Same Sex Marriage

This was a research paper for a course entitled Feminist and Multicultural Theologies. I unpack what gender complementarianism is, examine its history, and compare it to how Scripture and earlier Christian Tradition understood gender. This allows me to establish that gender complementarianism is a recent innovation in secular and Christian thinking about gender, and that it can be described as a "trajectory" from Scripture and Tradition on gender, influenced by social, ideological, and intellectual developments in secular societies. I then pursue a critique of gender complementarianism, arguing that it is an "unsatisfactory trajectory" because it has troubling implications for orthodox theology, is not borne out by empirical experience and observation, and has harmful effects on human beings and societies and on ethical development.

CHAPTER 9 Romance, Rights, Recognition, Responsibilities and Radicalism: Same-Sex Couples' Views on Civil Partnership and Marriage Victoria Clarke University of the West of England, Bristol, UK Carole Burgoyne University of Exeter, UK and Maree Burns Eating ...

This article defends the thesis that, in light of the postulates of liberal ethics, it is not possible to put forward universal arguments in support of any form of marriage. The existing forms of marriage should be either deemed unjust or founded on specific arguments recognized within a particular political community and determining the understanding of justice in a particular society. It defends the thesis that the requirement of universality, and consequently of impartiality, is not met, since behind every form of marriage there is a certain " minimum " anthropological approach. Marriage is discussed as a privilege granted to particular groups by the political community. The comments are made with reference to the discussion between Krzysztof Saja and Tomasz Sieczkowski concerning the problem of discrimination against same-sex couples in Polish legislation.

This paper tries to respond to the same sex marriage objections through a constitutional point of view. The reasons to prevent it are arguments based on iusnaturalism that are against rule of law, because they don’t follow the political conception of person and they show a lack of respect for human rights.

Using the contemporary issue of equal access to marriage for same-sex couples as a case study, we examine two distinctive frameworks within which social advocacy may be pursued. We argue that when we speak as psychologists, we use a discourse of mental health; when we speak as social activists, we use a discourse of human rights and justice. Although these two frameworks may converge in supporting equal access to marriage, they represent radically different ways of understanding inequality and advocating for social change. A discourse of mental health focuses on psychological damage or deficit (caused, for example, by the social exclusion of particular groups or individuals. A discourse of rights asserts universally-applicable principles of equality, justice, freedom, and dignity. Further, the paradigmatic framework of psychology as an approach to understanding human beings in the world seems fundamentally antithetical to the conceptual framework of human rights, as a basis for soci...

Four decades ago Linda Mercadante began the discussion about homosexuality in JETS with a book review. Her review closed with the hope that the ensuing discussion would be characterized by more compassion, more study and re-examination rather than the hardening of long-held beliefs. This study surveys the published record of discussion in JETS about homosexuality and evaluates it first quantitatively and then qualitatively against the criteria set forth by Mercadante. Evidence is presented to substantiate that the discussion has indeed included more compassion, more study and re-examination. The most abundant form of evidence is more study and re-examination, with occasional corrective reflection but virtually no articles are sequenced in a point-counterpoint format which is an important element of many other discussions in JETS. This study strives to redress this deficiency in the discussion by responding to several recent articles published in JETS, with an irenic spirit that encourages constructive dialogue and corrective reflection in the historic tradition of the ETS.

Across the United States, voters in many states have enacted initiative constitutional amendments that abrogate protections for equality and fundamental rights. In most cases, state supreme courts have upheld the validity of these amendments, undermining protections for fundamental rights at the state level. This Article proposes a novel solution to this problem: it argues for the application of the basic structure doctrine in the review of constitutional amendments by state supreme courts. Under this doctrine, the Supreme Court of India (like constitutional courts in other nations) asserted the power to invalidate amendments that abrogate "basic features" of the Indian Constitution as defined by the Court. Drawing on this doctrine, this Article seeks to provide a methodological framework for articulating which foundational principles and rights should be entrenched within the constitutional framework. For instance, the application of the basic structure doctrine would help address several flaws in the California Supreme Court’s revision-amendment standard applied in Strauss v. Horton. In Strauss, the majority upheld Proposition 8, the initiative measure banning same-sex marriage, as a constitutional amendment.

