Same-sex marriage

{{silver}}
[[File:Tchemiguel Liège Willy Demeyer.jpg|thumb|right|225px|Same-sex marriage officiated by the mayor of Liège in [[Belgium]].]]
{{sex}}{{cquote|Gays can't marry because Irish Potato Famine mutant lawnweed can't speak goddamned English.|||Grahame Morris, former {{wpl|Liberal Party of Australia|Liberal Party}} advisor (paraphrased)<ref>{{cite web|author=Doré, Louis|url=https://www.indy100.com/news/presenting-one-of-the-worst-arguments-ever-against-samesex-marriage-seriously-7269566|title=Presenting one of the worst arguments ever against same-sex marriage. Seriously|work=The Independent|date=June 3, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=McCormick, Joseph|url=http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/02/australian-commentator-we-shouldnt-approve-gay-marriage-because-irish-people-cant-grow-potatoes/|title=Australian commentator: We shouldn’t approve gay marriage because Irish people "can't grow potatoes"|work=PinkNews|date=June 2, 2015}}</ref>}}
'''Same-sex marriage''' (also called '''gay marriage''')<ref group=note>Note that the term "gay marriage" is technically less accurate, because the participants in a same-sex marriage are not necessarily gay: one or both could be bisexual, pansexual etc.</ref> is the union of two individuals of the [[homosexuality|same sex]] in a marital relationship, with the full [[legal]] rights and responsibilities allotted to this contract in a given jurisdiction. Legally defined [[marriage]] of homosexual couples is limited to almost 40 countries as of 2023; some other places have "[[civil union]]s", which includes many of the all-important legal trappings, without the title "marriage" and the [[religious]] overtones [[Ignoramus|some]] think are implied by the word.

Supporters of same-sex marriage may refer to it as '''"marriage equality,"''' (e.g., the Marriage Equality Act of New York State),<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20110615153045/https://www.governor.ny.gov/assets/marriageequalitybill.pdf Marriage Equality Act] ''Governor's Office of New York'' (archived from June 15, 2011).</ref> while opponents may call it '''"redefining marriage,"'''{{efn|Ironic, considering the Oxford English Fucking Dictionary did exactly that.<ref>[http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/oxford-dictionary-says-marriage-definition-will-change-include-gay-people240713 Oxford Dictionary says marriage definition will change to include gay people] (24 Jul 2013) ''Gay Star News''.</ref>}} or may use [[scare quotes]] (i.e., '''same-sex "marriage"''').<ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/25/kennedy-vs-catholicism/ Editorial: Kennedy vs. Catholicism] (November 25, 2009) ''The Washington Times''.</ref>{{efn|[[Bryan Fischer]] even calls it ''sodomy-based marriage.''<ref>[http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-sodomy-ugly-word-because-it-describes-ugly-behavior Fischer: Sodomy Is ‘An Ugly Word Because It Describes Ugly Behavior’] by Kyle Mantyla (August 12, 2013 10:44 am) ''Right Wing Watch''.</ref>}}

As of August 2024, the institution of traditional marriage has been updated in thirty-nine countries.<ref group=note>Namely Andorra, [[Argentina]], [[Australia]], [[Austria]], [[Belgium]], [[Brazil]], [[Canada]], [[Chile]], [[Colombia]], [[Costa Rica]], [[Cuba]], [[Denmark]] (including [[Greenland]] and the Faroe Islands), [[Ecuador]], [[Estonia]], [[Finland]], [[France]], [[Germany]], [[Greece]], [[Iceland]], [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]], [[Liechtenstein]], Luxembourg, Malta, [[Mexico]], [[Nepal]], the [[Netherlands]], [[New Zealand]], [[Norway]], [[Portugal]], [[Slovenia]], [[South Africa]], [[Spain]], [[Sweden]], [[Switzerland]], [[Taiwan]], [[Thailand]], the [[United Kingdom|UK]] (performed in [[England]], [[Scotland]], [[Wales]], and [[Northern Ireland]], as well as the Crown Dependencies of [[Isle of Man]], [[Gibraltar]] and the [[Channel Islands]]), the [[United States]], and [[Uruguay]].</ref> Marriage has been shifting from a religiously-dictated ritual to a social construct that is no longer related to the personal beliefs, or to any ritualism specific to organized religion.

Same-sex marriage is sometimes conflated with the civil union of two same-sex individuals. For that reason, this article will cover both.

There are several religious groups that endorse or perform gay marriages, including [[Episcopalians]], [[Presbyterianism|Presbyterians]],<ref>Ford, Dana. [http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/19/us/presbyterian-church-same-sex-marriage/ Presbyterians vote to allow same-sex marriage]. ''CNN'', June 19, 2014.</ref> [[Quaker]]s, [[Unitarian Universalist]]s, [[Eckankar|Eckists]], [[Raëlians]], [[Druid]]s, [[Native American]] faiths with [[Non-binary gender#The Americas|two-spirit]] traditions, certain [[Judaism#Liberal Judaism|Reform Jewish]] rabbis,<ref>Rabbi Powers, Amber. [http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Weddings/Contemporary_Issues/Same-Sex_Marriage.shtml Same-Sex Marriage]. ''My Jewish Learning''.</ref> [[Wicca]]ns, and [[the Satanic Temple]].

==Same-sex marriages in history==
{{cquote|The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.|||American Anthropological Association, 2004.<ref>[https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2602 Statement on Marriage and the Family]. American Anthropological Association.</ref>}}

The earliest European civilisation known to have a concept of officially-recognised same-sex relationships were the Ancient Greeks, who used a form of civil partnership to unite older men and boys.<ref>[https://slate.com/culture/2009/09/james-davidson-s-the-greeks-and-greek-love.html Ancient Greek Lessons About Gay Marriage], Emily Wilson, ''Slate'' 22 September 2019</ref> The Romans were ''legally'' opposed to same-sex marriages, but the Emperor had the power to allow such marriages. [[Nero]] himself married a man by the name of Pythagoras (not {{wpl|Pythagoras|''that''}} Pythagoras), where the only thing truly "scandalous" about it was that he took the role of the bride rather than the groom.<ref>[https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/tacitus/annals/15b*.html Annals], Tacitus</ref>

In Christian society, same-sex marriages were treated to varying degrees in its first millennium, depending on whether the local church felt that love was a better reason to marry than just sex. The existence of "Josephite marriages" is another example of this dispute, where soulmates are officially married but also committed to celibacy. By the 4th century, the now-Christianised Roman Empire quickly outlawed and condemned same-sex marriages under Emperor Constantine II. This did not rule out marriage for later Christian states, however, as the {{wpl|Kingdom of Galicia}} allowed at least one church wedding in 1061.<ref>Callón, Carlos. [http://archive.is/dmYN Callón gaña o Vicente Risco de Ciencias Sociais cun ensaio sobre a homosexualidade na Idade Media] (in Galician). Archived from the original at galiciae.com.</ref> After a thousand years of squabbling, the Catholic Church finally banned same-sex marriages outright in the 1400s, replacing it with a civil partnership known as "brother-making", which may have entailed homosexuality in individual cases, however evidence is highly questionable. However, if a marriage was made the Church was committed to acknowledging its existence, as seen in the case of Marcela Gracia Ibeas and Elisa Sánchez Loriga in 20th century Spain, though they were excommunicated for the act.<ref>[http://archive.is/Fs4PD "Elisa Sánchez Loriga"]. Archived from the original at unless-women.eu.</ref>

==Arguments for same-sex marriage==
[[File:Hendricks-leboeuf.jpg|thumb|225px|The wedding of Michael Hendricks and René Leboeuf, the first same-sex marriage in [[Quebec]], 1 April 2004.]]

===Equality===
{{main|Equality}}
The argument for equality is the most compelling and obvious for allowing same-sex marriage. Most laws in the [[Western world]] are designed to be inclusive and protective of ''all'', so it makes little sense to deny a group of people the legal protection and support that a marriage provides.

[[Santorum|Some]], however, object to equality as an argument for same-sex marriage. They believe that if homosexuality deserves equal protection, then [[slippery slope|logically]], deviant practices such as [[incest]] or [[bestiality]] must be allowed the same equal protection. Their belief is that if two adults love each other, that is insufficient grounds to allow marriage — siblings who ''love'' each other cannot marry, for example, and an adult who ''loves'' a child or their golden retriever cannot marry them. Incest (in the meaning of sexual encounter between 2 closely-related beings capable of producing a child), however, differs from same-sex marriage in that there is a higher than usual risk that a child born to the closely-related couple could suffer [[genetic]] defects.<ref>[http://www.jstor.org/pss/2740683 Genetics, Ecology, and the Origins of Incest and Exogamy] by Frank B. Livingstone (1969) ''Current Anthropology'' 10(1):45-61.</ref> Bestiality and adult-child marriages are also a violation of [[informed consent]], which is the biggest flaw of that argument. Another basic idea is that when many [[Women's suffrage|women got the right to vote]] a few decades ago, it didn't follow up with dogs getting that right, nor the right to drive [[car]]s. Why? Because [[dog]]s are not sapient beings with [[civil rights]] akin to those of human beings.

In these contexts, the only difference between a gay marriage and most [[heterosexual]] marriage is that, well, "[[Pregnancy|a baby can't form]]", at least not without surrogacy.

===Basic human rights===
{{main|Human rights}}
A human right, by definition, extends to all humans. Freely choosing one's own spouse, regardless of [[gender]] or status, is a fundamental human right. However, [[Social conservatism|social conservatives]] believe that claims to human rights may be mitigated by [[moral]] barriers. They argue that just as humans cannot choose to marry [[pedophilia|children]] or siblings, they likewise should not be able to marry someone of the same gender, and [[Argumentum ad nauseam|rinse/repeat]] etc.

===Happiness===	 
[[File:Stephaniehaynes family.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Happily married women with children in Philadelphia.]] 
Being married to the partner of your preferred gender allows participants a much happier domestic life, and better [[sex]]. Or at least, sex with a gender you're not desperately unattracted to.

This also comes in the form of mental health benefits for gay people, as has been shown by a number of studies. Legalizing same-sex marriage is correlated with reductions in mental healthcare visits and associated costs for both gay men and bisexual men.<ref name="hatzenbuehler"/> Same-sex couples also saw their risk of suicide decline after same-sex marriage was made legal.<ref>[https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/11/suicides-fall-with-gay-marriage-in-sweden-denmark-as-stigma-fades/ Another reason to celebrate the legalisation of gay marriage in Sweden and Denmark: the drop in suicide rates] (November 19, 2019)</ref> Even for LGBT youth, who aren't old enough to get married, there are still benefits. In the United States, the legalization of gay marriage was associated with lower suicide attempt rates among LGBT youth, as legalizing gay marriage helps destigmatize LGBT people at large including those who are too young for marriage.<ref>[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2604258 Difference-in-Differences Analysis of the Association Between State Same-Sex Marriage Policies and Adolescent Suicide Attempts] by Julia Raifman et al. (2017) ''JAMA Pediatr.'' 2017;171(4):350-356. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.4529</ref>

===Same benefits as opposite-sex marriage===
The benefits that people ascribe to opposite-sex marriage — greater commitment, a better place to raise [[children]], a more fulfilling and satisfactory existence etc. — ought to be available for same-sex partners who want to get married. There is no [[evidence]], outside the opinions of [[conservative talk radio|certain pundits and propaganda from the right-wing]], that a marriage between two women or two men is less beneficial to society than a heterosexual one. This argument has been used by [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|UK Prime Minister]] and [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative Party]] leader [[David Cameron]], who has said that "Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative."<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/oct/05/david-cameron-conservative-party-speech David Cameron's Conservative party conference speech in full] (5 Oct 2011 12.22 EDT) ''The Guardian''.</ref> This had brought criticism from leading British figures in the [[Church of England]] and the [[Roman Catholic Church]].<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17249099 Catholic cardinal criticises gay marriages plan] (March 4, 2012) ''BBC''.</ref>

===Lower divorce rate===
{{main|Divorce}}
Interestingly, same-sex marriages are significantly ''less'' likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages.<ref>[https://pridelegal.com/gay-marriages-divorce/ How Many Gay Marriages End In Divorce?] (February 10<sup>th</sup>, 2021) ''Pride Legal''.</ref><ref>[https://www.mollybkenny.com/blog/think-tank-reveals-gay-divorce-statistics-same-sex-marriage-facts.cfm Think Tank Reveals Gay Divorce Statistics & Same Sex Marriage Facts] ''Law Offices of Molly B. Kenny''.</ref> Even more interestingly, gay people tend not to belong to a denomination or faith that abhors divorce in the first place, for reasons that should be obvious. There are several possibilities as to why the divorce rate is lower. For instance, without the risk of accidental pregnancy, there are no shotgun weddings. Furthermore, a society with people allowed to be openly gay are less likely to have [[closet]]ed people end up in sham marriages, which would slightly lower the rate of divorce for opposite-sex marriages as well.

==Arguments against same-sex marriage==
[[File:Gay marriage warning (19083064780).jpg|thumb|right|220px|Poor kid looks embarrassed to be here.]]
To characterize arguments against gay marriage, most suggest that allowing persons of the same sex to marry will [[slippery slope|somehow]] [[family values|destroy the family]], destroy marriage, or destroy both at once. Multiple courts have already found such argumentation to be ridiculous,<ref>[http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/California-Prop-8-Ruling-August-2010 California Prop 8 Ruling] (August 2010) ''Scribd''.</ref>{{rp|77}} and of course, this didn't happen in any country that legalized gay marriage thus far.

A real problem with arguing for same-sex marriage is that allowing same-sex ''marriage'' is much more contentious than allowing same-sex ''civil unions'' with all the same rights as marriages.{{efn|Prior to the beginning of legalization of gay marriage in the US ([[Massachusetts]] in 2004), about 30% of Americans supported legalization.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20040401225020/http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm Law and Civil Rights] ''PollingReport.com'' (archived from April 1, 2004).</ref> By the time the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] got around to ruling gay marriage as a [[United States Constitution|Constitutional]] right in 2015, 55% of Americans agreed that it should be legal.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20151212154641/http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm Law and Civil Rights] ''PollingReport.com'' (archived from December 12, 2015).</ref> By 2018, the percentage had risen to 67%.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20211221185552/https://www.pollingreport.com/lgbt.htm Law and Civil Rights] ''PollingReport.com'' (archived from December 21, 2021).</ref> Thus, a clear majority of Americans support gay marriage.}} Because the word "marriage" is considered inherently better than the word "civil union," allowing for same-sex civil unions would still let opponents of gay marriage hold what they consider to be a [[discrimination|position of superiority over homosexuals]], due to the implication that the government holds heterosexuals in higher regard than homosexuals. The [[Religious Right]] often attempted to argue against gay marriage by conflating gay marriage with civil unions, and deliberately trying to whitewash over the possibility of civil unions as an intermediate step between no-rights and marriage. Since the Religious Right had a lot to gain from this deliberate mischaracterization, it did not cease until full marriage equality was achieved.

