Marriage Equality

The U.S. General Accounting Office lists more than 1,000 federal rights, protections and responsibilities that are automatically granted to married heterosexual couples but denied to same-sex couples.1 States have similar laws that protect heterosexual married partners but not same-sex partners, including:

In 2005, the Massachusetts legislature defeated a constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriages have been performed in Massachusetts since May 17, 2004, after the Supreme Judicial Court ruled the state constitution guarantees “the right to marry the person of one’s choice” regardless of gender. Also in 2005, the Canadian Parliament enacted a law that guarantees the right to marriage for same-sex couples in every province. In December 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples in that state, which led to civil unions. More than 22 nations, including Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Spain, Iceland, Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden, allow same-sex couples to marry or enter into federally-recognized domestic partnerships.

Same-sex couples are not the first group of people that has been denied the freedom to marry. African American slaves were not permitted to marry. At one time, Asian Americans were not permitted to marry in some Western states. And not until 1967 did the U.S. Supreme Court strike down Jim Crow state laws that made interracial marriage illegal. Clearly, Americans have the capacity to move beyond discrimination.

Marriage equality pertains to more than financial benefits. Couples who enter into marriage assume responsibilities for each other’s welfare and the welfare of their dependents. The state has the same interest in family stability for same-sex couples as it has in marriage between men and women. Married couples are viewed and treated differently than single individuals by the state, friends, family and society. Setting aside the issue of discrimination, it is illogical for government to promote marriage for some but not for all.

Children are more secure if they are raised in homes with two loving parents who have a legal relationship with each other and their children, and can share the responsibility of parenthood. According to estimates from the 2000 census, there are more than one million children being raised by same-sex couples in the United States.2 If they are not permitted to establish a legal relationship to both parents, children of same-sex couples are left without important protections, such as survivor benefits. These children should not be penalized just because their parents are of the same sex.

Just as no religious institution can be required by the government to marry an interfaith couple, no religious institution could be required to marry a same-sex couple. Currently, Reform Judaism, Unitarianism, and many United Church of Christ congregations and Quaker meetings do sanction same-sex unions.

A state civil union law grants same-sex couples the rights of married couples, but only within that state. When that couple travels to another state, they are legal strangers. A married couple, however, may be recognized as “married” in other states and other countries.

Arizona voters rejected a constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman and dismantled domestic partner benefits programs in November 2006. In October 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled unanimously that same-sex couples must be afforded all of the rights, protections and responsibilities of marriage. In 2005, Connecticut became the first state to legalize civil unions without a court order, and the Massachusetts legislature voted to keep same-sex marriage legal. Seven states (CA, CT, HI, ME, MA, NJ, VT) formally recognize same-sex couples. Ten states (CA, CT, IA, ME, NM, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA) and the District of Columbia offer domestic partner benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees, as do more than 137 cities and counties.