Same-sex marriage

Same-sex marriage, also referred to as homosexuality, is an immoral relationship/lifestyle between two people of the same sex. The use of the word "marriage" is inaccurate and should not be confused with the word's definition. Homosexual marriages are not recognized in the United States.

Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family refers to the phrase same-sex 'marriage,' with quotation marks around the word marriage, to call attention to the fact that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that therefore same-sex unions are "counterfeits."

Abuse of the term was unheard of a few decades ago, however these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by gay rights activists. In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state.

Background

In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that gay rights advocates would soon seek changes in some states. It was concerned about the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits gay marriage itself—must honor gay marriages performed in another state. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman.

In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to allow "same-sex marriage" but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey the same rights. As of 2007, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maine also provide civil unions or domestic partnerships. Beginning in 2008, the states of Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire will also provide same-sex unions. Hawaii provides certain benifits to same sex couples. In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the sole state to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

The religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. Thus, even in Massachusetts, it would be close to impossible for a same-sex couple to find a Catholic priest willing to marry them in a church, or an Orthodox rabbi willing to marry them in a temple.

Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition.

Issues

James Dobson of Focus on the Family suggests that the motivation of those advocating same-sex marriage is not to secure the benefits of marriage for gay couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself:

...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.

Line-Drawing & Gay Rights

Opponents of same-sex marriage suggest that allowing same-sex marriage will place society on a "slippery slope" towards allowing bigamy, incest, and other moral "wrongs." The argument rests on the idea that the only legal or moral "line" preventing same-sex marriage is morality, which is also the only "line" preventing acceptance of bigamy et all.

Gay rights workers suggest that such argumentation downplays the danger, though, of the evils at the bottom of the slippery slope, and society's interest in preventing these evils. The state has a compelling interest in preventing bigamous relationships, which are (1) a burden on state funding, since marriage triggers social benefits and (2) have a higher incidence of spousal abuse. These "lines" are not predicated on morality, but on facts. Similarly, incest is an evil that society has a factual interest in preventing, since incestual relationships often (1) entail abuse, and (2) result in unhealthy offspring. Since there are non-moral reasons to reject both of these "horribles", gay rights workers insist that acceptance of same-sex marriage (by abrogation of a legitimate state interest in preserving "morality") does not entail acceptance of bigamy or incest.