However, it is critically important to remember that, when talking about the right to same-sex marriages, few people are talking about ''forcing'' [[church]]es to marry homosexual couples. In the US, this would be unconstitutional.<ref group=note>Remember the [[First Amendment]]?</ref> After all, churches will — and should — do what they want, and some churches do ''marry'' gay couples.

In the debate on same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom, the idea that churches would be forced (possibly — gasp! — by the European Union) to marry gay couples against their will had been brought up by opponents of same-sex marriage… but nobody ever seemed to see that the same argument applies to divorcees or inter-faith marriages. And no evil Eurocrats or activist judges have been keen on forcing Catholic churches to perform marriages for divorcees.

What most people are talking about are the ''legal benefits'' that flow from marriage — inheritance, veterans benefits, hospital visitations, etc.

===Slippery slope arguments===
{{main|Slippery slope}}
The slippery slope [[fallacy]] as applied needs no serious answer because it presumes that gay marriage and (insert horrible thing here) can only be wrong for the same reason, such as "the [[Bible]] says so" or "it's just unnatural" or something else. If it's ''not'' necessarily the same reason, then each practice can be considered and rejected/accepted on its own terms. But if it always ''is'' then no one would have different opinions on both things, yet plenty of people do (from [[gay rights]] activists who oppose [[polygamy]], to religious fundamentalist polygamists who oppose homosexuality).

A common argument against gay marriage is that it is the thin end of the (gay) wedge that will lead society down a slippery slope to complete collapse.{{efn|Some excellent examples can be found in the comments of ''The Punch'''s article "Give the Coalition time and they’ll vote for gay marriage"<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20120108081646/http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/give-the-coalition-time-and-theyll-vote-for-gay-marriage/ Give the Coalition time and they’ll vote for gay marriage] by Alex Greenwich (January 3, 2012) ''The Punch'' (archived from January 8, 2012).</ref>}} The argument holds that the "[[Homosexual agenda|gay lobby]]" only wants gay marriage to be a starting point.  Next will be gay adoption, IVF and surrogacy (all of which exist in Australia already).  After that will come the lowering of the [[age of consent]] and polygamy/polyandry. After that, siblings will be allowed to marry. Once this agenda has been realised, the stage will be set for the legalisation of bestiality and "[[bullshit|inter-species marriage]]". The final step will be "inanimate object marriage."{{efn|And it actually happens<ref>[http://www.newser.com/story/83128/5-people-married-to-inanimate-objects.html 5 People Married to Inanimate Objects] by Evann Gastaldo (Mar 12, 2010 11:26 AM CST) ''Newser''.</ref> — though it is doubtful that these are legally recognized in any meaningful way.}} Once all of this is done, so the argument goes, naturally every single heterosexual person will have either turned gay or married an [[animal]] or object with which it cannot reproduce, and society will be forever destroyed.

This argument overlooks several factors, including that: in none of the places where gay marriage is already legal has this occurred; gay marriage activists tend to either stop lobbying or focus their efforts on other LGBTQ+ issues like anti-[[discrimination]] laws once they have gay marriage rather than moving on to inter-species marriage; and that most heterosexuals are in fact heterosexuals and are not simply biding their time until they can legally marry a person of the same sex/donkey/computer keyboard.

To put it another way, users of the slippery-slope argument are saying that one's views on gay rights have to be ''held hostage'' to one's issues with polygamy or incest, or else one is guilty of [[hypocrisy]]. This is fallacious regardless of whether or not polygamy and incest are objectively wrong. Even if hypocrisy is a consequence of accepting gay rights and rejecting the parade of prophesied horribles, [[Tu quoque|it doesn't follow]] that avoiding personal hypocrisy is more important than expanding civil rights. After all, if hypocrisy is to be avoided, we shouldn't see so many [[Republican Party|advocates of a limited government that stays out of people's private affairs]] advocating for the government to decide who may and may not get married.

The argument further misses the fact that bestiality was a legal practice in many countries until the 21<sup>st</sup> century, when several countries started to make it punishable by law, which was also around the same time that same-sex marriage became allowed in many countries. While [[correlation is not causation]] — and the penalizing of bestiality is due to demands from [[animal rights]] activists more than anything else — it is more than enough reason to assume that that slippery slope doesn't work, as one doesn't see those same animal rights activists organizing protests in favor of abolishing same-sex marriage.

====Slouching toward NAMBLA====
{{main|1=Slippery slope|3=North American Man/Boy Love Association}}
Just look at all those other countries that legalised gay marriage, they were marrying [[Pedophilia|pedos]] to kids within a matter of… well… that actually hasn't happened anywhere at all, but it's a matter of time!<ref>[http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/texas-gop-warns-gay-marriage-could-lead-incest-pedophilia Texas GOP Warns Gay Marriage Could Lead to Incest, Pedophilia] by Emma Margolin (August 7, 2014) ''MSNBC''.</ref>

This ignores the fact that homosexual love was accepted for decades before gay marriage was legalised, while pedophile love is still considered totally unacceptable by almost everyone; hence a major change in attitude would be needed for marrying 8 year olds to be considered. Also, there has been a movement against marriage of young people in the west, while in many traditional [[Christian]], [[Muslim]], and [[Hindu]] nations, marriage below 18 or even 16 is common.<ref>[https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2016/09/FT_Marriage_Age_Appendix_2016_09_08.pdf Marriage Laws around the World] (September 8, 2016) ''Pew Research Center''.</ref> In the USA, liberal [[Delaware]] and [[New Jersey]] have the strictest restrictions on marriage below 18, while according to UNICEF, the conservative, religious state of [[Missouri]] is "a destination wedding spot for 15-year-old child brides".<ref>[https://www.forbes.com/sites/unicefusa/2018/10/29/what-you-need-to-know-about-child-marriage-in-the-us-1/#588c6e645689 What You Need To Know About Child Marriage In The U.S.] by Sarah Ferguson (Oct 29, 2018,04:35pm EDT) ''Forbes''.</ref>

In any event, those who argue a slippery slope from same-sex marriage to pedophilia are openly admitting that they don't find the distinction of "consenting adults" meaningful, which is in itself pretty disturbing.

====Polygamy====
{{main|Polygamy}}
This is probably the most reasonable argument for the anti-gay marriage side — if there is a fundamental right to marry whomever you choose, why can't married people get married to more people? However, it makes several fundamentally problematic assumptions, namely:
#Legalizing polygamy is necessarily a bad thing.
#Polygamy won't be legalized anyway.
#Polygamy won't remain illegal because it causes harm.
#The same slippery slope argument applies to interracial marriage.

The best argument against this is the fact that polygamy is ''much more complicated'' than a marriage of two consenting adults, especially in a legal sense; in fact, there are multiple possible ways to have a plural marriage, each with its own possible benefits and detriments to the individuals and society, whereas there's only one way to allow two consenting adults of the same sex to marry each other in the modern world. The fact that it's complicated doesn't mean that it's bad, but it does mean there needs to be more debate to nail down exactly what kind of polygamous marriages society is going to endorse, if any.

Another argument against this is that polygamy, or at least polygyny, ''was'' legal in ancient times. Ergo, allowing same sex marriage would move us further away from polygamy, not closer.

====Counter-argument: Comparison with interracial marriage====
{{main|Miscegenation}}
Many people used to (and some still do) feel that interracial marriage was wrong and that a black guy kissing a white lady, or vice versa, was creepy and uncomfortable. Simply being uncomfortable with something is not a reason to ban it. Two people speaking Spanish between themselves in front of you on the bus may make you uncomfortable, but is it really a good idea to say that speaking Spanish (in, say, a predominantly English speaking country) should be illegal?<ref group=note>It doesn't help that there are people who [[English-only movement|would answer "yes" to that]].</ref>

As laws are supposed to be founded on objective proof and logical discourse, one person's squeamish reaction to two people of the same sex, different races, or different social classes getting close should not and cannot be used as a ''legal'' argument against them marrying.

====Counter-argument: Backwards slope====
The fun thing with slippery slope arguments is that they slip both ways. By the same logic, if we were to repeal gay marriage where it's legal based on the notion that "marriage is for having children only", we could ban marriages involving people unable to reproduce (e.g., the elderly or infertile people), and eventually ban marriage altogether.

===Hurts marriage===
====Hurts traditional marriage roles====
{{main|Kinder, Küche, Kirche}}
This is actually true, though it's mostly phrased this way by supporters considering it as an advantage, not by opponents.<ref>[http://nursingclio.org/2013/04/02/same-sex-marriage-does-threaten-traditional-marriage/ Same-Sex Marriage Does Threaten “Traditional” Marriage] by Tiffany K. Wayne (April 2, 2013) ''Nursing Clio''.</ref> The "traditional" roles in question being roles that social changes advocated against in the last hundred years. Gay marriage makes [[Stereotype|stereotypical]] traditional marriage roles look as silly as they are. Marriage equality is a threat to those who do not believe in equality between the sexes in general.

Of course, the marriages that enforced traditional gender roles were the marriages which existed under {{wpl|coverture||,}} when a woman was legally subsumed into her husband for most practical purposes once she was married, such that her public life effectively ended and she was confined to the private sphere and had to rely on her husband to handle most things outside of the home. ''That'' is long dead in most of the world, and died decades before same-sex marriage was even much discussed in the [[Western world]].

====Changes goal from procreation====
Similarly, some argue that the state recognizes marriage in order to promote procreation, which ensures the state's continued existence. The argument goes that since procreation is generally the result of sexual union between a man and a woman, recognizing same-sex marriage doesn't make any sense. However, they fail to note the ''generally''. Same-sex couples can also procreate (rather than adopt) through IVF or surrogacy, albeit with some more red tape and planning to go through. Scientists are also working on ways to make sperm from eggs, make eggs from [[Stem cell research|stem cells]], and grow babies in artificial womb, so in the future, there may not even be the need for a donor.

This also ignores the fact that procreation is ''not'' a requirement for heterosexual marriage. Child benefit is just one of many legal and [[tax]] benefits given to married couples, such as spousal [[Social Security]] benefits, [[Medicare]] and other medical benefits, estate planning benefits, disability benefits, employment benefits, death benefits, family benefits such as right to property, housing benefits, consumer benefits such as tuition and insurance discounts, allowing filings of wrongful death suits, marital communication privileges, visiting rights, and more, alongside simply giving them the opportunity to register their commitment to one another and have it acknowledged by the state. None of these are taken away if a couple fails to produce children on a regular basis, as they are there to provide stability to a committed couple, regardless of how many 
crying screaming sods
 bundles of joy they wish to have.

Also, if "marriage is for procreation", then by that logic we shouldn't be giving marriage licenses to people who have had vasectomies/tied tubes, people who are naturally sterile, or even the guy that got hit too hard in the soccer balls with a soccer ball.

The procreation argument alone should be insulting for those involved in an honest relationship. To define marriage as simply a vehicle for procreation undermines the deeper relationships and meaning of marriage. So much for "defense of marriage". If anything, the argument is ''insulting'' to children, as it determines their worth in numbers, rather than how they are cared for. [[family planning|Better to raise one child or none in a stable working household]] than bring three into one that cannot support them. And in case you didn't realise, we have [[overpopulation|a global problem going on]].

While some states had implemented same-sex marriage bans using procreation as the reasoning, courts within a day of each other in 2013 ruled that the bans in [[New Mexico]] and [[Utah]] were violations of the equal protection and [[due process]] clauses of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]]. Both judges ruled that procreation was not a valid argument because heterosexual couples who were elderly (e.g. post-menopausal), infertile or otherwise making a conscious decision not to have children were not subject to the same ban that same sex couples were. Judge Terence Kern noted in his decision for the US District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma that "civil marriage… does not have any procreative prerequisites", and concluded that "permitting same-sex couples to receive a marriage license does not harm, erode, or somehow water-down the 'procreative' origins of the marriage institution."<ref>[http://www.oknd.uscourts.gov/docs/d50f87b8-eebd-49bf-a18a-cc6e8acda53e/04cv848.pdf Mary Bishop et al. v. United States of America] ''United States District Cour for the Northern District of Oklahoma''.</ref>{{rp|58}}

====Lesbian sperm thieves====
David Usher of [[RenewAmerica]] warns that women will, given the slightest opportunity, all marry each other, thus taking all the legal [[privilege]] from men, and use the men only as a source of sperm.<ref>[http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/usher/130821 Our last chance to save traditional marriage] by David R. Usher (August 21, 2013) ''RenewAmerica''.</ref> But then again, he is batshit insane.

====It is a "counterfeit" that devalues the "real thing"====
This video compares gay marriage to counterfeit money, calling your van a "Porsche", or making your college degree look like a Cambridge diploma.<ref>[http://youtu.be/Qh11w7OUZZ0 R-74 Same Sex Marriage - Counterfeit or Natural?] by Save True Marriage (October 29, 2012) ''YouTube''.</ref> It pretends that same-sex marriage somehow devalues "real" marriage since [[God|the big man in the sky]] has the patent on it. [[Science fiction]] author [[Robert J. Sawyer]] has an excellent rebuttal to this argument on his blog by contrasting the debasement of a title (professor) by awarding it to persons "who (a) hadn’t obtained the highest academic degree in their discipline and (b) had done no original research he felt debased the term" with gay marriage which "doesn’t cheapen, diminish, or reduce anyone’s marriage" and "takes nothing away from anyone else."<ref>[http://sfwriter.com/blog/?p=4590 A parable on the day SCOTUS recognized gay marriage] by Robert J. Sawyer (June 26<sup>th</sup>, 2015) ''Science Fiction Writer''.</ref>

====No marriage at all====
A rare argument, typically seen among [[libertarianism|libertarians]], is that not only should the state not sanction same-sex marriage, but that it should get out of the marriage business altogether. As a private arrangement between consenting adults, they argue, there is no reason for state intervention.

However, this doesn't really solve the inequality problem. (Advocates of the no-marriage solution rarely seem to spend their time evangelising this view to married heterosexuals). This also don't address the issue of the rights, privileges, and benefits associated with marriage. As these include matters where the state has a compelling interest, such as property rights that can frequently end up in dispute, the state has no choice but to get involved in some way so as to maintain order.

