Why same sex marriage should be legal

Windsor isn't the first time the Supreme Court applied the 14th Amendment to marriage rights. In , the Supreme Court applied the same standards when it struck down states' interracial marriage bans in Loving v.

This interpretation of the 14th Amendment is what led many lower courts to strike down states' same-sex marriage bans, and eventually led to the Supreme Court's final decision to strike down states' same-sex marriage bans and bring marriage equality to all 50 states.

Opponents of same-sex marriage argued that it's in the public interest for states to encourage heterosexual relationships through traditional marriage policies. Some groups, such as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, cited the secular benefits of heterosexual marriages, particularly the ability of heterosexual couples to reproduce, as Daniel Silliman reported at the Washington Post.

Other groups, like the conservative Family Research Council, warned that allowing same-sex couples to marry would lead to the breakdown of traditional families.

But keeping marriage to heterosexual couples, FRC argued in an amicus brief , allowed states to "channel the potential procreative sexual activity of opposite-sex couples into stable relationships in which the children so procreated may be raised by their biological mothers and fathers. To defend same-sex marriage bans, opponents had to convince courts that there was a compelling state interest in encouraging heterosexual relationships that isn't really about discriminating against same-sex couples.

But the Supreme Court rejected this argument, deeming states' same-sex marriage bans discriminatory and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court previously struck down the federal ban on same-sex marriages, deeming it unconstitutional. In United States v. The landmark ruling forced the federal government to recognize at least some same-sex marriages, and it was seen as a major victory for LGBTQ advocates.

The Constitution's 14th Amendment requires the government to apply laws equally for all people. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion , concluded that DOMA violated the 14th Amendment by denying same-sex couples access to federal benefits attached to marriage.

The Supreme Court's DOMA decision led to rulings in lower federal courts allowing same-sex couples to marry in most states. As these challenges trickled back up to the Supreme Court, justices were forced to reconsider the issue — ultimately bringing marriage equality to all 50 states. The role of marriage has widely varied from civilization to civilization and era to era throughout human history. Four centuries ago, arranged marriages were common practice in the West the Americas and Western Europe.

Love marriages — the now-commonplace unions between romantic partners who marry out of their love and commitment to each other — rose to prominence in the West throughout the 18th and 19th centuries , although the practice of arranged marriages remains prevalent in some countries, such as India. In this transition from arranged to chosen marriage, the institution went from one that primarily served collective social interests, particularly those of extended families, to a union that was more focused on the needs of two individuals and their children.

More recently, marriage rights in the United States have become more expansive, as states repealed bans on interracial marriage in the early 20th century. At first, this change was driven largely by a shift in public opinion within states, much like same-sex marriage legalization today.

The final blow to interracial marriage bans came through 's Loving v. Virginia , a case in which the Supreme Court deemed bans on interracial relationships unconstitutional. The evidence that the institution of marriage can change is crucial to the marriage equality debate.

If the definition of marriage could change in the past to focus on love instead of familial arrangements, or include interracial couples instead of just single-race couples, it was seen as possible that marriage could change once again to allow unions between same-sex couples. Government recognition of marriage comes with many benefits, such as potentially lower taxes and the ability to make important medical decisions for a spouse.

Legal advice organization Nolo maintains a more thorough list of marriage benefits here. These benefits were at the center of both sides' arguments for and against marriage equality. The court was hearing a case brought by three same-sex couples who were seeking government compensation for the difficulties they had to suffer from not being able to legally marry. The court declined to financially compensate the plaintiffs.

Nevertheless, activists say the ruling is a major victory that could influence similar court cases and help their efforts to push for parliamentary debate and changes to the law to allow same-sex marriage.

He said the government seeks to achieve a society more tolerant to diversity, but did not say how it would respond to the ruling, except that it will watch pending court cases. John Kerry.

Bush, who narrowly won the state, opposed gay marriage and supported a federal constitutional amendment banning it. Kerry also came out against gay marriage but opposed the constitutional ban and supported civil unions. Most of the states that approved constitutional amendments banning gay marriage are in the more socially conservative South and Midwest. In more socially liberal states, the cause for same-sex marriage has fared somewhat better.

Since , three Northeastern states — Connecticut, New Hampshire and New Jersey — have joined Vermont and passed laws authorizing civil unions. In addition, Maine, Oregon, Washington state and California have enacted domestic partnership statutes that grant many, though not all, the benefits of marriage to registered domestic partners. In , the California legislature also passed legislation authorizing same-sex marriage — so far the only state legislature to do so.

But the measure was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said that the issue was best left to the courts. Indeed, in the last two years, a number of top courts in more socially liberal states —New York, Washington state and Maryland — have rejected arguments in favor of gay unions. Thus Massachusetts remains the only state that allows same-sex marriage; more than 10, gay and lesbian couples have married there since The immediate future of the same-sex marriage debate appears, to a large degree, to mirror the recent past.

On one hand, gay-rights advocates are now pushing for court victories in California and Connecticut. Meanwhile, opponents are looking to the November election, seeking to have constitutional gay-marriage bans placed on the ballot in as many as 10 states, including Arizona and Indiana.

No one knows how these various efforts will ultimately end. Fresh data delivered Saturday mornings. It organizes the public into nine distinct groups, based on an analysis of their attitudes and values. Even in a polarized era, the survey reveals deep divisions in both partisan coalitions. Use this tool to compare the groups on some key topics and their demographics.

Pew Research Center now uses as the last birth year for Millennials in our work. Even in a polarized era, the survey reveals deep divisions in both partisan coalitions. Use this tool to compare the groups on some key topics and their demographics. Pew Research Center now uses as the last birth year for Millennials in our work.

President Michael Dimock explains why. About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions.

It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts. Newsletters Donate My Account.