This is important
This is the best and most important thing I've ever written.
The Final Fight
The 2008 election has placed an earmark in the annals of American history, setting a milestone in people’s minds to be recalled and told to great-grandchildren in our later years. Many firsts were set in the course of one evening: the election of the first African-American President, the first all-Democratic majority national government in many years, and the unfortunate passing of the highly discriminatory Proposition 8 in California. Proposition 8 is a proposition to the voters of California to eliminate the right to marriage between same sex couples and to define marriage as between one man and one woman by state law. On election day, a marginal 52.3% of voters passed Prop 8. After only being legal for five months, gay marriage has been struck down…but why? The fight for marriage equality has been described as the last true fight for equality in America, and as a gay student, the fight burns inside me. Why can’t I marry whom I love? Why can I not share the same rights as all other Americans? These questions can truly make the blood boil in almost any gay American. With the amount of benefit to individuals and the state, the undeniable and fundamental right to equality, the unconstitutionality of a ban, and the lack of any true evidence of a negative impact to society or government, there is no logical reason to not allow gay marriage in the United States.
If same sex marriage is legalized nationally, there would be numerous benefits to every gay couple, even those unmarried. For unmarried couples, the legalization of same sex marriage legitimizes same sex relationships by allowing them to participate in social and cultural norms. For married same sex couples, Dr. Davina Kotulski cites that “[t]here are more than 1,049 federal rights that accompany civil marriage, and some additional 300 per state” (4). So many of these rights, protections and privileges for married couples can be easily taken for granted. Kotulski quotes fellow author E.J. Graff, who explains the power behind governmental marriage well, saying that “[m]arriage laws and rules weave a much more delicate and invisible web than most of us know. ‘Married’ is a shorthand taken seriously by banks, insurers, courts, employers, schools, hospitals, cemeteries, rental car companies, frequent flyer programs, and more.” (4) Without marriage, same sex widows and widowers get nothing when a partner dies. That means no inheritance, Social Security, tax breaks, decision making authority for their funeral, worker’s compensation, nothing. They do no benefit from legal protections for medical leave, from laws protecting spouses in the event of disability, from the privilege to ride in the ambulance with their partner, from the opportunity to be with their partner in the hospital when they die, or from the privilege to cohabitate with their partner in a retirement home. These protections are fundamental and devastating to the partners if unrewarded. This list goes on for civil marriage rights. However, these rights are given through the hands of the national government, and if gay rights are to be truly equal, recognition of these rights must be national.
Due to the Defense of Marriage Act, individual states have the ability to ignore same sex marriages from any state or country, despite the Full Faith and Credit clause of the United States Constitution. If an individual state legalizes same-sex marriages in their state, the partners will only receive the 300-odd benefits given by the state, but not any federal benefits, nor does any other state have to recognize their union. In other words, the second that a married same sex couple crosses a state line, they are legal strangers. The legalization of civil unions in a state will help even less. Before California’s legalization of same-sex marriage, their civil union for domestic partners only allowed 15 rights out of the 300 afforded to heterosexual couples, a mere 5% of the total rights, and, of course, none of the federal rights (Kotulski 14-15). Moreover, the idea of having a “domestic partner” or “reciprocal beneficiary” doesn’t contain any of the emotional connotation that comes with “husband” or “wife” or even “spouse.” We cannot forget the loving connotation that marriage gives.
Not only will the partners benefit from legal marriage, but America itself can benefit from same-sex marriages in many ways. First, legalizing same-sex marriage could save taxpayers and the government millions of dollars. The Human Rights Campaign says that “treating same-sex couples as families under law could even save taxpayers money because marriage would require them to assume legal responsibility for their joint living expenses and reduce their dependence on public assistance programs, such as Medicaid, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Supplemental Security Income disability payments and food stamps.” (HRC.org) Second, extending marital benefits to same sex couples could save the government millions of dollars per year. According to the HRC, “two studies conducted in 2003…found that extending domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples in California and New Jersey would save taxpayers millions of dollars a year.” (HRC.org) The study showed that California alone could save up to $10.6 million each year. Imagine if these rights were nationally recognized! Third, legalizing gay marriage can also improve relations with other countries. As of this writing, six countries allow full same-sex marriage, four countries recognize other countries’ same-sex marriages, and 18 countries have legal civil unions or registered partnerships. America joining these countries could not only benefit our relations with them, but influence other nations to join this growing number. With our country at the front of the world stage, an act such as legalizing same-sex marriages could influence the world into standing for equal rights. For those that believe that allowing same-sex marriages will hurt the country in some manner, I urge you to look for any negative effects gay marriage has caused Belgium, Canada, Spain, the Netherlands, or South Africa. They are neither in financial devastation nor a pit of moral slovenliness. Additionally, with the legalization of same sex marriage in America, married same sex couples from other countries may feel more comfortable knowing that their marriage will be recognized if they decide to visit the United States.