Another Libertarian prescription would be to provide civil unions for all, and let churches perform marriages which would have no legal standing. This system exists in several European countries; a legally binding civil ceremony is required, but the option exists to have an additional church ceremony for those who want it. The American system is actually very similar to this; however, due to legal language, the term "civil union" presents a case of "[[separate but equal]]", and the Supreme Court has previously ruled the term (in ''[[Brown v. Board of Education]]'') to be a [[paradox]], i.e. inherently impossible. Because the rights and privileges are currently tied to the specific term "marriage", nothing less than marriage (in the legal sense) is considered acceptable. Meanwhile, proponents correctly argue that the religious ceremony is irrelevant to this case and is not being argued; it is the legal status associated with the civil ceremony that is at issue. The 2012 [[Libertarian Party]] presidential candidate [[Gary Johnson]] initially supported a version of this that would involve changing every instance of the word "marriage" in every bit of government regulation to instead say "civil union", thus theoretically satisfying the constitutional argument, but he later changed his mind to support full marriage equality once he realized how impractical his proposal was.

Shortly after the Supreme Court ruling, libertarian [[Reason (magazine)|Reason Magazine]] argued that the long-term goal of eliminating government-sponsored marriage entirely was no reason to oppose same-sex marriage in the short term. They compared this to a hypothetical situation where the government passed a law forbidding blacks from driving on interstate highways — clearly it would not be enough for libertarians to declare that government should not own the roads and leave it at that. They argued the similar argument against same-sex marriage is thus equally invalid. The article went as far as to say there is ''no solid libertarian argument against same-sex marriage.'' In other words, even from a libertarian perspective, this argument makes no sense.<ref>[https://reason.com/archives/2015/06/28/libertarian-case-for-same-sex-marriage No Solid Libertarian Argument Against Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage] by Sheldon Richman (June 28, 2015) ''Reason''.</ref>

===="Just don't call it marriage"====
[[File:New York City Proposition 8 Protest outside LDS temple 20.jpg|thumb|right|220px|Woman protests for full marriage in New York, 2008.]]
Some people don't oppose gay unions, but oppose calling them "marriage", often citing how they believe marriage should be exclusively a religious thing. These people will often support [[civil union]]s or another form of recognized partnership as a "[[balance fallacy|moderate]]" option.<ref>[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/05/the-marrying-kind/302500/ The Marrying Kind] by Jonathan Ranch (May 2002) ''The Atlantic''</ref> However, there are several problems with this:

#Virtually every time they are implemented, civil unions don't grant all of the same rights as marriages. Adoption rights, for instance, usually aren't granted by civil unions.<ref>[https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/01/12/czech-republic-same-sex-adoption-ruling-couples-registered-abroad-anti-lgbt/ Czech Republic rules against same-sex couples adopting as wave of homophobia continues sweeping across Europe] by Emma Powys Maurice (12 January 2021) ''PinkNews''.</ref>
#People in civil unions are forced to reveal their sexual orientation every time they have to reveal their marital status, e.g. when they apply for a job or housing. This can easily lead to discrimination.<ref>[https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4297479 Switzerland’s same-sex marriage referendum explained] (25 September 2021) ''Deutsche Welle'' via ''Taiwan News''.</ref>
#Marriage is a legal status that is recognized even in secular states. Religions don't have a monopoly on marriage, as most countries recognize marriages through marriage licenses or similar systems rather than requiring any religious ceremonies.<ref>[https://www.araglegal.com/individuals/learning-center/topics/family-and-relationships/required-documens-for-marriage Getting Married? Know the Legal Requirements — and Documents — You’ll Need] ''ARAG Legal''.</ref>
#And as mentioned before, there are many religions that do support gay marriage. Why should they be banned from marrying gay people?

===Arguments about children and reproduction===
Conservatives might shout ''"[[Emotional appeal#Children|Won't somebody think of the children?]]"'' and defend the norm of the heterosexual [[nuclear family]]. Of course, some children have same-sex parents, and contrary to flawed studies,<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/10/new-criticism-of-regnerus-study-on-parenting-study/ A “reality check” for the Regnerus study on gay parenting <nowiki>[UPDATED]</nowiki>] by Dale Carpenter (May 11, 2015) ''Washington Post''.</ref> credible research{{efn|Such as this 30-year analysis by the American Academy of Pediatrics, with the slight caveat that studies regarding same-sex parenting are observational (because ethics) and tend to be small (because smaller number of same-sex parents).<ref>[http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/18/peds.2013-0377 Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian] by Ellen C. Perrin et al. (2013) ''Pediatrics'' 131(4):e1374-e1383. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-0377.</ref>}} can't seem to find any difference between them and children raised by opposite-sex parents. [[Ironically]], homophobic policies like bans on same-sex marriage diminish the ability of same-sex parents to form stable households, harming their children. ''So yes, won't somebody think of the children indeed?''

The argument that children should not be raised by same-sex couples has been debunked extensively. [[Science|Scientific]] research has consistently shown that homosexual parents are just as effective as heterosexual parents,<ref>[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X1500085X Measurement, methods, and divergent patterns: Reassessing the effects of same-sex parents] by Simon Chenga & Brian Powell (2015) ''Social Science Research'' 52:615-626. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.04.005.</ref> and the [[psychology|psychological]] well-being of children reared by same-sex couples is not worse than that of children raised by opposite-sex parents.<ref>[https://cpa.ca/cpasite/UserFiles/Documents/Practice_Page/Marriage_SameSex_Couples_PositionStatement.pdf Marriage of Same-Sex Couples – 2006 Position Statement] ''Canadian Psychological Association''.</ref><ref>[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf ''Amici'' brief] in ''[[Perry v. Schwarzenegger]]'' from the American Psychological Association and others.</ref><ref>[https://www.psychology.org.au/getmedia/47196902-158d-4cbb-86e6-2f3f1c71ffd1/LGBT-families-literature-review.pdf Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Parented Families: A Literature Review prepared for The Australian Psychological Society] by Elizabeth et al. (August 2007) ''The Australian Psychological Society Ltd.''.</ref><ref>[https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/aogs.13456 Cross‐border surrogacy: Experiences of heterosexual and gay parents in Sweden] by Gunilla Sydsjö et al. (2019) ''Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica'' 98(1):68-76. doi:10.1111/aogs.13456.</ref> In fact, same-sex couples and their children are likely to benefit greatly from legal recognition through marriage, moreso than through civil unions.<ref>[https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0003-066X.61.6.607 Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: A social science perspective] by G. M. Herek (2006) ''American Psychologist'' 61(6):607–621. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.6.607.</ref> Studies from 2011 added a tantalizing suggestion that not only are gay couples "equal" parents to straight couples, they might even be better ''on average'' for two reasons: Firstly, gay couples are more likely to have chosen the time and place for children, as they cannot accidentally get pregnant or have more children than they want, and secondly, gay couples (and this is true of any child raised outside of the 'norm') generally expose kids to more diversity in their relationships, resulting in the children being raised with more [[tolerance]].<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20120516014448/http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/are-same-sex-couples-better-parents/ Are Same-Sex Couples Better Parents?] by Lisa Belkin (November 6, 2009) ''[[The New York Times]]'' (archived from May 16, 2012).</ref>

===="Children need a male and a female role model"====
A child has many opportunities to find role models; such role models don't need to be legal guardians of the child. Children of full-time working parents spend more time awake in daycare and school than with their parents. It should also be noted that, despite insistence that having both a male and female parent is vital for child development, homophobes will typically have less of a problem [[Double standard|with single parents raising children]].

Since the most early times, even before we could be called “humans”, our tribes lived their daily lives at the center of the village, raising their children together. The modern version of this is day nurseries, schools, sports clubs, the uncle that gives you a job, etc. So we humans have always had more than just our biological parents to raise us, and there were always enough women and men around (unless the child is raised on {{wpl|Mount Athos||.}}) One could even argue that all groups of social animals do exactly the same, even if in more primitive forms.

This argument is also not an argument against same-sex ''marriage'' but against same-sex parenting, which opponents of homosexuality frequently conflate. If you truly believe in the social good of marriage and long-term relationships but dislike gay people being parents, then considering that gay people ''are'' parents (from sperm donation, surrogacy, adoption or previous heterosexual relationships), they should probably prefer that gay parents are in long-term, stable relationships… but they never quite seem to get around to seeing the validity of this point.

===="Children should be raised by their biological parents"====
There is little convincing evidence to back up this somewhat arbitrary claim, as a child's development is determined by the relationship and interactions with a parent, rather than pure [[genetic]] relationship. There are also many orphans who ''cannot'' or ''should not'' be raised by their biological parents and a shortage of adopters.

Stable same-sex couples provide a pool of potential adopters prepared to raise children in a loving environment — one that is probably better, in fact, than what their biological parents would have provided. Same-sex couples never ''accidentally'' adopt a baby or have one birthed by a surrogate. This means that on average, same-sex couples are older, more responsible, and far more prepared to raise a child than the average opposite-sex couple.

===="The law of fatherhood is not applicable to same-sex couples"====
In many jurisdictions, the fatherhood is commonly handed to the mother's husband by default, even if he is not the biological father. Same-sex couples don't function that way, but this can be solved by consensual agreements between the breeders. Notwithstanding some [[corrective rape|non-consensual events]], it's not like they will fertilize by accident if they are gay.

====Divorce is unforeseeable and is thus not comparable to intentional same-sex union====
Drunks, murderers, drug users, violent people, serial killers, and [[Rick Perry]] are all conditions that are ''also'' unforeseeable, yet no one seems to have a problem with those people having children. Are we going to examine each person and decide whether they can have children or not in order to create some kind of "pure race," where [[Eugenics|only the perfect people can have children]]? Even ''if'' homosexuality would have a bad influence on the children, that still isn't a good argument unless you want to create a [[Dystopia|utopian society]] of perfect people having perfect children.

===Emotional responses===
[[File:Onozomg.gif|thumb|right|The homophobe's response to same-sex marriage.]]
====It's unnatural====
{{main|Appeal to nature}}
So is driving a car.

In all seriousness, apart from homosexual relationships being encountered in non-humans as well,<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Science/story?id=1034434 Boston Swan Duo Are Same Sex] (August 13, 2005) ''ABC News''.</ref> this is actually fallacious on multiple fronts. First, it seems to hold [[nature]] (the same nature that has given us countless illnesses, [[parasites]], disfigurement, disasters, and [[death]]) in a higher regard than human will and happiness. Second, it ignores that humans, ''gay'' humans included, are part of nature too and therefore have as much of a right to define it. Third, it implies that if something is unnatural, it is bad. Of course, this ignores that there are quite a lot of things in the lives of humans that are unnatural. Wearing coats rather than fur, for example, or even the [[computer]] that you're reading this page off of. But really, considering that all computers and smoke-belching factories have to be derived from something natural somewhere, just what exactly ''is'' "unnatural"?

====It's yucky====
{{main|Argumentum ad fastidium}}
Some people seriously consider this as a genuine reason for banning gay marriage. An individual being uncomfortable with a subject, however, shouldn't be the basis for a discriminatory law.

The general thinking will be thus: "''Seriously, have you ever seen two guys kiss? Unpleasant. And the feelings it stirs up, the twin repulsion and attraction… UNCOMFORTABLE. Clearly, such activities must be banned! Not letting them get married is a good first step''."

In a bizarre twist that could be considered irony, people who are squeamish about gay men may well approve of [[lesbian|two women getting it on]], especially if there's a cup involved.<ref group=note>This can be proved with extremely bad [[statistics]]; There's a lot of lesbian [[porn]] out there, there are lots of homophobes out there. Ergo, the two groups [[Rule 34|must overlap ''somewhere'']].</ref>

===Religious objections===
====Religious freedom====
{{main|Freedom of religion}}
Many Christians attempt to argue that, since their opposition to gay marriage is based on religious grounds, allowing gay marriage or prohibiting discrimination against gays is somehow infringing upon ''their'' religious liberty<ref group=note>There have been cases where anti-gay/homophobic t-shirt slogans were prohibited in schools, but the action was fought on grounds of religious expression.</ref> — never mind the religious freedom of the gay couple.

The short answer to this is: '''"Tough!"'''

The long answer is: '''"Tough shit!"'''

The long'''er''' answer is that describing hatred or discrimination as religiously motivated ''does not make it any less evil.''  Rigid gender roles and discrimination against people of different races have also been justified on the basis of religion… but they are still ''wrong''. Mass murder and [[slavery]] have been justified on the basis of religion. That doesn't make them ''right'', however. This is a basic underpinning of a pluralist society. Where there are multiple [[worldview]]s and versions of "morality," the one that should be used to form laws is the one that minimizes harm.<ref group=note>And then the religious people will go back to the claim that same-sex marriage hurts people, and the cycle goes ''ad infinitum''.</ref> This is the essential thinking behind laws such as the [[establishment clause]] or any law that [[Separation of church and state|separates church and state]].

In the US specifically, every citizen has the right to "life, [[liberty]], and the pursuit of happiness", any such activity that could interfere with those basic rights is prohibited – the whole "''your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins''" idea. The legal answer is that regardless of religion, when a discriminatory action is identified, Congress has the power by the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] to eradicate that evil. Further, free exercise does not include [[hate crimes]].{{efn|"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices." From the Supreme Court's decision in Reynolds v. United States, 1878.<ref>[https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/98/145.html#162 Reynolds v. U.S.] (October 1, 1878) ''FindLaw''.</ref>}} Finally, speech against homosexuality — like all [[hate speech]] — is protected by the [[First Amendment]], to a degree.{{efn|''See, e.g.'', Gooding v. Wilson (405 U.S. 518) (applying the First Amendment to strike down statutes that prohibit "abusive" language, and protecting such language so long as it does not present a clear and present danger).<ref>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/518/ Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972)] ''Justia: US Supreme Court''.</ref>}} In addition, at the federal level, Congress is not allowed to pass laws that are purely for religious purposes because of the First Amendment, and religious opposition to same-sex marriage has no legal ground to stand on. This also applies at the state level with the inclusion of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]], prohibiting rights being denied without a secular cause (due process), and in many cases, people don't care if [insert religion here] recognizes a gay couple's marriage; they tend to be more focused on their government recognizing their marriage. So religious freedom is unharmed, so long as it does not infringe upon another's freedom. [[John Stuart Mill]] would be proud.

This argument also tends to ignore that non-homophobic religions exist as well. If, for instance, a [[Unitarian Universalism|Unitarian]] church ''couldn't'' marry a gay couple, wouldn't that infringe upon ''their'' religious freedom?

