“I
agree. Every family deserves equal protections. How can I help? “
Great, we need you! Here are 10 things you can do.
Equal Marriage Rights for
Same-Sex Couples
Answers To Questions
About Faith and Fairness
A publication by the Human Rights Campaign's FamilyNet Project

Human
Rights Campaign
1640
Rhode Island Ave., N.W.
Washington,
D.C. 20036-3278
Phone:
202/628-4160
A
Message from HRC President Cheryl Jacques
When I kiss my children good night after a long day’s
work, I sometimes wonder what they will learn in school about this moment in
history – when Americans are wrestling, once again, with questions about who
should have access to one of the most cherished, joyful freedoms in the world,
the freedom to marry.
I am confident that in the end, my sons will learn that
the American people did right by all our nation’s families, including their own
– and I look forward to the day that they can know that their moms -- my
partner, Jenn, and I -- are married not only in our hearts and souls but under
law.
Until that day comes, like millions of gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgender Americans, I will continue to wake up thinking about
how I can best protect my family without
the enormous array of protections that come with the right to marry. For
example, how can I ensure security for my family knowing that my partner, who
is at home with our children, would be heavily taxed on any retirement plan she
may inherit from me because we are not considered a family under law? How can I
possibly compensate for the fact that she would not even be eligible for Social
Security survivor benefits upon my death? And how will I be able to protect my
family and keep it strong without the more than 1,000 federal protections
afforded other families that are allowed to marry?
I know that marriage rights for same-sex couples raise
difficult questions for some people in our country. But I have great faith in
the American people. I know that we have walked this path before. In fact,
almost every step we have ever taken to advance civil rights in this country
has shaken our world a little at first – until we saw, as history has
repeatedly shown us, that bringing more people into America’s embrace of
equality for all strengthens us all. The same is true for marriage equality. To
paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the righting of an injustice anywhere is
an extension of justice everywhere.
Cheryl A. Jacques
President
Human Rights Campaign
10
facts about same-sex couples
1.
Same-sex couples live in 99.3 percent of all counties
nationwide.
2.
There are an estimated 3,136,921 same-sex couples living
in the United States.
3.
Fifteen percent of these same-sex couples live in rural
settings.
4.
One out of three lesbian couples is raising children.
One out of five gay male couples is raising children.
5.
Between 1 million and 9 million children are being
raised by gay, lesbian and bisexual parents in the United States today.
6.
At least one same-sex couple is raising children in 96
percent of all counties nationwide.
7.
The highest percentages of same-sex couples raising
children live in the South. Among those states with the highest percentages:
Mississippi, South Dakota and Utah.
8.
Nearly one in four same-sex couples include a partner 55
years old or older, and nearly one in five same-sex couples is composed of two
people 55 or older.
9.
More than one in 10 same-sex couples include a partner
65 years old or older, and nearly one in 10 same-sex couples is composed of two
people 65 or older.
10.
The states with the highest numbers of same-sex senior
couples are also the most popular for heterosexual senior couples: California,
New York and Florida
These facts are based on analyses of the 2000 U.S.
Census conducted by the Urban Institute and Human Rights Campaign.
Why do
same-sex couples want to marry?
“How
do you break it to a child that the land of the free does not allow us to be
free to be a legal family? In my children’s pure loving heart, we are all the
same.”
(Cara
Wilson, Ohio lesbian mother of three)
Many same-sex couples want the right to legally marry
because they are in love, or because they just met the love of their lives or,
more likely, have spent the last 10, 20 or 50 years with that person – and want
to honor their relationship in the greatest way our society has to offer, by
making a public commitment to stand together in good times and bad, through all
the joys and challenges family life brings.
Many others want the right to marry because they are
parents and know that marriage offers children a vital safety net, guaranteeing
them protections that unmarried parents never could.
And still other people – both gay and straight – are
fighting for the right of same-sex couples to marry because they recognize that
it is simply not fair to deny some families the protections all other families
are eligible to receive.
