Questions about Same-Sex Marriage
Since the rise of a national discussion about marriage rights for same-sex couples, many straight friends and family members have been asking important questions about the issue. This section provides some basic answers to those questions, such as:
Why do same-sex couples want to marry?
Many same-sex couples want the right to legally marry because they are in love — many, in fact, have spent the last 10, 20 or 50 years with that person — and they want to honor their relationship in the greatest way our society has to offer, by making a public commitment to stand together in good times and bad, through all the joys and challenges family life brings.
Many parents want the right to marry because they know it offers children a vital safety net and guarantees protections that unmarried parents cannot provide. And still other people — both gay and straight — are fighting for the right of same-sex couples to marry because they recognize that it is simply not fair to deny some families the protections all other families are eligible to enjoy.
Currently in the United States, same-sex couples in long-term, committed relationships pay higher taxes and are denied basic protections and rights granted to married straight couples. Among them:
- Hospital visitation. Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same-sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured loved one in the hospital.
- Social Security benefits. Married people receive Social Security payments upon the death of a spouse. Despite paying payroll taxes, gay and lesbian partners receive no Social Security survivor benefits — resulting in an average annual income loss of $5,528 upon the death of a partner.
- Immigration. Americans in bi-national relationships are not permitted to petition for their same-sex partners to immigrate. As a result, they are often forced to separate or move to another country.
- Health insurance. Many public and private employers provide medical coverage to the spouses of their employees, but most employers do not provide coverage to the life partners of gay and lesbian employees. Gay and lesbian employees who do receive health coverage for their partners must pay federal income taxes on the value of the insurance.
- Estate taxes. A married person automatically inherits all the property of his or her deceased spouse without paying estate taxes. A gay or lesbian taxpayer is forced to pay estate taxes on property inherited from a deceased partner.
- Family leave. Married workers are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse. Gay and lesbian workers are not entitled to family leave to care for their partners.
- Nursing homes. Married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes. The rights of elderly gay or lesbian couples are an uneven patchwork of state laws. Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection.
- Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection.
- Pensions. After the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant. Gay and lesbian partners are excluded from such pension benefits.
Why aren’t civil unions enough?
Comparing marriage to civil unions is a bit like comparing diamonds to rhinestones. One is, quite simply, the real deal; the other is not. Consider:
Opposite-sex couples who are eligible to marry may have their marriage performed in any state and have it recognized in every other state in the nation and every country in the world.
Couples who are joined in a civil union, for example in Vermont, New Jersey or New Hampshire, have no guarantee that its protections will travel with them to other states.
Moreover, even couples who have a civil union and remain in Vermont, New Jersey or New Hampshire receive only second-class protections in comparison to their married friends and neighbors. While they receive state-level protections, they do not receive any of the more than 1,100 federal benefits and protections of marriage.
In short, civil unions are not separate but equal — they are separate and unequal. And our society has tried separate before. It just doesn’t work.
- State grants marriage licenses to couples.
- Religious institutions are not required to perform marriage ceremonies.
Civil Unions
- State would grant civil union licenses to couples.
- Couples receive legal protections and rights under state law only.
- Civil unions are not necessarily recognized by other states or the federal government.
- Religious institutions are not required to perform civil union ceremonies.
“I believe God meant marriage for men and women. How can I support marriage for same-sex couples?”
Many people who believe in God — as well as fairness and justice for all — ask this question. They feel a tension between religious beliefs and democratic values that has been experienced in many different ways throughout our nation’s history. That is why the framers of our Constitution established the principle of separation of church and state.
That principle applies no less to the marriage issue than it does to any other. Indeed, the answer to the apparent dilemma between religious beliefs and support for equal protections for all families lies in recognizing that marriage has a significant religious meaning for many people, but that it is also a legal contract. And it is strictly the legal — not the religious — dimension of marriage that is being debated now.
Granting marriage rights to same-sex couples would not require leaders of Christian, Jewish, Islamic or any other religious leaders to perform these marriages. It would not require religious institutions to permit these ceremonies to be held on their grounds. It would not even require that religious communities discuss the issue. People of faith would remain free to make their own judgments about what makes a marriage in the eyes of God — just as they are today.
Consider, for example, the difference in how the Roman Catholic Church and the U.S. government view couples who have divorced and remarried. Because church tenets do not sanction divorce, the second marriage is not valid in the church’s view. The government, however, recognizes the marriage by extending to the remarried couple the same rights and protections as those granted to every other married couple in America. In this situation — as would be the case in marriage for same-sex couples — the church remains free to establish its own teachings on the religious dimension of marriage while the government upholds equality under law.