====Divine retribution====
[[Christian fundamentalists]] sometimes argue that same-sex marriage risks [[divine retribution]]. In [[California]] in 2008, after hundreds of same-sex marriages, [[Ray Comfort]] argued that a drought and ensuing wildfires were the result of God demonstrating his displeasure with the state for legalizing gay marriage. Incidentally, the fires affected the more biblically-oriented people in rural California, while those more likely to have voted for gay marriage, in [[San Francisco]] for example, escaped retribution. 
{{quotebox|At present (June 2008) there are 840 wild-fires that are burning at once in California, destroying many homes. The fires were started by lightning strikes. [[God of the gaps|Guess who's in charge of the electrical departCalifornia it's fair and dryment?]] These are from thunder storms that have no rain. Guess who gives the rain? You said "while in ." We are having the worst drought in our recorded history. Last year 1,155 homes were destroyed.<ref name=MyersJune2008>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/25/ray-comfort-answers-a-question/ Ray Comfort answers a question] by P. Z. Meyers (June 25, 2008) ''Science Blogs''.</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20080628114557/http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2008/06/atheist-worldview.html The Atheist Worldview] by Ray Comfort (June 24, 2008) ''Comfort Food'' (archived from June 28, 2008).</ref><ref>[http://survivorsucks.yuku.com/topic/34667 CA wildfires are punishment for gay marriage] by Ray Comfort (June 24, 2008) ''Survivor Sucks: Kirk Cameron associate''.</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20080908023824/http://blog.case.edu/singham/2008/07/03/its_smiting_time It's smiting time!] by Mano Singham (July 03, 2008) ''Mano Singham's Web Journal'' (archived from September 8, 2008).</ref>}}
Any natural disaster can be [[shoehorning|shoehorned]] into this, ''"Seriously. Isn’t it nice how [[Problem of evil|God has arranged that there is pain and suffering in every part of the world]], just so His preachers have something to point to and say “[[Sin]]ners!”?"'' ([[PZ Myers]])<ref name=MyersJune2008/> 

In response to the legalization of gay marriage in the [[United Kingdom|UK]], [[UKIP]] councillor David Silvester wrote:
{{quotebox|The scriptures make it abundantly clear that a Christian nation that abandons its faith and acts contrary to the [[Gospel]] … will be beset by natural disasters such as storms, disease, pestilence and [[war]]. … It is his fault ([[David Cameron]], promoter of English gay marriage legislation) that large swathes of the nation have been afflicted by storms and floods. … He has arrogantly acted against the Gospel that once made [[Britain]] 'great' and the lesson surely to be learned is that no man or men, however powerful, can mess with Almighty God with impunity and get away with it for everything a nation does is weighed on the scaled of divine approval or disapproval.<ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/18/uk-storms-divine-retirubtion-gay-marriage-ukip UK storms are divine retribution for gay marriage laws, says Ukip councillor]. ''[[The Guardian]]'', January 19, 2014.</ref><ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-25793358 UKIP councillor blames storms and floods on gay marriage: Former Tory David Silvester says 'natural disasters' are result of David Cameron acting 'arrogantly against the Gospel'] (January 18, 2014) ''Press Association'' via ''The Guardian''.</ref>}}

The [[Westboro Baptist Church]] believes that gay marriage will lead to destruction on the scale of the [[Global flood]] and the total destruction of the United States.
{{quotebox|Until now only one society in all of history practiced it, the Antediluvian. … The practice was the reason for [[Noah]]’s flood. The risk of retribution is real. … Same-sex marriage will destroy this nation … that will cross a final line with God.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20130319081139/http://www.godhatesfags.com/briefs/20120125_fag-marriage-amicus-brief-12-144.pdf In The Supreme Court of the United States Dennis Hollingsworth et al. v. Kristin M. Perry et al.: Brief of the Westboro Baptist Church to the as ''Amicus Curiae'' in Support Neither Party Suggesting Reversal] by Margie J. Phelps (c. 2013) ''God Hates Fags'' (archived from March 19, 2013).</ref>}}

Just in case natural disasters are not enough, [[Pat Robertson]] argued that God would (probably) punish Americans for allowing [[LGBT]] rights with a "massive financial collapse."  World stock market turmoil is also a punishment for allowing gay marriage.<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pat-robertson-gay-finances_563ceaabe4b0b24aee4a1b1f Pat Robertson Says God Will Hit U.S. With 'Financial Collapse' Because Of LGBT Rights] by Curtis M. Wong (July 11, 2015) ''Huffington Post''.</ref>

[[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholics]] may argue along similar lines. At least one priest blamed gay civil unions in Italy for an earthquake there. [[The Vatican]] and the Church hierarchy generally disagreed.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/11/07/vatican-condemns-catholic-radio-station-after-priest-blames-earthquake-on-gay-civil-unions/ Vatican Condemns Catholic Radio Station After Priest Blames Earthquake on Gay Civil Unions] by Hemant Mehta (November 7, 2016) ''Patheos''.</ref>

===Alleged unpopularity===
''If the majority of the people don't want same-sex marriage, unpopular laws allowing it could backfire and result in more aggression (we should wait until people become more open-minded).''

This ignores the fact that a majority of people (at least in the West) ''do'' support same-sex marriage, and ignores the generational demographics. Each passing generation is more supportive than the last, with the growth getting faster each time and acceptance growing quicker and quicker as support becomes more visible. The end result is that the largest group of people against it are old, while younger generations who will continue society after the homophobic generations are gone show overwhelming support.<ref>[https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ Attitudes on Same-Sex Marriage] (May 14, 2019) ''Pew Research Forum''.</ref>

====Happiness for whom?====
[[File:Girls kissing.jpg|thumb|Love is a many-splendored thing.]]

As discussed above, in a community allowing same-sex marriage, the two partners in the union experience greater personal happiness. However, when same-sex marriage is banned, those who experience greater happiness are those ''uninvolved'' with the relationship, for example, [[Bible thumper|Bible-thumping preachers]], [[wingnut]]s, busybodies, etc. These people gain some slight [[Sadism|personal pleasure from the violation of rights and oppression of others]]. It also seems that as moral agents worried about human happiness and suffering, we ought to ''ignore'' happiness that comes only through denying rights to others.  

Recent studies have suggested that not only does legalizing marriage in an area generally make homosexual individuals in that area happier, it also makes them physically and mentally healthier and saves them money on health care.<ref name="hatzenbuehler">[http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300382 Effect of Same-Sex Marriage Laws on Health Care Use and Expenditures in Sexual Minority Men: A Quasi-Natural Experiment] by Mark L. Hatzenbuehler et al. (2012) ''American Journal of Public Health'' 102(2):285-291. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300382. </ref> Studies are not known to have shown a similar increase in health for the oppressors.

====People will be forced to accept gays====
A rather weak argument is that even though gay marriage won't affect other people's marriages, it will somehow affect their lives. One example is judges being forced to grant same-sex marriage (i.e., do their jobs). If a judge refuses he or she could be sanctioned. However, this is not a religious issue and judges aren't changing their personal views. Of course, if a judge nowadays decided not to grant marriage for [[Miscegenation|interracial]] or interfaith couples, there would be outrage.

If gay people are allowed to adopt, then adoption agencies will have to allow same-sex couples to adopt their children, giving them a loving home. Because of this pressure some agencies would rather ''terminate'' their agencies than let a minority adopt children. This is where the argument becomes moot, because the problem ceases to exist.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/ Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions] by Patricia Wen (March 11, 2006) ''The Boston Globe''.</ref>

And when it comes to having children, doctors will have to perform artificial insemination on lesbian couples even if it goes against their moral code. In effect, the doctor would be playing [[God]], deciding on who can have children and who can't.<ref group=note>And this is coming from the people who ''decry'' playing God.</ref> As with the judge analogy, people would be outraged if the doctor refused to inseminate based on race or religion (which has happened in ''2014'').<ref>[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/calgary-fertility-clinic-in-spotlight-over-policy-to-restrict-donations-to-patients-of-same-ethnicity/article19813167/ Calgary fertility clinic in hot water after refusing to help with mixed-race babies] by Gloria Galloway & Carrie Tait (July 28, 2014) ''The Globe and Mail''.</ref> Come on, if there's somebody there willing to do an [[abortion]], they'll put a turkey baster in there too.

On the subject of children, schools will teach children what gay marriage is like. This is very simple, but many parents have [[Denial|strong objections over it]]. The truth is, the schools ''aren't'' saying gay marriage is better than straight marriage, it is just saying that this is a reality. Since same-sex couples can have children now, it makes sense for them to teach children what other families are like, and likely decreasing [[bullying]] while doing it. In addition, if a parent is so concerned about what their child is learning in school, they might want to consider using the other 17 hours in the day they see them to tell them how much they hate people who don't affect them.

There are moral objections to many aspects of jobs. However, that does not mean people should be excused from doing their jobs. A [[Hindu]] waiter can't refuse to serve meat at non-vegetarian restaurants without facing being fired. Doctors, judges, teachers, and adoption agencies shouldn't get a free pass, either.

====Murder of African Christians====
{{main|Association fallacy}}
If the [[Church of England]] allows gay marriage, Africans could associate Christianity with homosexuality, then Africans could fear Christianity will turn them all gay. The Archbishop of Canterbury, [[Justin Welby]] claimed there has been at least one mass murder of Christians due to this way of thinking.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26894133 Welby: backing gay marriage could be 'catastrophic' for Christians elsewhere] (April 4, 2014) ''BBC''.</ref> Later Welby amended what he said and claimed allowing such murders to affect Church of England policy would give in to terror.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27083764 Welby: Church 'struggling' over same-sex marriages] (April 19, 2014) ''BBC''.</ref>

====Part of a Western agenda====
As most of western Europe, North America, and the Anglosphere have legalized gay marriage, the fight for marriage equality has expanded all over the world. However, this has led to many conservative traditionalists arguing that same-sex marriage is a Western idea that has no place in their culture, and that the people who support it are promoting a Western agenda that will lead to the [[secular]]ization/Americanization of their society.<ref>[https://www.opindia.com/2020/09/a-hindu-conservative-argument-against-same-sex-marriages-lgbt-homosexual/ A Hindu conservative argument against same sex marriages: Religious sanction, dictatorship of the minority, and where does it end? Altering the definition of marriage is a radical reformation of the structure of society. And our default position should be an aversion towards radical change.] by K. Bhattacharjee (15 September 2020) ''OpIndia''.</ref> This ignores that many of these cultures have a long history of homosexuality and in many cases it was European colonialism that led to homosexuality being stigmatized, meaning that hating homosexuality is more of a Western invention.<ref>[https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2020/10/paras-sharma-india-same-sex-marriage/ The Unanswered Question of Same-Sex Marriages in India] by Paras Sharma (9 October 2020) ''Jurist''.</ref> Just to name one example, the story of Pan Zhang and Wang Zhongxian is a story of a gay union that dates all the way back to the Zhou Dynasty in [[China]].<ref>''Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China'' by Bret Hinsch (1992) University of California Press. ISBN 0520078691.</ref>

==="All of the above"===
The "[[Gish gallop|everything ''including'' the kitchen sink]]" approach is exemplified by a speech that [[Iowa]] State Senator Dennis Guth gave in April 2013 in which he accused gay people and homosexuality of breeding mental health problems, shortening people's lifespans, causing health problems for heterosexual Americans (by causing "more and more medical tests required before giving blood or giving birth", though what precautionary blood tests have to do with ''spreading'' [[disease]] is a mystery) and other phenomena, including the downfall of past civilizations due to the failure of traditional marriage.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20130529175611/http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/04/17/1882951/gop-senator-gays-health-risk/ GOP State Senator: Homosexual Relationships Pose ‘Health Risks’ To My Family] by Sy Mukherjee (April 17, 2013) ''ThinkProgress'' (archived from May 29, 2013).</ref><ref>[http://www.arthuride.com/iowa-state-sen-dennis-guth-a-study-in-ignorance-hypocrisy-self-loathing-and-lack-of-education/ Iowa State Sen. Dennis Guth: A Study in Ignorance, Hypocrisy, Self-Loathing, and Lack of Education] by Aurthur Ide (April 23, 2013) ''Arthur Frederick Ide''.</ref> Unsurprisingly, Guth was a freshman Senator at the time,<ref>[http://globegazette.com/news/local/iowa-senate-guth-over-jennings/article_b65ba1ac-289d-11e2-89be-001a4bcf887a.html Iowa Senate 4: Guth over Jennings] by Peggy Senzarino (November 6, 2012) ''Globe Gazette''.</ref> and the fact that he was up for election again in 2014<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20130127094108/https://www.legis.iowa.gov/Legislators/legislator.aspx?GA=85&PID=12334 Senator Dennis Guth] ''The Iowa Legislature'' (archived from January 27, 2013).</ref> ''might'' explain the reasoning behind such a speech.

==American legal arguments for same-sex marriage==
{{hatnote|See [[Fourteenth Amendment#Basic Overview|Fourteenth Amendment]] for a primer on types of discrimination, and methods of fighting discrimination. Both are referred to in some of the sections below.}}
[[File:Celebrating a new America -lovewins 58242 (18588276403).jpg|thumb|right|275px|The White House on the evening of the ''Obergefell'' announcement.]]

===Possible equal protection arguments===
The easiest, most open-and-shut case for gay marriage goes like this: "prohibiting gay marriage classifies on the basis of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation discrimination is repugnant to the Constitution.  Please allow gay marriage, or allow civil unions that confer the same benefits." This makes the most sense, and is the easiest formulation to state. However, the issue is a little harder…

The preceding argument is an equal protection argument. However gay rights have, thus far, only been advocated on [[substantive due process]] grounds (building from the [[due process]] clause), as in [[Lawrence v. Texas]].<ref group=note>In [[Romer v. Evans]], the Supreme Court ''did'' address discrimination against homosexuals, and struck it down on equal protection grounds… however, this did not ''add'' any new rights to couples, or remove existing barriers. Instead, it merely prevented the state of [[Colorado]] from erecting new barriers.</ref> The same case ardently refused to address gay rights as an equal protection issue, and refused especially to suggest that gay rights deserve any special protection under the equal protection clause.<ref group=note>A concurring opinion by [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] ''did'' argue the law in question should be struck down under the Equal Protection Clause, though it rejected the Due Process argument and would have upheld any anti-[[sodomy]] law that applied equally to heterosexual and homosexual couples. The other eight justices rejected this claim, however.</ref> Without this special protection ([[strict scrutiny]], hopefully at some point) such rights can be removed or abridged with a merely pretextual reason, effectively preventing an equal protection argument for gay marriage from succeeding.

Some hope was to be had, though; by way of implication in [[Romer v. Evans]] the Supreme Court intimated that homosexuality may be entitled to a higher form of protection, noting that "animus laid bare" is not enough to justify discrimination. This suggestion at least left the door open for an equal protection argument.

===Substantive due process and the race analogy===
The [[Supreme Court]] has once before tackled the right to marry. In [[Loving v. Virginia]], the Supreme Court invalidated a [[Virginia]] statute that voided and forbade any marriage between members of different races ([[miscegenation]]). The aptly named Lovings successfully sued Virginia to invalidate the law, although it required appealing to the Supreme Court to win a favorable verdict.

