Legal Risks for International Couples & their Families

 

This post is from Laura Allen Kawasaki 2L at Regent University School of Law:

International relationships are great—but they come with legal complexities. Here are a few important questions to think through for anyone in an international relationship:

1. Can you legally live in the same country?

It sounds simple, but immigration can be one of the biggest hurdles for international couples. For instance, immigrating to the United States can take anywhere from several months to several years depending on the visa type. If living together in the U.S. (or any other country) is part of your plan, it’s best to start preparing well in advance—gathering documentation, understanding timelines, and planning for possible delays.

2. Does your country allow dual citizenship?

Not every country allows dual citizenship. Some countries automatically revoke your citizenship if you become a citizen of another country. Before applying for a second passport—or for your child’s dual citizenship—it is ideal to confirm your country’s rules to avoid unintended consequences, such as the loss of your original nationality.

3. Will your children qualify for citizenship in both countries?

Children born abroad do not always entitled to citizenship. Many countries require registration within a certain time frame, and missing the deadline can mean your child loses the right to claim citizenship later. Understanding these timelines early can save a lot of paperwork down the road.

4. How do inheritance laws apply to your family?

Inheritance laws vary across borders. In the U.S., individuals can decide who inherits their property. In contrast, some countries enforce “forced succession,” which means certain relatives must receive a portion of the estate by law. Renouncing citizenship or failing to maintain your child’s citizenship could unintentionally affect their rights to inherit from relatives abroad.

5. Is your prospective spouse single?

This one may seem obvious, but it is worth checking. Not all countries have marriage records, and in some, polygamy is legal. Before getting married, confirm that your partner is legally and actually single in every country where they may have been married. Otherwise, your marriage could face serious legal complications down the line.

---

The bottom line: International couples face unique legal risks that non international couples will not encounter. A bit of research—and early legal guidance—can prevent years of stress and costly mistakes later on, and help keep families together.

 

Grounds for Annulment in Virginia and Rising Issues in Society

 

 This guest post is offered by Megan Smith, Regent Law Family Law student:

In Virginia, there are nine possible grounds for annulment. Under Virginia Code § 20-38.1, there are two grounds for annulment that make a marriage void as a matter of law—bigamy and incest. Whereas, under Virginia Code §20-89.1, there are seven grounds that make a marriage voidable. The first ground for a voidable marriage is fraud or duress; the second is mental incompetence; the third is physical impotence; the fourth is if the husband had a child with another woman within ten months of the marriage unbeknownst to the wife; the fifth is if the wife is pregnant with a child of another man at the time of the marriage unbeknownst to the husband; the sixth is if either party did not know at the time of the marriage that the other party had been convicted of a felony or had been a prostitute; and lastly, the seventh is when a marriage took place after July 1, 2016, and one of the party’s to the marriage was under the age of majority having not been emancipated.

 

If one’s marriage is void as a matter of law, the marriage was void from the beginning, and therefore, no annulment is necessary. However, if one’s marriage is voidable, receiving an annulment will require a judicial determination. Nonetheless, there are two limitations placed on individuals seeking to annul their marriage on voidable grounds. First, if an individual continues to cohabit after knowledge of information that gives rise to a ground for annulment, there is a presumption of condonation. Thus, cohabitation after knowledge bars an individual from seeking an annulment. Second, there is a two-year statute of limitation on seeking an annulment; therefore, parties who find that their marriage could have been annulled having been married for two or more years would have to proceed with a divorce rather than an annulment.

 

Nonetheless, despite the limitations on voidable marriages, there is no statute of limitations nor defense in the Virginia Code for void marriages due to bigamy or incest. Coincidentally, both bigamy and incest likewise constitute a crime in Virginia and can be punishable as such.

 

At first glance, society at large, or at least the Christian community, would not contend that bigamous or incestuous marriages should be valid under the law. However, both categories of void marriages present their own set of possible issues that could lead individuals to second guess whether such marriages should truly be void or at least punishable under the law.

 

Bigamy: Is it a Crime or a Constitutional Right?

 

          First, turning to bigamous marriages, it begs the question of whether individuals have a fundamental right to such marriages. The Supreme Court has never held that individuals have said right; however, it has decided a slew of cases extending the protection of marriage under the Constitution. For example, in Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court held that there was a fundamental right to marital privacy, and therefore, married couples should have access to contraceptives. 381 U.S. 479 (1965). In Eisenstadt v. Baird, the Supreme Court extended this protection and held that married and unmarried couples should have access to contraceptives. 405 U.S. 438 (1972). Furthermore, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court extended the right to privacy to protect individuals who wanted to engage in sodomy. 539 U.S. 558 (2003). Lastly, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court again extended the right to marriage by holding that there was a fundamental right to same-sex marriage. 576 U.S. 644 (2015). 

 

Therefore, with the Court relying on substantive due process to extend fundamental rights of marriage and the privacy of the individual, it is not too far-fetched to think that the Court could potentially find that there is a fundamental right to bigamous marriages. In fact, bigamous marriages could present a stronger constitutional case than that of same-sex marriage.

 

In Obergefell, the Court relied on substantive due process and the idea that there was a fundamental right to same-sex marriage, casting aside its test of deeply rooted in the nation’s history and implicit in ordered liberty in reaching its decision. Nonetheless, those who wish to engage in bigamy or polygamy often wish to do so for religious purposes. Thus, the Court could potentially find that bigamous marriages are constitutional not only using the concept of substantive due process but also under the Free Exercise Clause. However, it is important to note that the Court has historically been unwilling to do so. See Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879). 

 

Therefore, should bigamous marriages be found void, and should individuals be punished under the law for engaging in such? If looking at such marriages from a Christian perspective, finding bigamous marriages void seems to be a no-brainer, as God created marriage to be between one man and one woman. However, the answer becomes less clear when considering such marriages from a constitutional perspective.

 

ART and Accidental Incest

 

          Incestuous marriages are likely where most individuals can find common ground that such marriages should not only be invalid but likewise punishable under the law. However, incestuous marriages have the potential to create their own set of unique challenges, especially in a world with Assisted Reproductive Technology (or “ART”).

 

According to The Atlantic, an estimated 30,000 to 60,000 children are conceived by way of a sperm donor each year. Sarah Zhang, The Children of Sperm Donors Want to Change the Rules of Conception, The Atlantic (Oct. 15, 2021). However, this number could be significantly higher due to the lack of adequate recordkeeping in the fertility industry. Additionally, in the United States, there are no limits set forth on how many children a sperm donor can father, thereby creating a situation where hundreds of children could be conceived using the same donor. With the increasing number of children being conceived using a sperm donor coupled with the lack of regulation in the fertility industry, there is an increasing chance of accidental incest. In fact, a quick Google search of “accidental incest due to sperm donor” results in dozens of horror stories of individuals engaging in incestuous relationships unknowingly due to their mother’s use of the same sperm donor.

