Same-sex marriage: historical, legal, and social perspectives

Gay Marriage

Same sex marriage has been a topic of much debate in recent years. Many believe that same sex marriage should not be allowed, while others assert that homosexuals should have the right to be legally married. The purpose of this discussion is to investigate the historical context, political impact, sociological impact and the psychological and philosophical perspectives of this issue.

Gay Marriage in a historical context

According to Coolidge et al. (2003) marriage provides a legal gateway to many protections and benefits in American society. In fact many of these protections and benefits do not exist outside of becoming legally married (Mcwhirter 2004). These include access to health care and medical decision making for your partner and your children; parenting and immigration rights; inheritance, taxation, Social Security, and other government benefits (Mcwhirter 2004). It is because of these protections and benefits that same sex marriage has become such an explosive issue (Mcwhirter 2004).

Although same sex marriage is not legal in the United States there are some countries that have made it legal. From a historical perspective, Coolidge et al. (2003) reports that in 1991 Demark was actually the first to develop legal gay marriage (Coolidge et al. 2003). The law in Denmark is not" marriage itself but a parallel marital status for same sex couples (Coolidge et al. 2003)." In addition the "Netherlands became the first to dispense with separate and unequal formulas and allow same-sex couples to lawfully wed. Other European nations, and possibly the European Union as a whole, will certainly follow suit in the years to come. Meanwhile, Canada -- which already has recognized same-sex couples' legal entitlement to "all but marriage" -- is also in the midst of a campaign aimed at securing the freedom to marry (Coolidge et al. 2003)."

Coolidge and Duncan (2001) explain that the attempt to legalize gay marriage in the Netherlands grew dramatically throughout the last decade. The attempt to do this was inclusive of a non-discrimination act with a human rights commission, the acceptance of private cohabitation contracts, and then the passage of a full-pledged Registered Partnerships law in 1998 (Coolidge and Duncan 2001). The Registered Partnerships law granted both homosexual and heterosexual couples the capacity to register with the government and have all of the rights available to married couples with the exception the right to adopt children (Coolidge and Duncan 2001). In addition, the Lower Chamber of the Dutch Parliament suggested the full "opening up" of marriage to homosexuals (Coolidge and Duncan 2001). The Legislation to implement gay marriage was introduced in 1998 (Coolidge and Duncan 2001). The authors assert that

"On September 12, 2000, after several days of extended debate, the Second (or Lower) Chamber of the Dutch Parliament approved the "opening-up" bill, as well as a bill to allow for adoption by same-sex couples. The vote was a lopsided 133-109.(45) The First (or Upper) Chamber approved the bills on December 19, 2000 by a 49-26 vote.(46)Under the new law, only one of the two "spouses" is required to be a permanent resident or citizen of the Netherlands.(47) Therefore an American citizen could go to the Netherlands and marry a Dutch citizen anytime on or after April 1, 2001, and then return to seek recognition (Coolidge and Duncan 2001)."

In America, Hawaii and Vermont were the first to pass civil union laws (Coolidge et al. 2003). In addition, Vermont developed a parallel non-marriage marital status for gay couples (Coolidge et al. 2003;West 2004).

Sociological

Indeed the issue of gay marriage is a serious social issue. In the social context, many in society are opposed to gay marriage and vehemently oppose legislation that would make it legal (Lewis 2001). In addition, there has been a great deal of violence against gay people. Many who oppose gay marriage and the homosexual lifestyle in general are also weary of programs in public schools that attempt to teach tolerance (Eliasson 2003).

In the social context gay people have developed their own communities and culture. According to Pope (2004)

Over the course of the last 40 years civil society has become more accepting of gay people ... They live in settled relationships that involve many practical interdependencies. About one-fourth of the 600,000 same-sex couples currently living together in the United States are raising children. (3) Gay people live in the same houses, often and increasingly raise children jointly, need health care insurance, and visit one another in hospitals. They rely on one another's paychecks, Social Security benefits, disability insurance, sick and bereavement leave, death benefits, and unemployment insurance (Pope 2004).

