pros and cons of gay marriage essay

The Pros and Cons of Gay Marriage Argumentative Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Relationships between sexes have been traditionally streamlined into the heterosexual standards of behavior. Marriage, as a union of two people before the law and the church, is mostly perceived as such comprising representatives of different sexes, a man and a woman.

However, apart from heterosexual couples, there also emerge occurrences when two people of the same sex desire to form a matrimonial unit. In such cases, the term of same-sex marriage or gay marriage is applied whenever such union is officially recognized by the legal system of a country. The attitude to gay marriage has differed throughout the existence of humankind, varying from approval to indifference to persecution.

After a historical wave of human rights movement, modern society appears to be reconsidering its attitude to gay marriage on the whole, and a number of countries have already accepted gay marriage as legal. Despite this change, the opposition between the proponents and the opponents of gay marriage remains tense, nurtured by a wide range of mutually exclusive arguments for and against gay marriage.

The first argument typically used to defend gay marriage in public opinion is the populist slogan of human rights movement that every person, irrespective of sexual background, has the right to love and family life. Indeed, by denying marriage among representatives of the same sex, the principle of majority rule, minority right is violated (Messerli).

If homosexually oriented people are viewed as a minority, then it appears that denying marriage to them is similar to denying marriage to people of non-Caucasus race, etc. In fact, such prohibition of gay marriage appears nothing less than mere discrimination, a phenomenon that modern society is trying to eradicate by all means.

Counteracting the argument that prohibition of gay marriage appears similar to discrimination is the idea that marriage, in the traditional understanding of the word, is the union of necessarily different sexes, a man and a woman. The main function of a traditional heterosexual marriage is viewed in producing children of their own, a function that a same-sex marriage cannot physically perform.

Adopting children or getting offspring via artificial fertilization (in couples consisting of homosexual females) cannot be viewed as reproduction proper since either both or one of the partners are not directly involved in the process of conception and childbearing. Therefore, due to the inability to perform the basic function of the family, gay marriage can hardly be recognized as marriage proper.

Another argument in defense of gay marriage is viewed by some of its proponents in the fact that the practice of adopting children by gay couples promotes adoption rates and benefits the situation with parentless children. The more gay couples are legally married, the more chances there are that they will be officially allowed to adopt and raise children (Messerli).

Considering that the numbers of parentless children in the world is overflowing, gay marriages could be a beneficial solution to this problem. In addition, gay marriage would promote the sense of family among the homosexual couples and make this sense complete with adopting a child.

Opponents of same-sex marriages arduously refute the argument of the beneficial effects of child adoptions by gay couples. For one thing, the standard type of family accepted in a traditional society and still dominating in modern world is a family where one of the parents is a man (or a father) and the other parent is a woman (or a mother).

In case with gay marriages, this balance of sexes would be impossible to maintain, and therefore the child may get confused about his or her family composition. In its turn, this may lead to misunderstanding of masculine and feminine roles and messy behavior with lack of own definition. For another thing, parent-child relations in a gay marriage are quite obscure.

It is a widely known fact that many people who grew up homosexual used to be sexually abused in their childhood. This closed circle may engross the adopted children into unwanted sexual practices that would streamline their life in a direction undesired by them.

A legal case in support of same-sex marriage is the idea that marriage as a social institution is readily recognized by the general public. Having concluded a legal marriage, a homosexual couple can enjoy the same citizen and family rights as traditional heterosexual couples.

Moreover, being officially registered as spouses brings homosexual more understanding in daily situations. In an interview to the Bay Area Reporter, policy director for Marriage Equality USA Pamela Brown states that “No one questions your spouse in the hospital if you’re married; but in a domestic partnership, you’d better bring your paperwork” (Laird). Community welcomes legalized marriage and demonstrates more tolerance if a homosexual couple is joined by official conjugal ties.

Despite the arduous support of institution of marriage on the example of gay marriages, there exist certain dangers connected with accepting same-sex marriages as legal. The basis of social respect for the institution of marriage lies in the uniqueness of the union between the man and the woman, since they are the only couple between sexes able to procreate (Messerli).

The traditional understanding of family as a husband, wife, and children has been the sacred notion that has helped people survive through most dreadful challenges. The dream of true family has led soldiers to fight for their motherland, and the vision of homely comfort and cozy family hearth is the one that helped survive economic depressions.

If this standard of family is changed, the consequences might be drastic. Expanding the borders of marriage to the point where they are blurred is threatening the stability of the institute of marriage. People will then be tempted to claim that any union be called a marriage, be it a union of one men with ten wives or a couple of blood relatives. Therefore, the borders of marriage should be kept inviolable, otherwise the whole institute can collapse.

Last but not least, the most stable basis for decision on legality or illegality of gay marriage should be the Scripture that has served as a guideline for moral standards for thousands of generations. However artfully it might be misrepresented by wishful interpreters, the Bible clearly states the standards of sexual behavior since the very first days of existence: a couple is heterosexual, “male to female, joined as God intended them to be” (ProCon.org).

This absolute truth should be taken as a model on which the whole institute of marriage is based. Any other digressions and variations can only be viewed as transient and therefore cannot be accepted as a standard, since they violate the ultimate dispensation granted to humankind.

Works Cited

Laird, Cynthia. “Pros and Cons of Gay Marriage Debated.” The Bay Area Reporter Online . 2007. Web.

Messerli, Joe. “ Should Same-Sex Marriages be Legalized? ” BalancedPolitics. 2009. Web.

ProCon.org. “ Top 10 Pros and Cons: Is Sexual Orientation Determined at Birth? ” BornGay.ProCon. 2009. Web.

• Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage in San Francisco
• Same-Sex Marriage: Sociopolitical
• Gay Marriage and Bible: Differences From Heterosexual Practice
• Social Justice and Gay Rights
• Polygamy in America: Between Society, Law, and Gender
• “Just Say No? The Use of Conversation Analysis in Developing a Feminist Perspective on Sexual Refusal” by Kitzinger and Frith: Summary
• Same Sex Marriages Impact on the Children Social Growth
• Sociological Concept: Intersectionality
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, July 5). The Pros and Cons of Gay Marriage. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-pros-and-cons-of-gay-marriage/

"The Pros and Cons of Gay Marriage." IvyPanda , 5 July 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/the-pros-and-cons-of-gay-marriage/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'The Pros and Cons of Gay Marriage'. 5 July.

IvyPanda . 2018. "The Pros and Cons of Gay Marriage." July 5, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-pros-and-cons-of-gay-marriage/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Pros and Cons of Gay Marriage." July 5, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-pros-and-cons-of-gay-marriage/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Pros and Cons of Gay Marriage." July 5, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-pros-and-cons-of-gay-marriage/.

Should Gay Marriage Be Legal?

ARCHIVED WEBSITE

This site was archived on Dec. 15, 2021. A reconsideration of the topic on this site is possible in the future. 

On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is a right protected by the US Constitution in all 50 states. Prior to their decision, same-sex marriage was already legal in 37 states and Washington DC, but was banned in the remaining 13. US public opinion had shifted significantly over the years, from 27% approval of gay marriage in 1996 to 55% in 2015, the year it became legal throughout the United States, to 61% in 2019.

Proponents of legal gay marriage contend that gay marriage bans are discriminatory and unconstitutional, and that same-sex couples should have access to all the benefits enjoyed by different-sex couples.

Opponents contend that marriage has traditionally been defined as being between one man and one woman, and that marriage is primarily for procreation. Read more background…

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1 To deny some people the option to marry would be discriminatory and would create a second class of citizens. Same-sex couples should have access to the same benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. On July 25, 2014 Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Judge Sarah Zabel ruled Florida’s gay marriage ban unconstitutional and stated that the ban “serves only to hurt, to discriminate, to deprive same-sex couples and their families of equal dignity, to label and treat them as second-class citizens, and to deem them unworthy of participation in one of the fundamental institutions of our society.” [ 105 ] As well as discrimination based on sexual orientation, gay marriage bans discriminated based on one’s sex. As David S. Cohen, JD, Associate Professor at the Drexel University School of Law, explained, “Imagine three people—Nancy, Bill, and Tom… Nancy, a woman, can marry Tom, but Bill, a man, cannot… Nancy can do something (marry Tom) that Bill cannot, simply because Nancy is a woman and Bill is a man.” [ 122 ] Over 1,000 benefits, rights and protections are available to married couples in federal law alone, including hospital visitation, filing a joint tax return to reduce a tax burden, access to family health coverage, US residency and family unification for partners from another country, and bereavement leave and inheritance rights if a partner dies. [ 6 ] [ 86 ] [ 95 ] Married couples also have access to protections if the relationship ends, such as child custody, spousal or child support, and an equitable division of property. [ 93 ] Married couples in the US armed forces are offered health insurance and other benefits unavailable to domestic partners. [ 125 ] The IRS and the US Department of Labor also recognize married couples, for the purpose of granting tax, retirement and health insurance benefits. [ 126 ] An Oct. 2, 2009 analysis by the New York Times estimated that same-sex couples denied marriage benefits incurred an additional $41,196 to $467,562 in expenses over their lifetimes compared with married heterosexual couples. [ 7 ] Additionally, legal same-sex marriage comes with mental and physical health benefits. The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and others concluded that legal gay marriage gives couples “access to the social support that already facilitates and strengthens heterosexual marriages, with all of the psychological and physical health benefits associated with that support.” [ 47 ] A study found that same-sex married couples were “significantly less distressed than lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons not in a legally recognized relationship.” [ 113 ] A 2010 analysis found that after their states had banned gay marriage, gay, lesbian and bisexual people suffered a 37% increase in mood disorders, a 42% increase in alcohol-use disorders, and a 248% increase in generalized anxiety disorders. [ 69 ] Read More

Pro 2 Gay marriages bring financial gain to federal, state, and local governments, and boost the economy. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2004 that federally-recognized gay marriage would cut the budget deficit by around $450 million a year. [ 89 ] In July 2012 New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that gay marriage had contributed $259 million to the city’s economy in just a year since the practice became legal there in July 2011. [ 43 ] Government revenue from marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes in some circumstances (the so-called “marriage penalty”), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs. [ 4 ] In 2012, the Williams Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) found that in the first five years after Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in 2004, same-sex wedding expenditures (such as venue rental, wedding cakes, etc.) added $111 million to the state’s economy. [ 114 ] Read More

Pro 3 Legal marriage is a secular institution that should not be limited by religious objections to same-sex marriage. Religious institutions can decline to marry gay and lesbian couples if they wish, but they should not dictate marriage laws for society at large. As explained by People for the American Way, “As a legal matter, marriage is a civil institution… Marriage is also a religious institution, defined differently by different faiths and congregations. In America, the distinction can get blurry because states permit clergy to carry out both religious and civil marriage in a single ceremony. Religious Right leaders have exploited that confusion by claiming that granting same-sex couples equal access to civil marriage would somehow also redefine the religious institution of marriage… this is grounded in falsehood and deception.” [ 132 ] Nancy Cott, PhD, testified in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that “[c]ivil law has always been supreme in defining and regulating marriage.” [ 41 ] Read More