A growing number of religious communities bless same-sex unions, including Reform Judaism, the Unitarian Universalist Association and the Metropolitan Community Church. The Presbyterian Church (USA) allows ceremonies to be performed but they’re not considered the same as marriage. The Episcopal Church, United Church of Christ and the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism allow individual congregations to set their own policies on same-sex unions.
"I strongly believe children need a mother and a father."
Many of us grew up believing that everyone needs a mother and father, regardless of whether we ourselves happened to have two parents, or two good parents.
But as families have grown more diverse in recent decades, and researchers have studied how these different family relationships affect children, it has become clear that the quality of a family’s relationship is more important than the particular structure of families that exist today.
In other words, the qualities that help children grow into good and responsible adults — learning how to learn, to have compassion for others, to contribute to society and be respectful of others and their differences — do not depend on the sexual orientation of their parents but on their parents’ ability to provide a loving, stable and happy home, something no class of Americans has an exclusive hold on.
That is why research studies have consistently shown that children raised by gay and lesbian parents do just as well as children raised by straight parents in all conventional measures of child development, such as academic achievement, psychological well-being and social abilities.
That is also why the nation’s leading child welfare organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians and others, have issued statements that dismiss assertions that only straight couples can be good parents — and declare that the focus should now be on providing greater protections for the 1 million to 9 million children being raised by gay and lesbian parents in the United States today.
Granting same-sex couples the right to marry, therefore, would enable the millions of same-sex parents raising children today to give their children what every child deserves – the safest, most secure environment possible, with all the legal protections that our country has put in place.
"This is different from interracial marriage. Sexual orientation is a choice."
"We cannot keep turning our backs on gay and lesbian Americans. I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I've heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred, and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry."
Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a leader of the black civil rights movement,
writing in the Boston Globe, Nov. 25, 2003
Decades of research all point to the fact that sexual orientation is not a choice, and that a person’s sexual orientation cannot be changed. To whom one is drawn is a fundamental aspect of who we are.
In this way, the struggle for marriage equality for same-sex couples is just as basic as the successful fight for interracial marriage. It recognizes that Americans should not be coerced into false and unhappy marriages but should be free to marry the person they love — thereby building marriage on a true and stable foundation.
"Won’t this create a free-for-all and make the whole idea of marriage meaningless?"
Many people share this concern because opponents of LGBT equality have used this argument as a scare tactic — but it is not true. Granting same-sex couples the right to marry would in no way change the number of people who could enter into a marriage (or eliminate restrictions on the age or familial relationships of those who may marry). Marriage would continue to recognize the highest possible commitment that can be made between two adults, plain and simple.
"How could marriage for same-sex couples possibly be good for the American family – or our country?"
"We shouldn’t just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity."
Conservative Columnist David Brooks,
writing in The New York Times, Nov. 22, 2003.
The prospect of a significant change in our laws and customs has often caused people to worry more about dire consequences that could result than about the potential positive outcomes. In fact, precisely the same anxiety arose when some people fought to overturn the laws prohibiting marriage between people of different races in the 1950s and 1960s. (One Virginia judge even declared, “God intended to separate the races.”)
But in reality, opening marriage to couples who are so willing to fight for it could only strengthen the institution for all. It would open the doors to more supporters, not opponents. And it would help keep the age-old institution alive.
As history has repeatedly proven, institutions that fail to take account of the changing needs of the population are those that grow weak; those that recognize and accommodate changing needs grow strong. For example, the U.S. military, like American colleges and universities, grew stronger after permitting African Americans and women to join its ranks.
Similarly, granting same-sex couples the right to marry would strengthen the institution of marriage by allowing it to better meet the needs of the true diversity of family structures in America today.
"Can’t same-sex couples go to a lawyer to secure all the rights they need?"
Not by a long shot. When a gay or lesbian person gets seriously ill, there is no legal document that can make their partner eligible to take leave from work under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act to provide care — because that law applies only to married couples.
When gay or lesbian people grow old and in need of nursing home care, there is no legal document that can give them the right to Medicaid coverage without potentially causing their partner to be forced from their home — because the federal Medicaid law only permits married spouses to keep their home without becoming ineligible for benefits.
And when a gay or lesbian person dies, there is no legal document that can extend Social Security survivor benefits or the right to inherit a retirement plan without severe tax burdens that stem from being “unmarried” in the eyes of the law.
