Debating Same Sex Marriage An Example of A Cultural Revolution

Debating Same Sex Marriage:
An Example of a Cultural
Revolution
Debating Same Sex Marriage: An
Example of a Cultural Revolution
Margaret F. Bello
Publishing
www.societypublishing.com
Debating Same Sex Marriage: An Example of a Cultural Revolution
Margaret F. Bello
Society Publishing
224 Shoreacres Road
Burlington, ON L7L 2H2
Canada
www.societypublishing.com
Email: orders@arclereducation.com
e-book Edition 2022

ISBN: 978-1-77469-251-6 (e-book)
This book contains information obtained from highly regarded resources. Reprinted material
sources are indicated and copyright remains with the original owners. Copyright for images and
other graphics remains with the original owners as indicated. A Wide variety of references are
listed. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data. Authors or Editors or Publish-
ers are not responsible for the accuracy of the information in the published chapters or conse-
quences of their use. The publisher assumes no responsibility for any damage or grievance to the
persons or property arising out of the use of any materials, instructions, methods or thoughts in
the book. The authors or editors and the publisher have attempted to trace the copyright holders
of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission has
not been obtained. If any copyright holder has not been acknowledged, please write to us so we
may rectify.
Notice: Registered trademark of products or corporate names are used only for explanation and
identification without intent of infringement.
© 2022 Society Publishing

ISBN: 978-1-77469-064-2 (Hardcover)
Society Publishing publishes wide variety of books and eBooks. For more information about
Society Publishing and its products, visit our website at www.societypublishing.com.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Margaret Bello-Digamon has Doctorate in Development Management major

in Educational Administration from the Ateneo de Zamboanga University
where she graduated in 2019. At present she is finishing her Certificate in
Teaching English as a Secondary Language at the University of Saskatchewan,
Canada. She also finished her Master’s degree in Engineering Education major
in ICT at the Western Mindanao State University and graduated with a Bachelor
of Science in Management Information Systems in 2003 from the Ateneo de
Zamboanga University. She’s had 7 years’ experience as a College Dean where
she has immersed herself in the education and an administrative setting that
include dealing and counseling clients and have successfully developed and
aided in writing programs with advocacies promoting the welfare of women
and children through technology. She is married with two children and currently
resides in Saskatchewan Canada.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures.................................................................................................xi
List of Abbreviations.....................................................................................xiii
Preface..........................................................................................................xv
Chapter 1 Introduction to the Institution of Marriage................................................ 1

1.1. Initial Conceptualizations of Marriage................................................. 2
1.2. The Implications of Marriage................................................................ 6
1.3. Typologies of Marriage....................................................................... 12
1.4. Selecting a Marriage Partner.............................................................. 18
1.5. The Economics of Marriage................................................................ 22
Chapter 1 Summary.................................................................................. 27
Chapter 2 The Legal Framework of Marriage............................................................ 29

2.1. Standard Requirements for an Effective Marriage............................... 30
2.2. Race, Gender in Marriage.................................................................. 35
2.3. Civil Unions and Power Relations in Marriage................................... 41
2.4. Regulation of Sexual Relations in Marriage........................................ 47
2.5. Legitimacy of Children Born in and Outside Marriage....................... 53
Chapter 2 Summary.................................................................................. 59
Chapter 3 Religiosity of Marriage............................................................................. 61

3.1. Christian Conceptualization of Marriage............................................ 62
3.2. Islamic Conceptualization of Marriage............................................... 67
3.3. Judaism and Marriage Law................................................................. 72
3.4. Denominational Diversity in Marriage............................................... 77
3.5. Theological Views on Marriage.......................................................... 82
Chapter 3 Summary.................................................................................. 87
Chapter 4 Norms and Customs Concerning Marriage............................................... 89
4.1. Christian, Hindu, and Jewish Influences............................................. 90
4.2. Islamic, Chinese, and Humanist Perspectives..................................... 93
4.3. Typologies of Weddings..................................................................... 99
4.4. Participation in Weddings and the Marriage Industry....................... 106
4.5. Issues of Health and Wellbeing in Marriage..................................... 110
Chapter 4 Summary................................................................................ 117
Chapter 5 Religious Objections to Non-Heterosexual Couples............................... 119

5.1. LGBT Perspectives on Religion........................................................ 120
5.2. Buddhist Perspectives on LGBT Communities.................................. 127
5.3. Christian Perspectives on LGBT Communities.................................. 130
5.4. Perspectives of Unitarian Universalists and Unitarians on
LGBT Communities....................................................................... 137
5.5. Islamic Perspectives on LGBT Communities..................................... 139
Chapter 5 Summary................................................................................ 141
Chapter 6 Case Study of Institutionalized Homophobia in Africa........................... 143

6.1. LGBT Rights in Africa...................................................................... 144
6.2. History of LGBT Communities in Africa........................................... 148
6.3. Case Study of Uganda and Kenya.................................................... 151
6.4. Schism in the Anglican Union Over Same-Sex Marriage.................. 157
6.5. Case Study of LGBT Rights in South Africa....................................... 163
Chapter 6 Summary................................................................................ 165
Chapter 7 The Notion of Same-Sex Marriage.......................................................... 167

7.1. The Status of Same-Sex Couples Today............................................. 168
7.2. Historical Progression Towards Same-Sex Marriage.......................... 171
7.3. Global Treatment of Same-Sex Marriage.......................................... 173
7.4. Case Study of the Same-Sex Marriage in the United Kingdom.......... 177
7.5. Case Study of the Same-Sex Marriage in the USA............................ 179
Chapter 7 Summary................................................................................ 182
Chapter 8 The Future of Same-Sex Relationships.................................................... 183

8.1. National Debates About Same-Sex Relationships............................. 184
8.2. Alternatives to Same-Sex Marriage................................................... 187
viii
8.3. Managing Same-Sex Divorces.......................................................... 189
8.4. Continuing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples..................... 191
8.5. Towards Universal Marriage Equality............................................... 193
Chapter 8 Summary................................................................................ 195
Chapter 9 Concluding Remarks.............................................................................. 197
Bibliography........................................................................................... 199
Index...................................................................................................... 207
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1. Traditional religious conceptualization of marriage

Figure 1.2. Reasons as to why people get married
Figure 1.3. Basic typology of marriages
Figure 1.4. Example of a compatibility matrix for a dating agency
Figure 1.5. The economics of marriage and divorce
Figure 2.1. Standard requirements for an effective marriage in North Carolina
Figure 2.2. Race and intermarriage
Figure 2.3. The effects of power play in a marriage or intimate relationships
Figure 2.4. Control of sexual relationships in a marriage
Figure 2.5. Race and children born out of wedlock in the USA
Figure 3.1. The Christian conceptualization of marriage
Figure 3.2. Islamic conceptualization of marriage
Figure 3.3. Marriage in Israel
Figure 3.4. Changing religious affiliations from 1911 to 2016
Figure 3.5. Theological views on marriage
Figure 4.1. Religiosity and household size
Figure 4.2. Views on women in Confucianism and Daoism
Figure 4.3. Rising uptake of same-sex weddings in Sweden
Figure 4.4. High expenditure in US wedding industry
Figure 4.5. Negative effects of marital discord on health
Figure 5.1. Perspectives of white evangelicals on homosexuality and religion
Figure 5.2. Buddhist perspectives on LGBT communities
Figure 5.3. Contrasting African and European perspectives on homosexuality
Figure 5.4. Perspectives of Unitarian Universalists and Unitarians on LGBT
communities
Figure 5.5. National diversities in the level of acceptance of homosexuality
Figure 6.1. LGBT rights in Africa
Figure 6.2. Penalties against LGBT people in Africa
Figure 6.3. Case study of the public outing of LGBT people in Kenyan media
Figure 6.4. Africans in the Anglican community
Figure 6.5. South Africa’s first gay Imam
Figure 7.1. State of same-sex marriage across the globe
Figure 7.2. Historical progress of same-sex marriage in the USA
Figure 7.3. Sexual orientation laws across the globe
Figure 7.4. Timeline of same-sex relationships and marriage in the UK
Figure 7.5. The role of the supreme court in gay marriage bans in the USA
Figure 8.1. Partisanship and changes in public opinion on same-sex marriages in the
USA
Figure 8.2. Differentiated same-sex relationships in the USA
Figure 8.3. Rate of same-sex splits in the USA by 2011
Figure 8.4. Voices of children from rainbow families
Figure 8.5. Policy priorities for LGBT couples
xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

GOP Grand Old Party
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Viruses
LGBT Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
PREFACE
There was a time when merely expressing same-sex attractions could get you hanged
in many countries across the globe. Now, we are talking about same-sex marriage.
If someone living on earth in the 1930s was brought back to life today, they would
be amazed at the changes in attitudes towards sexual minorities. Homosexuality used
to be considered one of the most heinous crimes, even in the enlightened countries
of Europe. The harshest punishments were prescribed for known homosexuals. In the
literary world, we have the example of Oscar Wilde, who was carted off to prison with
hard labor for engaging in “sodomy.”
The so-called “sodomites” were seen as an embarrassment, and this “love that dare
not speak its name” was punished wherever and whenever it was identified. Populist
homophobia took hold of many nations, and the moralists were arguing that to support
homosexuals in any way was to allow for the destruction of society as we know it.
Then there was the AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) scourge of the 1980s
when medical practitioners were talking about a deadly “Gay Cancer,” and the US
Administration (headed by the perpetually popular Ronald Reagan) was accused of not
responding fast enough to the plight of largely gay men who were dying at alarming
rates. True help only came from the state when white heterosexual people started
developing AIDS.
In the meantime, the gay community had to contend with discrimination in virtually all
spheres of life. Members were denied job opportunities and even accommodation for
no other reason other than their assumed or confirmed sexuality. Casually homophobic
stereotypes and insults polluted our television screens and popular media without any
complaint. Indeed, any portrayal of gay people was controversial unless they were
laughed at or getting their assumed “comeuppance” for being sexually immoral. All
things considered, it seems that sexual minorities in general and gay people were
destined to remain on the margins of society. Discrimination against them was readily
accepted as a societal norm.
Those who were overly optimistic at the time considered the possibility of acceptance
as citizens who could be so without threats of state-sponsored and vigilante violence
or extermination as the Nazis had once proposed. The evolution from that modest
ambition to the acceptance of same-sex marriage is nothing short of remarkable. It all
started in a handful of progressive nations and then started moving forward with a speed
that campaigners could hardly have anticipated 40 years ago. Young people were at the
heart of this evolution in terms of letting the older generations know that bigotry and
intolerance of sexual minorities were no longer going to be an acceptable norm for the
Millennials and beyond.
This book charts the debates and evolution of same-sex marriage as a key point and
process in the acceptance of sexual minorities. The book also raises questions about
as-yet-unanswered questions about the future of LGBT people and marriage in general.
For example, it is not yet clear that religious authorities are willing to fully accept
LGBT people. Meanwhile, there is a contingent of socially conservative nations that
are going through something of a backlash against LGBT rights. In doing so, this book
re-evaluates the meaning and implications of same-sex marriage.
xvi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE
INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE
CONTENTS
1.1. Initial Conceptualizations of Marriage................................................. 2
1.2. The Implications of Marriage................................................................ 6
1.3. Typologies of Marriage....................................................................... 12
1.4. Selecting a Marriage Partner.............................................................. 18
1.5. The Economics of Marriage................................................................ 22
Chapter 1 Summary.................................................................................. 27
2 Debating Same Sex Marriage: An Example of a Cultural Revolution
The first chapter in this book will explore the institution of marriage as a
precursor to defining who and what exactly is included or excluded from
that institution. The first section of this initial chapter will highlight a range
of conceptualizations of marriage. In the second section, we will highlight
some implications of the state of being married. The third section summarizes
some typologies of marriage. In the 4th section, we will explore the process
of selecting potential and actual marriage partners. The last section in this
chapter will summarize the economic considerations in marriage. By the
end of this initial chapter, the reader should have a good understanding
of the heterosexist or alternatively homophobic foundations of traditional
marriage, which have in many instances rendered it an unfriendly place for
non-heterosexual and non-cisgender people.
1.1. INITIAL CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF

MARRIAGE
The most traditional definition of marriage implies wedlock in which people
come together in a legal and binding union that is widely recognized from
a social perspective (Alderson, 2004; Appleton, 2005; Auchmuty, 2004;
Badgett, 2009; Ball, 2014, 2015; Barclay and Fisher, 2003). Marriage is
cultural in as much as it is social, and the understanding of marriage is
therefore constructed alongside the norms and values of any given society.
For example, whereas polygamy is widely recognized and even encouraged
in Nigeria; it is an aberration in Norway and, in fact, can lead to serious
legal. Figure 1.1 demonstrates the traditional Catholic conceptualization of
marriage.
Marriage creates rights and obligations for both parties as well as the
community at large (Chambers, 1997; Chamie and Mirkin, 2011; Coolidge,
1997; Corvino and Gallagher, 2012; Cox, Navarro-Rivera, and Jones,
2014). For example, there was a time when married people were given
exclusive rights to certain jobs, positions, and even pensions for no other
reason than the fact that they were married. It is important to note that from
a sociological point of view, the award of certain rights and responsibilities
is both exclusive and inclusive. For example, whereas the widow’s pension
will give protection to women who have lost their husbands; it excludes
coverage to those that are unmarried. In his modality of inclusive and
exclusive rights, gendered relations are reinforced.
Introduction to the Institution of Marriage 3
Figure 1.1: Traditional religious conceptualization of marriage.
Source: Catholic-Link via Twitter.

Women are almost always on the receiving end of the worst bargain of
the lot. There is an implicit understanding that the female member of a couple
of other marriage arrangements is merely an attachment for the purpose of
improving the wellbeing of their male counterpart. Such obligations have
proved so onerous for some women that they are beginning to question
their very role within the institution and whether it makes sense for them to
continue cultivating and meeting the obligations placed on them.
One of the reasons why marriage has been questioned as a societal
institution is the fact that it is not entirely inclusive (Hull, 2003; Hull and
Hull, 2006; Hunter, 2012; Josephson, 2005; Judge, Manion, and De Waal,
2008; Kail, Acosta, and Wright, 2015). You must meet certain socially
constructed requirements before you are eligible for marriage. This issue
came to the fore when some opponents of same-sex marriage argued that
LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) people had no right to
complain about the traditional definition of marriage as a union between
one man and one woman. This rather glib argument followed the assertion
that an LGBT person was quite welcome to marry someone of the opposite
sex. In that warped interpretation, marriage was open to them if they could
put up the façade of being a heterosexual, cisgender couple. Indeed, such
an assertion is particularly problematic given the fact that one of the key
requirements for a valid marriage is that it is “consummated.” That means
that an LGBT person would have to deny their sexuality and engage in the
process of self-deception to enjoy the rights and obligations of marriage.
Those who generally campaigned for an equal society argued that traditional
marriage was a discriminatory institution by its very definition and therefore
had to be reformed. There is also something somewhat unnerving about the
possibility that marriage and its intimate relationships will be subject to
community sanction and subsequent judgments. Some might argue that it is
never acceptable for outsiders to litigate the intimate details of a marriage,
regardless of their level of knowledge or even their claim of an intricate
knowledge of the institution.
Those who argue for strict protection for traditional marriage argue that
it is such a special institution that only a select few should enter it (Sherkat
et al., 2011; Shulman, Gotta, and Green, 2012; Smith, DeSantis, and Kassel,
2006; Smith, 2005). Of course, such an argument immediately falls when
one considers how many times people marry and divorce within a lifetime.
If marriage was a uniquely special privilege of such importance that only a
few were entitled to it, divorce would be very rare. After all, what kind of
wrong-headed people would willingly give up on such an ideal situation?
The nuances of traditional marriage are riddled with such contradictions that
it has eventually fallen under the scrutiny of the law in terms of its deliberate
exclusion of those that are neither heterosexual nor cisgender. Besides,
marriage was a social concern since it impacted on other secondary parties
such as children, in-laws, and the society at large. For example, children that
were born outside wedlock to non-cisgender or non-heterosexual people could
face significant discrimination and social exclusion for circumstances that are
entirely beyond their control. Those that wished to oppress sexual minorities
used marriage as a tool for demonstrating the exclusivity of certain sexual
majorities. For instance, patriarchy enthusiastically embraced marriage as
a means of controlling the sexualities of women. Racists introduced the
anti-miscegenation notion to prevent the mixing of races through sexual
intercourse and even marriage. Of course, some of the most enthusiastic
anti-miscegenation advocates regularly slept with and impregnated slaves.
This is a perfect example of the inherent hypocrisy that mars debates about
traditional and modern marriage. Advocates of traditional marriage have
failed to persuasively argue that it is not an oppressive institution from the
perspective of women or men who otherwise take on the traditional role of

a woman. Nevertheless, the protection of marriage has become a rallying
cry for social conservatives and those that wish to go back to an age where
women would unquestionably obey their husbands.
Marriage became a protection for all those that held traditional values
dear (Barclay and Fisher, 2003; Barker, 2012; Baunach, 2012; Beck,
2013; Berg, 2010; Bernstein and Taylor, 2013). Any attempt to reform
the institution of marriage was an attack on society in general, and there
was a reactionary response that sought to maintain strict control on who
could marry and when. Then there were those that idealized marriage and
encouraged society to completely ignore some of the ills that had come to
society through marriage. Hence, women were required to be submissive
and had to go through a lot of hassle before they could be granted a divorce.
Indeed, many women suffered under the yoke of abusive marriage but
unable to leave because they were trapped by the institution of marriage that
was decidedly chauvinistic in its execution, if not in its conceptualization.
Artificial distinctions were made between married and unmarried women,
the latter being blamed for all sorts of ills in society. For a woman to retain
her dignity and be respected in her society, she had to submit herself to
marriage at the right time. Otherwise, she became a spinster who would be
ignored, laughed at, or even accused of witchcraft in the worst-case scenario.
At other times, marriage became a running joke that was associated with the
so-called gold-diggers and those that wish to run away from their sexualities
to find peace in their conservative communities. These are examples of
maladaptive and adaptive behaviors in response to the societal pressures to
engage in the institution of marriage. Hence, it was highly likely that many
people entered marriage against their better judgment but insisted on doing
so because they knew that to remain unmarried was to welcome unwelcome
questions from society. This raises questions as to whether marriage is really
a choice or whether it is an institution that is imposed by society.
Nevertheless, the cold factual basis of marriage is that it must be a
choice for people to demonstrate commitment to each other in a very
public way (Brown, 1994; Buchanan, 1984; Buffie, 2011; Cahill and Cahill,
2004; Chambers, 1997; Chamie and Mirkin, 2011; Coolidge, 1997). The
interpersonal relationships on which marriage is based are fundamentally
sexual, and therefore, it is inevitable that there is always a discussion of
the links that exist between marriage and human sexualities. Unfortunately,
in many parts of the world, the moralistic outrage at non-conventional
sexualities has meant that the positive aspects of marriage are often
overshadowed by its representation as a bastion of social conservatism. The

need for community sanction in marriage has also meant that people with
alternative sexualities are not content to have mimics of marriage whilst
what they consider to be a pure form of marriage are inevitably denied
to them. That is why the introduction of civil partnerships and similar
alternatives did not completely quell the desire for real marriage equality.
Indeed, these debates touch on real issues that impact on people’s lives in
a very real way. For example, marriage can determine immigration status
and access to a range of benefits. This became one of the key contentious
points in the same-sex marriage debates that took place in countries like
the USA. LGBT couples were unable to bring their spouses and children to
their preferred country because they were not considered married under the
law. Indeed, there were instances in which LGB people had to pretend to
engage in heterosexual marriage for purposes of getting visas and residency
permits approved. In that sense, the over-insistence of certain norms during
marriage rendered it irrelevant to many swathes of the community at large.
This did not detract from the seriousness of the marriage ceremony itself.
Marriage is solemnized by a wedding and dissolved by a divorce in
the most formal setting (Corvino and Gallagher, 2012; Cox, Navarro-
Rivera, and Jones, 2014; Damslet, 1992; Dorf, 2011; Ellison, Acevedo, and
Ramos‐Wada, 2011). Some cultures insist that there can be no sanctioned
sexual activity outside marriage. However, it seems that this requirement
is specifically targeted towards women who are often the weaker partners
in the traditional marriage in terms of the power play. Recently, when there
was concern about the exclusion of non-heterosexual couples from marriage,
some conservative voices argued that it was possible to have an asexual or
sexless marriage for same-sex couples. Indeed, that the sin was not so much
in having homosexual tendencies, but rather in acting on them and engaging
in the non-heterosexual activity. Of course, such an assertion would have
the effect of minimizing the sexuality of sexual minorities in much the same
way that marriage is sometimes used to suppress the sexualities of women.
In other words, sex would be the preserve of those who were heterosexual
and cisgender. The next section explores the implications of marriage for the
person, couple, family, and community at large.
1.2. THE IMPLICATIONS OF MARRIAGE

Once married, one becomes either a wife or husband in the traditional sense.
These are roles that are imbued with certain responsibilities (Fingerhut,
Riggle, and Rostosky, 2011; Flores, 2015; Franke, 2006; Gaines and Garand,
2010; Gerstmann, 2017). Indeed, the failure to respond to and execute those
responsibilities might mean that the marriage is nullified. For example, one
of the grounds for annulment of marriage (rendering it non-existent from
the beginning) is if one of the partners is impotent or deliberately denies the
other sexual intercourse. As Figure 1.2 shows, even the reasons for getting
married can vary across a population. Nevertheless, love and commitment
rank highly as motivators, while financial stability remains a low motivator
in developed countries like the USA.
Figure 1.2: Reasons as to why people get married.
Source: Pew Research Center.

There is a wide variety of practices and customs that surround marriage
depending on the cultural context within which it occurs (Gaines and
Garand, 2010; Gerstmann, 2017; Gher, 2007; Goldberg-Hiller, 2009; Hester
and Gibson, 2007; Hogg, 2006). Even within an advanced Western culture
in which marriage has been refined over hundreds of years, there is still
disagreement about its conceptualizations and implications. In recent times,
the very notion of marriage has become contested as people begin to question
some of the dogmatic conservative notions associated with marriage in its
most traditional sense. For example, the notion of a submissive wife and
dominant wife are sexist and therefore socially inappropriate in a modern
context where the expectation is that couples will have a modicum of
equality. Society has changed in ways that were not envisaged by traditional
marriage. For example, many women are now breadwinners and will not
tolerate any insinuation that they are somehow inferior in the relationship.
The enactment of divorce laws that are inherently favorable to mothers also
means that women may be in a much more powerful position than before.
This is a divergence from the customary laws that are used to develop
frameworks for conceptualizing marriage.
Virtually all customary laws in the world recognized marriage, although
the exact forms of its enactment vary from culture to culture (Hogg, 2006;
Hooghe and Meeusen, 2013; Hull, 2001, 2003; Hull and Hull, 2006; Hunter,
2012; Josephson, 2005). It is intended that marriage is durable and brings
happiness to all parties to it. Marriage is not just a matter of propagation
since the notions of premarital and extramarital sexual intercourse litter the
entirety of history. Whereas the sexual union between (traditionally male and
female) is celebrated, marriage is meant to endure beyond the immediacy of
sexual gratification. It is a commitment that involves resilience, tolerance,
and hopefully love on both sides. In some traditional societies, particularly
within Africa and the global South, marriage is not just a matter of a
couple joining together but rather families linking together to form lifelong
bonds. In-laws are part of the family and will act as members of the family
in terms of providing nurturing and other forms of social capital. At the
same time, there is an implicit recognition that marriage can occur among
more than two people. Once again, the sexual inequalities that are seen in
other spheres of life are experienced in traditional marriage. For example,
where polygamy allows men to take more than one wife; women that take
more than one husband are frowned upon as a social aberration. This is
yet another example of the differential outcomes for men and women in
their roles in the marriage. Behavior that is acceptable in the male sex is
completely frowned upon in the female sex, even if it means that women
are held in an institutional framework that is harmful to their health and
wellbeing. Part of the challenging facing couples is the need to meet certain
standards that are set by society. Marriage is therefore only valid when
society recognizes it as such. It is especially important for a marriage to be

recognized by the law and the society in general before it becomes valid and
legitimate (Klarman, 2012; Kogan, 2003; Koppelman, 1996, 1997, 2014;
Kramer, 1996). This is because the benefits of marriage, such as inheritance
and pension rights, can only be trigged through legal recognition. There was
some confusion around this issue with regards to common law marriages,
with many being remarkably close to cohabitation under the law. Indeed,
some judges took a very dim view of those couples that spent a long time
together in a relationship without availing themselves of the formality of
marriage. Yet, when the relationship failed, they expected the courts to deal
with disputes as if they were dealing with a marital situation. Any attempts to
give these “common law marriages” the same footing as a legal marriage has
met some resistance, particularly from men, since it implies being obligated
to be married without necessarily having that in mind when starting and
continuing the relationship. Others see marriage as a trap that is particularly
hard on men who are divorced and in their middle age, which are then left
without a penny to their name as they look for shelter from the homes of
their own parents. Meanwhile, they are obligated to pay alimony and child
support as their ex-spouse starts a new relationship. Even more galling for
these men is if another man moves into the house and starts playing the role
of the father while the old husband must pay maintenance.
The courts have been criticized for overly favoring women when it
comes to offering access to the children resulting out of a marriage (Lannutti,
2005, 2007; Lee and Hicks, 2011; Lenhardt, 2008; Lewis, 2005; Lewis and
Gossett, 2008). This approach used to be justified by the fact that younger
children may require the nurturing of their mother more than their father.
However, the courts are obligated to ensure that both parents are given
ample access to their children. The main exceptions to this obligation are
where one or both parents are harmful to the child in any way. Even in
these circumstances, the court may order some supervised visits to ensure
that the parent is not effectively alienated from their children because
of an insensitive court process. Nevertheless, it is important to note that
in matters of legitimacy, the courts may be more favorable of men than
women. Essentially, the law used to state that children born in wedlock are
“legitimate” and those born out of wedlock are “illegitimate.” The latter
was imbued with a certain amount of shame, a case in point being the use
of the word “bastard” to designate someone who does not know who their
father is. There is a growing contingent of commentators that consider the
notion of “illegitimacy” to be totally unacceptable in modern egalitarian
society. Indeed, there are African traditional societies in which the notion
of “bastards” is unknown since children are highly valued as a source of
prestige, wealth, and social capital. In these cases, all children are sired by
a man regardless of whether their mother is his legal wife. Moreover, many
countries are now recognizing certain traditional and religious marriages
that are polygamous in nature.
The challenge for orthodox thinking about marriage primarily stems
from those cultures that do not subscribe to a hetero-monogamous nuclear
family unit in which the man is always dominant, and the woman is always
submissive (Olson, Cadge, and Harrison, 2006; Onuche, 2013; Pearl and
Galupo, 2007; Pierceson, 2014; Pinello, 2006). For example, the Nuer
tribe in Sudan has a unique form of marriage which is known as a “ghost
marriage,” under which the woman acts as the man in certain instances.
Besides, the reality of non-heterosexual and non-cisgender people means
that the heterosexist interpretations of marriage are fast losing relevancy
in the modern age, even though this remains by far the most dominant
form of marriage. There are cultures in Africa under which a man may
have an official wife that is married in Church and then take on several
mistresses or quasi-concubines that allow them to practice some form of
polygamy without alerting the Church authorities. In fact, there have been
problems in cases where the Church has sanctioned and advocated for the
marriage of a single woman among the many “wives” and “mistresses” that
a man may have. This becomes a real disadvantage for those women that
are left behind and, by extension, their now illegitimate children. That is
why some countries insist that the distribution of property recognizes all
children without distinguishing legitimate ones from illegitimate ones.
This is a useful instrumentality in countries that recognize polygamy and
common law marriages. Creating differences between official and non-
official children would create and exaggerate social tensions concerning
property distribution when a parent dies. Besides, declaring a child to be a
“bastard” or “illegitimate” is a form of punishment against them for actions
or omissions that are the exclusive responsibility of their parents.
Whereas the traditionalists are strongly against the notion of polygamy, or
even polyandry for that matter; there are some societies, such as the Nayar
of India, in which polyandry is practice (Rosenfeld, 2014; Rothblum, 2005;
Saez, 2011; Sanders, 2012; Schragger, 2005; Sherkat, De Vries, and Creek,
2010). In this society, there is no conventional “husband” that would make
sense for a Western society which is heavily influenced by Christian and
Jewish traditions. The Nayar have developed their own unitary role that
serves the functions that would otherwise be allocated to a father in a Chris-

tian monogamous marriage. There is a non-resident social father of the chil-
dren that a Nayar woman might bear. However, the biological fathers of
these children are deemed as nothing more than lovers. In fact, this society
is unique in as far as none of the men that have sexual relationships with the
woman (including the social father) have any parental rights over the chil-
dren. In that sense, sexual access loses its potency in marriage among the
Nayar people. For this community, the legitimacy of children stems from the
mother, and there can be no illegitimate children that are born by a woman.
Indeed, the legitimacy that comes through women is unique in as far as it
rarely requires DNA tests to confirm maternity. It is exceedingly rare for
a woman to be given a child that is not hers at birth. That is a very differ-
ent situation from men who accept information about the paternity of their
children without any significant evidence other than familial resemblances.
One caveat relates to the fact that certain relationships are forbidden because
of the close relationship between the two partners, a case in point being the
near-universal prohibition of marriage between siblings (Smith, DeSantis,
and Kassel, 2006; Smith, 2005, 2007; Soule, 2004; Strasser, 2018; Sullivan,
2004; Tamagawa, 2016). Legitimacy is an important consideration for those
that enter marriage because it can determine whether the child is able to en-
joy the rights, privileges, and obligations of a full member of society. A case
in point is when certain social, political, and economic positions are denied
for those that are not “legitimate children.” During colonial times, these
rules were taken to the extreme as the colonial agents sought to exercise
their complete control over the indigenous population. For example, some
children were denied admission to certain Christian schools for no reason
other than the fact that they had been born out of wedlock. Such discrimi-
natory practices and attitudes would be unacceptable in the modern world.
However, they demonstrate the capability of human beings to oppress and
exploit others unless there are laws to prevent them from doing so. It is the
rationale that supports the regulation of marriage by the state. Indeed, LGBT
couples have benefitted from this regulation in jurisdictions where religious
institutions have denied the reality of same-sex couples or their marriage.
The state intervenes by mandating that same-sex marriages are legal and
have the same consequences as traditional marriages. However, there are
also situations where the state is reluctant to recognize same-sex marriages
despite society-wide approval. That was the case in the USA, where for
some time, liberal states recognized same-sex marriage, but it was not rec-
ognized at the federal level. It was only when federal law and policy were
amended that same-sex couples felt confident that they would be protected.
In modern times, children born to so-called “rainbow families” (defined
as families where one or more of the parents is non-heterosexual or non-
cisgender) have had to deal with questions about their legitimacy (Sullivan,
2004; Tamagawa, 2016; Trandafir, 2014; Trosino, 1993; Vanita, 2005; Walls,
2010; Wardle, 1996; Webb and Chonody, 2014). In addition, these children
also must deal with transferred prejudice where they must deal with sexism
and homophobia on account of their parentage or lack of clear parentage.
The government can only legislate up to a certain point. If we are to become
a truly inclusive society; there must be an overhaul of our values, norms,
and behavior. This is a process that takes time, and it was once thought
that the wider acceptance of same-sex marriage would eventually trigger the
necessary changes in society. If anything, there has been a backlash against
non-heterosexual and non-cisgender people, particularly in the developing
world. A case in point is Uganda which once ignored homosexuality but
has now attempted to enact draconian legislation against sexual minorities
that even includes the death penalty. In this instance, the religious influence
of evangelicals, particularly from the USA, cannot be underestimated.
Ironically, there is a new form of colonization through the actions of modern
missionaries who have failed to make a mark in their home countries
and thereafter choose Africa as a destination that is ripe for ideological
exploitation. The effect of these evangelists is that an African LGBT person
has worse rights than any other race in Africa or even an LGBT person in
developed countries. This is oppression that persists in a modern age when
there have been significant social reforms that have opened opportunities for
many people. The next section explores some typologies of marriage.
1.3. TYPOLOGIES OF MARRIAGE

Several marriage typologies have emerged over time to try and define the
full extent of the diversity of human relationships (Wedgwood, 1999; Widiss,
Rosenblatt, and NeJaime, 2007; Wight, LeBlanc, and Lee Badgett, 2013;
Wilson, 2013). Some of these typologies have more legitimacy than others,
and there is also a diversity in the level of coverage that these marriages
have. For example, some types of marriages are specific to individual
communities, whereas others are widely accepted as being valid. Others are
cultural processes that cross borders and even continents, regardless of what
the local laws may state. Sometimes, there is a mismatch between how the
participants perceive marriage and how outsiders perceive it. For example,
a couple may consider personal vows to be more important than a marriage

certificate; yet this is a key requirement for a marriage to be valid before the
law and therefore elicit the benefits that accrue from marriage. Figure 1.3 is
an example of a basic typology that focuses on the number of partners in a
marriage.
Figure 1.3: Basic typology of marriages.
Source: Sociology Guide.

