 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The Legal Marriage Alliance of Washington (LMA) is a nonprofit organization educating the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered community and the general public on how to advance the civil right of same-sex couples to legal marriage. We serve as a resource for same sex marriage information in Washington state. We offer speakers, resource materials, volunteer opportunities, and a public voice for the freedom to marry. LMA was founded in October 1995.
Legal marriage is a civil contract recognized by the state in the form of a state marriage license. It is separate and different from a "religious" marriage or wedding, a social or cultural event that may be sponsored or recognized by a religious organization.
A licensed marriage gives the contracting parties access to hundreds of state benefits and protections including inheritance, divorce, hospital visitation, child custody, medical decisions, court immunities, wrongful death suits, and many more. Washington state has at least 423 benefits and protections that come with a legal marriage. The federal government has 1138 such benefits and protections including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Worker's Compensation, and contract rights.
The Washington state list can be found on this
website under Washington State Laws. The Federal
list can be found in the U. S. General Accounting Office report GAO/OGC-97-16
Defense of Marriage Act dated
January 31, 1997 and Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior Report, GAO-04-353R dated
January 23, 2004.
Not legally, in all state but one: Massachusetts. Courts in Washington, Hawaii, Alaska, New York, and Vermont have conclusively answered all objections to same-sex marriage. The Legislature in Vermont implemented its Supreme Court's decision that said Vermont must give same-sex couples all the same legal benefits which different-sex couples receive through marriage. The Vermont legislature created a status of "almost-marriage" called civil unions. Although civil unions incorporated Vermont's marriage statutes, they aren't called marriage and the Vermont legislature reserved the status of marriage for mixed-sex couples. Same-sex couples are thus severely limited in their ability to have their status recognized in jurisdictions outside Vermont. On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that recognition of marriage for same-sex couples was required by the state's Equal Protection Clause.
For a discussion of the current status of marriage equality in the United States, see the Wikipedia.
A growing number of countries have been legislating domestic partner policies that give same-sex couples access to many of the benefits and protections of marriage. Today, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Canada grant full legal marriage to same-sex couples. It is not clear that couples who are married in those countries who travel in the United States would have their marriages recognized and honored. U.S. citizens, even if qualified to be married in one of those countries, would face a doubtful legal status upon returning to the United States.
For a discussion of the current status of legal marriage in the world, see the Wikipedia.
No. Powers of attorney, wills, trusts, and other legal documents cannot cover all the benefits and protections of a state licensed marriage. Even carefully drawn documents can be challenged in court. Legal documents take time and are costly, often out of the reach of lower income couples. Marriage licenses in most states cost less than $100, with little or no waiting period. Legal marriages grant full benefits and protections and are virtually unbreakable except by the contracting parties (the married couple) themselves. There are a least 423 Washington state laws that hinge on marriage. No couple can possibly simulate the scope and reach of those hundreds of laws on their own.
Domestic partner benefits are attempts to offer some of the benefits and protections accessible through marriage, short of granting a right to a state licensed legal marriage.
Employers, including many businesses, churches, universities, and governments, provide domestic partner benefits to help them attract and retain quality employees.
No. Domestic partner packages do not offer the same scope and depth of rights, responsibilities, privileges, and protections as civil marriages do. Partnership benefits and status are not portable from business to business, state to state, or internationally. Even if domestic partner programs included 100% of the benefits and protections of civil marriage, they would still be "separate but equal," a principle American courts and society have otherwise rejected.
Yes. LMA supports domestic partner policies because they help our couples and their families. However, LMA continues to work for full legal marriage.
No. Marriage has been an evolutionary institution, with several forms and purposes for it throughout history across many cultures, including western culture. Books by William Eskridge, The Case for Same-Sex Marriage, and E. J. Graff, What Is Marriage For? offer excellent examples that show how much marriage has changed over time. The choice of marriage partner ought to belong exclusively to individuals - not to governments, religious institutions, or other people's traditions.
Until 1967, marriages between whites and blacks were still illegal in 12
states. Until recently, wives were not treated as equal partners in marriage
in cases of domestic violence. Today many churches in the United States gladly
sponsor and perform weddings (though not legal
marriages) for same-sex couples. Read more . . .