But what else do the opponents of same sex marriage argue? The anti-LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender) religious right has many arguments against same-sex marriage, beginning with the idea that the Bible condemns homosexuality and it should not be tolerated in any form. However, we must not forget that not only is the Bible not the Constitution or a book of law, but also the Bible’s anti-gay bias can easily be disputed as misinterpreted. The use of the word “abomination” in the Bible means “unnatural” or “against nature”. (Wink 3) Other authors even suggest that the word translated as “abomination” is closer to “taboo” in our modern language. Homosexuality was believed to be males acting unnaturally, as there was no notion of homosexual or heterosexual until relatively recently. Not only that, but at the time, the people misunderstood sexuality and reproduction. “With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the woman provided only the incubation space. Hence, the spilling of semen for any non-procreative purpose…was considered tantamount to abortion or murder.” (Wink 2). Thus, opponents who would use these Biblical passages to justify legislating “morality” base their position on their own ignorance of anthropology as well as a Bronze Age tribe’s ignorance of what we now consider elementary school biology.
Still, this country was founded with the principle of freedom, including freedom of religion, and the idea that religion should have no part in politics and politics should have no part in religion. The separation of church and state, although not directly written in the Constitution, is founded in the First Amendment, stating "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . .” No law can establish a national religion, favor any particular religion, or codify religious belief into law regardless of the religion’s popularity, majority, or supposed benefit to the country.
Many groups also claim that gays have a choice in their orientation. A commonly used argument is that “Gays already have equal rights. They can marry a person of the opposite sex like everyone else. They are asking for ‘extra rights’ for their choice.” Many say that the entire debate turns on the question of choice, but arguments like the above are ridiculous. These arguments are akin to claiming that left-handed tools and utensils are “special” and that lefties should just learn to use their right hand. The simple answer to the choice debate is “No, sexual orientation is not a choice for anyone.” Not only can I say that as a gay man, knowing full well I made no choice in the matter, just as heterosexuals made no decision to be straight, but so can Chandler Burr, who says “we’ve known the answer to this for years” (2). Studies upon studies from published scientific, peer reviewed literature have proven for a fact that, like handedness, sexual orientation is a “’stable bimorphism’…expressed behaviorally” (Burr 3). With all of this information, it is blatantly clear that no one is asking for “extra rights,” just equal ones.
Another argument is that gay couples should not marry because marriage could permit same sex couples to adopt children, and many argue that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt and raise children. A commonly accepted “fact” is that children need both a mother and father to have a proper and well balanced childhood. Once again, studies upon studies have shown that children grow up perfectly fine in healthy same-sex households, with no differences to those in a healthy heterosexual household. In fact, even gay rights opponent John Eastman concedes that the studies commonly cited to suggest opposite-sex couples make better parents than same-sex couples are misquoted. He says, “[t]he studies…that say children do better in heterosexual couples [composed of] their natural parents; that model doesn't work in any other context. It's not just stepmother and stepfather, it's not just adoptive parents, it's anytime there are anything other than the two natural parents.” (The Pew Forum) In other words, although the best option for children is their natural parents, after that there is no evidence suggesting that same-sex couples are inferior to any other caregivers.