There have been comparative studies of marriage across cultures and
locations, a notable example being the anthropological work of Jack Goody
(Ball, 2014; Franke, 2006; Lee and Hicks, 2011; Sherkat, De Vries, and Creek,
2010). The resultant Ethnographic Atlas indicated some correlation between
intensive plow culture and monogamy, as well as the payment of dowry. The
patterns were replicated in a range of Eurasian societies, including those in
Ireland and Japan. Sub-Saharan Africa is strongly associated with extensive
hoe agriculture, and this was correlated with polygamy and the payment
of bride price. These findings that the differences in marriage patterns
are partly determined by the nature of the economic activity in which the
society engages. For example, extensive culture may require many wives
and hence the use of polygamy, whereas intense farming requires high-level
competencies which favor a monogamous relationship. One of the other
patterns that have emerged is a statistically significant positive correlation
between society size and belief in a higher good, belief in human morality,
and monogamy. The complexities of occupation and marriage preferences
are yet to be fully understood; not least because a lot of the ethnographic
work that is done so far focuses on selected society and is always read
from the standpoint of a Western culture that is heavily influenced by

Christianity and Judaism. This implies a neglect of other cultures that may
not necessarily have the nuclear family as the basis of their communities.
Having such Eurocentric perspectives on marriage may not be relevant in an
interconnected world where many cities are multicultural and multiethnic.
Besides, such an approach means losing the rich diversity of possibilities for
understanding marriage in all its forms. However, it is important to consider
how each society views marriage and what it considers to be an acceptable
marriage.
The failure to adhere to the marriage categories that are acceptable in
each society can have serious consequences for the participants as well as
the society at large (Boertien and Vignoli, 2019; Hull, 2001; Meezan and
Rauch, 2005; Sullivan, 2004). For example, polygamy is forbidden in many
Western societies, and any attempt to contract a second marriage without
dissolving another is referred to as bigamy, a serious crime that can lead to a
significant term of imprisonment. Moreover, the second bigamous marriage
and its subsequent marriages are considered illegal, null, and void until and
unless the first marriage has been duly dissolved. One of the challenges
that have emerged due to immigration occurs when people from countries
that allow polygamy (particularly Muslim-majority countries) into Western
liberal democracies where such practices are illegal. That has been one of
the contentious issues surrounding the adaptation of Shariat Law into these
developed countries because many local people fear that polygamy may be
practiced in a clandestine fashion by referring to a jurisdictional authority
granted by the Shariat Law judges. Others see this lifestyle to be completely
incompatible with Western liberal values and therefore call for a complete
ban on any form of Shariat Law. Interestingly, those communities that tend to
advocate for the adaptation of Shariat Law into domestic law are the ones that
are least likely to support any regularization of same-sex marriage. It seems
that these socially conservative sub-communities are looking for special rights
for their own forms of marriage but will not allow other minorities the same
right. This is a double standard that is often ignored in policy formulation
based on the assumption that cisgender and heterosexual couples are the norm.
Anyone else who is inherently deviant must advocate for their rights which
are then litigated through the democratic process. One of the challenges for
same-sex advocates is in trying to ensure that LGBT people no longer must
suffer the distress of having their human rights subject to a democratic process
that favors the dictatorship by the majority. Accordingly, the right to marriage
becomes an inalienable and universal right.
One of the typologies of marriage that is typically suited to modern

lifestyles is that of serial monogamy (Chamie and Mirkin, 2011; Klarman,
2012; Rimmerman and Wilcox, 2007; Wedgwood, 1999). In this case,
someone is in multiple relations but never simultaneously, and hence each
relationship is always monogamous. From a public policy point of view,
serial monogamy is only possible if the government allows for easy divorce.
One of the reasons why people engage in bigamy is because it is so difficult
to obtain a divorce without incurring significant financial penalties and
deprivations. Where no-fault divorces are the norm, young people can engage
in serial monogamy throughout their adult lives, depending on the state of
their relationships. Many Western countries are reporting that 1 in every 2
couples will divorce. Indeed, the statistics indicate that the average divorce
and remarriage rate is three times over a lifetime in Western countries.
In fact, a high rate of divorce automatically results in serial monogamy.
Some experts have referred to this as a form of non-simultaneous plural
mating. This typology is also seen in female-headed families that are
common in Brazil, Mauritius, and parts of the Caribbean. In those cases,
there is a frequent rotation of partners who are unmarried. Indeed, these
account for up to a quarter of all cases of serial monogamy. The advocates
of marriage may condemn these relationships as not being consistent with
the benefits of a lifelong monogamous commitment. Indeed, single mothers
have typically been accused of being immoral and burdensome to the state.
Yet, such appropriate is nowhere as high as that which is levied against
same-sex couples. These are seen as being an active and ever-present threat
to the traditional family. Previously there were arguments raised in favor
of traditional relationships based on their assumed prowess at bringing
up healthy children. Recently, the tide has changed, and people are more
questioning about the motives campaigners that ignore some real problems
within traditional marriages such as divorce.
There are unique family relationships and dynamics that emerge from
serial monogamy. For example, it creates ex-husbands and ex-wives
(Barclay and Fisher, 2003; Ellison, Acevedo, and Ramos‐Wada, 2011; Hull,
2003; Lannutti, 2007; Pinello, 2006). If there are children involved, these
ex-spouses can remain an active part of the family. However, on occasion,
they can act as a disruptive influence by preventing the establishment of
the new family. Others must contend with the notion of stepchildren and
stepparents. These are challenging relationships because they are replacing
the original traditional understanding of the nuclear family. If the new
spouse was involved in the breakup of the previous relationship, there could
be a lot of latent and blatant resentment that can negatively impact on the
ability to found new bonds in the new relationship. Nevertheless, blended
families must negotiate the intricacies and difficulties of reconciling different
interests within the context of an overarching institution such as marriage.
These relationships might also involve a transfer of money in terms
of alimony, maintenance, and other costs that can put pressure on the new
family (Boertien and Vignoli, 2019; Gaines and Garand, 2010; Kandaswamy,
2008; Lupia et al., 2010; Schragger, 2005). The United Kingdom has created
extended families that are quite different from those in Africa since they are
based on the consequences of serial monogamy as opposed to polygamy
or a traditional extended family. Then there is the case of mobile children
resulting from new links to an ex-wife or even an ex-in-law. The modern
world must contend with these families that are completely different from
the traditional nuclear family, which has been idealized in Western literature.
In fact, when all these households are connected by unclear bonds; it is akin
to a polygamous family where mothers maintain their own households and
then change male partners. The children are tied to males who are either
currently married or has divorced the mother. Bonds are maintained for
mutuality. However, it could also be the case of familial relationships being
preferable to forced institutionalization when there is a breakdown of an
adult relationship whilst the resultant children are still below the age of
adulthood. Whereas the state may support some of those bonds, it is always
a secondary option to the traditional nuclear family that includes cisgender
heterosexual couples. One of the most challenging alternative marriage
forms is that of polygamy.
Polygamy is a type of marriage in which a man has multiple partners, often
incrementally and simultaneously (Cahill and Cahill, 2004; McVeigh and
Maria-Elena, 2009; Tamagawa, 2016; Webb and Chonody, 2014). Polygyny
refers to situations in which the polygamous marriage is simultaneous, but
there is no marriage bond between the wives. Polyandry occurs when a
woman has more than one husband, and there is a marriage bond between
her husband. Group marriage occurs when there is a collection of multiple
husbands and wives who are linked together. This type of marriage is
the antithesis of the nuclear family that has been popularized in Western
societies. All partners in the marriage are assumed to be heterosexual,
even though there may be non-heterosexual and non-cisgender people
who are part of these group marriages. There have been molecular genetic
studies indicated that the level of global human genetic diversity is due to
the naturalness of sexual polygyny. It was only after the shift to sedentary
families that the system was changed. Such changes happened as recently as
5000 years ago as early as 10,000 years ago in a range of communities that
are in Asia, Europe, the Americas, and Africa. Other confirmatory studies
have shown that the absence of the plow was the only reliable predictor
of polygamy. However, there are other factors that are involved, including
the increasing rate of male mortality due to participation in wars among
non-state societies. Among the state societies, it was pathogen stress that
impacted on the changes in family structure.
The number of legal spouses that an individual has or is entitled to will
determine some classifications of marriages (Chambers, 1997; Chamie and
Mirkin, 2011; Coolidge, 1997; Corvino and Gallagher, 2012; Cox, Navarro-
Rivera, and Jones, 2014). However, there are unions that are considered
by the participants to be marriages since they involve commitment yet not
fulfilling all the legal requirements in the jurisdiction. A case in point is those
couples that have gone through commitment ceremonies with friends and
families as witnesses, regardless of whether there is a certificate or formal
solemnization of the union. There is significant variability in the level of
acceptance of polygamy of non-traditional marriages. Such variances are
informed by attitudes, behavior, experience, and beliefs. For purposes of
illustration, a relatively recent Ethnographic Atlas identified 1,234 societies,
of which only 186 were monogamous. Another 453 reported occasional
polygyny. However, a significant number of 588 reported frequent polygyny.
Reflecting the generalized controls over women, only 4 societies reported
polyandry.
Some experts argue that there is a difference between tolerance of
polygamy and the actual practice of polygamy (Ball, 2015; Dorf, 2011;
Hull, 2001; Lannutti, 2005; Pierceson, 2014; Shulman, Gotta, and Green,
2012). The demands of modern life, such as the need to provide schooling
for children lasting at least 12 years, means that many families cannot
really afford the burden of polygamy even if it is tolerated in their society.
The reality is that most people living in societies that practice polygamy
tend to practice monogamy. Moreover, research around polygamy can be
complicated by the fact that it is banned in many countries, and the participants
do not wish to admit to engaging in what is tantamount to criminality.
One area of interest is the clandestine practice of de facto polygamy in
Western liberal democracies, where it is effectively banned. This could lead
to the development of an underclass of women who have no legal rights
and yet they are married in practice. Additionally, there is a tendency to
minimize the realities of polygamy (including family conflict and poverty)
whilst idealizing it as a return to traditional family values, particularly in

Africa. However, the reality is that polygamy is a very demanding form of
marriage that is not conducive for a modern way of life. In all these marriage
categories, there is always an underpinning assumption of heterosexuality
and cisgender partners when there may be members of the population that
do not conform to this assumption. The next section explores the process of
selecting a partner for marriage.
1.4. SELECTING A MARRIAGE PARTNER

The selection of a partner reinforces the existing cultural norms and values
in each society (Berg, 2010; Bernstein and Taylor, 2013; Boertien and
Vignoli, 2019; Brandzel, 2005; Brewer and Wilcox, 2005; Brown, 1994).
For example, there are some societies in which bridewealth and dowry are
highly prized.
This means that the selection of a marriage partner will prioritize those
that have the means to deliver the requisite amounts of bride price and
dowry. Indeed, there are some countries that are facing a crisis of falling
marriage rates because young people can no longer afford all the expenses
that are associated with having a wedding. If the conditions are completely
outside the realms of reality, the young people may decide to either elope or
cohabit. Others wait to formalize their relationship until they have built up a
significant resource base, meanwhile having children that are “illegitimate”
under the law. Figure 1.4 is an example of a compatibility matrix used in
dating agencies to address personality, cultural, and economic considerations
when selecting a partner.
Different cultures have developed a range of factors that determine what
is a socially acceptable marriage partner (Kogan, 2003; Koppelman, 1996,
1997, 2014; Kramer, 1996; Kreitzer, Hamilton, and Tolbert, 2014). At other
times, there are meta-rules that focus on the process of selecting a partner as
opposed to the selection criterion that are used. The decision may be made
on an individual basis or through the auspices of family. For example, many
traditional societies rely on parents to look for an appropriate husband and
wife. Indeed, there are instances where the couple is not even involved in the
negotiations, and they are simply informed that this is the person they will
be marrying. For LGBT people, this can create a trap of expectations where
they are forced into marriages of convenience either because their families
do not know that they are non-heterosexual or if the family decide that to
condone any kind of same-sex union will bring too much social shame to
the family.
Figure 1.4: Example of a compatibility matrix for a dating agency.
Source: Lumen Learning.

These LGBT people are then forced into the closet and into marriages
which do not bring them the kind of comfort that is expected of such a
union. In fact, some parents may hope to “cure” their children by forcing
them to have sexual relationships with someone of the opposite sex.
One of the key considerations is the age gap or even the age of the
participants (Shulman, Gotta, and Green, 2012; Smith, DeSantis, and
Kassel, 2006; Smith, 2005, 2007). There is a tendency to look unfavorably
at relationships between older women and younger men. However,
relationships between older men and younger women are accepted. For
LGBT couples, these expectations are exaggerated because of the fear of
pedophilia. The United Nations World Fertility Report indicates that most
people who get married do so before they are 49 years of age. However, that
can vary significantly across nations with a range of 50% to 100%.
Women have another consideration in terms of the “biological clock”
where there is a window in which women can safely carry a baby to term
(Wedgwood, 1999; Widiss, Rosenblatt, and NeJaime, 2007; Wight, LeBlanc,
and Lee Badgett, 2013; Wilson, 2013). Nevertheless, the availability of
modern ova processing facilities means that career women with means can
put off having children later through storing their eggs. Some cultures are
concerned about the ability to bring up children when the couple is old, and
this has been an issue for those that opt to adopt after 60 years of age. In
the most extreme cases, children are forced into marriage because they are
assumed to be fertile and disease-free. This has been one of the key causes
of HIV/AIDS among youth. There is a high level of ageism and sexism
when dealing with multigenerational relationships.
There are cultures that are more liberal in their approach to the selection
of marriage partner, while others are far stricter (Cahill and Cahill, 2004;
McVeigh and Maria-Elena, 2009; Tamagawa, 2016; Webb and Chonody,
2014). A case in point is those cultures that do not allow marriage into the
father’s and mother’s clans. The concept of a clan is very extensive and
includes people with whom one shares affinity going back over 500 years
ago but where there is really no blood relationship. From a biological point
of view, there are serious impediments to marriage based on consanguinity,
yet society insists that no marriage can occur between people who are related
in this way. Then there are cultures that allow for marriage between cousins
who share blood, and this can lead to an increase in birth defects. There
was a time in Europe when Church authorities were given the power to
allow marriages to take place despite some blood relation as long as proper
dispensation was received. In these instances, there is an interplay between
concerns about the biological consequences of incestuous relationships and
the socially defined boundaries of an acceptable degree of consanguinity
when getting married.
There is a lot of social stigma against people that fail to conform to
societal conventions on marriage and the selection of partners (Berg, 2010;
Hogg, 2006; MacDougall, 2000; Soule, 2004). For example, those that
engage in sexual relationships with underage people are called pedophiles
and can be prosecuted for what is a crime. Other problems may result
due to marriages where the age gap is significantly longer than 10 years.
For example, society may ostracize the couple. Younger partners to such
multigenerational marriages are accused of being predatory and taking
advantage of vulnerable older people. Meanwhile, the older partner is
accused of using their money and power to exploit the youth of their partner.
Where the older partner is a woman, members of the community will openly
express distress at the fact that the woman is unable to give their spouse
children. Eventually, the couple may buckle under pressure and decide to
separate. Others may remain together but take lovers within their own age
group to conform with society’s expectations of them.
The need for social status may influence marriage decisions, but also open
those that reference this issue when selecting a partner to ridicule (Bernstein
and Taylor, 2013; Boertien and Vignoli, 2019; Brandzel, 2005; Brewer and
Wilcox, 2005; Brown, 1994; Buchanan, 1984). There is particular interest in
the causes and effects of hypergamy as well as the notion of the “gold digger”
and their “sugar daddy” or “sugar mummy.” Some individuals specifically
seek partners who are either higher or lower than their socioeconomic
status, whereas others will not tolerate partners that are outside their social
status. Any of these decisions can lead to compatibility issues, particularly
when children are eventually involved. For women, the societal expectation
might be that they marry someone of a higher status to lift themselves and
their families from a lower socioeconomic status. Other communities insist
that women are supposed to be perpetual dependents that are not expected
to earn, inherit, or pass on wealth except through bride price and dowry.
Society, in general, makes very subjective judgments about the motivations
for a particular marriage. For example, there is general disapproval of
transactional relationships that are based on the desire for financial security
rather than love. Others refer to them as marriages of convenience without
any deep commitment to the other partner. Courts have developed many
protective mechanisms, including prenuptial agreements and separate party
clauses when settling divorces.
Most societies place restrictions on the selection of relatives for marriage,
as informed by the experience of dealing with increasing deformities
among the resultant offspring and generalized societal disapproval of incest
(Pierceson, 2014; Pinello, 2006; Powell, Quadlin, and Pizmony-Levy, 2015;
Rimmerman and Wilcox, 2007). One of the key taboos is any kind of sexual
relationship between parents and children, which is universal. Similarly,
virtually all societies forbid marriage between siblings. In some instances,
there are no direct blood relationships, but society will look down on such
relationships. A case in point is members of a blended family (step-siblings
who do not share any blood) who may not be forbidden from marrying
by law but choose not to do so because it is not socially acceptable. It is
nevertheless important to note that many marriages throughout history have
been conducted between and among distant relatives. For example, some
experts argue that 8 out of 10 marriages in the past involved people who
shared some level of genetic heredity. This is particularly true as near as
second cousins in some societies. Families may not wish to disburse their
wealth and professional expertise beyond their own circle when choosing to
marry. However, over time society has become less approving of marriages
between second cousins. The USA stigmatizes such marriages as an

indicator of inbreeding in which is taken to be a predictor of mental and
moral retardation. Currently, 30 of the 50 states in the USA ban marriage
between first cousins. South Korea is even stricter in banning marriage
between people of identical last name and ancestral lines.
The complex relationships between and among family members can lead
to some challenges with regards to the management of marriage (Damslet,
1992; Dorf, 2011; Ellison, Acevedo, and Ramos‐Wada, 2011; Eskridge,
1993, 1999). A case in point is the legal provisions against avunculate
marriages that occur between uncles or aunts and their nephews or nieces.
Most countries forbid such marriages given the proximity of. Nevertheless,
such marriages have been legalized in Australia, Argentina, Russia, Austria,
and Malaysia. Ultimately, the treatment of marriage is largely dependent on
the attitudes of society. Some religious scripts such as Shariat Law provide
guidance to those that follow them. The challenge is in following these rules
where Shariat Law has not been officially recognized and incorporated into
domestic law. Similar restrictions based on caste systems may be privately
exercised, but they do not have a legal basis. This chapter will close by
considering the economic aspects of marriage.
1.5. THE ECONOMICS OF MARRIAGE

Marriage has economic implications for the people involved and the
community at large (Vanita, 2005; Walls, 2010; Wardle, 1996; Webb and
Chonody, 2014; Wedgwood, 1999; Widiss, Rosenblatt, and NeJaime, 2007).
Some of these considerations are indirect, such as income, housing, education,
health, and pension. Others are less direct in terms of the productivity of the
family as a unit and the behavior as consumers, particularly if the family is
expanded through reproduction. Besides, there is a marriage industry that
has significant implications for that segment that relies on its existence,
including the wedding industry, divorce law, custody, and inheritance issues.
Culture, time, experience, and personality will largely determine the ways
in which the economic aspects of marriage are negotiated within the family
unit and outside at the micro, meso, and macro-level of society. There are
certain cultures in which marriage is transactional in some respects, such
as the transfer of bride price, dowry, and social capital. Indeed, many of
the economic negotiations may not even involve the couple directly but are
undertaken by extended family members, elders, and representatives of the
community. Figure 1.5 summarizes the economic facets of marriage and
divorce as a case in point.
Figure 1.5: The economics of marriage and divorce.
Source: Trend Hunter.

When considering the economic dynamics at play, it is important to
also note the advantages and disadvantages that marriage creates (Trandafir,
2014; Trosino, 1993; Vanita, 2005; Walls, 2010; Wardle, 1996; Webb and
Chonody, 2014). For example, there was a time when married couples
were paid more than single people. Indeed, many state benefits specifically
target married couples, yet the tax base includes many single people. From
a practical point of view, having more than one source of income and
effort can be advantageous. Single, childless people are often placed at the
bottom of the benefit considerations for the state. Instead, there is an effort
to support married couples with their children using state funds. There are
concerns about young people that are forced into marriage for the purpose
of settling a debt or financial obligation by another party, usually a parent or
grandparent. Even worse are situations when forced marriages are imposed
on underage children.
The economic dynamics of the marriage itself might lead to conflict
in the future (Damslet, 1992; Dorf, 2011; Ellison, Acevedo, and Ramos‐
Wada, 2011; Eskridge, 1993, 1999). For example, where a husband has
paid an exorbitant amount of bride price, they may conclude that they have
effectively bought a wife. This can lead to domestic violence, abuse, and
exploitation. Meanwhile, the victim, who is usually the wife, is unable to
separate from or divorce her husband until the bridewealth has been fully
repaid. In earlier times, it was expected that people would marry within their
own social circles so that there were cross-cultural challenges in the marriage
and to maintain a certain standard of living. Over time, society became more
egalitarian, and it is now possible for people to jump social barriers to get
married. One of the interesting aspects concerning the introduction of same-
sex marriage is the fact that many of the economic dynamics experienced
in traditional marriage are transferred to alternative forms of marriage. For
example, there have been bitter same-sex divorce cases that follow well-
known patterns of acrimony and bickering over assets.
One of the most contentious aspects of marriage is the management
of divorce, particularly if one of the participants has come to the union
with significantly more resources than the other (Kail, Acosta, and Wright,
2015; Kandaswamy, 2008; Klarman, 2012; Kogan, 2003; Koppelman,
1996). Moreover, there was a particular challenge for homemakers (who
were typically wives) who spent their entire life looking after the home;
only to discover that during divorce proceedings, their contribution was
undervalued. Basically, the patriarchal approach was to argue that the
man as the breadwinner was the only one entitled to take property; with
notable exemptions for children who had to be protected in their minority.
Later, feminists successfully argued that homemakers were as important
as breadwinners when it came to running the home and that without their
contribution, men would not be able to achieve the corporate heights
that allowed them to earn more income than women. Some women saw
the homemaker position as a disempowering gendered role and therefore
sought to combine work and reproductive responsibilities. The introduction
of flexible working hours and part-time work was partly a response to the
needs of these women. LGBT couples face similar challenges when dividing
up property and may even have the additional issue of not having children
to link them together. That means that the person that is required to pay
alimony is particularly embittered about having to maintain someone with
whom they no longer have any meaningful connection.
Same-sex relationships provide a conundrum for the institution of
marriage, which has always been gendered in such a way as to make women
subservient and men dominant (Ball, 2015; Barclay and Fisher, 2003; Barker,
2012; Baunach, 2012; Beck, 2013; Berg, 2010; Bernstein and Taylor, 2013).
If you have a situation of two men, then there is a dilemma about who is to
be treated as dominant and who is to be treated as subservient. Over time,
the LGBT community has attempted to negotiate these power relationships
bearing in mind the heterosexist schema under which the more “masculine”
partner is considered to be the dominant husband while the more effeminate
one is considered to be the “feminine” wife. A lot of internalized homophobia

has developed in the community surrounding these issues. The divorce
courts are having to deal with the effects of the various conceptualizations
of marriage which now includes same-sex couples. Notably, there have been
concerns about the distribution of marital property and inheritance rights
in case one of the partners dies. Traditional marriage considered unequal
relationships to be essential to its survival. However, a more egalitarian
modern age is beginning to question the utility of these power imbalances
when everyone is supposed to be equal.
The formalized transactional nature of a traditional marriage may not
always be present in same-sex marriages, not least because most traditional
marriages neither approve of same-sex marriages nor participate in the
ceremonies associated with them (Schragger, 2005; Sherkat, De Vries,
and Creek, 2010; Sherkat et al., 2011; Shulman, Gotta, and Green, 2012).
For example, it is virtually unheard of that a family would ask for a bride
price or dowry for a same-sex wedding. In many cases, the family merely
reconciles themselves to the fact that one of their own is happy and fulfilled
in their private life as opposed to engaging in a big wedding that involves
all members of the extended family. Indeed, there have been cases where
the parents and siblings of the same-sex couple are ostracized in their
communities for “enabling” what others might consider being pathological
behavior. Hence, the discrimination that affects same-sex couples in a very
direct way can also be redirected to their loved ones who decide to give
them any kind of support. In any case, transactional concepts such as dowry
would make no sense in a same-sex marriage without a clear husband and
wife role.
It is important not to ignore the significance of certain concepts that
are associated with traditional marriage, just because they do not conform
to our modern understanding of human relationships (Sherkat et al., 2011;
Shulman, Gotta, and Green, 2012; Smith, DeSantis, and Kassel, 2006;
Smith, 2005). A case in point is the role that is played by dowry to allow
the family to distribute wealth to their daughter and her offspring upon
marriage. In societies where inheritance is limited to the male line, this
might be the only way in which daughters will ever get any share of their
parent’s wealth. However, it is also notable that dowry may be incorporated
into the wealth of the new family, which is controlled by the man. That
means that a woman does not directly inherit anything. Instead, she inherits
on behalf of her husband their children. Other families consider dowry to be
an early form of inherent while the parents are still alive (inter vivos). This
is differentiated from those inheritance that happens upon the death of any
of the parents (Mortis causa). For new families, the dowry creates the basis
of a conjugal fund that can assist in the upbringing of children and fulfilling
other marital commitments. The actual nature of the fund and its usage will
largely depend on the norms and customs of that community. For example,
the conjugal fund may be used as a foundation of the endowment that the
woman will enjoy during her widowhood. If there is any residue left, it can
go to either her sons or daughters, depending on any restrictions that are
placed on expending that fund.
In countries like Sri Lanka, India, Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal,
and Morocco, there is an expectation that dowry will have to be paid before
the marriage can take place (Gerstmann, 2017; Gher, 2007; Goldberg-Hiller,
2009; Hester and Gibson, 2007; Hogg, 2006; Hooghe and Meeusen, 2013).
This can cause significant pressures for the bride and her relatives since they
must come up with this money, or else their daughter runs the risk of never
getting married at all. India is an example of a country that has reported
significant statistics of deaths that are related to the payment and receipt
of dowry, with some estimates talking in terms of thousands of people per
annum. In response, there are jurisdictions that have enacted legislation
that either curtails or redefines dowry so that it does place an unsustainable
burden on women and their families. The Dowry Law in India is an example
of this type of reform that is gradually taking place. Nepal definitively makes
dowry illegal under its jurisdiction since 2009, but it is not clear that these
rules are adhered to in a country that is deeply traditional in many ways. One
of the main attractions of dowry is that it can be used to indicate social status
and the loss of the same if a woman is unable to come up with the requisite
sums. Hence, the failure to produce dowry is not perceived as a case of
conscientious objection but rather the attempt to save face after failing to
afford the true expense of a wedding. So far, there have been no indications
of dowry being paid in these countries for same-sex couples. This makes
sense given the fact that, by and large, these countries also have laws against
homosexuality.
Certain gender roles underpin the ways in which exchange takes place
before, during, and after marriage (Alderson, 2004; Chamie and Mirkin,
2011; Gher, 2007; Koppelman, 2014; Moskowitz, Rieger, and Roloff,
2010). For example, there are contrasts in the ways that transactional costs
are meet during the marriage negotiations depending on the sex and gender
of the parties. The dower is the masculine version of dowry in as far as
it is the money that is paid by the groom and his family to the parents of
the bride. There is also an indirect form of dowry or dower whereby some
property from the husband’s side is given to the bride. This property remains
under the control of the woman and can therefore act as an insurance policy
against the dissolution of the marriage. Some traditions foresaw some of the
challenges that couples face during the conduct of their marriage. A case in
point is the notion of the “ketubah,” which is traditionally included in Jewish
weddings where the rabbis in ancient times ensured that this prenuptial
agreement was in place before they could officiate at the ceremonies. One of
the terms of such an arrangement is that there is a stipulated amount that the
husband must pay to the wife in case of a divorce of his death. This acts as
an additional level of protection for women who may be otherwise relatively
weak in their marital relationships. Some commentators have argued that the
Ketubah is an example of a traditional practice being updated to deal with
a modern problem of young people who would like to get married but are
unable to do so because they cannot afford all the costs involved. Using the
Ketubah was a form of promissory note for a bride price or even dowry.
CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY
The initial chapter has attempted to introduce the conceptualization of
marriage as a social institution that allows men and women to join in a union
with aspects of sexual intercourse, relationships, and commitments. Such
a schema is traditionally associated with heterosexual unions of cisgender
people. However, the modern notions of personal freedom and egalitarianism
have embraced new forms of marriage, which are incrementally gaining
acceptance across the globe. The chapter also touched on the implications
of marriage, including the requisite financial obligations and benefits. In
doing so, this chapter introduced the notion that marriage has been turned
into an exclusive club that does not admit outsiders, particularly those who
are neither heterosexual nor cisgender. This exclusion stems from the very
processes that underpin marriage include the involvement of the extended
family or community, typologies of marriage, the selection of a partner, and
the economics of marriage. To achieve true legality, same-sex marriage has
had to convince traditionalists that it does not infringe on the space that was
allocated to traditional marriage. Moreover, as we shall see later in the book,
there is an ongoing debate as to whether to grant the full benefits of marriage
to same-sex couples. This will be a theme that is briefly touched on in the
next chapter will focus on the legal frameworks that support marriage.
CHAPTER 2
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

OF MARRIAGE
CONTENTS
2.1. Standard Requirements for an Effective Marriage............................... 30
2.2. Race, Gender in Marriage.................................................................. 35
2.3. Civil Unions and Power Relations in Marriage................................... 41
2.4. Regulation of Sexual Relations in Marriage........................................ 47
2.5. Legitimacy of Children Born in and Outside Marriage....................... 53
Chapter 2 Summary.................................................................................. 59
This second chapter examines the legal framework under which marriage
occurs and is accepted by society. It will also highlight the systematic
exclusion of LGBT people from this legal framework, until recently
when the notion of same-sex marriage was introduced into mainly liberal
democracies. The first section of this chapter will examine the standard legal
requirements of a marriage. In the second section, we will consider how
gender and race determine power relations in a marriage. The third section
covers the rationale and process for civil marriage in terms of their ability
to alter the power relations among couples. The 4th section in this chapter
is concerned with the regulation of sexual relationships among married
couples. The chapter will then close with a section on the legitimacy status
of children depending on whether they are born inside or outside wedlock.
2.1. STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR AN

EFFECTIVE MARRIAGE
Each country will enact a body of laws and regulations that are supposed to
define in very concrete terms what a legitimate marriage is (Gerstmann, 2017;
Gher, 2007; Goldberg-Hiller, 2009; Hester and Gibson, 2007; Hogg, 2006;
Hooghe and Meeusen, 2013). Sometimes these regulations are placed under
family law, while at other times, they are set aside as specifically relating to
marriage and divorce. The ethos is often based on keeping families together
and reducing the level of divorces. However, the increasing egalitarianism
of the Western world has meant that divorce rates have increased regardless.
Quite simply, many people feel entitled to divorce according to their wishes
and timing. That has led to the development of no-fault divorces, which
are much quicker than the protracted previous divorce proceedings where
something as serious as adultery had to be proved. One can chart the
norms and culture of a given society by examining the rules of government
marriage. For example, a patriarchal and heterosexist society is less likely to
be concerned about the rights of women and LGBT people that may wish to
get married. Figure 2.1 is an example of standard requirements for marriage
in the USA state of North Carolina.
Because the validity of a marriage is an essential aspect of its social
recognition, almost all couples are concerned about ensuring that they
follow the law to remain married (Coolidge, 1997; Corvino and Gallagher,
2012; Cox, Navarro-Rivera, and Jones, 2014; Damslet, 1992; Dorf, 2011).
Those who fail to adhere to the rules will invariably find that their rights
under the marriage are compromised. The consequences of these rights not
The Legal Framework of Marriage 31
being recognized can be as dire as being deported. One of the contentious

issues that are likely to be settled by the law is those issues pertaining to
separation and divorce. Typically, the issues that are raised in court include
alimony, child maintenance, and custody. These are very emotive issues that
have the potential to turn previously loving couples into intractable enemies.
Figure 2.1: Standard requirements for an effective marriage in North Carolina.
Source: Adapted from Slide Player.

