bibliography ==
;Notes
<div class="references-small">
{{Reflist}}
* {{cite book |last=Boswell |first=John |authorlink=John Boswell (historian)|year=1995 |title=The Marriage of Likeness: Same-sex Unions in Pre-modern Europe |publisher=Simon Harper and Collins |location=New York |id=ISBN 0-00-255508-5}}
* {{cite book |last=Wolfson |first=Evan |authorlink=Evan Wolfson |year=2004 |title=Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry |publisher=Simon & Schuster |location=New York |id=ISBN 0-7432-6459-2}}
* {{cite book |last=Boswell |first=John |authorlink=John Boswell |year=1994 |title=Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe |publisher=Villard Books |location=New York |id=ISBN 0-679-43228-0}}
* {{cite book |last=Farrow |first=Douglas|last=Cere |first=Daniel |authorlink=Daniel Cere |year=2004 |title=Divorcing Marriage: Unveiling the Dangers in Canada's New Social Experiment |publisher=McGill-Queen's University Press|location=Montreal |id=ISBN 0-7735-2895-4}}
* {{cite book |last=Chauncey |first=George |authorlink=George Chauncey |year=2004 |title=Why Marriage?: The History Shaping Today's Debate over Gay Equality |publisher=Basic Books |location=New York |id=ISBN 0-465-00957-3}}
* {{cite book |last=Dobson |first=James C. |authorlink=James Dobson |year=2004 |title=Marriage Under Fire|Marriage under Fire: Why We Must Win This War |publisher=Multnomah |location=Sisters, Or. |id=ISBN 1-59052-431-4}}
* {{cite book |last=Larocque |first=Sylvain |authorlink=Sylvain Larocque |year=2006 |title=[[Gay Marriage|Gay Marriage: The Story of a Canadian Social Revolution]] |publisher=James Lorimer & Company |location=Toronto |id=ISBN 1-55028-927-6}}
* {{cite book |last=Spedale |first=Darren |authorlink=Darren Spedale |year=2006 |title=Gay Marriage: For Better or For Worse? What We've Learned From the Evidence |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=New York |id=ISBN 0-19-518751-2}}
* {{cite book |editor=Robert P. George, [[Jean Bethke Elshtain]] (Eds.) |year=2006 |title=The Meaning of Marriage: Family, State, Market, And Morals |publisher=Spence Publishing Company |location=Dallas |id=ISBN 1-890626-64-3}}
*Caramagno, Thomas C. "Irreconcilable Differences? Intellectual Stalemate in the Gay Rights Debate." Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002. ISBN 0-275-97721-8
</div>


;Sources
{{Same-sex marriage}}
* [http://www.csdptt.org/article288.html Jean-Louis Fullsack et Bruno Jaffré, « Pour la refondation de la coopération publique bilatérale française dans le domaine des télécommunications »], article from an intervention during « Technologies de l’information et de la communication et Développement » seminar organized by the ''Centre d’observation des économies africaines'' (COBEA, Université Paris-11), May 2003. The article detailed the history of French cooperation in postal and telecommunication areas, until the 2000s.
{{LGBT|history=yes|culture=yes|rights=yes}}
* Michel Melot, « L'Afrique francophone, le nouvel eldorado des collectionneurs ? », ''[[Timbres magazine]]'' #76, February 2007, pages 38-43. Article on the philatelic policies of some Francophone African countries after the BEPTOM disappeared.


[[Category:Marriage]]
[[Category:Postal organisations]]
[[Category:LGBT civil rights]]
[[Category:Telecommunications companies of France]]
[[Category:Same-sex marriage]]


[[fr:Bureau d'études des postes et télécommunications d'outre-mer]]
[[af:Burgerlike verbintenis]]
[[br:Dimezioù etre paotred pe etre maouezed]]
[[bg:Еднополов брак]]
[[ca:Matrimoni homosexual]]
[[de:Gleichgeschlechtliche Ehe]]
[[es:Matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo]]
[[eo:Samedzeco]]
[[fr:Mariage homosexuel]]
[[gl:Matrimonio entre persoas do mesmo sexo]]
[[ko:동성 결혼]]
[[it:Matrimonio omosessuale]]
[[he:נישואים חד-מיניים]]
[[nl:Homohuwelijk]]
[[ja:同性結婚]]
[[no:Likekjønnet ekteskap]]
[[pl:Małżeństwo osób tej samej płci]]
[[pt:Casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo]]
[[ro:Căsătorie între persoane de acelaşi sex]]
[[sl:Istospolna partnerska zveza]]
[[sh:Istopolni brak]]
[[fi:Samaa sukupuolta olevien avioliitto]]
[[sv:Samkönat äktenskap]]
[[vi:Hô nhân đồng tính]]
[[wuu:同性婚姻]]
[[zh:同性婚姻]]

Revision as of 05:15, 13 October 2008

The Bureau d'études des postes et télécommunications d'outre-mer (BEPTOM, Office of Oversea Posts and Telecommunications Studies in English) was a French public institution, financially autonomous. Linked to the French Minister of Cooperation, its goal was to help in the postal and telecommunication areas the French Overseas territories and the newly independent states that asked for it. It operated from 1956 until late 1994.

