The proposed legalization of same sex marriage is one of
the most significant issues in contemporary American family
law. Presently, it is one of the most vigorously advocated
reforms discussed in law reviews, one of the most
provocative issues. It could be one of the most
revolutionary policy decisions in the history of American
The potential consequences, positive or negative, for
children, parents, same-sex couples, families, social,
structure public health, and the status of women are
enormous. Given the importance of the issue, the value of
comprehensive debate may be obvious. Marriage is much more
than a commitment to love one another.
Aside from societal
and religious conventions, marriage entails legally imposed
financial responsibility and legally authorized financial
benefits. Marriage instantly provides a automatic legal
succession of a deceased spouse’s property, as well as
pension and law, as well as promise in the eyes of the Lord,
and their as well as to enjoy its benefits, should the law
prohibit their request merely because they are of the same
gender? I intend to prove that because of Article IV of the
United States Constitution. there is no reason why the
federal government nor any state government should restrict
marriage to a predefined homosexual relationship?
Marriage laws have changed throughout the years. In
Western law, wives are now equal rather than subordinate
partners; interracial marriage is now widely accepted, both
in the statue and in society; and marital failure itself,
rather than the fault of one partner, may be grounds in some
states for a divorce. Societal changes have been felt in
marriages over the past twenty-five years as divorce rates
have increased. Proposals to legalize same-sex marriages or
to enact broad domestic partnership laws are currently being
promoted by gay and lesbian activists, especially in Europe
and North America.
The trend in western European nations
during the past decade has been to some same-sex couples.
For example, with in the past six years, three Scandinavian
countries have enacted domestic partnership laws allowing
same-sex couples in which at least one partner is a citizen
of the specified country. Therefore allowing that
In the Netherlands, the Parliament is considered
domestic partnership status for same-sex couples, all the
major political parties favor recognizing same-sex
relations, and more than a dozen towns have already done so.
Finland provides governmental social benefits to same-sex
partners. Belgium allows gay prisoners the right to have a
conjugal visits from same-sex partners. An overwhelming
majority of European nations have granted partial legal
In the United States, efforts to legalize same-sex
domestic partnership have had some, limited success.
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. reported that
by mid- 1995, thirty-six municipalities, eight countries,
three states, five state agencies, and two federal agencies
extended some benefits to, or registered for official
purposes, same-sex partnerships. In 1994, the California
legislature passed a domestic partnership bill that provided
official state registration of same-sex couples and provided
limited marital rights and privileges relating to hospital
visitation, willis and estates, and powers of attorney.
While California’s Governor Wilson eventually vetoed the
bill, its passage by the legislature represented a notable
political achievement for advocates of the same-sex marriage
have won a major judicial victory that could lead to the
judicial legalization of the same-sex marriage or to
legislation authorizing same-sex domestic partnership in
that state. In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court, in Baehr vs.
Lewin, vacated a state circuit court judgment dismissing
same-sex discrimination under the state constitution’s Equal
Protection Clause and Equal Rights Amendment.
The above case began in 1991 when three same-sex
couples who had been denied marriage licenses by the Hawaii
Department of Health brought suit in state court against the
director of the department. Hawaii law required couples
wishing to marry to obtain a marriage license. While the
marriage license law did not explicitly prohibit same-sex
marriage at the time, it used terms of gender that the
Hawaii marriage license law is unconstitutional, as it
prohibits same-sex marriage and allows state officials to
deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples in account of the
heterosexuality requirement. Baehr and her attorney sought
their objectives entirely through state law, not only by
filing in state rather than .