Marriage laws refer to the legal requirements which determine the
validity of a marriage, which vary considerably between countries (Barclay
and Fisher, 2003; Barker, 2012; Baunach, 2012; Beck, 2013; Berg, 2010;
Bernstein and Taylor, 2013). Implicit in the legal requirements is the notion
that marriage is a human right. For example, article 16 in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights talks about the right to marry, which should
not be curtailed once the age of majority has been reached. Some of the
factors that should not be considered include race, yet we know that the
anti-miscegenation laws (particularly in the USA) prevented people from
marrying across races. Another factor that should ideally not be relevant is
nationality, yet we know that in some liberal democracies, there are controls
on marriages between citizens and non-citizens which are designed to prevent
fraudulent marriages for purposes of acquiring legal residency. Whereas
religion is not supposed to be a barrier to marriage, there are countries in
Asia and the Middle East where marrying on-Muslims is looked down upon
in society. Some people may even be harassed for breaking Shariat Law,
ostensibly on account of marrying someone that is not a Muslim. In some
ways, marriage has become a scene of competing values, and the outcome
for couples largely depends on what society considers to be important. In

fact, there are instances where couples must compromise their own values
to conform with the laws of their adopted country. That is precisely what
happened to Muslims who were previously in polygamous relationships and
had to revert to monogamous marriages once they immigrated to developed
and Eurocentric countries.
The human rights perspective also offers the ability to have a child as
a fundamental component of marriage (Lodola and Corral, 2010; Lupia et
al., 2010; MacDougall, 2000; McVeigh and Maria-Elena, 2009; Meezan and
Rauch, 2005). However, there are instances where vulnerable people (such
as those with disabilities) have been right to have or even raise their own
children. The rights that are mentioned above hold true only if the parties
to a marriage have willingly consented to it. That excludes situations of
child marriage or forced marriage, although they happen in many societies.
There are some marriages that can only become legal once a parent has
consented. For example, there are states in which a child who is between 16
and 18 years of age might obtain vicarious consent through their parents. In
such cases, the failure to obtain consent from parents renders the marriage
invalid. Parents have sometimes protested these provisions because they
seem to take away their authority in favor of the state making decisions
that are traditionally left to the parent. Besides, the rules are not always
consistently applied such that children who are not yet of age can elope, and
nobody has an appetite for subjecting them to the legal process.
One of the key emerging realities of marriage is that it is not open to
everybody (Fingerhut, Riggle, and Rostosky, 2011; Flores, 2015; Franke,
2006; Gaines and Garand, 2010; Gerstmann, 2017). In the past, this was
an exclusive club for heterosexual cisgender people. The introduction of
same-sex marriage has opened new notions and challenges for marriage as
an institution. For example, there was a time when the age of consent for
non-heterosexual activity was placed at a higher level than for heterosexual
activity. Campaigners successfully convinced the courts that this difference
was not driven by science, but rather social beliefs. In any case, one of the
arguments advanced in favor of marriage equality is that its benefits should
be shared equally across the population and not become the exclusive right
of cisgender heterosexual couples. Besides, the objections by religious
communities should not inform the civil code since any population will
have a mixture of people with different belief systems. It would therefore be
unfair to run the government based on the beliefs of a few who are effectively
dictating the lives of the rest of the community.
There are certain privileges and responsibilities that come with marriage
(Kramer, 1996; Kreitzer, Hamilton, and Tolbert, 2014; Lahey and Alderson,
2004; Langbein and Yost, 2009). It is important for each of the parties to
understand their obligations, while at the same time ensuring that their
wellbeing and interests are protected. For example, there was once a time
when the term “marital rape” was deemed impossible since marriage
entitled one to sexual intercourse with their spouse. However, a more
progressive approach took sway in which women had the right to say no
and that their “no” was to be always taken seriously. Similarly, the spouses
must understand that they are creating new familiar ties that might obligate
them in ways that they had not previously considered. For example, they
will be socially prevented from marrying certain people from the opposite
side of the family, including brothers and sisters-in-law. In some cultures,
the son-in-law is expected to provide financing to his in-law or otherwise
contribute to the family finances. Meanwhile, women may be required to
take on the role of caregivers in both families. One of the more problematic
obligations was to engage in sexual relations with in-laws, such as would
occur in widow inheritance and the sharing of wives. This has been deemed
to be a serious form of marital abuse in many Western liberal democracies,
and yet it still occurs in some communities.
Most jurisdictions will have a social contract that accompanies marriage,
and this contract can have legal consequences because it places certain
obligations on a person because they are married (Meezan and Rauch, 2005;
Moskowitz, Rieger, and Roloff, 2010; Olson, Cadge, and Harrison, 2006;
Onuche, 2013). For example, marriage may be assumed to allow for couples
to surrender their sexualities to the other partner. Other communities insist
that a married person also offers up their labor to the other party to build the
finances of the family. Indeed, some religious ceremonies specify that the
couples are now one and must share equally all their properties. The spouses
may be required to take on debt obligations, and there are countries that
have made it illegal to secure debts on marital property without obtaining
the consent of the other parties. As one can glean from the examples
provided above, the social contracts involved in marriage can be onerous
for individuals and communities that do not necessarily conform to what
the majority pattern is. For LGBT couples, there is a false and ultimately
damaging dichotomy of choices between forced celibacy and engaging
in a conventional marriage that is contrary to their tastes and preferences.
Besides, there have been changes in the law that imply that it is no longer
tenable to coerce people into relationships of convenience for the purpose
of meeting societal expectations. Nevertheless, society can exert social

pressure to ensure that people get married at certain times and to certain
people. In the worst-case scenario, these forced rules have led to suicides
and domestic violence. Hence, marriage ceases to be a conducive and happy
social contract when it relies on blackmail, bullying, and manipulation of
the most vulnerable members of society.
There are certain rights and responsibilities that emanate from marriage;
hence their absence or degradation can feel like an insult (Baunach, 2012;
Beck, 2013; Berg, 2010; Bernstein and Taylor, 2013; Boertien and Vignoli,
2019; Brandzel, 2005; Brewer and Wilcox, 2005). A case in point is the
right of custody and involvement in health decisions. If one of the partners
is hospitalized, institutionalized, or even incarcerated; the law provides for
the other partner to have precedence in visits. The partner makes also makes
decisions about care, including end-of-life decisions. This used to be one of
the most painful aspects for same-sex couples after being denied the right to
marry because the other person’s family sometimes pushed them away and
even excluded them from visiting their partner. Indeed, this was one of the
most persuasive arguments for same-sex marriage. Many noted the blatant
abuse that same-sex couples faced during the HIV/AIDS scourge when their
homophobic families would curtail their rights during this vulnerable time.
The systemic delegitimization of same-sex relations during the HIV/AIDS
pandemic had significant negative impacts on the psychosocial wellbeing
of all involved. First, the patient would spend their final hours without their
love done and not knowing whether their loved one would be involved in
their funeral arrangements. The left partner, who might also be dealing with
the prospect of death, was excluded from the final hours of their partner. All
contributed to a deterioration of end-of-life care provided, contrary to the
objectives of the healthcare team.
Another contentious issue involved children (Brown, 1994; Hunter,
2012; Onuche, 2013; Trosino, 1993). There was a damaging assumption that
same-sex couples were neither maternal nor paternal. In any case, society
did not see any reason to allow same-sex couples access to children. For a
long time, same-sex couples were not allowed to adopt and even faced the
prospect of losing access to their children if they decided to come out as
being LGBT person. Even recently, there has been a reactionary response
to the spread of LGBT rights, with some jurisdictions tightening the
requirements for adoption to prevent LGBT people from ever having access
to this right. Rainbow families face continuous societal challenges to their
legitimacy, with some conservative voices suggesting that these families
may be at risk of abuse and neglect. Others even suggest that the mere
fact of adopting children is a recruitment strategy for LGBT people so that
they can indoctrinate young children into their lifestyle. These stereotypes
and falsehoods were used to emphasize the notion that LGBT people were
inherently unworthy of being formal spouses and the responsibilities that
stem from that status. In the next section, we will briefly explore the role of
race and gender in the marriage equality movement.
2.2. RACE, GENDER IN MARRIAGE

Two of the issues that determine the dynamics of marriage in a modern
context are race and gender (Brown, 1994; Buchanan, 1984; Buffie, 2011;
Cahill and Cahill, 2004; Chambers, 1997; Chamie and Mirkin, 2011;
Coolidge, 1997). For a long time, the society sought to define who could
get married to whom. Some societies specifically wanted to prevent any
form of mixing that crossed racial and religious lines. This policy was
implemented regardless of the ultimate damage it caused to the people who
were affected. The USA was a clear example of anti-miscegenation laws and
attitudes that made it increasingly difficult for intermarriage based on. Once
again, we see an example of society controlling the ways in which marriages
are conducted and the suitability of marriage partners. In these cases, the
personal preferences of the couples were secondary to the pressures that
society imposed on them to conform. As Figure 2.2 shows, the rate of
intermarriage can vary across races. For example, in the USA, nearly 60%
of American Indians were found to be intermarried when compared to only
7% of whites.
Figure 2.2: Race and intermarriage.

For LGBT people, gender is even more pertinent than race; although
there is evidence to suggest that some of the racist attitudes and tensions
that exist in society have seeped into LGBT culture (Smith, 2007; Soule,
2004; Strasser, 2018; Sullivan, 2004; Tamagawa, 2016; Trandafir, 2014;

Trosino, 1993). History is littered with stories of regimes that were afraid
of the consequences if people were allowed to freely associate. Some of
these fears were founded on the fear of race-mixing, which might dilute
one race to its detriment. Others felt that some races were so inferior as to
be unworthy of marriage and that it would be criminal to allow them access
to this privilege. The population was required to adhere to the strict racial
lines, and those that broke them faced significant punishment, including
being put to death. In terms of race, conservative voices were determined
that there should be no mixing of the races. This was particularly important
because of the notion that one race (white) was so superior to all other races
that it must not be tainted by them. Additionally, the “one-drop rule” meant
that anybody with a trace of African heritage (matter how miniscule) was
considered to be “black” and therefore suitable for the kind of discrimination
that blacks were meant to suffer under white-majority societies. North
American legislators banned race-mixing as early as 1691 and as late as
1967. Germany did the same during the era of the Nazis, and these were
collectively known as “The Nuremberg Laws,” which specifically excluded
Jews from mixing with any European race. Additionally, LGBT people and
people with disabilities could be put to death to “cleanse” the population
of their assumed contaminated genes. That era of mainly anti-Semitic and
homophobic legislation lasted from 1935 to 1945. The apartheid regime in
South Africa enacted similar legislation to prevent whites from marrying
other races and therefore diluting the notion of white superiority. Not only
was marriage banned, but even the mere act of sexual intercourse was a
criminal act in those jurisdictions.
The anti-miscegenation laws were meant to target certain communities
for social exclusion and degradation (Ball, 2014; Franke, 2006; Lee and
Hicks, 2011; Sherkat, De Vries, and Creek, 2010). Those that had crossed
the racial barrier in their personal lives were race traitors to those that
believed in racial purity. The sanctions could range from social disapproval
to prosecution, depending on the circumstances. More often, the partner that
was more vulnerable could be subjected to verbal, emotional, and physical
lynching. The courts were reluctant to give rights to these couples since it
went against the grain and even threatened the community sanction for the
legal system. For example, some states in the USA prohibited any marital
connections between a white person and black people. The belief was that
mixing races would dilute the pure “white” blood that was necessary for
maintaining the Eurocentric civilization that had been constructed in North
America. It did not matter about the character of the people involved. All that
the state was interested in was maintaining white supremacy as the dominant
social force in America. Then there were those states that prohibited any
marriage between a white person and anyone of Asian or Native-American
origin. It is estimated that between 1913 and 1948, nearly three-quarters of the
USA was under anti-miscegenation laws. Certainly, 30 out of 50 states that
make the USA enacted legislation to this effect. Others did not legislate, but
there was a generalized societal revulsion against “race traitors” that crossed
racial lines. Despite the proposal of an anti-miscegenation amendment to the
constitution, it did not pass into law, and this remained a state issue. Indeed,
the abolition of anti-miscegenation law took a long time under the states,
even where the federal government had implicitly expressed support for
some form of reform. The advent of same-sex marriage followed a similar
trajectory in which the federal government calls for action, and the states
take a long time to finally enact the appropriate legislation.
The courts have traditionally played a critical role in extending marriage
rights, sometimes to the chagrin of social conservatives who argue that any
reforms should be the exclusive right of elected politicians (Pierceson, 2014;
Pinello, 2006; Powell, Quadlin, and Pizmony-Levy, 2015; Rimmerman
and Wilcox, 2007). However, the courts have increasingly found that the
democratic majority should not legislate to infringe on the human rights of
minorities. This protection is especially important for LGBT people who
otherwise would have to take on highly entrenched institutions to successfully
argue for same-sex marriage. A circular argument had developed in which
LGBT people had to go to authorities for their rights, yet those authorities
had been conditioned and instructed not to offer those rights. Then some
argued that LGBT people had to persuade the wider community about
the justice of their cause. However, that same society had been influenced
by homophobic and sexist attitudes, which ensured that any plebiscite to
offer equality to LGBT people would ultimately fail. Hence, LGBT people
were degraded to second-class citizenship that was insidious as it was
perpetual. In the USA, the Supreme Court considered the very foundation
of anti-miscegenation laws in the aptly titled case “Loving v. Virginia.” In
a surprisingly unanimous decision, the usually socially conservative court
ruled that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. The ruling meant
that the last remaining 16 states with these laws in the USA had to nullify
them to comply with the ruling of the court. Although seemingly impossible
at the time, the same logic would later lead to same-sex marriage decades
later when the same court found that it was unconstitutional to bar LGBT
couples from marriage though insisting that this privilege is the exclusive
right of heterosexual couples.
The Nazis in Germany had even more sinister motives in trying to
purify an idealized Aryan race, a process which excluded non-Europeans,
homosexuals, and people with any kind of disability (Lewis and Gossett,
2008; Lodola and Corral, 2010; Lupia et al., 2010; MacDougall, 2000;
McVeigh and Maria-Elena, 2009). This was an overarching narrative of
white heterosexual and cisgender supremacy. In the search for perfection,
human beings can be meticulous in their ostracization of those who do not
conform to what is deemed to be the norm. Members of the community that
once lived relatively peacefully in a country can suddenly find themselves
on the receiving end of hateful and discriminatory policies. Sociologists
and psychologists have identified various causes of this collective hate. For
example, it has been speculated that the dehumanization of other people
allows the majority to engage in otherwise unacceptable behavior. Others
argue that pre-existing tensions within the society are exploited by politicians
to create an atmosphere of intolerance and fascists attitudes. At other times,
certain voices in the community may be worried about change and express
this worry in violent ways against those who are vulnerable. German was
the scene of many outrages that were hardly consistent with an otherwise
civilized country.
The battle cry for discrimination is often led by a group with vested
interests that can only be expressed in the most violent of ways, and this
can impact the ability to enact equality legislation (Boertien and Vignoli,
2019; Brandzel, 2005; Brewer and Wilcox, 2005; Brown, 1994; Buchanan,
1984; Buffie, 2011). Obviously, Nazi Germany one of the worst examples,
with serious consequences for the entire society. The consequences for those
groups in Nazi Germany went beyond being denied basic human rights
such as the right to work, marry, or access social services. Instead, the Nazi
regime embarked on a process of extermination which was meant to purify
the nation. The official ban on interracial marriage was ushered in by law
during the month of September in 1935, later become an intrinsic part of
the Nuremberg Laws. This law was titled “The Law for the Protection of
German Blood and German Honor.” The implication was that any kind of
interaction with any of the groups that were considered dishonorable could
taint German heritage and identity. Although it was never clear that Jews
were a race, the Nazi regime classified them as such and hence forbade
them from any kind of sexual intercourse with German people, including
marriage. Initially, the law focused on anyone of Jewish descent because
these were the most threatening minority in German society. Later, the Nazis
included “negroes,” gypsies, and any of their offspring in any generation;
hence reflecting the overall bigotry of the regime. Anyone who crossed
racial lines in this way was considered to have committed a race disgrace.
The culprits were imprisoned, deported to prison camps, or sentenced to
execution.
It is interesting to note the relationship between genocidal-racist
regimes and negative attitudes towards homosexuality (Lupia et al., 2010;
MacDougall, 2000; McVeigh and Maria-Elena, 2009; Meezan and Rauch,
2005). Together, these form a network of intolerance and discrimination
that can negatively impact people and communities. At the heart of this
discriminatory practice are regimes that have made the calculus that there
is political capital in targeting minorities. These regimes deliberately target
minorities for abuse and rely on the ignorance, complacency, or even active
participation of the majority. Indeed, the electoral process itself may serve
to disenfranchise those that are ostracized by their communities. It is only
through collective advocacy that some of these issues can be addressed.
Only a generalized community conscience will start the process towards
healing and the acceptance of difference. In Africa, we have the examples
of South Africa and Rwanda, two countries that have had their fair share of
racial tensions and dictatorial governments.
Nevertheless, the journey towards racial reconciliation also heralded a
move towards a much laxer attitude towards LGBT people in general and
even the possibility of same-sex marriage (Walls, 2010; Wardle, 1996; Webb
and Chonody, 2014; Wedgwood, 1999; Widiss, Rosenblatt, and NeJaime,
2007). During apartheid, the main dividing line was race. However, the
government was generally hostile to sexual minorities. In Rwanda, the issue
of sexual minorities was only a minor issue when compared to the main
issue of two tribes that were willing to go to extremes to exterminate each
other. The “Rainbow Nation” that South Africa aspired to, at least in the
immediate aftermath of apartheid, also became one of the beacons of sexual
freedom. Gay relationships and marriages are now permitted in South Africa.
Whereas Rwanda is yet to resolve its racial tensions, the experience of being
a minority under attack persuaded the Tutsi tribal grouping that LGBT people
should not be put to death because of their sexuality. Whereas traditional
African values still detest homosexuality in Rwanda, the government is not
actively trying to execute its LGBT communities. Sex and gender are keys
in the validation and conduct of marriage (Lannutti, 2005, 2007; Lee and
Hicks, 2011; Lenhardt, 2008; Lewis, 2005; Lewis and Gossett, 2008). For
example, those that are struggling with their sexual identity are sometimes
placed in a marriage construct that is disrespectful to them generally. That
means that they must conform with the expectations of society in terms of
their cisgender roles. Besides, the discrimination and violence that is faced
by those questioning their sex and gender are often ignored or minimized as
not being important. There are health issues that remain specific to intersex
and transsexual people, including higher than average HIV/AIDS rates in
certain parts of the world. Moreover, these communities face continuous
violence from their partners and in public spaces. Yet, there are limited
levels of psychosocial support, and the systemic discrimination that intersex
or transsexual people face is deemed to be a fraction of the overall trend of
discrimination against sexual minorities.
The lack of understanding of issues that are important to minorities plays
an important role in the development of policies that are not necessarily
cognizant of the entirety of the community (Badgett, 2009; Flores, 2015;
Lannutti, 2007; Schragger, 2005). In doing so, there is a tendency to focus on
the majority because politicians think of majorities as the priority. However,
a humanist perspective on these issues would dictate that all members
of the community are entitled to some basic rights. Besides, it would be
unfair to subject the rights of the minority to a democratic process that is
inherently rigged against equality. Nevertheless, governments intervene in
ways that are complicit or negligent when it comes to inequalities. They
do so safely in the knowledge that the majority of the populace will not be
against such moves. Hence, the interventionist action that is taken is often
limited and inappropriate to the needs of this vulnerable community. It is
only recently that pro-LGBT activism has focused on the experiences of
intersex and transsexual people as a unique subset of intersectionality that
must be addressed in a specific way and with an appropriate focus. That is
not meant to break up the LGBT community, but to ensure that every aspect
of that community is recognized and addressed appropriately.
Legislation that introduces same-sex marriage tends to focus on the right
to engage in the ceremony and legal recognition of the union, together with
all the benefits and responsibilities that that status entails (Shulman, Gotta,
and Green, 2012; Smith, DeSantis, and Kassel, 2006; Smith, 2005, 2007).
However, there is less legislative work concerning issues of gender and race
in same-sex marriage. It is clearly not enough for someone to engage in
a meaningless ceremony when their other rights are being systematically
trampled on. LGBT people are looking for real change and are not necessarily
interested in tokenism that serves to assuage the moral misgivings of those
that have been the beneficiaries of a heterosexist societal norm. In doing so,
LGBT people may be facing certain challenges within their community.
It is not accurate to suggest that discrimination and anti-equality views
do not exist in the LGBT community(Kogan, 2003; Koppelman, 1996, 1997,
2014; Kramer, 1996; Kreitzer, Hamilton, and Tolbert, 2014). The victim can
very easily turn into the aggressor through commission or omission. For
example, there has been research suggesting that internalized homophobia
and casual racism are very much part of the LGBT. For example, Italian
and Latin gay and bisexual men are sexualized and objectified through
negative stereotyping. Similarly, African American gay and bisexual men
are portrayed as being over-sexualized and uncouth. Indeed, there have been
reports of ethnic minorities being completely ignored in the LGBT agenda,
or otherwise being denied access to spaces that have been opened to white
LGBT people. One of the deadly consequences of these inequalities has been
the explosion of HIV/AIDS among African American gay and bisexual men,
despite all the strides that have been taken to combat the epidemic within the
USA. Those who live in Southern states with a history of institutionalized
racism are at an even bigger disadvantage given the dearth of support
services available to them. The next section examines the kinds of reforms
that have been instituted through the offer of civil unions.
2.3. CIVIL UNIONS AND POWER RELATIONS IN

MARRIAGE
When some social conservatives were effectively boxed in by the moral and
social imperative for inclusiveness, they argued that civil unions could be
offered as an alternative to traditional marriage (Koppelman, 1996, 1997,
2014; Kramer, 1996; Kreitzer, Hamilton, and Tolbert, 2014). Whereas this
seemed like an initially generous offer, a close examination of the relevant
legislation revealed that there an implicit assumption that civil unions would
be an inferior version of marriage that would quell the activists whilst
assuaging the concerns of the so-called moral majority, which was against
marriage equality. Some argued that civil unions excluded religious aspects
and were, therefore, open spaces for LGBT people or those that did not ascribe
to the notion of a religious marriage. In this way, religious institutions and
cultural traditions would not be imposed upon by LGBT people who wanted
to get married. The civil union would provide all the benefits of a legal
marriage without infringing on the social space that had been created for
religious and traditional couples. Whereas some LGBT communities readily
accepted this compromise, others argued for complete equal marriage. They
highlighted the fact that cisgender heterosexual couples could always obtain
civil unions if they wanted, but LGBT people could not obtain traditional
weddings and marriages if that is what they wished to have. Instead, they
were placed in the second class of couples that could never move beyond
the civil ceremony. Figure 2.3 illustrates some of the power dynamics in an
intimate relationship or marriage.
Figure 2.3: The effects of power play in a marriage or intimate relationships.
Source: Semantic Scholar.