Pro 4 The concept of “traditional marriage” has changed over time, and the idea that the definition of marriage has always been between one man and one woman is historically inaccurate. Harvard University historian Nancy F. Cott stated that until two centuries ago, “monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion” of the world’s population, and were found only in “Western Europe and little settlements in North America.” [ 106 ] Official unions between same-sex couples, indistinguishable from marriages except for gender, are believed by some scholars to have been common until the 13th Century in many countries, with the ceremonies performed in churches and the union sealed with a kiss between the two parties. [ 106 ] Polygamy has been widespread throughout history, according to Brown University political scientist Rose McDermott, PhD. [ 106 ] [ 110 ] Read More

Pro 5 Gay marriage is a civil right protected by the US Constitution’s commitments to liberty and equality, and is an internationally recognized human right for all people. The NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), on May 21, 2012, named same-sex marriage as “one of the key civil rights struggles of our time.” [ 61 ] In 1967 the US Supreme Court unanimously confirmed in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man.” [60] In 2014, the White House website listed same-sex marriage amongst a selection of civil rights, along with freedom from employment discrimination, equal pay for women, and fair sentencing for minority criminals. [ 118 ] The US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in the 1974 case Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause” of the US Constitution. US District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 that Prop. 8 in California banning gay marriage was “unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.” [ 41 ] The Due Process Clause in both the Fifth and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution states that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” [ 111 ] The Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment states that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [ 112 ] Since 1888 the US Supreme Court has declared at least 14 times that marriage is a fundamental right for all. [ 3 ] Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees “men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion… the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.” [ 103 ] Amnesty International states that “this non-discrimination principle has been interpreted by UN treaty bodies and numerous inter-governmental human rights bodies as prohibiting discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. Non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation has therefore become an internationally recognized principle.” [ 104 ] Read More

Pro 6 Marriage is not only for procreation, otherwise infertile couples or couples not wishing to have children would be prevented from marrying. Ability or desire to create offspring has never been a qualification for marriage. From 1970 through 2012 roughly 30% of all US households were married couples without children, and in 2012, married couples without children outnumbered married couples with children by 9%. [ 96 ] 6% of married women aged 15-44 are infertile, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [ 97 ] In a 2010 Pew Research Center survey, both married and unmarried people rated love, commitment, and companionship higher than having children as “very important” reasons to get married, and only 44% of unmarried people and 59% of married people rated having children as a very important reason. [ 42 ] As US Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan noted, a marriage license would be granted to a couple in which the man and woman are both over the age of 55, even though “there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.” [ 88 ] Read More

Con 1 The institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as being between a man and a woman. Civil unions and domestic partnerships could provide the protections and benefits gay couples need without changing the definition of marriage. John F. Harvey, late Catholic priest, wrote in July 2009 that “Throughout the history of the human race the institution of marriage has been understood as the complete spiritual and bodily communion of one man and one woman.” [ 18 ] [ 109 ] In upholding gay marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee on Nov. 6, 2014, 6th US District Court of Appeals Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton wrote that “marriage has long been a social institution defined by relationships between men and women. So long defined, the tradition is measured in millennia, not centuries or decades. So widely shared, the tradition until recently had been adopted by all governments and major religions of the world.” [ 117 ] In the Oct. 15, 1971 decision Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court of Minnesota found that “the institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.” [ 49 ] Privileges available to couples in civil unions and domestic partnerships can include health insurance benefits, inheritance without a will, the ability to file state taxes jointly, and hospital visitation rights. [ 155 ] [ 156 ] New laws could enshrine other benefits for civil unions and domestic partnerships that would benefit same-sex couple as well as heterosexual couples who do not want to get married. 2016 presidential candidate and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina stated that civil unions are adequate as an equivalent to marriage: “Benefits are being bestowed to gay couples [in civil unions]… I believe we need to respect those who believe that the word marriage has a spiritual foundation… Why can’t we respect and tolerate that while at the same time saying government cannot bestow benefits unequally.” [ 157 ] 43rd US President George W. Bush expressed his support for same-sex civil unions while in office: “I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so… I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman. Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others.” [158] Read More

Con 2 Marriage is for procreation. Same sex couples should be prohibited from marriage because they cannot produce children together. The purpose of marriage should not shift away from producing and raising children to adult gratification. [ 19 ] A California Supreme Court ruling from 1859 stated that “the first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.” [ 90 ] Nobel Prize-winning philosopher Bertrand Russell stated that “it is through children alone that sexual relations become important to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.” [ 91 ] Court papers filed in July 2014 by attorneys defending Arizona’s gay marriage ban stated that “the State regulates marriage for the primary purpose of channeling potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring unions for the sake of joining children to both their mother and their father… Same-sex couples can never provide a child with both her biological mother and her biological father.” [ 98 ] Contrary to the pro gay marriage argument that some different-sex couples cannot have children or don’t want them, even in those cases there is still the potential to produce children. Seemingly infertile heterosexual couples sometimes produce children, and medical advances may allow others to procreate in the future. Heterosexual couples who do not wish to have children are still biologically capable of having them, and may change their minds. [ 98 ] Read More

Con 3 Gay marriage has accelerated the assimilation of gays into mainstream heterosexual culture to the detriment of the homosexual community. The gay community has created its own vibrant culture. By reducing the differences in opportunities and experiences between gay and heterosexual people, this unique culture may cease to exist. Lesbian activist M.V. Lee Badgett, PhD, Director of the Center for Public Policy and Administration at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, stated that for many gay activists “marriage means adopting heterosexual forms of family and giving up distinctively gay family forms and perhaps even gay and lesbian culture.” [14] Paula Ettelbrick, JD, Professor of Law and Women’s Studies, wrote in 1989, “Marriage runs contrary to two of the primary goals of the lesbian and gay movement: the affirmation of gay identity and culture and the validation of many forms of relationships.” [15] Read More

Con 4 Marriage is an outmoded, oppressive institution that should have been weakened, not expanded. LGBT activist collective Against Equality stated, “Gay marriage apes hetero privilege… [and] increases economic inequality by perpetuating a system which deems married beings more worthy of the basics like health care and economic rights.” [ 84 ] The leaders of the Gay Liberation Front in New York said in July 1969, “We expose the institution of marriage as one of the most insidious and basic sustainers of the system. The family is the microcosm of oppression.” [ 16 ] Queer activist Anders Zanichkowsky stated in June 2013 that the then campaign for gay marriage “intentionally and maliciously erases and excludes so many queer people and cultures, particularly trans and gender non-conforming people, poor queer people, and queer people in non-traditional families… marriage thinks non-married people are deviant and not truly deserving of civil rights.” [ 127 ] Read More

Con 5 Gay marriage is contrary to the word of God and is incompatible with the beliefs, sacred texts, and traditions of many religious groups. The Bible, in Leviticus 18:22, states: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination,” thus condemning homosexual relationships. [ 120 ] The Catholic Church, United Methodist Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, National Association of Evangelicals, and American Baptist Churches USA all oppose same-sex marriage. [ 119 ] According to a July 31, 2003 statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Pope John Paul II, marriage “was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman.” [ 54 ] Pope Benedict stated in Jan. 2012 that gay marriage threatened “the future of humanity itself.” [ 145 ] Two orthodox Jewish groups, the Orthodox Agudath Israel of America and the Orthodox Union, also oppose gay marriage, as does mainstream Islam. [ 13 ] [ 119 ] In Islamic tradition, several hadiths (passages attributed to the Prophet Muhammad) condemn gay and lesbian relationships, including the sayings “When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes,” and “Sihaq [lesbian sex] of women is zina [illegitimate sexual intercourse].” [ 121 ] Read More

Con 6 Homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, and, therefore, same sex marriage is immoral and unnatural. J. Matt Barber, Associate Dean for Online Programs at Liberty University School of Law, stated, “Every individual engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, who has adopted a homosexual identity, they know, intuitively, that what they’re doing is immoral, unnatural, and self-destructive, yet they thirst for that affirmation.” [ 149 ] A 2003 set of guidelines signed by Pope John Paul II stated: “There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family… Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.” [ 147 ] Former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee stated that gay marriage is “inconsistent with nature and nature’s law.” [ 148 ] J. Matt Barber, Associate Dean for Online Programs at Liberty University School of Law, stated, “Every individual engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, who has adopted a homosexual identity, they know, intuitively, that what they’re doing is immoral, unnatural, and self-destructive, yet they thirst for that affirmation.” [ 149 ] A 2003 set of guidelines signed by Pope John Paul II stated: “There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family… Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.” [ 147 ] Read More

Our Latest Updates (archived after 30 days)

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• Gay Marriage – Pros & Cons
• Pro & Con Quotes
• History of Gay Marriage
• Did You Know?
• Gay Marriage around the World
• Gay Marriage Timeline
• State-by-State History of Banning and Legalizing Gay Marriage
• Gay Marriage in the US Supreme Court: Obergefell v. Hodges

Cite This Page

• Artificial Intelligence
• Private Prisons
• Space Colonization
• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

Gay Marriage Is Good for America

Subscribe to governance weekly, jonathan rauch jonathan rauch senior fellow - governance studies @jon_rauch.

June 21, 2008

By order of its state Supreme Court, California began legally marrying same-sex couples this week. The first to be wed in San Francisco were Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, pioneering gay-rights activists who have been a couple for more than 50 years.

More ceremonies will follow, at least until November, when gay marriage will go before California’s voters. They should choose to keep it. To understand why, imagine your life without marriage. Meaning, not merely your life if you didn’t happen to get married. What I am asking you to imagine is life without even the possibility of marriage.

Re-enter your childhood, but imagine your first crush, first kiss, first date and first sexual encounter, all bereft of any hope of marriage as a destination for your feelings. Re-enter your first serious relationship, but think about it knowing that marrying the person is out of the question.

Imagine that in the law’s eyes you and your soul mate will never be more than acquaintances. And now add even more strangeness. Imagine coming of age into a whole community, a whole culture, without marriage and the bonds of mutuality and kinship that go with it.

What is this weird world like? It has more sex and less commitment than a world with marriage. It is a world of fragile families living on the shadowy outskirts of the law; a world marked by heightened fear of loneliness or abandonment in crisis or old age; a world in some respects not even civilized, because marriage is the foundation of civilization.

This was the world I grew up in. The AIDS quilt is its monument.

Few heterosexuals can imagine living in such an upside-down world, where love separates you from marriage instead of connecting you with it. Many don’t bother to try. Instead, they say same-sex couples can get the equivalent of a marriage by going to a lawyer and drawing up paperwork – as if heterosexual couples would settle for anything of the sort.

Even a moment’s reflection shows the fatuousness of “Let them eat contracts.” No private transaction excuses you from testifying in court against your partner, or entitles you to Social Security survivor benefits, or authorizes joint tax filing, or secures U.S. residency for your partner if he or she is a foreigner. I could go on and on.

Marriage, remember, is not just a contract between two people. It is a contract that two people make, as a couple, with their community – which is why there is always a witness. Two people can’t go into a room by themselves and come out legally married. The partners agree to take care of each other so the community doesn’t have to. In exchange, the community deems them a family, binding them to each other and to society with a host of legal and social ties.