 

Therefore, while it is hard to dispute the benefits of ART, such use can likewise create difficult, gut-wrenching situations. For example, in an extreme situation, a married couple could potentially discover that they are related, their marriage is void as a matter of law, they could be facing criminal charges, they have unknowingly been living in sin, and if they were to have children, their children could potentially face health issues due to inbreeding all in one fatal swoop. Furthermore, these potential consequences would not even begin to address the trauma that would reveal itself following such discoveries.

 

Thus, such possibilities beg the question of whether the burden should be placed on the individual to discover the possibility of incest before engaging in a romantic relationship or if the fertility industry should bear the burden and be held accountable for their failure to properly regulate the field of ART and place limits on sperm donors?

 

Grounds for annulment in Virginia raise questions that affect families, and individuals, particularly those who may not even be aware that they are creating such situations that qualify as and result in a void marriage.

“Respect for Marriage Act” - What Does it Mean?

 

The United States Congress is considering a bill which would define and expand marriage in many ways not contemplated by the average American.  The Respect for Marriage Act has already been passed by the House of Representatives.

While this bill sounds honorable and inclusive, it works to redefine marriage in federal law in a manner which opens the door to recognize polygamy and polyamory.  The bill assaults family and culture by failing to recognize that children benefit most from having a mother and a father. Furthermore, this bill offers no religious freedom protections for people of faith who understand the biblical position for how God defined marriage, as between one man and one woman for a lifetime. 

To learn more about the importance of marriage for children and for society you may wish to download and read:

Rethinking Mom and Dad, 42 Capital U. L. Rev. (2014).

Marriage, State Domestic Relations Power, and Family Strength, Virginia Lawyer (Feb. 2014), also available at http://www.vsb.org/docs/valawyermagazine/vl0214-marriage.pdf.

Lynne Marie Kohm and Ashley Michelle Williams, The Tragic Tapestry of Father Absence and National Strength, 13 Liberty U. L. Rev. 1 (2018).

Lynne Marie Kohm and Sandra Alcaide, Obergefell: A Game-Changer for Women, 14 Ave Maria L. Rev. 101 (2016).

Family restoration thrives in the context of support for strong marriages, healthy children, and strong families.

Polygamy: Utah’s Best Kept Secret?

 

This guest post is from Morgan Ewing, Regent Law 2L and current Family Law student:

In May 2020, the Utah legislature passed an act that downgraded bigamy and polygamy laws from felonies to infractions punishable by fine only. The Associated Press reports that nearly 30,000 Utahns currently practice polygamy, many of whom are gathered into commune-esque fundamentalist groups whose culture condones a laundry list of crimes such as underage marriage, tax fraud, and child labor.

 

Unfortunately, Utah prosecutors have established an unspoken policy of tolerance towards polygamy and the attendant crimes that may be even more harmful than polygamy itself. Considering the complicated dependent relationship between Utah’s legislature, the LDS Church, and prosecutors’ offices, things get sticky when it comes to Utah bigamy and polygamy statutes and, more consequentially, the enforcement of those statutes.

 

But there is hope despite these facts: The Act creates safe havens for members of fundamentalist groups who are afraid to leave for fear of retribution, excommunication, or felony prosecution.  While group members are taught that the police are evil and are trying to persecute their religion, under this new bill "apostates" (as they're called by the groups) who leave can seek help and start new lives with the assistance of organizations like Holding Out Hope. Escapees could even cooperate with police to help enforce the attending violations of laws within the groups. This is exciting!

 

However, if Utah prosecutor's offices continue in their policy of non-prosecution of the attendant crimes in these groups, we can't expect any substantive change. This could be a great chance to do justice. Although we can encourage prosecutors to start addressing this issue, it cannot be overlooked that Utah prosecutors are unofficially responsible to the Utah legislature who, in turn, tends to be loyal to the LDS Church. Prosecutors undoubtedly recognize the potential for huge doctrinal issues within the Church if they publicly condemn polygamy. Even though the Church formally denounced polygamy in the 19th Century, the LDS Church still espouses that once man dies and enters his own heaven, he will practice polygamy. If Utah legislators and prosecutors focus on prosecuting crimes within fundamentalist polygamist communities, they would unavoidably shed light on this tenant of the LDS faith that the main stream LDS leaders prefer to keep hidden. After all, the reality of the LDS Church’s view of polygamy is Utah’s best kept secret, even from its own members.

 

A family restoration approach, of course, encourages those who are vulnerable and abused by any church to seek legal remedy and restoration with healthy family values.

Women’s Rights Challenges in Europe

 

Women’s rights have been an important subject for a century, and this month is Women’s History month in America.  Christianity has had a major influence over gender equality.  See my work on this at A Christian Perspective on Gender Equality, 15 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol’y 339 (2008).

While women have seen greater legal and social equality over the past 100 years, women’s rights around the globe continues to be a struggle.  A new book approaches the subject of growing sexual violence against women in Europe with links to migrant young men.  Prey: Immigration, Islam, and the Erosion of Women's Rights, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, discusses these concerns.

In Prey, the best-selling author of Infidel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, presents startling statistics, criminal cases and personal testimony.  Among these facts: In 2014, sexual violence in Western Europe surged following a period of stability. In 2018 Germany, “offences against sexual self-determination” rose 36 percent from their 2014 rate; nearly two-fifths of the suspects were non-German. In Austria in 2017, asylum-seekers were suspects in 11 percent of all reported rapes and sexual harassment cases, despite making up less than 1 percent of the total population. 

This violence is not a figment of propaganda, Hirsi Ali insists. It is a real problem that Europe—and the world—cannot continue to ignore. She explains why so many young Muslim men who arrive in Europe engage in sexual harassment and violence, tracing the roots of sexual violence in the Muslim world from institutionalized polygamy to the lack of legal and religious protections for women. 

A refugee herself, Hirsi Ali is not against immigration. As a child in Somalia, she suffered female genital mutilation; as a young girl in Saudi Arabia, she was made to feel acutely aware of her own vulnerability. Immigration, she argues, requires integration and assimilation. She wants Europeans to reform their broken system—and for Americans to learn from European mistakes. Deeply researched and featuring fresh and often shocking revelations, Prey uncovers a sexual assault and harassment crisis in Europe that is turning the clock on women’s rights much further back than the #MeToo movement is advancing it.

Family restoration calls for women to be protected from sexual violence and to be continually empowered with equality of law, dignity, and value.

Progressive Polygamy is not Family Restoration

This guest blog post is from 2L Sandra Stanzione, current Family Law student:

In 2010, TLC premiered the television show, Sister Wives featuring the “progressively polygamist” Brown family made up of Kody, his legal wife, three “spiritual wives,” and their total of 17 children. Throughout the series, the show has demonstrated the relationship dynamics and struggles each of the women and their children face sharing Kody’s time and attention with one another. Despite the difficulties, the Browns stand behind their decision to live as a polygamous family and, in 2012, filed suit challenging Utah’s anti-bigamy law.

Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-101 prevents a married person from simultaneously marrying or cohabitating with another person. The statute indicates bigamy in Utah is a felony of the third degree and the only legal defense to this crime occurs if “the accused reasonably believed he and the other person were legally eligible to marry.” However, Utah has a policy of not typically prosecuting violations of this law.

The day after the show aired, the Browns’ local police department announced an investigation of the family for bigamy due to the flood of incoming phone calls inquiring what the department planned to do about this situation. The family subsequently relocated to Nevada to avoid prosecution. In 2016, Kody and the sister wives tried to convince courts to overturn the Utah anti-bigamy statute, claiming it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. However, their case was rendered moot because of their relocation to a state where they are now under no threat of prosecution.

The Browns petitioned for a writ of certiorari, but on Monday, January 23, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States denied the petitioners’ request for the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to hear their case again. See http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/supreme-court-denies-sister-wives-polygamy-case-petition-article-1.2953337 for more information.

While marriage is a fundamental right, to be married to more than one person, even if they all agree, is not constitutionally protected.

(To learn more download How Will the Proliferation and Recognition of Domestic Partnerships Affect Marriage? 4 J. Fam. Stud. 105 (2002).)

Marriage: Who defines the word?

This insightful guest post is from Kathleen Knudsen, Regent 3L and Family Law student:

 

 

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”

—    Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

Recognized by philosophers and peasants alike, for millennia the word “marriage” meant something specific: the scared, physical, and legal union of a man and woman into a new family unit. In 1888, the United States Supreme Court, explained that marriage “is an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 211 (1888).  To protect this interest, the Court then explained that marriage is “something more than a mere contract,” because, once the marital relationship is formed, “the law steps in and holds the parties to various obligations and liabilities.”  Id. 

 

Because this relationship carries special privileges and responsibilities, for centuries laws across all fifty states have imposed fairly consistent substantive requirements.  Traditionally, these requirements are dual gender parties, within the age of consent, monogamy, and an exclusion of marriages within a certain degree of blood or affinity.  Within a limited degree of variability, these requirements cross jurisdictional boundaries and have been inherent in some fashion in the definition of marriage for centuries.

 

Yet, two weeks ago, five people redefined the millennia-old word “marriage” for a nation of nearly 320 million individuals.  Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, ruled that marriage no longer required two genders, striking down a key substantive marriage requirement. The Court attempts a dance of legal finesse by striking down one substantive requirement (dual gender) upon the justification of another substantive requirement (monogamy). The Court declared that “the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals.” Unfortunately, a decision rationalized by a need for “equality,” “importance to the committed individuals,” “dignity,” “individual autonomy,” and the ability to provide individuals the opportunity to “find other freedoms,” among other similar reasons, provides little assurance that the remaining substantive marriage requirements have any more security than dominos at the end of a chain in which the first has already fallen.

 

In a live chat on the Washington Post website following the Obergefell decision, columnist Steven Petrow took questions about the decision and LGBT issues. One person asked, “What about the limit of marriage being between just two people. The claims could equally be made that marriage could be between three men, two men and a woman, one man and dozens of women. Will this end here or expand the definition of marriage?” Mr. Petrow’s response was insightful: “This is part of the fear-mongering and backlash to the marriage equality movement.” He went on to explain that there are already subtle differences among states regarding substantive marriage requirements. Unfortunately, he failed to mention that despite those subtle differences, the broad categorical requirements remain basically the same. And, the “fear-mongering” might just be more legitimate concerns than Mr. Petrow is willing to acknowledge.

 

With the dual gender requirement of marriage being repudiated in some Western nations around the world, individuals are now challenging the requirements of monogamy and relationship degree.  A government ethics committee in Germany announced last fall that incest laws “were an unacceptable intrusion into the right to sexual self-determination,” while a court in New York state held that a marriage between an half-uncle and niece was legal. In Montana, Nathan Collier and his “wives” Victoria and Christine applied for a marriage license in an attempt to legitimize their polygamous relationship. Nathan said that he was “inspired by . . . [the] decision legalizing gay marriage to apply for a marriage license so that he can legally wed his second wife.” His argument? His second wife deserves “legitimacy,” just like Mr. Obergefell’s partner did. According to the Court’s definition of marriage based on its “importance to the committed individuals,” it’s tough to explain how Mr. Collier’s justification is any different from Mr. Obergefell’s.

 

The German Ethics Council, in recommending that incest be made legal, said in a statement: “The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination is to be weighed more heavily than the abstract idea of protection of the family.” (Emphasis added).  Today, protection of the family is becoming an abstract idea because the concept of the family itself is becoming abstract. Once we cease to be able to define marriage or the family unit, protecting it becomes far less important, and infinitely less achievable.

 

Who defines words? Right now, it appears that five unelected Justices of the Supreme Court can define words to mean whatever they want. As Humpty Dumpty said, “The question is which is to be master — that’s all.” Unfortunately, we all must live with the consequences of those definitions, which might very soon mean the legalization of polygamy and incest.

Marriage Extended to Polygamy by Federal Judge

A federal judge gave Kody Brown and his four wives a legal victory on August 28, 2014 when the court finalized the order striking part of Utah's bigamy law as unconstitutional. 

The Washington Post reported:

"The long legal battle over polygamy in Utah now appears headed to the appeals courts. Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes has said he would appeal the federal court ruling that found the law against polygamy was unconstitutional. [The television reality series] "Sister Wives" chronicles the lives of Kody, Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn Brown and their children. Utah County authorities began their investigation of the polygamous family after their show debuted."

Read that entire article as it places the polygamy issue in context. 

 

After the Supreme Court of the United States last summer expanded marriage to include state regulatory schemes that recognize same-sex marriage, recognition of polygamous marriage was an easy next step for the federal judge.  (Read more about the Windsor decision at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2462093.)   Indeed, when marriage is altered by eliminating one major entry point of gender difference, it is not difficult to use the same legal rationale to eliminate the monogamy requirement.  By process of deduction, this reasoning could be used toward the elimination of minimum age requirements or unrelated by blood or affinity requirements for marriage as well.  The latter has not been done yet, but the Sister Wives case provides fertile ground to move in that direction.

The proliferation of marriage-like partnerships will accomplish the dilution and weakening of marriage, as detailed in my article on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) which can be read and downloaded for free at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=269418.

Expanding marriage does not bring strength and restoration to marriage, but rather works to diminish its foundational position in society.  The common good is thereby weakened in exchange for broadening individual rights. 

Family Restoration and the Significance of Marriage

In our efforts to communicate the significance of marriage to family restoration we have made a number of posts here at FamilyRestoration detailing arguments surrounding the current marriage debate. '

Here we link for you a clear and concise booklet that you can print, send, or share in efforts to equip and educate people in the area of marriage. Drafted by collaborative efforts between Alliance Defending Freedom, Family Research Council, National Organization for Marriage, and The Heritage Foundation, it is a clear, concise, and effective tool in understanding marriage and the future of the family.

