homo's getin' married, oh my!
[A Rainbow of Perspectives]
Any subject worth arguing has many perspectives and even more facets within those perspectives; the subject of same-sex marriage is no different. Gay marriage is an equal rights issue that effects and touches people’s lives in a number of ways. Sometimes it’s difficult for people to see how a controversial issue affects the life of someone with an opposing view, and not everyone is simply for or against something. Not everyone who is against same-sex marriage bases that decision on religious beliefs, and they may not even be anti-homosexual. Of course homosexuals aren’t the only people who want to see same-sex marriage legalized. There are countless straight allies, and to be fair is should be stated that a good majority of those people consider themselves to be Christian. Sometimes who is for and who is against, and the reasons why, are surprising.
The next few paragraphs will look at four major perspectives on the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage. The reason for opposition falls under many categories, and one of those is the religious factor. Though there are plenty of other religions that oppose or accept homosexuality, Christianity is the major religion of the United States, and thus will be the main religion of focus in this paper. As individuals, not all Christians feel homosexuality is an abominable act, but as a whole Christianity condemns same-sex coupling. Another perspective to discuss is an opposition that is secular based, which includes homosexuals against marriage all together, thus encompassing documented same-sex unions. On the other side of the coin, a majority of gays feel defining marriage between a man and a woman negatively affects equal rights and their lives, but some of the strongest proponents for gay rights are straight allies who fight avidly for the equal treatment of their homosexual loved ones.
In the U.S. it’s pretty commonly known that religion is a major opponent to same-sex marriage. Though homosexuality is never mentioned in the New Testament, Christians draw their beliefs from both the old and the new books of the bible. The belief that it’s a sin is pulled from several places in the Torah (the laws of God described in the first five books of the Old Testament). It’s first mentioned in the second book of these Jewish religious writings, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” (King James Version Bible, Leviticus, 18:22). Advocates for gay rights argue that a solid definition of marriage is never written in the bible, so it shouldn’t be defined as between a man and a woman. Marriage however, is emphasized as a union blessed by God, and there are plenty of accounts, rules and regulations (most pertaining to the subject of adultery) proving marriage is an institution that is to be considered a blessed event. The combination of the laws in Leviticus and then the mention of Sodom and Gomorrah where God destroys the entire city for the sins of homosexuals and the sympathizers who lived among them (Genesis 19), one can pretty easily deduce that a union born of sin has never and will never be blessed by God. Therefore, a gay union should never be considered a real marriage. Homosexuality is believed by many to be a choice, an influential display that damns the eternal soul of the sinner and threatens the soul of anyone who could be influenced by their ways. Marriage is a very serious matter; a sacred union of individuals that leads to a family as God intends. In the United States, many fear that if gay unions are supported by the government it will not only taint that sacred institution, but it threatens the morals being taught to children and any future generations by setting a precedent that makes it seem as if homosexual acts are not a sin. According to an article in The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, “abolishing the conjugal understanding of marriage would imply that committed same-sex and opposite sex romantic unions are equivalently real marriages… this would undermine religious freedom and the rights of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children” (Girgis et al.262). There is a fear of legal recourse and a belief that religious institutions will be forced by law to marry gay couples even though their beliefs are expressly against it, religious adoption agencies would be forced to turn children over to same-sex couples and a religious based company would be required to provide insurance benefits to same-sex partners (Bailey). Groups such as the Religion News Service warn that there will be recourse due to discrimination because this has "marked them and their members as bigots, subjecting them to the full arsenal of government punishments and pressures reserved for racists" (Gibson).