Currently in the United States, same-sex couples in long-term,
committed relationships pay higher taxes and are denied basic protections and
rights granted to married couples. Among them:
·
Hospital
visitation. Married couples
have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions.
Same-sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured loved one
in the hospital.
·
Social
Security benefits. Married
people receive Social Security payments upon the death of a spouse. Despite
paying payroll taxes, gay and lesbian workers receive no Social Security
survivor benefits – resulting in an average annual income loss of $5,528 upon
the death of a partner.
·
Health
insurance. Many public and
private employers provide medical coverage to the spouses of their employees,
but most employers do not provide coverage to the life partners of gay and
lesbian employees. Gay employees who do
receive health coverage for their partners must pay federal income taxes on the
value of the insurance.
·
Estate
taxes. A married
person automatically inherits all the property of his or her deceased spouse
without paying estate taxes. A gay or lesbian taxpayer is forced to pay estate
taxes on property inherited from a deceased partner.
·
Retirement
savings. While a married
person can roll a deceased spouse’s 401(k) funds into an IRA without paying
taxes, a gay or lesbian American who inherits a 401(k) can end up paying up to
70 percent of it in taxes and penalties.
·
Family
leave. Married workers
are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse.
Gay and lesbian workers are not entitled to family leave to care for their
partners.
·
Nursing
homes. Married couples
have a legal right to live together in nursing homes. Because they are not
legal spouses, elderly gay or lesbian couples do not have the right to spend
their last days living together in nursing homes.
·
Home
protection. Laws
protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high
nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection.
·
Pensions.
After the death of a worker, most
pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant.
Gay and lesbian partners are excluded from such pension benefits.
Why
aren’t civil unions enough?
Comparing marriage to civil unions is a bit like
comparing diamonds to rhinestones. One is, quite simply, the real deal; the
other is not. Consider:
·
Couples eligible to marry
may have their marriage performed in any state and have it recognized in every
other state in the nation and every country in the world.
·
Couples who are joined in a civil union in Vermont (the only state that offers civil unions)
have no guarantee that its protections will even travel with them to
neighboring New York or New Hampshire – let alone California or any other
state.

Moreover, even couples who have a civil union and remain
in Vermont receive only second-class protections in comparison to their married
friends and neighbors. While they receive state-level protections, they do not
receive any of the more than 1,000
federal benefits and protections of marriage.
In short, civil unions are not separate but equal – they
are separate and unequal. And our
society has tried separate before. It just doesn’t work.
|
Marriage: |
Civil
unions: |
|
State grants marriage licenses to couples. |
State would grant civil union licenses to couples. |
|
Couples receive legal protections and rights under
state and federal law. |
Couples receive legal protections and rights under
state law only. |
|
Couples are recognized as being married by the federal
government and all state governments. |
Civil unions are not recognized by other states or
federal government. |
|
Religious institutions are not required to recognize
marriages or perform marriage ceremonies. |
Religious institutions are not required to recognize
civil unions or perform civil union ceremonies. |
“I believe
God meant marriage for men and women. How can I support marriage for same-sex
couples?”
Many people who believe in God – and fairness and
justice for all – ask this question. They
feel a tension between religious beliefs and democratic values that has been
experienced in many different ways throughout our nation’s history. That is why
the framers of our Constitution established – and we as a people have
repeatedly reaffirmed – the principle of separation of church and state. That
principle applies no less to the marriage issue than it does to any other.
Indeed, the answer to the apparent dilemma between
religious beliefs and support for equal protections for all families lies in
recognizing that marriage has a significant religious meaning for many people,
but that it is also a legal contract. And it is strictly the legal -- not the
religious – dimension of marriage that is being debated now.
Granting marriage rights to same-sex couples
would not require Christian, Jewish,
Muslim or any other religions to perform these marriages. It would not require
churches, synagogues or other religious institutions to permit these ceremonies
to be held on their grounds. It would not even require that religious
communities discuss the issue. People of faith would remain free to make their
own judgments about what makes a marriage made in the eyes of God – just as
they are today.