There is a strong cultural contingent in the legal community that will hasten the legalization of polygamy in the wake of marriage equality. You can read about that strategy here as "marriage equality for all," at this link. For a response to the legalization of same sex marriage and how it relates to legalization of multiple marriage partners see the insightful and informative article at this link.

Furthermore, the Anglican Church of England has issued now in April 2013 a definitive statement on the positive value of marriage in the Christian ethic. The document from the Faith and Order Commission can be found at this link.

Finally, there are some important things you and your family can do on your own to protect and strengthen marriage, available at this link. They include:

1. Hold tight to the truths of the Scriptures. Do not grow weary.
2. Honor a biblical understanding of marriage by remaining faithful to your respective spouse.
3. Continue raising your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
4. Share the Good News of the Gospel with all people. Be winsome but be bold.

Family restoration for American culture is dependent on a solid legal foundation for marriage between one man and one woman that will protect the best interests of children.

Voting on Marriage in 2012 toward Family Restoration

Maryland, Minnesota, Maine, and Washington State will all vote on marriage on November 6th. Each state has a different approach to addressing marriage expansion or marriage protection, and understanding these various marriage amendments can be confusing. In this post we'd like to remove some of that confusion.

Previously this blog has informed our readers on this issue after I was asked to write a JURIST.com post on the matter. You can read that post at http://regentfamilyrestoration.blogspot.com/2012/09/marriage-and-election-2012.html, and you can access the JURIST.com piece at http://jurist.org/forum/2012/06/lynne-kohm-marriage-referendum.php. We've also discussed the implications here for voters concerned about racial fairness and marriage, and you can read that post at http://regentfamilyrestoration.blogspot.com/search?q=African+american+voters.

With these votes on marriage in four particular states fast approaching, we've tried to give you a quick glimpse below. Some important definitions include:

"Marriage": that legal lifetime union between one man and one woman unrelated and of suitable age.

"Marriage expansion": that union of two men or two women that may be known as same sex marriage, or a civil union, or a domestic partnership, with the objective of expanding marriage as it is commonly known to include partners of the same gender.  Marriage expansion often includes other ways than gender similarity to expand marriage (i.e. by eliminating minimum age, or increasing the number of partners, or the elimination of affinity or consanguinity norms), but in the November 2012 election the term generally means expansion of marriage to include same sex couples.  Marriage expansion in one area opens the door to expansion in these other areas, as currently evidenced in other nations. For a good discussion on how polygamy is the new frontier for marriage expansion see http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/polygamy-may-be-hot-but-in-marriage-threes-still-a-crowd/2012/10/05/daf41284-0e39-11e2-a310-2363842b7057_story.html?hpid=z5. This blog has featured similar warnings; see our post on this about the US and Canada at  http://regentfamilyrestoration.blogspot.com/search?q=polygamy.

and regarding Brazil at http://regentfamilyrestoration.blogspot.com/search?q=Thruple.

Here's a quick summary for voters in each state:

Maryland – The pro-marriage campaign asks you to vote "AGAINST" Question 6. The marriage expansion campaign asks you to vote "FOR" Question 6. Some resources for Christian voters can be found at http://www.marylandmarriagealliance.org/church-resources/

Minnesota – The pro-marriage campaign asks you to vote "YES" for the marriage amendment. The marriage expansion campaign asks you to vote "NO," against the amendment. Resources for faith-based voters can be found at http://www.mnpastorsformarriage.com/.

Maine – The pro-marriage campaign asks you to vote "NO" on Question 1. Marriage expansionists ask that you vote "YES" on Question 1. Christian resources can be found at http://protectmarriagemaine.com/church-tools/.

Washington – The pro-marriage campaign asks you to "REJECT" R-74. The marriage expansion campaign asks you to "ACCEPT" R-74. Resources for Christian voters are available at http://www.preservemarriagewashington.com/churchresources.php.

Any voter's Marriage Amendment position will reflect his or her position not only on marriage's definition, but on what that voter hopes marriage will look like in another generation, and on that voter's hopes for family restoration. Marriage expansion hinders family restoration because it dilutes the meaning and substance of marriage. To read more about this phenomenon specifically, see m

y scholarship on how marriage is altered by the proliferation of domestic partnerships on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=269418.  To read more about accuracy and fairness in discussing marriage and homosexuality see my article on this at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=317699.  

This November be an informed voter can assist you in wisely voting your values on marriage looking toward stronger marriages and stronger families on the road to societal family restoration.  

Supreme Court Cases on Marriage Expansion set for October

The Supreme Court of the United States could potentially hear several cases on expanding marriage this fall by eliminating one of the requirements for marriage entry.  These cases could quickly and easily have ramifications for your state law on marriage.

A federal judge has refused to dismiss a Utah lawsuit (Brown v. Herbert) that claims that polygamy is a guaranteed privacy right under the U.S. Constitution. The most recent court order did not address the merits of the constitutional arguments involved in the claim, but only the technical issue of standing, which boils down to whether the challenger has really been injured, in a constitutional sense, sufficient to invoke the authority of the courts to get involved in the dispute.  This polygamy case will now proceed to a trial or some other kind of decision on the merits of the case, but against the backdrop of several marriage-related cases that have already been appealed to (but not yet been accepted by) the Supreme Court. The upcoming term, starting on the first Monday in October, has the potential to be a marriage blockbuster.

The High Court is deciding now whether to accept for full hearing and review any of the following cases:
- Hollingsworth v. Perry  (the California Marriage Amendment, also known as Prop 8);
- Federal Defense of Marriage Act appeals from the 1st, 2nd and 9th Circuits;
- Arizona state employee domestic partner benefit case entitled Brewer v. Diaz. Read the entire piece from CitizenLink at http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/08/21/polygamy-waiting-in-the-wings-while-supreme-court-addresses-the-definition-of-marriage/.

Some pundits strongly suggest that the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas could control the outcomes of any marriage cases.  A handful of court decisions by lower federal courts that have sought to expand marriage have done so on an argument for same-sex marriage using Lawrence rationale for justification. Lawrence  threw out a Texas criminal sodomy statute as an unconstitutional violation of the right of privacy, the same "right" that was also used in 1973 in Roe v. Wade to constitutionalize abortion. That same rationale could be used to expand marriage to include more than one partner, to eliminate age requirements, or to eliminate incest prohibitions.

Each case the High Court takes is always significant, but the marriage cases that could potentially come before the Supreme Court  of the United States this fall has the potential to alter the marriage policy of every state, particularly if the federal DOMA is overturned, as without DOMA the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution requires that every state must give credence to the acts, records and rules of every other state.  Furthermore, a federal ruling on marriage definition and expansion would, by supremacy, become the law of the entire nation, regardless of state domestic relations law.

Family restoration relies on a firm marriage foundation for state family law, and now, on federal intervention into state marriage law that protects marriage and those who enter into it, or leaves the matter to the individual states.

Marriage Votes Globally This Week Could Begin Family Restoration

While New York legislators consider the implications of marriage definition alteration, in Paris, France yesterday marriage was supported by a solid majority vote.

