Marriage is a civil union. There does not have to be anything "sanctified" about it. A couple applies for a marriage license in their state. If they meet all the requirements, then the state grants the license. The couple may then be married in the courthouse or city hall. Once married, their state, the other forty-nine states, and the federal government all recognize that marriage. At no point in this process are there any religious implications, conditions or requirements.

The couple may take the marriage license to a religious institution of their choice and be married there. This is usually considered the "sanctification" of that marriage.

No one is asking that any religion or religious institution be required to perform same-sex marriages if they choose not to do so. We are asking that religious institutions not attempt to impose their particular beliefs into civil law to deny the civil right of same-sex couples to marry.

We need state and federal Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMA) to protect the institution of marriage.

Marriages need no state or federal act or law to survive. The couple within it, by the strength of their commitment, defends and strengthens a marriage. We are continually told by the conservative right that legalization of same-sex marriage would destroy the institution of marriage as well as the American family structure. They never explain how this would happen. If their marriages and families are that vulnerable, then they need much more than a law to protect them.

The name "Defense of Marriage Act" is a cruel deception. DOMAs should be called what they actually are: Prevention of Same-Sex Marriage Acts. They are nothing but an attempt to legalize discrimination.

The United States is a "Christian nation" and the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. Therefore we must prevent same-sex marriages.

The majority of people in the United States, were they asked in a poll, might say they are Christian. That does not make this country a "Christian country" however. To call it that is to exclude citizens of all other religions, or no religion. We should also remember that there are many variations of Christianity, and some of them welcome the inclusion of same-sex couples into the state of marriage.

Our founding fathers, mindful of religious persecution in other countries, were adamant about the separation of church and state. The 1st Amendment mandates that there can be no state-sponsored religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".

We cannot let one religion or religious group impose its beliefs on the civil law and civil rights of Americans.

We need a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Ratification of such an amendment would mark the first time in the history of our nation that one of the founding documents of our democracy was changed to abridge the civil rights of a group of its citizens. This is a shameful attempt to instill discrimination into the Constitution of the United States.

Legalizing same-sex marriages would open the door for other forms of marriage. People would want to marry multiple partners, their pets, or even their cars.

This is not a joke. Ultra-right-wing conservatives are using this argument on websites, on the radio and other media to scare the public. While it is insulting to our national intelligence, we must make it clear that we believe that marriage should be between two and only two committed people. We just don't believe there should be discrimination based on the sex of those two people.

The purpose of marriage is the procreation and rearing of children.

What about couples that do not desire children? What about older heterosexual couples who are past childbearing years? Ironically, there are over one million children in the United States living in families headed by same-sex couples. It is these families and these children that we want to protect by allowing same-sex couples the right to marry.

New Points (12/04/2004)

Frequently Asked Questions About Marriage Equality

Can same-sex marriage harm heterosexual marriage?

Permitting same-sex couples to marry could not cause harm to someone else's marriage and family. No documentation exists which gives credence to this myth. In fact, European countries which have given massive legal recognition to same-sex relationships have experienced no harm to opposite-sex couples and their families. In Massachusetts, thousands of same-sex couples have married in the past year, and heterosexual marriages have not suffered in any way. In fact, Massachusetts has among the lowest divorce rates in the U.S.

Should same-sex marriage wait until the majority supports it?

Our Constitution and our history argue against waiting to take action until a majority supports a particular civil right. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are meant to protect the civil rights and liberties of minorities. Further, it often takes the government enforcing basic civil rights to help change public opinion. A woman's right to vote, integration of the military and interracial marriage were all unpopular at one time. But our country is a democracy in which the minority is entitled to protection and where historically the government has been instrumental in providing leadership to educate the public and build support for civil rights. Recent polls suggest that people's understanding of the unfairness of marriage discrimination is beginning to take hold, with an average of approximately 40% (more in California) saying "no" to discrimination and "yes" to equality. Among younger Americans, a majority supports civil marriage equality.

Why can't gay couples have the same benefits but not call it marriage?

This position clearly promotes separate and unequal status for one group of citizens, which is unworkable at a practical level and almost certainly unconstitutional, based on Supreme Court precedent. Civil marriage is an intricate web of legal, economic and practical protections and responsibilities, from sharing club memberships to the adoption of children to tax issues to immigration. Everyone instantly knows what marriage confers. Who will make the decisions on which rights same-sex couples should have, and how can they be made fairly? State domestic partnerships or civil unions are not portable across state lines and do not confer the 1,138 federal rights given by marriage. Even if states and the federal government could construct an entire parallel family code for the LGBT community, which is unlikely, a nationwide domestic partnership program would involve the government stigmatizing one group of citizens as "unfit" for marriage. Our country decided a long time ago that separate is not equal.

Shouldn't marriage remain as it has always been?