Consider, for example, the difference in how the
Catholic Church and the U.S. government view couples who have divorced and
remarried. Because church tenets do not sanction divorce, the second marriage
is not valid in the church’s view. The government, however, recognizes the
marriage by extending to the remarried couple the same rights and protections
of marriage as those granted to every other married couple in America. In this
situation – as would be the case in marriage for same-sex couples – the church
remains free to establish its own teachings on the religious dimension of
marriage while the government upholds equality under law.
While each faith would remain free to make its own
determination about same-sex relationships, it should also be noted that there
are a growing number of religious communities that have searched their own
consciences and decided to bless same-sex unions. Among them are Reform
Judaism, Unitarian Universalists and the Metropolitan Community Church. The
Presbyterian Church (USA) also allows ceremonies to be performed, although they
are not considered the same as a marriage ceremony. And the Episcopal Church
and United Church of Christ allow individual churches to set their own policies
on same-sex unions.
“I
strongly believe children need a mother and a father.”
Many of us grew up believing
that everyone needs a mother and father, regardless of whether we ourselves
happened to have two parents, or two good
parents.
But as families have grown
more diverse in recent decades, and researchers have studied how these
different family relationships affect children, it has become clear that the quality of a family’s relationship is
more important than the particular structure
of families that exist today. In other words, the qualities that help a child
grow into a good and responsible adult – learning how to learn, to have
compassion for others, to contribute to society and be respectful of others and
their differences – do not depend on the sexual orientation of their parents
but on their parents’ ability to provide a loving, stable and happy home,
something no class of Americans has an exclusive hold on.
That is why research studies have consistently
shown that children raised by gay and lesbian parents do just as well on all
conventional measures of child development, such as academic achievement,
psychological well-being and social abilities, as children raised by
heterosexual parents.
That is also why the nation’s
leading child welfare organizations, including the American Academy of
Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians and others [see box],
have issued statements that dismiss assertions that only heterosexual couples
can be good parents -- and declare that the focus should now be on providing
greater protections for the 1 million to 9 million children being raised by gay
and lesbian parents in the United States today.
Granting same-sex couples the right to marry, therefore,
would enable the millions of same-sex parents raising children today to give
their children what every child deserves – the safest, most secure environment
possible, with all the legal protections that our country has put in place.
“This
is different from interracial marriage. Sexual orientation is a choice.”
“We
cannot keep turning our backs on gay and lesbian Americans. I have fought too
hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand
up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I've heard the reasons
for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions,
and they stink of the same fear, hatred, and intolerance I have known in racism
and in bigotry."
Rep.
John Lewis, D-Ga., a leader of the black civil rights movement, writing in the
Boston Globe, Nov. 25, 2003
Decades of research all point to the fact that sexual
orientation is not a choice, and that a person’s sexual orientation cannot be
changed. Who one is drawn to is a fundamental aspect of who we are.
In this way, the struggle for marriage equality for
same-sex couples is just as basic as the fight for interracial marriage was. It
recognizes that Americans should not be coerced into false and unhappy
marriages but be free to marry the person they love – thereby building marriage
on a true and stable foundation.
“Won’t
this create a free-for-all and make the whole idea of marriage meaningless?”
Many people share this concern because opponents of gay
and lesbian people have used this argument as a scare tactic. But it is not
true. Granting same-sex couples the right to marry would in no way change the number of people who could enter into a
marriage (or eliminate restrictions on the age or familial relationships of
those who may marry). Marriage would continue to recognize the highest possible
commitment that can be made between two adults, plain and simple.
“What
would be wrong with a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union of
a man and woman?”
In more than 200 years of American history, the
U.S. Constitution has been amended only 17 times since the Bill of Rights – and
in each instance (except for Prohibition, which was repealed), it was to extend
rights and liberties to the American people, not restrict them. For example,
our Constitution was amended to end our nation’s tragic history of slavery. It
was also amended to guarantee people of color, young people and women the right
to vote.