This is a fantastically fruitful bargain. Marriage makes you, on average, healthier, happier and wealthier. If you are a couple raising kids, marrying is likely to make them healthier, happier and wealthier, too. Marriage is our first and best line of defense against financial, medical and emotional meltdown. It provides domesticity and a safe harbor for sex. It stabilizes communities by formalizing responsibilities and creating kin networks. And its absence can be calamitous, whether in inner cities or gay ghettos.

In 2008, denying gay Americans the opportunity to marry is not only inhumane, it is unsustainable. History has turned a corner: Gay couples – including gay parents – live openly and for the most part comfortably in mainstream life. This will not change, ever.

Because parents want happy children, communities want responsible neighbors, employers want productive workers, and governments want smaller welfare caseloads, society has a powerful interest in recognizing and supporting same-sex couples. It will either fold them into marriage or create alternatives to marriage, such as publicly recognized and subsidized cohabitation. Conservatives often say same-sex marriage should be prohibited because it does not exemplify the ideal form of family. They should consider how much less ideal an example gay couples will set by building families and raising children out of wedlock.

Nowadays, even opponents of same-sex marriage generally concede it would be good for gay people. What they worry about are the possible secondary effects it could have as it ramifies through law and society. What if gay marriage becomes a vehicle for polygamists who want to marry multiple partners, egalitarians who want to radically rewrite family law, or secularists who want to suppress religious objections to homosexuality?

Space doesn’t permit me to treat those and other objections in detail, beyond noting that same-sex marriage no more leads logically to polygamy than giving women one vote leads to giving men two; that gay marriage requires only few and modest changes to existing family law; and that the Constitution provides robust protections for religious freedom.

I’ll also note, in passing, that these arguments conscript homosexuals into marriagelessness in order to stop heterosexuals from making bad decisions, a deal to which we gay folks say, “Thanks, but no thanks.” We wonder how many heterosexuals would give up their own marriage, or for that matter their own divorce, to discourage other people from making poor policy choices. Any volunteers?

Honest advocacy requires acknowledging that same-sex marriage is a significant social change and, as such, is not risk-free. I believe the risks are modest, manageable, and likely to be outweighed by the benefits. Still, it’s wise to guard against unintended consequences by trying gay marriage in one or two states and seeing what happens, which is exactly what the country is doing.

By the same token, however, honest opposition requires acknowledging that there are risks and unforeseen consequences on both sides of the equation. Some of the unforeseen consequences of allowing same-sex marriage will be good, not bad. And barring gay marriage is risky in its own right.

America needs more marriages, not fewer, and the best way to encourage marriage is to encourage marriage, which is what society does by bringing gay couples inside the tent. A good way to discourage marriage, on the other hand, is to tarnish it as discriminatory in the minds of millions of young Americans. Conservatives who object to redefining marriage risk redefining it themselves, as a civil-rights violation.

There are two ways to see the legal marriage of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. One is as the start of something radical: an experiment that jeopardizes millennia of accumulated social patrimony. The other is as the end of something radical: an experiment in which gay people were told that they could have all the sex and love they could find, but they could not even think about marriage. If I take the second view, it is on conservative – in fact, traditional – grounds that gay souls and straight society are healthiest when sex, love and marriage all walk in step.

Children & Families

Governance Studies

Michael R. Glass, Taylor B. Seybolt, Phil Williams Enrique Desmond Arias, Roberto Briceño-Leon, Jon Coaffee, Savannah Cox, Daniel E. Esser, Vanda Felbab-Brown, Michael R. Glass, Kim Gounder, Brij Maharaj, Eduardo Moncada, Daniel Núñez, Taylor B. Seybolt, Phil Williams

January 21, 2022

John Hudak, William G. Gale, Darrell M. West, Vanda Felbab-Brown, Rashawn Ray, Molly E. Reynolds, Elaine Kamarck, William A. Galston, Gabriel R. Sanchez

January 5, 2022

Caitlin Talmadge

June 2, 2020

• Name Search
• Browse Legal Issues
• Browse Law Firms

Same-Sex Marriage Legal Pros and Cons

By Melissa McCall, J.D. | Legally reviewed by Melissa Bender, Esq. | Last reviewed July 12, 2023

Legally Reviewed

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by  FindLaw’s team of legal writers and attorneys  and in accordance with  our editorial standards .

Fact-Checked

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our  contributing authors . We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please  contact an attorney in your area .

With the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark  Obergefell v. Hodges  (2015) decision,  same-sex marriage  is now the law of the land. Marriage equality is no longer limited to states like New York. Same-sex couples now have equal rights as heterosexual/different-sex couples in marriage laws.

Although the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was no longer valid, states could ban same-sex marriage. This Supreme Court decision ( Obergefell ) cleared the way for gay people to get married throughout the United States. The ruling ushered in many other changes. For example, states must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

Obergefell  was a turning point in the fight for gay rights. This case dramatically altered the legal landscape for gay marriage, citing the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the  Fourteenth Amendment .

Although same-sex marriage is a fundamental civil right, marriage is not the right choice for all gay and lesbian couples. This article explores some of the pros and cons of same-sex marriage.

Legal Benefits of Marriage for Gay Couples

Marriage is a human right that creates a legal framework for dealing with family, including parental rights, inheritance, or taxes. This framework confers benefits on the parties to a marriage. Many proponents of gay marriage believe there is no difference between a gay marriage and a heterosexual marriage. Both parties want the same set of benefits and marriage rights.

Traditionally, marriage was an ideal foundation for growing a family. Marriage ideally provides stability for all parties, including children. In the past, barriers to marriage created obstacles for gay families. Often, LGBT couples do not have the same parental rights as heterosexual couples because of their marital status.

Marital status also affects issues such as child custody and visitation rights. Through marriage, non-biological parents have the same rights and responsibilities as biological parents. Upon death, the surviving parent automatically becomes the primary legal parent.

Absent marriage, same-sex couples can adopt to gain legal parental rights. No state may deny adoption to married LGBTQ couples.

Joint Property Rights

Marriage generally presumes  joint ownership of property  accrued during the marriage. The premise is different for unmarried couples. For unmarried couples, the person who acquires property owns it. With the legalization of marriage opening up choices for gay men and women, the issue of property rights can help determine if marriage is their best option.

Death and Taxes

Marriage also confers a set of benefits to the surviving spouse. Married couples can take advantage of favorable inheritance laws. If one spouse dies without a will, intestacy laws favor the surviving spouse. These benefits are not available to unmarried couples.

Government Benefits

Some government benefits are exclusive to married couples. These benefits include Social Security, health care, and unpaid leave to care for family members. Federal and state benefits are available to all legally married couples regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation.

Immigration

Legal marriage is one path to U.S. citizenship. Even legally married same-sex couples did not have this access to citizenship under the  Defense of Marriage Act  (DOMA). Same-sex and opposite-sex unions are now equally protected under federal law.

Legal Cons of Getting Married

Formalities.

Although many marriages start with beautiful ceremonies and parties, marriage is a formal, legal process. Unmarried couples can get together and break up without lawyers and court hearings.

Division of Property

State property laws dictate the division of marital property. In community property states, you and your former spouse divide the marital property evenly. In other states, property division is on "equitable" grounds, which could involve a 50/50 split.

Note that division of property also applies to liability for debts. Dividing assets and debts in a divorce can lead to costly battles. For unmarried couples, each partner can leave with whatever they accumulated. They each bear responsibility for debts in their names.

Marriage Alternatives

Although marriage equality is an important civil right, this does not mean all gay couples want to get married. And marriage is not the only option for same-sex unions. Civil unions, domestic partnerships, and common-law marriage are a few other options for marriage.

Same-sex marriage carries all the same rights and responsibilities as straight-married couples. If you have any questions about your choices as a gay couple, speak to an experienced local  family law attorney  today.

Can I Solve This on My Own or Do I Need an Attorney?

• Many people can get married without hiring legal help
• Marriages involving prenups, significant debt, child custody issues, and property questions may need an attorney

Get tailored advice and ask questions about getting married.

Find a local attorney

Helpful Links

• Divorce Overview
• Marriage Overview
• Child Support Overview

Attorney Directory

• General Family Law Attorneys
• Domestic Violence Attorneys
• Same Sex Attorneys

Don't Forget About Estate Planning

Marriage is an ideal time to create or change your estate planning forms . Take the time to add new beneficiaries (including your spouse!) to your will. Consider creating a power of attorney to ensure your spouse can access your financial accounts. Also, a health care directive lets your spouse make your medical decisions if you ever become incapacitated.

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Contact a qualified attorney for legal services focused on family law issues.

Enter information. (Required)

Find Help for These Areas:

• General Family Law
• Child Custody

Thank you for subscribing!

FindLaw Newsletters Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life

The email address cannot be subscribed. Please try again.

Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.

Find a Lawyer

• Search Legal Resources
• Find Cases and Laws

Same-sex marriage: What you need to know

• Marriage and Relationships

Are same-sex marriages different from heterosexual marriages?

Like heterosexuals, many lesbian, gay, and bisexual people want to form stable, long-lasting relationships and many of them do. In fact, researchers have found that the majority of lesbian, and gay, adults are in committed relationships and many couples have been together 10 or more years.

Scientists have found that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-sex partners largely resemble those of heterosexual partnerships . Like heterosexual couples, same-sex couples form deep emotional attachments and commitments. Same-sex and heterosexual couples alike face similar issues concerning intimacy, love, loyalty, and stability, and they go through similar processes to address those issues. Empirical research also shows that lesbian and gay couples have levels of relationship satisfaction similar to or higher than those of heterosexual couples.

How do laws that limit marriage to heterosexuals affect gay and lesbian people?

Being denied the right to marry reinforces the stigma associated with a minority sexual identity. Researchers have found that living in a state where same-sex marriage is outlawed can lead to chronic social stress and mental health problems . Psychologists are particularly concerned that such stigma may undermine the healthy development of adolescents and young adults.

The families and friends of lesbian and gay couples who are denied marriage rights may also experience negative physical and mental health consequences similar to those experienced by their loved ones.

Do same-sex couples make fit parents?

The vast majority of scientific studies that have directly compared lesbian and gay parents with heterosexual parents have consistently shown that the same-sex couples are as fit and capable parents as heterosexual couples , and that their children are just as psychologically healthy and well adjusted. For instance, one recent study found that children of same-sex couples do just as well in school as children of heterosexual couples, and these children are equally popular among their peers.

Why is marriage so important?

Marriage bestows economic and social support to couples in committed relationships, which can result in substantial health benefits . Researchers have found that married men and women generally experience better physical and mental health than comparable cohabiting couples. Additionally, same-sex couples in legal unions are more likely to remain in a committed relationship than those denied marriage rights.

Taken together, the research shows that there’s no scientific basis for denying marriage rights to same-sex couples, and doing so can adversely affect them as well as their family and friends.

For more information, visit APA’s marriage and family issues for LGBT people page.

This fact sheet is based on APA’s amicus brief in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry and APA’s Public Interest Government Relations Office fact sheet on Marriage Equality and LGBT Health.

