Child suicide[ edit ] The establishment of same-sex marriage is associated with a significant reduction in the rate of attempted suicide among children, with the effect being concentrated among children of a minority sexual orientation. The researchers took advantage of the gradual manner in which same-sex marriage was established in the United States expanding from one state in to all fifty states in to compare the rate of attempted suicide among children in each state over the time period studied.
By a vote, the court [Thursday] morning declared those bans unconstitutional.
Not that I was hoping to find such an argument. On the contrary, my hope runs in the other direction. Everything I know about libertarianism says that the government cannot morally exclude gay and lesbian couples from legally marrying, as governments in 13 states have done but will no longer be able to do.
But libertarians who think that this is all that need be said are wrong. To see this, imagine that the government declared that blacks could not use the interstate highways. Would it be enough for libertarians to say that the government should not own and operate highways, remaining agnostic on the particular policy?
Libertarians should say that as long as the government does own and operate highways, it must not discriminate irrationally or invidiously in their use.
Why is that a proper libertarian position? It is so because libertarians, pending abolition of the state, should want to limit as far as possible its power to commit injustice, to mistreat people or deprive them of their dignity. One way to do that is to eliminate or at least restrict its power to discriminate irrationally or invidiously.
Government should not have the power to issue marriage licenses, but when it exercises that power, it should not be free to deny them to gay and lesbian couples. On what libertarian grounds should same-sex couples be turned away from the licensing bureau?
As Steve Horwitz writes: Government must treat all its citizens equally, and nothing paid for with tax dollars may involve invidious discrimination. It would be wrong on classical-liberal grounds for a government to refuse to pay Social Security to nonwhites even though we think Social Security is an illegitimate use of government power.
The same is true of same-sex marriage. If government grants certain privileges to those who are married, it must grant them equally to all its citizens who wish to marry. In the same way that prohibitions on interracial marriage were wrong on libertarian grounds, so are the prohibitions on same-sex marriage.
The principle is equal protection. If the government imposed conscription on men, it would be unlibertarian to demand that women also be drafted in the name of equality under the law.
On the contrary, that principle would be grounds for demanding abolition of conscription. But, the argument goes, since contemporary marriage entails "positive rights" as well—that is, alleged "rights" to government-provided benefits—a libertarian should object to extending this tainted institution to more people.
That argument seems plausible at first, but I believe it crumbles on closer scrutiny. This is not to deny that government-provided benefits are available to married couples.
According to the Human Rights Campaign: There are 1, benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law.
Windsor struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act DOMAwhich excluded same-sex married couples from recognition for all federal benefits and programs. Because of this ruling, same-sex married couples across the country have been recognized for federal purposes for the first time.
However, the persistent patchwork of state marriage laws continues to stand in the way of many couples fully accessing the federal benefits they have earned including Social Security and Veterans Benefits. Perhaps similar benefits are available at the state level.
Some states have similar laws. Since passage of the law inFMLA benefits have been extended by the courts to same-sex couples who married in a state that recognizes that status. Now it is true that mandated family and medical leave coercively imposes costs on employers and ultimately employees and therefore cannot pass libertarian muster.
Allowing the prohibition of SSM in order to prevent expansion of the FMLA is a little like bombing a village full of innocents to kill a criminal.
To avoid one harm, a great deal more harm would be done.Nov 28, · Same-sex marriage II: The arguments for Posted Wed, November 28th, am by Lyle Denniston This is the second of four articles explaining the constitutional controversy, now awaiting the Supreme Court’s attention, over .
On June 26, , the US Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is a right protected by the US Constitution in all 50 states. Prior to their decision, same-sex marriage was already legal in 37 states and Washington DC, but was banned in the remaining The following are ten science-based arguments against same-sex "marriage": 1.
Children hunger for their biological parents. offered this review of the literature on gay parenting as an expert witness for a Canadian court considering legalization of same . The Supreme Court's same-sex marriage battle, explained.
10 Cards. EDITED BY German Lopez. The Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in the US after years of legal.
Apr 28, · The constitutional argument for same-sex marriage Apr 28, | AM Plaintiffs from Tennessee, Michigan, and Ohio pose for photographs with the lawyers representing them in front of the. Same-sex marriage (also known as gay marriage) is the marriage of a same-sex couple, entered into in a civil or religious ceremony.
The term marriage equality refers to a political status in which the marriages of same-sex couples and the marriages of opposite-sex couples are recognized as equal by the law.. As of , same-sex marriage is performed and recognized by law (nationwide or in.