There is a very strong argument that crosses over from within religious beliefs and into a secular or non-religious opposition. Defining marriage and the reasons for such an institution is a heated subject of debate among opposition and advocates. Those for same-sex marriage believe marriage should be seen as a romantic union of love. “Marriage is a legal union between two people who are committed to sharing their lives together. They should have all the legal benefits of such a union regardless of whether or not they choose to or are able to reproduce.” (Angela Bosco-Lauth). The question is, how does a marriage with a “romantic” definition differ from a typical live-in sexual relationship between two individuals, or for that matter a non-sexual relationship, such as two elderly sisters living together sharing expenses? Some say there’s no difference, which is why a relationship based solely on love will never constitute a marriage. According to an article in The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, “Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. The spouses seal (consummate) and renew their union by conjugal acts-acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reproductive unit” (Girgis et al.262). The argument is that an opposite sex couple is the only union capable of producing children in a “natural” manner, that is it doesn’t involve help from science, and therefore is the coupling that nature intended. The most important aspect of marriage is seen by some to be concentrated around children, not just the creation of progeny but the rearing as well. This view point is expressed by Peter S. Sprigg, MDiv, in an e-mail he wrote to ProCon.org, “Social science has shown that children raised by their own biological mother and father, committed to one another in a lifelong marriage, are happier, healthier, and more prosperous than children in any other households.” (Sprigg)
Some people are strictly against getting married; the opposition of the institution of marriage itself in turn lends support against gay marriage. A controversial but avidly spoken group called “Against Equality” is a group of like minded homosexuals who speak out against same-sex marriage because they believe that gays should not fight to be part of the norm, rather strive to break free and to fly above it (Weiss). Others see marriage as an archaic institution that is rooted in oppression and sexism. It is felt that gay relationships, which are based in love, should not belittle the importance of what they have with such a tainted institution. In an article in OUT/LOOK National Gay and Lesbian Quarterly, it was stated, “The leaders of the Gay Liberation Front in New York said in July 1969, ‘We expose the institution of marriage as one of the most insidious and basic sustainers of the system. The family is the microcosm of oppression’” (Paula Ettelbrick).
Children and the complete opposition of marriage are not the only factors in which opponents for same-sex marriage feel the way they do. It’s not a highly argued point, but it’s felt by some that the monetary costs of allowing such unions weighs heavily on influencing whether or not laws are passed. In an interview with Rhonda Wilson, a graduate from the University of Georgia in political science with a concentration in criminal justice, she explains, “When the federal government created the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) of 1996 defining marriage as between a man and a woman, this was an effort to streamline a set of policies as they pertained to federal state and local benefits. In essence creating this act was a way to save corporations and government agencies money” (Wilson).
Regardless of whether someone is anti-homosexual, anti-marriage or worried that the implication of such unions will threaten the morals of a sacred belief system, advocates of same-sex marriage feel that their fight is for equal treatment of citizens of the United States. The number of legal rights and benefits that come with a marriage license is often taken for granted by many couples who have never had to deal with being in a long term, committed relationship that has no legal support. Things such as hospital visitation, shared health care, rights of attorney, and social security benefits are some of the more obvious things that are fought for, and there are hundreds of other legal rights that a married couple automatically receives by having the legal rights to sign their names to a license. One instance that came in to the spotlight recently was in the case of the United States v. Windsor. Thea Spyer, in death, left her partner of more than forty years her entire estate. The couple had been legally married in Canada and living in New York when Spyer died. Though the State of New York recognized the marriage, the federal government did not, because of the Defense of Marriage Act (United States). The Act had been signed into effect by President Bill Clinton in 1996. (ProCon) “Windsor didn’t qualify for the marital exemption from the federal estate tax, which excludes from taxation “any interest in property which passes or has passed from the decedent to his surviving spouse.” Windsor paid $363,053 in estate taxes and sought a refund. The Internal Revenue Service denied the refund, concluding that, under DOMA, Windsor was not a “surviving spouse” (United States). It was due to this landmark case that the United States Supreme court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act defining it as unconstitutional, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Though there is the obvious hope for the constitutional rights and benefits that come with being a legally married couple there is also the issue of being viewed and treated by the State as less than equal. The courts of California agreed with this sentiment in the ruling of Perry vs. Brown, where proposition 8 (the California law that was enacted to nullify the original vote to make same-sex marriage legal.) was brought before the courts as unconstitutional. “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples” (Perry). As of today the federal government legally recognizes any same-sex couples who are married in a state where gay marriage had been deemed legal, but it’s not quite as simple as taking a quick trip to California, New York or any of the other twelve states that recognize gay marriage to get that license. A couple must be a legal resident of one of those 14 states for a minimum of a year before a marriage will be deemed legal by the federal government (United States).
