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

The aforementioned legislation that has been developed in Vermont has sparked nationwide debates concerning the legal definition of marriage. As a result some states are currently considering, and others have implemented, legislation attempting to prevent acknowledgment of gay marriages performed in other states(Report on Marriage Rights for Same-Sex Couples 2004). The most notable legislation is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted by congress in 1996 (Report on Marriage Rights for Same-Sex Couples 2004). This Act allows states that implement such legislation the ability to deny recognition to same-sex marriages that may be legally sanctioned in other states (Report on Marriage Rights for Same-Sex Couples 2004). In addition, in terms of the legality of gay marriage

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 ).

"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)."

"The constitutionality of measures denying recognition of same-sex marriage is in doubt, especially in light of the United States Supreme Court's apparent shift in its consideration of gay and lesbian rights. Fifteen years ago, the Court found that a state sodomy statute enforced only against homosexuals violated no constitutionally protected rights. (1) In contrast, in 1996, the Court found that by subjecting one group to a disadvantage that no other group had to suffer, a state constitutional amendment that barred anti-discrimination measures protecting lesbians and gay men violated the United States Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. In so doing, the Court took the remarkable step of invoking the landmark dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson in the opening paragraph of its decision: "[T]he Constitution 'neither knows nor tolerates classes among its citizens.' Unheeded then, those words now are understood to state a commitment to the law's neutrality where the rights of persons are at stake." (2) The Court made clear that it would not countenance a legal distinction that raised the "inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected." (Report on Marriage Rights for Same-Sex Couples 2004)"

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

Some common words found in the essay are:
Coolidge Duncan, Orientation Marriage, Social Security, Same-Sex Couples, Hawaii Vermont, Sociological Indeed, According Pope, Supreme Court's, According Coolidge, Plessy Ferguson, duncan 2001, gay marriage, coolidge duncan, coolidge duncan 2001, same-sex couples, coolidge et, coolidge et al, et al, et al 2003, gay people, sex marriage, al 2003, pope 2004, marriage rights same-sex, rights same-sex couples,
Approximate Word count = 2454
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page double spaced)