Many activists assert that to meet the aforementioned needs, homosexual couple that live together should be given some form of legal recognition, such as special registration, civil unions, or marriage (Pope 2004). In addition some homosexuals do not want marriage for themselves or believe that marriage should be extended to gay people in general (Pope 2004). Additionally, some homosexuals assert that the distinctive nature of "queer" culture must be sheltered "against the hegemonic design of the heterosexist majority to impose its own norm on sexual "others." Other people, however, both gay and straight, are convinced that, for a variety of reasons, marriage ought to be available to gay people (Pope 2004)."

Philosophical

On the one hand, those that advocate gay marriage assert that homosexual couples need marriage as a way to solve the legal problems that threaten to undermine their relationships (Coolidge and Duncan 2001). Moreover, those that advocate same sex marriage assert that until it is legal the full humanity of homosexuals is being denied (Coolidge and Duncan 2001). Although these ideas may seem practical many Americans are strongly opposed to gay marriage (Coolidge and Duncan 2001). This opposition exist because the core concept of marriage will be changed if gay marriage is made legal (Coolidge and Duncan 2001). The author further explains that the definition of marriage will change legally and culturally because the concept of marriage has also been a relationship between a man and woman (Coolidge and Duncan 2001). For instance under current laws

"Marriage is the joining of the two sexes into a community that connects the generations. If one removes this core concept, the definition of marriage changes. Instead of a unique community, marriage becomes one more relationship. And why should this relationship be so special? If it has no necessary connection to children, or even to sex, what makes it different from an ordinary friendship? Friendships are multiple; why limit marriage to two persons? Sexual relationships can be multiple; why promote exclusivity? Relationships come and go, and reasonably so; why promote permanence? If marriage is a freely chosen relationship unconnected to sex, children, exclusivity or permanence, why have legal marriage at all? Why not simply abolish it and let people create their own contracts? In short, if one removes the reason for the concept, its other elements come apart. No element, taken alone, adequately explains the concept of legal marriage (Coolidge and Duncan 2001)."

Psychological

Advocates of same sex marriage argue that denying gay couples the right to marry legally can be psychologically harmful. The American Psychological Association asserts that discrimination causes mental distress. The association came to this conclusion in there report entitled "Resolution on Sexual Orientation and Marriage." The report states that 'Psychological and psychiatric experts have agreed since 1975 that homosexuality is neither a form of mental illness nor a symptom of mental illness (Conger, 1975). Nonetheless, there is growing recognition that social prejudice, discrimination, and violence against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals take a cumulative toll on the well-being of these individuals. Researchers (e.g., DiPlacido, 1998; Meyer, 2003) use the term "minority stress" to refer to the negative effects associated with the adverse social conditions experienced by individuals who belong to a stigmatized social group (e.g., the elderly, members of racial and ethnic minority groups, the physically disabled, women, the poor or those on welfare, or individuals who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual)."

The report further indicates that many same sex couples desire to have committed relationships or marriages but tend to have one of the following three concerns. The first concern is that the relationships between same sex couples will be dysfunctional and unhappy. However, research indicates that both heterosexual and homosexuals tend to have the same level of dysfunction. The second concern of homosexuals is that long-term relationships or "marriages" between same sex couples will be unstable. However, there studies have shown that although homosexuals have to deal with a hostile social climate homosexuals can have stable relationships. In fact,

"survey data indicate that between 18% and 28% of gay couples and between 8% and 21% of lesbian couples have lived together 10 or more years (e.g., Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Bryant & Demian, 1994; Falkner & Garber, 2002; Kurdek, 2003). Researchers (e.g., Kurdek, in press) have also speculated that the stability of same-sex couples would be enhanced if partners from same-sex couples enjoyed the same levels of social support and public recognition of their relationships as partners from heterosexual couples do (Resolution on Sexual Orientation and Marriage 2004 )."

The last concern is that the factors that impact the stability of same sex relationships are different from the factors that impact heterosexual relationships. In reality research indicates that the same factors that influence the stability of heterosexual relationships impact the stability of homosexual relationships (Kurdek, 2001, in press; Resolution on Sexual Orientation and Marriage 2004 ).