The search for equality is not being fought by gays alone. There are thousands of straight allies who stand supporting their friends, family and loved-ones. Though their perspective is different, their convictions are equally as strong, the concern and injustice they feel for their gay friends and family is undoubtedly intense and focused. As with any fight for equal rights, allies are a pivotal key in changing the tides. Many feel that arguments against same-sex marriage are weak at best. They don’t just view it as a matter of someone being anti-homosexual, but anti-equality as well. In Perry v. Brown, the case against Proposition 8 which was brought before the California court of appeals, argued that the proposition was in violation of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, “ No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (US Const. amend. XIV, sec. 1). Since the Defense of Marriage Act was repealed on June 26, 2013 (ProCon) it is now up to the States to decide what the definition of marriage is, and though things are slowly swaying closer to equality for gays, many advocates feel there is a long way to go, not only to change the opinions of the court, but of society as well. In an interview with Ronda Wilson, she had this to say about a Christian’s view of homosexuals, “It has been argued that a person who is gay does not make that choice, but is in fact born that way. If this is the case, and you are a religious person and believe that God creates all, then that means that God messed up. If you believe homosexuality is a choice then you judge based on that choice, and you are still wrong because the bible says "judge not".”(Wilson) For many allies, their hope for equality and sense of injustice is in some ways stronger than the homosexuals who live it. Perhaps because it can’t be helped to worry for those whom you love, or perhaps as members of a straight community it’s difficult for them to understand how their daughter or their sister is seen as less than human, solely because of their sexual identity.
The issue of same-sex marriage is a heated one right now and the winds of change are definitely blowing. It can’t be denied that there are strong convictions on all sides. Christians against the idea of recognizing same-sex marriages are worried and scared that it will delude future generations into believing that an act of sin is alright. It threatens the structure of their moral beliefs. Those who don’t have a religious reason feel that it is wrong because it goes against nature. Sometimes it might not appear that objections of secular objectors are as strong, but they sympathize with the Christian sentiment just the same and fight to reclaim the once federal definition of marriage that was just recently redefined with the of the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act . Equally as fervent in their desire for continued progression of change throughout the nation are the advocates for same-sex marriage. Though gays and their allies do have different perspectives, it is difficult to separate the two when it comes down to the actual argument because they stand together so very unified.
Bailey, Sarah Pulliam. "Gay rights vs. religious rights: 7 issues to watch." Religious New Service. Religious News Service, 06 Sep 2013. Web. 9 Oct 2013.
Bosco-Lauth , Angela. Personal Interview. 05 Oct 2013.
Gibson, David. " Same-Sex Marriage Threatens Religious Freedom According To Religious Leaders ." Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc., 13 Jan 2012. Web. 9 Oct 2013.
Girgis, Sherif , Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson. "What Is Marriage?." Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. 34.1.245 (2010): 248-286. Web. 9 Oct. 2013.
Paula Ettelbrick, "Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?," OUT/LOOK National Gay and Lesbian Quarterly, Fall 1989
Perry v. Brown. 671 F.3d 1052. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 2012. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 28 Sep. 2013.
ProCon, . "Gay Marriage Timeline History of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate." ProCon-Pros and Cons of Controvercial Issues. ProCon.org, 18 Sep 2013. Web. 9 Oct 2013.
Spriggs, Peter S. " Con to the question "Should Gay Marriage Be Legal?"." Message to ProCon.org . 12 Apr 2011. E-mail.
The Holy Bible, King James Version: Containing the Old and the New Testaments. Great Britain: University Printing House, Cambridge, Print.
United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675. Supreme Court of the United States. 2013. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 28 Sep. 2013.
US Const. amend. XIV, sec. 1, web.
Weiss, Margot. "Reinvigorating The Queer Political Imagination": A Roundtable With Ryan Conrad, Yasmin Nair, And Karma Chávez Of Against Equality." American Quarterly 64.4 (2012): 845-849. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Oct. 2013.
Wilson, Rhonda. E-mail Interview. 04 Oct 2013.