Civil marriage is a state-sanctioned institution that is marked by a
ceremony that is mainly legal, as opposed to being religious or traditionally
cultural (Berg, 2010; Bernstein and Taylor, 2013; Boertien and Vignoli,
2019; Brandzel, 2005; Brewer and Wilcox, 2005; Brown, 1994). It is
the symbol of the state’s authority over marriage in general. This is the
authority of sanction and delegitimization. Hence, over time there develops
a dichotomy of state-sanctioned marriages and those that are not recognized
under the law. The state offered this type of union for those citizens that are
not religious or deeply cultural in terms of the ties to the communal past
of the society. A government official or approved celebrant will officiate
at the civil wedding, including witness affirmations. There are countries,
particularly in Southern Europe and South America, that normatively have

both a civil and religious ceremony. One of the crucial aspects of the civil
wedding that distinguishes it from a religious ceremony, for example, is the
fact that the couples always have a way out in terms of the divorce. This is
unlike the Catholic Church, which strongly discourages divorce and makes
remarriage exceedingly difficult if it happens. Indeed, some people who are
hoping to be married may be disappointed if they are only allowed a civil
wedding given the fact that it is largely considered to be a poor substitute for
a religious ceremony in some respects.
The denial of a religious ceremony to same-sex couples is strongly
associated with traditional teachings (Brandzel, 2005; Brewer and Wilcox,
2005; Brown, 1994; Buchanan, 1984; Buffie, 2011; Cahill and Cahill, 2004).
Virtually all traditional religions define marriage as a union between a man
and woman, with the expectation that the couple will be cisgender and
heterosexual. Under such a scheme, there is no space for same-sex couples
or even those that have a gender that is different from that which they had at
birth. Some social conservatives have relied on doctrinal interpretations of
their religious texts to show that there was never any allowance for marriages
other than those between heterosexual, cisgender couples. Therefore, it
makes sense that there are many in the LGBT community who will not
accept the civil union as the only allowable option for them in the marriage
stakes. They see it as an insult and a re-emphasis of their social exclusion.
To accept civil unions as the only option for LGBT people, may appear to
be an acceptance of an inferior position as well as all the restrictions that
society has placed on people who are neither cisgender nor heterosexual.
Hence, some of the advocacy for marriage equality has been the gradual
introduction of same-sex weddings in religious institutions such as Churches
and Mosques. This has attracted a backlash from the traditionalists who
argue that same-sex marriage has moved beyond equality and instead is
granting additional privileges to LGBT people.
The value and importance of civil marriage can vary from country to
country (Ball, 2014; Damslet, 1992; Hooghe and Meeusen, 2013; Langbein
and Yost, 2009; Pearl and Galupo, 2007). A case in point is those countries
(including Romania, Belgium, Turkey, the Netherlands, France, and
Bulgaria), which require that a civil wedding be first conducted before any
religious ceremony can take place. Other countries (including Norway,
Ireland, Spain, the USA, the UK, and Canada) allow for civil and religious
ceremonies to occur simultaneously. The implication is that a civil wedding
is as good as a religious wedding. However, that has not completely quelled
the concerns from some in the LGBT community that they are being given a
second-class form of marriage when they are allotted civil weddings as their
only choice. Some religious institutions have started offering some form of
marriage for same-sex couples, and this has led to doctrinal disagreements.
Perhaps the most significant and consequential of these disagreements
is that which is happening in the Anglican Communion (Pinello, 2006;
Powell, Quadlin, and Pizmony-Levy, 2015; Rimmerman and Wilcox, 2007;
Rosenfeld, 2014; Rothblum, 2005). This is a Church that has struggled with
issues of doctrinal purity as far back as the break from Rome, which took
place in the reign of the notorious King Henry VIII, who had no fewer than
seven wives, or six wives if you discard the one that was annulled because
he did not think the prospective bride pretty enough. The Church was
established because of royal supremacy. In those early days, adherence to the
Church was enforced through the persecution of Catholics by way of fines
and confiscations. Eventually, the Anglican Church because institutionalized
and was active in the coronation of English and British monarchs. Over the
years, the Anglican Church has been presented as the more liberal alternative
to the Catholic Church. However, there was a European and African divide
during colonial times. The African Anglican Church was decidedly more
conservative than its European counterpart. Eventually, this schism became
fertile ground for the Pentecostal Church that rejected a lot of the religious
symbolism that had been associated with both the Catholic and Anglican
Church.
This divide continues today, with European Churches decidedly
far more liberal than their African counterparts (Ball, 2015; Gaines and
Garand, 2010; Lenhardt, 2008; Sherkat et al., 2011). Of course, it must be
acknowledged that these Churches operate within their contexts and cannot
be seen to be overtly or covertly breaking social conventions and laws. For
example, churches that discriminate against LGBT people in certain areas
may be liable for legal sanctions. However, there are social patterns that have
influenced the Church and its policies. Besides, the Church has been evolving
over time and adjusting some of its strict doctrinals believes accordingly.
The European Anglican community is broadly supportive of some rights for
LGBT people, including some form of marriage. However, the conservative
dioceses in Africa and the USA are strongly against any acknowledgment of
same-sex marriage. Indeed, some churches have threatened to separate from
the Church of England if they continue to tolerate same-sex marriage. So far,
Church authorities in Europe have attempted to mask this schism because
they are within a context that finds any form of institutionalized homophobia
to be unacceptable. That is not to say that all religious institutions are against
providing any rights for LGBT people (Beck, 2013; Berg, 2010; Bernstein
Wilcox, 2005). In fact, the Catholic Church in Rome has spoken out about
the maltreatment of people who are “struggling with same-sex attraction.”
Nevertheless, some of the solutions that the Catholic Church has offered
are impractical and dehumanizing. For example, the Church has suggested
celibacy as a solution for those Catholics that have a same-sex attraction.
Such a solution is not workable because it fails to recognize the rights of
individuals to engage in sexual activity and to form unions with people of
their choice. Moreover, the Church itself has ruled those marriages which
are not consummated (sexless marriages) are invalid before the Church and
that it would annul them upon request or discovery. Some states are very
particular about the secular nature of weddings, and that is why they allow
the civil aspects to take place simultaneously with the religious ceremonies.
In that way, there is no public perception that the state is supporting religious
marriages in a special way. Indeed, there are states which do not recognize
religious marriages at all. Without the civil aspect of the marriage (including
signing registers), the marriage is not recognized by the state.
Although civil unions are critical marital procedures, they are often less
formalized and elaborate than traditional or religious weddings (Boertien
and Vignoli, 2019; Brandzel, 2005; Brewer and Wilcox, 2005; Brown, 1994;
Buchanan, 1984; Buffie, 2011). For example, whereas Churches insist on
having weddings in a designated Church; civil unions can be conducted in
a private venue, including homes, if they are open to the public to raise
objections. In England and Wales, the system moved away from the
requirement of a register’s office and instead opened the possibility of using
any public venue if it received the requisite licenses. A special emergency
license can be granted in the United Kingdom when through illness or
disability, a member of the couple or both is unable to attend a designated
place. A case in point is those weddings that take place on the deathbed
of one of the partners. However, it is also important to note that the state
can determine that some areas are appropriate for civil weddings while
others are not. In that sense, the state is always in charge of marriage as an
institution because of the power of recognition. Even religious weddings can
only become valid if they are recognized by the state. One of the challenges
that have been faced in making reforms is the fact that some of the issues
which were addressed by previous requirements remain unanswered in the
reformed framework. In that sense, marriage cannot be completely open to
everyone in every circumstance regardless of how much reform is made.

A case in point is the need to reside in a particular county to allow for the
people that know the couple to object if there are suspicions of consanguinity
or bigamy.
Religious and cultural institutions have developed a range of rules and
regulations to ring-fence and control weddings and the resultant marriages
(Lahey and Alderson, 2004; Langbein and Yost, 2009; Lannutti, 2005, 2007;
Lee and Hicks, 2011; Lenhardt, 2008). Similarly, civil unions are governed
by the rules and regulations that are set up by the state. In the case of
religious or traditional marriages, there is a generalized aversion to same-sex
weddings, and the resultant marriages are rarely recognized. However, there
have been some reforming sub-cultures or even countercultures within these
institutions that offer some level of recognition for same-sex couples. Civil
weddings were generally targeted towards heterosexual cisgender couples
that did not want or could not have a religious or traditional ceremony.
Currently, civil unions have been offered as an alternative for those same-sex
couples that wish to get married. Sometimes there were disputes about the
recognition of marriages that had been conducted in a foreign jurisdiction
with different requirements. A case in point is where a polygamous marriage
exists from a foreign nation that allows such practices, yet the family has
migrated to a country that only recognizes monogamy. In these instances,
the receiving country takes precedence and will decide about recognizing
the marriage. For polygamous marriages under Shariat Law, the family may
have to have a new ceremony in the receiving country with only one partner.
Of course, that will create family tension when other wives are excluded
from official recognition.
Given some of the loopholes that couples must go through to get
married, some have opted to cohabitation (Ellison, Acevedo, and Ramos‐
Wada, 2011; Eskridge, 1993, 1999; Fingerhut, Riggle, and Rostosky, 2011).
However, the challenge for the authorities is when these couples separate,
or one dies because that is when the courts must decide on a range of issues
such as inheritance and custody of children. The institution of common-law
marriage has been typically relied on by heterosexual, cisgender couples
in case they are not formally married. There are some limited jurisdictions
in which marriage can be created through the operation of the law, without
necessarily a positive consent to be married by any of the parties. In this
case, marriage is not so much a contract as an assumption by the law based
on habit and repute. Some jurisdictions make it legally binding, while others
do not. Hence, a certain continuous period of cohabitation may be a marriage
by the law even if the parties did not elect to be married. Notably, such
provisions have not been applied to same-sex couples who had cohabited
due to the lack of an alternative even if when they wanted to get married.
This interpretation of the law caused significant distress when the couple
discovered that they had no rights at all over the other’s life and property
despite having lived together for many years. The next section explores the
regulation of sexual relations within a marriage.
2.4. REGULATION OF SEXUAL RELATIONS

IN MARRIAGE
Marriage is inevitably linked to sex because of two main reasons (Lupia
et al., 2010; MacDougall, 2000; McVeigh and Maria-Elena, 2009; Meezan
and Rauch, 2005). First, it is through sexual intercourse that procreation
can occur. Procreation is a key objective of marriage, and therefore, society
has an interest in regulating sex. Indeed, one of the objections to same-
sex couples is the fact that they are unlikely to conceive children naturally.
In fact, modern technology has rendered the child-bearing requirement
superfluous since there are many more options for couples that cannot
conceive. The advocates for same-sex marriage emphasized the fact that
barren heterosexual, cisgender couples were being allowed to marry despite
the unlikelihood of ever bearing a child using natural methods. For some
people, the discussion about bearing children and whether that should limit
access to marriage is an example of the kind of intrusion that the government
has been guilty of during the history of humanity. In one sense, it can
be argued that marriage does not constitute permission to have children.
This is because there are many couples that are happily and legitimately
married without bearing children. Whereas bearing children has interests
for governments that are looking to retain their demographic advantages, it
does not dictate personal conduct once people are in a marriage. Hence, it
would be irrational to suggest that only those that can have children should
be allowed the privilege of marriage. It, therefore, did not make sense to bar
same-sex couples from marriage because they could not conceive naturally.
Figure 2.4 represents the ways in which sexual relations are controlled in a
marriage.
Figure 2.4: Control of sexual relationships in a marriage.
Source: Slide Player.

The second reason for the interest in sex during the marriage is the
fact that this is an intimate act that brings the couple together (Gerstmann,
2017; Gher, 2007; Goldberg-Hiller, 2009; Hester and Gibson, 2007; Hogg,
2006; Hooghe and Meeusen, 2013). Companionships are a key objective
of marriage, as important as procreation in many respects. Churches allow
for the annulment of marriages based on impotence or refusal to engage
in sexual activity. It is for these two reasons that sex is an innate aspect of
marriage and hence the need to regulate sex in marriage.
In some cases, the control over the married couple’s sex life is so
pervasive that a partner might be flogged, imprisoned, or even killed
for having extramarital sexual relationships (Buffie, 2011; Meezan and
Rauch, 2005; Trosino, 1993; Wilson, 2013). Even in the most advanced
liberal democracies, adultery puts the adulterer at an incredibly significant
disadvantage in divorce proceedings. The institution of marriage anticipates
sexual commitment (more so on the female partner) to the marriage.
However, in some societies, men can have extramarital relationships whilst
women are not. Hence, feminists have argued that marriage has been utilized
as a tool of patriarchy and misogyny.
Having a child outside marriage is used to be a serious social taboo that
could lead to significant abuse for the parent and the child itself (Brown,
1994; Koppelman, 1996; Soule, 2004; Wardle, 1996; Wight, LeBlanc, and
Lee Badgett, 2013). For example, Ireland used to deal with unwed mothers
using Magdalene. These organizations came to the fore during the 19th and
early 20th century with the sole purpose of providing rehabilitation to the
so-called “fallen women.” These were girls and women that had children
outside marriage, a taboo in North America and Europe at the time. In

effect, these became detention centers in which the inmates were subjected
to psychosocial and physical abuse. Some ended up having to give up their
children for adoption to strangers without informed consent.
Underpinning this system was the view that having sex outside marriage
was a sin and that those who committed such sin had to repent and be ritually
cleansed of their sins (Widiss, Rosenblatt, and NeJaime, 2007; Wight,
LeBlanc, and Lee Badgett, 2013; Wilson, 2013). For same-sex couples, it
was a given that they were “sinners” according to the doctrinal guidance
given by most religious institutions. The fact that their sexual intercourse
did not often lead to the birth of children meant that they were spared the
abuses of the Magdalene. Such institutions reflected the different levels of
tolerance for extramarital sex as well as the sexual morality of members of
that community.
There is an interesting imbalance between attitudes towards male
and female extramarital relations (or even promiscuity for that matter)
(Brandzel, 2005; Brewer and Wilcox, 2005; Brown, 1994; Buchanan, 1984;
Buffie, 2011; Cahill and Cahill, 2004; Chambers, 1997). These differences
reflect the fact that traditionally, patriarchy has held sway in most countries.
The Standard Cross-Cultural Sample has attempted to identify and explore
attitudes towards promiscuity based on gender differences and gender
roles. This study examined 50 pre-industrial castles to understand their
attitudes and responses to extramarital relationships. Results indicated that
in 6 societies, men were expected to be promiscuous and enjoy extramarital
relationships. There were 29 cultures that reported occasional extramarital
relations by men. Then 10 cultures reported that these extramarital affairs
by men were uncommon. For females, the figures were slightly different,
with extramarital sex by women reported as being universal in 6 cultures,
moderate in 23 cultures, occasional in 9 cultures, and uncommon in 15
cultures.
More recently, there have been studies in the USA which have found
that up to 15% of women and 25% of men engaged in extramarital sex
(Saez, 2011; Sanders, 2012; Schragger, 2005; Sherkat, De Vries, and Creek,
2010; Sherkat et al., 2011). Societal reactions are generally more negative
towards promiscuous women than men in the context of marriage. Hence,
many of the controls against extramarital sex tend to focus on women, and
similarly, the consequences for women who are “caught in the act” can be
significantly more serious than those for men in a similar situation. For
example, the legitimacy of children resulting out of extramarital affairs by

men is more readily accepted than those resulting out of the extramarital
affairs of women.
In other words, the patriarchal systems view the offspring of men as
more entitled to acceptance in the family than those of the male (Widiss,
Wilson, 2013). This can be problematic for women who are dealing with the
issue of children that biologically theirs but do not belong to their current
partner. One of the consequences will be jealousy and the abuse of those
children if the partner finds out. The introduction of affordable modern DNA
techniques has placed women in a particularly challenging situation where
they can be “discovered” at any point. Indeed, there are men that specifically
demand DNA testing as a routine requirement when they are told that they
have produced a child. Later, the probate process that occurs when someone
has died means that these children that do not belong to the man face the risk
of being evicted and barred from inheriting from the estate. Women may be
dealing with personal challenges resulting from the pregnancy. For example,
they may have been raped and are hence unwilling to disclose that fact
because it could backfire if the husband decides to leave the family home
on account of the child that is not his. Women suffer all these challenges in
silence because they are not given the support they need. It all stems from
the patriarchal notion that children belong to a man.
Some go as far as suggesting that all the children belong to the men
and the women are only vessels for carrying the child to term or raising
them to adulthood (Walls, 2010; Wardle, 1996; Webb and Chonody, 2014;
Wedgwood, 1999; Widiss, Rosenblatt, and NeJaime, 2007). This is the
essence of patriarchy in as far as it ignores the role of women who are no
more than a support for the lifestyle of a man. Indeed, many religions have
supported this view, and it has been reinforced by modern norms. A case in
point is where children and the wife take the family name of the husband
because of a marriage. It is rare for women to offer their child a surname
unless there is no father to take up that role. Indeed, there was once a time
when having the same surname as your unmarried mother was a source
of stigmatization. Although there has been social progress, some of these
attitudes still hold sway and moderate the relationships that men and women
have in a marriage. It is yet another indicator that marriage is an institution
that mainly benefits men while controlling women.
Because same-sex couples are generally excluded from marriage, they
are generally dismissed as being perpetually promiscuous (Barker, 2012;
Baunach, 2012; Beck, 2013; Berg, 2010; Bernstein and Taylor, 2013;
Boertien and Vignoli, 2019; Brandzel, 2005). It is anticipated that they
will have more partners than heterosexual, cisgender couples. Indeed, the
responses to health crises in the LGBT community, such as HIV/AIDS,
have been hampered by these negative stereotypes and assumptions. Such
attitudes have seeped into the debates about same-sex marriage, with some
opponents focusing on the sex act between a man and another man as being
particularly problematic. These opponents of marriage equality argue that
the mere fact of being an LGBT person exposes one to sexual practices that
are risky and could lead to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases across
the general population.
The generalized marginalization and minimizing of the LGBT life
continues even when treatment solutions are provided to the HIV/AIDS
pandemic. Recently, when new Anti-Retroviral Treatments were discovered
that could reduce the transmission of HIV, the notion of a “Truvada Whore”
arose (Rosenfeld, 2014; Rothblum, 2005; Saez, 2011; Sanders, 2012;
Schragger, 2005; Sherkat, De Vries, and Creek, 2010). These so-called
Truvada Whores were mainly gay and bisexual men that were prescribed
this medication because of the heightened risk that they face. For example,
someone that is married to an HIV (human immunodeficiency viruses)-a
positive person may be eligible, as well as someone that is working in the
sex industry. Interestingly, the label of “Truvada Whores” is never applied to
heterosexual, cisgender people. In effect, moral outrage at the LGBT lifestyle
is deeply embedded within myths and moralistic judgments concerning the
conduct of sexual relations within and outside marriage.
Such studies are often tinged with the reality that women are generally
unwilling to admit to extramarital affairs given the serious consequences for
them and their extramarital children (Auchmuty, 2004; Badgett, 2009; Ball,
2014, 2015; Barclay and Fisher, 2003; Barker, 2012; Baunach, 2012; Beck,
2013). Indeed, women are generally reluctant to admit to the full number of
sexual partners they have had because of the fear of being judged. The label
of promiscuity seems to somehow have a much more serious connotation
for women than men. Apart from LGBT men who are sometimes referred
to as “whores,” men, in general, are expected to be “sow their wild oats.”
The only main limits on male promiscuity arise when they are married
in religions that do not accept polygamy, such as Christianity. Even then,
accommodations may be made for men when they fall short of the high
standards that are set out in the Biblical texts. For women, failing to be
faithful to your husband is seen as a major character flaw and is often taken
as carte-blanche for the man to take lovers. Even more problematic are the
questions surrounding the parentage of children in the family when a woman
is suspected of being unfaithful or even admits to the fact. Some religions,
such as Islam, have gone as far as accommodating the sexual desires of men
through polygamy, whereas women are not allowed to take more than one
husband or even to have lovers during a marriage.
The influence of religion on state affairs has meant that there are
occasions where sexist laws are enacted under the guise of protecting the
sanctity of marriage (Coolidge, 1997; Corvino and Gallagher, 2012; Cox,
Navarro-Rivera, and Jones, 2014; Damslet, 1992; Dorf, 2011). The effect
of these laws is to first exclude the undesirable members of the community,
such as LGBT people. The second objective is to control the sexuality of
women to ensure that the paternity of the children in a marriage is never
questioned. Most of the world’s religions take a dim view of extramarital
sex, more so for women than men. Having extramarital affairs is seen as a
betrayal of the vows of faithfulness that are required to bless the marriage.
Non-secular states and theocracies may enact family law that is very much
in line with religious principles. An example is Iran and Saudi Arabia,
where adultery can lead to severe criminal penalties. This contrasts with
Western liberal democracies in which adultery is taken as a social failing
but rarely attracts criminals. The penalties, if they come, arise mainly during
divorce proceedings when adulterous partners are treated as being at fault
and therefore less deserving of consideration during the dissolution of the
marriage.
Adultery is not only a social abomination in many societies, but also
grounds for divorce and can attract criminal penalties for all parties involved
(Trandafir, 2014; Trosino, 1993; Vanita, 2005; Walls, 2010; Wardle, 1996;
Webb and Chonody, 2014). For example, there have been instances of
adulterers being flogged in Muslim-majority countries. In Islam, the husband
has a lot of leeways when it comes to occasioning a divorce. They need
only recite the divorce statement a given number of times, and the divorce
is triggered. That means that Muslim women who commit adultery place
themselves at a profoundly serious risk of being divorced against their will
and not getting the kind of protection that marriage might otherwise provide
during a separation. The countries that have criminalized extramarital sexual
activity include Yemen, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Mauritania, Oman,
Morocco, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Maldives, and Kuwait.
Notably, these countries have a strong Islamic religious influence in their
family law, and that means that even harsher penalties are placed on LGBT
couples. The USA used to have anti-sodomy laws that criminalized virtually
all sexual activity outside marriage and specifically by LGBT people. This
chapter will close by exploring the thorny issue of legitimacy as it applies to
children who are born in and outside wedlock.
2.5. LEGITIMACY OF CHILDREN BORN IN AND

OUTSIDE MARRIAGE
Legitimacy is a key aspect of marriage as far as it can determine inheritance
(Vanita, 2005; Walls, 2010; Wardle, 1996; Webb and Chonody, 2014;
Wedgwood, 1999; Widiss, Rosenblatt, and NeJaime, 2007). The lack of
legitimacy not only denies children social dignity and acceptance, but also
reduces the inheritance that they can obtain from their parents. Where a
polygamous marriage is suddenly turned monogamous, illegitimacy can
lead to feelings of resentment and could ultimately lead to the breakup of
families. In the past, being born out of wedlock was a social stigma that
could severely hamper the prospects of a child. Modern times have moved
away from grading children based on their legitimacy. Indeed, even the
courts consider children born out of wedlock entitled to a portion of their
parent’s wealth. The stigmatizing term “bastard,” which was commonly used
in England and Wales, has largely changed meaning so that it colloquially
refers to someone generally unpleasant rather than referring to children born
outside wedlock.
Figure 2.5: Race and children born out of wedlock in the USA.
Source: Yale University.
As Figure 2.5 shows, in the USA, at least, minorities (Black and

Hispanic) have a higher likelihood of being born out of wedlock than white
people. The implication is that marriage is a privileged position that aligns
with racial disparities.
The recognition of children in and outside marriage can vary significantly
across regions, cultures, countries, and communities (Pierceson, 2014;
Pinello, 2006; Powell, Quadlin, and Pizmony-Levy, 2015; Rimmerman and
Wilcox, 2007). For example, in some African cultures, children are a clan
asset regardless of whether they are born in wedlock or not. The notion of
illegitimacy then becomes superfluous, and this can cause problems when
engaging with a family court that is steeped in the tradition of Western
and European civilization. Whereas many European states technically
recognize the legitimacy of children born in wedlock, it does not mean that
children born out of wedlock must be deprived. Instead, the advent of DNA
technologies has meant that children can trace their parentage and require
maintenance or even an inheritance once their parents are discovered. Of
course, elitist institutions such as royalty still exclude illegitimate children
from the succession.
Certain international and regional legislation or conventions have been
used to ensure that illegitimate children are not ostracized under the law
(Kogan, 2003; Koppelman, 1996, 1997, 2014; Kramer, 1996; Kreitzer,
Hamilton, and Tolbert, 2014). A case in point is the European Convention
on the Legal Status of Children Born out of Wedlock which was agreed
upon in 1975. Children born to unmarried parents are protected based on
their interests and needs. Under the convention, inheritance rights and
maintenance rights are not affected by the technical definition of legitimacy.
Such legislation and conventions have been used to confer additional benefits
for children in rainbow families with one or more parents who are from
the LGBT community. These international conventions reflect the reality
that there are many children who are born of wedlock, and it is no longer
sustainable to exclude such children from the mainstream of being members
of a given society.
For some, this is a question of the rights of a child to parenthood and
family (Hunter, 2012; Josephson, 2005; Judge, Manion, and De Waal, 2008;
Kail, Acosta, and Wright, 2015; Kandaswamy, 2008). The fact that a child is
“illegitimate” is not really the responsibility of the child, but their parents.
Besides, in the age of birth control, having an unwanted child must remain the
responsibility of the parents. In any case, some argue that those parents that
have extramarital affairs must be held accountable for those consequences,

including the birth of so-called illegitimate children. Where a child is born
out of wedlock, there must be a process (often overseen by the court) of
establishing paternity and maternity in rare cases. Once that is established,
the parents are responsible for the care and upbringing of the child unless the
court rules that they are not up to the task. Children who are born in wedlock
are assumed to be the natural issue of those parents. It takes a similarly
onerous process to prove that their maternity (in exceedingly rare cases)
or paternity (in most cases) is successfully disputed. If such ambivalent
parentage eventually rules out the married couple, then the natural parents
of the child must take up the responsibility for looking after them.
Countries like Australia have specific conditions under which common
law marriage may be assumed for purposes of maintenance, alimony, and
inheritance (Damslet, 1992; Dorf, 2011; Ellison, Acevedo, and Ramos‐
Wada, 2011; Eskridge, 1993, 1999). Mere length of cohabitation may
not necessarily establish rights that are equivalent to those envisaged for
married couples. There will also be provisions relating to the situations in
which paternity action can be initiated. A case in point is the disputes raised
by surrogate parents who later find themselves being obliged to support
children without any kind of social link to them beyond their biological
parentage. Then there are jurisdictions, particularly in South America, that
allow the father to voluntarily acknowledge a child born out of wedlock
so that they can be registered with the father’s name. Israel is an example
where a legal challenge to paternity is forbidden when a woman has an
extramarital child.
This approach is adopted to avoid the stigmatization of children who are
born because of the promiscuity of their mothers outside marriage (Pinello,
2006; Powell, Quadlin, and Pizmony-Levy, 2015; Rimmerman and Wilcox,
2007; Rosenfeld, 2014; Rothblum, 2005). The underlying principle is a noble
one; that a child should not be punished for the sins of their parents. Besides,
once children are born, they must be looked after by society regardless of
their paternity. In any case, the desire to enforce strict paternity checks might
end up breaking families, which would be detrimental to the institution of
marriage. For the man, it can become a burden to take on responsibility for
children who are clearly not their biological relatives. Even where the law
provides rights for these children, the male parent may grow to resent and
abuse them because of the enforced paternity. Individual cases of children
looking to enforce their rights against parents have been heard in a range of
jurisdictions with differing results (Koppelman, 1997, 2014; Kramer, 1996;
Kreitzer, Hamilton, and Tolbert, 2014; Lahey and Alderson, 2004). For
example, there was a case in Germany in 2010 which involved a paternal
request for access to twins born to a married woman and fathered by a third
party. The European Court of Human Rights acknowledges the rights of the
father in these cases, even where the mother is married to someone else.
In such cases, the courts will intervene to ensure that both parents have
access to the children since the man who is married to the mother may try
to prevent the biological parent from having any contact with the family.
Some jurisdictions, like the United Kingdom, for example, reference the
name on the birth certificate to authenticate parental rights. Hence, a man
that is listed on the birth certificate is entitled to parental rights unless there
is scientific proof that he is not the parent. Even then, that scientific proof
must be presented to the court to make a ruling.
The jurisdictional variations in the enforcement of paternity can be
difficult for migrants and even people that were born in a particular place.
It also means that it is exceedingly difficult to enforce an international
standard. For example, there is no automatic right of fatherhood if the man
is not listed on the birth certificate in the UK (Rosenfeld, 2014; Rothblum,
2005; Saez, 2011; Sanders, 2012; Schragger, 2005; Sherkat, De Vries, and
Creek, 2010). Ireland, a neighboring country, has adopted a different stance
in as far as being on a birth certificate is not enough to enforce the rights of
the father. The father must take additional steps such as obtaining consent
from the mother to make a statutory declaration of parentage. Where the
mother refuses to agree, the father can apply to the court, and the courts may
ask for a DNA report to confirm paternity. These cases demonstrate that
children born out of wedlock are subject to disputes about parental rights
and responsibilities which ultimately end up in the courts of law. Rather than
adopting a uniform international standard, each jurisdiction has established
normative processes through which these issues can be resolved.
Despite the historical stigma that they face, children born out of wedlock
are increasing in number and proportion across a range of countries (Lewis
and Gossett, 2008; Lodola and Corral, 2010; Lupia et al., 2010; MacDougall,
2000; McVeigh and Maria-Elena, 2009). Some have argued that this reflects
the difficulties of getting married and the ease of getting divorced. Others
have highlighted the role of increasingly liberal societal values in which
marriage is no longer an essential requirement. According to the latest
statistics, Colombia has one of the largest percentages of children born out
of wedlock at 74%, even though this is a heavily catholic region. Similarly,
Peru, Brazil, and Chile have at least 65% of all children born out of wedlock.
These children are the majority in other Latin countries such as Argentina
and Mexico. Every 4 in 10 children born within the European Union is born
to parents who are not currently married. This is like the statistic for the USA,
despite all the efforts to encourage marriage. Nearly half of all children born
in the United Kingdom are what would have been labeled “bastards” in the
old language. These changes reflect a new reality in which the institution of
marriage is no longer holding as much influence as it once had.
Given the fact that LGBT parents were until recently forbidden to marry,
the statistics of so-called “bastards” will include many children born to
committed and healthy rainbow families (Beck, 2013; Fingerhut, Riggle,
and Rostosky, 2011; Josephson, 2005; Lewis, 2005; Rosenfeld, 2014;
Smith, 2005). Indeed, most children born to out LGBT parents in the pre-
same-sex marriage era are “illegitimate.” However, there are also children
born by LGBT people who were in the closet and conforming to societal
definitions of marriage. Sometimes, the LGBT parent decides to come out
later in life, and this can cause trauma to children who must reconstruct
family dynamics. Children may perceive it as a betrayal that one of their
parents has effectively been living a lie for most of their family life. Others
may face the stigma that arises from public knowledge about the sexuality
and identity of their parent. In fact, there have been instances where schools
have turned away children born or raised by LGBT parents. This seems like
an irrational response, even where the school has presented arguments about
a religious principle or doctrine. Increasingly, there is concern that any child
from rainbow families is getting a raw deal in a system that was designed
to primarily support heterosexual couples. Besides, the parent themselves
may have gone through personal torment and mental health challenges
because of having to mask their identity to suit societal values. If the other
parent is heterosexual and cisgender, they may feel betrayed and abandoned.
Others are embarrassed by the possibility that they were never good enough
to sustain the idealized traditional marriage. The challenges of children
who are born out of relationships that are born out of non-conventional
relationships have been in existence for a long period. In fact, single mothers
were already experiencing a similar form of ostracization, marginalization,
and abandonment.
For women, the increased acceptance of children born out of wedlock
is a welcome relief from the times when these women were coerced into
giving up their children who were born out of wedlock (Rosenfeld, 2014;
Rothblum, 2005; Saez, 2011; Sanders, 2012; Schragger, 2005; Sherkat,
De Vries, and Creek, 2010). In the first instance, it means that women are
not tied to unhappy marriages for the sole purpose of ensuring that their
children are not delegitimized. For a long time, women were trapped in
abusive relationships for fear of divorcing their husbands and placing a
social stigma on their children. The men who were the abusers were aware
of the challenges that single mothers faced. Hence, they created situations
in which women were completely subjugated for purposes of keeping the
family together. In the worst-case scenario, some religious institutions even
offered the possibility of annulment where the marriage was retrospectively
treated as being null and void. One of the most serious consequences of such
a decision is that children would effectively become “bastardized.” During
divorce proceedings, women were criticized for not being sufficiently
humble to keep the loyalty of their husbands. Others were counseled to
tolerate abuse and infidelity for the purpose of retaining the legitimacy
of their children. Following certain debates concerning societal attitudes
towards marriage, there are countries that have made adjustments to their
family law to reflect the reality that all children are valuable members of
society regardless of their so-called legitimacy.
Marriage law has sometimes been used to achieve societal goals that
are not necessarily altruistic (Onuche, 2013; Pearl and Galupo, 2007;
Pierceson, 2014; Pinello, 2006; Powell, Quadlin, and Pizmony-Levy, 2015).
For example, Australia was particularly pernicious in its forced adoption
program, which targeted Aboriginals as supported by racists social workers.
The thinking was that aboriginals were too uncivilized to be given the
opportunity to raise children regardless of whether the children were their
biological offspring. This was a continuation of racist and colonial attitudes
towards indigenous people for the purposes of dehumanizing them and
denying them their basic rights. What was even more frustrating was the
fact that the government repeatedly refused to acknowledge its role in the
scandal. Calls for apologies were brushed off as “sins of the father” guilt
trips. Some politicians made it a point not to apologize for the mistakes
that were committed by their predecessors. Then there was concern that if
the government acknowledged complicity, it would herald a slippery slope
which would end with significant compensation claims. It is only recently
that the Australian Prime Minister has delivered a public apology for these
human rights abuses.
Marriage in its traditional sense has been discriminatory since it
contains certain ideals which some people are never able to attain (Eskridge,
1993, 1999; Fingerhut, Riggle, and Rostosky, 2011; Flores, 2015; Franke,
2006; Gaines and Garand, 2010). For example, the law on marriage was
not particularly kind to couples who opted not to have children. They were
denied certain benefits and considered to be a cost to society, even though
they put in more into the system than they took out. Most of the benefit and
welfare programs targeting families tended to support heterosexual married
couples with children. Anyone that did not fit this mold would effectively
be excluded. Meanwhile, tax allowances and other benefits were provided
to married couples, yet LGBT people were forbidden from marrying on
their own terms in many jurisdictions. The assumption that marriage would
always lead to children created high expectations for those that we’re unable
to produce children naturally. They would be made to feel as if they were
failures and a burden to society. Then the politicians would play their role
by idealizing traditional marriage well beyond any reality. Some of the
challenges that are associated with this institution were swept under the
carpet.
There are cultures that impose requirements on married women to
have children, and those who fail to do so are consequently ostracized
(Alderson, 2004; Chamie and Mirkin, 2011; Gher, 2007; Koppelman, 2014;
Moskowitz, Rieger, and Roloff, 2010). It is a primary duty for women, under
the traditional configuration of marriage at the very least, is to have children.
Hence, those that never have children are accused of being selfish or even
irresponsible. The payment of bridewealth in some countries is significant
because it implies that the women must repay that price in some way,
including having as many children as the husband desires. Those women
who use birth control are then subjected to social abuse and condemnation
for failing in their duties.
CHAPTER 2 SUMMARY
This chapter has examined the legal framework that underpins marriage
to understand how LGBT people are consistently excluded from this
institution. The standard requirements for marriage are onerous, exclusive,
and often oppressive. Marriage reflects the unequal gendered and racialized
power structures of society. The offer of a civil union as a substitute for
traditional marriage has been rejected by some LGBT people as an implicit
acknowledgment of inferiority. Besides, the strict regulations of sex within
and outside marriage helps to systematically exclude LGBT people from
the institution. The chapter then closed by considering the legitimacy of
children, which often ignores the plight of children that are existing in
rainbow families. The next chapter will explore the religiosity of marriage.
CHAPTER 3
RELIGIOSITY OF MARRIAGE
CONTENTS
3.1. Christian Conceptualization of Marriage............................................ 62
3.2. Islamic Conceptualization of Marriage............................................... 67
3.3. Judaism and Marriage Law................................................................. 72
3.4. Denominational Diversity in Marriage............................................... 77
3.5. Theological Views on Marriage.......................................................... 82
Chapter 3 Summary.................................................................................. 87
In this chapter, we consider the religiosity of marriage and its implication

for the conceptualization, formulation, and implementation of government
policy. The first chapter will explore how Christians perceive marriage. The
next two sections will consider the perspective of Judaism and Islam. The
4th section highlights the possibilities that emanate from the denominational
diversity in the conceptualization of marriage. The chapter will close with
a theological perspective on marriage. Throughout the chapter, we will try
to understand the ways in which religiosity has hindered or even sometimes
supported the advance of marriage equality.
3.1. CHRISTIAN CONCEPTUALIZATION OF