The amendment currently under consideration (called the
Federal Marriage Amendment) would be the only one that would single out one
class of Americans for discrimination by ensuring that same-sex couples would
not be granted the equal protections that marriage brings to American families.
Moreover, the amendment could go even further by
stripping same-sex couples of some of the more limited protections they now
have, such as access to health insurance for domestic partners and their
children.
Neither enshrining discrimination in our Constitution
nor stripping millions of families of basic protections would serve our
nation’s best interest. The Constitution is supposed to protect and ensure
equal treatment for all people. It
should not be used to single out a group of people for different treatment.
“How
could marriage for same-sex couples possibly be good for the American family –
or our country?”
“We
shouldn’t just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should
regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not
want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.”
Conservative
Columnist David Brooks, writing in The New York Times, Nov. 22, 2003.
The prospect of a significant
change in our laws and customs has often caused people to worry more about
possible dire consequences that could result than about the potential positive
outcomes. In fact, precisely the same anxiety arose when some people fought to
overturn the laws prohibiting marriage between people of different races in the
1950s and 1960s. (One Virginia judge even declared that “God intended to
separate the races.”)
But in reality, opening
marriage to couples who are so willing to fight for it could only strengthen
the institution for all. It would open the doors to more supporters, not
opponents. And it would help keep the age-old institution alive.
As history has repeatedly
proven, institutions that fail to take account of the changing needs of the
population are those that grow weak; those that recognize and accommodate
changing needs grow strong. For example, the U.S. military, like American
colleges and universities, grew stronger not weaker after permitting African
Americans and women to join its ranks.
Similarly, granting same-sex
couples the right to marry would strengthen the institution of marriage by
allowing it to better meet the needs of the true diversity of family structures
in America today.
“Can’t
same-sex couples go to a lawyer to secure all the rights they need?”
Not by a long shot. When a gay or lesbian person gets
seriously ill, there is no legal document that can make their partner eligible
to take leave from work under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act to
provide care – because that law applies only to married couples.
When gay or lesbian people grow old and in need of
nursing home care, there is no legal document that can give them the right to
Medicaid coverage without causing their partner to be forced from their home –
because the federal Medicaid law only permits married spouses to keep their
home without becoming ineligible for benefits.
And when a gay or lesbian person dies, there is no legal
document that can extend Social Security survivor benefits or the right to
inherit a retirement plan without severe tax burdens that stem from being
“unmarried” in the eyes of the law.
These are only a few examples of the critical
protections that are granted through more than 1,000 federal laws that protect
only married couples. In the absence of the right to marry, same-sex couples
can only put in place a handful of the most basic arrangements, such as naming
each other in a will or a power of attorney. And even these documents remain
vulnerable to challenges in court by disgruntled family members.
“Won’t
this cost taxpayers too much money?”
No, it wouldn’t necessarily cost much at all. In fact,
treating same-sex couples as families under law could even save taxpayers money because marriage would require them to assume
legal responsibility for their joint living expenses and reduce their
dependence on public assistance programs, such as Medicaid, Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families, Supplemental Security Income disability payments
and food stamps.
Put another way, the money it would cost to extend
benefits to same-sex couples could be outweighed by the money that would be
saved as these families rely more fully on each other instead of state or
federal government assistance.
For example, two studies conducted in 2003 by professors
at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and the University of California,
Los Angeles, found that extending domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples
in California and New Jersey would save taxpayers millions of dollars a year.
Specifically, the studies projected that the California
state budget would save an estimated $8.1 to $10.6 million each year by
enacting the most comprehensive domestic partner law in the nation. In New
Jersey, which passed a new domestic partner law in 2004, the savings were
projected to be even higher – more than $61 million each year.