Any subject worth arguing has many perspectives and even more facets within those perspectives; the subject of same-sex marriage is no different. Gay marriage is an equal rights issue that effects and touches people’s lives in a number of ways. Sometimes it’s difficult for people to see how a controversial issue affects the life of someone with an opposing view, and not everyone is simply for or against something. Not everyone who is against same-sex marriage bases that decision on religious beliefs, and they may not even be anti-homosexual. Of course homosexuals aren’t the only people who want to see same-sex marriage legalized. There are countless straight allies, and to be fair is should be stated that a good majority of those people consider themselves to be Christian. Sometimes who is for and who is against, and the reasons why, are surprising.
The next few paragraphs will look at four major perspectives on the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage. The reason for opposition falls under many categories, and one of those is the religious factor. Though there are plenty of other religions that oppose or accept homosexuality, Christianity is the major religion of the United States, and thus will be the main religion of focus in this paper. As individuals, not all Christians feel homosexuality is an abominable act, but as a whole Christianity condemns same-sex coupling. Another perspective to discuss is an opposition that is secular based, which includes homosexuals against marriage all together, thus encompassing documented same-sex unions. On the other side of the coin, a majority of gays feel defining marriage between a man and a woman negatively affects equal rights and their lives, but some of the strongest proponents for gay rights are straight allies who fight avidly for the equal treatment of their homosexual loved ones.
In the U.S. it’s pretty commonly known that religion is a major opponent to same-sex marriage. Though homosexuality is never mentioned in the New Testament, Christians draw their beliefs from both the old and the new books of the bible. The belief that it’s a sin is pulled from several places in the Torah (the laws of God described in the first five books of the Old Testament). It’s first mentioned in the second book of these Jewish religious writings, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” (King James Version Bible, Leviticus, 18:22). Advocates for gay rights argue that a solid definition of marriage is never written in the bible, so it shouldn’t be defined as between a man and a woman. Marriage however, is emphasized as a union blessed by God, and there are plenty of accounts, rules and regulations (most pertaining to the subject of adultery) proving marriage is an institution that is to be considered a blessed event. The combination of the laws in Leviticus and then the mention of Sodom and Gomorrah where God destroys the entire city for the sins of homosexuals and the sympathizers who lived among them (Genesis 19), one can pretty easily deduce that a union born of sin has never and will never be blessed by God. Therefore, a gay union should never be considered a real marriage. Homosexuality is believed by many to be a choice, an influential display that damns the eternal soul of the sinner and threatens the soul of anyone who could be influenced by their ways. Marriage is a very serious matter; a sacred union of individuals that leads to a family as God intends. In the United States, many fear that if gay unions are supported by the government it will not only taint that sacred institution, but it threatens the morals being taught to children and any future generations by setting a precedent that makes it seem as if homosexual acts are not a sin. According to an article in The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, “abolishing the conjugal understanding of marriage would imply that committed same-sex and opposite sex romantic unions are equivalently real marriages… this would undermine religious freedom and the rights of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children” (Girgis et al.262). There is a fear of legal recourse and a belief that religious institutions will be forced by law to marry gay couples even though their beliefs are expressly against it, religious adoption agencies would be forced to turn children over to same-sex couples and a religious based company would be required to provide insurance benefits to same-sex partners (Bailey). Groups such as the Religion News Service warn that there will be recourse due to discrimination because this has "marked them and their members as bigots, subjecting them to the full arsenal of government punishments and pressures reserved for racists" (Gibson).