A religious wedding ceremony is not the same as a civil, licensed marriage. A religious ceremony is meaningful for the members of that religion, but it cannot form a legal contract established in state law. Confusion arises in that the state grants ordained ministers the role of "solemnizing" marriages on the state's behalf. That means they get to sign civil marriage licenses as part of a religious marriage ceremony.
No. Churches don't have to recognize different-sex marriage licenses, either, if they don't want to. Some churches don't recognize other church's baptisms. Separation of church and state protects both. Read more . . .
Courts in Washington, Hawaii, Alaska, Vermont, New York and Massachusetts have forcefully ruled that restricting the benefits and protections of marriage to different-sex couples is discriminatory and violates state constitutions. These judges understood that a state has no compelling interest for continuing the discrimination behind restricting legal marriage.
It won't. Allowing marriage licenses to be obtained by same-sex couples will have no effect on different-sex marriages. People always enter marriage as two individuals; they stay in their marriages (or not) for personal reasons. The benefits which different-sex couples own thanks to legal marriage cannot be diminished by affording the benefits equally to other, same-sex couples. A legal, freely entered marriage by a same-sex adult couple is a validation of the concept of marriage, not a detraction of it, individually or in general.
Marriage supports couples in their choice of the person with whom they will have the most personal adult relationship in their lives. Marriage promotes social stability and economic growth. Married couples are freer to contribute safely and openly to the common good. Same-sex marriage is good social policy.
Opponents to same-sex marriage have put forth the same religious, economic, political, and social reasons as were raised to oppose interracial marriages. These arguments against others because of who they are do not stand up under rational or legal scrutiny.
Marriage laws support the very deeply held values that honor commitment and responsibility between a couple and within their family. Same-sex couples honor and embrace those same values; they therefore deserve the same legal support.
Moral law is not civil law. Moral laws differ in many ways based on religions; they are binding on the conscience even when they cannot be enacted in civil law. All persons must have equal access to the civil laws, as the U. S. Supreme Court clearly ruled in Romer v. Evans in 1996.
Our society already recognizes lots of different family units - single parents with children, grandparents with grandchildren, extended family groups, and more. Same-sex couples are already family units in every sense of the word, except for being denied the legal supports afforded by a licensed marriage.
Many different-sex couples choose not to have or cannot have children and many same-sex couples do have children. Studies have shown that same-sex parents can raise healthy, happy, well-adjusted children, just like different-sex parents can. Marriage licenses do not stipulate that couples must have children or even insist on sexual relations. The courts have ruled repeatedly that child rearing is no obstacle to granting the right to marry to same-sex couples.
This is the "slippery slope" argument, a logical fallacy. Opponents cite ridiculous and extreme examples to frighten people. Marriage is only for adults who freely and willingly choose each other. The Legal Marriage Alliance advocates solely for the freedom to marry for couples who choose to do so, regardless of their gender.
No. Similarly, not all different-sex couples choose to marry even though they have the legal right. Those couples that do want to marry, however, regardless of their genders, should have the right to do so without government interference.
Some see marriage as a flawed institution based on patriarchal values, oppression of women, inequality, and more. Whatever truth or fallacy exists in these charges, civil marriage is a state service and should be available to those who choose it.
United States immigration law promotes family unification by allowing foreign legal spouses of U. S. citizens to immigrate to this country. Legal marriages would allow same-sex families to reunite as well. South Africa granted immigration rights to same-sex couples in 1999.promotes family unification by allowing foreign legal spouses of U. S. citizens to immigrate to this country. Legal marriages would allow same-sex families to reunite as well. South Africa granted immigration rights to same-sex couples in 1999.
DOMA for the first time asserted federal government controls on marriage that supercede the couple, the states, and probably the Constitution. DOMA hurts everyone by trying to allow states to refuse to recognize legal relationships granted by other states because of presumed local prejudices.
About 38 states have passed measures banning marriages for same sex couples. Washington state finally passed a DOMA in 1998 (after 3 years of trying, all forcefully opposed by LMA and many other groups). These laws and the federal DOMA will eventually be challenged in court. Given the legal precedents already being established, we believe these state DOMA acts will be found unconstitutional.
Marriage rights are very important to us, just like employment rights, voting rights, and all the other rights enjoyed by equal citizens matter to all of us. Until there is equality and justice for all under the law, none of us - gay or not - will enjoy full citizenship.
DONATE
TAKE
ACTION
SHOP
LMA
STAY
INFORMED