Related reading

• Marriage and Family Issues for LGBT People
• Understanding transgender people, gender identity and gender expression
• Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators and School Personnel
• Insufficient Evidence that Sexual Orientation Change Efforts Work, Says APA
• Sexual orientation and gender diversity

You may also like

Evidence is clear on the benefits of legalising same-sex  marriage

PhD Candidate, School of Arts and Social Sciences, James Cook University

Disclosure statement

Ryan Anderson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

James Cook University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

Emotive arguments and questionable rhetoric often characterise debates over same-sex marriage. But few attempts have been made to dispassionately dissect the issue from an academic, science-based perspective.

Regardless of which side of the fence you fall on, the more robust, rigorous and reliable information that is publicly available, the better.

There are considerable mental health and wellbeing benefits conferred on those in the fortunate position of being able to marry legally. And there are associated deleterious impacts of being denied this opportunity.

Although it would be irresponsible to suggest the research is unanimous, the majority is either noncommittal (unclear conclusions) or demonstrates the benefits of same-sex marriage.

Further reading: Conservatives prevail to hold back the tide on same-sex marriage

What does the research say?

Widescale research suggests that members of the LGBTQ community generally experience worse mental health outcomes than their heterosexual counterparts. This is possibly due to the stigmatisation they receive.

The mental health benefits of marriage generally are well-documented . In 2009, the American Medical Association officially recognised that excluding sexual minorities from marriage was significantly contributing to the overall poor health among same-sex households compared to heterosexual households.

Converging lines of evidence also suggest that sexual orientation stigma and discrimination are at least associated with increased psychological distress and a generally decreased quality of life among lesbians and gay men.

A US study that surveyed more than 36,000 people aged 18-70 found lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals were far less psychologically distressed if they were in a legally recognised same-sex marriage than if they were not. Married heterosexuals were less distressed than either of these groups.

So, it would seem that being in a legally recognised same-sex marriage can at least partly overcome the substantial health disparity between heterosexual and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons.

The authors concluded by urging other researchers to consider same-sex marriage as a public health issue.

A review of the research examining the impact of marriage denial on the health and wellbeing of gay men and lesbians conceded that marriage equality is a profoundly complex and nuanced issue. But, it argued that depriving lesbians and gay men the tangible (and intangible) benefits of marriage is not only an act of discrimination – it also:

disadvantages them by restricting their citizenship;

hinders their mental health, wellbeing, and social mobility; and

generally disenfranchises them from various cultural, legal, economic and political aspects of their lives.

Of further concern is research finding that in comparison to lesbian, gay and bisexual respondents living in areas where gay marriage was allowed, living in areas where it was banned was associated with significantly higher rates of:

mood disorders (36% higher);

psychiatric comorbidity – that is, multiple mental health conditions (36% higher); and

anxiety disorders (248% higher).

But what about the kids?

Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue that children raised in same-sex households perform worse on a variety of life outcome measures when compared to those raised in a heterosexual household. There is some merit to this argument.

In terms of education and general measures of success, the literature isn’t entirely unanimous. However, most studies have found that on these metrics there is no difference between children raised by same-sex or opposite-sex parents.

In 2005, the American Psychological Association released a brief reviewing research on same-sex parenting. It unambiguously summed up its stance on the issue of whether or not same-sex parenting negatively impacts children:

Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.

Further reading: Same-sex couples and their children: what does the evidence tell us?

Drawing conclusions

Same-sex marriage has already been legalised in 23 countries around the world , inhabited by more than 760 million people.

Despite the above studies positively linking marriage with wellbeing, it may be premature to definitively assert causality .

But overall, the evidence is fairly clear. Same-sex marriage leads to a host of social and even public health benefits, including a range of advantages for mental health and wellbeing. The benefits accrue to society as a whole, whether you are in a same-sex relationship or not.

As the body of research in support of same-sex marriage continues to grow, the case in favour of it becomes stronger.

• Human rights
• Same-sex marriage
• Same-sex marriage plebiscite

Data Manager

Postdoctoral Research Fellowship

Health Safety and Wellbeing Advisor

Social Media Producer

Dean (Head of School), Indigenous Knowledges

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

5 facts about same-sex marriage

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court  issued a landmark ruling  that granted same-sex couples a constitutional right to marry. The 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges legalized gay marriage nationwide, including in the 14 states that did not previously allow gays and lesbians to wed. The decision rested in part on the court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment; the justices ruled that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples violates the amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

As we approach the fourth anniversary of the ruling, here are five key facts about same-sex marriage:

The share of Americans who favor same sex-marriage grew steadily for most of the last decade, but public support has leveled off in the last few years. Around four-in-ten U.S. adults (37%) favored allowing gays and lesbians to wed in 2009, a share that rose to 62% in 2017. But views are largely unchanged over the last few years. About six-in-ten Americans (61%) support same-sex marriage in the most recent Pew Research Center survey on the issue, conducted in March 2019.

Although support in the U.S. for same-sex marriage has increased among nearly all demographic groups, there are still sizable demographic and partisan divides.  For example, today, 79% of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated favor same-sex marriage, as do 66% of white mainline Protestants and 61% of Catholics. Among white evangelical Protestants, however, only 29% favor same-sex marriage. Still, this is roughly double the level (15%) in 2009.

While support for same-sex marriage has grown steadily across generational cohorts in the last 15 years, there are still sizable age gaps. For instance, 45% of adults in the Silent Generation (those born between 1928 and 1945) favor allowing gays and lesbians to wed, compared with 74% of Millennials (born between 1981 and 1996). There also is a sizable political divide: Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are much less likely to favor same sex marriage than Democrats and Democratic leaners (44% vs. 75%).

Same-sex marriages are on the rise . Surveys conducted by  Gallup in 2017 find that about one-in-ten LGBT Americans (10.2%) are married to a same-sex partner, up from the months before the high court decision (7.9%). As a result, a majority (61%) of same-sex cohabiting couples were married as of 2017, up from 38% before the ruling.

As with the general public, Americans who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) are most likely to cite love as a very important reason for getting married. In a  2013 Pew Research Center survey , 84% of LGBT adults and 88% of the general public cited love as a very important reason for getting married, and at least seven-in-ten in both groups cited companionship (71% and 76%, respectively). But there were some differences, too. LGBT Americans, for instance, were twice as likely as those in the general public to cite legal rights and benefits as a very important reason for getting married (46% versus 23%), while those in the general public were nearly twice as likely as LGBT Americans to cite having children (49% versus 28%).

The U.S. is among 29 countries and jurisdictions that allow gay and lesbian couples to wed. The first nation to legalize gay marriage was the Netherlands, which did so in 2000. Since then, several other European countries – including England and Wales, France, Ireland, all of Scandinavia, Spain and, most recently, Austria, Germany and Malta – have legalized gay marriage. Outside of Europe, same-sex marriage is now legal in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, New Zealand, South Africa and Uruguay, as well as in parts of Mexico. And in May 2019, Taiwan became the first country in Asia to allow gays and lesbians to legally wed.

Note: This is an update to a post originally published April 27, 2015. It was originally co-authored by Seth Motel, a former research analyst at Pew Research Center.

Related posts:

A global snapshot of same-sex marriage

5 key findings about LGBT Americans

• Federal Government
• Same-Sex Marriage
• Supreme Court

David Masci is a former senior writer/editor focusing on religion at Pew Research Center .

Anna Brown is a research associate focusing on social and demographic trends research at Pew Research Center .

Jocelyn Kiley is an associate director of research at Pew Research Center .

Americans rate their federal, state and local governments less positively than a few years ago

Nearly three-quarters of americans say it would be ‘too risky’ to give presidents more power, the changing face of america’s veteran population, americans’ dismal views of the nation’s politics, what the data says about food stamps in the u.s., most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Teaching & Learning

Harvard law school: the road to marriage equality.

Since at least 1983, when a Harvard Law student wrote a third-year paper exploring a human rights argument for same-sex marriage, HLS has participated in anticipating, shaping, critiquing, analyzing and guiding the long path toward marriage equality.

In the 1980s, Harvard Law students wrote papers and student notes  debating the pros and cons of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Those students graduated and became advocates who argued before legislatures and courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, both for and against legal recognitions of same-sex marriage. Others eventually became judges whose decisions created a legal basis for marriage equality, and some became scholars whose contributions inspired a new generation of students, advocates, and judges to think critically and creatively about LGBT rights. Together, they helped shape the course of a social and legal movement that surprised many by its swift changes in both public perception and legal doctrine.

Evan Wolfson ’83 Pens Prescient Paper

In 1983, a decade after a fledgling movement for same-sex marriage came to a grinding halt in the courts, Harvard Law School third-year student Evan Wolfson asked a question that few in the mainstream legal world were seriously deliberating: Does the Constitution, and its myriad explicit and implied protections of expression, privacy and individualistic self-fulfillment, guarantee the right to same-sex marriage

Many of the arguments Wolfson made then, grounded in a historical framework of marriage as a human rights issue, would later shape legal arguments that would sweep the courts in the decades to come. Twenty years later, Wolfson built on his unpublished thesis in the book “Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People’s Right to Marry.” Published the year after Massachusetts became the first – and at that point only – state to legalize same-sex marriage, the book provided a legal analysis for why marriage should be a constitutional right for all.

Carol Steiker ’86 Explores Constitutional Status of Gay Persons

In “The Constitutional Status of Sexual Orientation: Homosexuality as a Suspect Classification,” a widely cited student note for the Harvard Law Review , Carol Steiker ’86 , now a professor at Harvard Law, argued that legal classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny beyond the “rational basis” test then used by courts. Steiker argued that the most commonly asserted constitutional foundations for gay rights – the right to privacy and the First Amendment guarantee of free speech and expression – had failed to overcome inequality, and that an equal protection approach would provide a richer framework to address discrimination against gay people. Equal Protection – as well as the Due Process Clause – would later serve as a chief tool for courts finding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Laurence Tribe ’66 Argues to Strike Down Georgia Sodomy Laws

In 1986, the Supreme Court heard  Bowers v. Hardwick , in which  Laurence Tribe ’66  represented Michael Hardwick, a man who had been arrested by Georgia police under a state statute criminalizing sodomy. In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld Georgia’s law, finding that prescriptions against sodomy “have ancient roots,” against which an argument for a constitutional right to engage in homosexual sex was, “at best, facetious.”

(In 2003 the Supreme Court overruled Bowers in Lawrence v. Texas , a case for which Tribe wrote the ACLU’s amicus curiae brief supporting Lawrence.)

William Rubenstein ’86 Wins Legal Recognition of Gay Couples as Families

In 1989,   William B. Rubenstein ’86 ,  now a professor at Harvard Law School,   convinced a New York court that the surviving partner and caretaker of a man who had died of AIDS counted as “family” under the state’s law, and could thus continue living in a rent-controlled apartment that had belonged to his partner. In  Braschi v. Stahl Associates , New York became the first state supreme court to recognize a gay couple as a family, forging an important precedent at a time when there was almost no legal recognition of same-sex couples. After graduating from HLS, Rubenstein was a staff attorney and later director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National LGBT and AIDS Projects, and in 1993 authored the first casebook on LGBT law, now in its fifth edition and known as “Cases and Materials on Sexual Orientation and the Law.”