(Sources:
“Equal Rights, Fiscal Responsibility: The Impact of A.B. 205 on California’s
Budget,” by M. V. Lee Badgett, Ph.D., IGLSS, Department of Economics,
University of Massachusetts, and R. Bradley Sears, J.D., Williams Project, UCLA
School of Law, University of California, Los Angeles, May 2003, and.“Supporting
Families, Saving Funds: A Fiscal Analysis of New Jersey’s Domestic Partnership
Act,” by Badgett and Sears with Suzanne Goldberg, J.D., Rutgers School of
Law-Newark, December 2003.)
Where
can same-sex couples marry today?
In 2001, the Netherlands
became the first country to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. Belgium passed a similar law two years
later. The laws in both of these countries, however, have strict citizenship or
residency requirements that do not permit American couples to take advantage of
the protections provided.

In June 2003, Ontario
became the first Canadian province to grant marriage to same-sex couples, and
in July 2003, British Columbia
followed suit – becoming the first places that American same-sex couples could
go to get married.
In September 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recognized the right of
same-sex couples to marry – calling on the state to begin issuing marriage
licenses to same-sex couples by May 17, 2004.
Other nations have also taken steps toward extending
equal protections to all couples, though the protections they provide are more
limited than marriage. Canada, Denmark,
Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Norway, Portugal and Sweden all have
nationwide laws that grant same-sex partners the right to assume a range of
important rights, protections and obligations.
For example, in France, registered same-sex (and
opposite-sex) couples can be joined in a civil “solidarity pact” that grants
them the right to file joint tax returns, extend their social security coverage
to each other and receive the same health, employment and welfare benefits as
legal spouses. It also commits the couple to assume joint responsibility for
household debts.
Other countries, including Switzerland, Scotland and the
Czech Republic, also have considered legislation that would legally recognize
same-sex unions.
However, laws in this area are changing quickly. Please
check inside the front pocket of this booklet for any updates.
What
protections other than marriage are available to American same-sex couples?
At the federal level, there are no protections at all
available to same-sex couples. In fact, a federal law called the “Defense of
Marriage Act” (DOMA) says that the federal government will discriminate against
same-sex couples who marry by refusing to recognize their marriages or
providing them with the federal protections of marriage. Some members of
Congress are also trying to go even further by trying to pass a Federal
Marriage Amendment that would write discrimination against same-sex couples
into the U.S. Constitution.
At the state level, only Vermont offers civil unions,
which provide important state benefits but no federal protections, such as
Social Security survivor benefits. There is also no guarantee that civil unions
will be recognized outside Vermont. Thirty-seven states also have “defense of
marriage” laws explicitly prohibiting the recognition of marriages between
same-sex partners.
Domestic partner laws have been enacted in California,
Connecticut, New Jersey, Hawaii and the District of Columbia. The benefits
conferred by these laws vary; some offer access to family health insurance,
others confer co-parenting rights. These benefits are limited to residents of
the state. A family that moves out of these states immediately loses the
protections.
“I
agree. Every family deserves equal protections. How can I help? “
Great, we need you! Here are 10 things you can do.
Excerpts From 2003 Goodridge Decision
Recognizing the Right of Same-sex Couples to Marry in Massachusetts
Marriage and family choices are matters of personal liberty
“Whether and whom to marry, how to express sexual
intimacy, and whether and how to establish a family – these are among the most
basic of every individual’s liberty and due process rights.”
The fight for marriage rights for same-sex couples is not an attack
on marriage
“Here, the plaintiffs seek
only to be married, not to undermine the institution of civil marriage. They do
not want marriage abolished. They do not attack the binary nature of marriage,
the consanguinity provisions, or any of the other gate-keeping provisions of
the marriage licensing law.”
Barring
same-sex couples from marriage violates their liberty and equality under law
“Barred access to the protections, benefits, and
obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive
union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one
of our community’s most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is
incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual
autonomy and equality under law.”
Prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying harms children
“Excluding same-sex couples
from civil marriage will not make children of opposite sex marriages more
secure, but it does prevent children of same-sex couples from enjoying the
immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family
structure in which children will be reared, educating and socialized.”
“It cannot be rational under
our laws, and indeed it is not permitted, to penalize children by depriving
them of state benefits because the state disapproves of their parents’ sexual
orientation.”