MARRIAGE
Marriage is an important tenant in the lifestyle and lifespan of a practicing
Christian (Corvino and Gallagher, 2012; Cox, Navarro-Rivera, and Jones,
2014; Damslet, 1992; Dorf, 2011; Ellison, Acevedo, and Ramos‐Wada,
2011). It is one of the key commands from God, together with the need to
procreate and fill the world. Because of the implicit assumption that LGBT
people cannot procreate naturally, this Biblical command was an exclusion
of the LGBT lifestyle. Figure 3.1 summarizes the inherent heterosexist views
of marriage that are predominant in the Christian Church. God is central to
the Christian marriage, and couples must adhere to the laws of God, an
impossibility for LGBT people whose very sexuality is an abomination
under the strictest interpretations of the Bible. The utility of marriage has
been so well promoted by religion that many governments use it as an
implicit reference point. A case in point is the preference for monogamy
in the developed world, as advocated for by Western European culture and
Christianity.
What is never clear is what must happen to those LGBT people who
are Christians (Alderson, 2004; Appleton, 2005; Auchmuty, 2004; Badgett,
2009; Ball, 2014, 2015; Barclay and Fisher, 2003). If they do not marry
and have children, they are inherently disobeying God. However, if they
marry under false pretenses, then they are committing a sin of deception
against the community and their partners (. If they marry and remain
celibate, then they are not fulfilling one of the tenets of Christian marriage in
terms of sexual intercourse. In the absence of clear, workable, and realistic
alternatives; it seems that Christianity advocated for either torturing LGBT
people or denying them some of the basic rights that a Christian would have.
Religiosity of Marriage 63
Those LGBT people that were Christian were continuously struggling to

compromise between their sexuality and their faith.
Figure 3.1: The Christian conceptualization of marriage.
Source: Wiley Online Library.

Christian marriage creates a double standard of power between men and
women (Damslet, 1992; Dorf, 2011; Ellison, Acevedo, and Ramos‐Wada,
2011; Eskridge, 1993, 1999). Whereas men are expected to be masterful
and controlling in a leadership role, women are expected to be subservient
and docile in a subordinate role. Whereas Christian marriage acknowledges
that both men and women are important for the success of the relationship,
the head of the family is the man, and the woman is specifically instructed
to obey her husband on her wedding day. Both parties are supposed to be
faithful to each other. However, if they do become unfaithful; it is the woman
that gets the most blame for failing to keep to her vows. The marriage is seen
as a complete union where the man and woman become one person. It is
anticipated that the man will leave his father and mother to start a new family
with his wife. However, in many cultures that have adopted Christianity, the
extended family is especially important. No marriage could survive without
the implicit and explicit support of the extended family in some respects.
The tensions between in-laws are partly due to the dichotomy of Christian
marriage, and a society that requires as many social networks as possible.
The purpose of Christian marriage is to provide companionship to each
other as well as raising children in the Christian faith (Ball, 2014, 2015;
Barclay and Fisher, 2003; Barker, 2012; Baunach, 2012; Beck, 2013; Berg,
2010; Bernstein and Taylor, 2013). The Catholic Church is particularly clear
about the importance of bearing children who will later become Catholics
to continue God’s work. This is one of the reasons why the Catholic Church
has been particularly vocal against abortion and the use of contraceptives.
Ideally, a Catholic should have as many children as a wife’s womb will carry
during her lifetime. Of course, the reality is that modern lifestyles call for
a considerable expense which is only possible by having smaller families.
An unlimited family would be completely inappropriate for the expense
involved.
Moreover, the Catholic Church has been accused of a doctrinal rigidity
that prevents people from making use of protection against deadly sexually
transmitted diseases such as HIV (Ball, 2014; Damslet, 1992; Hooghe and
Meeusen, 2013; Langbein and Yost, 2009; Pearl and Galupo, 2007). In terms
of the lives of LGBT people, the teachings by the Catholic Church do not
make much sense since the criterion of heterosexuality and fecundity are
not always applicable to this community. Therefore, the Christian Church is
moving further and further away from LGBT people. The only exceptions
are those denominations that have been accepting sexual minorities in their
congregations. Even then, these denominations may be ostracized from the
wider Christian Churches. A case in point is how the African dioceses of
the Anglican Church have rebelled against their European counterparts for
being accepting of LGBT people.
Whereas there may be certain doctrinal and procedural differences
among the Christian denominations, they are remarkably consistent about
the minimum standards expected of a married couple (Brewer and Wilcox,
2005; Brown, 1994; Buchanan, 1984; Buffie, 2011; Cahill and Cahill, 2004;
Chambers, 1997; Chamie and Mirkin, 2011). For example, faithfulness
is a basic tenant, and divorce is not encouraged. However, the Catholic
Church is stricter on issues of divorce than the protestant Church. In general
terms, the Protestant churches have been more willing than their Catholic
counterparts to engage with the LGBT community in terms of finding a way
of accommodating them within the congregation.
It is therefore not surprising that many of the churches that have
welcomed LGBT people are closer to the Protestant movement than they are
to the Catholic movement (Meezan and Rauch, 2005; Moskowitz, Rieger,
and Roloff, 2010; Olson, Cadge, and Harrison, 2006; Onuche, 2013). Most
modern Christians are guided by the teachings of Jesus Christ as interpreted
and disseminated by Paul the Apostle on issues concerning marriage. For

example, marriage is a critical religious sacrament that can only happen
within the sacred institution of the Church and therefore represents a
covenant. Such interpretations of marriage necessarily leave out non-
believers, particularly LGBT people, because they have been excluded or
have excluded themselves from the structures of the Christian Church.
As Christians have continued to campaign against same-sex marriage,
sometimes passionately and obstinately, they have faced the socially ruinous
accusation of being bigoted homophobes (Trandafir, 2014; Trosino, 1993;
Vanita, 2005; Walls, 2010; Wardle, 1996; Webb and Chonody, 2014).
Some of these Christians have worn this categorization as a badge of honor
because they believe that they are following the traditionalist interpretation
of marriage. Others have attempted to find doctrinal allowances that permit
them to engage with LGBT people without necessarily condoning their
lifestyle or allowing them the privilege of marriage.
Then there are outright homophobes that have used the clock of
Christian doctrine to present their bigotry as a form of public service (Smith,
2005, 2007; Soule, 2004; Strasser, 2018; Sullivan, 2004; Tamagawa, 2016;
Trandafir, 2014). For the LGBT community, negotiations surrounding same-
sex marriage have raised ethical dilemmas. On the one hand, there are some
who have committed Christians and would like to enjoy the privilege of
being married within their communion. On the other hand, are the militant
members of the LGBT community who believe that Church doctrine (at
least in the traditional sense) has no relevance to their lifestyles. Hence, they
recommend a complete rejection of the Church and even outright hostility
in trying to prevent it from influencing policy.
The Christian Church is not entirely free from the accusations about
undue influence and bigotry (Baunach, 2012; Goldberg-Hiller, 2009; Lodola
and Corral, 2010; Smith, 2005). Indeed, there have been cases where the
Church has been implicated in the formulation of public policy that is
profoundly harmful to LGBT people and their human rights. A case in point
is where the Church accepts the criminalization or harassment of LGBT
communities under the auspices of protecting the traditional family. Some
have highlighted the inconsistency between advocating for peace and love
for everybody while at the same time allowing LGBT people to be abused.
The Church has responded to the effect that the Christian doctrines
call for loving the sinner whilst hating the sin (Hogg, 2006; Hooghe and
Meeusen, 2013; Hull, 2001, 2003; Hull and Hull, 2006; Hunter, 2012;
Josephson, 2005). Hence, LGBT people are welcomed into the communion
if they repent their sins and vow not to continue committing those sins. The
problem is that to do so would imply denying one’s sexuality and identity.
In fact, some Church officials have encouraged LGBT people to remain
celibate to remain holy despite their proclivities, preferences, and nature.
For their part, some LGBT people have made considerable efforts (at
great personal cost) to escape their LGBT identity (Kreitzer, Hamilton,
and Tolbert, 2014; Lahey and Alderson, 2004; Langbein and Yost, 2009;
Lannutti, 2005). Some have attended so-called “conversion therapy,” which
has been found to be not only ineffective, but also profoundly harmful to the
wellbeing of the person that goes through such programs. That is why some
jurisdictions have specifically banned the use of conversion therapy.
Christians have complained about the campaigns inspired and run by the
LGBT community, which seem to turn into an outright attack on conservative
Christians (Lenhardt, 2008; Lewis, 2005; Lewis and Gossett, 2008; Lodola
and Corral, 2010; Lupia et al., 2010; MacDougall, 2000). There have, for
example, been instances in which Christian-owned businesses have been
taken to court for failing to produce goods and services that support the
LGBT causes, such as same-sex marriage. Others have complained about
being deliberately entrapped by agent-provocateurs within the LGBT
movement who target Christian-owned businesses to bring the religion into
disrepute.
Then there are those that feel that their freedom of expression has been
curtailed through political correctness (Gher, 2007; Goldberg-Hiller, 2009;
Hester and Gibson, 2007; Hogg, 2006; Hooghe and Meeusen, 2013; Hull,
2001). In other words, Christians are not allowed to critique public policy
on LGBT issues because they do not wish to be labeled as bigots or even to
have their businesses destroyed through malicious lawsuits. For its part, the
LGBT community generally advocates for an inclusive society in which no
members are ostracized based on their sexuality, identity, and preferences.
Those that sue Christian-owned businesses argue that it is appropriate
to expose the hypocrisy of a religion that preaches love but shows none
for the LGBT community (Brandzel, 2005; Hull, 2003; Moskowitz, Rieger,
and Roloff, 2010; Tamagawa, 2016). Then there are those of the view that
targeting bigots for lawsuits can be exemplary in as far as it discourages
others from engaging in similar activities for fear of reprisals. Bearing in
mind the traditional definitions of Christian marriage; it is highly unlikely
that the Church will fully embrace same-sex marriage in the foreseeable
future. All that the LGBT community can hope for is tolerance, and covert
support from the more liberal congregations. In the next section, we will
consider the Islamic conceptualization of marriage and its implications for
public policy.
3.2. ISLAMIC CONCEPTUALIZATION OF MARRIAGE

Islam has a totally different conceptualization of marriage from Christianity
in terms of the number of partners that a man can officially have (Walls,
2010; Wardle, 1996; Webb and Chonody, 2014; Wedgwood, 1999; Widiss,
Rosenblatt, and NeJaime, 2007). For example, Islam allows polygyny with
a cap of four wives depending on the capabilities of the man. The problem
with such a notion is that capabilities can be open to misinterpretation and
diverse abuses. For instance, some consider the capability to refer to sexual
prowess, while others speak of the ability to look after all the wives.
Besides, Islam instructs the husband to love all his wives equally
(Berg, 2010; Hogg, 2006; MacDougall, 2000; Soule, 2004). This can be an
exceedingly difficult task since human beings naturally have preferences.
Additionally, Islam has a decidedly sexist attitude towards women who
are not allowed to engage in polyandry. Yet, some women have chosen
the Islamic religion, including its practices. There are some that find it
even more liberating than living in a Christian-majority community that
objectifies women. Figure 3.2 encapsulates one facet of Muslim marriage.
Perhaps the moral of the story is not to make rash judgments that are made
on the foundation of sweeping generalizations about a certain community
or group.
Specifically, a distinction must be made between traditional and more
reformist Islam. In traditional Islam, for example, there are extraordinary
allowances made for the man who can have an unlimited number of slaves
or concubines besides the official four wives (Widiss, Rosenblatt, and
NeJaime, 2007; Wight, LeBlanc, and Lee Badgett, 2013; Wilson, 2013).
These concubines and slaves may have property and inheritance rights that
are remarkably like those of the wives, meaning that they are, in effect,
wives under a different name. The status of slaves in Islam was ambiguous
with regards to concubinage and possible freedom.
Figure 3.2: Islamic conceptualization of marriage.

Source: Tarbiyah Books Plus.
Some interpretations were that female slaves were not free until they had
a child with their master (Judge, Manion, and De Waal, 2008; Kail, Acosta,
and Wright, 2015; Kandaswamy, 2008; Klarman, 2012). The requirements
of the man are that he is able willing to participate in this web of sexual
relationships. The implication that the man must have the time and resources
that are necessary to satisfy his wives, concubines, and sex slaves. When it
comes to the division of wealth, the man must be able and willing to share it
or divide it among all his partners upon death.
Some interpretations show that the division of the wealth is equal
regardless of the status of the woman (Dorf, 2011; Ellison, Acevedo,
and Ramos‐Wada, 2011; Eskridge, 1993, 1999; Fingerhut, Riggle, and
Rostosky, 2011). Modern Islamic scholars have disputed the relevance of
this traditionalist view of concubinage which is at odds with a modern world
in which slavery, for example, is completely forbidden. Similarly, the notion
that men have free reign over women to use sexually is regressive and
harmful to the reputation of Islam in the modern world. This is particularly

relevant given the fact that many Muslims are trying to integrate into Western
societies in which polygyny is completely unacceptable.
Islam places a lot of significance on the role of the parents in the wedding
through the process of consent (Hull, 2003; Hull and Hull, 2006; Hunter,
2012; Josephson, 2005; Judge, Manion, and De Waal, 2008; Kail, Acosta,
and Wright, 2015). The groom is expected to approach the guardian of the
bride, who is usually the father, and then agree that the marriage can take
place. If the guardian does not agree to the marriage, it cannot be legal.
This is different in Christian contexts where the guardianship requirement
is mainly restricted to cases where the bride is between 16 and 18 years of
age. The guardian is typically from the paternal side of the bride’s family.
Typically, it is the father or grandfather that conducts the proceedings.
Under traditional Islamic law, the guardian (if they are a grandfather
or father) can offer a woman up for the marriage even if she disagrees if it
is her first marriage (Badgett, 2009; Ball, 2014, 2015; Barclay and Fisher,
2003; Barker, 2012; Baunach, 2012; Beck, 2013; Berg, 2010). This is,
in effect, a possibility of forced marriage that is sanctioned by religious
doctrine and practice. Shariat Law sets up certain minimum requirements
for marriage, including the groom providing living expenses for the bride.
The responsibility of the wife is to raise children in the family to become
responsible Muslims. The couple may decide on other stipulations that
are included in the marital contract or prenuptial agreement. However, the
couple is not allowed to negotiate any terms that are less favorable than the
minimum requirements under Shariat Law. For example, the groom cannot
persuade the wife to agree that he does not have responsibilities for expenses
related to housing, medical care, food, and clothing in the marriage.
Certain sects have additional requirements depending on the framework
that underpins marriage (Buchanan, 1984; Buffie, 2011; Cahill and Cahill,
2004; Chambers, 1997; Chamie and Mirkin, 2011; Coolidge, 1997). For
example, Sunni Islam requires that there be a minimum of two reliable
witnesses to a wedding before it becomes valid. In addition, there must be
the consent of the groom and the guardian of the bride. Such an arrangement
appears to exclude the bride from the actual consent process, a provision
that would be unacceptable in Western European culture. After the wedding,
it is expected that the couple consummates the marriage through sexual
intercourse. There are certain marriages that are simply based on both the
man and woman indicating an intention to be married to each other (Franke,
2006; Gaines and Garand, 2010; Gerstmann, 2017; Gher, 2007; Goldberg-
Hiller, 2009; Hester and Gibson, 2007). They will then recite the requisite
words that are extracted from the Koran. However, there must be a suitable
Muslim witness to make the recitation valid. Later, there will be a public
wedding. However, the time lag between the so-called “Urf marriage” and
the wedding ceremony can run months. The eventual wedding ceremony
will occur when both families wish to do so. It is important that the Urf
marriage should not be concealed since the recitation is meant to be a public
notification. A witness is required to verify the proceedings.
Shia has alternative arrangements in which a marriage may occur, even
when there are no witnesses (Ellison, Acevedo, and Ramos‐Wada, 2011;
Eskridge, 1993, 1999; Fingerhut, Riggle, and Rostosky, 2011). This is
what is known as a temporary marriage or “Nikah mut’ah.” Sunni Islam
specifically forbids these types of marriages. There has been concern that
these marriages are sometimes used to entrap women and young girls into a
form of sexual slavery. An older man that wishes to sexually exploit a young
woman will induce her into a so-called temporary marriage. Once he has
satisfied his desires, the man will divorce the woman.
It has been one of the ways of avoiding the oversight of moral authorities
when conducting marriages for the purposes of exploiting young people
(Olson, Cadge, and Harrison, 2006; Onuche, 2013; Pearl and Galupo, 2007;
Pierceson, 2014; Pinello, 2006). “Nikah mut’ah” requires consent on both
parties, and the marriage can be consummated after the temporary marriage.
However, it is not clear that the women who are victimized in this way give
any kind of meaningful informed consent. Temporary marriage has been
exposed as a potential loophole that can be abused by unscrupulous men to
exploit young women.
Unfortunately, there are Imams and other officials that are engaged in
facilitating these types of marriage for purposes of scheming off a profit
from the proceedings (Kail, Acosta, and Wright, 2015; Kandaswamy, 2008;
Klarman, 2012; Kogan, 2003; Koppelman, 1996). From the perspective
of reform, the existence of “Nikah mut’ah” is a clear example of how
the high standards that are set by religious scripts are not always met by
followers. Indeed, some of these standards may be exploited in a deliberate
way to achieve goals that are entirely outside the initial conceptualization
of marriage. Those who wish to defend the heritage and values of Islam
argue that these abuses are anomalies that should not be adopted as accurate
representations of the religion. In fact, it is possible that the enemies of Islam
cherry-pick these incidents and abuses to convince the world that religion is
incurably bad.
The most common marriage in Islam is known as “Nikāh,” which
loosely translates into collecting and binding together (Lahey and Alderson,
2004; Langbein and Yost, 2009; Lannutti, 2005, 2007; Lee and Hicks, 2011;
Lenhardt, 2008). This marriage has been described in the Koran under Surah
4:4. There are important regulations that underpin this marriage, some of
which have been adopted in the family under within Muslim-majority
countries or even Islamic Theocracies like Iran. Although the “Nikāh” is
meant to be a permanent state, it gives the man unbridled powers to easily
divorce his wife with nothing more than a proclamation.
This is what is known as the “Talaq” process, a divorce proceeding that
is common in many cultures with the important difference being the consent
(or lack) of the wife (Brown, 1994; Buchanan, 1984; Buffie, 2011; Cahill
and Cahill, 2004; Chambers, 1997; Chamie and Mirkin, 2011; Coolidge,
1997). The wife may initiate divorce proceedings as well under the “Khula”
framework. One of the effects of “Nikāh” is that the couple can inherit from
each other, and this protects in many instances when the family of the groom
wishes to dispossess her of the man’s property when he is deceased.
Islamic marriage necessarily entails a legal contract under Shariat Law
(Moskowitz, Rieger, and Roloff, 2010; Olson, Cadge, and Harrison, 2006;
Onuche, 2013; Pearl and Galupo, 2007). However, there is no specific
requirement that the agreement be in writing. Hence, enforcement is largely
dependent on the goodwill of the parties involved. That can be problematic
if there is an acrimonious separation, and one party is seeking to injure the
other in some way. At the same time, the lack of enforced written contracts
means that even those that are functionally illiterate can contract marriages
under Shariat Law.
For those that have immigrated to Western liberal democracies with a
strong Christian influence or background; it seems highly unlikely that such
marriages that are only memorialized through oral contracts can be enforced
in a court of law (Hull and Hull, 2006; Hunter, 2012; Josephson, 2005;
Judge, Manion, and De Waal, 2008; Kail, Acosta, and Wright, 2015). Some
marriages have an end date for certain clauses and obligations, something
that is virtually unheard of in a Western context. The disagreement over
temporary marriages indicates doctrinal diversities in the interpretation
of marriage. Although Islam is largely opposed to the notion of same-
sex marriage, there are some denominations that are beginning to accept
people with same-sex attractions and partnerships. One of the most notable
examples is in South Africa, probably on account of the liberal government
policy on LGBT unions in that country when compared to the rest of Africa.
The Muslim marriage is decidedly heterosexual, although Iran does
help some transgender people to transition through state facilities (Langbein
and Yost, 2009; Lannutti, 2005, 2007; Lee and Hicks, 2011; Lenhardt,
2008; Lewis, 2005). Where Islamic law reigns, homophobia has been
institutionalized with LGBT people humiliated, insulted, excluded, and
even killed for nothing more than their sexuality and identity. Even more
concerning is the notion that when Islam gains influence in the West, there
is a concerted effort to bring those values that are against LGBT rights. The
eventuality or suspicion that there are “Muslim areas” in Europe and North
America where LGBT people are not welcome has outright many and led to
calls for more controls on the religion as well as its adherents.
Besides, there has been resistance among western Liberal democracies
against incorporating any aspect of Shariat Law since it may lead to serious
discrimination against LGBT citizens (Bernstein and Taylor, 2013; Franke,
2006; Kail, Acosta, and Wright, 2015; Lodola and Corral, 2010; Sanders,
2012). The thinking behind this has a surprising diversity twist. According
to those that are against the Islamification of Europe, the world ought to be
a diverse place, which is not dominated by one religion. Hence, Europe is
a primarily Christian region. Muslim migrants would then be required to
moderate their religious practices so that they are consistent with the liberal
democratic principles that prevail in Europe. The next section considers
marriage in Judaism.
3.3. JUDAISM AND MARRIAGE LAW

One of the most interesting aspects of marriage in Judaism is the existence
of a Ketubah, a marriage contract that sets out the duties, responsibilities,
rights, and obligations of each of the partners to a marriage (Brown, 1994;
Hunter, 2012; Onuche, 2013; Trosino, 1993). It really is the precursor to
the prenuptial agreement that is so popular in the USA. This is because it
sets out the terms under which the marriage is conducted and even provides
courses of action when the relationship ends. The Torah informs all the rituals
of Jewish marriages. The Ketubah typically includes a clause of sexual
exclusivity and faithfulness. Figure 3.3 summarizes the law on marriage in
Israel, which mainly supports heterosexual, cisgender Jews marrying each
other in an orthodox wedding.
Figure 3.3: Marriage in Israel.
Source: Haaretz.
Jews believe that one of the critical (although not sole) purposes of
marriage are procreation (Badgett, 2009; Ball, 2014, 2015; Barclay and
Fisher, 2003; Barker, 2012; Baunach, 2012; Beck, 2013; Berg, 2010). Hence,
there is a covenant to the unborn children that must be fulfilled. Because
LGBT people are less likely to procreate “naturally,” they were typically
excluded from the traditional Jewish marriage. However, Israel remains an
important beacon of LGBT rights in the Middle East despite the existence of
a sizeable conservative community in the country.
According to Jewish tradition, marriage involves merging the couple into
a single soul (Smith, DeSantis, and Kassel, 2006; Smith, 2005, 2007; Soule,
2004; Strasser, 2018; Sullivan, 2004; Tamagawa, 2016). It is for this reason
that unmarried men are “incomplete” under Jewish tradition. Of course,
such an assumption also puts pressure on the “confirmed bachelors” that do
not get married because their potential sexual partners are excluded from
marriage when following the rules laid down by the Torah. The exclusion of
LGBT people from Orthodox marriages has not stopped Israel as a country
from adopting the most pro-LGBT policies in Europe. In fact, compared to
its neighbor Israel remains a beacon of LGBT rights.
There are many typologies of marriages that are described in the Hebrew
Bible which roughly equates to the Old Testament in the Christian Bible
(Badgett, 2009; Ball, 2014, 2015; Barclay and Fisher, 2003; Barker, 2012;
Baunach, 2012; Beck, 2013; Berg, 2010). The marriages are intricately
linked to historical figures such as Samson, Jacob, and Isaac. Typically, men
could engage in polygyny. However, there was also concubinage in which

the woman enjoyed the same rights as a full wife in many respects. The
Bible also talks about mass marriage that occurs following an abduction,
and this was a form of punishment.
Currently, there has been reform to the extent that Ashkenazi Jews may
take no more than one spouse regardless of their gender following a ban
by Gershom ben Juda (decd. 1040) (Smith, DeSantis, and Kassel, 2006;
Smith, 2005, 2007; Soule, 2004; Strasser, 2018; Sullivan, 2004; Tamagawa,
2016). Traditionally, Hebrew marriage remained a domestic issue without
much religious involvement, even during the marriage ceremony. Indeed,
for some time, the participation of the Rabbi (priest) was not a requirement
for a wedding to be conducted. The Jews distinguished a betrothal as the
moment when a binding contract for marriage is made. There could be a
substantial period between a betrothal and a wedding.
Patriarchy informed traditional views of Hebrew marriage, and the wife
was the personal property of her husband (Buchanan, 1984; Josephson, 2005;
Pearl and Galupo, 2007; Vanita, 2005). Women were expected to engage
in several domesticated jobs, including cooking, fetching water, weaving,
and animal husbandry to help maintain the home. Nevertheless, a wife was
supposed to be looked after with great care. For example, regardless of the
existence of subsequent wives in polygyny; the first wives were always
entitled to clothing, food, and marital rights.
Those who have critiqued traditional Hebrew marriage in the modern
context argue that it is a continuation of gender inequality which is couched
in misleading terms of care for the wives who are nothing more than chattels
(Appleton, 2005; Coolidge, 1997; Goldberg-Hiller, 2009; Kramer, 1996;
Olson, Cadge, and Harrison, 2006; Sherkat et al., 2011). It is therefore not
hard to imagine that such a traditional view of marriage would reject the
idea of same-sex relationships, let alone sanctioning them with marriage.
That does not mean that LGBT people are not given some rights in modern-
day Israel. Indeed, the country has been praised as a beacon of hope for
LGBT rights in the Middle East.
Nevertheless, the ban on same-sex marriage is a gap that is yet to be
filled through legislation (Widiss, Rosenblatt, and NeJaime, 2007; Wight,
LeBlanc, and Lee Badgett, 2013; Wilson, 2013). Jewish opinion is divided
between traditionalists and reformers with regard to the institution of same-
sex marriages. When conceptualizing, writing, and delivering policies; the
government of Israel tries to ensure that neither side is completely harmed
by the process. The traditionalists are an important aspect of Jewish heritage.