Constitutional review at the state level is likely to garner increased attention as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Hollingsworth v. Perry and U.S. v. Windsor. These decisions can arguably be read to stand for "rights federalism," the concept that state governments will have the final say in defining the range and scope of fundamental rights protections. Although the U.S. Supreme Court may define and set a "floor" of guaranteed federal constitutional rights, in light of the decisions in Perry and Windsor, state supreme courts will continue to play a key role on these issues.

This Article frames the potential application of the basic structure doctrine at the state level within theories of constitutional change, and the tension between conceptions of popular sovereignty and rights federalism. I argue that the basic structure doctrine would advance the cause of "rights federalism" by enabling state supreme courts to provide for stronger protections of fundamental rights than does the Federal Constitution. State constitutions are far more malleable than the federal Constitution and consequently, state supreme courts can play a crucial role in shielding rights from abrogation by popular majorities. The Article concludes by exploring the potential implications of adoption of a basic structure doctrine for democratic theory and theories of constitutional change, the tension between popular sovereignty and federalism.

Against Equality is an argument in support of those who dare to be different, a collection of essays that stand in stark contrast to an ever-growing LGBT mainstream working towards assimilation, and, arguably, cultural erasure. Never ones to shy away from a fight, the authors included in this timely collection address the trifecta of political rifts within the LGBT community: marriage, the military, and prisons.

“Equality” is a concept inextricably linked to positive social progress, but as the authors collected here suggest, it’s a concept that often functions as a smoke screen to hide a world riddled with systemic injustice. Take marriage, for instance: is the right to marry whomever we want really a worthy goal for the queer community? What if this perceived “right” is actually a wrong? Against Equality suggests that seeking inclusion in a system that’s based on institutional and economic exploitation is an unacceptable path forward.

Cosa succede quando il diritto esige un certo comportamento, o nega una certa opportunità, ma questo appare inaccettabile ai cittadini perché in conflitto con le ragioni ultime che giustificano le loro azioni? Il queste situazioni, il diritto diventa immorale. Sono conflitti che investono tipicamente la sfera personale degli individui: il governo del corpo, l’immagine di sé, le relazioni affettive primarie, i progetti di vita. In taluni casi questi conflitti diventano così rilevanti da mobilitare l’opinione pubblica, fino a scatenare vere e proprie battaglie civili combattute da chi rivendica una pretesa che il diritto nega, o contesta un obbligo che esso impone. Attraverso l’analisi della struttura dei conflitti tra diritto e morale e l’esemplificazione di casi paradigmatici – l’eutanasia, il matrimonio tra persone dello stesso sesso, la pena di morte – il libro consente al lettore di costruire un proprio punto di vista sulle questioni in gioco.

I diritti umani appaiono ormai oggetto di una tutela frammentata e diffusa tra Carte e Corti nello scenario internazionale. Sul piano formale, infatti, da una parte la tutela “rigida” delle Costituzioni nazionali dovrebbe garantire il “nucleo duro” di principi e diritti fondamentali vigenti negli Stati. Dall’altra, con una forza normativa variabile nei diversi sistemi, le Carte sovra e inter-nazionali corroborano, indeboliscono o espandono la tutela costituzionale di quelle stesse situazioni giuridiche, in un’ottica di omogeneizzazione dei diversi ordinamenti nazionali.
Il compito di dare “sostanza” a tali operazioni spetta naturalmente alle giurisdizioni. Il formante giurisprudenziale, che piaccia o no, sembra difatti l’unico capace di garantire, caso per caso, le incessanti istanze di giustizia provenienti dalla realtà sociale. Istanze, queste, tese a dare concretamente senso e significato ai diritti umani sempre più “contaminati” dagli approdi della ricerca scientifica.
In questo scenario a “dialogare” di certo sono le Corti, ma non sempre le Carte. I giusdicenti appaiono infatti i protagonisti principali delle integrazioni ordinamentali nello scenario c.d. multilevel, mentre, paradossalmente, gli “antagonisti” sembrano essere, non di rado, proprio i legislatori. In tema di tutela dei diritti umani, dunque, l’impressione è che nei fatti sia la politica del diritto (dei legislatori nazionali) a creare attriti all’espansione del diritto (politico) formato dai giudici in conformità al diritto sovranazionale.
Partendo dall’assunto che nella realtà della dimensione giuridico-costituzionale il diritto è frutto di questo fisiologico dialogo/scontro tra legislatori e giudici (quella che, in altre occasioni, si è avuto modo di definire co-produzione normativa), nel paper si proverà a spiegare tale fenomeno prendendo come oggetto di studio la metamorfosi della “famiglia” a seguito del progressivo riconoscimento dei diritti vantati dalle coppie omoaffettive.

