This paper examines the legal debates surrounding gay and lesbian marriage through the lens of family law, constitutional equal protection, and privacy rights. Drawing on landmark cases including Loving v. Virginia, McGuire v. McGuire, Cheshire Medical Center v. Holbrook, and Hughes v. Hughes, the paper argues that barring same-sex unions contradicts the equal protection clause and infringes upon personal religious freedoms. It also considers state interests in regulating marriage for public health, property distribution, and child welfare. The analysis situates the gay marriage debate within broader tensions between individual autonomy and governmental authority over the institution of marriage.
The paper uses legal analogy effectively: by tracing the trajectory from anti-miscegenation laws struck down in Loving v. Virginia to contemporary restrictions on same-sex marriage, the author builds an inductive case that the equal protection clause should apply to gay unions. This technique of reasoning by precedent is a core skill in legal and policy analysis.
The paper opens with a policy context (the proposed constitutional amendment), then moves through paired case studies organized thematically — marriage formation, marriage benefits, and marriage dissolution — before synthesizing the legal and social arguments in the conclusion. Each section introduces a case and connects it explicitly to the gay marriage debate, creating a cumulative argumentative arc.
What makes a marriage, in the eyes of society and the eyes of the law? At the time this paper was written, President George W. Bush had called for a constitutional amendment upholding the idea that marriage is an institutional bond that can exist only between a man and a woman. Somewhat belying his claim that this principle is purely legal in nature, however, was his stress that a constitutional amendment was required to sustain it on a federal level. Bush was essentially attempting to pass judgment to all of the state legislatures of the land, forcing them to comply with a singular and specific ideal regarding what constitutes a marriage. This goes against some of the predominant legal traditions of this nation, which have left the task of defining and limiting marriage to states and communities rather than to the nation as a whole.
Recent decisions by the United States Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, as well as the policy of the City of San Francisco extending privacy rights to gays and lesbians, also call into question what constitutes a marriage and what unions between partners are worthy of state and federal governmental protection.
Critics argue that the extension of such rights to gay unions will lead to increased liberalization of policies in other areas of family law. They have focused the national lens on the question of to what extent the state should regulate family privacy, and whether marriage is a private or a public act. Beyond the limits of personal privacy between consenting adults, the issue of marriage and family expands the privacy debate to encompass what constitutes a family and whether the law's decisions regarding marriage are an intrusion upon, or a protection of, family privacy. The idea of a "family" or a "union" presumably carries larger societal implications beyond the mere personal closeness of individuals on a basis of sexual choice. As scholar Judith Areen frames it in simple terms, "should society regulate marriage?" (Areen, 2–3). Is marriage an institution of personal happiness and the rights of two autonomous individuals, or something beyond this, with broader public implications?
Singh v. Singh is a recent example of how blood relations and cultural customs may deviate from the legal incest regulations of the United States. Even in this particular case — where the two individuals were unaware of their blood relation when they wed — the state claimed an interest in public health: to regulate the ability of individuals to wed so that they do not produce children who are at medical risk, and so that they do not flout the societal norms of the American cultural context. The state retains the right in some instances to bar individuals from the union of wedlock. If this were not the case, one would not be barred from marrying while underage or from marrying a family member deemed too close in birth order. Nor would one be required to obtain a marriage license from the state or to test one's blood for sexually transmitted diseases before becoming wed.
State laws regarding marriage can also implicate legislation on the federal level. Perhaps the first controversial case to truly grapple with the federal and state dimensions of individual choice in marriage was Loving v. Virginia, which dealt with what was then termed miscegenation, or interracial marriage (Areen, 46–48). The case involved the Lovings, who married in Washington, D.C., because Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes barred the formalization of their union in that state. After returning to Virginia, they were prosecuted and convicted of violating its anti-miscegenation laws, and they relocated to Washington, D.C., to avoid further prosecution. The case highlighted the difficulty of having different marriage laws across states: a couple that marries in one state may return to, or move to, a state that does not recognize their union. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled Virginia's law unconstitutional, and in 1967 the sixteen states that still had anti-miscegenation laws on their books were forced to repeal them.
Loving v. Virginia demonstrated the difficulty of making marriage a community-by-community decision. The principle that a marriage law may be unconstitutional when it bars certain individuals from marrying in a discriminatory fashion — potentially violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution — has the power to fundamentally affect the laws of all states in the union.
The argument for allowing gay marriage may at first seem to rest upon issues of personal choice and a lack of compelling state interest in intruding into individuals' private decisions. There is little evidence that gay marriage is substantially detrimental to the psychological health or social development of individuals, beyond the difficulties sometimes associated with interracial marriage and other unions that occasionally meet with societal disapproval. The state's right to regulate gay unions appears to conflict with the equal protection clause, as gay partners are effectively discriminated against and deprived of benefits on the basis of gender, or on the grounds that they cannot have children — though the latter is not universally true of gay unions. Certain religions permit gay marriage, and prohibiting individuals from practicing their faith in this manner, where it is not detrimental to others, raises serious First Amendment concerns.
You’re 50% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.