Abstract
This paper explains that, despite the various re-definitions of the term "marriage", from a legal standpoint, only "civil unions" or legal marriages offer the full package of federal benefits and protections. The author points out that case law concerning same-sex marriage is contradictory and contains inconsistent rulings from state to state and that the court cannot decide how to apply the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) or even if DOMA is constitutional. The paper concludes that, although progress in certain states had been made to allow for same-sex marriages, a majority of the country still agrees that same-sex marriages go against established moral codes and ethics.

Table of Contents:
Weighing the Facts on Same-Sex Marriage
What's the Big Deal about Federal Recognition?
A Question of Culture
DOMA and Case Law
Rethinking Marriage: An Argument for Same-Sex Marriages
Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage

From the Paper
"Regardless of the logical arguments proposed by those in favor of same sex marriage, homosexuality is considered a sin by many religions. There are many that feel it would weaken family ties and values. They also feel that we would have to take a step backward in society and reexamine issues such as polygamy and other types of marriage, in all fairness. Legal actions of the past several years reflect the sentiment of a majority of the American people. The American people stand clear, same-sex marriage violates the very moral ethics upon which this country was founded."

Tags:doma, children, benefits, morality, culture

Abstract
This paper discusses the constitutional and legal issues raised by contradicting laws on same-sex marriage passed on both federal and state levels. The Constitutional full faith and credit clause requires states to recognize laws passed by other states, however this is not absolute. In 1996 Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), under which there is no federal recognition of same-sex marriages, DOMA allows states to bypass the full faith and credit clause in the case of same-sex marriage. This paper presents the dilemmas created by these conflicting doctrines and how these dilemmas are being approached by different states.

From the Paper
"There are only two states that currently allow same-sex marriages, California and Massachusetts. There are four different states that allow civil unions for same-sex couples. These include Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Vermont. Four other states allow couples to register as domestic partners. These are others Maine, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. After Massachusetts began allowing same-sex marriage in 2003, twenty-three states quickly passes constitutional amendments that prohibit such marriages. There were already four states that had such constitutional provisions in place. At the federal level, there have been many unsuccessful attempts at amending the U.S. Constitution in which to prohibit same-sex marriages (Borton, 2009). There have been several proposals before Congress to amend the federal Constitution, in order to define marriage as occurring between a man and a woman. These proposals have also wanted to ensure that states would not be required to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. Opponents of these amendments cite federalism concerns in addition to support for same-sex marriages. In order to amend the Constitution there must be a vote of approval by 2/3 of the U.S. House and Senate and 3/4 of the state legislatures for enactment, which has proved very hard to get (Same Sex Marriage, Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships, 2009)."

Tags:DOMA, domestic partner law, same-sex marriage, California Supreme Court

Abstract
This paper explains that most religious and conservative people believe that marriage was created for the purpose of procreation; whereas, proponents of gay marriages believe that the U.S. Constitution provides for a strict separation of the church and the state and as such religious arguments do not have a legitimate place in the debate and that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right of private consensual sex and as such the prohibition of gay marriages is a violation of such rights. The author points out that the gay marriage issue came to the forefront of national debate in 1996 when several Hawaiian gay couples sued for the right to marry legally, which resulted in the passage of "The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)" in 1996. The paper relates that, in May 2005, a U.S. Federal District Judge struck down sweeping provisions of the Nebraska constitution that defined marriage as only between a man and a woman and banned same-sex civil unions, domestic partnerships and other similar relationships as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Table of Contents
Marriage, Gay Marriage and Same Sex Unions
The Controversy
The Constitutional Debate
The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
State Laws Recognizing Same Sex Unions
Conservatives Propose Constitutional Amendment
Federal Judge strikes down Nebraska Gay Marriage Ban
Conclusion

From the Paper
"The passage of DOMA did not deter gay-right activists in their campaign for the legal recognition of gay marriages and in 2000, Vermont became the first state to allow gay partners to join in a civil union with the same rights enjoyed by married heterosexual couples under state law. Maine, Hawaii, California, New Jersey, and Connecticut have also enacted laws that give some degree of rights to gay civil unions and partnerships since then. On November 18, 2003, in Goodridge v.Department of Public Health, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial ruled that: "barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution." Implementing the Court's decision, Massachusetts made same sex marriage legal in the state on May 17, 2004; it is thus far the only state to do so. Most other states have enacted constitutional provisions that define marriage as a union of one man and one woman."

Tags:private-consensual, doma, amendment, equal-protection, proposal

Abstract
This paper examines the issue of gay marriage, arguing in favor of its acceptance. The writer explores both sides of this debate, citing religious and moral reasons as the basis for opposition to gay marriages. Additionally cited is the recent Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed by Congress. The author believes that if gays are unable to have legally recognized unions, homosexual people will be continually denied rights that all United States citizens rightfully deserve under the Constitution.

From the Paper
"As of now there is no state in the United States that legally recognizes same-sex marriages. The state that is closest to legalizing these marriages is Hawaii. In repute to the possibility of Hawaii's legalization of same-sex marriages, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as "the legal union between one man and one woman" (NOW). DOMA also allows each state to decide whether or not it will recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or municipalities within the state (NOW). The debate over this issue is hot all across the country, with people on both sides of the argument standing firm in their beliefs. The issue is working its way through the legal system and the outcome at this point is completely unpredictable. Denying marriage to a specific group of people is unconstitutional and something must be done so that all people in the United States will be legally able to enjoy the benefits of marriage with a spouse of his or her choice."

Tags:homosexuality, gay, marriage, equal, rights, constitution

Abstract
On January 3, 1996, the Senate and Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), effectively making it a federal crime for states to perform same-sex marriages, and it allowed states to ignore and nullify a same-sex marriage done in another state. This paper discusses the unconstitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, and how it violates the constitutional rights of individuals, religious groups and states.

From the Paper
"Proponents of the Defense of Marriage Act state that homosexuals can get the same rights as married heterosexual couples by entering a domestic partnership agreement. However, this process is more difficult than getting married, putting same-sex couples through unnecessary trouble and expense. A domestic partnership also puts forward the message that a homosexual relationship is inferior and second-class to a heterosexual relationship and that gays and lesbians are inferior, second-class citizens. The constitution calls for equality-where no citizen is considered second-class-yet DOMA reeks of discrimination against gays".

Tags:homosexual, gay, gender, discrimination

Abstract
The paper presents a historical review of the efforts to legalize same-sex marriages. The paper connects the issue to other cases involving marital rights, cases involving discrimination, the connection of marriage to procreation and the legal recognition of same-sex partnerships. The paper analyzes the constitutional standing in the issue of marriage and concludes that there is no reason why gay marriages should be illegal.

From the Paper
"While most marriage statutes use gender-neutral language, the institution of marriage in modern Western society is generally regarded as extending only to male-female relationships. Same sex relationships, regardless of their duration, are not legally recognized in most countries and, as a result, homosexual partners are denied many of the legal and economic privileges automatically bestowed by marital status. These include employment benefits, the ability to file joint tax returns and -- perhaps most importantly since the advent of AIDS --health benefits and rights arising on the death of a partner, including interstate inheritance."

Tags:benefits, children, gender, homosexuals, law, love, methods, partners, DOMA