In philately, the office was notable as the postage stamp agency and printer of the late French colonies. It sold these issues to collectors at an agency in Paris.

Concerning telecommunications, its action was limited by the competition from French private companies in Francophone Africa.[1]

History

From 1956, French Overseas posts and telecommunications were reorganized and decentralized consequently to the independence of the protectorates of Morocco and Tunisia, and in prevision of the independence of other oversea territories.[2]

During this process, the Bureau d'études des postes et télécommunications d'outre-mer was created. It can intervene when asked by oversea territories and independent states thank to four internal services.[1]

The postage stamp service prepared philatelic products. The operation and juridic affair service helped to organize postal and telecommunication networks in these countries, including the redaction of regulations and laws. The technical purchase service centralized orders from different countries to bargain over prices with French firms. The technical cooperation service trained the managers at CIPEC-PT, a post and telecommunication school in Toulouse. The CIPEC-PT declined with the opening of specialized training schools in Africa.

In 1991, the general inspection wrote a report for the Minister of Indutry about the post and telecommunication cooperation.[1] Then, discussions with public and private actors of the sectors in France and Africa concluded to the disappearance of the BEPTOM, officially on 1st January 1995 following a decree signed by Prime Minister Édouard Balladur on 22 December 1995.[3]

Actions in the postal sector

The BEPTOM help to install, maintain and regulate postal networks included the creation of postage stamps if the territories and countries asked for it. If they kept the choice of the subjects depicted on stamps, the BEPTOM brought the necessary expertise: French stamp designers and engravers and the French Post' printer plant, the Imprimerie des timbres-poste et des valeurs fiduciaires.

The Agence des timbres-poste d'outre-mer (ATPOM, Overseas Postage Stamp Agency), located avenue de la Bourdonnais in Paris, sold the stamps to collectors. It was a continuous activity started by the Minister of Colonies in the 1894, then at the Pavillon de Flore in the Louvre Palace, and after at different adresses: 10 rue du Mont-Thabor, rue Vaneau and 80 rue du Faubourg-Saint-Denis.[4] African post offices promoted their philately at low cost because the French philatelic press and stamp dealers contacted directly the ATPOM.

At the beginning of the 1990s, the oversea territories and African countries' post offices were inform of the project to close the BEPTOM. La Poste postage stamp agency, the Postage Stamp and Philately National Service, proposed its printing service to the Overseas collectivities, its subsidiaries in Mayotte and Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon and the independent public postal operators in New Caledonia, French Polynesia and Wallis-et-Futuna.[4]

In Africa, BEPTOM helped post offices took two ways on the market of postage stamp creation: either they hired printers to print their philatelic program, or they gave an agency the contract of creating, printing and selling this program. Depending on the countries' financial possibilities and need in postage stamps for their interior market, some kept a controlled policy of stamp issues like Mali that hired reputed printers like Courvoisier and the Tunisian post. Others lost control of their issuing policy like Burkina Faso: agencies proposed on the philatelic market lots of stamps without any thematical links to the country. From the creation of the WADP Numbering System (WNS) and the discovery of illegal stamps, never ordered by the countries they bore the name, former BEPTOM helped countries in Francophone Africa had retook charge of their philatelic programs.[5]

Actions in the telecommunication sector

By its actions financed partly with public subventions and unbilled to the helped countries, the BEPTOM competited with the Société française d'études de télécommunications and France Câbles et Radio, even if the latter controlled the international communication market of around fifteen countries without financing and maintaining the interior network. Progressively, to respect competitors, the BEPTOM limited itself to urgency interventions and to help privatized France Télécom take step in these markets.[1]

After the BEPTOM disappeared, French associations, such as CSDPTT, continued the cooperative actions in Africa.

References and sources

Notes
  1. ^ a b c d Jean-Louis Fullsack and Bruno Jaffré, "Pour la refondation de la coopération publique bilatérale française dans le domaine des télécommunications ", May 2003, retrieved 7 February 2007.
  2. ^ Decree #56-1229 of 3 December 1956, modified by decree #57-481 of 4 April 1957, both quoted in the introduction of the 1994 decree suppressing the BEPTOM.
  3. ^ Decree #94-1142 of 22 December 1994 on legifrance.gouv.fr and on admi.net.
  4. ^ a b Timbroscopie #118, November 1994, page 83.
  5. ^ Michel Melot, "L'Afrique francophone, le nouvel eldorado des collectionneurs ?", article published in Timbres magazine #76, February 2007, pages 38-43.
Sources