In parliamentary unitary systems, such as those of the Netherlands, Spain , and the United Kingdom, for example, legislatures and the executives derived from them were instrumental in the success or failure of such laws. In other countries, particularly those with federal political systems and strong judiciaries, such as Canada , South Africa , and the United States , the courts played a vital role. For yet another group of polities, such as Switzerland and many U. In countries where consensus has yet to be reached on this issue, the debate is unlikely to be resolved quickly or easily. In some parts of the world, such as those plagued by war or natural disasters, same-sex marriage is simply not an urgent matter.
Same-Sex Marriage: Past, Present, and Future
"The Future Impact of Same-Sex Marriage: More Questions Than Answers" by Nan D. Hunter
Nan D. This essay explores further changes that may lie ahead as same-sex marriage debates increasingly affect both family law and the social meanings of marriage. Marriage as an institution has changed most dramatically because of the cumulative effects of the last half-century of de-gendering family law. Same-sex marriage—and perhaps even more so, the highly visible cultural debate over it—is contributing to this process. The author argues that the greatest potential for changes in social meaning will arise in three areas for which there is empirical evidence of significant differences between gay and straight couples: division of household labor, sexual exclusivity, and childrearing. In each, although recent data indicate some signs of converging behaviors between the two types of couples, major differences appear likely to continue.
The Past and Future of (Same-Sex) Marriage
In New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, is standing by his veto of a measure to allow gay couples to marry and is refusing to free Republican legislators to follow their conscience on an override vote. Christie is imposing a large ideological tax on thousands of couples and their families whose interests he is supposed to protect. He is depriving them of federal benefits, which their tax payments help underwrite.
With its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges , the U. Supreme Court took a step that seemed unimaginable two decades ago, when I started researching same-sex marriage. Many politicians, pundits and commentators have rightly hailed the Court's decision as both just and historic. Legal experts can parse the finer points of the majority opinion and the four separate dissents, but let's take this momentous occasion as an opportunity to reflect on where we have been on this issue, and what the future may hold.