Marriage for migration

Marriage for immigration,

A transnational marriage is a marriage between two people from different countries. A variety of special issues arise in marriages between people from different countries, including those related to citizenship and culture, which add complexity and challenges to these kinds of relationships.

In an age of increasing globalization, where an increasing number of people have ties to networks of people and places across the globe, rather than to a current geographic location, people are increasingly marrying across national boundaries. Transnational marriage is a by-product of the movement and migration of people.

Transnational marriage may occur when someone from one country visits or lives in another country for school, work, political asylum, refuge, or due to their family relocating. In general terms, reasons for transnational marriage are:

Becoming attracted to a citizen of one's host country and marrying them. This is usually a cross-cultural marriage, although there are times in which that citizen may be from the same culture. Marrying a citizen of the host country may help in becoming a citizen of that land and staying there permanently. Sometimes the host culture is the one with which the person identifies, and thus desires to marry someone of that culture rather than someone from their "home" culture.

Becoming attracted to and marrying a citizen of yet another country who is also visiting or living in the host country.

Having become a citizen of the host country, the person may go back to their homeland, marry a person from their home country, sometimes through arranged marriage, and then return to country in which they are a citizen. This may come as a result of missing home, family, and culture, and desiring to have such in one's life. One may then bring one's spouse to their new country of citizenship through family reunification provisions in immigration law.

Being a seasoned traveler, a person might marry someone who has the shared experience of living amidst different cultures, regardless of citizenship. One term used to label such people is Third Culture Kids.

Obstacles to transnational marriages:

Citizenship of two or more nations - one or both spouses must change citizenship or become a dual citizen. Changing one's citizenship can be a long process, and for some it is an ordeal of negotiating the laws and language of a new country.

Culture - Learning how to live with a new spouse where cultural assumptions and norms may vary greatly.

Language

History

In more ancient times, some marriages between distinctly different tribes and nations were due to royalty trying to form alliances with or to influence other kingdoms or to dissuade marauders or slave traders. More recently, transnational marriages are due to globalization, with migration of labor, increased communication, and many more situations where foreigners come into contact with each other. It is also more common in some areas where class and tribal separations are becoming less strict. If one shares values that transcend culture, then it is easier to get married across cultures.

However, there are many barriers and restrictions to cross-cultural, inter-tribal or racial, and particularly transnational marriages. People tend to marry those similar to them, some even preferring to marry first cousins, whom they trust. In an interesting twist, transnational arranged marriage between cousins or relatives occur more often in some places with migration and family reunification policies, as some people still want their culture and family when marrying even in a distant place.

Historical Attitudes

This article's tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Specific concerns may be found on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (November 2009)

This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. You can assist by editing it. (November 2009)

The Bible and the Laws of Manu are two religious historical documents which give some insight into the views on transnational marriage in antiquity. In the Bible, the Abrahamic God warns the Israelites not to marry people from other nations for fear that they would then proceed to worship the gods of the other nations.

There are several instances of transnational marriages in the bible, such as Joseph being given Egyptian wives by Pharaoh, Rahab of Jericho marrying one of the Israelite spies she hid, Ruth the Moabite taking care of her mother-in-law Naomi, and King Solomon marrying Pharaoh's daughter, as well as many other foreign wives. King Solomon married to make alliances and keep peace, and the others because they lived by each other. However, the difference in reaction to the transnational marriages is how the newcomers responded to the Abrahamic God.. King Solomon was punished by God for facilitating his wives' worship of their own gods in Israel and then worshipping alongside them. Intermarriage was discouraged if there was any difference in religious practice or belief. The book of Ezra tells of the response of the Jewish exiles to either separate from their foreign wives they had married in Babylon or be separated from the community of exiles when the exiles were trying to turn back to the Abrahamic God.

The Laws of Manu, a religious document for the Indo-Aryan Brahmins invading India, speaks of how to keep oneself clean but also intermarry with the indigenous peoples in order to create a caste system. A Nepali anthropologist writes on how a Brahmin man might marry four wives of different castes, and keep all the eating and living quarters of his different caste wives and children separate. His children and grandchildren born to women of lower castes will have even lower status and not be taught the laws. The only social mobility is downward. Similarly, although no longer specifically due to transnational marriage, the interracial sexual contact in the Americas produced a system that defined social status by skin color, and is still followed by some people, but in particular those whom it subjugated. People would marry those with lighter skin color to keep their social status and were against marrying anyone of "lower" status, particularly around the time of belief that certain people were of a superior race than others.

A slightly different perspective of interracial or transnational marriage is from those who tend to marry their cousins, sometimes even first cousins. They do so in order keep the family together socially and economically, and thus disproving of marriage outside. Recently, this practice has become technically transnational due to differences in citizenship, even though the people are still family. An example of transnational marriage that kept the family together was among European royalty. Queen Victoria's grandchildren were all over Europe, keeping the royalty together. Queen Victoria is referred to as the "grandmother of Europe." However, some alliances were to their detriment, as due to them, they had to go to war in World War I. More recent examples are from a mass migration from the less developed regions of the world to the more developed regions, helped by the policies of family reunification. A fairly common practice among South Asian immigrants to the UK or USA is to have arranged marriages to someone back "home," in order to keep culture and traditions within their family.

Modern attitudes

Even today, there is a mixed reaction to transnational marriage in some areas, especially as it continues to spread. Family reunification policies have upset some people in host countries, as people are less likely to assimilate if they continue to marry people from their home countries, thus keeping their cultures alive in the host cultures. Others are suspicious of transnational marriages, as they think the non-citizen spouse may use their marriage only to obtain legal status in the host country. Still others find their families torn apart if one spouse is detained or deported for legal reasons. There are many legal barriers and hurdles to cross in transnational marriage, as well as being allowed to remain living together in the same country.