In the opinion, the Supreme Court struck down the statute largely based on [[equal protection]] grounds, finding that the statute improperly set up a racial hierarchy and perpetuated repression and discrimination against [[African Americans]]. Virginia had defended against this argument on the basis that the statute was "formally equal"; it did not hurt African Americans any more than Caucasians. Neither could marry the other. This ''formal equality'', Virginia argued, was dispositive of any discrimination claim. In finding against Virginia, the Supreme Court employed its rarely used "Get Real!" technique; regardless of formal equality, said the Court, everyone knew the real impetus behind the law, and couching its defense in legal formalities would not allow the court to overlook this great inequity. This case was a great victory for the civil rights movement.

This was the ''holding'' of the case — or, its primary legal significance. Importantly, though, as an afterthought, the Court tossed in one comment at the very end of the opinion, saying that the Court ''had no need to reach the argument that the due process clause could protect, as fundamental to the American way of life, the right to marry''. Although merely one line of ''dicta'',<ref group=note>"Dicta" is by-the-way argumentation presented in an opinion, not necessary to the underlying holding or the critical legal issue being resolved.  An example would be, in an opinion holding a defendant liable for tort damages, the court discussing a theory of tort recovery not relied upon in the case. ''Dicta'' don't provide precedent; they are, however, illuminating and can be used to form a persuasive case, if not relied upon as the entirety of that case.</ref> this line suggests that the Court at one point recognized a fundamental right to marry.

A theoretical argument for same-sex marriage could make use of this ''dicta'', defining marriage as a "fundamental right" which is "deeply rooted" in the nation's history, implicit in the concept of "ordered liberty," and the restriction of this right should be struck down upon strict scrutiny unless it is "narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest."<ref group=note name=wvg>Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (defining the standard for substantive due process claims, and stating that fundamental rights are due strict scrutiny).</ref> The Supreme Court has consistently held that such rights are due protection.<ref group=note name=wvg/>Opponents will rebut, exclaiming that ''gay'' marriage is not a fundamental right — and therefore should be subject to the comparatively lighter form of judicial review, [[rational basis review]]. The dicta in Loving v. Virginia, proponents can argue, suggests otherwise.

Even if evaluating gay marriage under substantive due process triggers only rational basis review, though, restrictions on gay marriage arguably fail even ''this'' moderate test. Persuasive authority, found in ''Goodridge v. Dep’t of Public Health'',<ref group=note>400 Mass. 309 (Marshall, Chief Justice, for the Court).</ref> suggests that restrictions on gay marriage do fail rational basis review, finding such restrictions are arbitrary and capricious, since:
* There is no showing that restricting marriage to heterosexual couples will further any state interest: no state actor can prove damage to heterosexual marriages if gays are allowed to marry,
* Discrimination based on immorality fails, since this is impermissible in the wake of Lawrence v. Texas, and,
* The state (here, [[Massachusetts]]) conceded that gay parents are good parents.

However, any substantive due process argument for same-sex marriage would have to establish, as a predicate, that same-sex marriage is a type of ''conduct'', since substantive due process generally protects only conduct.

===Objections to the race analogy===
Conservatives object strongly to any attempt to analogize between [[racism]] and homophobia, and discrimination against gays and discrimination against non-white races. The objection is based upon the assumption by said conservatives that sexual preference, ''unlike race'', is not inborn (immutable). The obvious objection is that, in fact, sexual preference ''is'' immutable, although debate goes on,<ref>{{wpa|Biology and sexual orientation}}</ref> or, if not immutable, is so highly correlative with environmental factors and/or personal identity that it defies classification as a "choice," and should still be legally protected. A more appropriate analogy than race, in this case, would be religion — religion is a choice, although a deeply personal choice — and therefore, the law protects (and should protect) individuals from discrimination on the basis of such deep choices (and it does, in the case of religion).

On the other side of the political spectrum, some adherents of racial [[identity politics]] also maintain that analogies between racism and homophobia are false, their specific beef being the gay campaign against "[[don't ask, don't tell]]". Activist Sharon Martinas put it this way, "Some [[queer]] activists, whose movement was started by queers of color at Stonewall, focus their struggle on the right to become equal opportunity murderers of peoples of color in the U.S. military. And we use false analogies between homophobic and racial oppression to justify demands for these 'equal rights.'"<ref>[http://www.cwsworkshop.org/pdfs/WIWS/4Racism_Rise_of_Right.PDF Racism and the Rise of the Right] by Sharon Martinas (c. 1995)  ''Changing White Supremacy Workshop''.</ref>{{rp|5}}

These objections are, at least in the context of American constitutional law, spurious: Loving v. Virginia did not rely on race as a unique distinguishing category but on its conclusion (for which reason it was instrumental in developing substantive due process) that no state interest whatsoever benefited from excluding particular people from marriage. The decision in that case pointed out that marriage is a critically significant (and private) individual choice (outside the opinion, it's notable that even convicted murderers on death row are accorded the right to marry) and weighed restrictions on marriage as being presumptively unconstitutional and requiring the state to individually justify any limitations on it.

==Status==
[[File:World marriage-equality laws (up to date).svg|thumb|550px|{{legend|#002255|Marriage open to same-sex couples (Rings: Case-by-case approval)}}
{{legend|#002255|(Mixed jurisdiction; marriage recognized by the state but not by tribal government for residents who are members of the tribe, [[United States]])|striped=2}}
{{legend|#0066FF|Civil unions / domestic partnerships (liberal conception) / common-law marriage}}
{{legend|#71c837|Marriage pending: government/court legalized same-sex marriage but the law is not in effect, or court has ordered legalization but legislation has not been passed}}
{{legend|#9900CC|Same-sex marriage fully recognized when performed in certain other jurisdictions}}
{{legend|#99CCFF|Limited domestic legal recognition (registered cohabitation, domestic partnerships (conservative conception), legal guardianship)}}
{{Legend|#99CCFF|(some jurisdictions offer non-binding certification, [[Cambodia]], or mixed jurisdiction, [[Palestine]]))|striped=2}}
{{legend|#CCAAFF|Limited recognition of marriage performed in certain other jurisdictions (residency rights)}}
{{legend|#CCAAFF|(Limited to foreign diplomatic officials, [[South Korea]])|striped=2}}
{{legend|#C6E9AF|Same-sex unions not legally recognized, but country subject to an international court that ruled in favor of same-sex marriage}}
{{Legend|#C6E9AF|(Competing jurisdictions, [[Venezuela]])|striped=2}}
{{legend|#EEEEEE|Same-sex unions not legally recognized, no pending rulings}}
{{legend|#FFFFFF|International territory [high seas, [[Antarctica]]]}}
]]