A major argument is that marriage is a sacred institution; therefore, it must be kept sacred and traditional. Firstly, no one is asking for a religious marriage, which is a marriage officiated by a member of the clergy. This fight is for federally recognized marriage, so there is nothing about religion to it. Secondly, the purpose behind marriage is individual, so marriage is not necessarily sacred. Wolfson quotes Hawaii Judge Kevin Chang, who says that “[i]n Hawaii, and elsewhere, people marry for a variety of reasons, including: (1) having or raising children; (2) stability and commitment; (3) emotional closeness; (4) intimacy and monogamy; (5) the establishment of a framework for a long-term relationship; (6) personal significance; (7) legal and economic protections, benefits and obligations." I believe that to deny the existence of these social norms and to characterize marriage as universally sacred is to deny reality, which if ignored by choice squarely lands those with such a position in a land of fantasy.
In light of the preceding, the fight for equal marriage rights affects everybody. It is not just an issue that affects me as a gay American who would someday like to marry his boyfriend. Just as everyone knows someone who is left-handed, everyone knows someone who is gay. Even in small towns where everyone knows everyone else, there’s bound to be someone who is lesbian, gay, or bisexual. And that person is entitled to seek out a loving relationship without fear of scorn or violence, and that couple is entitled to marry and have a life together, sharing everything that opposite-sex married couples enjoy.
So, what can be done for gays in America? The first steps have been taken. The election of Barack Obama as the 44th President and a Democratic majority in the House and Senate are the first steps. Obama is for civil unions and against both the Defense of Marriage Act and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, as is his Vice President, Joe Biden. At the same time, more and more states and courts are considering gay marriage anti-equality, and therefore unconstitutional. In the near future, we can hope that Americans begin to see facts that have been ignored and pushed aside. We can hope that Americans will also see that they have been inundated with falsehoods, as was the case with the “Vote Yes on Prop 8” advertisements which used scare tactics reliant on negative stereotypes and preyed upon the homophobia that is steeped in our cultural mindset. As these facts are brought to light amidst the recent election, we can hope that Americans will make a change for the better, as we fight our last fight for equality.
Works Cited
Beck, Alison. "Taking the Long View: Reflections on the Road to Marriage Equality." Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice 20 (May 2005): 50-55. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Ralph Brown Draughon Library, Auburn, AL. 23 Oct. 2008 .
Wolfson, Evan. "Case against Marriage Equality Implodes." Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide 10.6 (Nov. 2003): 25. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Ralph Brown Draughon Library, Auburn, AL. 23 Oct. 2008 .
Levi, Jennifer. "Toward a More Perfect Union: the Road to Marriage Equality for Same-Sex Couples." Widener Law Journal 13.3 (June 2004): 831-858. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Ralph Brown Draughon Library, Auburn, AL. 23 Oct. 2008 .
Kotulski, Davina. Why You Should Give a Damn about Gay Marriage. 1st ed. Los Angeles, CA: Alyson Publications, 2004.
D'Emilio, John. "The Marriage Fight Is Setting Us Back." Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide 13.6 (Nov. 2006): 10-11. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Ralph Brown Draughon Library, Auburn, AL. 27 Oct. 2008 .
Stewart-Winter, Timothy. "What Was Same-Sex Marriage?." 33-35. Gay & Lesbian Review, 2006. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Ralph Brown Draughon Library, Auburn, AL. 27 Oct. 2008 .
Morris, Bonnie J. "A Teacher Fears for Kids Over Freshly AmBushed Gay Rights." Education Digest 71.1 (Sep. 2005): 44-46. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Ralph Brown Draughon Library, Auburn, AL. 27 Oct. 2008 .
Hyde, Sue. "What Now for Marriage Equality?." 22-24. Gay & Lesbian Review, 2005. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Ralph Brown Draughon Library, Auburn, AL. 27 Oct. 2008 .
Burr, Chandler. The Only Question That Matters. Washington, D.C.: The Liberty Education Forum, 2005.
Wink, Walter. Homosexuality and the Bible. Matamoras, PA: Fellowship of Reconciliation, 2004.
"Questions about same-sex marriage." Human Rights Campaign Home. Human Rights Campaign. 5 Nov. 2008 .
Useem, Andrea. "Same-Sex Marriage in California: Legal and Political Prospects." The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. 28 Feb. 2007. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. 6 Dec. 2008 .