Third Culture Kids

Immigrants may also take their families with them, meaning that their children grow up in different lands, learning a different culture, often feeling more at home in the host country than their "home" country. These children, called Third Culture Kids tend to feel often feel affinity to those who have also lived in more than one country and culture, and tend to marry people of diverse backgrounds, regardless of nationality and citizenship.
Others decide on a transnational marriage without having lived long in their new country. Traveling has resulted in transnational relationships, marriages, and even families, although it is not known how common such results are. A New York Times article cites someone who found a partner through couch surfing. Couch surfing is a way for people to stay cheaply at another person's home, allowing the traveler to see the life of locals when visiting a new place.

[edit]One Debate: Should National Laws Discourage or Encourage Transnational Marriage?

Currently, it can be legally difficult to have a transnational marriage. There are many barriers, for example in Indonesia it can be very difficult for the married couple if the husband is not Indonesian . As a result of increasing transnational marriage, policy makers in various countries are starting to consider whether they should discourage or encourage transnational marriage.

The grounds given for discouraging transnational marriage are that:

False marriages occur to gain citizenship or conduct human trafficking.

The marriages are cross-cultural and thus children or spouses may not be as loyal or patriotic to the new country.

There is a lack of assimilation and creation of ghettos if second and third generation immigrants are still marrying persons from the country of their ancestors.

The grounds given for encouraging transnational marriage are that:

Transnational marriage reconnects extended families or even persons of similar backgrounds that are living all over the globe

It helps relations between countries by strengthening trade and contact, or in case of war, enables one country to know more about the other (case of Kibei or Japanese-Americans during WWII)

People are increasingly marrying across national boundaries and harsh laws just tear families apart.

(source:wikipedia)

WTTW

window world,

WTTW, channel 11, is one of three PBS member stations serving the Chicago, Illinois, market; the others are WYCC and WYIN. WTTW began broadcasting on September 6, 1955, and is owned and operated by Window to the World Communications, Inc., a not-for-profit broadcasting entity. Programming on WTTW is funded in part by financial support of viewers and by other not-for-profit organizations such as the Corporation For Public Broadcasting. WTTW als
o owns and operates The Chicago Production Center, a video production and editing facility in the city’s North Park section, and a classical music radio station WFMT located at 98.7 FM. WTTW along with Madison, Wisconsin's WHA-TV, serves the nearby Rockford, Illinois market via cable television: Rockford is one of the few markets in the country without a PBS station of its own.

History

WTTW was founded by a group of civic-minded Chicagoans, led by Inland Steel executive Edward R. Ryerson. The station came to life in the first year of the first term of Mayor Richard J. Daley; Daley, Ryerson and businessman Irving B. Harris were responsible for creating WTTW, which began its life as an exhibit at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. The call letters came about because the founders wanted the station to be Chicago's Window To The World. The station's transmitter was given to WTTW by the staff and management of the defunct KS2XBS, a pay-television station that was bumped off the air from Channel 2 by WBBM-TV.

Mr. Ryerson recruited a young communications lawyer to join the station's Board, and Newton N. Minow would both chair the WTTW board and also serve President John F. Kennedy as FCC Commissioner. Irving B. Harris, Henry W. "Brick" Meers, John W. McCarter, Jr., Martin J. "Mike" Koldyke and Sandra P. Guthman are the other individuals who have served this public broadcasting giant as Chairman of the Board. Guthman, a member of the famous Polk Brothers family of Chicago, is the current Chairman of the Board.

Newt Minow is fond of saying that the only really important decision that he made as Chair of WTTW was to recruit William J. McCarter, Jr., as President and CEO, a post he held for 27 years. Having run public station WETA in Washington, D.C., McCarter, a decorated Korean War hero, and a veteran television pioneer, cut his teeth first as the cameraman on American Bandstand and then as a part of the Army-McCarthy hearings on the Hill. McCarter developed the concept of the political roundtable that is a staple of television formats today. In public television circles, McCarter is referred to as the "architect" of public television. (His friends know him as the man who kicked Bob Dylan out of his office—Dylan was there to tape a SoundStage and had found McCarter's office, which had a couch, and off he went to sleep. McCarter, returning from a meeting, found a sleeping bearded guy on his couch, woke him up, and ushered him out of his office).

During the 1960s, WTTW aired educational programming during the day, showing programs produced under the auspices of CAST, or Chicago Area Schools Television. Programs from "TV College", covering college subjects, were also shown on weekdays. Other afternoon shows included the locally produced The Storyteller, which featured a children's story presented weekdays at 5:30pm, and was sponsored by local department store Marshall Field & Company. WTTW was an affiliate of National Educational Television (NET) and continued its affiliation when that organization became the Public Broadcasting Service. Back then, WTTW was off the air on Saturdays until mid-1972 when WTTW aired progamming only until 2:00PM. In 1974, Saturday programming extended for a full day.

Chicago magazine started as the program guide for WTTW. It was sold off in 1986.

Max Headroom pirating incident

On November 22, 1987, WTTW had its signal hijacked by an unknown person wearing a Max Headroom mask. This was the second incident of that night involving the interruption of a television station's broadcast signal, with the first taking place during WGN-TV’s News at Nine. While WGN-TV’s analog transmitter is atop the John Hancock Center and thus engineers were almost immediately able to thwart the video hacker by changing the studio-to-transmitter frequency, WTTW's transmitter was atop the Sears Tower (now Willis Tower) which made it harder to stop the hacker before almost two minutes of the interruption. These stations are two of only three existing victims of what is called broadcast signal intrusion. Subscription television network HBO was the other victim; its signal was intercepted during a movie broadcast in April 1986.