===Legal===
*{{wpl|Andorra}} legalized civil unions in 2014 and eventually legalized gay civil marriage in 2022, with all existing civil unions being converted to marriages.<ref>[https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/07/andorra-becomes-33rd-country-marriage-equality/ Andorra becomes the 33rd country with marriage equality], Alex Bollinger, ''LGBTQ Nation'' 22 July 2022</ref>
*[[Argentina]] legalized same-sex marriage on July 15th, 2010.<ref>[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/argentina-legalizes-same-sex-marriage/ Argentina Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage], ''CBS News'', July 15, 2010</ref>
*[[Australia]] has passed legislation legalizing gay marriage, which received assent from the Governor-General on 8th December 2017, coming into force the following day.<ref>[https://www.ag.gov.au/families-and-marriage/marriage/marriage-equality-australia Marriage equality in Australia], ''Australian Government'', December 9, 2017</ref>
*[[Austria]] allowed civil unions ("registered partnerships") since January 1st, 2010. Benefits were mostly equal to full marriages but excluded adoption rights. Austria fully legalized gay marriage in 2019 due to a court ruling.<ref>[https://www.washingtonblade.com/2019/01/02/same-sex-marriage-becomes-legal-in-austria/ Same-sex marriage becomes legal in Austria], Michael K. Lavers, ''Washington Blade'' 2 Jan 2019</ref>
*[[Belgium]] was the second nation, after the Netherlands, to legalize same-sex marriage on January 30th 2003, in an at the time controversial move.
*[[Brazil]] has had civil unions since 2004.<ref>[https://theweek.com/articles/472746/brazils-groundbreaking-threeperson-civil-union Brazil's groundbreaking three-person civil union], ''The Week'', January 10, 2015</ref> The situation was complex but a number of these unions had been recognized as marriages. Same-sex marriage was legal as of December 2012 in the state of São Paulo.<ref>[https://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/12/21/brazils-most-populous-state-to-allow-same-sex-marriage/ Brazil’s most populous state to allow same-sex marriage], ''Washington Blade'', December 21, 2012</ref> In May 14, 2013, a Federal Court ruling legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.<ref>[https://www.glaad.org/blog/how-first-year-same-sex-marriages-brazil-went How the first year of same-sex marriages in Brazil went], ''Glaad'', December 15, 2014</ref>
*[[Canada]] legalized gay marriage in the province of Ontario in 2003.<ref group=note>Canada has not yet been destroyed by God as an example unto others.</ref>  Other provinces soon followed suit, and it was legalized across the country on July 20  2005, later surviving a second vote called by the Conservative government of Stephen Harper in 2006, who following the vote declared that the he "<nowiki>[doesn't]</nowiki> see reopening this question in the future."<ref>Galloway, Gloria. [http://web.archive.org/web/20061213182347/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061208.wxsamesex08/BNStory/National/home Same-sex marriage file closed for good, PM says]. ''The Globe and Mail'', August 12, 2006.</ref>
*[[Chile]] has recognized civil unions since 2015. In December 2021, the legislature passed a bill legalizing gay marriage, with it coming into effect in March 2022.<ref>[https://www.npr.org/2021/12/07/1062261334/chile-same-sex-marriage Chile's Congress approves same-sex marriage by an overwhelming majority], ''NPR'' 7 December 2021</ref>
*[[Colombia]] became the fourth South American country to legalize gay marriage in 2016 as a result of a court ruling.<ref>[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-36166888 Colombia legalises gay marriage], ''BBC News'' 29 April 2017</ref>
*[[Costa Rica]] recognized same-sex civil partnerships since 2013.<ref name="tico">Kane, Corey. [https://web.archive.org/web/20130706152250/https://ticotimes.net/More-news/News-Briefs/Costa-Rican-legislature-accidentally-passes-gay-marriage-legalization_Wednesday-July-03-2013 Costa Rican legislature accidentally passes gay marriage legalization]. ''TicoTimes.net'', July 3, 2013 (archived).</ref><ref>Chinchilla, Laura Miranda; Oviedo, Manrique; Orozco, Justo; Villalta, José María. [https://web.archive.org/web/20180219150627/https://www.sdpnoticias.com/gay/2013/07/03/aprueban-por-accidente-matrimonio-gay-en-costa-rica ¿Aprueban por accidente matrimonio gay en Costa Rica?]. ''SDPNoticias.com'', July 3, 2013.</ref> After a binding ruling from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights legalizing same-sex marriage, the government announced its intention to comply by 2018.<ref name="IACHR">[https://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/01/10/18/inter-american-court-endorses-same-sex-marriage Inter-American Court endorses same-sex marriage]. ''Agence France-Presse'', January 10, 2018.</ref>
*[[Cuba]] proposed a new family bill that would not only legalize gay marriage but also allow for adoptions and surrogacy in September 2021 after an earlier attempt to legalize same-sex marriage in the constitution failed due to opposition from hardline Catholic groups.<ref>[https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article254318233.html Gay marriage, adoption, surrogacy: Revolutionary bill raises hope among LGBTIQ+ Cubans], Nora Gámez Torres, ''Miami Herald'' 17 September 2021</ref> A referendum on the bill was held one year later, and it passed with two thirds of voters in favor.<ref>[https://www.dw.com/en/cuba-approves-same-sex-marriage-adoption/a-63244771 Cuba approves same-sex marriage, adoption], ''DW News'' 26 September 2022</ref>
*[[Denmark]] was the first country to establish registered partnerships in 1989.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/02/world/rights-for-gay-couples-in-denmark.html Rights for Gay Couples in Denmark], ''New York Times'', October 2, 1989</ref> The relevant rights have since been steadily expanded and covered adoptions since July 2010,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20140206071703/http://ilga.org/ilga/en/article/mpDxTIq18X Gay couples in Denmark now allowed to adopt], ''ILGA'' 5 May 2010</ref> with full marriage since June 2012.<ref>[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18363157 Denmark approves same-sex marriage and church weddings], ''BBC News'', June 7, 2012</ref> [[Greenland]], a dependency of Denmark, legalized gay marriage in 2015,<ref>[https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2015-06-11/greenland-same-sex-marriage-bill-passes/ Greenland: Same-Sex Marriage Bill Passes], ''Library of Congress'' 11 June 2015</ref> as did the {{wpl|Faroe Islands}} in 2017.<ref>[https://www.faroeislands.fo/the-big-picture/news/same-sex-marriage-legalised-in-the-faroe-islands/ Same-sex marriage legalised in the Faroe Islands], ''faroeislands.fo'' 15 June 2017</ref>
*[[Ecuador]] legalized gay marriage by court ruling in 2019.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/13/americas/ecuador-same-sex-marriage-intl/index.html Ecuador’s highest court legalizes same-sex marriage], Kara Fox and Ana Melgar Zuniga, ''CNN'' 13 June 2019</ref>
*[[Estonia]] has allowed civil unions since 2015, but progress had been slowed and had even come close to outright reverting due to the rise of the far right. While Estonia has a reputation for being a [[liberal]] country, outside of Tallinn this isn't really the case.<ref>[https://www.euronews.com/2020/11/06/estonia-s-liberal-reputation-at-stake-as-gay-marriage-referendum-emboldens-the-far-right Estonia's liberal reputation at stake as gay marriage referendum emboldens the far-right], Linas Jegelevicius, ''euronews'' 6 November 2020</ref> An attempt in 2020 to constitutionally ban gay marriage failed with the collapse of the coalition that pushed for it, but the following coalition wasn't much more friendly to gay rights.<ref>[https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/a-cliffhanger-for-lgbt-rights-in-estonia/ A Cliffhanger for LGBT+ Rights in Estonia], Mattias Turovski and Züleyxa Izmailova, ''Green European Journal'' 4 June 2021</ref> However, in June 2023, the Parliament finally passed a law legalizing same-sex marriage, making them the first ex-[[Soviet Union]] country to do so.<ref>[https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/6/20/estonia-passes-law-to-allow-same-sex-marriage Estonia passes law to allow same-sex marriage], ''[[Al Jazeera]]'' 20 June 2023</ref>
*[[Finland]] has allowed civil unions since 2002, including the right to adopt a partner's own children. Attempts to introduce a gender neutral marriage law failed in 2012 after a 9 to 8 decision by the Legal Affairs Committee of the Finnish Parliament. However, on March 19th, 2013, a citizens' initiative managed to collect the 50,000 signatures required to override the Committee's decision in just a single day, putting the bill before Parliament.<ref>[http://yle.fi/uutiset/petitioners_take_gay_marriage_bill_to_parliament/6544701 Petitioners take gay marriage bill to Parliament]. ''yli.fi'', March 19, 2013.</ref> Finland would ultimately legalize gay marriage in 2017.<ref>[https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/21/finland-allow-same-sex-marriage Finland to Allow Same-Sex Marriage], ''Human Rights Watch'' 21 February 2017</ref>
*[[France]] established civil unions in the form of private contracts in 1999. They were open to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples and equal to marriages as far as taxation was concerned, but lacked some joint property and adoption rights. Same-sex marriage was legalized on May 18th, 2013.<ref>Charlton, Angela. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/french-president-signs-gay-marriage-into-law/2013/05/18/69a88f60-bff0-11e2-89c9-3be8095fe767_story.html French president signs gay marriage into law]. ''Washington Post'', May 18, 2013.</ref>
*[[Germany]] introduced civil unions (called "registered partnerships") for same-sex couples in 2001. Gay marriage has been legalized by a vote of the German Parliament in 2017.<ref>[https://www.dw.com/en/german-president-signs-gay-marriage-bill-into-law/a-39795137 German president signs gay marriage bill into law]. Deutsche Welle, June 21st 2017.</ref>
*[[Greece]] started recognizing same-sex civil unions in December of 2015.<ref>[https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/12/greece-historic-recognition-of-same-sex-relationships/ Greece: Historic recognition of same-sex relationships], ''Amnesty International'', December 22, 2015</ref> In February 2024, they legalized same-sex marriage, becoming the first [[Eastern Orthodox]]-majority country to do so.<ref>[https://apnews.com/article/same-sex-marriage-orthodox-church-greece-lgbtq-16b1f311b703d228301a5e5713069cd3 Greece just legalized same-sex marriage. Will other Orthodox countries join them any time soon?], Peter Smith and Dasha Litvinova, ''Associated Press'' 16 February 2024</ref>
*[[Iceland]] legalized same-sex marriage in June 2010 by a unanimous 49-0 vote.<ref>[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iceland-gaymarriage/iceland-passes-gay-marriage-law-in-unanimous-vote-idUSTRE65A3V020100611 Iceland passes gay marriage law in unanimous vote], ''Reuters'', June 11, 2010</ref>
*[[Ireland]] approved a bill establishing civil unions with privileges equal to opposite-sex cohabitation (but not marriages, notably excluding joint adoption) in July 2010. The law came into effect on January 1st, 2011. Civil unions could not be classed as 'marriages' due to the [[constitution]]'s definition, but following a referendum on May 22nd, 2015, the constitution was amended with a 62% majority to explicitly include same-sex couples.<ref>Ó Caollaí, Éanna; Hilliard, Mark. [http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/marriage-referendum/marriage-referendum-all-articles/ireland-becomes-first-country-to-approve-same-sex-marriage-by-popular-vote-1.2223646 Ireland becomes first country to approve same-sex marriage by popular vote]. ''The Irish Times'', May 24, 2015.</ref>
*[[Liechtenstein]] established civil unions in 2011, and in May 2024 their Parliament legalized same-sex marriage in a nearly unanimous vote, which came into effect at the beginning of 2025.<ref>[https://www.politico.eu/article/liechtenstein-legalizes-same-sex-marriage-in-near-unanimous-vote/ Liechtenstein legalizes same-sex marriage in near-unanimous vote], Seb Starcevic, ''Politico'' 17 May 2024</ref>
*{{wpl|Luxembourg}} established civil unions without joint adoption rights in 2004. The government introduced a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in July 2010. Ultimately, a bill legalizing gay marriage was passed in June 2014 and took effect at the beginning of 2015.<ref>[https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/06/18/luxembourg-marriage-equality-approved Luxembourg: Marriage Equality Approved], ''Human Rights Watch'' 18 June 2014</ref>
*{{wpl|Malta}} went from being one of the most socially conservative countries in Europe to legalizing gay marriage in September 2017. They now have the best LGBTQ rights in all of Europe.<ref>[https://www.rainbow-europe.org/country-ranking Country Ranking], Rainbow Europe</ref>
*[[Mexico]]'s same-sex marriage ban was struck down in December 2012. Different Mexican states legalized same-sex marriage at different times, but on 27 October 2022, Tamaulipas became the final state to recognize same-sex marriage, finally legalizing it nationwide.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/world/americas/11mexico.html Mexican States Ordered to Honor Gay Marriages], David Agren, ''New York Times'' 10 August 2010</ref><ref>[https://www.them.us/story/yucatan-mexico-legalized-same-sex-marriage-outlawed-conversion-therapy This Mexican State Just Legalized Same-Sex Marriage and Outlawed Conversion Therapy], James Factora, ''them'' 30 August 2021</ref><ref>[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/27/same-sex-marriage-is-now-legal-nationwide-in-mexico Same-sex marriage becomes legal nationwide in Mexico], ''Al Jazeera'' 27 October 2022</ref>
*In 2023, the Supreme Court of [[Nepal]] ordered the Parliament to legalize same-sex marriage.<ref>[https://pahichan-com.translate.goog/2023/03/20/15948/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp Supreme Court's historic decision, recognizing same-sex marriage (full text of the order and video)], Madhav Dulal, ''Pahichan'' 20 March 2023</ref> The first same-sex marriage was performed on 29 November 2023.<ref>[https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/nepal-registers-first-same-sex-marriage-historic-say-activists-2023-11-29/ Nepal registers first same-sex marriage; 'historic', say activists], Gopal Sharma, ''Reuters'' 30 November 2023</ref>
*The [[Netherlands]] became the first nation to grant same-sex marriages in April 2001. They are not granted, however, in Sint Maarten, a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, though Sint Maarten must recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. In July 2024, a decision by the Dutch Supreme Court fully legalized same-sex marriage in Aruba and Curaçao, the other constituent countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.<ref>[https://www.nautadutilh.com/en/insights/supreme-court-confirms-right-to-same-sex-marriage-in-aruba-and-curacao/ Supreme Court confirms right to same-sex marriage in Aruba and Curaçao], ''Nauta Dutilh'' 12 July 2024</ref>
*[[New Zealand]] legalized same-sex marriage on April 17, 2013,<ref>[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-22184232 New Zealand legalises same-sex marriage], ''BBC'', April 17, 2013</ref> with the first marriages being performed on August 19, 2013.<ref>[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2013/8/19/new-zealand-holds-first-same-sex-marriages New Zealand holds first same-sex marriages], ''Aljazeera'', August 19, 2013</ref> The legislation bill that legalized same-sex marriage also granted adoption rights to same-sex couples.
*[[Norway]] legalized same-sex marriage on June 12, 2008 (effective January 1, 2009).  They also made adoption easier for same-sex couples, and made lesbian couples eligible for state-funded fertility drugs.<ref>[http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/06/12/Norway_approves_same-sex_marriage_law/UPI-24941213290843/ UPI.com: Norway approves same-sex marriage law]. ''upi.com'', June 12, 2008.</ref>
*[[Portugal]] legalized same-sex marriage in 2010, with the relevant bill coming into effect on June 5th.<ref>[https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/same-sex-marriage-around-the-world-1.799137 Same-sex marriage around the world], ''CBC News'', February 7, 2012</ref>
*In [[Slovenia]], a law that would legalize gay adoption and even out hetero- and homosexual partnerships was put to a referendum in 2015 that failed by a margin of 63%-37%.<ref>[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-slovenia-rights-idUSKBN0U30BS20151220 Slovenia rejects same-sex marriages in a referendum], Marja Novak, ''Reuters'' 20 December 2015</ref> In 2016, however, a law recognizing civil unions was passed.<ref>[https://english.sta.si/2255355/same-sex-partnership-act-passed Same-sex partnership act passed], ''STA'' 21 April 2016</ref> Later, a 2022 court ruling made them the first eastern European country to legalize gay marriage.<ref>[https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/07/12/slovenia-paves-the-way-for-same-sex-marriage-and-adoption_5989857_4.html Slovenia paves the way for same-sex marriage and adoption], Jean-Baptiste Chastand, ''Le Monde'' 12 July 2022</ref>
*[[South Africa]] legalized same-sex marriages in 2006 following an earlier ruling by the country's constitutional court. Also, in 2020, a law banned marriage officers from refusing to conduct same-sex marriage.<ref>[https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/countries-legalized-same-sex-relationships-africa/ 5 Countries in Africa That Have Legalized Same-Sex Relationships in the Past 10 Years], ''Global Citizen'', February 25, 2021</ref>
*[[Spain]] allowed full marriage rights for same-sex couples in June 2005, despite strong opposition from the [[Roman Catholic Church]].<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/30/international/europe/spain-legalizes-samesex-marriage.html Spain Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage], ''New York Times'', June 30, 2005</ref>
*[[Sweden]] legalized gay marriages on May 1, 2009.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/world/europe/02briefs-swedenmarriage.html Sweden: Same-Sex Marriage Now Legal], ''New York Times'', April 2, 2009</ref>
*[[Switzerland]] established civil unions on January 1st, 2007. A referendum on full marriage equality passed on September 26, 2021 and came into effect starting on July 1, 2022.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/26/europe/switzerland-same-sex-marriage-referendum-intl/index.html Switzerland votes to make same-sex marriage legal by near two-thirds majority], ''Reuters'' 26 September 2021</ref>
*The top court in [[Taiwan]] ruled on May 24, 2017 that same-sex marriage being banned was unconstitutional, and that if not legalized within two years of the ruling, it would become legal automatically.<ref>[https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/taiwan-top-court-rules-in-favour-of-gay-marriage-8879302 Taiwan top court rules in favour of gay marriage]. ''CNA'', May 24, 2017.</ref>
*[[Thailand]]'s senate passed a marriage equality law in June 2024, making them the first country in southeast Asia and the third Asian country overall to legalize same-sex marriage.<ref>[https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/thailand-passes-landmark-bill-recognising-marriage-equality-2024-06-18/ Thailand to be first Southeast Asian country to recognise same-sex marriage], Chayut Setboonsarng and Panarat Thepgumpanat, ''Reuters'' 18 June 2024</ref>
*The [[United Kingdom]] instituted "civil partnerships", restricted to same-sex couples,  on 5 December 2005, which had identical rights and responsibilities to civil marriage under all Marriage Acts since 1836, except that you were not allowed to call them "marriages", or have them solemnized in a religious ceremony.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4493094.stm 'Gay weddings' become law in UK]. ''BBC'', December 5, 2005.</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20051124110410/http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/civilpartnerships/ Civil Partnerships]. ''General Register Office'' (archived).</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20051126012618/http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/regscot/registering-a-civil-partnership-in-scotland.html Registering a Civil Partnership in Scotland]. ''General Register Office for Scotland'' (archived).</ref> The law was further changed for England and Wales in July 2013<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23338279 Same-sex marriage becomes law in England and Wales]. ''BBC News'', July 17, 2013.</ref> so that same sex couples could have marriages, though religious organizations will not be forced to perform or recognize them.  The first such weddings were legal from 29 March 2014 in the [[England]] and [[Wales]]. [[Scotland]] legalized gay marriage by the end of the same year.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-24857052 MSPs endorse gay marriage bill]. ''BBC News'', November 8, 2013.</ref><ref>[http://www.gov.uk/government/news/same-sex-marriage-becomes-law Same sex marriage becomes law]. ''gov.uk'', July 17, 2013.</ref><ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26782081 Gay marriage legalised at midnight in England and Wales]. ''BBC News'', March 28, 2014.</ref><ref>White, Griff. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/gay-marriage-ban-ends-in-england-and-wales-on-saturday/2014/03/28/f2f15453-6502-4557-ad3c-10e24fddb746_story.html Gay marriage ban ending in England and Wales on Saturday]. ''Washington Post'', March 29, 2014.</ref><ref>[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-30486804 Gay marriage law comes into effect in Scotland], ''BBC News'' 16 December 2014</ref> On 13 January 2020, [[Northern Ireland]] legalized gay marriage as well.<ref>[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-51086276 Same-sex marriage now legal in Northern Ireland], Peter Coulter, ''BBC News NI'' 13 January 2020</ref> Additionally, it has been legalized in the Crown Dependencies of [[Isle of Man]], [[Gibraltar]], [[Guernsey]], and [[Jersey]] since 2016, 2016, 2017, and 2018 respectively.<ref>[https://www.itv.com/news/granada/update/2016-07-22/same-sex-couples-can-now-marry-on-the-isle-of-man/ Same-sex couples can now marry in the Isle of Man], ''itv'' 22 July 2016</ref><ref>[https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/gibraltar-passes-sex-marriage-unanimous-support/ Gibraltar passes same-sex marriage with unanimous support], Joe Morgan, ''GayStarNews'' 26 October 2016</ref><ref>[https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/09/21/guernsey-passes-same-sex-marriage-law/ Guernsey passes same-sex marriage law], Nick Duffy, ''PinkNews'' 21 September 2016</ref><ref>[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-jersey-44629130 Jersey to introduce same-sex marriage from 1 July], ''BBC'' 27 June 2018</ref>
*[[Uruguay]]'s president signed a law permitting same-sex marriages on May 3, 2013, and it took effect on August 5 of that year.<ref>[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-23571197 Same-sex marriage bill comes into force in Uruguay]. ''BBC News'', August 5, 2013.</ref>

====The United States====
In a little more than five years, the [[United States of America]] went from being a nation where same-sex marriage was unthinkable to one in which it was the law of the land. In 2009 five states and the [[District of Columbia]] legalized same-sex marriage. Gradually, more states passed laws allowing marriage equality, and while some legal challenges to the movement were successful, it became obvious that the tide was turning in favor of same-sex marriage. On 26 June 2015, the [[Supreme Court]] laid the issue to rest in a 5-4 ruling in the case of '''''Obergefell v. Hodges'''''. According to a 2021 Gallup poll, the percentage of Americans who support same sex marriage has been growing and is '''higher than ever before!''' Roughly 70% of Americans now favor same sex marriage (including over half of Republicans).<ref>McCarthy, Justin. [https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx Record-High 70% in U.S. Support Same-Sex Marriage]. ''Gallup'', June 8, 2021.</ref><ref>Madhani, Aamer. [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/05/23/same-sex-marriage-poll-americans/638587002/ Poll: Approval of same-sex marriage in U.S. reaches new high]. ''USA Today'', May 23, 2018.</ref> However, gay marriage is still banned in [[American Samoa]]<ref>[https://www.equaldex.com/region/united-states/american-samoa American Samoa], Equaldex</ref> and {{wpl|Same-sex marriage in tribal nations in the United States#Nations that prohibit same-sex marriage and do not recognize such marriages from elsewhere|a handful of Native American reservations|.}}