However, there are also LGBT people that cannot be excluded from an open
and liberal Jewish society.
In the original interpretations of marriage under Jewish law, the wife
was nothing more than the private property of the husband (Flores, 2015;
Franke, 2006; Gaines and Garand, 2010; Gerstmann, 2017; Gher, 2007;
Goldberg-Hiller, 2009). Hence, he could divorce her (or in effect discard his
property) at will and for any or no reason at all. Later, Gershom ben Judah
banned Ashkenazi Jews from divorcing their wives against their will. Under
the reform agenda, a divorced couple could reconcile unless the wife had
married elsewhere following her divorce.
The link between gender and property rights has been part of the Jewish
interpretations of marriage (Klarman, 2012; Kogan, 2003; Koppelman,
1996, 1997, 2014; Kramer, 1996). Of course, in modern-day Israel, it would
be totally unacceptable for any woman to be treated as persona property.
Nevertheless, it must be recognized that some people continue to live under
extremely strict and traditionalist views of Jewish marriage. In such an
instance, it becomes impractical for the law to try and enforce “liberated
views” on traditional communities. For the most part, communities try to
congregate with those that are of a similar view and value base. Hence,
harmony is created by developing diverse communities that are built around
different enclaves or heterogeneous populations.
Indeed, many of the debates concerning same-sex marriage in Israel
have tended to divide along generational, political, and traditionalist lines
(Chambers, 1997; Chamie and Mirkin, 2011; Coolidge, 1997; Corvino and
Gallagher, 2012; Cox, Navarro-Rivera, and Jones, 2014). For the younger
generations, a strict interpretation of Jewish marriage makes no sense to them
because it reduces one partner to a piece of property that can be disposed of
at will. The divides that we see in Israel are not unique to the country. Many
other developed nations are seeing this divide as they try to create spaces for
discussing same-sex relationships and eventual unions.
Because of its historical links, not least the remembrance of the Holocaust,
Israel is careful to reference religious texts and practices when implementing
a marriage law (Brandzel, 2005; Hull, 2003; Moskowitz, Rieger, and Roloff,
2010; Tamagawa, 2016). That can cause some incongruence with a modern
democratic society that is increasingly becoming multicultural. There
is a vibrant LGBT scene in urban conurbations such as Tel-a-Viv. These
are populations for whom the traditionalist view of marriage is no longer
relevant and may be perceived to be oppressive in many instances. Whereas

Israel does not condone the harassment or social exclusion of LGBT people,
such noble macro-policy may not successfully change attitudes and behavior
at the micro-level.
There is still homophobia and sexism in many communities, a situation
that is not unsimilar to other modern democracies where state policy is
LGBT-friendly but private practice is not (Ball, 2015; Dorf, 2011; Hull,
2001; Lannutti, 2005; Pierceson, 2014; Shulman, Gotta, and Green, 2012).
Moreover, it is important to appreciate that women were not entirely
subjugated under Jewish law. Marriage was a Biblical mandate which was
subject to the rules set out in the religious texts. For example, the husband
had to accept the rights of his wife. Divorce occurred when the husband
gave a document of divorce to his wife or upon the death of one of the
parties. The Talmudic times included certain details in the marriage contract
which protected the wife in case of divorce or widowhood.
There have been certain non-orthodox developments that have changed
the way in which marriage is viewed in Judaism (Smith, 2007; Soule,
Trosino, 1993). Specific reference is made to the rules concerning who
can marry whom. For example, there is a distinct trend of not encouraging
intermarriage despite Israel’s reputation as a modern liberal democracy. Part
of this reluctance to intermarry is driven by the notion that marriage is a
contractual bond which is commanded by God.
Therefore, someone might have to be Jewish to be able to fulfill all
the aspects of a traditional Jewish marriage (Barker, 2012; Gher, 2007;
Lewis and Gossett, 2008; Smith, DeSantis, and Kassel, 2006). God is
directly involved in a traditional Jewish marriage, and that means that the
religious aspects of such an institution can never be ignored. Procreation is
an important, but not sole, purpose of marriage in Judaism. The premium
placed on heterosexual and cisgender procreation in Jewish tradition is
experienced in other religious communities. However, such a value system
necessarily excludes members of the LGBT community.
Nevertheless, a Jewish marriage is supposed to fulfill the commandment
to have children (Baunach, 2012; Goldberg-Hiller, 2009; Lodola and Corral,
2010; Smith, 2005). There are recent non-orthodox Jewish denominations
that have reinterpreted many of these traditional rules to better reflect the
modern reality of their congregations. A case in point is the nuanced view of
marriage among the Reform, Reconstructionist, and Conservative Judaism
which have recognized the validity of same-sex relationships and even

marriage. These denominations have also de-emphasized the notion that
marriage is for the main purpose of procreation.
That means that members of the LGBT community that cannot procreate
naturally are also welcomed as members of these relatively new Jewish
communities (Lannutti, 2005, 2007; Lee and Hicks, 2011; Lenhardt, 2008;
Lewis, 2005; Lewis and Gossett, 2008). Instead, there is more emphasis
on marriage as an expression of love and a bond between the couples. The
Orthodox Jews have critiqued these reforms as being contrary to traditional
Jewish law. Hence, they do not consider the reform agenda to be a legitimate
alternative interpretation of Jewish law.
There have been researchers that focus on exclusion within the traditional
definition of a Jewish marriage (Lodola and Corral, 2010; Lupia et al., 2010;
MacDougall, 2000; McVeigh and Maria-Elena, 2009). For example, the
idea that same-sex marriage is not officially sanctioned does not sit well
with Israel’s reputation as a hub of LGBT rights in the Middle East. Others
object to the traditional rituals that underpin a Jewish marriage such as
a betrothal and sanctification. Instead, the reformists favor a much more
relaxed approach to an institution that should also include civil ceremonies.
There are members of the LGBT community who remain conflicted because
on the one hand they are Jewish, but on the other hand, they are part of a sub-
community that has less rights than heterosexual cisgender Jews (Lodola
and Corral, 2010; Lupia et al., 2010; MacDougall, 2000; McVeigh and
Maria-Elena, 2009; Meezan and Rauch, 2005). One of the options that have
been considered from a policy point of view is to consider marriage to be
a purely religious sacrament that only believers can access. For other non-
believers, there could be civil unions are inclusive of LGBT unions. The
challenge with such a settlement is the fact that it largely ignores the rights
and responsibilities of LGBT people who happen to be living in traditional
Jewish communities. These people may want to have a traditional wedding
and not a civil union. The next section considers how denominational
diversity has become a partial response to the crisis of LGBT relationships
in many conservative contexts.
3.4. DENOMINATIONAL DIVERSITY IN MARRIAGE

One of the outcomes of the various disagreements about the meaning and
conduct of religious marriage has been the emergence of denominational
diversity (Sherkat et al., 2011; Shulman, Gotta, and Green, 2012; Smith,
DeSantis, and Kassel, 2006; Smith, 2005, 2007). Some LGBT people have
created their own religious communities as a counterculture to the mainstream
that has rejected them. Other liberal views have also created denominations
that are more welcoming to LGBT people. This denominational diversity is
occurring in a context of significant changes in religious communities. For
example, Figure 3.4 shows that many traditional religions are experiencing
a decline in adherents while the number of people with no religion is rising.
Figure 3.4: Changing religious affiliations from 1911 to 2016.
Source: MDPI.
In the case of the Anglican Union, the disagreements over same-sex
marriage have inspired debates about a permanent schism (Kandaswamy,
2008; Klarman, 2012; Kogan, 2003; Koppelman, 1996, 1997, 2014). For
example, those churches based in Africa and the developing world, in
general, are much more conservative on LGBT issues than those in Europe
and North America. However, the liberal churches in the more industrialized
nations are not willing to compromise the rights and welfare of their LGBT
congregations at the altar of doctrinal uniformity.
In fact, some countries specifically ban same-sex relationships while
others ban discrimination against LGBT people (Pierceson, 2014; Pinello,
2007). In such circumstances, the communion is faced with an unpalatable
set of choices which all point to a potential schism. Nevertheless,
denominational diversity has meant that LGBT people still have a place
in religious communities and that there is no universal policy of exclusion,
discrimination, and harassment. This belies the damaging stereotype of
all religions being incurably homophobic and sexist. The development of

denominational beliefs and practices has long been of interest to religious
anthropologists, particularly as they relate to marriage in general (Lewis,
2005; Lewis and Gossett, 2008; Lodola and Corral, 2010; Lupia et al., 2010;
MacDougall, 2000; McVeigh and Maria-Elena, 2009). Same-sex marriage
represents doctrinal and practical challenges for many religions, hence the
diversity of responses in a range of denominations. There are underlying
principles which are re-interpreted and practiced according to the doctrinal
stance of a particular denomination towards marriage. A case in point is how
all Christians regard marriage as being sacred and a covenant.
Nevertheless, there is disagreement about the nature of that covenant
(Ball, 2014; Franke, 2006; Lee and Hicks, 2011; Sherkat, De Vries, and
Creek, 2010). Conservative Catholics believe that marriage is a covenant
between the couple, God, and the community. Hence, couples have
obligations to each other as well as the other two parties to the covenant.
This interpretation has implications concerning the ways in which married
couples are supposed to behave towards each other. It can also create some
obstacles to divorce in certain instances for couples that adhere to this
interpretation of the marital doctrines.
Other more liberal interpretations are that marriage is a covenant
between a couple based on love, mutuality, and commitment (Brewer and
Wilcox, 2005; Kogan, 2003; Smith, 2007; Walls, 2010). Hence, the needs
of society, such as the prevention of homosexuality are not appropriate to
include in that uniquely private covenant. If two people love each other, they
can get married regardless of their sex, gender, and identity. That thinking
is at odds with the traditional Roman Catholic beliefs about marriage as a
sacrament with specific and unbreakable requirements.
A case in point are the attitudes to divorce where the more liberal
denominations argue that a couple who no longer wish to remain married to
each other can divorce, yet the Catholic Church makes it incredibly difficult to
obtain a no-fault divorce (Cahill and Cahill, 2004; Chambers, 1997; Chamie
and Mirkin, 2011; Coolidge, 1997; Corvino and Gallagher, 2012). One of
the areas of controversy is the religious history of marriage which makes it a
distinctly religious institution. For example, the rules set out by the Council
of Verona in 1184 underpin modern Christian marriage. Such principles
predate the sexual and social liberalization of the LGBT communities and
are therefore necessarily irrelevant to those communities. The validity of a
marriage subject to denominational diversity is a concern for those LGBT
couples that are still believers despite being generally excluded from this
institution (Damslet, 1992; Dorf, 2011; Ellison, Acevedo, and Ramos‐Wada,
2011; Eskridge, 1993, 1999). For example, under the provisions of the 24th
Session of the Council of Trent in 1563; a priest and two witnesses were
necessary for a wedding to be valid. The problem for LGBT couples is that
many priests refuse to wed them or even countenance the validity of their
relationships. Then there are the legacy issues that need to be reinterpreted
for a modern age.
A case in the need for parental consent which became a sticking point
for legislation in the United Kingdom when raising the minimum age for
consent for same-sex relationships (Bernstein and Taylor, 2013; Boertien
Buchanan, 1984). Another issue is that of the right to remarry after divorce.
Traditionally, marriage was a contract that lasted until one or both of the
parties to it died. That meant that even after divorce, some conservative
denominations refused to remarry the individuals to other spouses. Hence,
the ridiculous situation of people that had been divorced for nearly a quarter
of a century but could still not get remarried to other people.
At a time when the divorce rates are quite high in many industrialized
nations, such a requirement is superfluous (Alderson, 2004; Chamie and
Mirkin, 2011; Gher, 2007; Koppelman, 2014; Moskowitz, Rieger, and
Roloff, 2010). When LGBT marriages were introduced, the courts were
faced with the task of dealing with a new form of divorce that never followed
traditional lines. For example, many LGBT couples did not have children
to link them after divorce, and yet there were substantial marital assets to
be shared. There were concerns that any attempt to restrict divorce could
increase domestic violence and gender-based.
Certainly, research those unhappy marriages are worse than singlehood
and that is something that has taken an exceptionally long time to embed
within society (Onuche, 2013; Pearl and Galupo, 2007; Pierceson, 2014;
Pinello, 2006; Powell, Quadlin, and Pizmony-Levy, 2015). There were
unscrupulous partners that used the provisions of the Church to hold their
spouse captive and would take every opportunity to sabotage their ex-
partners by refusing to grant a divorce or making an unexpected appearance
at a new wedding to disrupt it. The use of children as a bargaining chip
was common, and certainly parental alienation occurred where no steps
were taken to ensure that both parents had reasonable access to children.
LGBT couples were not willing to enter one trap after fighting for their
freedom over a considerable period. Hence, the divorce rates among same-
sex couples are fast catching up with that of traditional marriage.
There have been subtle but important changes in marriage over the
years, and these have become tradition (Cox, Navarro-Rivera, and Jones,
2014; Ellison, Acevedo, and Ramos‐Wada, 2011; Koppelman, 1997; Wight,
LeBlanc, and Lee Badgett, 2013). Those that argue for LGBT rights suggest
that since tradition can be changed over time, acceptance of same-sex
marriage should become a matter of course with time. Even doctrinally
stringent religions such as Catholicism have been subject to change. Some of
these changes appear trivial such as marrying the Church instead of outside
it. However, they are overall indicators that some of the doctrinal certainties
that have prevented acceptance of LGBT marriages can be changed with the
will of the congregations.
The congregations themselves are divided between the young and old,
traditionalists, and liberals (Lewis and Gossett, 2008; Lodola and Corral,
2010; Lupia et al., 2010; MacDougall, 2000; McVeigh and Maria-Elena,
2009). Hence, it is almost impossible to come up with a consensus on how
the issue of reform should be handled with regard to same-sex marriage. The
Church or any other religious institution may also be grappling within a legal
context that is decidedly much more liberal than the most orthodox adherents
of the faith. Hence, there are jurisdictions in which a religious ceremony
is not recognized as a marriage until the civil aspects of a contract are
completed. Moreover, the complementarity notions in a traditional marriage
may be criticized for allowing gendered stereotypes and discrimination to
continue under the guise of maintaining the traditional marriage structure.
Protestantism has generally had a more liberal approach to doctrine,
including with reference to same-sex couples (Chambers, 1997; Chamie and
Mirkin, 2011; Coolidge, 1997; Corvino and Gallagher, 2012; Cox, Navarro-
Rivera, and Jones, 2014). Although certain protestants (a notable example
being the Southern Baptists and the Pentecostal churches of the developing
world) are quite conservative on issues of same-sex marriage; the Protestant
Movement has been in favor of gradual reform. Of course, some of the
stipulations (such as celibacy) placed on same-sex couples are impractical.
Nevertheless, there is denominational diversity in the Protestant churches
which allows them to welcome LGBT couples and even countenance same-
sex marriage.
That does not mean that there is complete acceptance of LGBT people,
a community that still must deal with factions that are reactionary and even
hostile to the community itself (Gher, 2007; Goldberg-Hiller, 2009; Hester

and Gibson, 2007; Hogg, 2006; Hooghe and Meeusen, 2013; Hull, 2001).
Even more concerning, is the notion that the Protestant Church can have
sway on the most powerful governments with regards to LGBT rights. For
example, there was concern those White evangelicals from the USA were
exporting their own anti-LGBT stance to African Churches since the law in
the USA prevented them from enacting some of their more extreme policy
positions such as the imprisonment and execution of LGBT people.
Nevertheless, the traditional doctrinal position of the Protestant Church
is that marriage is ordained by God (Lenhardt, 2008; Lewis, 2005; Lewis
and Gossett, 2008; Lodola and Corral, 2010; Lupia et al., 2010; MacDougall,
2000). The Church countenances a marriage between a man and woman for
the duration of life, save for the circumstance of death or divorce. Recently
the Anglican Church has relaxed the laws on divorce, something that is
not entirely unexpected given the fact that this denomination was founded
because of King Henry VIII of England wishing to marry Anne Boleyn
against the express wishes of the Catholic Church in Rome. The Protestant
Church has generally been reformist in its approach to matters of sexuality
and marriage over time. However, some argue that the pace of reform is so
slow as to become harmful to LGBT couples who constantly must wait for
the Church to sound out policy reforms and then deal with the inevitable
backlash from the Conservative wing of the congregation. The final section
of this chapter summarizes existing theological views on marriage.
3.5. THEOLOGICAL VIEWS ON MARRIAGE

Existing theological views on marriage are important to LGBT communities
because they are often the foundation of religious objections to same-
sex marriage (Smith, 2007; Soule, 2004; Strasser, 2018; Sullivan, 2004;
Tamagawa, 2016; Trandafir, 2014; Trosino, 1993). As these views are
reformed, the pathway towards increased acceptance of same-sex couples
will increase. As a starting point, Christians generally believe that marriage
is a serious matter and should never be trivialized. It is common for
traditional conceptualizations of marriage to be critiqued for failing to live
up to modern expectations of equality and egalitarianism. A case in point is
the critique of the Christian conceptualization of Biblical marriage in Figure
3.5.
Figure 3.5: Theological views on marriage.
Source: XKV8R via WordPress.

One of the objections to same-sex marriage was therefore that it offered
the LGBT community to make a mockery of marriage (Hogg, 2006; Hooghe
and Meeusen, 2013; Hull, 2001, 2003; Hull and Hull, 2006; Hunter, 2012;
Josephson, 2005). Much was made of the supposed promiscuity of members
of the LGBT community, whilst simultaneously ignoring the levels of
promiscuity among heterosexual cisgender couples. Although the Protestant
churches generally recognize the sanctity of marriage, they also respond
to divorce with compassion in recognizing that sometimes couples make
mistakes that can only be resolved through separation.
Whereas divorce is less than ideal, many consider it to be a better solution
than forcing people to remain in intolerable relationships simply because
they were married by a religious institution (Coolidge, 1997; Corvino and
Gallagher, 2012; Cox, Navarro-Rivera, and Jones, 2014; Damslet, 1992;
Dorf, 2011). Specifically, the Church recognizes that deserting your partner
or being unfaithful is sound grounds for a separation or divorce. This is an
important provision for people that have been abandoned by their spouses.
Rather than waiting for an eternity for the other partner to make a decision,
the authorities may assume that a divorce has taken place. The challenge
is in ensuring that alimony rights are enforced if the absconding partner is
located.
Some researchers are of the view that eventually the divorce rate among
younger Christians will reach the endemic levels that it is in the wider
communities within the industrialized world (Gher, 2007; Goldberg-Hiller,
2009; Hester and Gibson, 2007; Hogg, 2006; Hooghe and Meeusen, 2013;
Hull, 2001). This is because younger people are no longer willing to sacrifice
their personal freedom and happiness at the altar of certain doctrinal dogmas.
Indeed, many are questioning the very objections to same-sex marriage,
which were once held to be sacrosanct. If religious institutions are to retain
their hold over the younger generation, they must ensure that their values
and practices reflect the priorities of a modern society.
For example, young people strongly associated with the LGBT
community, and many are beginning to question why their friends are being
denied the right to marriage for being themselves and expressing their
identity (Goldberg-Hiller, 2009; Hester and Gibson, 2007; Hogg, 2006;
Hooghe and Meeusen, 2013; Hull, 2001, 2003). Others are disillusioned
by the seeming hypocrisy of religious institutions that have prioritized
certain sins over others. For instance, the Catholic Church cannot really
claim the moral high ground on human sexuality when the institution has
faced significant and serious accusations of child abuse among its priests.
Young people are keenly aware of these inconsistencies and are not afraid to
highlight them if they feel that the religious institutions are not responding
to the community in an appropriate way.
Even within a single institution such as the Christian, there are competing
notions of marriage and the resultant responses to the possibilities of same-
sex marriage (Boertien and Vignoli, 2019; Hull, 2001; Meezan and Rauch,
2005; Sullivan, 2004). These divisions are not only doctrinal but also practical
in terms of how they relate to the ways in which the congregation leads its
life. Some adherents have found themselves in an unenviable position of
having to choose between their faith and family members who happen to be
part of the LGBT community. Those that do not take a Conservative view
of marriage have been accused of apostasy and even betrayal against the
Church.
Then there are those who believe that their own interpretation is the
correct one, even if it means “hating the sin, but loving the sinner” with
regards to the LGBT community (Brewer and Wilcox, 2005; Hull and Hull,
2006; Olson, Cadge, and Harrison, 2006; Trandafir, 2014). A church may
be forced by its congregation to take on a much more conservative view
of same-sex marriage when its followers threaten to leave if there is no
hardening of attitudes. Reform can only occur if there is a meeting of minds
over same-sex marriage across the different interest groups within a given
church or denomination. Of course, the reality is that personal perspectives
vary significantly, and that means that consensus is incredibly difficult to
achieve.
Some institutions are on the verge of breaking up because there is no
consensus on the issue of same-sex marriage and no consensus can be
foreseen soon (Sherkat et al., 2011; Shulman, Gotta, and Green, 2012;
Smith, DeSantis, and Kassel, 2006; Smith, 2005, 2007). Because doctrines
are ultimately about belief systems in a higher power, some members
of a congregation may feel that no price is too high to please their God
even if it means breaking away from their parent congregations. Religious
institutions are struggling with the divide between the traditionalists and the
modernists. On the one hand, the institution must retain some of its identity
if it is to survive. On the other hand, there must be reform to appeal to new
and younger congregations. That balancing act has proved to be fatal for
some institutions.
As a case in point, we can examine the competing views of marriage
in Christianity today (Bernstein and Taylor, 2013; Hooghe and Meeusen,
2013; McVeigh and Maria-Elena, 2009; Strasser, 2018). On one end is the
egalitarian point of view, which borrows heavily from the New Testament.
In these cases, marriage requires complete equality of responsibility and
authority between the spouses. On the other end of the spectrum is the
Patriarchal point of view in which marriage is for the comfort of the man
and involves him completely dominating his wife, or wives.
Egalitarianism is at odds with patriarchy because it does not believe in
any authority differentials among couples (Pierceson, 2014; Pinello, 2006;
Powell, Quadlin, and Pizmony-Levy, 2015; Rimmerman and Wilcox, 2007).
There is no leader or head of the family, but rather each member of the
couple takes on any roles that are pre-agreed by the parties. Egalitarians
base their belief system on the Biblical principle of reciprocal love and
equality before the eyes of God. This contrasts with the patriarchal view
in which women are the originators of sin and therefore are condemned to
remain subordinate to their husbands. Egalitarians reject any claim of a
principle or theological justification for achieving a certain status based on
class, race, or gender (Ball, 2014, 2015; Barclay and Fisher, 2003; Barker,
2012; Baunach, 2012; Beck, 2013; Berg, 2010; Bernstein and Taylor, 2013).
In contrast, the Complementarian perspective believes in a male-dominated
hierarchy. However, the husband is supposed to prove loving and humble
leadership while the wife offers intelligent and willing submission. Hence,
the assumption that accepting these roles will bring complementarity and
harmony to the relationship.
Over time, Biblical patriarchy is becoming less and less popular with
mainstream Christians (Chamie and Mirkin, 2011; Coolidge, 1997; Corvino
and Gallagher, 2012; Cox, Navarro-Rivera, and Jones, 2014). Many consider
to be a violation of the human rights of a wife and an elevation of masculinity
beyond any rational limits. A strict male-dominant hierarchy has become
increasingly superfluous in a world where work and earn a living. Indeed,
the revelation that God was masculine and therefore could only be properly
served by men is being challenged by the elevation of women Bishops and
clergy. The husband as a sovereign of the household is being challenged
by divorce courts that tend to favor women when it comes to alimony and
childcare.
Many men are no longer the providers and protectors that the Bible
talked about (Sullivan, 2004; Tamagawa, 2016; Trandafir, 2014; Trosino,
1993; Vanita, 2005; Walls, 2010; Wardle, 1996; Webb and Chonody, 2014).
Indeed, many are abandoning their families when there are challenges,
and this has given women renewed independence. At the same time, the
existence of a powerful and vocal LGBT community means that the gender
power relations that were defined by patriarchy are no longer relevant to
many societies. That is not to say that there are no men who follow the
patriarchal model.
In Muslim-majority countries, it is common for men to rule their
families and womenfolk with an iron fist (Lee and Hicks, 2011; Lenhardt,
2008; Lewis, 2005; Lewis and Gossett, 2008; Lodola and Corral, 2010;
Lupia et al., 2010). For example, it was only recently that women in Saudi
Arabia could drive, let alone going out alone without the company of a male
relative. Those living in liberal Western democracies consider such behavior
to be backward and inappropriate in an egalitarian age.
It is also important to acknowledge that not all women are willing to
overturn the vestiges of patriarchy in the new egalitarian age (Damslet,
1992; Dorf, 2011; Ellison, Acevedo, and Ramos‐Wada, 2011; Eskridge,
1993, 1999). For example, there are many so-called “surrendered wives”
who make the conscious effort to allow their husbands to take the leadership
role in the home. Others are willing to fall under the strict rules of their
religion, such as covering up their entire bodies under Islamic law, despite
that these women may be living in liberal democracies in which such control
is never acceptable under the law.
The women who choose to follow the patriarchal model of marriage have
complained that they are ostracized as letting down their feminist sisters
(Alderson, 2004; Appleton, 2005; Auchmuty, 2004; Badgett, 2009; Ball,
2014, 2015; Barclay and Fisher, 2003). Others are of the view that they are
not understood because those that advocate for change are not really taking
the time to examine the lives and perspectives of Conservative-minded
people. Hence, there is an intolerance of anyone that has traditionalist views
about marriage. Of course, those that defend equality before the law may
argue that this anti-religious fervor has arisen because religious extremists
were active in enforcing anti-LGBT attitudes and behavior in the community.
As a case in point, we may consider some religious institutions
which have been supportive of the imprisonment of LGBT people in
the developing world despite their gospel of “love” (MacDougall, 2000;
McVeigh and Maria-Elena, 2009; Meezan and Rauch, 2005; Moskowitz,
Rieger, and Roloff, 2010). Often these are Pentecostal congregations and
leaders who adopt an otherwise liberal view of Church orthodoxy. Their
attitude becomes autocratic and reactionary when discussing issues of
human sexuality. However, reformers have successfully redefined marriage
as a state institution rather than a religious one. This has allowed authorities
to make many of the necessary reforms without having to engage a reluctant
Church. Once religion loses its moral authority to define marriage, then
there is no turning back in terms of reforming the definition of the institution
(Koppelman, 1997, 2014; Kramer, 1996; Kreitzer, Hamilton, and Tolbert,
2014; Lahey and Alderson, 2004).
CHAPTER 3 SUMMARY
This chapter has explored the religiosity of marriage and its impact on
attitudes towards the institution. The chapter has shown that the Christian
conceptualization of a monogamous lifelong commitment has held sway
in large parts of the world. However, that influence is waning with the
increasing divorce rates and a consciousness about the gender inequality
that is inherent within traditional marriage. Such questions that cover other
religions, including Judaism and Islamism, have opened the opportunity to
present same-sex marriage as a valid form of marriage. This is particularly

true among the younger and more liberal segments of society. Consequently,
many theological conceptualizations of marrying have been debunked and
ignored. The next chapter explores the norms and customs of marriage.
CHAPTER 4
NORMS AND CUSTOMS

CONCERNING MARRIAGE
CONTENTS
4.1. Christian, Hindu, and Jewish Influences............................................. 90
4.2. Islamic, Chinese, and Humanist Perspectives..................................... 93
4.3. Typologies of Weddings..................................................................... 99
4.4. Participation in Weddings and the Marriage Industry....................... 106
4.5. Issues of Health and Wellbeing in Marriage..................................... 110
Chapter 4 Summary................................................................................ 117
This 4th chapter explores some of the norms and customs concerning the
institution of marriage. The first section will explore Jewish, Hindu, and
Christian customs. This will then be followed by Chinese, Islamic, and
Humanist perspectives in the second section. The third section will summarize
some typologies of weddings as a key ritual in marriage. The 4th section will
discuss participation requirements in weddings and the development of the
marriage industry. The chapter will close with a section on how marriage
impacts on health and wellbeing. By the end of this chapter, the reader
should be able to compare various norms and customs surrounding marriage
in a range of typologies. At the same time, readers will be able to understand
how these norms and customs exclude same-sex couples.
4.1. CHRISTIAN, HINDU, AND JEWISH INFLUENCES

In the Christian tradition, a couple is expected to exchange vows at the alter
if it is within the Catholic Church (Alderson, 2004; Chamie and Mirkin,
2011; Gher, 2007; Koppelman, 2014; Moskowitz, Rieger, and Roloff,
2010). Other denominations call for a blessing in which both couples pledge
fidelity to each other for life. The witnesses and public are called upon not to
separate the couple because they have been united by God. Religiosity is an
important factor in the family, including critical aspects such as family size
(see Figure 4.1). Hence, the interest in how various religions conceptualize
and operationalize marriage.
All Christians see marriage as being sacred, but the exact terminology
that they use to represent the ceremonials differs. For example, some refer to
a sacrament of marriage while others call it holy matrimony.
Some literature refers to a holy union while other literature refers to the
holy ordinance of marriage (Rosenfeld, 2014; Rothblum, 2005; Saez, 2011;
Sanders, 2012; Schragger, 2005; Sherkat, De Vries, and Creek, 2010). Some
Western civilizations now require a separate civil wedding to make the
marriage valid. Other jurisdictions require the couple to obtain a license to
marry from a local authority and then conduct the wedding according to their
religious beliefs. The law sets out the people that are permitted to conduct
a valid marriage. Some Christian denominations have started conducting
same-sex weddings, although the vast majority reject same-sex relationships
as being sinful and therefore not worthy of a wedding ceremony.
The Hindu marriage ceremony is usually conducted with an aspect of
Sanskrit, the language of the scriptures in the Hindu tradition (Lewis and
Gossett, 2008; Lodola and Corral, 2010; Lupia et al., 2010; MacDougall,
Norms and Customs Concerning Marriage 91
2000; McVeigh and Maria-Elena, 2009). The entirety of the wedding can
take several days. However, the actual celebrated is interpreted in a diverse
range of ways. The actual ceremony will depend on the caste, denomination,
and region to which the couples belong to. One of the traditional ceremonies
that are undertaken is the Mehndi during which Henna is applied to the
bride’s legs and hands prior to the main wedding. The couple is likely to
wear a garland at the main event. Most guests at a Hindu wedding will only
see a short part before they are entertained and leave.
Figure 4.1: Religiosity and household size.