Programming

WTTW distributes its programs to public television stations independently of PBS. Its most prominent productions include The McLaughlin Group and the music program SoundStage.

WTTW produced The Frugal Gourmet with Jeff Smith in the 1980s. The station produced hundreds of significant arts programs, highlighting the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, the Lyric Opera of Chicago and the Ravinia Festival. Its Chicago Matters series is perhaps the preeminent local journalism collaboration in the country, involving television, radio and print, and dialogue at the highest levels of articulation; the series is underwritten by The Chicago Community Trust.

However, the most famous show ever to originate at WTTW was Sneak Previews, perhaps the first movie review show on television. The show began in 1975 with hosts Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel and was later hosted by Michael Medved and Jeffrey Lyons when Siskel and Ebert moved into syndication (starting the show At the Movies with Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert and later Siskel & Ebert & the Movies). Sneak Previews was cancelled in 1996.

WTTW has produced over 110 SoundStage shows from its Chicago studios, the first of which featured Chicago blues legend Muddy Waters surrounded by his young proteges: Dr. John, Junior Wells, Michael Bloomfield, Koko Taylor, Rollo Radford, Buddy Guy, Nick Gravenities, Buddy Miles and his long-time collaborator, pianist Otis Spann among others.

WTTW also produces the news magazine and analysis program Chicago Tonight, hosted by Phil Ponce. The program began as a half-hour panel interview program with local broadcast journalist John Callaway, but was later expanded to an hour with the addition of arts and restaurant reviews and other features.

Other popular programs produced by WTTW have included the early art-video show Image Union, CEO Exchange, restaurant review show Check, Please!, cooking show Mexico: One Plate at a Time, children's shows Lamb Chop's Play-Along and WordWorld and the irreverent magazine series Wild Chicago. In addition, WTTW features documentaries written, produced, and hosted by Geoffrey Baer, spotlighting the history and culture of various parts of the Chicago area. These programs are very popular and often result in a high volume of monetary contributions to the station.

One of the populor Shows in WTTW is The Artsiders produced by Kai Harding, Inc. and created by former Big Idea director Chris Olsen. Olsen has just finished directing the THREADS films which include Threads: A Pond Full of Pigs and Threads: Things That Go Puff in the Dark with the now defunct CGI digital studio Motion Picture Studios.

Digital television

Virtual

Channel Physical

RF Channel Video

Resolution Aspect

Ratio Name Programming

11.1 47.1 1080i 16:9 WTTW-HD Main WTTW/PBS HD Programming

11.2 47.2 480i 4:3 WTTW Prime WTTW and PBS programming in SD

11.3 47.3 480i 4:3 Create Programming from Create

11.4 47.4 480i 4:3 V-me Spanish programming from V-me

The local cable franchise Comcast currently retransmits WTTW (analog), WTTWD1 and WTTWD2. Create and V-me are transmitted over the air at 480i.

Previously, WTTW-HD/11.1 was branded as WTTW-Digital and featured a full-time high definition program schedule, while 11.2 transmitted the same schedule as analog channel 11. Starting in late 2008, channels 11.1 and 11.2 shared the same programing schedule. On March 30, 2009, WTTW Prime was launched on 11.2. WTTW Prime includes a combination of PBS prime time programing and WTTW's locally produced programing, including during the 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. period when WTTW 11 runs children's programming. The WTTW Prime schedule returns some PBS programming to its traditional times, including a public affairs block Friday evening and the Nightly Business Report at 5:30 p.m. WTTW Prime is also available to Comcast digital cable subscribers on channel 243.

On June 12, 2009, WTTW shut down its analog signal on channel 11, continuing digital broadcasts on its pre-transition channel 47, and using PSIP to display WTTW's virtual channel as 11. Also, the "WTTW" callsign was officially transferred from the now-defunct analog channel 11 to digital channel 47 and the "WTTW-DT" callsign used to identify digital channel 47 during the pre-transition era was officially discontinued.

WTTW transmits its HD programming in 1080i, over the air, and to subscribing cable systems. Prior to the fall of 2009, WTTW transmitted its primary over-the-air signal in 720p, with HD programming converted from the original 1080i.

(source:wikipedia)

Hilary Duff’s Wedding

Hilary Duff, 

who starred in the 2004 teen romance A Cinderella Story, celebrated the start of her own happily ever after on August 14, 2010 as she said “I do” to former Edmonton Oilers team member Mike Comrie.

In a ceremony orchestrated by wedding planner to the stars Mindy Weiss, at sunset the former Lizze McGuire star, linking arms with her mother (who wore a Badgley Mischka design for the special day,) strolled down the aisle at the La Quinta estate in Montecito, California, according to Radar online. Approximately 100 friends and family members (including the bride’s sister Haylie Duff, who took on the role of maid of honor) stood in honor of the lady of the hour, admiring her Vera Wang gown and diaphanous veil as she walked by on her way to a flower-bedecked arbor where her groom stood, waiting to slip a wedding band on her finger to accompany the 14-carat, $1 million engagement ring which has adorned Duff’s left hand since February 2010.

People magazine reports that the newlyweds spent their first night together as husband and wife at the San Ysidro Ranch, which served as a honeymoon retreat for John F. Kennedy and Jacqueline Kennedy and as a wedding venue for such legendary luminaries as Sir Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable and Sylvia Hawkes.