{{collapse|Timeline for the U.S.}}
;November 18, 2003
:Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health rules that same-sex couples have a right to marry in Massachusetts, which came into effect on May 17, 2004.<ref>[https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-shanor/rational-basis-test/goodridge-v-department-of-public-health/ Goodridge v. Department of Public Health], ''CaseBriefs''</ref>
;May 15, 2008
:The state Supreme Court strikes down [[California]]'s statutory ban on same-sex marriage.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/16marriage.html California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban], ''New York Times'', May 16, 2008</ref>
;November 4, 2008
:[[Proposition 8|Proposition Hate]] passes in California, re-editing the state Constitution to make the ban "constitutional".
;April 3, 2009
:The [[Iowa]] Supreme Court required that the state recognize same-sex marriage. (So ''that's'' where the good lawyers were when [[California Proposition 8|California]] needed them!)<ref>[https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123876672206286609 Iowa Supreme Court Overturns Gay-Marriage Ban], ''Wall Street Journal'', April 4, 2009</ref>
;April 7, 2009
:[[Vermont]] legalized same sex unions.
;April 23, 2009
:Connecticut changed "civil union" language to full marriage, saying "separate is not equal".
;May 5, 2009
:The [[Washington, D.C.]] City Council approved a measure recognizing gay couples legally married in other states. Conservative members of Congress swore they would block the Council's will.
;May 6, 2009
:[[Maine]] Governor John Baldacci became the first Governor to sign a bill legalizing gay marriage. This was also the first state that did this according to "conservative rules", by going through the legislative process and not the courts. Of course, even though teh gays followed the conservative rules, the conservatives still intended to attempt to reverse it. 
;May 7, 2009
:[[New Hampshire]]'s General Assembly (the legislature) approved a gay marriage bill, two years after the state legalized civil unions, effective 1/1/2010. Governor Lynch signed it into law shortly after some language indicating that churches would not have to perform them was inserted.
;May 18, 2009
:[[Washington]] governor Christine Gregoire signed an "everything but marriage" bill, conferring the same rights and obligations to same-sex couples enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, just without calling it "marriage". Conservatives announced their intent to repeal it by referendum. On November 2, 2009, this referendum was rejected by the state's voters.
;August 4, 2010
:A Federal District Court struck down [[California Proposition 8]], a referendum that banned same-sex marriage (which had been legalized by the legislature and governor) as violating the [[United States Constitution]].
;January 31, 2011
:[[Illinois]] governor Pat Quinn signs a bill into law legalizing civil unions for same-sex couples. The law took effect on June 1, 2011.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20110817031420/http://genderadvocates.org/?q=node/17 Illinois Law]. ''Illinois Gender Advocates'' (archived).</ref>
;June 24, 2011
:The [[New York]] State Legislature approves, and its governor signs, a bill granting marriage equality, with some safeguards against religious institutions being compelled to be involved in same-sex marriages.
;July 2nd, 2011
:In [[Rhode Island]], civil unions are signed into law as marriage in everything but name; however, the bill comes with even more religious exceptions than New York.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20110704184822/https://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_news/providence/chafee-signs-civil-unions-legislation Chafee signs civil unions legislation]. ''WPRI'', July 3, 2011 (archived).</ref>
;February 13th, 2012
:Governor Christine Gregoire of Washington signs into law The Marriage Equality Act, legalizing same sex marriage.
;February 17th, 2012
:[[New Jersey]]'s legislature passed a same-sex marriage bill, but it was vetoed by Governor [[Chris Christie]].<ref>Ariosto, David. [http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/17/us/new-jersey-same-sex-veto/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 N.J. governor vetoes same-sex marriage bill]. ''CNN'', February 18, 2012.</ref>
;March 1, 2012
:[[Maryland]] governor Martin O'Malley signed the Civil Marriage Protection Act, set to grant marriage equality on January 1, 2013, subject to [[Wikipedia:Maryland Question 6 (2012)|popular referendum]].
;November 6, 2012
:Maryland voters approve same-sex marriage in the aforementioned referendum, as do voters in Maine and Washington state. All three states become the first in 32 attempts for marriage equality to pass a popular referendum. [[Minnesota]] voters reject a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, but a statutory ban still exists.
;June 26, 2013
:The Supreme Court overturned a portion of DOMA on [[Fifth Amendment]] grounds,<ref>''[http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/717671/us-v-windsor.pdf United States v. Windsor]'', 507 U.S. -- (2013)</ref> and let a lower court ruling invalidating California's Proposition 8 on procedural grounds stand.<ref>''[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf Hollingworth v. Perry]'', 507 U.S. -- (2013)</ref>
;March 21 2014	
:A Federal judge in [[Michigan]] overturned the state's law banning marriage equality. People were able to marry for a day until a stay was imposed pending an appeal.
;May 19, 2014
:A federal judge in [[Oregon]] ruled the state's ban unconstitutional, and so it became legal.
;May 20, 2014
:A federal judge in [[Pennsylvania]] ruled the state's ban unconstitutional, and so it became legal.
;October 6, 2014
:The Supreme Court rejected appeals to hear same-sex marriage cases out of [[Indiana]], [[Oklahoma]], [[Utah]], [[Virginia]], and [[Wisconsin]], immediately legalizing it in all of those states.<ref>Margolin, Emma. [http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/supreme-court-denies-marriage-equality-cases Marriage equality comes to five more states]. ''MSNBC'', October 6, 2014.</ref>
;October 11, 2014
:A federal judge in [[North Carolina]] ruled a state constitutional amendment unconstitutional, and so it became legal.
;November 6, 2014
:The Federal Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, covering [[Kentucky]], Michigan, [[Ohio]], and [[Tennessee]], upheld a ban on gay marriage brought before them. This created a "circuit split" in which different circuits have taken different stances on the same issue. Such splits practically compel the Supreme Court to rule on an appeal from these circuits as they are the only body capable of resolving the split.
;January 16, 2015
:The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal from the 6th Circuit over the gay marriage ban. Arguments were heard the last week of April, with a decision due before the end of the court's session in June.
;June 26, 2015
:The Supreme Court overturned the 6th Circuit decision, striking down all remaining prohibitions on same-sex marriage in the United States. ''"America thus abandoned marriage. So God might abandon America, if He hasn’t already."'' (one conservative view)<ref>Hurlbut, Terry A. [http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2015/06/26/clergy/marriage-is-no-more/ Marriage is no more]. ''Conservative News and Views'', June 26, 2015.</ref>
;December 13, 2016
:The Cherokee Nation, the second-largest tribal nation in the United States, legalizes same-sex marriage.<ref>[https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/cherokee-nation-begins-recognizing-same-sex-marriages-n695026 Cherokee Nation Begins Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages], Noel Gutierrez-Morfin, ''NBC News'' 13 December 2016</ref>
;August 29, 2019
:[[Alabama]] abolishes marriage licenses, eliminating a loophole that allowed judges to deny same-sex couples the right to marry as long as they also denied it to straight couples; as many as eight counties were doing this when this law was passed.<ref>[https://www.fox10tv.com/news/here-s-how-getting-married-in-alabama-will-change-with/article_6766168e-87de-11e9-bead-8f16dc6c173a.html Here's how getting married in Alabama will change with no marriage licenses], Brendan Kirby, ''Fox10'' 5 June 2019</ref> This eliminated some of the last holdouts who denied gay marriage in the United States, with the only remaining ones being [[American Samoa]] and a handful of Native American tribal nations.
;December 13, 2022
:President [[Joe Biden]] signs the {{wpl|Respect for Marriage Act||,}} finally repealing [[DOMA]] and codifying ''Obergefell v. Hodges'' as well as ''[[Loving v. Virginia]]'' into federal law. The law requires all non-tribal jurisdictions that perform marriages to recognize same-sex and interracial marriages, which includes American Samoa although they still do not perform same-sex marriages there.<ref>[https://www.npr.org/2022/12/08/1140808263/what-does-the-respect-for-marriage-act-do-the-answer-will-vary-by-state What does the Respect for Marriage Act do? The answer will vary by state.], Kaitlyn Radde, ''NPR'' 8 December 2022</ref>
{{collapseend}}

===Limited recognition===
*[[China]] has typically been very conservative on this issue and refused to recognize gay marriage, however, by 2020 there have been a few signs that the government may be reconsidering its stance on the issue, including publicly acknowledging a petition to legalize same-sex marriage and allowing a lesbian kiss in the movie ''[[Fun:Star Wars|Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker]]'' to be shown in theaters when usually any traces of homosexuality are censored.<ref>[https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/why-china-raising-prospect-same-sex-marriage-n1109471 Why is China raising the prospect of same-sex marriage?], Eric Baculinao, ''NBC News'' 7 January 2020</ref> Currently, they have "mutual guardianship appointments", which can provide limited rights to gay couples.<ref>[https://theconversation.com/how-china-is-legally-recognising-same-sex-couples-but-not-empowering-them-122270 How China is legally recognising same-sex couples, but not empowering them], Xu Chen and Wilfred Yang Mang, ''The Conversation'' 1 October 2019</ref>
*[[Hungary]] began to recognize same-sex registration on July 1, 2009. However, the new constitution passed under the [[Viktor Orbán|Orbán]] government explicitly bans same-sex marriage.<ref>[https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/01/03/new-hungarian-constitution-comes-into-effect-with-same-sex-marriage-ban/ New Hungarian constitution comes into effect with same-sex marriage ban], Stephen Gray, ''PinkNews'' 3 January 2012</ref>
*In [[India]], marriage laws can be quite confusing, as Indian law allows citizens to choose which customs apply to them and none of the federal laws explicitly define marriage as being between a man and a woman, but nevertheless, these laws are almost always enforced in a heteronormative way. Only a single same-sex marriage has been fully recognized by the Indian government, when they were able to prove that their marriage fit all the legal requirements for one.<ref>[https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/07/29/lesbian-newlyweds-flee-honor-killing-threats-in-india/ Lesbian newlyweds flee honor killing threats in India], Sophia Jones, ''FP'' 29 June 2011</ref> A number of federal court cases have been held over the issue in recent years, but progress has been slow.<ref>[https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/centre-argues-against-urgency-delhi-hc-lea-for-same-sex-marriage-recognition-174584 'Nobody Is Dying Because They Don't Have Marriage Certificates' :Centre Opposes Urgent Hearing Of Plea For Same-Sex Marriage Recognition], Shreya Agarwal, ''LiveLaw.in'' 24 May 2021</ref>
*[[Israel]] has recognized marriages granted in other countries since 2006. However, a bill to legalize same sex marriage inside of Israel failed in May 2012. The main reason gay marriages are not legally performed in Israel is that the Supreme Court claim that it is not a fundamental [[Human rights|human right]].<ref>Shaham, Udi. [https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Supreme-Court-rejects-petition-to-recognize-same-sex-marriage-503894 Supreme Court rejects petition to recognize same-sex marriage]. ''The Jerusalem Post'', August 31, 2017.</ref> A 2018 poll claimed that the majority of Israeli citizens support same-sex marriage.<ref>[https://www.timesofisrael.com/most-israelis-favor-same-sex-marriage-but-half-of-mks-mum-on-issue/ Most Israelis favor same-sex marriage, but half of MKs mum on issue]. ''Times of Israel'', June 5, 2018.</ref>
*[[Italy]] is the last major holdout of recognizing same-sex marriage in Western Europe, though civil unions have been legal since 2016.<ref>[https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/05/11/italy-same-sex-civil-unions-made-possible-after-vote Italy: Same-Sex Civil Unions Made Possible After Vote], ''Human Rights Watch'' 11 May 2016</ref>
*[[Japan]] conferred all rights of married couples to gay couples married outside of Japan, if one of the partners is a legal citizen or resident of that foreign country on March 27, 2009. So a Japanese couple can't go to Sweden just to get married, but if one of them is a Swede, Japan will recognize the marriage and give them the legal status of marriage for all government-related issues. Some jurisdictions (e.g. Ōsaka) issue "partnership certificates" which allow for shared renting and hospital visitation rights but lack inheritance and parental rights. A court ruling in 2021 ruled Japan's ban on gay marriage as unconstitutional,<ref>[https://www.npr.org/2021/03/17/978148301/in-landmark-ruling-court-says-japans-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-is-unconstitutiona In Landmark Ruling, Court Says Japan's Ban On Same-Sex Marriage Is Unconstitutional], Rachel Treisman, ''NPR'' 17 March 2021</ref> however a 2022 ruling overturned this.<ref>[https://www.npr.org/2022/06/20/1106313824/japan-court-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-constitutional Japan court says ban on same-sex marriage is constitutional], ''NPR'' 20 June 2022</ref>
*A 2023 court ruling in Namibia determined that they must recognize same-sex marriages performed abroad.<ref>[https://ww2.namibian.com.na/supreme-court-gives-legal-status-to-same-sex-marriages/ Supreme Court gives legal status to same-sex marriages], Werner Menges, ''The Namibian'' 16 May 2023</ref>