Evan Wolfson ’83 Joins Landmark Hawaii Litigation for Legal Right to Marriage

In the mid-1990s, Evan Wolfson participated in landmark litigation, serving as co-counsel in Baehr v. Lewin , later Baehr v. Miike , a Hawaii case in which the state’s supreme court held that the state’s prohibition on same-sex marriage was discriminatory. The state’s highest court sent the case back to trial, where a lower court found in 1996 that the state had no rational reason to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Backlash against the decision later led the state to amend its constitution to cement a ban on same-sex marriage, and inspired Congress to pass the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 . In 2003, Wolfson would go on to form the national advocacy group Freedom to Marry .

Jean Dubofsky ’67 Lands the First LGBT Rights Win at the Supreme Court

In 1996, after Colorado voters unexpectedly passed Amendment 2 to the state Constitution, which would have prevented local governments from recognizing homosexuals as a protected class, activists asked Jean Dubofsky ’67, an appellate attorney who had been the first woman to serve on the Colorado Supreme Court, to challenge the law. Although her goal was to get rid of Amendment 2 at the state level without landing in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court eventually took the case, Romer v. Evans, and ultimately struck down the amendment as failing under the rational basis test of the Equal Protection Clause, marking the first win for LGBT rights in the Supreme Court.

It also sparked the beginning of a line of opinions by Justice Anthony Kennedy ’61 that, unlike the Court in Bowers , treated gay people as individuals with rights and dignity. “If you look back at Bowers and all the federal decisions after, their language was just horrific,” Dubofsky said. “They belittled people and made their claims seem frivolous and ridiculous. Romer treated people as if they had some dignity. I couldn’t believe it, when I read the opinion, how much of a sea change it was.”

Harvard Scholars Question Marriage as the Unifying Goal for LGBT Rights

As the legal fight for same-sex marriage began to trickle through the courts, Harvard Law Professor Janet Halley examined in 2001 what she viewed as the troubling rhetoric increasingly adopted by advocates for gay marriage. In an essay titled “Recognition, Rights, Regulation, Normalisation: Rhetorics of Justification in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate,” Halley expressed concerns that although limiting marriage to heterosexual couples indeed deprecated the relationships of gay couples who wished to marry, the fight for equality had too readily adopted language emphasizing the normative value of traditional coupling. Instead, Halley argued, the movement should question widespread assumptions about marriage and monogamy, leaving the door open for a broader range of non-traditional relationships.

In 2003, then-3L Douglas NeJaime published an article in the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review titled “Marriage, Cruising, and Life in Between” that explored a range of ideological positions through case studies of some of the leading gay-based organizations. NeJaime expressed concerns that the push for marriage would homogenize the LGBT movement and leave behind those who did not wish to advocate for traditional relationships or gay assimilation.

Chief Justice Margaret Marshall Pens Massachusetts Opinion Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage

On November 18, 2003, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote the majority opinion for a divided court holding that the state’s ban on gay marriage violated the equal protection and due process rights of same-sex couples under the state constitution, making Massachusetts the first state to legalize same-sex marriage. Marshall, who in 2012 joined Harvard Law as a senior research fellow and lecturer, wrote a much-lauded and frequently quoted opinion that extolled marriage as a “deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family.”

Michael Klarman Reflects on Rapid Change

After dozens of states had legalized same-sex marriage – whether through legislation or the courts – Harvard Law Professor Michael Klarman authored  “From the Closet to the Altar: Courts, Backlash, and the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage.”

Klarman, who frequently writes about social backlashes that follow controversial court decisions, provided an overview of the growing legal acceptance of same-sex marriage and the role courts played in sparking or responding to social change.

September 2013:

Klarman, along with hls professors tomiko brown-nagin, charles fried, and visiting professor justin driver offered their thoughts on a trio of critical u.s. supreme court rulings involving same-sex marriage, voting rights, and affirmative action..

Harvard Law Professors and Alumni Battle Before the Supreme Court

On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Windsor , which challenged Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, and Hollingsworth v. Perry , a challenge to California’s Proposition 8. Months earlier, the Supreme Court had tapped Harvard Law Professor Vicki Jackson to argue that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear Windsor , an argument that neither party to the case had presented, and which the Court ultimately rejected before ruling on the merits. Paul Clement ’92 argued for the House of Representatives’ Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, a contingent of mostly Republican representatives who argued to uphold the Constitutionality of DOMA after President Barack Obama ’91’s administration refused to continue doing so. In addition, Professors Elizabeth Bartholet ’65 , Lawrence Lessig, and Laurence Tribe ’66 , Professor Emeritus Frank Michelman ’60 , and Lecturers Kevin Russell and Benjamin W. Heineman Jr., filed amicus briefs in the two major cases.

Mary Bonauto and Douglas Hallward-Driemeier ’94 Call for full Legal Recognition

Litigators across the country vied for the opportunity to argue for a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in some of the most anticipated cases in LGBT and civil rights history. In January 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to Obergefell v. Hodges and its companion cases to answer the question whether the Constitution required states to perform same-sex marriages, or whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause required states to, at the very least, recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Mary Bonauto, who was also lead counsel for the couples seeking the right to marry in Goodridge and has taught an LGBT reading group at Harvard in recent years, was ultimately picked for the task of arguing the first question, while Douglas Hallward-Driemeier ’94, a partner at law firm Ropes & Gray, took on the Full Faith and Credit question. On April 28, 2015, the pair faced the Supreme Court justices, arguing, as Bonauto put it, that the true question was not whether the government should decide that gay people should be able to marry, but that it was for ” the individual to decide who to marry.”

November 2014:

In a conversation with dean martha minow at hls, mary bonauto reflects on a quarter century of seeking equal treatment under law..

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy ’61 Writes Majority Opinion Affirming Marriage Equality

On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Constitution guarantees a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy ’61 delivered the  opinion of the Court in the landmark decision. He was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer ’64, Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’56-’58, Elena Kagan ’86, and Sonia Sotomayor.

Modal Gallery

Gallery block modal gallery.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Am J Public Health
• v.103(2); Feb 2013

Same-Sex Legal Marriage and Psychological Well-Being: Findings From the California Health Interview Survey

R. G. Wight designed the study, designed the analytic strategy, conducted the data analysis, and wrote the article. A. J. LeBlanc assisted with the study design, writing of the article, and article preparation. M. V. L. Badgett assisted with the study design, the analytic strategy, and article preparation.

Objectives. We examined whether same-sex marriage was associated with nonspecific psychological distress among self-identified lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults, and whether it had the potential to offset mental health disparities between lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons and heterosexuals.

Methods. Population-based data (weighted) were from the 2009 adult (aged 18–70 years) California Health Interview Survey. Within-group analysis of lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons included 1166 individuals (weighted proportion = 3.15%); within-group heterosexual analysis included 35 608 individuals (weighted proportion = 96.58%); and pooled analysis of lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons and heterosexuals included 36 774 individuals.

Results. Same-sex married lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons were significantly less distressed than lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons not in a legally recognized relationship; married heterosexuals were significantly less distressed than nonmarried heterosexuals. In adjusted pairwise comparisons, married heterosexuals had the lowest psychological distress, and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons who were not in legalized relationships had the highest psychological distress ( P  < .001). Psychological distress was not significantly distinguishable among same-sex married lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons, lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in registered domestic partnerships, and heterosexuals.

Conclusions. Being in a legally recognized same-sex relationship, marriage in particular, appeared to diminish mental health differentials between heterosexuals and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. Researchers must continue to examine potential health benefits of same-sex marriage, which is at least in part a public health issue.

Well-established research demonstrates that lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons have worse mental health outcomes than their heterosexual counterparts, highlighting important but poorly understood mental health disparities associated with sexual orientation. 1 For example, a meta-analysis of 4 decades of research concluded that lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons had higher rates of mental disorder, substance misuse, suicidal ideation, and self-harm than did heterosexuals. 2 Research that examines both population- and individual-level outcomes supports the theory that sexual minority stressors (e.g., stigma or expectations of rejection, experiences of discrimination, internalized homophobia, the need for concealment of sexual identity) might be at the root of this disparity because they strain lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons’ abilities to adapt to and function in their everyday environments, increasing risks for poor mental health. 3–8

Extensive research also provides broad evidence that individuals in heterosexual marriages, on average, experience better mental health outcomes than their unmarried counterparts. 9–11 This differential might stem from tangible economic benefits (e.g., access to health insurance) or a heightened sense of relationship stability associated with legal recognition of the marital commitment, the positive effects of intimacy and closeness, as well as from greater emotional support and self-worth conferred to the married. 1

Taken together, these 2 large bodies of work suggest that lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons might be uniquely disadvantaged because they endure sexual minority-related stressors and challenges not experienced by heterosexuals, and in most parts of the United States, they are denied access to legal marriage, which potentially could enhance their mental health in the same ways it does for heterosexuals. In 2009, the American Medical Association officially recognized that exclusion from legal marriage among sexual minorities contributes to health care disparities in same-sex households, 12 yet very little research has examined the potential mental health benefits of permitting lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons to legally marry someone of the same sex. To date, the best evidence has come from small-scale nonrepresentative studies, which suggest that, like their heterosexual counterparts, sexual minority persons realize psychological benefits from same-sex legal marriage and other types of legally recognized same-sex relationships (e.g., civil unions, registered domestic partnerships [RDPs]). 13,14

Beginning in June 2008, same-sex couples were allowed to legally marry in California. A statewide referendum (Proposition 8) overturned this legal right in November 2008, putting a halt to all new same-sex marriages. In 2010, Proposition 8 was overturned by a US District Court, a decision recently twice affirmed by the US Court of Appeals. As of this writing, the issue is with the US Supreme Court and the status of same-sex marriage in California is in flux: existing same-sex marriages stand, but no new same-sex marriages are legally permitted. Also, since 2000, lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons may enter a RDP with a same-sex partner in California. A 2005 law enhanced the status of RDP to include almost all of the state-provided rights and responsibilities of marriage.

This study analyzed population-based data from the 2009 California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) to investigate the association between legal marriage and mental health among heterosexual and lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults aged 18 to 70 years, as well as the potential relationship between same-sex marriage and mental health disparities based on sexual orientation. Given the apparent mental health benefits of marriage found in previous research, we hypothesized that lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in legal same-sex marriages and partnerships would experience better mental health than lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons not in same-sex legal relationships. Consistent with the previously described findings, we also hypothesized that married heterosexuals would report lower psychological distress than unmarried heterosexuals. Further, we hypothesized that mental health disparities between lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons and heterosexuals would be diminished when same-sex relationship status was taken into account, given the tangible and emotional benefits that accrue with legal marriage.

