Along with New Zealand, Australia became the second country in the Asia-Pacific region to to make same-sex marriage legal. Germany On June 30,Germany became the 15th European country to enact legislation allowing same-sex couples to wed. Colombia On April 28,Colombia became the fourth country in Catholic-majority South America to legalize same-sex marriage, following Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil.
See Article History Alternative Titles: Although same-sex marriage has been regulated through law, religion, and custom in most countries of the world, the legal and social responses have ranged from celebration on the one hand to criminalization on the other.
Some scholars, most notably the Yale professor and historian John Boswell —94have argued that same-sex unions were recognized by the Roman Catholic Church in medieval Europe, although others have disputed this claim. Scholars and the general public became increasingly interested in the issue during the late 20th century, a period when attitudes toward homosexuality and laws regulating homosexual behaviour were liberalized, particularly in western Europe and the United States.
The issue of same-sex marriage frequently sparked emotional and political clashes between supporters and opponents. By the early 21st century, several jurisdictions, both at the national and subnational levels, had legalized same-sex marriage; in other jurisdictions, constitutional measures were adopted to prevent same-sex marriages from being sanctioned, or laws were enacted that refused to recognize such marriages performed elsewhere.
That the same act was evaluated so differently by various groups indicates its importance as a social issue in the early 21st century; it also demonstrates the extent to which cultural diversity persisted both within and among countries.
For tables on same-sex marriage around the world, in the United States, and in Australia, see below. Cultural ideals of marriage and sexual partnership Perhaps the earliest systematic analyses of marriage and kinship were conducted by the Swiss legal historian Johann Jakob Bachofen and the American ethnologist Lewis Henry Morgan ; by the midth century an enormous variety of marriage and sexual customs across cultures had been documented by such scholars.
Notably, they found that most cultures expressed an ideal form of marriage and an ideal set of marriage partners, while also practicing flexibility in the application of those ideals. Among the more common forms so documented were common-law marriage ; morganatic marriagein which titles and property do not pass to children; exchange marriagein which a sister and a brother from one family marry a brother and a sister from another; and group marriages based on polygyny co-wives or polyandry co-husbands.
Ideal matches have included those between cross-cousinsbetween parallel cousins, to a group of sisters in polygyny or brothers in polyandryor between different age sets.
In many cultures the exchange of some form of surety, such as bride service, bridewealthor dowryhas been a traditional part of the marriage contract. Cultures that openly accepted homosexuality, of which there were many, generally had nonmarital categories of partnership through which such bonds could be expressed and socially regulated.
Conversely, other cultures essentially denied the existence of same-sex intimacy, or at least deemed it an unseemly topic for discussion of any sort. Religious and secular expectations of marriage and sexuality Over time the historical and traditional cultures originally recorded by the likes of Bachofen and Morgan slowly succumbed to the homogenization imposed by colonialism.
Although a multiplicity of marriage practices once existed, conquering nations typically forced local cultures to conform to colonial belief and administrative systems. Whether Egyptian, Vijayanagaran, Roman, Ottoman, Mongol, Chinese, European, or other, empires have long fostered or, in some cases, imposed the widespread adoption of a relatively small number of religious and legal systems.
By the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the perspectives of one or more of the world religions— BuddhismHinduismJudaismIslamand Christianity —and their associated civil practices were often invoked during national discussions of same-sex marriage.
Perhaps because systems of religion and systems of civil authority often reflect and support each other, the countries that had reached consensus on the issue by the early s tended to have a single dominant religious affiliation across the population; many such places had a single, state-sponsored religion.
This was the case in both Iran, where a strong Muslim theocracy had criminalized same-sex intimacy, and Denmarkwhere the findings of a conference of Evangelical Lutheran bishops representing the state religion had helped smooth the way for the first national recognition of same-sex relationships through registered partnerships.
In other cases, the cultural homogeneity supported by the dominant religion did not result in the application of doctrine to the civic realm but may nonetheless have fostered a smoother series of discussions among the citizenry: Belgium and Spain had legalized same-sex marriage, for instance, despite official opposition from their predominant religious institution, the Roman Catholic Church.
The existence of religious pluralities within a country seems to have had a less determinate effect on the outcome of same-sex marriage debates. In some such countries, including the United Statesconsensus on this issue was difficult to reach.
On the other hand, the Netherlands —the first country to grant equal marriage rights to same-sex couples —was religiously diverseas was Canadawhich did so in Most of the world religions have at some points in their histories opposed same-sex marriage for one or more of the following stated reasons: In the early 21st century, however, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism all spoke with more than one voice on this issue.
Orthodox Judaism opposed same-sex marriage, while the Reform, Reconstructionist, and Conservative traditions allowed for it. Most Christian denominations opposed it, while the United Church of Christthe United Church of Canadaand the Religious Society of Friends Quakers took a more favourable stand or allowed individual churches autonomy in the matter.
The Unitarian Universalist churches and the gay-oriented Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches fully accepted same-sex marriage. Hinduismwithout a sole leader or hierarchyallowed some Hindus to accept the practice while others were virulently opposed.
The three major schools of Buddhism —Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana—stressed the attainment of enlightenment as a basic theme; most Buddhist literature therefore viewed all marriage as a choice between the two individuals involved.
Sexuality is but one of many areas where religious and civic authority interact; definitions of the purpose of marriage is another. In one view, the purpose of marriage is to ensure successful procreation and child rearing.
A third perspective holds that marriage is an instrument of societal domination and so is not desirable. A fourth is that relationships between consenting adults should not be regulated by the government. Although most religions subscribe to just one of these beliefs, it is not uncommon for two or more viewpoints to coexist within a given society.
Proponents of the first view believe that the primary goal of marriage is to provide a relatively uniform social institution through which to produce and raise children. In their view, because male and female are both necessary for procreation, the privileges of marriage should be available only to opposite-sex couples.
In other words, partnerships involving sexual intimacy should have at least a notional potential for procreation. From this perspective, the movement to legally recognize same-sex marriage is a misguided attempt to deny the social, moraland biological distinctions that foster the continued existence of society and so should be discouraged.Jun 26, · Map: Same-sex marriage in the United States.
Updated PM ET, Fri June 26, In a landmark opinion, a divided Supreme Court ruled on June 26th that states cannot ban same-sex marriage. Jun 27, · WASHINGTON — In a long-sought victory for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote on Friday that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage.
“No longer. Before the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Oct.
6, , declining to hear cases on same-sex marriage, 31 states had either constitutional or statutory provisions that explicitly defined marriage as between a man and a woman and just 19 states and the District of Columbia allowed same-sex marriage.
Both denominations allow clergy to opt out of performing same-sex marriages, while the ELCA allows ministers and their congregations to determine their own policies. The United Methodist Church does not allow same-sex blessings or marriages.
Same sex relationships should not be allowed In recent reports there has been increasing interest in same-sex couples within Australian society. At both State and Commonwealth level there has been a removal of the majority of legal distinctions between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples.
Jun 24, · Should Same-Sex marriages be allowed? I honestly think they should be! I hate how in the bible, it says that all people are God's children, and that he will love his children no matter what, yet all the Churches kick out Gay and Lesbian people, because it is "wrong, and not what God created".Status: Resolved.