LifeSiteNews.com - French legislators rejected a bill to legalize "homosexual marriage" today in a decisive vote by the National Assembly, the nation's lower legislative house. Assembly representatives voted against the bill, proposed by socialists, by a majority of 293 to 222. The vote follows a ruling in January by the nation's highest court, the Constitutional Council, stating that homosexual "marriage" is not a constitutional right.

Although a recent and much-cited poll found that a majority of French voters, 58 percent, favor the creation of homosexual "marriage," Michel Difenbacher of the majority Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) party said he thought it not necessary "to go with the wind nor to cede to fashion" with regard to the issue. "We are against homophobia but we do not want to alter the image and function of marriage" within society, Difenbacher said.  Christian Vanneste and Brigette Bareges, also of the UMP, were more blunt in their negative assessment of the proposed measure.  Vanneste called such unions an "anthropological aberration," while Bareges asked: "why not marriage with animals, or polygamy?"  Read the entire article at Google News at: PARIS, June 14, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - French legislators rejected a bill to legalize, or at http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/french-national-assembly-rejects-homosexual-marriage-in-historic-vote?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=420d17c5c2-LifeSiteNews_com_Intl_Full_Text_06_14_2011&utm_medium=email.

France is the human rights center of Europe, and apparently understands the implications of altering or expanding marriage, and its foundation for strong families and their restoration.

In New York, amidst the Rep. Anthony Weiner sexual scandal and religious concerns that people of faith will be coerced into supporting same sex unions, a marriage vote has been pending for almost a week. New Yorkers who understand marriage may wish to contact their Senator to express their opinions on such a vote.

Stephen Saland	(518) 455-2411
Andrew Lanza	(518) 455-3215
Mark Grisanti	(518) 455-3240
Greg Ball	(518) 455-3111
John Flanagan	(518) 455-2071
Joseph Addabbo	(518) 455-2322
Shirley Huntley	(518) 455-3531

The outcome in the New York Senate will have ramifications all across the nation.  New Yorkers may wish to vote on the matter themselves, like 38 states have already done, rather than leave it to 62 senators to define marriage for them.  The National Organization for Marriage (http://www.nom.org/) has set up email access as well—and you may click here to send your message by email!

Marriage is the global foundation for families, and their restoration depends on it.  This week 62 senators under intense pressure from donors, activists and lobbyists, are determining marriage, rather than support a referendum that would give the people of New York the right to vote on marriage.

Last week David Tyree of the 2009 New York Giants (who made history with his near miraculous catch with a minute to go in Super Bowl XLII that set up the NY Giant's victory against the undefeated New England Patriots) took a courageous stand for marriage, standing with pastors from across the state on the steps of the Capitol in Albany and declaring: "I believe in marriage as God originally intended, between one man and one woman."

Marriage votes could begin family restoration, or move a society closer to the deconstruction of families.

How DOMA and Prop 8 Could Impact You and Your Family

The U.S. Department of Justice unilaterally decided that it will no longer be defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the lawsuits currently pending against it. While some in Congress are stepping in to defend DOMA legally, others in Congress have already introduced legislation to repeal it: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1116ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr1116ih.pdf.  You may want to be informed about the implications of this for your family. 

Likewise, the California marriage case surrounding the constitutionality of Proposition 8 also presents serious consequences to American families in all the 50 states, as it could redefine marriage for the entire nation.  Currently, the Ninth Circuit has maintained that same sex weddings shall not be recognized during the pending appeal of Proposition 8 (see http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/23/BA9G1II16S.DTL&tsp=1).  This latest decision allows the appeal to move forward in a constitutional manner, enforcing the court's original injunction on new same sex marriages in California.  To read more on this decision, click here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2011/03/23/10-16696_order.pdf.  Links to all the judicial proceedings on Proposition 8 can be accessed at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000513. 

There are many implications that bear consideration in federal expansion of marriage.  For example, some suggest that same sex marriages could lead to an increase in polygamy, according to this Washington Times article:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/20/same-sex-marriages-give-polygamy-a-legal-boost/#.  Others might affect you and your family more directly.

You, your children and your family could experience unintended consequences if marriage is redefined in our country on a federal level, either by a denial of Proposition 8, or a denial of DOMA.  These consequences, however, are not often readily apparent, as the experience in Massachusetts demonstrates: Shortly after same-sex marriage was mandated in Massachusetts by that state's highest court, a few parents realized their children were being taught that same-sex unions were normal, natural and the moral equivalent of marriage between a man and a woman. These parents attempted to opt their children out of these public school lessons, but were ultimately unsuccessful in a court of law. Two federal courts in Massachusetts, including the appeals court just below the U.S. Supreme Court, determined that because same-sex marriage was legally recognized in Massachusetts, parents no longer had the right to determine whether or what their children would be taught about these relationships. 

Marriage became a social issue in the classroom.  DOMA defines marriage in all federal laws as the union of a man and a woman, and protects the ability of states to not recognize same-sex marriages from other states.  Given what happened in Massachusetts, it is imperative that DOMA be defended well.  It is also imperative that states like California can continue to determine their own marriage policy, as it attempted to do with the passage of Prop. 8.

Social commentators are writing about the importance of marriage in new ways, as in this article on "Why Monogamy Matters" at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/opinion/07douthat.html?src=me&ref=homepage, detailing the results of marriage expansion in future societal decline.  Monogamous marriage between a man and a woman is critical to any society's future.

And those who choose to marry and become parents have a constitutionally protected fundamental right to protect and direct the upbringing of their children.  DOMA and Proposition 8 protect that right, but it hangs in the balance as courts continue to consider the constitutionality of each, even though state elected defenders and federal Department of Justice attorneys refuse to protect these state and federal laws. 

"Big Love" Has Big Consequences that Hinder Family Restoration

Read this insightful piece from Guest Blogger Justin Coretti, current Family Law student, Regent 2012, on his perpective on pop-culture and family breakdown, particularly as it relates to requirements for marriage entry:

Just when you thought television couldn't get any worse with shows such as "$#*! My Dad Says" (the title says it all), "Weeds" (promotes habitual drug use among minors and adults alike), and "A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila" (a bisexual's quest for "love"), network television decides to throw in another attempt to alter the worldviews of their audience. HBO's "Big Love" is a fictional show concerning a polygamist family in Utah; it has had four successful seasons and was just renewed for a fifth season. Similarly, TLC is ready to air a reality show called "Sister Wives" which follows the lifestyle of a polygamist family with 1 husband, 3 wives, and numerous children. Although polygamy is currently illegal in the United States, there is a startling trend moving toward the acceptance of this adulterous form of marriage in both the United States and Canada. Polygamy refers to a marriage in which there is more than one spouse; more specifically, polygyny involves one man with multiple wives while polyandry involves one woman with multiple husbands.