===No recognition===
*[[Iran]], where homosexuality is punishable by death, has one of the most unusual systems around gay marriage. Same-sex marriage is of course illegal, but going through gender reassignment surgery is not and is even partially paid for by the government, and a marriage between a trans woman and a cis man would be legal. For this reason, homosexuals have often been pressured to change their gender in Iran, even when they're not trans.<ref>[https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29832690 The gay people pushed to change their gender], Ali Hamedani, ''BBC Persian'' 5 November 2014</ref>
*In [[Nigeria]], same-sex marriage is banned by the Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Act that was passed in 2013, although the law is so incoherent that it has proven difficult to enforce.<ref>[https://76crimes.com/2018/12/15/6-surprising-facts-about-nigerias-anti-gay-marriage-law/ 6 surprising facts about Nigeria’s anti-gay-marriage law], Colin Stewart, ''76 Crimes'' 15 December 2018</ref><ref>[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nigeria-lgbt/nigerian-judge-throws-out-case-against-47-men-facing-homosexuality-charge-idUSKBN27C1TZ Nigerian judge throws out case against 47 men facing homosexuality charge], Alexis Akwagyiram, ''Reuters'' 27 October 2020</ref> Still, with Nigeria's harsh laws against LGBT people and prevailing social attitudes, it will likely be a while before any real progress is made.
*In [[Pakistan]], gay marriage is illegal. The first two people who tried (allegedly as a joke) were immediately arrested.<ref>[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pakistan-men-face-possible-life-in-prison-for-homosexuality-over-same-sex-marriage-they-say-was-a/ Pakistani men arrested for exchanging marriage vows], Farhan Bokhari, ''CBS News'' 17 June 2015</ref>
*In the [[Philippines]], gay marriage is banned despite a majority of the population being supportive of homosexuality.<ref>[https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/ The Global Divide on Homosexuality], ''Pew Research Center'' 4 June 2013</ref> At first there was some hope that [[Rodrigo Duterte]] of all people might help liberalize the country's laws on gay rights, as he had supported gay marriage on the campaign trail,<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/06/19/in-the-fight-for-gay-marriage-in-the-philippines-duterte-could-be-an-unlikely-ally/ In the fight for gay marriage in the Philippines, Duterte could be an unlikely ally], Rebecca Tan, ''Washington Post'' 19 June 2018</ref> but of course he quickly backtracked.<ref>[https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1356855/duterte-backs-gender-equality-not-same-sex-church-or-civil-marriage-palace Duterte backs gender equality, not same-sex church or civil marriage - Palace], Darryl John Esguerra, ''Inquirer.net'' 5 November 2020</ref> A 2019 Supreme Court ruling reaffirmed the country's ban on same-sex marriage.<ref>[https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2020-01-24/philippines-supreme-court-rules-on-same-sex-marriage/ Philippines: Supreme Court Rules on Same-Sex Marriage], Gustavo Guerra, ''Library of Congress'' 24 January 2020</ref>
*[[Poland]] has in recent years become one of the most fervent opponents of gay marriage, with it and Hungary being the main reasons why the [[European Union]] can't really do anything to push for LGBTQ+ rights.<ref>[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-poland-eu-lgbt/poland-will-not-let-eu-force-it-into-allowing-gay-marriages-says-justice-minister-idUSKCN24L2E7 Poland will not let EU 'force' it into allowing gay marriages, says justice minister], Marcin Goclowski, ''Reuters'' 20 July 2020</ref>
*In [[Russia]], thanks to [[Vladimir Putin|a certain homophobe]], gay marriage is constitutionally banned.<ref>[https://www.them.us/story/russia-outlaws-same-sex-marriage-bans-trans-adoption Russia Outlaws Same-Sex Marriage, Bans Trans People From Adopting], Nico Lang, ''them'' 7 April 2021</ref>
*[[Saudi Arabia]] still does not recognize same-sex marriage. Actually, same-sex sex is a [[death penalty|capital crime]] there.<ref>[https://www.refworld.org/docid/3f7d4e1238.html Saudi Arabia: The situation of homosexuals, including treatment by authorities and legal penalties], ''RefWorld'', August 16, 2002</ref>
*[[South Korea]] still doesn't recognize gay marriage or even civil unions, and there are currently few signs of improvement in that regard, with an expanded definition of families passed in 2021 even explicitly excluding homosexuals.<ref>[https://www.voanews.com/a/east-asia-pacific_same-sex-couples-excluded-south-koreas-new-definition-families/6201455.html Same-Sex Couples Excluded from South Korea's New Definition of Families], Jason Strother, ''VOA'' 1 February 2021</ref>
*In [[Ukraine]], same-sex marriage is explicitly banned by the constitution, which defines marriage as a union of a woman and a man, since its adoption in 1996.<ref>[https://constituteproject.org/constitution/Ukraine_2016.pdf?lang=en Ukrainian constitution] (PDF, see article 51).</ref> Ukrainian president [[Volodymyr Zelenskyy]] said he couldn't change the constitution in the middle of an ongoing war, but his government will look into recognizing same-sex civil partnerships.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/03/europe/ukraine-zelensky-same-sex-partnerships-intl/index.html Zelensky opens door to same-sex civil partnerships in Ukraine], Rob Picheta, Vasco Cotovio and Olga Voitovych, ''CNN'' 3 August 2022</ref>
*[[Vietnam]] allows people to hold same-sex weddings, but they receive no recognition from the central government.<ref>[http://english.vietnamnet.vn/fms/society/89082/same-sex-weddings-officially-permitted-in-vietnam.html Same-sex weddings officially permitted in Vietnam], ''Vietnamnet'' 13 November 2013</ref>

==Same-sex marriage resistance==
'''Same-sex marriage resistance''' is when a civil servant refuses to execute his or her duties regarding same-sex marriage.

===Netherlands===
Since the instigation of same-sex marriage in 2001, civil servants have been able to refuse to marry same-sex couples in the [[Netherlands]], but every municipality was required to guarantee that same-sex couples were able to marry. In 2012 there were a total of 88 servants working in 48 counties who refused to issue licenses.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20160408182431/https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2012/06/08/voorlichting-raad-van-state-inzake-gewetensbezwaarde-trouwambtenaren Voorlichting Raad van State inzake gewetensbezwaarde trouwambtenaren]. ''Rijksoverheid'' (archived).</ref>

This has always been a controversial issue and heated debate flared up in 2007 and 2009. Since November 1st, 2014, all new civil servants are required to marry same-sex couples, although civil servants hired before this date can still refuse.<ref>[https://www.coc.nl/politiek-2/vanaf-vandaag-geen-nieuwe-weigerambtenaar-meer Vanaf 1/11 geen nieuwe weigerambtenaar meer]. ''coc.nl''.</ref>

===United States===
'''Kim Davis''' was the county clerk of Rowan County, [[Kentucky]] (population: 23,655+) She became a martyr for the [[Christian right]] for refusing to issue [[marriage]] licenses to [[homosexuality|same-sex]] couples following the [[US Supreme Court]]'s 2015 ''Obergefell v. Hodges'' decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/us/same-sex-marriage-kentucky-kim-davis.html?_r=0 Kentucky Clerk Denies Same-Sex Marriage Licenses, Defying Court]. ''[[New York Times]]'', September 2, 2015.</ref><ref>Bobic, Igor. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kentucky-clerk-gay-marriage-license_55e5a2bfe4b0b7a9633a2303 Kentucky Clerk Refuses To Issue Marriage License To Gay Couples In Heated Exchange]. ''[[Huffington Post]]'', September 1, 2015.</ref><ref>Higdon, James; Larimer, Sarah and Somashekhar, Sandhya. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/09/01/will-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-issue-gay-marriage-licenses-after-supreme-court-ruling/ Kentucky clerk ordered to court after refusing to issue gay-marriage licenses]. ''Washington Post'', September 2, 2015.</ref>

Davis decided she simply could not sleep with herself at night if she allowed the local homos to get married. After a court order, a lawsuit, and being jailed for five days in contempt of court, she was released after her deputies agreed to begin issuing marriage licenses to all eligible couples, in compliance with the Supreme Court's decision, on the condition that she not interfere with the issuance of such licenses. Davis subsequently removed all mention of her county, her name, and the signature line from forms issued only to [[homosexual]] couples, thus interfering with the issuing of valid marriage licenses.

She is no longer a [[Democratic Party|Democrat]]. She has switched to the [[Republican Party]], [[Civil Rights Act|repeating history]]. She is represented by Matt Staver, spokesbigot for [[Liberty Counsel]].<ref>Beamon, Todd. [http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/kim-davis-lawsuit-aclu-clerk/2015/10/13/id/696043/ Kim Davis' Attorneys Argue Against Penalties in Lawsuit Brought by ACLU]. ''Newsmax'', October 13, 2015.</ref>

In an ironic twist, David Ernold, the gay man who was denied a marriage license by her, took it upon himself to run against her in the then-upcoming election.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/08/us/kim-davis-david-ermold.html Kim Davis Denied Him a Marriage License. He’s Running to Replace Her.] ''New York Times'', December 8, 2017.</ref> She was voted out of office in favor of Elwood Caudill Jr. (Democrat) on 6 November, 2018, after David Ermold lost the primary to him in May 2018.<ref>Gstalter, Morgan. [https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/415366-anti-gay-marriage-country-clerk-kim-davis-loses-reelection-in-kentucky Anti-gay marriage country clerk Kim Davis loses reelection in Kentucky]. ''The Hill'', November 6, 2018.</ref><ref>Gajanan, Mahita. [http://time.com/5288014/kim-davis-david-ermold-county-clerk-race/ Gay Man Denied Marriage License by Kim Davis Loses Bid to Challenge Her for Kentucky County Clerkship]. ''Time'', May 22, 2018.</ref>

In 2023, a federal judge ruled that Davis must pay $260,104 in legal fees for the couple that sued her in addition to a $100,000 penalty.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/02/kim-davis-lawyers-fees-same-sex-marriage-kentucky Kim Davis must pay $260,000 legal fees over same-sex marriage license refusal: Former county clerk had disputed lawyers’ fees for Kentucky couple who won $100,000 damages] (2 Jan 2024 13.10 EST) ''Associated Press'' via ''The Guardian''.</ref> In 2025, she tried to bring the case to the Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn marriage equality, but failed as the Supreme Court voted not to hear her case.<ref>[https://www.newsweek.com/kim-davis-crippling-legal-fees-supreme-court-defeat-11028470 Kim Davis Faces ‘Crippling’ Legal Fees After Supreme Court Defeat], Robert Alexander, ''Newsweek'' 11 November 2025</ref>

Another instance of this happening was in Alabama. Couples needed marriage licenses in order to be married, but the law only said that probate judges "may" give out marriage licenses, which resulted in many probate judges refusing to hand out marriage licenses at all just so they didn't have to give out licenses to same-sex couples. In 2019, Alabama finally abolished this loophole.<ref>[https://www.al.com/news/2019/05/alabama-lawmakers-pass-bill-to-end-marriage-licenses.html Alabama lawmakers pass bill to end marriage licenses], Mike Cason, ''AL.com'' 23 May 2019</ref>

==Religious views==
Many major religious denominations are opposed to gay marriage, but some have decided that God's love includes LGBT people. This has particular relevance for LGBT+ people of religion wishing to marry in church/temple/etc, but can have an influence on wider society. This lists those which offer genuine marriage equality, while shitty compromises are in a separate section.

===In favor===
* US [[Episcopal Church]], a branch of the worldwide [[Anglican Communion]]; after varying permissions across states, it allowed same-sex marriage across the church in 2018.<ref>[https://eu.tennessean.com/story/news/religion/2018/07/13/episcopal-church-same-sex-gay-marriage/761572002/ Episcopal Church says all same-sex couples can now marry in their home churches], The Tennessean, July 13, 2018</ref>
* Scottish Episcopal Church, a branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion, since 2017.<ref>[https://www.scotland.anglican.org/church-votes-allow-equal-marriage/ Church votes to allow Equal Marriage], Scottish Episcopal Church, June 8, 2017</ref>
* [[Church of Scotland]], but only those ministers who approve, since 2022.<ref>[https://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/about-us/our-views/same-sex-marriage Same-sex marriage], Church of Scotland, 2022</ref>
* The [[Methodism|Methodist Church]] in England and Wales decided in favor in 2021.<ref>[https://www.methodist.org.uk/about-us/the-methodist-church/marriage-and-relationships/frequently-asked-questions-following-the-2021-conference-votes-on-marriage-and-relationships/ https://www.methodist.org.uk/about-us/the-methodist-church/marriage-and-relationships/frequently-asked-questions-following-the-2021-conference-votes-on-marriage-and-relationships/], Methodist Church</ref>
* Liberal Judaism in the UK supports marriage regardless of gender.<ref>[https://www.liberaljudaism.org/lifecycle/marriage/ Marriage & Mixed Faith Blessings FAQ], Liberal Judaism (UK)</ref>
* Among members of the [[Quakers|Religious Society of Friends]], both Friends of Britain Yearly Meeting and Ireland Yearly Meeting support same-sex marriage. In fact, both Yearly Meetings campaigned for legalisation of same sex marriage in both the UK and Ireland. <ref>[https://www.quaker.org.uk/blog/quakers-and-same-sex-marriage A testimony of divine grace: Quakers and same-sex marriage]</ref>

===Against===
* [[Roman Catholicism]]. It has also rejected attempts by liberal clergy to bless same-sex civil unions.<ref>[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-56402096 Catholic Church 'cannot bless same-sex unions'], BBC, March 15, 2021</ref>
* Russian Orthodox church.<ref>[https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/14011/russian-church-backs-vatican-on-same-sex-blessings Russian Church backs Vatican on same-sex blessings], The Tablet, April 2, 2021</ref>
* [[Church of England]] and many other sub-churches of the worldwide Anglican Communion.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/26/justin-welby-forced-to-allow-anglican-bishops-to-reject-statement-on-sexuality Justin Welby forced to allow Anglican bishops to reject statement on sexuality], The Guardian, July 26, 2022</ref>
* [[Southern Baptist Convention]].<ref>[https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-southern-baptist-convention Stances of Faiths on LGBTQ Issues: Southern Baptist Convention], Human Rights Campaign</ref>
* Most branches of Orthodox [[Judaism]] are firmly opposed.<ref>{{wpa|Same-sex marriage and Judaism}}</ref><ref>[https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-orthodox-judaism Stances of Faiths on LGBTQ Issues: Orthodox Judaism], Human Rights Campaign</ref> However, some Orthodox rabbis differ.<ref>[https://www.timesofisrael.com/small-but-growing-number-of-us-orthodox-rabbis-officiating-same-sex-weddings/ Small but growing number of US Orthodox rabbis officiating same-sex weddings], Times of Israel, Nov 16, 2020</ref>

===Half-assed===
* The Church in Wales, a branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion, will not marry LGBT people but will bless civil marriages and civil unions.<ref>[https://www.churchinwales.org.uk/en/faith/what-we-believe/same-sex-marriage/ Same-sex marriage], The Church in Wales, accessed July 26, 2022</ref>
* In Reform Judaism, the Central Conference of American Rabbis accepts civil same-sex marriage but won't perform religious same-sex marriage.<ref>{{wpa|Same-sex marriage and Judaism}}</ref>

==See also==
* [[California Proposition 8]]
* [[Civil union]]
* [[Gay rights]]
* [[Moral panic]]
* [[God, guns and gays]]

===Court cases===
* ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]''
* ''[[Romer v. Evans]]''
* ''[[Perry v. Schwarzenegger]]''

==External links==
*[http://i.imgur.com/GQtOm.jpg An overview of the same-sex marriage debate]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlVBg7_08n0 Same Love]

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note|2}}

==References==
{{reflist|3|80%}}

[[Category:Culture]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:LGBT rights]]
[[Category:Moral panics]]

Categories: Culture, Homosexuality, Law, LGBT rights, Moral panics