A close look at Hilary Duff’s $1 million engagement ring, which she received during a romantic getaway to Hawaii in February 2010:

(source:.lovetripper.com)

Hilary Duff: Wedding Pictures with Mike Comrie!

Check out these first look wedding pictures of Hilary Duff and pro hockey player Mike Comrie!

The newlyweds tied the knot in front of 100 of the couple’s closest family and friends at a private residence on Saturday night (August 14) in Santa Barbara, Calif.

Check out the wedding candle ceremony!

Hilary, 22, wore a gorgeous Vera Wang gown while reciting vows to Mike, 29. Sister Hayliewas the maid of honor. Congrats to the happy couple!!!

15+ pictures inside of Hilary Duff’s wedding pictures…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(source:justjared.buzznet.com)

Same-sex marriage

Same-sex marriage,

(also called gay marriage)is a legally or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender. Same-sex marriage is a civil rights, political, social, moral, and religious issue in many nations. The conflict arises over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into marriage, be required to use a different status (such as a civil union, which either grant equal rights as marriage, or limited rights in comparison to marriage), or not have any such rights. A related issue is whether the term "marriage" should be applied.

Financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and children of same-sex couples benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union supported by society’s institutions.

Support for same-sex marriage is often based upon what is regarded as a universal human rights issue, mental and physical health concerns, equality before the law,and the goal of normalizing LGBT relationships. Opposition to same-sex marriage arises from a rejection of the use of the word "marriage" as applied to same-sex couples or objections about the legal and social status of marriage itself being applied under any terminology. Other stated reasons include direct and indirect social consequences of same-sex marriages, parenting concerns, religious grounds, and tradition. Supporters of same-sex marriage often attribute opposition to it as coming from homophobia[ or heterosexism and liken prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past prohibitions on interracial marriage.

Etymology and terminological usage

The word "marriage" comes from Old French mariage, from marier (“‘to marry’”), from Latin maritare (“‘to marry", literally “give in marriage’”), from maritus (“‘lover", "nuptial’”), from mas (“‘male", "masculine", "of the male sex’”).

Anthropologists have struggled to come up with a definition of marriage that absorbs commonalities of the social construct across cultures. Edvard Westermarck defined marriage in the 1922 edition of The History of Human Marriage as "a relation of one or more men to one or more women which is recognized as custom or law and involves certain rights and duties" to the individuals who enter into it, and any children born from it.[20] Such definitions failed to recognize same-sex marriages that have been documented around the world, including in more than 30 African cultures, such as the Kikuyu and Nuer.

In lexicography, words have changed and expanded in accordance to the status quo. In the last 10 years, in the English-speaking world, all major dictionaries have either dropped gender specifications, or supplemented them with secondary definitions to include gender-neutral language or same-sex unions. The Oxford English Dictionary has recognized same-sex marriage since 2000.

Many proponents of same-sex marriages use the term marriage equality to stress that they seek equality as opposed to special rights. Opponents argue that equating same-sex and opposite-sex marriages changes the meaning of marriage and its traditions, and use the term traditional marriage to mean marriages between one man and one woman.

Alan Dershowitz and others have suggested reserving the word "marriage" for religious contexts as part of privatizing marriage, and in civil and legal contexts using a uniform concept of civil unions, in part to strengthen the separation between church and state. Jennifer Roback Morse, the president of the anti-same-sex marriage group National Organization for Marriage's Ruth Institute project, claims that the conflation of marriage with contractual agreements is itself a threat to marriage.

Use in print and online media

Some publications that oppose same-sex marriages adopt an editorial style policy of placing the word marriage in quotation marks ("marriage") when it is used in reference to same-sex couples. In the United States, the mainstream press has generally abandoned this practice. Some socially conservative online publications, such as WorldNetDaily and Baptist Press, still follow the practice. Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media argues for use of quotation marks on the grounds that marriage is a legal status denied same-sex couples by most state governments. Same-sex marriage supporters argue that the use of scare quotes is an editorialization that implies illegitimacy.

Associated Press style recommends the usages marriage for gays and lesbians or in space-limited headlines gay marriage with no hyphen and no scare quotes. The Associated Press warns that the construct gay marriage can imply that marriage licenses offered to gay and lesbian couples are somehow legally different.

History

History of same-sex unions and Timeline of same-sex marriage

Ancient

Various types of same-sex marriages have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies. Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.

An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.

The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.For instance, Emperor Nero is said to have married one of his males slaves. Emperor Elagabalus married a Carian slave named Hierocles.While there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, the exact frequency and nature of same-sex unions during that period has been obscured. In 342 AD Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.

Modern

In October 1989, Denmark became the first country to recognize same-sex unions in the form of "registered partnerships". In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation to grant same-sex marriages. Same-sex marriages are granted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010), Iceland (2010) and Argentina (2010). In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated. 250 million people (or 4% of the world population) currently live in areas that recognise same sex marriage.

Current status

Status of same-sex marriage and Same-sex marriage legislation around the world

Same-sex sexual activity legal     Same-sex marriage     Other type of partnership (or unregistered cohabitation)     Foreign same-sex marriages recognized     No recognition of same-sex couples

Same-sex sexual activity illegal     Minimal penalty     Large penalty     Life in prison     Death penalty

---

 Country-wide recognition

Same-sex sexual activity legal

Same-sex marriage

Other type of partnership (or unregistered cohabitation)

Foreign same-sex marriages recognized

No recognition of same-sex couples

Same-sex sexual activity illegal

Minimal penalty

Large penalty

Life in prison

Death penalty

v • d • e

-wide recognition

Same-sex marriage currently is legal in Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland and Argentina.