The Final Fight
The 2008 election has placed an earmark in the annals of American history, setting a milestone in people’s minds to be recalled and told to great-grandchildren in our later years. Many firsts were set in the course of one evening: the election of the first African-American President, the first all-Democratic majority national government in many years, and the unfortunate passing of the highly discriminatory Proposition 8 in California. Proposition 8 is a proposition to the voters of California to eliminate the right to marriage between same sex couples and to define marriage as between one man and one woman by state law. On election day, a marginal 52.3% of voters passed Prop 8. After only being legal for five months, gay marriage has been struck down…but why? The fight for marriage equality has been described as the last true fight for equality in America, and as a gay student, the fight burns inside me. Why can’t I marry whom I love? Why can I not share the same rights as all other Americans? These questions can truly make the blood boil in almost any gay American. With the amount of benefit to individuals and the state, the undeniable and fundamental right to equality, the unconstitutionality of a ban, and the lack of any true evidence of a negative impact to society or government, there is no logical reason to not allow gay marriage in the United States.
If same sex marriage is legalized nationally, there would be numerous benefits to every gay couple, even those unmarried. For unmarried couples, the legalization of same sex marriage legitimizes same sex relationships by allowing them to participate in social and cultural norms. For married same sex couples, Dr. Davina Kotulski cites that “[t]here are more than 1,049 federal rights that accompany civil marriage, and some additional 300 per state” (4). So many of these rights, protections and privileges for married couples can be easily taken for granted. Kotulski quotes fellow author E.J. Graff, who explains the power behind governmental marriage well, saying that “[m]arriage laws and rules weave a much more delicate and invisible web than most of us know. ‘Married’ is a shorthand taken seriously by banks, insurers, courts, employers, schools, hospitals, cemeteries, rental car companies, frequent flyer programs, and more.” (4) Without marriage, same sex widows and widowers get nothing when a partner dies. That means no inheritance, Social Security, tax breaks, decision making authority for their funeral, worker’s compensation, nothing. They do no benefit from legal protections for medical leave, from laws protecting spouses in the event of disability, from the privilege to ride in the ambulance with their partner, from the opportunity to be with their partner in the hospital when they die, or from the privilege to cohabitate with their partner in a retirement home. These protections are fundamental and devastating to the partners if unrewarded. This list goes on for civil marriage rights. However, these rights are given through the hands of the national government, and if gay rights are to be truly equal, recognition of these rights must be national.
Due to the Defense of Marriage Act, individual states have the ability to ignore same sex marriages from any state or country, despite the Full Faith and Credit clause of the United States Constitution. If an individual state legalizes same-sex marriages in their state, the partners will only receive the 300-odd benefits given by the state, but not any federal benefits, nor does any other state have to recognize their union. In other words, the second that a married same sex couple crosses a state line, they are legal strangers. The legalization of civil unions in a state will help even less. Before California’s legalization of same-sex marriage, their civil union for domestic partners only allowed 15 rights out of the 300 afforded to heterosexual couples, a mere 5% of the total rights, and, of course, none of the federal rights (Kotulski 14-15). Moreover, the idea of having a “domestic partner” or “reciprocal beneficiary” doesn’t contain any of the emotional connotation that comes with “husband” or “wife” or even “spouse.” We cannot forget the loving connotation that marriage gives.
Not only will the partners benefit from legal marriage, but America itself can benefit from same-sex marriages in many ways. First, legalizing same-sex marriage could save taxpayers and the government millions of dollars. The Human Rights Campaign says that “treating same-sex couples as families under law could even save taxpayers money because marriage would require them to assume legal responsibility for their joint living expenses and reduce their dependence on public assistance programs, such as Medicaid, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Supplemental Security Income disability payments and food stamps.” (HRC.org) Second, extending marital benefits to same sex couples could save the government millions of dollars per year. According to the HRC, “two studies conducted in 2003…found that extending domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples in California and New Jersey would save taxpayers millions of dollars a year.” (HRC.org) The study showed that California alone could save up to $10.6 million each year. Imagine if these rights were nationally recognized! Third, legalizing gay marriage can also improve relations with other countries. As of this writing, six countries allow full same-sex marriage, four countries recognize other countries’ same-sex marriages, and 18 countries have legal civil unions or registered partnerships. America joining these countries could not only benefit our relations with them, but influence other nations to join this growing number. With our country at the front of the world stage, an act such as legalizing same-sex marriages could influence the world into standing for equal rights. For those that believe that allowing same-sex marriages will hurt the country in some manner, I urge you to look for any negative effects gay marriage has caused Belgium, Canada, Spain, the Netherlands, or South Africa. They are neither in financial devastation nor a pit of moral slovenliness. Additionally, with the legalization of same sex marriage in America, married same sex couples from other countries may feel more comfortable knowing that their marriage will be recognized if they decide to visit the United States.