Data were from the 2009 adult CHIS. 15 Conducted by telephone every 2 years, the CHIS is the nation’s largest population-based state health survey. The CHIS has been a leader in telephone survey methodology and employs a multistage sample design with random-digit-dial (RDD) sampling that includes both landline and cellular telephone numbers to enhance coverage. For the landline RDD sample, the state was divided into 56 geographic sampling strata, including 2 counties with subcounty strata, 41 single-county strata, and 3 multicounty strata. Within each stratum, residential telephones were selected, and within each household, 1 adult (aged ≥ 18 years) was randomly selected. A separate RDD sample was drawn of telephone numbers assigned to cellular service. The cell RDD sample was stratified by area code, and 1 adult household member was randomly selected from cell-only households.

The sample size was 47 614 adults. The overall household response rate (a product of the screener response rate, 36.1%, and the extended adult response rate, 49.0%, landline and cellular numbers combined) was 17.7% and was roughly comparable to other large telephone surveys specific to California at around the same time, such as the 2009 California Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey. 16 RDD response rates have declined in recent years, a trend at least partly caused by the proliferation of telemarketing and telephone screening devices. 17 However, emerging studies show that RDD response rates should not be the sole criteria in rating data quality or survey representativeness because there might be little correlation between response rates and nonresponse bias. 18 CHIS researchers conducted extensive data quality studies to assess methodological issues related to nonresponse and noncoverage biases with CHIS data and consistently found that the data accurately represented California’s household population. 19 Detailed information about CHIS methodology can be found at the CHIS data quality Web site ( http://www.chis.ucla.edu/dataquality.html ).

Adults aged 70 years and younger were asked, “Do you think of yourself as straight or heterosexual, as {gay/gay,lesbian} or homosexual, or bisexual?” The analytic sample for within-group lesbian, gay, and bisexual analysis included those who responded that they were gay, lesbian, homosexual, or bisexual (n = 1166). After the application of sample weights, this number represented 3.15% of the 70-years-and-younger adult California population (weighted n = 777 508). The analytic sample for within-group heterosexual analysis included those who reported they were straight or heterosexual (n = 35 608). After the application of sample weights, this number represented 96.85% of the 70-years-and-younger adult California population. For a small number of cases, respondents reported exclusively engaging in sexual behavior that did not “match” their marital status (i.e., being in a same-sex marriage but having only different-sex partners, n = 12; being in a different-sex marriage but having only same-sex partners, n = 28); these cases were omitted from the analysis. These omissions did not affect the findings presented. Heterosexual RDPs were not assessed in the CHIS. The pooled lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual analysis included 36 774 individuals. Nonheterosexuals who reported being “not sexual,” celibate, or “other” were excluded from the analysis. Transgender identity was not assessed in the CHIS.

Psychological distress.

The dependent variable was nonspecific psychological distress, as measured with a continuous form of the widely used Kessler 6 (K6) screening scale, 20 which asks how often in the past 30 days (responses scored from 0 [none of the time] to 4 [all of the time]) respondents felt nervous, hopeless, restless, fidgety, so depressed that nothing could cheer them up, everything was an effort, and worthless. Responses were summed (possible range = 0–24). The continuous form of the K6 was used rather than the dichotomous form (cutoff score of “13+” = possible serious mental illness) to capture the full range of psychological distress, including subsyndromal symptomatology.

Legal relationship status.

Nonheterosexual respondents were asked, “Are you legally registered as a domestic partner or legally married in California with someone of the same sex?” RDP and same-sex legal marriage responses were mutually exclusive. We referred to a lesbian, gay, or bisexual person who was legally married as “same-sex married” to clearly distinguish individuals with same-sex and different-sex spouses. Heterosexual marriage was assessed with the question, “Are you now married, living with a partner in a marriage-like relationship, widowed, divorced, separated, or never married?” (responses were mutually exclusive).

Sociodemographic controls.

Multiple sociodemographic variables that might influence observed findings were controlled in the analysis:

• gender (male or female)
• ethnicity (Asian or Asian Pacific Islander, African American, Hispanic, Non-Hispanic White, and other),
• age (categorized because of its known nonlinear association with psychological distress, such that, on average, distress is high in young adulthood, then decreases, and then increases in old age, 21 18–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–70 years),
• education (< high school, high school, some college, ≥ college degree),
• whether English was the primary language spoken in the home (yes or no),
• employment status (works now vs not),
• health insurance status (has insurance vs not),
• whether the respondent lives in an urban area (yes or no),
• whether household income was below the 2008 California median household income level of $61 000 (yes or no), 22
• self-rated fair or poor health (yes or no).

Analyses were conducted with the Stata SVY procedure (StataCorp, College Station, TX), which accounts for sample weights and the complex survey sampling design. Associations between relationship status and psychological distress, adjusted for sociodemographic controls, were first assessed with ordinary least-squares SVY regression models (within-group lesbian, gay, and bisexual association, within-group heterosexual association, pooled lesbian, gay, and bisexual–heterosexual association). Adjusted means for psychological distress by relationship status were then assessed with the Stata ANOVALATOR procedure, which provides adjusted pairwise comparisons. Because of multiple comparisons, a P value of .05 was divided by the number of paired comparisons made to determine the significance level.

Sample characteristics of lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons (weighted) are shown in Table 1 . Most lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in California were not in a legally recognized same-sex marriage or domestic partnership. The proportion in same-sex marriages (7.13%) was nearly identical to recent US Census Bureau Reports, 23 and the proportion in RDPs was also comparable to recent estimates (12.35%). 24 Slightly more than half of heterosexual adults in California were currently married, similar to recent national estimates. 25

TABLE 1—

Weighted Characteristics of California Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Persons and Heterosexuals Aged 18–70 Years in 2009 by Legal Relationship Status

Note . Neither = neither same-sex married nor RDP; RDP = registered domestic partnership. The unweighted sample sizes were n = 1166 for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons and 35 608 for heterosexuals.

In the CHIS lesbian, gay, and bisexual subsample, men outnumbered women, ethnicity and age were roughly comparable to the California population, 26 nearly half had a college degree or more, most spoke English in their homes, were currently employed, had health insurance, and had household incomes below the 2008 California median level. A majority (94.72%) lived in urban areas. About one fifth rated their health as fair or poor. Heterosexuals were roughly similar to lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons, with the exception of education (lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons were more educated) and English being the primary language spoken at home (lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons were more likely to live in homes where English was the primary language).

Comparisons among lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons who reported being in legal same-sex marriages, RDPs, and neither of these legal arrangements revealed wide variation for some characteristics ( Table 1 ). For example, lesbian or bisexual women were more likely to be in same-sex marriages than gay or bisexual men, whereas gay or bisexual men were more likely to be in RDPs. Among lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons, non-Hispanic Whites were disproportionately more likely than other ethnicities to be in either type of legally recognized union, as were late middle-aged persons and those with more socioeconomic resources (education, employment, health insurance, income). Such relationship-related disparities were less evident among heterosexuals, although married heterosexuals had more socioeconomic resources than nonmarried heterosexuals.

Association Between Psychological Distress and Relationship Status

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons..

As shown in Table 2 , model 1, same-sex married lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons were significantly less distressed than lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons not in a same-sex legal relationship. The level of distress among lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in RDPs was not significantly different than that of lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons not in a legal relationship. Model 1 also showed that among lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons, psychological distress was negatively associated with being male, older, and currently employed, whereas it was positively associated with living in a home in which English was the primary language spoken. Model 1 accounted for 16% of the variance in psychological distress.

TABLE 2—

Parameter Estimates (weighted) for Psychological Distress Among Californians Aged 18–70 Years in 2009

Heterosexuals.

Model 2 in Table 2 shows that married heterosexuals were significantly less distressed than nonmarried heterosexuals. Model 2 also indicated that among heterosexuals, psychological distress was negatively associated with being Asian or Asian Pacific Islander or Hispanic (compared with being non-Hispanic White), being older, having a high school education or more, and being currently employed. Distress was positively associated with living in an urban area, having a household income lower than the median California household income, and reporting fair or poor health. Model 2 accounted for 12% of the variance in psychological distress.

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons and heterosexuals pooled.

Model 3 in Table 2 shows that psychological distress was lower among married heterosexuals, unmarried heterosexuals, and same-sex married lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons than among lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons not in a legally recognized relationship (the omitted reference group). The estimate for same-sex RDP was not significant. The association between the control variables and psychological distress was nearly identical to model 2 (the heterosexual model).

Adjusted Mean Psychological Distress Scores

As shown in Table 3 , adjusted pairwise comparisons (controlling for sociodemographics, statistical significance set at P  < .017 to adjust for 3 comparisons) indicated that psychological distress was significantly higher among persons who were not in any type of same-sex legal union than in those in a same-sex marriage, but not compared with those in an RDP. Differences in mean psychological distress scores between persons in same-sex marriages and RDPs were nonsignificant ( P  > .05).

TABLE 3—

Psychological Distress Scores (Kessler 6) by Legal Relationship Status among Californians Aged 18–70 Years in 2009, Weighted and Adjusted for Sociodemographic Characteristics

Note. RDP = registered domestic partnership.

Adjusted pairwise comparisons (controlling for sociodemographics, statistical significance set at P  < .05 to adjust for 1 comparison) indicated that psychological distress was significantly higher ( P  < .001) among unmarried heterosexuals than among those who were married ( Table 3 ).

The overall mean psychological distress score (adjusted and weighted) for heterosexuals (4.01; SE = 0.10) was significantly ( P  < .001) lower than that for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons (5.25; SE = 0.26), consistent with previous research. 2 As shown in Table 3 , adjusted pairwise comparisons (controlling for sociodemographics, statistical significance set at P  < .005 to adjust for 10 comparisons) indicated that married heterosexuals had the lowest psychological distress, and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons who were not in any legalized relationship had the highest psychological distress, a significant difference ( P  < .001). Psychological distress was not significantly distinguishable among same-sex married lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons, lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in RDPs, and heterosexuals of any marital status. Same-sex married lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons were significantly less distressed than were lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons who were not in legal relationships ( P  < .001).

Supplemental Analysis

Because there did not appear to be significant differences in psychological distress between lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in same-sex marriages and RDPs, supplemental analyses of the lesbian, gay, and bisexual analytical sample were conducted to test associations between each relationship type and psychological distress when added individually to the adjusted model. Postestimation Wald tests indicated that the association between same-sex marriage and psychological distress was significantly different from 0 ( F [1,79] = 6.98; P  = .01), but this was not the case for the association between same-sex RDP and psychological distress ( F [1,79] = 0.01; P  = .92). Thus, although direct mental health differences between same-sex marriage and RDP were not detected among lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons, it appears there might be a unique positive mental health association specifically conferred by legal marriage, particularly compared with not being in any type of legally recognized relationship at all.

Findings presented here add to the very small body of work aimed at exploring associations between being in a same-sex legal marriage and mental health among sexual minorities. With data from a population-based sample representative of Californians aged 18 to 70 years, we found results similar to those found in small-scale studies. These data suggested that psychological distress might be lower among lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in same-sex marriages compared with those not in any type of legally recognized same-sex union. This association was statistically significant even when controlling for myriad sociodemographic characteristics related to mental health.