These are only a few examples of the critical protections that are granted through more than 1,100 federal laws that protect only married couples.
In the absence of the right to marry, same-sex couples can only put in place a handful of the most basic arrangements, such as naming each other in a will or a power of attorney. And even these documents remain vulnerable to challenges in court by disgruntled family members.
"Won’t this cost taxpayers too much money?"
No, it wouldn’t necessarily cost much at all. In fact, treating same-sex couples as families under law could even save taxpayers money because marriage would require them to assume legal responsibility for their joint living expenses and reduce their dependence on public assistance programs such as Medicaid, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Supplemental Security Income disability payments and food stamps.
Put another way, the money it would cost to extend benefits to same-sex couples could be outweighed by the money that would be saved as these families rely more fully on each other instead of state or federal government assistance.
For example, two studies conducted in 2003 by professors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and the University of California, Los Angeles, found that extending domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples in California and New Jersey would save taxpayers millions of dollars a year.
Specifically, the studies projected that the California state budget would save an estimated $8.1 million to $10.6 million each year by enacting the most comprehensive domestic partner law in the nation. In New Jersey, which passed a new domestic partner law in 2004, the savings were projected to be even higher — more than $61 million each year.
(Sources: "Equal Rights, Fiscal Responsibility: The Impact of A.B. 205 on California’s Budget," by M. V. Lee Badgett, Ph.D., IGLSS, Department of Economics, University of Massachusetts, and R. Bradley Sears, J.D., Williams Project, UCLA School of Law, University of California, Los Angeles, May 2003, and."Supporting Families, Saving Funds: A Fiscal Analysis of New Jersey’s Domestic Partnership Act," by Badgett and Sears with Suzanne Goldberg, J.D., Rutgers School of Law-Newark, December 2003.)
Where can same-sex couples marry today?
In 2001, the Netherlands became the first country to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. Belgium passed a similar law two years later. Spain followed suit in July 2005, and in December 2005, the South African Supreme Court ruled that the country had to extend the rights of marriage to same-sex couples by the end of 2006. Some of these countries, however, have strict citizenship or residency requirements that do not permit American couples to take advantage of the protections provided.
In 2003, Ontario became the first Canadian province to grant marriage to same-sex couples, and in July 2005, Canada’s federal government passed a law extending marriage equality nationwide.
In November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry, giving the state six months to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It began issuing licenses May 17, 2004.
In October 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry. Connecticut began issuing licenses to same-sex couples Nov. 12, 2008.
On Nov. 4, 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, which amends the state constitution to prohibit marriage by same-sex couples. The amendment overrules a May 2008 decision by the California Supreme Court recognizing marriage equality. California continues to provide rights and responsibilities to registered domestic partners.
Follow the latest developments in California, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington and other communities across the country at the HRC Marriage Center (www.hrc.org/marriage).
Other nations have also taken steps toward extending equal protections to all couples, though the protections they provide are more limited than marriage. Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland, Sweden and the United Kingdom all have nationwide laws that grant same-sex partners a range of important rights, protections and obligations.
Beginning in December 2005, same-sex couples in the United Kingdom have been able to apply for civil partnership licenses to certify their relationships before the government. These licenses provide same-sex couples hospital visitation rights, pension benefits, the ability to gain parental responsibility for a partner’s children and other rights granted to opposite-sex couples.
What protections other than marriage are available to American same-sex couples?
At the federal level, there are no protections at all available to same-sex couples. In fact, a federal law called the “Defense of Marriage Act” says that the federal government will discriminate against same-sex couples who marry by refusing to recognize their marriages or providing them with the federal protections of marriage.
Some members of the U.S. Congress have tried to go even further by attempting to pass a federal marriage amendment that would write discrimination against same-sex couples into the U.S. Constitution. This was defeated twice, in 2004 and 2006.
At the state level, Vermont, New Jersey and New Hampshire offer civil unions (as of 2008), which provide important state benefits but no federal protections, such as Social Security survivor benefits. There is also no guarantee that civil unions will be recognized outside these states. Forty-four states also have laws or state constitutional amendments explicitly prohibiting the recognition of marriages between same-sex partners.
Domestic partner laws have been enacted in California, Maine, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington and the District of Columbia. The benefits conferred by these laws vary; some offer access to family health insurance, others confer co-parenting rights. Some offer a broad range of rights similar to civil unions.