It is only later that the religious part of the wedding is undertaken (Wardle,
1996; Webb and Chonody, 2014; Wedgwood, 1999; Widiss, Rosenblatt, and
NeJaime, 2007). Only close relatives and friends will be able to witness this
part of the wedding. Where there is a religious ceremony, the Hindu priest
or Brahmin will arrange for a sacred fire sacrifice known as the yajna well
as a sacred fire known as Agni. The Brahmin is considered to the prime
witness at the wedding. The priest will chant mantras from the Vedas as well
as selected subsidiary texts as the couple sit before the fire. A critical step
is the saptapadi in which the couple are together and encircle the fire a total
of seven times. Each of the circles is taken to represent a matrimonial vow.
The gender-based power play in most traditional and religious weddings

is present in the Hindu tradition (Buffie, 2011; Cahill and Cahill, 2004;
Chambers, 1997; Chamie and Mirkin, 2011; Coolidge, 1997; Corvino and
Gallagher, 2012). For example, the groom is required to mark the bride’s hair
parting with vermilion. In that sense, marriage becomes a form of ownership,
and the groom is effectively marking his bride and, by extension, territory.
The husband places a gold necklace on his bride’s neck. Alternatively,
they can use a yellow thread colored by turmeric which is tied around the
bride’s neck for three times. Each of the notes has significance which is also
associated with the gendered relationships between the couple. For instance,
the first knot tied around the neck represents respect and obedience to the
husband. The second one represents the same deference to the groom’s
parents, and the third represents deference to God.
It cannot be said that the couple is completely equal, in the same guise
as the egalitarian Christians might hope (MacDougall, 2000; McVeigh and
Maria-Elena, 2009; Meezan and Rauch, 2005; Moskowitz, Rieger, and
Roloff, 2010). In any case, Hindu marriage is very traditional and typically
excludes same-sex couples as a matter of course. Those who are LGBT
couples and were born into a Hindu cultural context may create their own
versions of these ceremonies or rely on a civil ceremony. For others, their
union seems incomplete without all the traditional rituals.
The world has become much more familiar with Jewish wedding
customs, thanks to a widespread diaspora of Jews and the conversion of
many gentiles into the Jewish religion (Alderson, 2004; Appleton, 2005;
Auchmuty, 2004; Badgett, 2009; Ball, 2014, 2015; Barclay and Fisher,
2003). There are certain preliminaries before the actual Jewish wedding,
including the formalization of the marriage contract. This contract sets out the
obligations of both husband and wife. It also creates duties, responsibilities,
rights, and privileges in case of a divorce or the death of one of the partners.
This marriage contract is signed by two witnesses and must be read under
the wedding canopy on the actual day of the main wedding. Hence, the
couple is married under a contract that signifies their new home together as
a couple.
Such an arrangement reflects the modern notion of a prenuptial
agreement, a legal device that is extremely popular in North America for
the purpose of ensuring that couples have clear lines of responsibilities and
rights when entering a marriage (Wedgwood, 1999; Widiss, Rosenblatt, and
NeJaime, 2007; Wight, LeBlanc, and Lee Badgett, 2013; Wilson, 2013). A
case in point is where there is a marked disparity in the relative wealth of

the spouses, which means that one might turn out to be exploited while the
other is forced into the position of being labeled a gold digger. Indeed, the
marriage contract in Jewish weddings also signifies some level of gender
consciousness in which the wife is not left at the complete mercy of her
husband in case of a divorce or widowhood.
Like many modern religions, Judaism has some denominational diversity
when it comes to handling marriage (Cahill and Cahill, 2004; Chambers,
1997; Chamie and Mirkin, 2011; Coolidge, 1997; Corvino and Gallagher,
2012). One of the critical dividing lines with regards to the LGBT community
is that between the Orthodox Jews, Liberal Jews, and Non-Practicing Jews.
The Orthodox contingent believes in a very traditional form of marriage that
completely excludes the idea that LGBT people can be accepted, let alone
being allowed to marry under Jewish law. There are certain strict rituals that
are followed by Orthodox Jews when getting marriage including blessings
for the couple and their new home. Moreover, the couple is expected to
sip win from a Kiddush cup. Grooms then smash a glass of wine on their
right foot to remember the destruction of the 2nd Temple. This ritual changes
slightly during Reform Jewish weddings in as far as the couple can smash
the wine glass together. Some couples have sought a deeper interpersonal
connection by mentioning that they are sanctified to each other as they repeat
their vows and exchange rings. Under Orthodox weddings, the bride is not
expected to speak and only receives a ring.
Perhaps this is a reminder of the fact that traditional Jewish society
did not see women as equal to men and worthy of engaging in public
announcements (Sullivan, 2004; Tamagawa, 2016; Trandafir, 2014; Trosino,
Indeed, there are Biblical references in which women are ordered to be silent
and not to engage in the ministry as priests or even disciples. Such debates
have influenced discussions surrounding the anointment of women bishops
and clergy. Like Islamic traditions, the groom must give the bride something
of value for the marriage to be valid. The next section considers the conduct
of weddings in the Islamic, Chinese, and Humanist traditions.
4.2. ISLAMIC, CHINESE, AND HUMANIST

PERSPECTIVES
From a human rights point of view, the Islamic marriage and its preceding
wedding have been criticized in Western media for objectifying and
minimizing women (Ball, 2014; Franke, 2006; Lee and Hicks, 2011;
Sherkat, De Vries, and Creek, 2010). Certainly, Islam (especially in its more
radical forms) has been associated with intolerance towards LGBT people.
A case in point are the reports in some parts of the Middle East where LGBT
people are harassed and even killed because of their identity and sexuality.
For example, ISIS threw LGBT people off buildings and stoned them to
death if they were accused of being non-heterosexual.
Nevertheless, it is also important to remember that Islam is not
completely monolithic (Lewis, 2005; Lewis and Gossett, 2008; Lodola and
Corral, 2010; Lupia et al., 2010; MacDougall, 2000; McVeigh and Maria-
Elena, 2009). For instance, there is an LGBT-friendly mosque in South
Africa and Iran provides funding for transgender operations under certain
restrictions. Hence, the generalized stereotype of Muslim intolerance may
be changing, particularly among the younger generations that have been
exposed to a Western lifestyle. That goes in tandem with the radicalization
of some young people who would like to go back to some of the more radical
versions of the religion.
Indeed, many authorities in the West are concerned about the
radicalization of young Muslims who deliberately restrict their lives to
so-called Muslim-only enclaves in Europe and America (Beck, 2013;
Hester and Gibson, 2007; Lupia et al., 2010; Smith, 2007). Moreover, it is
important to note that in some parts of Africa, Muslim traditions that have
been reinterpreted so that they better fit into the mold of traditional cultural
practice. Like all religions, Islam evolves over time in line with modern
practices. For example, the absolute ban on women driving in Saudia Arabia
is a modern invention and was later moderated by modern concerns about
equality and perceptions across the globe. There may yet come a time when
Islam recognizes the futility of enforcing a heterosexist marriage on LGBT
people.
For Muslims, the wedding is a joyous time that can also provide an
opportunity for families to reconnect (Alderson, 2004; Eskridge, 1993;
Lahey and Alderson, 2004; Rothblum, 2005). Each locality may add new
embellishments that are meant to emphasize the happiness of the couple
and the community at large. A case in point are the variations in dress and
customs that are meant to reflect African traditional culture. Of course,
Muslim culture has also influenced parts of the world such that it becomes
part of the “traditional culture” in those parts of the world, even if they are
no longer Muslim-majority countries.
Such is the case in parts of Southern Europe that had been conquered by
the Moors many centuries ago where some remnants of Islamic culture have
been Europeanized and adopted as local culture (Hooghe and Meeusen,
2013; Hull, 2001, 2003; Hull and Hull, 2006; Hunter, 2012; Josephson,
2005; Judge, Manion, and De Waal, 2008). Generally, Muslim marriages
emphasize the importance and dominance of the man as a husband, father,
grandparent, or guardian. For example, the consent of the guardian is
a critical step of the marriage, and in some instances, the guardian may
even override the wishes of the wife. There are other examples of male
influence, such as the requirement for two male witnesses for the Nikah to
take place. However, the Koran also calls on the couple to act as comforters
and protectors for each other. These ambiguities mean that each locality
is free to reintegrate the wedding ceremonies according to its needs and
perspectives.
The public aspects of a Muslim are especially important, and hence
the tendency away from secretive weddings (Lodola and Corral, 2010;
Lupia et al., 2010; MacDougall, 2000; McVeigh and Maria-Elena, 2009;
Meezan and Rauch, 2005). A secret marriage is illegitimate in many Muslim
interpretations. For most adherents, the ceremony itself is the wedding rather
than the preliminaries. However, many jurisdictions require that there be
conformation of the marriage at the registry.
Some complications have arisen when Muslims have contracted
polygynous marriages in Muslim-majority countries where they are legal
and then move to Western liberal democracies where such marriages are
illegal (Lodola and Corral, 2010; Lupia et al., 2010; MacDougall, 2000;
McVeigh and Maria-Elena, 2009). In some instances, the family has
decided to select one wife to be the official wife on government forms
even if there are other wives who are living in the same homestead. That
is why some advocates called for the incorporation of Shariat Law and
Muslim Jurisprudence in western countries like France with large Muslim
populations. Such suggestions have been strongly resisted by nationalists
who argue that any concessions granted to Muslim citizenry is a slippery
slope that might eventually end in the Islamization of Europe.
Meanwhile, Muslims living in these countries must continuously
straddle the fine line between cultural adherence and social exclusion (Smith,
Trandafir, 2014). There is concern that there is a lot of homophobia and
sexism within Muslim communities and that such patterns are not compatible
with the ethos of Western liberal democracies. It has remained a challenge

for some younger Muslims to reconcile their exposure to the liberal values
of Western society and their associated with the Muslim faith. It may end up
as a generational conflict.
Chinese customs have been preserved and protected by the fact that
they are often practiced within China (Lannutti, 2007; Lee and Hicks, 2011;
Lenhardt, 2008; Lewis, 2005; Lewis and Gossett, 2008; Lodola and Corral,
2010). The influence of Communism diluted many customs as the political
society in China sought to distance the country from imperialism. However,
the traditional Chinese wedding is still celebrated by some. It is indeed a tea
ceremony and can loosely be linked to the exchange of vows at a Christian
wedding.
Views on Women Philosophies

Confucianism in Filial piety required that Both Confucianism and
Han China people respect their elders Daoism have the concept of
and ancestors, especially yin and yang, or duality.
male ones. Women are seen as part
The ideal role for a woman of the yin: yielding,
was to take care of a large submissive, soft, etc.
household. Men are seen as part of the
Women typically didn’t have yang aggressive, powerful,
formal roles in Confucian etc.
life outside the home.
Daoism in Han Women were allowed to be In Daoism, the female
China priests and teachers in the contribution as the yin is
Daoist tradition. more respected than it is in
In the classical Daoist text, Confucianism; it is seen as
the Daodejing, feminine a part of nature.
characteristics such as Daoism suggests that
fertility, softness, and a softer, more yielding
submission are seen as attitude may eventually
positive and respected lead to more favorable
features. results.
Figure 4.2: Views on women in Confucianism and Daoism.
Source: Khan Academy.

Whereas these ceremonies have largely died down in the urban
conurbations; they remain relevant to those Chinese communities existing
in rural areas (Coolidge, 1997; Corvino and Gallagher, 2012; Cox, Navarro-
Rivera, and Jones, 2014; Damslet, 1992; Dorf, 2011). Younger people who
are living in modern localities such as Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore,
and Taiwan will often combine a Western-style wedding with the tea
ceremony depending on resources, socialization, and context. One of the
changing perspectives relating to the role and status of women. For example,
Figure 4.2 demonstrates some of these attitudes that may not be acceptable
in a modern context where women are increasingly critical participants in
Chinese society.
Specific procedures and role underpin a traditional Chinese wedding
(Baunach, 2012; Eskridge, 1999; Hunter, 2012; Lenhardt, 2008; Rimmerman
and Wilcox, 2007; Smith, DeSantis, and Kassel, 2006). For example, there
is a designated so-called “good luck woman” who holds an umbrella over
the bride as she leaves her family home to the home of her new husband.
To be a good luck woman, one must have a good marriage and children
who are healthy. The husband of the good luck woman should be alive,
and she should have parents who are living. Other relatives have a role to
play in the wedding, such as scattering beans and rice in front of the bride.
The umbrella that is held by the good luck woman is meant to protect the
bride from evil spirits. The scattered beans and rice are meant to attract
the attention of the so-called “golden chicken.” The bride and groom will
kneel in front of their parents to presenting the tea made by the good luck
woman. During the process of making the tea, the good luck woman will
speak auspicious phrases to the family as well as the newlyweds. Then the
couple will present tea to each other by raising the cups high in a show of
respect. There are attendants who also receive the tea, and these will provide
gifts to the bride, including a red envelope and some jewelry.
The tea ceremony provides an important social function in introducing
the couple to their respective in-laws (Moskowitz, Rieger, and Roloff, 2010;
Olson, Cadge, and Harrison, 2006; Onuche, 2013; Pearl and Galupo, 2007).
It is also an opportunity for the couple to show respect to their respective
parents. Parents reciprocate by blessing the couple and the union, as well
as offering gifts to them. In these cases, marriage is a deep celebration of
culture and opportunity for two families to come together to form a stronger
community. Chinese marriage emphasizes the notion of respect of ritual.
These are qualities that are anticipated in other areas of the marriage.
Such a rich tradition does not lend itself to same-sex weddings, which
are really based on legal freedoms that are provided by the state (Kreitzer,
Hamilton, and Tolbert, 2014; Lahey and Alderson, 2004; Langbein and Yost,
2009; Lannutti, 2005). Hence, the fact that most Chinese LGBT couples do
not opt for the traditional ceremony. Certainly, there are many conservative
voices that do not even want to acknowledge the existence of LGBT people,
let alone allowing them the privilege of a traditional Chinese wedding.
Humanist weddings take an altogether different approach in
understanding the need for LGBT couples to share their happiness with
the community. Humanists heavily borrow from traditional and religious
weddings (Lenhardt, 2008; Lewis, 2005; Lewis and Gossett, 2008; Lodola
and Corral, 2010; Lupia et al., 2010; MacDougall, 2000). However, they also
adopt procedures and rituals that are distinctly modern in terms of accepting
the person as they are rather than attempting to mold them into a particular
image. In fact, some humanist marriages are much older than Christian or
Islamic marriages.
They are appealing to those people that are not religious, but still
wanted to have a wedding celebration (Gher, 2007; Goldberg-Hiller, 2009;
Hester and Gibson, 2007; Hogg, 2006; Hooghe and Meeusen, 2013; Hull,
2001). Hence, most humanist weddings are secular affairs that may be later
confirmed through attendance at a designated registry office to memorialize
the wedding. There is increasing demand for human weddings, not least
because of their perceived and actual inclusiveness. For example, in some
communities across the globe, LGBT people can only get married using the
humanist tradition.
It is tempting to think that these weddings are just a product of this
century (Chamie and Mirkin, 2011; Klarman, 2012; Rimmerman and Wilcox,
2007; Wedgwood, 1999). In fact, such weddings took place as far back as
the 1890s, even when there was any recognition of same-sex marriage in
many of these jurisdictions. A lot of the heterosexist attitudes and policy that
we witness in the modern age is a product of new generations. Sometimes,
heterosexism can arise due to younger generations trying to recapture an
idealized past that no longer exists.
Many countries undertake humanist weddings depending on the
demand and the specific cultural contexts (Barker, 2012; Baunach, 2012;
Beck, 2013; Berg, 2010; Bernstein and Taylor, 2013; Boertien and Vignoli,
2019; Brandzel, 2005). Hence, it is not the case that these weddings are
carried out in a monolithic manner. There may be important diversities, even
with regards to same-sex marriages. As the humanist tradition has led the
acceptance of LGBT couples, its institutions have been swelled by LGBT
people and their families who feel accepted for the very first time. At the
same time, this ready acceptance of LGBT people has led to a backlash from
the more traditional religions and denominations who feel that the humanist
tradition is far too liberal (Auchmuty, 2004; Corvino and Gallagher, 2012;
Hester and Gibson, 2007; Kreitzer, Hamilton, and Tolbert, 2014). One of
the arguments is that there is no strong doctrinal background to this tradition
and that is willing to accept those that are on the margins of society. Besides,
the humanist tradition is filling a gap that has been left behind by the rigidity
of some of the established religions in terms of accepting those that are non-
heterosexual and non-cisgender.
It is important to note that there are relatively few countries that grant
legal status to humanist ceremonies even if they continue to be carried out in
some countries such as Brazil, Canada, and the USA (Flores, 2015; Franke,
Hiller, 2009). Others like the Republic of Ireland allow humanists to perform
civil marriages and civil partnerships using procedures that are consistent
with the humanist tradition. More importantly, these ceremonies are given
legal recognition in Ireland. In fact, Ireland is an example of the waning
influence of the Catholic Church and the increasing visibility of alternative
religions such as the humanist tradition.
This could be demonstrated by the increased secularization of weddings
and marriages (Judge, Manion, and De Waal, 2008; Kail, Acosta, and
Wright, 2015; Kandaswamy, 2008; Klarman, 2012). By 2015, humanists
were conducting more weddings than the Church of Ireland. This trend has
alarmed some traditionalists who have sought to pragmatically compromise
on the issue of LGBT communities so that they do not end up losing relevance
to large swathes of society. Others see it as a sign of necessary progress to
overcome the traditional intolerance that had held back LGBT people for a
long time. In the next section, we summarize some typologies of weddings.
4.3. TYPOLOGIES OF WEDDINGS

Weddings can be categorized in different ways such as the participants,
ceremonials, size, cultural overtones, outcomes, and processes (Smith, 2007;
Soule, 2004; Strasser, 2018; Sullivan, 2004; Tamagawa, 2016; Trandafir,
2014; Trosino, 1993). More recently, there are new categories that reflect
unique contexts and goals for the wedding including micro weddings,
destination weddings, and civil elopements. One of the most common
categories is that of the civil wedding, an option that was offered for those
LGBT couples that wanted to get married but were still not fully accepted
by the mainstream and traditional religious institutions.
The civil wedding is a demonstrate that the state recognizes the
marriage and hence entitling its participants to all the privileges, rights,
and responsibilities that are associated with the institution of marriage in
that jurisdiction (Buchanan, 1984; Josephson, 2005; Pearl and Galupo,
2007; Vanita, 2005). In many developed countries, opposite-sex marriage
dominates, but there is a noticeable increase in same-sex marriage. For
example, Figure 4.3 shows that in Sweden, same-sex marriage shows signs
of increasing and yet opposite-sex marriage has stagnated, albeit it a much
higher level.
Figure 4.3: Rising uptake of same-sex weddings in Sweden.
Source: Springer Link.

The civil wedding is a preferred option for LGBT couples when
they are rejected by mainstream Churches and Mosques (Brown, 1994;
Koppelman, 1996; Soule, 2004; Wardle, 1996; Wight, LeBlanc, and Lee
Badgett, 2013). This type of marriage is presided over by a representative
from the local authority. For example, the wedding could be conducted by
a Justice for Peace or an appointed judge. Depending on the preferences of
the couple, references may be made to God as the supreme deity. This is a
demonstrated that even as LGBT people move away from old religions that
have rejected them, they retain many of the customs that are associated with
these institutions with regards to the conduct of a wedding (Barclay and

Fisher, 2003; Gerstmann, 2017; Lewis, 2005; Shulman, Gotta, and Green,
2012). Interestingly, UK law restricts references to God and even the use of
certain music during civil weddings. One of the reasons for the deliberate
secularization of civil weddings is to open them to as many couples as
possible, including LGBT couples. This was something that the traditional
religious institutions many rejected, and the government prevents them
from dominated the space that is occupied by civil weddings. That is not
to say that there are no devout or adhering couples that opt to engage in a
civil ceremony because they do not wish to be tied down to the long-term
commitment that a Catholic wedding may entail, for example.
One of the advantages of civil weddings is the fact that they allow
people who are religious to marry those who are not religious or are of
a different religion without having to necessitate conversions (Gerstmann,
2017; Gher, 2007; Goldberg-Hiller, 2009; Hester and Gibson, 2007; Hogg,
2006; Hooghe and Meeusen, 2013). Depending on the wishes of the couple
and their budget, the civil wedding can be elaborate or relatively simple. For
the most part, these civil weddings are conducted in courthouses, city halls,
and a judge’s chamber. Depending on the country in which one is located,
the relevance of civil weddings can vary significantly. For example, Islamic
countries and Israel do not provide a facility for civil weddings.
Yet, there are other countries in Asia, Europe, and Latin America in
which civil marriage is the only recognized form of marriage (Buchanan,
1984; Buffie, 2011; Cahill and Cahill, 2004; Chambers, 1997; Chamie and
Mirkin, 2011; Coolidge, 1997). Where that is the case, the civil ceremony
is necessary to validate a religious or traditional wedding. Some social
conservatives have argued that civil weddings are a dilution of Biblical,
Jewish, and Islamic marriage. Hence, they are seen as being either inferior
forms of marriage or no marriage at all. Open-air weddings are a version
of civil weddings and are common in Hong Kong. These are carried out
by authorized lawyers and may be used by LGBT couples if marriage is
allowed for them in the jurisdiction.
Destination weddings are an upcoming and increasingly available
alternative to a standard civil wedding (Sanders, 2012; Schragger, 2005;
Sherkat, De Vries, and Creek, 2010; Sherkat et al., 2011; Shulman, Gotta,
and Green, 2012). They are different from an elopement. In this case, the
wedding is defined by the location at which it is hosted. For the most part,
these locations are akin to a vacation, and the entire wedding is given a
celebratory aspect that is much more vibrant and secular than the traditional
religious wedding or the standard civil wedding. The invited guests are
required to travel to the location and arrange to stay for a few days.
A case in point is the increasing popularity of weddings on exclusive
beaches or within idyllic settings (Cahill and Cahill, 2004; Kail, Acosta,
and Wright, 2015; Pinello, 2006; Wardle, 1996). Others escape cold weather
to have their weddings in the tropics. Those with the resources may select
a lavish setting within a metropolitan resort. Then there are those that may
elect a much simpler ceremony that is conducted within the home of a friend
or relative that is in a distant locality.
The recessions of 2008–2009 heralded an increase in destination
weddings despite the overall decline in traditional weddings (Auchmuty,
2004; Fingerhut, Riggle, and Rostosky, 2011; Lannutti, 2005; Sanders,
2012). Some research suggests that these weddings have lower costs when
compared to traditional weddings because they have a limited guest list.
Moreover, such weddings are particularly ideal for same-sex couples who
may move away from a homophobic home context and arrange their wedding
in a much friendlier setting.
There is a particularly lavish version of destination weddings that will
be held in locations that are distinctly privileged (Brandzel, 2005; Brewer
and Wilcox, 2005; Brown, 1994; Buchanan, 1984; Buffie, 2011; Cahill and
Cahill, 2004). For example, the couple may elect to have their wedding
at a historical castle or a famous stately home. This is a reflection of the
transition from old to new money. Those that own these heritage sites may
struggle to keep up with their maintenance costs following the abolition of
slavery, servitude, and the changing nature of the workforce. Rather than
letting them fall into disrepair, the owners may adopt a business plan in
which part of or the entire property is rented out as a holiday destination or
a venue for weddings.
For those that are newly wealthy, it offers the opportunity to relive the
glories of the ancient aristocracy without having to face the mundane tasks
of maintaining a crumbling yet sprawling property (Lahey and Alderson,
2004; Langbein and Yost, 2009; Lannutti, 2005, 2007; Lee and Hicks, 2011;
Lenhardt, 2008). Hence, there is a kind of symbiosis in these weddings
which allows them to prosper even in periods of economic distress. European
countries such as France, UK, and Germany have reported an increase in
these types of weddings as the power balance in social relations begins to
shift away from the old aristocracy to the new aristocracy. Of course, there
is always the option of having a wedding in an exotic place such as the

Maldives, Indonesia, Pakistan, and India. This is particularly attractive for
those couples that are in the diaspora and would like to be reminded of home
on their wedding day. LGBT couples have also welcomed such weddings
because they are increasingly less discriminatory (at least based on gender,
sexual identity, and orientation).
Some couples elect to do a double wedding (Pierceson, 2014; Pinello,
2007). This event occurs between and among affianced couples who arrange
a rendezvous for consecutive or simultaneous weddings. In many cases, one
of the couples is a sibling or close relative. At other times, four close friends
may decide to hold their weddings together as a sign of their closeness or
even to save costs. Each wedding is carried out legally as a distinct entity.
This is a different setting from group or mass weddings that are typically
carried out in the developing world (Boertien and Vignoli, 2019; Brandzel,
2005; Brewer and Wilcox, 2005; Brown, 1994; Buchanan, 1984; Buffie,
2011). Such weddings are traditional religious events, but the presiding priest
will deal with more than one couple. The reasons for such group weddings
are complex, including the desire to encourage marriage among low-income
couples that would otherwise be intimidated by the costs of undertaking
the wedding. Others engage in these weddings as part of a proselytizing
program for those cohabiting couples that are unwilling to get married due
to economic pressures or as a matter of principle.
Whereas double weddings may be open to LGBT couples, the group
weddings that are carried out in the developing world are exclusively
for heterosexual and cisgender couples (Badgett, 2009; Cox, Navarro-
Rivera, and Jones, 2014; Hogg, 2006; Lahey and Alderson, 2004; Onuche,
2013). Indeed, such mass weddings are organized as part of a campaign
to marginalize LGBT people. There have been campaigns organized to
highlight the dangers of LGBT relationships. Instead, these mass weddings
are organized as an alternative. Perhaps this approach is a misreading of
why and how LGBT people do not engage in heterosexual marriages. It is
not about whether they can afford a wedding, but rather their orientation,
identity, and preferences. Indeed, many of the policies that underpin
heterosexist marriage regimes are born out of ignorance.
Elopement is a romantic view of a wedding in which couples are so
overwhelmed by their passions that they are willing to risk familial alienation
to run away and get married in a clandestine way (Chambers, 1997; Strasser,
2018; Trandafir, 2014; Wedgwood, 1999; Widiss, Rosenblatt, and NeJaime,

2007). Such weddings are unexpected and therefore typically do not include
any wedding guests. However, the couple may decide to invite a small group
of close friends and family. For LGBT couples such weddings can be a
means of escaping the homophobia, transphobia, and sexism within their
own communities so that they can marry in a different place.
At other times, one member of the couple is being coerced into marriage
with another partner that is suitable by their family and community (Appleton,
2005; Eskridge, 1999; Langbein and Yost, 2009; Saez, 2011). However,
this person may have an alternative love interest with whom they decide to
elope. One of the attractions of the elopement is the fact that it is breaking
the rules and not obtaining the requisite parental consent or participation in
the event. When informed of the wedding, the family and community may
be surprised or outraged.
There have been instances where couples that are betrothed or engaged
in the conventional sense, decide to elope because they do not want a big
wedding or want a wedding much sooner (Koppelman, 1996, 1997, 2014;
Kramer, 1996; Kreitzer, Hamilton, and Tolbert, 2014). Such a wedding may
also occur because there is an unexpected pregnancy and the couple want
their child to be born into wedlock. The pressure to have a child after a
wedding seems to have become a moral imperative. Many couples would
rather marry before they are ready than face the social marginalization that
arises out of being an unwed parent. It is mostly women that are held to this
standard. Indeed, men may be encouraged to “sow their wild oats” before
settling down. Women are then required to remain “pure” for their husbands.
There are certain ancient European customs and traditions that amount to
a wedding in the commitment sense, although they may not have the force of
law (Beck, 2013; Hester and Gibson, 2007; Lupia et al., 2010; Smith, 2007).
A case in point is handfasting. This started out as a trial marriage among
the Celts. It is a pagan custom which allowed for some sort of engagement
period prior to the wedding. The nearest modern equivalent is that of a
betrothal. The couple declare a binding union to each other. However, that
union has a time frame of a year and a day.
After that period, they are expected to be formally married or the
commitment lapses (Lannutti, 2005, 2007; Lee and Hicks, 2011; Lenhardt,
2008; Lewis, 2005; Lewis and Gossett, 2008). Such events are exceedingly
rare in modern Europe, not least because they do not have the force of law.
The second issue is related to the fact that other religions such as Christianity
and Islam have invaded European culture. Moreover, there is a growing

contingent of young people who are agnostic or atheist. Such events are
silent on LGBT couples, although it is probable that the vast majority of those
handfasting were heterosexual and cisgender. However, there is research
that suggests that ancient tribes such as the Hans, Druids, and Vikings were
much less homophobic prior to the entrance of Christianity and Islam into
Europe.
Other European traditions have been much more resilient within
European culture because they are part of a legal wedding (Shulman, Gotta,
and Green, 2012; Smith, DeSantis, and Kassel, 2006; Smith, 2005, 2007). A
case in point is the Scottish or Highland wedding. In these cases, all the legal
proceedings in Scotland are carried out except for the fact that the wedding
party is required to wear a kilt that is complete with an Argyll jacket and
a long tie. The groom has a similar attire which is reflected by his men or
attendants. A bride on these weddings may wear tartan clothing or a sash.
Several traditional Scottish symbols may be used in what is known as a
Saber Arch.
Some people use these weddings as a reminder of their culture, yet
they complete the formal wedding with a civil registry which makes the
union legal (Beck, 2013; Hester and Gibson, 2007; Lupia et al., 2010;
Smith, 2007). Given the fact that Scotland has a generally liberal stance on
marriage and LGBT couples, same-sex weddings may be organized in this
way even though the traditional Scottish wedding envisaged heterosexual
and cisgender couples. Scotland is an example of a jurisdiction within a
jurisdiction (United Kingdom). The stricter interpretations of marriage law
in England (another jurisdiction within the UK) are not considered legitimate
in Scotland. With devolution, it is much easier for couples to select the
jurisdiction that offers them the best options when married.
In the interests of economy and intimacy, the couple may organize a
micro wedding (Cahill and Cahill, 2004; Kail, Acosta, and Wright, 2015;
Pinello, 2006; Wardle, 1996). This is where only a small number of family
and friends can attend. Typically, the numbers do not exceed 15 people.
However, there are some people that refer to a micro wedding as an event at
which no more than 50 people are present.
During the recent COVID-19 pandemic and the resultant social
distancing rules, micro weddings are a matter of course for many young
people today. The micro wedding differs from an elopement because it is
planned beforehand, and the guest list is carefully selected (Appleton, 2005;
2003; Barker, 2012). The micro wedding could incorporate any activities
and traditions that the couple prefers, including the attendance of a priest,
judge, Imam, or Rabai. All the modern routines associated with a wedding
such as photography, refreshments, and dancing can be part of the micro
wedding. Whereas the cost of entertaining each guest is higher in micro
weddings (primarily because of the loss of economies of scale), the overall
cost is much lower than any traditional wedding because of the limited guest
list.
LGBT couples may elect to plan a micro wedding if they are facing
opposition from the wider community (Hull and Hull, 2006; Hunter, 2012;
Josephson, 2005; Judge, Manion, and De Waal, 2008; Kail, Acosta, and
Wright, 2015). In such cases, the guest list will typically only include
those people that are accepting of the couple. It can be argued that the
liberalization of the wedding industry has offered LGBT couples some
choices that they never had before. This has acted as a complementary,
rather than supplementary, approach to the ongoing efforts to legalize same-
sex marriage. The next section considers participation at weddings and its
implications.
4.4. PARTICIPATION IN WEDDINGS AND THE

MARRIAGE INDUSTRY
The participants at a wedding are part of the event, and they make it legitimate
(Webb and Chonody, 2014; Wedgwood, 1999; Widiss, Rosenblatt, and
NeJaime, 2007; Wight, LeBlanc, and Lee Badgett, 2013). That is why LGBT
couples may be emotionally damaged by the absence of friends, family, and
loved ones from their nuptials. This absence is a form of powerful rejection
that can have long-term repercussions. Indeed, the rejection of a couple that
starts with a boycott of their nuptials might place so many pressures on the
marriage itself that it ends up collapsing.
Some couples place so much stall by a large attendance at their wedding
because they consider it to be an indication of goodwill and support from
their community (Beck, 2013; Berg, 2010; Bernstein and Taylor, 2013;
Boertien and Vignoli, 2019; Brandzel, 2005; Brewer and Wilcox, 2005). At
other times, couples are required to invite many family members to maintain
social relations even if they may not be particularly close to everyone they
invite to the wedding. Then there is the desire for the wedding spectacular
in which participants can demonstrate their social connections and material
wealth. An entire industry has grown around creating wedding extravaganzas

that are presented for purposes of showing that the couple has the means to
put on such a show.
Large weddings cost a lot of money and that has become problematic
for some couples (Damslet, 1992; Dorf, 2011; Ellison, Acevedo, and
Ramos‐Wada, 2011; Eskridge, 1993, 1999). The social pressure to make a
large wedding might necessitate some fundraising to offset the cost. Such
fundraising comes with its own challenges because it can strain relationships
with those that do not wish to contribute. At the same time, those that
contribute may decide that they are entitled to attend the wedding with as
many guests as they prefer.
That means that the couple can lose control over their wedding list so
that it is dominated by complete strangers (Hull, 2003; Hull and Hull, 2006;
Hunter, 2012; Josephson, 2005; Judge, Manion, and De Waal, 2008; Kail,
Acosta, and Wright, 2015). For younger people, the prohibitive costs of
arranging a large wedding can put them off marriage because they see it as a
waste of money. The large wedding might offer opportunities to renew family
bonds, but it can also increase family tensions. Wealthy LGBT couples may
be able to afford large weddings if they are in accepting communities such
as the Hollywood jet set or wealthy liberal enclaves.
Those that come from poor backgrounds will struggle to gain parent
acceptance, let alone fundraising for their same-sex wedding (Berg, 2010;
Flores, 2015; Judge, Manion, and De Waal, 2008; Lewis and Gossett,
2008; Rothblum, 2005; Saez, 2011). This is one of the aspects that makes
the organization of weddings so problematic for same-sex couples. They
do not receive the kind of support that heterosexual couples might expect.
Apart from the financial resources, these LGBT couples have to negotiate
emotional and social isolation, which prevents them from inviting all the
people that they may have wanted to invite. Figure 4.4 highlights some costs
that a couple might need to come up with if they were to organize a wedding
in the USA.
The wedding party is a critical part of the wedding ceremony, and its
absence can even invalidate proceedings (Coolidge, 1997; Kogan, 2003;
Rosenfeld, 2014; Widiss, Rosenblatt, and NeJaime, 2007). In the Christian
wedding, the party is part of the witnesses who are called upon to raise
any valid objections and thereafter support the union of the couple once no
objections are raised.
Figure 4.4: High expenditure in the US wedding industry.
Source: Market Watch.