On November 22, a Canadian court will be determining the constitutionality of Canada's anti-polygamy law. The Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association (CPAA) filed affidavits on behalf of numerous polyamory families whose familial practices have previously been called into question by the authorities. The anti-polygamy law forbids any conjugal union between multiple partners. This court case could have a drastic effect on marriage - not only in Canada, but in the rest of the world as well. If the court determines that the polygamy law is unconstitutional, marriage itself will be redefined. No longer will marriage be between one man and one woman, but it could potentially be between one man and two, three, or even ten women as in one of the cases. Marriage could even be defined as being between multiple men, women, or the transgendered as homosexual marriage is currently legal in Canada.

Polygamist marriages and relationships have varying effects on the family; the varying degrees often depend on the reason for the polygamist marriage, whether it be for religious purposes or because the consenting adults simply wish to fulfill their selfish desires. Child neglect can be a problem in polygamist relationships. The father figure has numerous wives which often results in numerous children; consequently, the father does not have the time required to have a personal relationship with each of his children. Furthermore, jealousy can, and does, arise between the multiple wives of one man - in spite of the fact that television portrayals of these families tend not to depict this, or depict it only as one of many subplots to retain the interest of the viewer. In reality, jealousy amongst the wives leads to the "sub-families" competing for the attention of the husband.

Polygamist marriages have been around since Biblical times - and were not pleasing to God then - long before modern technology made our culture aware of the dangers of multiple sexual partners. Completely ignoring potentially dangerous health risks and dysfunctional families, polygamists wish to oblige their view that a marriage with multiple partners is perfectly acceptable and legitimate. Forget the facts that the civilized world outlawed polygamy centuries ago and that any practicing polygamists in the United States are doing so illegally, a polygamist wants society to believe that his or her marriage to multiple persons is a genuine display of affection and love. In all fairness, marriage to multiple persons is a genuine display of emotion - mostly lust. The legalization of polygamous marriage is just another stepping stone in our culture to the complete de-humanization of the notion of marriage - a step that our society should take all precautions to avoid.

Same Sex Marriage as a Constitutional Nullity in Texas

The Texas Court of Appeals ruled that it cannot divorce a same sex couple. The laws of Texas cannot recognize an out of state same sex marriage for purposes of divorce litigation, or any other matter, as guaranteed by that state’s constitution.

The case, In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B., illustrates the legal nullity of marriages created without meeting minimum elements for entry into marriage. The parties in this case are similarly situated as the parties in a marriage of a minor and an adult, or someone who is already married, or marrying a close relation. Each of these concerns are called defects in the law of marriage entry, and are set forth in state code to establish minimum requirements for entry into marriage to protect otherwise vulnerable parties. Parties must be of suitable age, unrelated, of opposite sexes and not already married to any other. Though some commentators point out the problem and its harsh consequences for many affected couples, (see, e.g. Joanna L. Grossman’s piece in find law entitled “No Gay Divorcees in Texas: An Appellate Court Refuses to Dissolve a Same-Sex Marriage,” Sept. 13, 2010, they misrepresent the legal rationale of these decisions.

A similar ruling was issued in Rhode Island in 2007 in the case of Chambers v. Ormiston. There the Rhode Island Supreme Court was faced with a question of same sex divorce, but in Rhode Island, unlike in Texas, there is no express constitutional requirement on marriage entry regarding differing genders. Rhode Island ruled that because it cannot recognize a same sex marriage, it cannot bring about a same sex divorce.
These cases illustrate the law of annulment, which is appropriate when the particular marriage is a legal impossibility. Another example would be bigamy, or polygamy – a marital entry requirement that expressly states a party can only be married to one person at a time. When one party is married already, the second marriage is bigamous, and therefore void.

Much like the same sex cases in Texas and Rhode Island, this minimum requirement is being tested in Canada right now. Initiated by the British Columbia Attorney General under a special provision of that Province's law, the case arises in the wake of failed prosecutions of polygamous sect members in British Columbia. This case is made all the easier to litigate because Canada has broken down their requirements for marriage entry already by recognizing same sex marriage; recognizing polygamy is the next step in the process of further marital breakdown in the nation. Rather than restoring families, marriage deconstruction weakens families.

When minimum requirements for entry into marriage are deconstructed, marriage is deconstructed, and families are weakened by the altered meaning and changed responsibility. Though some may suggest, as does the new movie, The Kids will be Fine, children are not fine when the family definitions and responsibilities are broken and confused; rather, as they are in the movie, kids are dramatically and detrimentally affected. Texas and Rhode Island have acted to protect marriage from that deconstruction, to foster family stability in those states respectively.

Marriage, Democracy and Family Restoration

This week’s elections have revealed a bright disposition from Virginia to New Jersey to Maine – hope that is needed for a both a healthy economy and strong families.

Bob McDonnell, Virginia’s governor elect, and Chris Christie, New Jersey’s governor elect, have both been strong on family principles and the importance of marriage. With Maine’s vote for marriage 31 states have now directed their judiciaries and their elected representatives to affirm marriage. See "A Setback in Maine for Gay Marriage, but Medical Marijuana Law Expands" and "Gay Rights Rebuke May Change Approach " articles.

When the public votes on marriage, the self-governing process proclaims a resonating message: Marriage is between one man and one woman. When the legal elite determine to expand marriage, as in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Iowa, those cases appear to be in opposition to the democratic process.  Courts often do play the role of protecting minority rights from majority rule, yet the scope of that protection, however, is narrowly defined and limited to certain parameters that have been found to be constitutionally fundamental rights.  Marriage between one man and one woman who are unrelated and of suitable age is constitutionally protected, and now guaranteed in 31 states.  Court rulings that seem to claim superiority over the people, attempting to void the democratic mandate, actually exceed those constitutional limitations. Such case law reflects neither the United States Constitution, nor the common sense will of the people, but the superiority of the legal elite.

This seems equally apparent in legal scholarship, as law journal publications reveal a legal academy aversion to an authentic debate, with a ratio of nearly 5-1 articles in favor of altering marriage.[1]  Furthermore, rather than clearly stating the merits of the legal arguments in the marriage debate, legal scholarship has become saturated in emotion.  A recent article by veteran family law professor Lynn D. Wardle entitled “All you need is love,”[2] notes a recent renaissance of emotional recognition by legal scholars, especially in judging, practicing and teaching family law.  Professor Wardle identifies this emotional outpouring by legal scholars and reminds that the law has never dealt with marriage as a matter of love. It is not because people are in love that the state takes an interest in who marries.  It is not out of fairness in sexuality that the state takes an interest in who marries.  The state is interested in protecting marriage because of its procreative civilization perpetuating nature, which is the foundation of the state itself.  This leads to family restoration.

The stability of the institution of marriage as a cooperative enterprise benefits society by perpetuating society.  Marriage and the family that results from its procreative capacity provide a nourishing institution for future citizens.  The state is thus simultaneously relieved of and perpetuated by that personal responsibility inherent in marriage that is procreative in nature. The fact that these matters are clear to most people is evident in the democratic process.  If  legal elites ignore what is happening all over the country by our democratic process in the debate on marriage, we face irrelevancy.