Constitutional law has repeatedly embraced people once excluded
“The history of constitutional
law is the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to
people once ignored or excluded. … This statement is as true in the area of civil
marriage as in any other area of civil rights.”
Ban may be rooted in prejudice alone
“The marriage ban works a deep
and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason.
The absence of any reasonable relationship between, on the one hand, an
absolute disqualification of same-sex couples who wish to enter into civil
marriage, and on the other, protection of public health, safety, or general
welfare, suggests that the marriage restriction is rooted in persistent
prejudices against person who are (or who are believed to be) homosexual. ‘The
Constitution cannot control such prejudices but neither can it tolerate them.”
Marriage survives change
“Alarms about the imminent
erosion of the ‘natural’ order of marriage were sounded over the demise of
antimiscegenation laws, the expansion of the rights of married women, and the
introduction of ‘no-fault’ divorce. Marriage has survived all these
transformations, and we have no doubt that marriage will continue to be a
vibrant and revered institution.”
Additional National Resources
Human
Rights Campaign www.hrc.org
HRC is the nation’s largest national organization
working to advance equality based on sexual orientation and gender expression
and identity to ensure that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans
can be open, honest, and safe at home, at work and in their communities. Of
particular interest to people following the marriage issue:
The Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s FamilyNet project (www.hrc.org/familynet) offers the most
comprehensive resources about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender families,
covering marriage, parenting, aging and more.
HRC’s Action Center (www.hrcactioncenter.org), offers
important updates about what’s happening in legislatures nationwide and the
latest online grassroots advocacy tools.
Other important resources include:
American
Civil Liberties Union: www.aclu.org
The ACLU works daily in courts, legislatures and
communities throughout the country to defend and preserve the individual rights
and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Freedom
to Marry Collaborative: www.freedomtomarry.org
A gay and non-gay partnership working to win marriage
equality nationwide.
Children
of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere (COLAGE): www.colage.org
Fosters the growth of daughters and sons of LGBT parents
by providing education, support and community, advocating for their rights and
for the rights of their families, and by promoting acceptance and awareness in
society.
Family
Pride Coalition: www.familypride.org
A national education and civil rights organization that
advances the well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender parents and
their families through mutual support, community collaboration and public
understanding.
Gay
& Lesbian Advocates & Defenders: www.glad.org
The gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender legal
organization that successfully brought the case that led to the civil union law
in Vermont and the recognition of marriage equality in Massachusetts.
Gay
& Lesbian Victory Fund: www.victoryfund.org
Committed to increasing the number of openly gay and
lesbian public officials at federal, state and local levels of government by
recruiting, training, and supporting openly LGBT candidates and officials.
Lambda
Legal: www.lambdalegal.org
A national legal group committed to achieving full
recognition of the civil rights of, and combating the discrimination against,
the LGBT community, and people with HIV/AIDS, through impact litigation,
education and public policy work.
Log
Cabin Republicans: www.lcr.org
Operates within the Republican Party for the equal
rights of all Americans, including gay men and women, according to the
principles of limited government, individual liberty, individual
responsibility, free markets and a strong national defense.
Marriage
Equality U.S.A.: www.marriageequality.org
Works to secure the freedom and the right of same-sex
couples to engage in civil marriage through a program of education, media
campaigns and community partnerships.
National
Center for Lesbian Rights: www.nclrights.org
A national legal resource center devoted to advancing
the rights and safety of lesbians and their families through a program of
litigation, public policy advocacy, free legal advice and counseling and public
education.
National
Gay & Lesbian Task Force: www.ngltf.org
Dedicated to building a national civil rights movement
of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people through the empowerment and
training of state and local leaders, and through the research and development
of national policy.
National
Latina/o Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Organization (LLEGO): www.llego.org
Develops solutions to social, health and political
disparities that exist due to discrimination based on ethnicity, sexual
orientation and gender identity affecting the lives and well-being of Latina/o
LGBT people and their families.