En España, la Ley 13/2005, que reconoció el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo, fue objeto de un recurso de inconstitucionalidad ante el Tribunal Constitucional, que todavía está pendiente de resolución. Nuestro objetivo es examinar qué conclusiones pueden extraerse para el debate sobre el matrimonio homosexual a partir del análisis del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos y la Unión Europea. Aunque en estos ordenamientos no se establece como obligación el reconocimiento del matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo, tampoco se prohíbe. Además, la reciente jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea sobre el principio de igualdad en este ámbito puede tener un importante potencial para el futuro. Al final, se defiende que la Constitución no sólo no prohíbe el reconocimiento legislativo del matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo, sino que el acceso de los homosexuales al matrimonio es un imperativo derivado del derecho a la no discriminación por razón de orientación sexual.

While what feels like the entirety of the gay and lesbian movement is marching in unison towards some vague notion of equality, the Against Equality collective has been quietly assembling a digital archive to document the critical resistance to the politics of inclusion. This pocket-sized book of archival texts lays out some of the historical foundations of queer resistance to the gay marriage mainstream alongside more contemporary inter-subjective critiques that deal directly with issues of race, class, gender, citizenship, age, ability, and more. In portable book form, the critical conversations that are happening so readily on the internet will no longer be withheld from those with little to no online access like queer and trans prisoners, people of low income, rural folks and the technologically challenged.

This article presents ancient Roman texts dealing with the topic of same-sex weddings with the purpose of examining the reliability of these sources and contributing to the understanding of this element of the ancient tradition. In order to do so, this paper takes literary and historiographical sources and legal aspects into consideration, making use of research by Craig Williams, Bruce Frier, and Michael Fontaine. Apart from a Late Imperial constitutio, our most important sources are historiographical works on two emperors of scandalous reign, namely Nero and Elagabalus; Juvenal’s Satire 2; and two epigrams by Martial: 1, 24 and 12, 42. In the closing section of the paper, I suggest a new interpretation for the punchline of the latter poem.

This article provides an analysis of the arguments against same-sex marriage as they crystallised in the “No” campaign. The campaign tapped into 'six factors for change' in an attempt to hinder social equality and reverse shifts in the dominant social imaginary in a unique way: the “No” campaign hardly focused its arguments on the union of marriage, and instead focused on the (alleged) direct causal consequences of legal change, which marks a new trajectory in anti-queer advocacy. To some extent these tactics were successful, as reflected by a dip in support for same-sex marriage during the campaign period. This matters because arguments such as those produced by the Coalition for Marriage nonetheless inhibit the equal regard that the queer community are owed, even if these arguments convince only a minority of people.

When fighting for the legalisation of same-sex marriage, it will be important to do so in a way which will not marginalise gay men and lesbians, who are ‘different’ from the heterosexual norm. A challenge merely based on a claim to formal equality must therefore be avoided at all cost if it is to stand any chance of success.

I analyze three case studies of marriage equality activism and marriage equality–based groups after the passage of Proposition 8 in California. Evaluating the JoinTheImpact protests of 2008, the LGBTQ rights group GetEQUAL, and the group One Struggle One Fight, I argue that these groups revise queer theoretical arguments about marriage equality activism as by definition assimilationist, homonormative, and single-issue. In contrast to such claims, the cases studied here provide a snapshot of heterogeneous, intersectional, and coalition-based social justice work in which creative methods of protest, including direct action and flash mobs, are deployed in militant ways for marriage rights and beyond.

Same-sex marriage throws into relief the nature of Jewish marriage, and what is Jewish about it - and the nature of marriage itself, partly through an examination of Jesus' radical revision of Jewish marriage in Mark 10 - and the reluctance of Christian scholars to note its radicalism.