There was no significant difference in psychological distress between persons in same-sex marriages and RDPs. However, consistent with previous work, 14 supplemental analyses suggested that same-sex marriage might be the more beneficial legal arrangement for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in terms of their mental health. Future studies that explore the mechanisms by which this benefit might arise are needed.

Perhaps most importantly, findings additionally indicated that there were no statistically significant differences in psychological distress between heterosexual individuals and same-sex married lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in RDPs, and that persons in each of these relationship categories had significantly lower distress scores than did lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons not in any type of legally recognized relationship, net of a range of sociodemographic control variables. Legal recognition of same-sex relationships, legal marriage in particular, thus appeared to have potential to offset mental health disparities between heterosexuals and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons.

Previous research has suggested that the positive association between psychiatric disorders and being lesbian, gay, or bisexual was stronger in states that did not specifically protect sexual minorities from hate crimes or employment discrimination. 27 In addition, it has been shown that rates of psychiatric disorders actually increased among lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in states that enacted constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage. 28 These associations were hypothesized to stem from social stress derived from institutionalized discrimination, one aspect of sexual minority stress. 8 Our findings were consistent with this work, in that sexual minority stressors, such as stigma, prejudice, internalized homophobia, and identity concealment, 8 might play a role in how same-sex marriage manifests in psychological well-being. Being legally married might negate or “buffer” 29 the mental health impact of these stressors at the individual level and might offset the larger macro-level effects of sanctioned discrimination. Much more research is needed that identifies pathways by which same-sex marriage might affect mental health.

As previously described, we operationalized psychological distress with a continuous version of the K6 to capture the full range of the severity of distress experiences, including subsyndromal symptomatology. The K6 was originally designed to screen for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-4th Edition ( DSM-IV ) serious mental illness, defined as any DSM-IV mental disorder within a particular time frame, with a cutoff score of 13+ signifying possible serious mental illness. 20 Continuous operationalization of the K6 allowed us to examine associations between legal relationship status and a unit change (i.e., frequency of experiencing symptoms) in nonspecific psychological distress rather than comparing persons at the extreme end of the symptom spectrum from the majority of persons who either were asymptomatic or were symptomatic but did not meet diagnostic screening criteria, an approach that discards information about the full distress continuum. When we reran the adjusted within-group lesbian, gay, and bisexual analysis with the K6 dichotomized and made subsequent pairwise comparisons, the proportion of lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons who were screened as potentially seriously mentally ill did not differ across relationship status. In the pooled analyses, the proportion of persons who met diagnostic criteria did not significantly differ between heterosexuals, lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in same-sex marriages, and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in RDPs, however it did differ between heterosexuals and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons not in a legally recognized relationship. Thus, even when analyses separated individuals who were most likely to experience a diagnosable disorder from those who were not, legal recognition of same-sex relationships still appeared to diminish known mental health differentials between heterosexuals and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons.

Study Limitations

Limitations to this investigation included the cross-sectional nature of the analysis, which precluded definitively establishing the causal directions of the observed associations. Longitudinal studies on the health benefits (or lack thereof) of same-sex marriage are needed to clarify the directionality of findings, in particular, reverse causation and selection effects. Although most longitudinal research suggests that entering into marriage is associated with increases in psychological well-being and decreases in psychological distress among heterosexuals (i.e., no selection effect), the magnitude of this protective effect appears to be smaller than that found in cross-sectional studies, 11 and caution should be used in ascribing a marriage effect to the marital relationship per se. Because the time period during which same-sex couples could marry in California was brief, lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in relatively good health might have been most likely and able to take advantage of this narrow window of opportunity, enhancing the possibility of a selection of healthier individuals into same-sex marriage.

There was also the possibility that multiple unobserved confounding variables were responsible for the significant same-sex marriage finding. For example, it could be that unmeasured environmental or personality factors attenuated the association between same-sex marriage and psychological distress. In addition, self-reporting of same-sex marriage is subject to bias, and it was possible that some of the legal same-sex marriages actually reported were not legal marriages, but were “marriage-like” relationships, leading to false-positive reports of legal marriages. Such a bias would suggest that the relationship itself matters more to mental health than the legal status of the relationship. Furthermore, marriage dissolution data (widowhood, separation, divorce) were available for heterosexuals but not for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons, precluding us from systematically comparing mental health differentials among subgroups of nonmarried heterosexuals and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. Future studies are needed to examine how marriage dissolution and many other confounding variables might be associated with sexual minority mental health. Marriage tenure was not assessed for either heterosexuals or lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. It was also likely that some of the “neither same-sex married nor RDP” individuals were in long-term relationships that had no legal recognition: the CHIS did not differentiate these individuals from other lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons, preventing us from partitioning out specific associations for this group.

Conclusions

The findings presented here offer empirical evidence that same-sex marriage might be positively associated with psychological well-being in lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons, and that same-sex marriage might also be associated with the mental health disparity between heterosexuals and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. This finding emerged despite the fact that lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in same-sex marriages, in California and any US state, do not enjoy the same level of social support or government recognition and benefits that those in different-sex marriages do. Given that same-sex marriage was the better predictor of psychological well-being than same-sex RDP, these findings suggest that potential mental health benefits might incrementally accrue with access to relationships that offer greater degrees of social and legal recognition. Mental health benefits of same-sex marriage might in part be derived from a heightened sense of social inclusion concomitant with the social institution of marriage. 30 Given these results, researchers should continue to examine the potential health benefits of legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide and re-legalizing same-sex marriage in California. In short, this research showed that same-sex marriage among lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons in the United States is at least in part a public health concern.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant from the Williams Institute, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law (R. G. W., Principal Investigator). We thank David Grant and Steven P. Wallace for data assistance.

Human Participant Protection

This research was approved by the University of California, Los Angeles, Office for the Protection of Research Subjects.

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire

Reaction Paper

Research Paper

• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Pros and Cons of Gay Marriage, Research Paper Example

Pages: 9

Words: 2557

Hire a Writer for Custom Research Paper

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

Considering the fact that the Supreme Court has recently made a national ruling that gay marriage is without a doubt legal all across the United States of America, the question of whether the federal government should make gay marriage legal everywhere in America now brings a whole new level of interest. Despite the fact that the decision has been made and there is no going back now, there are multiple individuals who are questioning the Supreme Court’s ruling, wondering if it has made a mistake or not. Because of these kinds of individuals, it is of great interest that all gay marriage issues are taken into account. By doing so, an accurate prediction can be made about whether the federal government made a reasonable decision or not. Taking all of this into consideration, it can easily be predicted that there are both pros and cons of having the federal government make gay marriage legal all across the nation. (Slick)

In order to understand why there are so many individuals that are against the legalization of gay marriage, history must be taken into account. When included, it does not come as a surprise that the people who are most against gay marriage are none other than religious individuals. In order to use a specific example, Roman Catholics should be considered. Despite the fact that the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not express any hatred towards individuals attracted to the opposite sex, it does say that it forbids the marriage between two people who are not of the opposite sex. (Wolfson)

The reason that the Catholic Church gives for this kind of opposition to gay marriage is the belief in that God created woman to be with man and man to be with woman. Anything that is not in accordance with this would be of great disrespect to one’s religion. Furthermore, the Catholic Church has gone to great extents throughout the years of ensuring the fact that they hold no remorse against those individuals who choose to be gay. The Church explains that being gay is not a sin, however, what is a sin is when one acts upon one’s desires. What this means is that if a gay individual were to realize that he or she was gay, he or she would be immediately asked by the Catholic Church to not give in to temptation and to avoid any sexual acts that might be deemed sinful by the Church. (Wolfson)

Putting these kinds of beliefs into consideration, it can easily be assumed that if the federal government were to make gay marriage legal everywhere in America, the Catholic Church might take great offense at this. Given the fact that so many individuals around the world are Christians, there would be worldwide discomfort with America adopting this kind of ideology, despite the fact that gay marriage has already been legal in countries such as Mexico and Canada for quite some time now.

Besides the fact that individuals find it completely offensive to God that gay marriage has now become legalized, there are multiple other reasons as to why individuals believe that the federal government should have never adopted such a new law in the first place. One of the foremost underlying reasons as to why individuals disagree with gay marriage is because of the manner in which an adopted child would not be given the opportunity to experience a life with a mother and a father. It has been said that such actions give a child no other alternative but to be gay himself or herself, given that all he or she might have ever known is to live with two individuals of the same sex. Many people have found this incredibly bothersome throughout the years, and with due reason. The fact that the federal government has taken it upon itself to say that there is nothing wrong with gay marriage is opposed by an outstanding number of individuals.

These individuals are constantly arguing that the marriage between two people of the same sex is not marriage in itself. This is referred to as such because of the manner in which it is a known fact that two individuals of the same sex are not able to produce offspring. Those individuals who often make references to this widely-known fact are cognizant of the actuality that men and women are meant to be together due to their biological and psychological attributes. For some, it is common sense that men should never be with men as well as women never be with women. This has come to the extent that many find it immoral or shameful to society when two individuals of the same sex publicly proclaim that they are homosexuals. `

Another controversy that has often times been brought about by the legalization of gay marriage is the idea that by legalizing it, the federal government has left no room for dispute about whether or not this course of action should be followed. Some have gone as far to say that the federal government is not imposing the acceptance of gay marriage without a choice. It goes without saying that there a vast majority of individuals who highly disagree with this, given the belief that all gay marriage does is benefit those who know that they are wrong. What this leads to is a multitude of individuals stating that the legalization of gay marriage has only created greater problems because of the manner in which a morally incorrect thing has been converted into a civil right in a matter of time. This kind of decision makes many question the stability of the federal government and its position in other rising places of interest.