But what else do the opponents of same sex marriage argue? The anti-LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender) religious right has many arguments against same-sex marriage, beginning with the idea that the Bible condemns homosexuality and it should not be tolerated in any form. However, we must not forget that not only is the Bible not the Constitution or a book of law, but also the Bible’s anti-gay bias can easily be disputed as misinterpreted. The use of the word “abomination” in the Bible means “unnatural” or “against nature”. (Wink 3) Other authors even suggest that the word translated as “abomination” is closer to “taboo” in our modern language. Homosexuality was believed to be males acting unnaturally, as there was no notion of homosexual or heterosexual until relatively recently. Not only that, but at the time, the people misunderstood sexuality and reproduction. “With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the woman provided only the incubation space. Hence, the spilling of semen for any non-procreative purpose…was considered tantamount to abortion or murder.” (Wink 2). Thus, opponents who would use these Biblical passages to justify legislating “morality” base their position on their own ignorance of anthropology as well as a Bronze Age tribe’s ignorance of what we now consider elementary school biology.
Still, this country was founded with the principle of freedom, including freedom of religion, and the idea that religion should have no part in politics and politics should have no part in religion. The separation of church and state, although not directly written in the Constitution, is founded in the First Amendment, stating "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . .” No law can establish a national religion, favor any particular religion, or codify religious belief into law regardless of the religion’s popularity, majority, or supposed benefit to the country.
Many groups also claim that gays have a choice in their orientation. A commonly used argument is that “Gays already have equal rights. They can marry a person of the opposite sex like everyone else. They are asking for ‘extra rights’ for their choice.” Many say that the entire debate turns on the question of choice, but arguments like the above are ridiculous. These arguments are akin to claiming that left-handed tools and utensils are “special” and that lefties should just learn to use their right hand. The simple answer to the choice debate is “No, sexual orientation is not a choice for anyone.” Not only can I say that as a gay man, knowing full well I made no choice in the matter, just as heterosexuals made no decision to be straight, but so can Chandler Burr, who says “we’ve known the answer to this for years” (2). Studies upon studies from published scientific, peer reviewed literature have proven for a fact that, like handedness, sexual orientation is a “’stable bimorphism’…expressed behaviorally” (Burr 3). With all of this information, it is blatantly clear that no one is asking for “extra rights,” just equal ones.
Another argument is that gay couples should not marry because marriage could permit same sex couples to adopt children, and many argue that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt and raise children. A commonly accepted “fact” is that children need both a mother and father to have a proper and well balanced childhood. Once again, studies upon studies have shown that children grow up perfectly fine in healthy same-sex households, with no differences to those in a healthy heterosexual household. In fact, even gay rights opponent John Eastman concedes that the studies commonly cited to suggest opposite-sex couples make better parents than same-sex couples are misquoted. He says, “[t]he studies…that say children do better in heterosexual couples [composed of] their natural parents; that model doesn't work in any other context. It's not just stepmother and stepfather, it's not just adoptive parents, it's anytime there are anything other than the two natural parents.” (The Pew Forum) In other words, although the best option for children is their natural parents, after that there is no evidence suggesting that same-sex couples are inferior to any other caregivers.