Malgré le renouvellement méthodologique que connaît le droit international privé des Etats européens et américains ces dernières années, les techniques actuelles semblent insuffisantes à assurer une coordination satisfaisante des ordres juridiques nationaux face à l’ouverture parcellaire du mariage aux personnes de même sexe et, partant, rendent la circulation de ces unions plus qu’hypothétique. Pour autant, la mobilité et l’exigence de sécurité juridique ne varient pas en fonction de l’orientation sexuelle ; le point de rupture tient ici à l’atteinte aux valeurs fondamentales du for dont fait partie la condition de différence de sexe des époux. Le recours à l’exception d’ordre public international n’a alors plus rien d’exceptionnel et l’objectif coordinateur du droit international privé est neutralisé. Cet article tend ainsi à démontrer que le recours aux droits fondamentaux, comme mécanisme de protection des intérêts individuels, pourrait venir contrebalancer la prééminence des intérêts étatiques et s’opposer dans certains cas aux particularismes étatiques. Il permettrait l’émergence d’un ordre public supranational favorable à la reconnaissance de tels mariages par la consécration et la protection d’un droit subjectif au respect de son identité. L’influence exercée par les droits de l’Homme sur l’ordre public international des Etats européens et américains pourrait ainsi participer à la continuité des situations personnelles de part et d’autre de l’Atlantique.

This is the substantive introduction to an edited collection that explores questions that open up in the aftermath of legal reforms in the name of equality. It draws together equality issues such as equal marriage for same-sex couples, equal parenting rights for men and women, and the relation between race and sexuality equality arguments.

This collection presents new research, gathering under its rubric authors from England and Wales, the United States, and Canada. Under an overarching theme of kinship and care, the chapters are organized into three parts: Care and Justice under Neo-liberalism, States' Reach, and Sex and Love. The recognition of same-sex relationships - primarily conjugal ones - emerges as the prevalent site of investigation, but chapters also address care more broadly, gender relations in parenting, cohabitation, and organizing for racial equality. This gathering embodies an effort to transcend the barriers that often confine legal scholarship within law and, via specialized journals, within fields. For example, the collection sets scholars of family law in conversation with tax specialists. Disciplinarily, it juxtaposes socio-legal scholarship with the work of specialists in sociology, American studies, and women's studies. The introduction proposes a method and 'register' for researching 'after legal equality'.

This article proposes a re-examination of the institution of marriage in light of the eschatology of the Eastern Church and the theological discourse on the topic developed by three thinkers of the Reformed tradition, namely Kierkegaard, Barth, and Bonhoeffer. In doing so, I take into consideration the relationship of marriage with: (1) sacramental theology; (2) philosophical anthropology; (3) politics; and (4) the question of human sexuality. Such a re-examination of marriage has been made highly urgent and relevant today in the wake of the recent debate on same-sex marriage. This fourfold examination illustrates marriage’s ambivalent position within the Christian tradition insofar as, if taken as normative, marriage diminishes the subversive claim of Christian eschatology. Furthermore, Christian theology refuses marriage an absolute merit, by demanding that it is always qualified in relation to the Church’s eschatological vision.
An earlier version of this article was given as the keynote presentation at the Avioliiton Teologia Enne Ja Nyt (Joint Symposium organized by the Lutheran and Orthodox dioceses of Helsinki, March 2, 2015).

After the Supreme Court's decision to extend marriage benefits to LGBTQ couples across the country, prominent
brands turned to social networks to share their support and enthusiasm. Images of same-sex couples, equality, and traditional LGBTQ symbols promoted positive brand associations with current events and the larger American
culture. Social media users made sense of these politicized messages by engaging in communication with the brands, and with each other. Discursive themes centered around the opportunistic versus authentic nature of the campaign relative to personal values, civics, and religious beliefs.