Polls have shown that the more Americans learn about the implications of same-sex partnerships, the less they support associating them with marriage.  A recent Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll showed that 68 percent of Americans oppose same-sex partnerships that are characterized as marriage – the highest level in four years.   Three out of five respondents said they would support a federal marriage amendment, and this is confirmed by an ABC/Washington Post poll as well.[3] Our democratic process seems at odds with the legal elite.  Endangerment by an ivory tower without windows to the rest of the world could lead to isolation from the populace.  Scholars may face irrelevancy, or even insignificance in the culture of marriage.

Rather, this week’s elections have revealed a bright disposition for family restoration – something many are very much looking forward to!  

******************************

[1] As set out in the annual survey of family law literature published in 2003, 46 articles argue to alter marriage in favor of same sex partnerships, while 11 articles make arguments in favor of marriage defined as between one man and one woman (including same sex parents), yielding a ratio of 4.6 to 1.1 (or rounded 5-1).  Paul M. Kurtz, Annual Survey of Periodic Literature, 36 Fam. L. Q. 775 (Winter 2003).  This is a compilation of articles published prior to the 2004 elections, and yet the voting numbers are directly opposite what was espoused by the majority of the legal academy reflected in these articles.  At least one symposium was directed entirely at altering marriage, with no dissenting articles (e.g. Symposium on Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships, 30 Cap. U.L.Rev. 221 (2002). Other symposia posed the question in a debate form, but only had one article upholding marriage, with all (or nearly all) the rest devoted to arguing to alter marriage (e.g. Same-Sex Marriage: The Debate in Hawaii and the Nation, 22 U. Hawaii L. Rev. 1 (2000); Arranging Marriage: A Place for Policy? 9 Va. J. Soc. Pol’y L. 1 (2001)).

The 46 articles arguing to alter marriage (or to do so via parenting) include: Larry Cata Backer, Religions as the Language of Discourse of Same Sex Marriage, 30 Cap.U.L.Rev. 221 (2002)(arguing for religious support of same-sex marriage); David B. Cruz, The New “Marital Property”: Civil Marriage and the Right to Exclude? 30 Cap.U.L.Rev. 279 (2002)(argues for altering marriage with the “exclusionary” rationale); Greg Johnson, In Praise of Civil Unions 30 Cap.U.L.Rev. 315 (2002)(asserts civil unions are legal equivalent to marriage and deserve interstate recognition); Arthur S. Leonard, Ten Propositions About Legal Recognition of Same-Sex partners, 30 Cap.U.L.Rev. 363 (2002)(argues from equality to alter marriage); Mark Strasser, Some Observations about DOMA, Marriages, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships, 30 Cap.U.L.Rev. 363 (2002)(argues for altering marriage to same-sex marriage); Patricia A. Cain, Federal Tax Consequences of Civil Unions, 30 Cap.U.L.Rev. 387 (2002)(argues for IRS treatment of civil unions as marriage); Susan J. Becker, Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Couples in Ohio: Unsettled and Unsettling Law, 48 Clev. St. L. Rev. 101 (2000)(arguing for treatment of same-sex parents as marital partners); Casenotes, Constitutional Law – Equal Protection and Due Process – Statutory Classifications based on sexuality – Florida District Court Upholds the Constitutionality of Statute that Prohibits Homosexuals From Adopting, Lofton v. Kearny, 115 Harv. L. Rev. 1259 (2002)(describing unequal treatment of homosexuals as unmarried); Timothy P. F. Crowley, The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Holds Florida’s Statutory Ban on Gay Adoption is Not Offensive to the Constitution, 11 Law & Sexuality 253 (2002)(criticizing ruling against homosexual parents as improper animus); Amy Joy Galatis, Can We Have a “Happy Family”? Adoption by Same-Sex Parents in Massachusetts, 6 Suffolk J. Trial & App. Advoc. 7 (2001)(proposes legalization of same-sex marriage as remedy to problem); Lino A. Graglia, Single-Sex “Marriage”: The Role of Courts 2001 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 1013 (arguing to alter marriage); Terry S. Kogan, Competing Approaches to Same-Sex Versus Opposite-Sex, Unmarried Couples in Domestic Partnership Laws and Ordinances, 2001 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 1023 (arguing marriage alteration solves inequality with domestic partnerships); Mark Strasser, A Small Step Forward: The ALI Domestic Partners Recommendation, 2001 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 1135 (arguing ALI recommendations are a positive step toward same- sex marriage); Jeffrey G. Sherman, Domestic Partnership and ERISA Preemption, 76 Tul. L. Rev. 373 (2001)(encouraging local recognition of gay marriage); Vicki L. Armstrong, Welcome to the 21^st Century and the Legalization of Same-Sex Unions, 18 T.M. Cooley L. Rev. 85 (2001)(arguing to alter marriage); Elaine M. DeFranco, Choice of Law: Will A Wisconsin Court Recognize a Vermont Civil Union,” 85 Marq. L. Rev. 251 (2001)(arguing to alter marriage); Katie Eyer, Related Within the Second Degree? Burns v. Burns and the Potential Benefits of Civil Union Status, 20 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 297 (2002) (arguing to alter marriage); Joseph M. Manicki, S.D.Myers v. San Francisco: Satisfactory C’s on the Domestic Partnership Benefits Report Card – The Constitutionality of Contingent City Contracts Under the Commerce Clause, 11 Law & Sexuality 2443 (2002)(argues to alter marriage); Emily Taylor, Across the Board: The Dismantling of Marriage in Favor of Universal Civil Union Laws, 28 Ohio N.U.L.Rev. 171 (2001)(arguing to alter marriage); Robert F. Williams, Old Constitution and New Issues: National Lessons From Vermont’s State Constitutional Case on Marriage of Same-Sex Couples, 43 B.C. L. Rev. 73 (2001)(argues to alter marriage); Richard F. Storrow, The Policy of Family Privacy: Uncovering the Bias in Favor of Nuclear Families in American Constitutional Law and Policy Reform, 66 Mo. L. Rev. 527 (2001)(arguing to alter marriage); Angie Smolka, That’s the Ticket: A New Way of Defining Family, 10 Cornell J.L.& Pub. Pol’y 629 (2001)(expresses hope that marriage will be altered to change traditional views); Claudina Richards, The Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Couples – The French Perspective, 51 Int’l & Comp. L. Q. 305 (2002)(argues for same-sex marriage formalization); Marilyn Sanchez-Osorio, The Road to Recognition and Application of the Fundamental Constitutional Right to Marry of Sexual Minorities in the United States, the Netherlands and Hungary: A Comparative Legal Study, 8 ILSA J. Int’l & Comp. L. 131 (2001)(using international comparisons to argue for same-sex marriage); Cynthia J. Sgalia McClure, A Case for Same-Sex Marriage: A Look at Changes Around the Globe and in the United States, Including Baker v. Vermont, 29 Cap. U.L. Rev. 783 (2002)(urging recognition of same-sex marriage); Barbara Stark, Marriage Proposals: From One-Size-Fits-All to Postmodern Marriage Law, 89 Cal. L. Rev. 1479 (2001)(argues for altering marriage due to disparity between law and reality); Robert E. Emery, Promoting Pluralistic Marriage Positively, 9 Va. J. Soc. Pol’y & L. 153 (2001)(argues people are altering marriage by their behavior); Martha Albert Fineman, Why Marriage? 9 Va. J. Soc. Pol’y & L. 239 (2001)(argues for marriage alteration);  Michael S. Wald, Same-Sex Couple Marriage: A Family Policy Perspective, 9 Va. J. Soc. Pol’y & L. 291 (2001)(asserts state has an interest in recognizing same-sex marriages); Charlotte Patterson, Same-Sex Marriage and the Interests of Children: Comments on Michael Wald’s Same-Sex Marriage: A Family Policy Perspective, 9 Va. J. Soc. Pol’y & L. 345 (2001)(argues for allowing same-sex marriage as it would be in best interest of relationship’s children); Laurence Drew Borten, Sex, Procreation , and the State Interest in Marriage, 102 Colum. L. Rev. 1089 (2002)(argues for redefinition of marriage); Kevin Tallant, My “Dude Looks Like a Lady”: The Constitutional Void of Transsexual Marriage, 36 Ga. L. Rev. 635 (2002)(advocates altering marriage to accommodate transsexuals); Mark Strasser, When is a Parent Not a Parent? On DOMA, Civil Unions, and Presumptions of Parenthood, 23 Cardozo L. Rev. 299 (2001)(argues for recognition of second parent adoptions in all states and advocates altering marriage accordingly); Richard F. Storrow, Parenthood by Pure Intention: Assisted Reproduction ad the Functional Approach to Parentage, 53 Hastings L.J. 597 (2002)(argues for extending parenthood rights to non-married couples to assist in redefining marriage and family); Sidney Buchanan, A Constitutional Crossroad for Gay Rights, 38 Hous. L. Rev. 1269 (2001)(argues marriage is fundamentally unfair because it does not provide legal treatment of gay rights); Nancy J. Knauer, The September 11 Attacks and Surviving Same-Sex Partners: Defining Family Through Tragedy, 75 Temp. L. Rev. 31 (2002)(argues for greater acceptance of same-sex relationships as marriage-like); Patricia A. Cain, Dependency, Taxes, and Alternative Families, 5 J. Gender Race & Just. 267 (2002)(argues for altering marriage or tax policies or both); Mark Strasser, The Future of Same-Sex Marriage, 22 U. Hawaii L. Rev. 119 (2000)(arguing that constitutional amendments to protect marriage are unconstitutional); Brad K. Gushiken, The Fine Line Between Love and the Law: Hawaii’s Attempt to Resolve the Same-Sex Marriage Issue 22 U. Hawaii L. Rev. 149 (2000)(arguing that protecting marriage is unconstitutional); Brett P. Ryan, Love and Let Love: Same-Sex Marriage, Past, Present, and Future, and the Constitutionality of DOMA, 22 U. Hawaii L. Rev. 185 (2000)(arguing against laws that protect marriage); Jeffrey Hubins, Proposition 22: Veiled Discrimination or Sound Constitutional Law? 23 Whittier L. Rev. 239 (2001)(arguing that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is “anti-gay animus”); Andrew Koppelman, Defending the Sex Discrimination Argument for Lesbian and Gay Rights: A Reply to Edward Stein, 49 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 519 (2001)(includes marriage as sexually discriminatory); Darren Bush, Moving to the Left by Moving to the Right: A Law and Economics Defense of Same-Sex Marriage, 22 Women’s Rts. L. Rep. 115 (2001)(argues that law and economics theory should welcome same-sex marriage as more efficient than marriage); James Donovan, Rock-Salting the Slippery Slope: Why Same-Sex Marriage is Not a Commitment to Polygamous Marriage, 29 N. Ky. L Rev. 521 (2002)(argues for altering marriage toward same-sex marriage as based on romantic love but not toward polygamy as based on community values); Josephine Ross, The Sexualization of Difference: A Comparison of Mixed-Race and Same-Gender Marriage, 37 Harv. C.R.-Cl.L. Rev. 255 (2002)((argues to alter marriage based on same rational as miscegenation law abolition); Mark Strasser, Toleration, Approval, and the Right to Marry: On Constitutional Limitations and Preferential Treatment, 35 Loy. L.A.L.Rev. 65 (2001)(arguing that same-sex unions be constitutionally rather than legislatively recognized).