A major argument is that marriage is a sacred institution; therefore, it must be kept sacred and traditional. Firstly, no one is asking for a religious marriage, which is a marriage officiated by a member of the clergy. This fight is for federally recognized marriage, so there is nothing about religion to it. Secondly, the purpose behind marriage is individual, so marriage is not necessarily sacred. Wolfson quotes Hawaii Judge Kevin Chang, who says that “[i]n Hawaii, and elsewhere, people marry for a variety of reasons, including: (1) having or raising children; (2) stability and commitment; (3) emotional closeness; (4) intimacy and monogamy; (5) the establishment of a framework for a long-term relationship; (6) personal significance; (7) legal and economic protections, benefits and obligations." I believe that to deny the existence of these social norms and to characterize marriage as universally sacred is to deny reality, which if ignored by choice squarely lands those with such a position in a land of fantasy.
In light of the preceding, the fight for equal marriage rights affects everybody. It is not just an issue that affects me as a gay American who would someday like to marry his boyfriend. Just as everyone knows someone who is left-handed, everyone knows someone who is gay. Even in small towns where everyone knows everyone else, there’s bound to be someone who is lesbian, gay, or bisexual. And that person is entitled to seek out a loving relationship without fear of scorn or violence, and that couple is entitled to marry and have a life together, sharing everything that opposite-sex married couples enjoy.
So, what can be done for gays in America? The first steps have been taken. The election of Barack Obama as the 44th President and a Democratic majority in the House and Senate are the first steps. Obama is for civil unions and against both the Defense of Marriage Act and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, as is his Vice President, Joe Biden. At the same time, more and more states and courts are considering gay marriage anti-equality, and therefore unconstitutional. In the near future, we can hope that Americans begin to see facts that have been ignored and pushed aside. We can hope that Americans will also see that they have been inundated with falsehoods, as was the case with the “Vote Yes on Prop 8” advertisements which used scare tactics reliant on negative stereotypes and preyed upon the homophobia that is steeped in our cultural mindset. As these facts are brought to light amidst the recent election, we can hope that Americans will make a change for the better, as we fight our last fight for equality.
Works Cited
Beck, Alison. "Taking the Long View: Reflections on the Road to Marriage Equality." Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice 20 (May 2005): 50-55. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Ralph Brown Draughon Library, Auburn, AL. 23 Oct. 2008 .
Wolfson, Evan. "Case against Marriage Equality Implodes." Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide 10.6 (Nov. 2003): 25. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Ralph Brown Draughon Library, Auburn, AL. 23 Oct. 2008 .
Levi, Jennifer. "Toward a More Perfect Union: the Road to Marriage Equality for Same-Sex Couples." Widener Law Journal 13.3 (June 2004): 831-858. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Ralph Brown Draughon Library, Auburn, AL. 23 Oct. 2008 .
Kotulski, Davina. Why You Should Give a Damn about Gay Marriage. 1st ed. Los Angeles, CA: Alyson Publications, 2004.
D'Emilio, John. "The Marriage Fight Is Setting Us Back." Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide 13.6 (Nov. 2006): 10-11. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Ralph Brown Draughon Library, Auburn, AL. 27 Oct. 2008 .
Stewart-Winter, Timothy. "What Was Same-Sex Marriage?." 33-35. Gay & Lesbian Review, 2006. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Ralph Brown Draughon Library, Auburn, AL. 27 Oct. 2008 .
Morris, Bonnie J. "A Teacher Fears for Kids Over Freshly AmBushed Gay Rights." Education Digest 71.1 (Sep. 2005): 44-46. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Ralph Brown Draughon Library, Auburn, AL. 27 Oct. 2008 .
Hyde, Sue. "What Now for Marriage Equality?." 22-24. Gay & Lesbian Review, 2005. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Ralph Brown Draughon Library, Auburn, AL. 27 Oct. 2008 .
Burr, Chandler. The Only Question That Matters. Washington, D.C.: The Liberty Education Forum, 2005.
Wink, Walter. Homosexuality and the Bible. Matamoras, PA: Fellowship of Reconciliation, 2004.
"Questions about same-sex marriage." Human Rights Campaign Home. Human Rights Campaign. 5 Nov. 2008 .
Useem, Andrea. "Same-Sex Marriage in California: Legal and Political Prospects." The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. 28 Feb. 2007. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. 6 Dec. 2008 .