There is a very strong argument that crosses over from within religious beliefs and into a secular or non-religious opposition. Defining marriage and the reasons for such an institution is a heated subject of debate among opposition and advocates. Those for same-sex marriage believe marriage should be seen as a romantic union of love. “Marriage is a legal union between two people who are committed to sharing their lives together. They should have all the legal benefits of such a union regardless of whether or not they choose to or are able to reproduce.” (Angela Bosco-Lauth). The question is, how does a marriage with a “romantic” definition differ from a typical live-in sexual relationship between two individuals, or for that matter a non-sexual relationship, such as two elderly sisters living together sharing expenses? Some say there’s no difference, which is why a relationship based solely on love will never constitute a marriage. According to an article in The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, “Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. The spouses seal (consummate) and renew their union by conjugal acts-acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reproductive unit” (Girgis et al.262). The argument is that an opposite sex couple is the only union capable of producing children in a “natural” manner, that is it doesn’t involve help from science, and therefore is the coupling that nature intended. The most important aspect of marriage is seen by some to be concentrated around children, not just the creation of progeny but the rearing as well. This view point is expressed by Peter S. Sprigg, MDiv, in an e-mail he wrote to ProCon.org, “Social science has shown that children raised by their own biological mother and father, committed to one another in a lifelong marriage, are happier, healthier, and more prosperous than children in any other households.” (Sprigg)
Some people are strictly against getting married; the opposition of the institution of marriage itself in turn lends support against gay marriage. A controversial but avidly spoken group called “Against Equality” is a group of like minded homosexuals who speak out against same-sex marriage because they believe that gays should not fight to be part of the norm, rather strive to break free and to fly above it (Weiss). Others see marriage as an archaic institution that is rooted in oppression and sexism. It is felt that gay relationships, which are based in love, should not belittle the importance of what they have with such a tainted institution. In an article in OUT/LOOK National Gay and Lesbian Quarterly, it was stated, “The leaders of the Gay Liberation Front in New York said in July 1969, ‘We expose the institution of marriage as one of the most insidious and basic sustainers of the system. The family is the microcosm of oppression’” (Paula Ettelbrick).
Children and the complete opposition of marriage are not the only factors in which opponents for same-sex marriage feel the way they do. It’s not a highly argued point, but it’s felt by some that the monetary costs of allowing such unions weighs heavily on influencing whether or not laws are passed. In an interview with Rhonda Wilson, a graduate from the University of Georgia in political science with a concentration in criminal justice, she explains, “When the federal government created the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) of 1996 defining marriage as between a man and a woman, this was an effort to streamline a set of policies as they pertained to federal state and local benefits. In essence creating this act was a way to save corporations and government agencies money” (Wilson).
Regardless of whether someone is anti-homosexual, anti-marriage or worried that the implication of such unions will threaten the morals of a sacred belief system, advocates of same-sex marriage feel that their fight is for equal treatment of citizens of the United States. The number of legal rights and benefits that come with a marriage license is often taken for granted by many couples who have never had to deal with being in a long term, committed relationship that has no legal support. Things such as hospital visitation, shared health care, rights of attorney, and social security benefits are some of the more obvious things that are fought for, and there are hundreds of other legal rights that a married couple automatically receives by having the legal rights to sign their names to a license. One instance that came in to the spotlight recently was in the case of the United States v. Windsor. Thea Spyer, in death, left her partner of more than forty years her entire estate. The couple had been legally married in Canada and living in New York when Spyer died. Though the State of New York recognized the marriage, the federal government did not, because of the Defense of Marriage Act (United States). The Act had been signed into effect by President Bill Clinton in 1996. (ProCon) “Windsor didn’t qualify for the marital exemption from the federal estate tax, which excludes from taxation “any interest in property which passes or has passed from the decedent to his surviving spouse.” Windsor paid $363,053 in estate taxes and sought a refund. The Internal Revenue Service denied the refund, concluding that, under DOMA, Windsor was not a “surviving spouse” (United States). It was due to this landmark case that the United States Supreme court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act defining it as unconstitutional, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Though there is the obvious hope for the constitutional rights and benefits that come with being a legally married couple there is also the issue of being viewed and treated by the State as less than equal. The courts of California agreed with this sentiment in the ruling of Perry vs. Brown, where proposition 8 (the California law that was enacted to nullify the original vote to make same-sex marriage legal.) was brought before the courts as unconstitutional. “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples” (Perry). As of today the federal government legally recognizes any same-sex couples who are married in a state where gay marriage had been deemed legal, but it’s not quite as simple as taking a quick trip to California, New York or any of the other twelve states that recognize gay marriage to get that license. A couple must be a legal resident of one of those 14 states for a minimum of a year before a marriage will be deemed legal by the federal government (United States).