Subject debated

Nepal

In November 2008, Nepal's highest court issued final judgment on matters related to LGBT rights. Based on the court recommendation the government announced its intention to introduce a same-sex marriage bill by 2010. Same-sex marriage and protection for sexual minorities will be included in the new Nepalese constitution which will be drafted one of these days.

Europe

Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe

The granting and honoring of same-sex marriages is also currently being considered by several countries in Europe.

In early July 2009, the Slovenian minister of interior announced that it is likely that Slovenia will legalize same-sex marriage in the near future, following government agreement that same-sex couples deserve to be entitled to all of the same benefits of opposite-sex couples. In December 2009, the government approved a bill allowing same-sex marriage and adoption and sent it to parliament. The new government of Luxembourg has also announced its intention to legalize same-sex marriage. In France in 2006, a 30-member non-quorum parliamentary commission of the French National Assembly published a 453-page Report on the Family and the Rights of Children, which rejected same-sex marriages.

Latin America

Some Latin American nations have taken up such proposals, Justice Minister of Argentina worked to submit a gender neutral law draft before the Congress.. On July 14, 2010 the Argentine Senate prepared to vote on a bill granting the broadest marital protections to gay people in Latin America. It was supported by the Government of President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and opposed by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Polls showed that nearly 70 percent of Argentines support giving gay people the same marital rights as heterosexuals. Same-sex marriage became a nationwide law after the Senate approved it on July 15, 2010.

On 21 December 2009, Mexico City's Legislative Assembly legalized same-sex marriages and adoption by same-sex couples. The law was enacted eight days later and became effective in early March 2010.Since then, same-sex marriage bills have been proposed in other Mexican states such as Morelos,Puebla,and Sonora. Michoacán, Tabasco, and Tamaulipas are expected to follow later in 2010.

Oceania

Australia bans recognition of same-sex marriages at the federal level, but the current Labor Party government favors synchronized state and territory registered partnership legislation (as in Tasmania and Victoria). The Australian Capital Territory offers civil partnerships. New Zealand's Parliament rejected a bill that would have prohibited the recognition of same-sex marriage in New Zealand in December 2005. However, New Zealand's Marriage Act 1955 still only recognizes marriage rights for opposite-sex couples. The marriage laws consider transsexuals who have undergone reassignment surgery as having changed sex for legal purposes, following Family Court and High Court of New Zealand decisions in 1995.

Israel

Israel's High Court of Justice ruled to honor same-sex marriages granted in other countries even though Israel itself does not issue such licenses. A bill was raised in the Knesset (parliament) to rescind the High Court's ruling, but the Knesset has not advanced the bill since December 2006.

Africa

Same-sex marriage became legal in South Africa on 30 November 2006 when the Civil Unions Bill was enacted after having been passed by the South African Parliament earlier that month. A ruling by the Constitutional Court on 1 December 2005 had imposed a deadline of 1 December 2006 to make same-sex marriage legal. South Africa became the fifth country, the first in Africa, and the second outside Europe, to legalize same-sex marriage. In 2006, Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo introduced legislation that prohibits same-sex marriages and criminalizes anyone who "performs, witnesses, aids or abets" such ceremonies.Among the Igbo people of Nigeria, there are circumstances where a marriage between two women is allowed, such as when a woman has no child and the husband dies.

United States

Same-sex marriage in the United States

In the United States, although same-sex marriages are not recognized federally, same-sex couples can currently marry in five states (New Hampshire, Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont and Connecticut) and the District of Columbia and receive state level benefits.Additionally, several states offer civil unions or domestic partnerships, granting all or part of the state-level rights and responsibilities of marriage. Thirty-one states have put same-sex marriage on the ballot, but none have passed. In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage solely as a union between a couple of the opposite sex for all federal purposes and allowing for the non-recognition amongst the states. President Barack Obama is opposed to same-sex marriage,while he "supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples", a full repeal of DOMA, and called California's Proposition 8 "unnecessary".The validity of Proposition 8 under the United States Constitution is currently being challenged in a federal court case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which could potentially have an effect on all same-sex marriage bans nationwide. The District Court found the ban unconstitutional, ruling on August 4, 2010 that "Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification". The proponents of Proposition 8 state they expect to appeal the ruling, and the actual performing of further marriage ceremonies is being deferred due to the ongoing legal proceedings.

International organizations

The terms of employment of the staff of international organizations (not commercial) in most cases are not governed by the laws of the country in which their offices are located. Agreements with the host country safeguard these organizations' impartiality.

Despite their relative independence, few organizations currently recognize same-sex partnerships without condition. The agencies of the United Nations recognize same-sex marriages if and only if the country of citizenship of the employees in question recognizes the marriage.In some cases, these organizations do offer a limited selection of the benefits normally provided to opposite-sex married couples to de facto partners or domestic partners of their staff, but even individuals who have entered into an opposite-sex civil union in their home country are not guaranteed full recognition of this union in all organizations. However, the World Bank does recognize domestic partners.

Other legally recognized same-sex unions

Civil union

Civil unions, civil partnerships, domestic partnerships, registered partnerships, or unregistered partnership/unregistered co-habitation legal status offer varying portions of the legal benefits of marriage and are available to same-sex couples in: Andorra, Australia, Colombia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Slovenia, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Uruguay. They are also available in parts of Mexico (Coahuila and the Federal District) and the United States (California, Hawai'i, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Washington and the federal District of Columbia)

Many advocates, such as this protester at a demonstration in New York City against California Proposition 8, reject the notion of civil unions. U.S. Same-sex marriage movement activist Evan Wolfson does not feel civil unions are a replacement for full marriage equality.