A highly regarded argument that has been introduced since the acceptance of gay marriage by the federal government is that it is unfair to the American people. This is said as such because many individuals believe that the federal government has now taken it upon itself to force the American public to accept those who are gay. What this intends to say is that the federal government has now left no room for misinterpretation of discussion of the issue at hand. Now, with the present situation, if an individual were to express discomfort with two gay individuals marrying, he or she would have to take it up with the law, given that gay marriage is now legal. (Vogue, Diamond)

Now that the major negative parts of gay marriage have been effectively discussed, the other thing that should now be discussed is the widespread approval that gay marriage now has and is increasing. The major argument that is often times brought about that gay marriage should invariably be legal all across the nation is the idea that by denying some people the right to marry, the federal government itself is denying a vast majority of individuals there inalienable rights. Of course, this brings many other questions to the table, so they must be handled one at a time. First and foremost, it should be taken into account the fact that there are those individuals who strongly believe that by avoiding the legalization of gay marriage, the federal government was not allowing certain individuals to be entirely satisfactory. (Slick)

Without a doubt, there were some individuals who would often go as far as to state the belief that by not allowing gay marriage, the federal government was discrimination against gay couples. While these arguments are structurally-sound, it can be easily noticed how these individuals would go to far lengths in order to portray the manner in which they were being unfairly treated by their own government. These individuals would often say that, at times, they felt inferior to those people who were not gay because of the vast amount of disapproval that gay individuals received worldwide for quite some time. Because of this, there have been a number of people throughout the ages who strongly believe in the idea that gay marriage should be allowed without any further questions and/or concerns. (Brown)

A fair argument that is often times brought up by homosexuals and those individuals who are in favor of gay marriage is that idea that the term “traditional marriage” has been changed over extensive periods of time. There are many who invariably argue that will of the progress that humanity has made thus far, it should be allowed to individuals to be able to marry whomever they please. It is these same individuals who often state that by the simple fact of the federal government not allowing gay marriage, there is a barrier placed on the freedom that the United States of America has so strongly advocated for in previous years. Clearly, this presents an ongoing problem for many individuals who only see the alternative choice as giving everyone the same amount of liberties that all individuals deserve. (Jervis)

What this has meant in the last couple of weeks in the nation has been to allow all individuals to exercise their God-given rights that have been inscribed in the United States constitution for such an extensive period of time. The argument that individuals are having their freedom taken away by not being able to marry their significant other is a great way to get the federal government to listen. This is because of the fact that the federal government would never want its own citizens to say that it is not doing a well enough job of ensuring the overall population’s freedom. Many individuals often refer to the United States Constitution not only for the freedom that is being forbidden, but also for the equality that is being barred from gay couples. (Explore Pros and Cons of Controversial Issues)

Because of the manner in which the Constitution clearly states that fact that all individuals of the nation should be treated equally, it goes without saying that the federal government had no other choice but to allow gay marriage. This was due to the reason in which by continuing to forbid gay marriage, the Constitution would not be followed. It has been said that since the federal government feared that individuals would stop following all of the instructions and regulations dictated by the Constitution, it decided that it would be a much better idea to just allow for gay marriage to be legal. For the federal government, being blamed for not allowing its individuals to have been able to practice their equality throughout everyday life was one of the worst-case scenarios. Due to the fact that the federal government is expected to uphold the standards and regulations set by the United States Constitution, equality had to be granted to all. (“US Gay Marriage: Texas Pushes Back Against Ruling.” )

While there are many who wonder about whether or not there was any inequality taking place, it is difficult to state that there was, in fact, no inequality taking place. This is because of the reason that it is difficult to say that all couples were being treated in the same fashion when heterosexual couples were allowed to marry each other buy homosexual couples were not. These kinds of regulations could have caused much uproar in the past, and it comes as a great surprise that not much violence was able to come out of the situation in the past. Given the fact that marriage has been constantly regarded as a right for all kinds of individuals, idealistic, it would have been illegal for the federal government to continue to neglect the allowing of marriage between two individuals of the same sex. Therefore, it goes without saying that the federal government did not have any other choice but to make a ruling for gay marriage to be allowed in all fifty states of the United States of America. (TFP Student Action)

If such actions would not have been taken by the federal government in such a pivotal moment in American history, there is no telling as to the kinds of things that could have happened. For those individuals who argue that the federal government should unquestionably allow the marriage between gay individuals have proved extremely resilient and resourceful in such a delicate national matter. In between all of the claims that gay couples currently make better parents than heterosexual couples, history was able to take place. Probably a major incentive as to why the federal government was able to make such a ruling just a few days ago is because of the manner in which it is believed that gay couples could aid the federal government’s efforts in improving the nation’s economy, In the eyes of the federal government, it was a huge advantage to have homosexual couples on their side, given the idea that they would have an increased amount of financial gains with the increased amount of couples living in the United States. (Brown)

It is of great interest that all gay marriage issues are taken into account. By doing so, an accurate prediction can be made about whether the federal government made a reasonable decision or not. Taking all of this into consideration, it can easily be predicted that there are both pros and cons of having the federal government make gay marriage legal all across the nation. Despite the fact that there are a variety of individuals who believe that the federal government should have waited a much longer time to legalize gay marriage, there is not much these individuals can do at this point. On the other hand, there are other individuals who are jubilant at the idea of having gay marriage legalized. Some of these individuals have gone as far as to say that this is a historic moment for Americans because of the manner in which all types of differences are finally being set aside in order to provide a much greater America to future generations. The aforementioned statement is extremely difficult to deny, given the fact that the United States spent a series of decades deciding whether or not legalizing gay marriage was the correct thing to do. Even if this was the correct thing to do, the federal government still had to deal with another matter at hand: What would be the perfect time to legalize gay marriage? Despite the many underlying conflicts and problems that had to be resolved in order to legalize gay marriage, it cannot be argued that the decision that has been made brings along both pros and cons of what will happen in the next couple of years. (TFP Student Action)

Works Cited

Brown, Brian. “Nationally Legal Gay Marriage Puts Churches at Risk – US News.”  US News & World Report . US News & World Report, 7 Oct. 2011. Web. 30 June 2015.

Explore Pros and Cons of Controversial Issues.  Gay Marriage ProCon.org . ProCon.org, n.d. Web. 30 June 2015.

Jervis, Rick. “Same-sex Marriage Ruling Faces Religious Rights Battle in Texas.”  USA TODAY . USA TODAY, 29 June 2015. Web. 30 June 2015.

Slick, Matt. “10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and Must Be Opposed.”  TFP Student Action . Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, n.d. Web. 30 June 2015.

TFP Student Action. “10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and Must Be Opposed.”  TFP Student Action . TFP Student Action, n.d. Web. 30 June 2015.

“US Gay Marriage: Texas Pushes Back Against Ruling.”  BBC News . BBC News, 29 June 2015. Web. 30 June 2015.

Vogue, Ariane, and Jeremy Diamond. “Supreme Court Rules States Must Allow Same-sex Marriage Politics.com.”  CNN . CNN, 27 June 2015. Web. 30 June 2015.

Wolfson, Evan. “Without Nationwide Gay Marriage, U.S. Government Discriminates – US News.”  US News & World Report . US News & World Report, 7 Oct. 2011. Web. 30 June 2015.

Stuck with your Research Paper?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

A Global Brief on Hypertension, Coursework Example

The David Case and the Ben Case, Reaction Paper Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Research Paper Samples & Examples

The risk of teenagers smoking, research paper example.

Pages: 11

Words: 3102

Impacts on Patients and Healthcare Workers in Canada, Research Paper Example

Pages: 7

Words: 1839

Death by Neurological Criteria, Research Paper Example

Words: 2028

Ethical Considerations in End-Of-Life Care, Research Paper Example

Pages: 5

Words: 1391

Ethical Dilemmas in Brain Death, Research Paper Example

Words: 2005

Politics of Difference and the Case of School Uniforms, Research Paper Example

Pages: 2

Words: 631

33 Major Pros & Cons Of Gay Marriage

Advantages & disadvantages of gay marriage.

Gay marriages are a quite controversial topic.

While there are many arguments for the legalization of gay marriages, there are also numerous problems related to this concept.

In this article, the pros and cons of gay marriage are discussed in detail.

Audio Lesson

Advantages of gay marriage, equal rights for everyone, prohibition of gay marriage as outdated historical construct.

Proponents of self-sex marriages also often claim that the prohibition of those marriages is based on rather outdated social norms .

However, in our nowadays society, there is far less need for additional children and same-sex marriage and therefore, the historical reasons why gay marriages had been prohibited in the past may be missing in our current age.

Equal benefits for all couples

Gay marriages are part of a modern and tolerant society.

In general, we often claim to be so tolerant in our society while in fact, many people are not tolerant at all.

Nobody should be handicapped due to those inherent characteristics and therefore, gay marriages are another step towards a more tolerant, modern and open society that embraces a variety of different lifestyles and attitudes.

Cultural values changed a lot over time

In fact, people in our nowadays society often try new things, want to expand their knowledge and their experience and try to really figure out what they want to do with their lives.

Positive health effects for gay couples

In fact, in our current society, many people who have an interest in the same sex have to hide their feelings since being gay is still considered to be intolerable by many people in our society.

This can lead to serious emotional conflicts, which may turn into severe mental issues in the long run.

Lower stress levels for self-sex couples

If gay couples do no longer have to fear getting attacked by other people, chances are that also their overall stress levels will drop significantly.

Difference between religious and legal marriage should be made

Religious movements could still prohibit gay marriages if they think that those marriages are against the values of their religion.

Can also be justified from a legal and constitutional perspective

However, the right to make free decisions should also include marrying whomever people want, independent of whether this person is of the same or of different sex.

May be considered as a human right

Apart from constitutional frameworks, gay marriages may also be considered as human right by many people.

Can help that more orphans get adopted

Stigmatization of adopted children from gay couples can be avoided.

In turn, also children who had been adopted by gay couples could benefit since they would have an easier time in school and in life in general.

People can live their life to its fullest

Prohibition of gay marriages would discriminate people.

The prohibition of gay marriages can also be considered as a form of serious discrimination.

People do no longer have to hide their true nature

Many celebrities embrace the idea of gay marriage, increasing number of people consider gay marriages as normal.

Many people in our current society also consider gay marriages as part of the local culture.

Depending on the region, people do no longer differentiate between straight and gay couples and therefore, there may no longer be a reason to prohibit gay marriage at all.

Disadvantages of Same-Sex Marriage

Gay marriage may conflict with religious beliefs, self-sex marriage may conflict with cultural values, many people still consider it as dodgy.

Even though the level of tolerance towards minorities and also to self-sex marriages has increased quite a lot over the past years in some regions, there are still countries where the level of tolerance regarding gay marriage is still quite low.

We need children to sustain our population

Tolerance towards gay couples is still missing, opponents claim that gay marriage is against human nature.

Gay marriages may also simply be against nature. In order to reproduce as a species, couples of different sexes are urgently needed.

Hence, humanity would have gone extinct if there were only gay couples around in the past.

Gay marriage may violate certain traditions

Marriage may lose its importance in our society, opponents of gay marriage claim that it is immoral.

Opponents of gay marriage also often have moral concerns.

Raising kids in households with mother and father works best

Many studies have shown that children who grew up in a household with a mother and a father have the best chances in life.

May only be the beginning of the erosion of cultural concepts

Thus, in order to protect their cultural values on which they have relied on their whole lives, those people may also not accept gay marriage.

Marriage should be linked to procreation

Since gay couples will not be able to produce children, they should also not be allowed to marry.

Not allowed in many countries yet

Even though the concept of gay marriage had been discussed in many countries all over the world, it is still not be accepted in many of those countries, both from a social as well as from a legal perspective.

Some people rather claim to abandon the concept of marriage in general

In their opinion, marriage can be considered to be a rather outdated social construct, which does not make too much sense anymore.

Same-sex marriages can be expensive for the state

Allowing gay marriages could be quite costly for states since they would have to spend plenty of additional taxpayers’ money on benefits related to those marriages.

Acceptance towards gay couples may be lacking even if they are allowed to marry

In fact, the general public may still not tolerate this concept from a social perspective, even if it was allowed from a legal perspective.

Top 10 Gay Marriage Pros & Cons – Summary List

Should We Allow Gay Marriages?

The concept of gay marriage is a rather controversial topic that leads to plenty of discussions and disputes on a regular basis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

About the author

As I went to university and got my Master’s degree in Economics, I did plenty of research in the field of Development Economics.

Wanna make a contribution to save our environment? Share it!

Affiliate Disclosure

Pin it on pinterest.