Los trabajos que componen el presente libro son el resultado de más de un año de estudio y reflexión realizado por diversas iglesias de la Iglesia Evangélica Española (en adelante IEE), pertenecientes a los presbiterios de Cataluña, Madrid, Levante y Andalucía; así como de la reunión anual de los pastores de la IEE (en adelante Pastoral) celebrada en la casa Mamré de Jaca (Huesca) en mayo de 2015. Estos estudios han sido expuestos, tanto en las iglesias como en la Pastoral, por Juan Sánchez Núñez, profesor de Ética teológica en la Facultad SEUT; y como responsable final de los mismos creo que debo manifestar que recogen las aporta-ciones y sugerencias que en los diálogos posteriores a su exposición se llevaban a cabo.
Este trabajo, que con tanto gusto he realizado, tiene su origen en un encargo que recibí de la Comisión Permanente de la IEE, que poco después del Sínodo de 2013 de la IEE me invitó a profundizar en el conocimiento de las bases teológicas, bíblicas y éticas sobre las que poder llegar a establecer una posición eclesial y pastoral respecto a las personas homo-sexuales. Esta posición se encuentra en el primer documento que encontrarás en este libro; es la Declaración de Mamré, y debe su nombre al lugar en el que fue elaborada, la Casa Mamré de Jaca (Huesca). Fue, precisamente, en la correspondiente a mayo de 2015, donde los pastores y pastoras allí presentes, después de dos días de intenso trabajo de estudio y discernimiento espiritual, procedieron a su redacción; siendo presentada a su aproba-ción eclesial en el siguiente Sínodo de la IEE que se celebró en octubre de 2015 en Madrid.

The rhetoric of equality is a suffocating vacuum that denies the possibility of imaging radical queer futures beyond the realm of the material here and now.  Through a critical case study of the recent national gay marriage campaign in Maine, this chapter offers up a particularly poignant and personal critique that attempts to dislodge the centrality of equality rhetoric while making a case for reviving the queer political imagination.  By connecting historic anarchist critiques of the state sanctioned institution of marriage, like Emma Goldman’s formative essay Marriage and Love, to contemporary activist and academic work, like those archived on againstequality.org, I will demonstrate the existence of a vibrant queer counter-public that dares to imagine a queer future that aims for nothing less than utopia.

Souvent évoqués dans les médias, la vie des gays et les enjeux de la visibilité comme de la réalité au quotidien des couples de même sexe méritaient une étude scientifique sérieuse. C'est chose faite avec le travail de Courduriès qui ouvre une voie prometteuse. Si l'auteur n'enquête que sur les couples masculins et s'en tient à un échantillonnage limité (il s'agit d'un éventail des possibles, à travers la diversité des situations et des personnes), la méthode qu'il a su mettre en place pour atteindre l'intime, si délicat à dévoiler, le recours aux réseaux de chat sur Internet et l'usage du courriel qui renouvelle le rapport enquêteur/enquêté en usage en ethnographie, font de cette recherche un moment fort pour l'étude des conjugalités quelle que soit la composition sexuée des couples.

Social relationships—both quantity and quality—affect mental health, health behavior, physical health, and mortality risk. Sociologists have played a central role in establishing the link between social relationships and health outcomes, identifying explanations for this link, and discovering social variation (e.g., by gender and race) at the population level. Studies show that social relationships have short- and long-term effects on health, for better and for worse, and that these effects emerge in childhood and cascade throughout life to foster cumulative advantage or disadvantage in health.this article describes key research themes in the study of social relationships and health, and it highlights policy implications suggested by this research.

The cobbler scam is one of the biggest scams of India involving around 1600cr. of money. This money was meant to be provided to the poor cobblers at low rates if interest and tax modifications. The money however did not reach the cobblers because of involvement of some of the top businessmen and politicians including Saddruddin Daya-owner of Dawood shoes, Rafique Tejani-Owner of Metro Shoes, Kishore Signapurkar-Owner of Milano Shoes, Abu Asim Azmi-Partner in City walk Shoes. The investigation was started by a complaint by the BMC and charge sheets were filed against the 28 people accused however, all of them are out on bail and the case is still waiting for a trial.

In Joslin v. New Zealand (2002), the UN Human Rights Committee rejected the claim that marriage equality could be grounded in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Some scholars have argued that emerging state practice and a proper understanding of the drafting of the convention now justify the argument for marriage equality. Instead, this paper argues that a project of human rights integration reveals, paradoxically, additional legal challenges. Taking a departure point in relevant regional and national judgments, the chapter sets out a three-tiered cumulative argument for a right to same-sex marriage in Article 23(2) of the ICCPR. The crux of the argument is that the Committee will be able to recognise marriage equality when the ordinary meaning of 'marriage' becomes ambiguous as to the gender identity of spouses.