The 11 articles in support of marriage include: William C. Duncan, Domestic Partnership Laws in the United States: A Review and Critique, 2001 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 961 (2003)(arguing not to alter marriage even via domestic partnerships); Lynn D. Wardle, Deconstructing Family, A Critique of the American Law Institute’s “Domestic Partners” Proposal, 2001 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 1189 (upholding status of marriage); Margaret F. Brinig, Domestic Partnership: Missing the Target? 4 J.L. & Fam. Stud. 19 (2002)(arguing to uphold marriage rather than cohabitation); David Orgon Coolidge, Widening the Lens: Chapter 6 of the ALI  Principles, Hawaii and Vermont, 4 J.L. & Fam. Stud. 79 (2002)(recognizing marriage as “organizing principle of family law); Lynne Marie Kohm, How Will the Proliferation and Recognition of Domestic Partnerships Affect Marriage? 4 J.L. & Fam. Stud. 105(2002)(upholding marriage); Lynne Marie Kohm and Mark A. Yarhouse, Fairness, Accuracy, and Honesty in Discussing Homosexuality and Marriage, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 249 (2002)(upholding marriage); Dale M. Schowengerdt, Defending Marriage: A Litigation Strategy to Oppose Same-Sex “Marriage,” 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 487 (2002)(upholding marriage); Maggie Gallagher, What is Marriage For? The Public Purposes of Marriage Law, 62 La. L. Rev. 773 (2002)(upholding marriage as a “socially normative institution” that must be maintained to reverse the trend toward family fragmentation); Norval Glenn, Is the Current Concern about American Marriage Warranted?  9 Va. J. Soc. Pol’y & L. 5 (2001)(upholds necessity of marriage cross-culturally); Steven L. Nock, Why Not Marriage? 9 Va. J. Soc. Pol’y & L. 273 (2001)(upholding marriage); Mark Eastburg, Marriage Strengthening Strategies for Communities: The Greater Grand Rapids Community Marriage Policy Experience, 9 Va. J. Soc. Pol’y & L. 224 (2001)(argues to uphold and strengthen marriage with community policies); David Orgon Coolidge, The Hawaii Marriage Amendment: It’s Origins, Meaning and Fate, 22 U. Hawaii L. Rev. 19 (2000)(celebrates upholding marriage in Hawaii).

[2] Lynn D. Wardle, All You Need is Love? 14 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Women’s Stud. 51 (2004).

[3] “Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Mounts,” United Press International (April 1, 2005).