In some countries with legal recognition the actual benefits are minimal. Many people consider civil unions, even those that grant equal rights, inadequate, as they create a separate status, and think they should be replaced by gender-neutral marriage.

Australia

In Australia, Commonwealth law prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriage under the Marriage Act 1961. However, every Australian government jurisdiction provides to de facto same-sex couples a wide range of rights equal to those afforded to de facto opposite-sex couples. These rights are gained without registration, under a status called "unregistered cohabitation". Furthermore, formal domestic partnership registries exist in New South Wales, Tasmania, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. Since 1 July 2009, same-sex couples are recognised as de facto partners in a wide range of legislation in every Australian government jurisdiction, including superannuation, social security, health care and taxation. In 2007, Grace Abrams and Fiona Power became Australia's first legally recognized same-sex married couple after Grace Abrams had gender-modification surgery and was later officially granted a passport with female status.

Europe

Laws regarding same-sex partnerships in Europe

Same-sex marriage

Other type of partnership

Unregistered cohabitation

Issue under political consideration

Unrecognized

Constitution limits marriage to man–woman

v • d • e

In Denmark, Finland and Hungary, a registered partnership provides nearly all of the rights of marriage, including joint adoption rights in Denmark. Finland and Greenland have biological adoption only (no joint adoption). These partnership laws are short laws that state that wherever the word "marriage" appears in the country's law, it will now also be construed to mean "registered partnership", and wherever the word "spouse" appears, it will now also be construed to mean "registered partner" — thereby transferring the body of marriage laws onto same-sex couples in registered partnerships.

In the United Kingdom, civil partnerships were introduced in 2005. The law gives civil partners the same benefits and associated legal rights of marriage; ranging from tax exemptions and joint property rights, to next-of-kin status and shared parenting responsibilities. The one notable exception is the use of courtesy titles by the partner of a male peer or knight. In the first year, 16,100 ceremonies took place. Civil unions in New Zealand are identical to British civil partnerships in their association with equivalent spousal rights and responsibilities to marriage.

Transgender and intersex persons

This section needs additional citations for verification.

Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2008)

Transsexualism, Legal aspects of transsexualism, and Gender identity

When sex is defined legally, it may be defined by any one of several criteria: the XY sex-determination system, the type of gonads, or the type of external sexual features. Consequently, both transsexuals and intersexed individuals may be legally categorized into confusing gray areas, and could be prohibited from marrying partners of the "opposite" sex or permitted to marry partners of the "same" sex due to legal distinctions. This could result in long-term marriages, as well as recent same-sex marriages, being overturned.

The problems of defining gender by the existence/non-existence of gonads or certain sexual features is complicated by the existence of surgical methods to alter these features. Estimates run as high as 1 percent of live births exhibiting some degree of sexual ambiguity, and between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births being ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention, including sometimes involuntary surgery to address their sexual ambiguity.

In any legal jurisdiction where marriages are defined without distinction of a requirement of a male and female, these complications do not occur. In addition, some legal jurisdictions recognize a legal and official change of gender, which would allow a transsexual to be legally married in accordance with an adopted gender identity.

In the United Kingdom, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 allows a person who has lived in their chosen gender for at least two years to receive a gender recognition certificate officially recognizing their new gender. Because in the UK marriages are for mixed-sex couples and civil partnerships are for same-sex couples, a person must dissolve his/her marriage or civil partnership before obtaining a gender recognition certificate. Such persons are then free to enter or re-enter civil partnerships or marriages in accordance with their newly recognized gender identity.

In the United States, transsexual and intersexual marriages typically run into the complications detailed above. As definitions and enforcement of marriage are defined by the states, these complications vary from state to state.

Controversy

This section may stray from the topic of the article. Please help improve this section or discuss this issue on the talk page. (April 2010)

See also: LGBT rights opposition

While few societies have recognized same-sex unions as marriages, the historical and anthropological record reveals a large range of attitudes towards same-sex unions ranging from praise, to sympathetic toleration, to indifference, to prohibition. Opponents of same-sex marriages have argued that recognition of same-sex marriages would erode religious freedoms,and that same-sex marriage, while doing good for the couples that participate in them and the children they are raising, undermines a right of children to be raised by their biological mother and father.

Some supporters of same-sex marriages take the view that the government should have no role in regulating personal relationships, while others argue that same-sex marriages would provide social benefits to same-sex couples. A 2004 Statement by the American Anthropological Association states that there is no evidence that society needs to maintain "marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution", and, further, that same-sex unions can "contribute to stable and humane societies." The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers state: "There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage.... Empirical research has consistently shown that lesbian and gay parents do not differ from heterosexuals in their parenting skills, and their children do not show any deficits compared to children raised by heterosexual parents.... [I]f their parents are allowed to marry, the children of same-sex couples will benefit not only from the legal stability and other familial benefits that marriage provides, but also from elimination of state-sponsored stigmatization of their families."

The debate regarding same-sex marriages includes debate based upon social viewpoints as well as debate based on majority rules, religious convictions, economic arguments, health-related concerns, and a variety of other issues.