The search for equality is not being fought by gays alone. There are thousands of straight allies who stand supporting their friends, family and loved-ones. Though their perspective is different, their convictions are equally as strong, the concern and injustice they feel for their gay friends and family is undoubtedly intense and focused. As with any fight for equal rights, allies are a pivotal key in changing the tides. Many feel that arguments against same-sex marriage are weak at best. They don’t just view it as a matter of someone being anti-homosexual, but anti-equality as well. In Perry v. Brown, the case against Proposition 8 which was brought before the California court of appeals, argued that the proposition was in violation of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, “ No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (US Const. amend. XIV, sec. 1). Since the Defense of Marriage Act was repealed on June 26, 2013 (ProCon) it is now up to the States to decide what the definition of marriage is, and though things are slowly swaying closer to equality for gays, many advocates feel there is a long way to go, not only to change the opinions of the court, but of society as well. In an interview with Ronda Wilson, she had this to say about a Christian’s view of homosexuals, “It has been argued that a person who is gay does not make that choice, but is in fact born that way. If this is the case, and you are a religious person and believe that God creates all, then that means that God messed up. If you believe homosexuality is a choice then you judge based on that choice, and you are still wrong because the bible says "judge not".”(Wilson) For many allies, their hope for equality and sense of injustice is in some ways stronger than the homosexuals who live it. Perhaps because it can’t be helped to worry for those whom you love, or perhaps as members of a straight community it’s difficult for them to understand how their daughter or their sister is seen as less than human, solely because of their sexual identity.
The issue of same-sex marriage is a heated one right now and the winds of change are definitely blowing. It can’t be denied that there are strong convictions on all sides. Christians against the idea of recognizing same-sex marriages are worried and scared that it will delude future generations into believing that an act of sin is alright. It threatens the structure of their moral beliefs. Those who don’t have a religious reason feel that it is wrong because it goes against nature. Sometimes it might not appear that objections of secular objectors are as strong, but they sympathize with the Christian sentiment just the same and fight to reclaim the once federal definition of marriage that was just recently redefined with the of the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act . Equally as fervent in their desire for continued progression of change throughout the nation are the advocates for same-sex marriage. Though gays and their allies do have different perspectives, it is difficult to separate the two when it comes down to the actual argument because they stand together so very unified.
Bailey, Sarah Pulliam. "Gay rights vs. religious rights: 7 issues to watch." Religious New Service. Religious News Service, 06 Sep 2013. Web. 9 Oct 2013.
Bosco-Lauth , Angela. Personal Interview. 05 Oct 2013.
Gibson, David. " Same-Sex Marriage Threatens Religious Freedom According To Religious Leaders ." Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc., 13 Jan 2012. Web. 9 Oct 2013.
Girgis, Sherif , Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson. "What Is Marriage?." Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. 34.1.245 (2010): 248-286. Web. 9 Oct. 2013.
Paula Ettelbrick, "Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?," OUT/LOOK National Gay and Lesbian Quarterly, Fall 1989
Perry v. Brown. 671 F.3d 1052. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 2012. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 28 Sep. 2013.
ProCon, . "Gay Marriage Timeline History of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate." ProCon-Pros and Cons of Controvercial Issues. ProCon.org, 18 Sep 2013. Web. 9 Oct 2013.
Spriggs, Peter S. " Con to the question "Should Gay Marriage Be Legal?"." Message to ProCon.org . 12 Apr 2011. E-mail.
The Holy Bible, King James Version: Containing the Old and the New Testaments. Great Britain: University Printing House, Cambridge, Print.
United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675. Supreme Court of the United States. 2013. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 28 Sep. 2013.
US Const. amend. XIV, sec. 1, web.
Weiss, Margot. "Reinvigorating The Queer Political Imagination": A Roundtable With Ryan Conrad, Yasmin Nair, And Karma Chávez Of Against Equality." American Quarterly 64.4 (2012): 845-849. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Oct. 2013.
Wilson, Rhonda. E-mail Interview. 04 Oct 2013.