Marriage and family are not very traditional at all. For instance, Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings, sharing a father. Jewish law once required childless husbands to marry a second time, with or without divorcing the first wife. Only the upper one-third of empire Romans had the legal right to marry; everyone else lived together outside the law. For its first five hundred to a thousand years, the early Christian church considered marriage a tainted, earthly institution, something rendered unto Caesar, and didn't officially declare marriage a sacrament until 1215. In English and American law, women did not have the right to be their children's guardians until the 19th century. While American states were battling for nearly 150 years over whether to recognize each others divorces, Protestant denominations were roiled by the question of whether it was sinful to remarry divorced people whose ex-spouses were still alive. Marriage has always been a social battleground, its rules and borders shifting to suit each economy, each era, each class." (E.J. Graff)

What about the effects on children?

According to the 2000 Census, one of three lesbian couples is raising children and one in five gay male couples has children, but these couples are denied the right to raise their children within a marital relationship. These children are subjected to systematic prejudice on a daily basis and are denied many of the protections and rights accorded to the children of married heterosexual couples. Marriage protects children, giving greater access to health care, family and medical leave, and the right to a legal relationship with both parents. Marriage can also have significant economic impacts, due to parenting related federal tax benefits, Social Security and pension benefits, veterans benefits, employer based health insurance and other benefits available to employee family members. Yet, despite these disadvantages, studies done in the last 20 years show that children raised by gay parents are well-adjusted and happy and do not differ on standard psychological measures from children raised in heterosexual households. Studies show that kids do not necessarily need one mother and one father so much as they need good nurturers and positive role models. Yet, only seven states, plus the District of Columbia, provide for legal second parent or joint adoption statewide despite the fact that same sex couples are raising children in 96% of U.S. counties. California does provide legal second parent adoption, and has 7 of the top 20 counties in the number of same sex couples raising children. Counties include Los Angles, Orange, San Diego, Alameda, San Bernardino, Riverside and Santa Clara. A recent Stanford University study reported 140,000 children in California with a gay or lesbian parent. However, should these couples move out of California, it is not certain that these second parent adoptions would be honored.

What are the fiscal impacts of same sex marriage?

Studies by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and UCLA have found that same sex marriage would actually generate revenue for the federal government and the State of California. An analysis of federal budget impacts, done by the CBO in June 2004 for the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee, found that the federal government would gain just under $1 billion a year, for the next 10 years, if same sex marriage was legal. The study was based on 2000 U.S. Census data and the U.S. General Accountability Office's identification of 1,138 statutory provisions linked to marriage. An analysis done at the UCLA School of Law for the California Assembly found that same sex marriage would have a positive impact on California state revenues, with a net gain of $22.3 to $25.2 million each year in state revenues. The main savings for the state would stem from a decreasing number of individuals eligible for means-tested state benefit programs.

If we allow same-sex couples to marry, what's next? Are we going to allow marriage between 3 (or more) people?

When the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that laws barring black people from marrying white people were invalid and unconstitutional, opponents insisted that marriage by definition was for partners of the same race and argued the court's decision would lead to polygamy. That was not the case. The question of who can marry is a different question from how many can marry. We are asking the government to grant same-sex couples the same rights it grants opposite-sex couples. Since the government has chosen to involve itself in the relationship of two individuals, for it to choose which couples get marriage rights is discrimination.

Would the state be sanctioning homosexuality by legalizing same-sex marriage?

It's not the government's job to sanction heterosexuality or homosexuality. Nor is it in a position to judge the marriages of its citizens. It's not the government's job to make policy based on religious precepts; it is the government's job to enforce the Constitution. The Constitution says everyone gets equal treatment under the law.

Doesn't The Bible say marriage is between one man and one woman, thus making it a religious institution?

Civil marriage is a government institution that grants hundreds of state rights and over 1,100 federal rights. When a couple goes to the County Clerk's office for a marriage license, religion plays no role. The U.S. Constitution makes no mention of the bible or any other religious text. Although gay people have had religious wedding ceremonies performed by congregations and religious leaders that have adopted inclusive marital policies, no religious institution would ever be required to perform a marriage against its beliefs and traditions. In America, marriage is a civil institution. However, real religious freedom would permit those faiths supporting same sex marriage to be able to solemnize marriages if they wish to do so.

Wouldn't recognition of same-sex marriages cost businesses a lot more money?

The main benefit many employers provide for their employees which might be affected by permitting same-sex couples to marry would be health care benefits. Currently, many gay people cannot obtain this benefit. The additional cost to employers would be minimal and no one would even ask this question if a company happened to have all heterosexual people working with the expectation they would all be married. Businesses often offer gay couples benefits already as it is in their best interest to attract the best employees and retain them. Studies suggest the impact on business of recognizing same-sex couples would be minimal.

Wouldn't permitting gay and lesbian couples to marry mean the further breakdown of the family?

The breakdown of the family is a concern of many gay people, along with straight people, who believe that families are important for society. Although many marriages end in divorce, marriage fulfills an important role in supporting families and the communities around us. Families are (and should) be made of love, respect, sacrifice and commitment. The same values that led us to recognize and respect marriages between different-sex couples, should inspire us to recognize and respect marriages of same-sex couples. Recognition of same-sex couples and their families would be a positive addition to the diversity in our communities.