Judicial and legislative

Marriage (conflict)#Same-sex marriage

A "majority rules" position regards same-sex marriage as void and illegal unless it has been accepted by a simple majority of voters or of their elected representatives.In contrast, a civil-rights view holds that, after carefully studying both sides of the controversy, an impartial judiciary, in upholding its constitutional duties, should decide whether the right to marry regardless of the gender of the participants is constitutionally guaranteed.

In general, the legal effect marriage has on same-sex couples when marriage licenses are issued to them and honored by the states in which they live is indistinguishable from any other legal effect marriage has on any other couple under state law. The United States has developed extensive case law and legislation addressing the nuance of American legal conceptions of equality before the law.

[edit]Religion

Main article: Religious arguments about same-sex marriage

Arguments on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate are often made on religious grounds and/or formulated in terms of religious doctrine. One source of controversy is how same-sex marriage affects freedom of religion. Many religious organizations (citing their religious beliefs) refuse to provide employment, public accommodations, adoption services and other benefits to same-sex couples. Some areas have made special provisions for religious protections.

Many Christian groups have been vocal and politically active in opposing same-sex marriage laws in the United States. Christians opposed to same-sex marriage have claimed that extending marriage rights to same-sex couples could undercut the conventional purpose of marriage, or would be contrary to God's will. Christian opposition to same-sex marriage also comes from the belief that same-sex marriage normalizes homosexual behavior and would encourage it, instead of encouraging resistance to same-sex attraction.

Christian supporters of same-sex marriage have claimed that marriage rights for same-sex couples strengthens the institution of marriage and provides legal protection for children of gay and lesbian parents. Bible-based arguments for same-sex marriage rights include that the word "homosexual", as found in modern versions of the Bible, is an inaccurate translation of the original texts.Neither Vine's Expository Dictionary nor Strong's Concordance (two significant bible reference works) contains the word "homosexual". There also is no direct biblical prohibition of marriage rights for same-sex couples. Certain biblical texts used by non-affirming Christian organizations to condemn homosexuality, and by extension same-sex marriage, may refer only to specific sex acts and idolatrous worship lacking any relevance to contemporary same-sex relationships.Supporting marriage rights for gays and lesbians is viewed by affirming Christians as a Christ-like commitment to the equality and dignity of all persons. The United Church of Canada asserts that "human sexual orientations, whether heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual, are a gift from God", whilst the Yearly Meeting of Quakers in the United Kingdom decided to offer same-sex marriages, though national law permits only Civil Partnerships.

On July 4, 2005 the United Church of Christ (UCC), at their 25th General Synod, voted to support full legal and religious marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples making it the first mainline Christian denomination in the United States to support and promote same sex marriage equality. The UCC is a liberal Christian denomination with a long history of supporting gay rights, women's rights, African-American civil rights and other issues of social justice.

Unitarian Universalism, a liberal faith tradition, supports marriage equality for same-sex couples. It has taken an active role advocating for LGBT rights and same-sex marriages are often performed in UU congregations.

Judaism, like Christianity, contains varying views on the issue of marriage rights, both politically and religiously, for same-sex couples. Many Orthodox Jews maintain the traditional Jewish bans on both sexual acts and marriages amongst members of the same sex, but other orthodox rabbis, such as Steven Greenberg, disagree. Some Conservative Jews reject recognition of same-sex unions as marriages, but permit celebration of commitment ceremonies, while others recognize same-sex marriage.The Union for Reform Judaism (formerly known as the Union of American Hebrew Congregations) supports the inclusion of same-sex unions within the definition of marriage.The Jewish Reconstructionist Federation leaves the choice to individual rabbis.

From the Islamic perspective, a majority of Muslim legal scholars cite the rulings of Muhammad and the story of Lot in Sodom as condemnation of homosexuality. Given that Islam views marriage as an exchange between two parties of protection and security for exclusive sexual and reproductive rights, same-sex marriages cannot be considered legal within the constrains of a Muslim marriage. 

Buddhist scripture and teachings do not take a consistent stance against homosexuality, and do not specifically proscribe nor endorse same-sex marriage; thus, there is no unified stance for or against the practice.

Wiccan communities are often supportive of same-sex marriages.

Children and the family
Same-sex marriage and the family

Parenting

LGBT parenting

LGBT parenting is when lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people are parents to one or more children, either as biological or non-biological parents. Gay men face options which include: "foster care, variations of domestic and international adoption, diverse forms of surrogacy (whether "traditional" or gestational), and kinship arrangements, wherein they might coparent with a woman or women with whom they are intimately but not sexually involved." LGBT parents can also include single people who are parenting; to a lesser extent, the term sometimes refers to families with LGBT children.

In the 2000 U.S. Census, 33 percent of female same-sex couple households and 22 percent of male same-sex couple households reported at least one child under eighteen living in their home. Some children do not know they have an LGB parent; coming out issues vary and some parents may never come out to their children. LGBT parenting in general, and adoption by LGBT couples may be controversial in some countries. In January 2008, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that same-sex couples have the right to adopt a child. In the U.S., LGB people can legally adopt in all states except for Florida.

Society’s early assumptions about the superiority of the traditional family form have been challenged by the results of empirical research. Early in the Twentieth Century, it was widely believed that traditional family settings were necessary in order for children to adjust well. Since the 1970s, it has become increasingly clear that it is family processes (such as the quality of parenting, the psychosocial well-being of parents, the quality of and satisfaction with relationships within the family, and the level of co-operation and harmony between parents) that contribute to determining children’s well-being and ‘outcomes’, rather than family structures, per se, such as the number, gender, sexuality and co-habitation status of parents. Since the end of the 1980’s, as a result, it has been well established that children and adolescents can adjust just as well in nontraditional settings as in traditional settings.

Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific research literature. In fact, the promotion of this notion, and the laws and public policies that embody it, are clearly counter to the well-being of children. No research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being. Society is replete with role models from whom children and adolescents can learn about socially prescribed male and female roles.

Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents,despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents.

The abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise. If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents. Literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union.

Most of the studies appeared in rigorously peer-reviewed and highly selective journals, whose standards represent expert consensus on generally accepted social scientific standards for research on child and adolescent development. Canadian Psychological Association is concerned that some are mis-interpreting the findings of psychological research to support their positions, when their positions are more accurately based on other systems of belief or values. According to the Maine Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics "those who claim that children need a biologically related mother and father to flourish are either ignorant of the scientific literature or are misrepresenting it or both".

Professor Judith Stacey, of New York University, stated: “Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights”. These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association,the American Psychological Association , the American Psychoanalytic Association  the National Association of Social Workers,[5] the Child Welfare League of America, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, and Canadian Psychological Association.

Education controversy

The subject of how the legalization of same-sex marriage affects public education is a source of controversy. An argument sometimes used by supporters is that teaching about same-sex marriage in schools will help children to be more open minded by exposing them to different types of families. There is concern from opponents of same-sex marriage that it will undermine parental rights over their children's education.

There is also concern that the information being presented might not be accurate, omits medical, psychological and legal impacts of homosexuality, and might not be appropriate for the age group. There has also been controversy that educators who disagree may be punished.

Effects of same-sex marriage

The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and National Association of Social Workers have stated in an Amicus curiae brief presented to the California Supreme Court

Homosexuality is neither a disorder nor a disease, but rather a normal variant of human sexual orientation. The vast majority of gay and lesbian individuals lead happy, healthy, well-adjusted, and productive lives. Many gay and lesbian people are in a committed same-sex relationship. In their essential psychological respects, these relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships. The institution of marriage affords individuals a variety of benefits that have a favorable impact on their physical and psychological well-being. A large number of children are currently being raised by lesbians and gay men, both in same-sex couples and as single parents. Empirical research has consistently shown that lesbian and gay parents do not differ from heterosexuals in their parenting skills, and their children do not show any deficits compared to children raised by heterosexual parents. State policies that bar same-sex couples from marrying are based solely on sexual orientation. As such, they are both a consequence of the stigma historically attached to homosexuality, and a structural manifestation of that stigma. By allowing same-sex couples to marry, the Court would end the antigay stigma imposed by the State of California through its ban on marriage rights for same-sex couples. In addition, allowing same-sex couples to marry would give them access to the social support that already facilitates and strengthens heterosexual marriages, with all of the psychological and physical health benefits associated with that support. In addition, if their parents are allowed to marry, the children of same-sex couples will benefit not only from the legal stability and other familial benefits that marriage provides, but also from elimination of state-sponsored stigmatization of their families. There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage.

The Canadian Psychological Association has stated in 2006

The literature (including the literature on which opponents to marriage of same-sex couples appear to rely) indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union. As the CPA stated in 2003, the stressors encountered by gay and lesbian parents and their children are more likely the result of the way in which society treats them than because of any deficiencies in fitness to parent. The CPA recognizes and appreciates that persons and institutions are entitled to their opinions and positions on this issue. However, CPA is concerned that some are mis-interpreting the findings of psychological research to support their positions, when their positions are more accurately based on other systems of belief or values. CPA asserts that children stand to benefit from the well-being that results when their parents’ relationship is recognized and supported by society’s institutions.

Health issues

Recently, several psychological studies have shown that an increase in exposure to negative conversations and media messages about same-sex marriage creates a harmful environment for the LGBT population that may affect their health and well-being.

In 2010, a Mailman School of Public Health study examining the effects of institutional discrimination on the psychiatric health of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) individuals found an increase in psychiatric disorders among the LGB population living in states that instituted bans on same-sex marriage. According to the author the study highlighted the importance of abolishing institutional forms of discrimination, including those leading to disparities in the mental health and well-being of LGB individuals. Institutional discrimination is characterized by societal-level conditions that limit the opportunities and access to resources by socially-disadvantaged groups.

Gay activist Jonathan Rauch has argued that marriage is good for all men, whether homosexual or heterosexual, because engaging in its social roles reduces men's aggression and promiscuity. After reviewing current psychological and other social science studies on same-sex marriage in comparison to opposite-sex marriage, Gregory M. Herek claims that the data indicate that same-sex and opposite-sex relationships do not differ in their essential psychosocial dimensions; that a parent's sexual orientation is unrelated to their ability to provide a healthy and nurturing family environment; and that marriage bestows substantial psychological, social, and health benefits. Herek concludes that same-sex couples and their children are likely to benefit in numerous ways from legal recognition of their families, and providing such recognition through marriage will bestow greater benefit than civil unions or domestic partnerships.

In 2009, a pair of economists at Emory University tied the passage of state bans on same-sex marriage in the US to an increase in the rates of HIV infection. The study linked the passage of same-sex marriage ban in a state to an increase in the annual HIV rate within that state of roughly 4 cases per 100,000 population.

Marriage privatization

A libertarian argument for marriage privatization holds that the state has no role in defining the terms whereby individuals contract to arrange their personal relationships, regardless of sexual orientation. People holding this viewpoint argue that the state should have a limited role or no role in defining marriage, only in enforcing those contracts people construct themselves and willfully enter. The rights granted to a married couple exceed those that can be mutually granted by two people to each other contractually, and also involve rights granted by the state.

Source:Gay marriage