The religious and cultural background of the couple will have an influence
on the composition and activities of the wedding party. For example, there
may be bridesmaids and supporters of the groom. Others include people of
honor, flower girls, supports, ring bearers, page boys, attendants, matrons,
and best men.
The wedding party will have different roles to play, and some of them
may have significant legal implicants (Schragger, 2005; Sherkat, De Vries,
and Creek, 2010; Sherkat et al., 2011; Shulman, Gotta, and Green, 2012).
For example, in many jurisdictions, the officiant must be licensed to do that
work, or else the entire proceedings are considered null and void. Religious
and cultural weddings will also make certain stipulations about the people
that can officiate at a wedding and the roles that they are supposed to play.
Civil weddings will incorporate some official such as a judge to
officiate the wedding (Beck, 2013; Fingerhut, Riggle, and Rostosky, 2011;
Josephson, 2005; Lewis, 2005; Rosenfeld, 2014; Smith, 2005). There may
also be specifications about the venue of the wedding because the state may
license certain premises. It is considered odd if someone does not have
family members at their wedding. However, that can happen when there is
some family dysfunction or if the person has been rejected by the family.
The entire process of organizing and managing a wedding has spawned
a lucrative industry which will be discussed in more detail later in the book
(Boertien and Vignoli, 2019; Hull, 2001; Meezan and Rauch, 2005; Sullivan,
2004). Some estimates indicate that the wedding industry is worth at least
$300 billion every. The USA is one of the biggest markets for weddings
and currently boasts an industry that is worth $60 billion every year. More
than 1 million people are employed in this industry. It is anticipated that this
industry will continue to grow at a rate of 2%.
Of course, the global COVID-19 pandemic has reduced the appetite
for large weddings (Bernstein and Taylor, 2013; Hooghe and Meeusen,
2013; McVeigh and Maria-Elena, 2009; Strasser, 2018). However, there are
alternatives such as virtual weddings and micro weddings, which might offer
yet another avenue to connect many people across the globe. The advent of
technology has drastically changed the industry, and there are many more
options for organizing the wedding with remote working tools. For example,
there is a cottage industry in bridal online content including blogs, forums,
and related social media.
This content drives spending and trends in the wedding industry
(Brandzel, 2005; Brewer and Wilcox, 2005; Brown, 1994; Buchanan, 1984;
Buffie, 2011; Cahill and Cahill, 2004). So far, the online industry has been
welcoming to LGBT couples. However, there are still establishments that
will not serve or support same-sex weddings because they are against their
religious or moral perspectives. Such courts have led to a series of serious
disputes that have sometimes ended up in court. The court then must balance
the right of LGBT people to enjoy services and the protection of principles
that are deeply held for religious reasons. Other countries adopt a decidedly
directive approach in which heterosexist discrimination is prohibited in all
public places.
The commercialization of the wedding industry is not without its
consequences (Fingerhut, Riggle, and Rostosky, 2011; Flores, 2015; Franke,
2006; Gaines and Garand, 2010; Gerstmann, 2017). Many young people are
eschewing marriage, partly because it seems so expensive. Besides, there is
concern that the divorce process helps to break up families and causes a lot
of financial problems for male partners because they are deemed to be the
providers. The average wedding in the USA can cost as much as $40,000 in
the USA. That is quite significant for young people that are coming out of
college with significant student debt and reducing job prospects.
There is social pressure to engage in extravagant wedding spending even
if the couple cannot afford it (Gher, 2007; Goldberg-Hiller, 2009; Hester
The option of fundraising for weddings is costly in terms of straining social
capital. Some social research suggests that excessive wedding spending is
associated with high debt stress and that can lead to marital breakdown.
However, those that spend less but had more guests tended to last longer in
the marriage. This may suggest that the presence of many friends and family
who are not attracted by extravagant spending provides a social network for
the couple (Hunter, 2012; Josephson, 2005; Judge, Manion, and De Waal,
2008; Kail, Acosta, and Wright, 2015; Kandaswamy, 2008). It may also
indicate more sociability and hence suitability for long term relationships.
This is an area that is under-researched in terms of understanding how and
why people get married. This chapter will close by examining how marriage
impacts on human wellbeing.
4.5. ISSUES OF HEALTH AND WELLBEING

IN MARRIAGE
There is a long-standing assumption that marriage improves health and
wellbeing (Powell, Quadlin, and Pizmony-Levy, 2015; Rimmerman and
Wilcox, 2007; Rosenfeld, 2014; Rothblum, 2005; Saez, 2011). This has
been the foundation of government efforts to support those who are married.
The contradiction is in denying LGBT couples the opportunity to enjoy the
benefits of marriage on account of their sexuality, identity, and preferences.
Whereas the benefits of marriage are generally accepted in existing literature,
critics argue that they are equally applicable to LGBT couples.
Hence, the notion that only heterosexual cisgender people in nuclear
families can be happy has been challenged (Fingerhut, Riggle, and Rostosky,
2011; Flores, 2015; Franke, 2006; Gaines and Garand, 2010; Gerstmann,
2017). Indeed, there are studies indicating that some people living in
polygynous communities are happier than many people living in nuclear
families where the extended family is excluded. Moreover, the benefits of
marriage are premised on the supposition of marital accord and happiness.
Indeed, research has shown that marital discord can lead to serious health
problems (see Figure 4.5 for examples).
Figure 4.5: Negative effects of marital discord on health.
Source: The New York Times.

Those who are single or even LGBT couples (in the pre-same-sex
marriage era) argued that they were being forced to support married couples
through taxes, yet they were being systematically excluded from the same
benefits (Moskowitz, Rieger, and Roloff, 2010; Olson, Cadge, and Harrison,
2006; Onuche, 2013; Pearl and Galupo, 2007). Those who opposed same-
sex marriage tried to suggest that it would not accrue the same benefits as
heterosexual relationships. However, research disproved this myth. There
has been increased focus on improving the lives of rainbow families where
one or more members are from the LGBT community.
Nevertheless, the benefits of marriage are not disputed in terms of
reducing mortality and morbidity in a range of health situations such as heart
attacks, cancer, and surgery (Hull, 2003; Hull and Hull, 2006; Hunter, 2012;
Josephson, 2005; Judge, Manion, and De Waal, 2008; Kail, Acosta, and
Wright, 2015). However, there is a difference in the level of benefits for men
and women. This could be a reflection of the gendered marital relationships
in the traditional marriage in which women are always at a disadvantage in
most areas. Unfortunately, some of these gendered relationships have been
transferred to same-sex marriages in which the more “feminine-presenting”
spouses are at a disadvantage when compared to their more “masculine-
presenting” counterparts.
It is not surprising that most of the research concerning wellbeing in
marriage has focused on heterosexual couples and the experiences of
cisgender people (Webb and Chonody, 2014; Wedgwood, 1999; Widiss,
Rosenblatt, and NeJaime, 2007; Wight, LeBlanc, and Lee Badgett, 2013).
Hence, the full impact of same-sex marriage on members of the LGBT
community is not yet fully understood. However, experts argue that
simply being married brings certain benefits which are enjoyed by couples
regardless of their identity or orientation. The downside for LGBT couples
is that once they are married, they are out in the open, and that can attract a
lot of prejudice from non-accepting members of their community.
In fact, some of these bigots may attack the LGBT couples because they
are seen to be encroaching on the exclusive terrain of marriage (Appleton,
2005; Coolidge, 1997; Goldberg-Hiller, 2009; Kramer, 1996; Olson, Cadge,
and Harrison, 2006; Sherkat et al., 2011). All these factors may contribute to
the wellbeing of LGBT couples, even if the mechanisms of that contribution
are yet to be fully explored. Nevertheless, it is generally understood that the
links between wellbeing and the status of marriage tend to be experienced
in the dimensions of behavioral, emotional, biological, and social-cognitive
wellbeing.
To fully understand the intrinsic benefits of marriage in terms of health

and wellbeing, it is important to compare this relationship with other
relationships (Franke, 2006; Gaines and Garand, 2010; Gerstmann, 2017;
Gher, 2007; Goldberg-Hiller, 2009; Hester and Gibson, 2007). For example,
there may be questions about whether loving and cohabiting couples enjoy
the same benefits without the added restraint of being married. Others
might argue that the lack of a marriage certificate and rights in a cohabiting
relationship may force the partners to be less selfish and more committed to
working on the quality of their relationship.
Besides, some couples who have been happily cohabiting for years
may end up getting divorced once they are married because of the feeling
of either being trapped or having a guarantee that no longer necessitates
putting efforts into nurturing the relationship (Buchanan, 1984; Josephson,
2005; Pearl and Galupo, 2007; Vanita, 2005). That is why some researchers
argue that a rich network of powerful and nurturing social relationships may
offer even more health benefits for couples than just being in an exclusive
marriage. A case in point is the meta-studies which indicate that the risk
of mortality in many causes is reduced by 50% when a person has strong
social relationships. This is the direct opposite of the effect of loneliness
which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause
mortality.
So far, there is a dearth of research that directly compares the health
impact of marriage to that of other relationships, some of which may be non-
romantic in nature (Baunach, 2012; Eskridge, 1999; Hunter, 2012; Lenhardt,
2008; Rimmerman and Wilcox, 2007; Smith, DeSantis, and Kassel, 2006).
However, it is generally understood that social connections, including
colleagues and friends, are helpful for wellbeing if those connections lead
to supportive and nurturing relationships. Others have argued that there are
specific reasons why the impact of marriage is even greater than all these
relationships.
First, married couples necessarily spend a lot of time together and engage
in a myriad of joint activities such as housekeeping, childcare, leisure, sleep,
and feeding (Brandzel, 2005; Hull, 2003; Moskowitz, Rieger, and Roloff,
2010; Tamagawa, 2016). If the quality of the relationship is already good,
these repeated interactions emphasize those good qualities and offer the
opportunity for them to be renewed and even strengthened. Besides, married
couples have a bond between them that goes beyond emotional attachments.
Such bonds may include joint ownership of assets, investments,

resources, and obligations (Rimmerman and Wilcox, 2007; Rosenfeld,
2014; Rothblum, 2005; Saez, 2011; Sanders, 2012; Schragger, 2005). One
of the biggest assets that they own together is the marital home. This means
that marriage creates a high level of interdependence between the couples
and may therefore elicit an intense level of mutuality and support. On the
downside, if the quality of the relationship is not good, such closeness can
make any simmering tensions that much worse and could even push the
couple towards divorce. There are couples who report being stifled by the
entire notion of marriage and the closeness that it entails.
It is important not to invalidate the life experiences of those who opt to
cohabitate or establish other relationships other than marriage (Koppelman,
2014; Kramer, 1996; Kreitzer, Hamilton, and Tolbert, 2014; Lahey and
Alderson, 2004; Langbein and Yost, 2009). In fact, there are instances
where being single may be a better option than sticking with an unhappy
relationship for the sake of maintaining social appearances. Moreover, some
people cohabit as a prelude to marriage where they get time to live with each
other and understand each other.
Then there are those that are predisposed to cohabitation for several
complex factors including ethnicity, social-economic status, race, and
personal preference (Barker, 2012; Baunach, 2012; Beck, 2013; Berg, 2010;
Bernstein and Taylor, 2013; Boertien and Vignoli, 2019; Brandzel, 2005).
It does not follow that all these people are unhappy because they are not
married. Same-sex marriage shares most of the characteristics that have been
described in conventional heterosexual marriages. For example, same-sex
marriage also entails high levels of intimacy and relationship satisfaction.
Like opposite-sex marriage, same-sex couples may face a decline in
satisfaction and intimacy over the years (Langbein and Yost, 2009; Lannutti,
2005, 2007; Lee and Hicks, 2011; Lenhardt, 2008; Lewis, 2005). That is a
natural trajectory of relationships and does not mean that the couples are
losing some of the health benefits that are associated with the married state.
LGBT rights have been compromised through the perpetuation of negative
stereotypes about same-sex relationships. A case in point is the assumption
that these relationships are built around sexual satisfaction and nothing else.
That is why many objections to same-sex marriage center around the fact
that these couples will have sexual intercourse at some point.
Some research has shown that same-sex couples may be able to resolve
conflicts in a much more effective way than their opposite-sex counterparts
and cohabiting couples (Cox, Navarro-Rivera, and Jones, 2014; Ellison,

Acevedo, and Ramos‐Wada, 2011; Koppelman, 1997; Wight, LeBlanc, and
Lee Badgett, 2013). Same-sex relationships also involve a fairer distribution
of household tasks and power since they are not overburdened by the
existing battle of the sexes, which has characterized traditional heterosexual
relationships. It is not always easy to identify and isolate the experiences of
same-sex relations because they are banned in most of the world. Hence, the
need for discretion when conducting these relationships.
Moreover, same-sex relationships face unique pressures that stem from
the fact that many societies are not fully accepting of them (Brewer and
Wilcox, 2005; Hull and Hull, 2006; Olson, Cadge, and Harrison, 2006;
Trandafir, 2014). Hence, same-sex couples may indicate unhappiness or
suffer ill health because of the discrimination from society as opposed to
the fact that they are in a same-sex relationship. Research has shown that
many same-sex couples are dealing with mental health problems such as
depression because they continue to face discrimination even where there is
legislation that is meant to protect them or even when their family members
and friends are broadly supportive of their life choices. It can therefore be
argued that it is the intolerance and unreasonableness of society that tends
to increase the mental health challenges that LGBT people face, as opposed
to their marital status.
Marriage is a gendered institution in its most traditional sense, and hence
the interest in gender differences in the experiences of the benefits associated
with marriage (Barclay and Fisher, 2003; Ellison, Acevedo, and Ramos‐
Wada, 2011; Hull, 2003; Lannutti, 2007; Pinello, 2006). Interestingly, the
health-protective aspects of marriage are more pronounced among men than
women. This could reflect a low starting point for men, or alternatively the
influence of women on previously single men in terms of adoption health-
seeking behaviors. Marital status in of itself does confer more pronounced
health benefits on men than women.
Nevertheless, in terms of health, women are more affected than men by
marital conflict or a deterioration in marital satisfaction (Beck, 2013; Berg,
2010; Bernstein and Taylor, 2013; Boertien and Vignoli, 2019; Brandzel,
2005; Brewer and Wilcox, 2005). For instance, researcher has shown that
unhappily married women have worse health outcomes than both unhappily
married men and happily single women. Indeed, there have been laboratory
studies indicating that women have stronger physiological responses to
marital conflict. The relative status of women and men in a marriage may
explain these differences. For example, a man as the breadwinner may have
options to find mistresses and alternative sources of comfort compared to a
stay-at-home wife who relies on her husband for companionship.
In both animals and humans, a low status portends greater physiological
reactions to social stress (Sullivan, 2004; Tamagawa, 2016; Trandafir,
2014; Trosino, 1993; Vanita, 2005; Walls, 2010; Wardle, 1996; Webb and
Chonody, 2014). Nevertheless, both men and women have demonstrated
strong physiological reactions when marital arguments relate to a change
in their partner. It may be that the gendered nature of marriage continues to
impact women in ways that are not fully understood. In fact, some research
suggests that same-sex couples will experience some of these differences
in experiences of health and wellbeing, depending on who takes on the
masculine and feminine roles.
Others query the vary basis of comparison, arguing that health is a much
wider term that physical, emotional, and psychological wellbeing (Boertien
Buchanan, 1984; Buffie, 2011). There are many outcomes that could be
explored, including clinical ones, surrogate ones, and biological mediators.
A case in point are the clinical endpoints which impact on the way that
people function, feel, and survive. For example, these variables may include
heart attacks and hospitalizations.
The surrogate endpoints and biological mediators are known as typologies
of biomarkers which are objective indicators of pathology or normality with
reference to physiological processes (Beck, 2013; Berg, 2010; Bernstein
Wilcox, 2005). The surrogate endpoints are the ones that can substitute
clinical points and can predict them based on scientific evidence. A case
in point is how high blood pressure predicates cardiovascular disease. The
biological mediators reflect any short-term stress that might impact on health
outcomes if they are repeatedly and persistently activated.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that the biological mediators lack
sufficiently robust evidence to link them to clinical endpoints. Examples may
include immune measures and hormonal changes (Smith, 2007; Soule, 2004;
Strasser, 2018; Sullivan, 2004; Tamagawa, 2016; Trandafir, 2014; Trosino,
1993). All these are complex factors that determine whether married couples
are healthy, regardless of their sexuality, identity, and preference (Goldberg-
Hiller, 2009; Hester and Gibson, 2007; Hogg, 2006; Hooghe and Meeusen,
2013; Hull, 2001, 2003).
CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY
This chapter has explored the norms and customers that determine our
understanding and experience of marriage. Some of the cultural categories
explored include Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Confucianism,
Daoism, and Humanism. The chapter also explored a range of wedding
typologies and their implications for the wedding industry. Finally, the
chapter introduced current debates about the impact of marriage on health
and wellbeing. The chapter advanced the argument that same-sex couples
can enjoy the health benefits that accrue to conventional cisgender and
heterosexual married couples. The next chapter explores the religious
objections to same-sex marriages.
CHAPTER 5
RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS TO
NON-HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES
CONTENTS
5.1. Lgbt Perspectives on Religion........................................................... 120
5.2. Buddhist Perspectives on LGBT Communities.................................. 127
5.3. Christian Perspectives on LGBT Communities.................................. 130
5.4. Perspectives of Unitarian Universalists and Unitarians on
LGBT Communities....................................................................... 137
5.5. Islamic Perspectives on LGBT Communities..................................... 139
Chapter 5 Summary................................................................................ 141
This chapter explores the origins, nature, and consequences of religious

objections to non-heterosexual and non-cisgender couples. The first section
will consider the LGBT perspectives on religion. The second section will
consider how Buddhism responds to LGBT people. This will be followed by
the third section covering Christian perspectives on LGBT people. The 4th
section will explore the perspectives of Unitarian Universalists. The chapter
will close with a critical review of Islamic perspectives on LGBT rights.
5.1. LGBT PERSPECTIVES ON RELIGION

Organized religion has generally not been very welcoming to LGBT
communities (Lannutti, 2005, 2007; Lee and Hicks, 2011; Lenhardt, 2008;
Lewis, 2005; Lewis and Gossett, 2008). Many of the legislative measures
that are taken against LGBT people are supported by religious institutions.
Some are even inspired by those institutions. The localities and communities
where there is a strong adherence to organized religion are often the
scenes of heterosexist discrimination. The fact that religious institutions
have successfully organized exemptions for themselves when pro-LGBT
legislation is enacted has meant that true equality has taken a slower pace
than would be ideal.
Religion can sometimes change a liberal society into a reactionary one.
In fact, there have been instances where previously welcoming communities
such as the Vikings have become a lot more homophobic following the
introduction of organized religion (Baunach, 2012; Goldberg-Hiller, 2009;
Lodola and Corral, 2010; Smith, 2005). There are patterns emerging of
religious zealots turning entire communities against LGBT people. Many
of these strict adherents are not only interested in maintaining ideological
purity in their narrow population sub-sets but are also interested in spreading
their message and message widely. Hence, movements that start off as fringe
concerns could soon turn into major policy drivers in a community. This is
exactly what has happened in Africa. Previously, LGBT issues were not of
any particular concern to the authorities. Indeed, some communities were
positively welcoming to LGBT people. The entrance of organized religious
movements changed those perspectives and turned these communities into
hotbeds of heterosexist chauvinism.
In modern times, there is significant variance in the relationship between
religion and LGBT communities depending on the time and space that the
relationship is being examined (Beck, 2013; Berg, 2010; Bernstein and
Taylor, 2013; Boertien and Vignoli, 2019; Brandzel, 2005; Brewer and
Religious Objections to Non-Heterosexual Couples 121
Wilcox, 2005). European societies have for example made it clear that
discrimination against LGBT people is no longer acceptable. The same
process is taking place in the Americas. Some have termed these as the
cultural wars. When religious communities have lost cultural wars, they
have turned to the potentially fertile world of the developing nations. Here,
they can preach some of the most extremist versions of their religion in the
hope that ignorant people will naively follow them. So far, the pattern has
been that religious influence is soon followed by heterosexist discrimination.
It is notable that different cultures have adopted diverse approaches
to LGBT people. In this, they are reflecting the priorities of their own
people. For example, different religions and sects may experience changing
perspectives on LGBT people over time and in different cultures (Sherkat et
al., 2011; Shulman, Gotta, and Green, 2012; Smith, DeSantis, and Kassel,
2006; Smith, 2005, 2007). Some segments, such as white evangelicals see
their religion as being incompatible with homosexuality or even same-sex
marriage (see Figure 5.1).
Figure 5.1: Perspectives of white evangelicals on homosexuality and religion.

Some religions make a distinction between homosexuality, bisexuality,

and a transgender identity (Barker, 2012; Baunach, 2012; Beck, 2013; Berg,
2010; Bernstein and Taylor, 2013; Boertien and Vignoli, 2019). These are not
merely artificial distinctions based on personal perceptions and preferences.
They reflect cultural priorities and norms. At the same time, they can have
significant effects for the people that are categorized according to them. For
example, Iran is notorious for its heterosexist institutions. However, the
state provides assistance for those that are undergoing ender realignment.
Indeed, Iran was providing this service long before some liberal countries
were countenancing the reality of alternative gender identities. Hence, the
sweeping generalization of Islam and Islamic countries as being incurably
heterosexist may not be borne out by the facts.
Some of these classifications have been detrimental to the well-being of
LGBT people. For instance, they may be classified with some of the worst
forms of sexual predation and criminality. Others equate being an LGBT
person to pedophilia and bestiality, an equivalence that has been deemed
incredibly discriminatory and offensive (Trosino, 1993; Vanita, 2005; Walls,
2010; Wardle, 1996; Webb and Chonody, 2014; Wedgwood, 1999; Widiss,
Rosenblatt, and NeJaime, 2007). The underlying message is that being an
LGBT person is such an outrageous aberration that no insult is beyond the
pale when it comes to harassing members of the community.
There are some definitional challenges when understanding aspects
of human sexuality. For example, the traditional notion of “sodomy”
included any sexual acts that were not primarily designed for procreation
by the parties regardless of the participants were heterosexual. Then there
are those who condemn “sodomy” as any sexual practice that is outside
the most conventional heterosexual interaction (Judge, Manion, and De
Waal, 2008; Kail, Acosta, and Wright, 2015; Kandaswamy, 2008; Klarman,
2012). The underlying message is that sexual contact should only be for
purposes of procreation. Hence, those that do not conform to this approach
are condemned as sodomites.
The idea that religions roundly condemn homosexual sexual contact while
encouraging heterosexual sexuality is moderated by some inconsistences in
the religious texts. For instance, in some religions, oral sex is condemned
regardless of whether it is practiced by heterosexual or LGBT people
(Coolidge, 1997; Corvino and Gallagher, 2012; Cox, Navarro-Rivera, and
Jones, 2014; Damslet, 1992; Dorf, 2011). Such a classification would not
be acceptable in a modern age where oral sex is part of intimacy. Indeed,
heterosexist bigots may not take kindly to facing the same intrusion in their
private lives as they advocate for LGBT people.
It is unfortunate that the love and acceptance preached by religious
institutions does not accord the same privileges to LGBT communities. Where
religious institutions hold influence, there can be a marked deterioration in
the rights and lives of LGBT people (Vanita, 2005; Walls, 2010; Wardle,
1996; Webb and Chonody, 2014; Wedgwood, 1999). Even where these
religious institutions have been involved in civil rights campaigns, they
explicitly exclude LGBT people. One of their justifications is the erroneous
assumption that human sexuality and identity is set in stone. Hence, those
that have different identities and orientations must have made a conscious
decision. Any objections to these erroneous assumptions are dismissed as
propaganda.
Having been rejected, LGBT people feel that they are not obliged to
give religious institutions any precedence. It is therefore not surprising that
LGBT communities have sometimes clashed with organized religion or even
left religion altogether (Sherkat, De Vries, and Creek, 2010; Sherkat et al.,
2011; Shulman, Gotta, and Green, 2012; Smith, DeSantis, and Kassel, 2006).
Many have become atheists and agnostics. Others have actively worked to
delegitimize traditional organized religions. Therefore, communities of faith
are seen as adversaries to the process of legalizing same-sex marriage. The
feelings of animosity are reciprocated since religious communities feel that
the LGBT community wants to impose its proclivities and interests on the
wider community.
There is a range of responses to LGBT people and LGBT lifestyles from
the different religions (Buffie, 2011; Meezan and Rauch, 2005; Trosino,
1993; Wilson, 2013). This reflects the diversity within the LGBT community
itself. For instance, during the same-sex marriage debate, there were some
LGBT voices that were not supportive of the liberalization of marriage.
Indeed, some even gave testimony that the so-called LGBT lifestyle was not
suitable for raising children. Socially conservative institutions such as the
Republican Party in the USA have membership from the LGBT community
even though some of the party’s policy orientations are not advantageous to
the LGBT community.
Among the responses, are those that are not confrontational and
look for the path of least resistance. For example, some engage in quiet
discouragement but are not overtly anti-LGBT (Lannutti, 2005, 2007; Lee
and Hicks, 2011; Lenhardt, 2008; Lewis, 2005; Lewis and Gossett, 2008).
In these situations, it makes sense not to aggravate the LGBT community

that is also quite capable of engaging in vigorous debates on the rights of
its members. Besides, such approaches may seek to retain some level of
harmony within the society so that it does not lose its cohesiveness.
Then there are those that acknowledge the reality of LGBT people but
would like them to remain hidden. Others call for discretion on the part of
LGBT people so that they do not “flaunt” their lifestyles (Lee and Hicks,
2011; Lenhardt, 2008; Lewis, 2005; Lewis and Gossett, 2008; Lodola and
Corral, 2010; Lupia et al., 2010). The idea behind this approach is the
need not to offend those in the majority who may object to LGBT people.
However, such approaches fall foul of human rights legislation and the
general principle that people should be allowed to be who they are and
express themselves in a democratic society.
The LGBT community has found this approach damaging because it
essentially calls on them to deny or hide their identity and sexuality to satisfy
the needs of the community at large (Hooghe and Meeusen, 2013; Hull,
2001, 2003; Hull and Hull, 2006; Hunter, 2012; Josephson, 2005; Judge,
Manion, and De Waal, 2008). This is the suffering that LGBT people had to
internalize for a long time as they struggled with the decision to come out.
The closet suited the heterosexist segment of the population which did not
want to engage with the issues and challenges of the LGBT people. If LGBT
people were in the closet, they were tolerated since nobody could discern
their private feelings by just looking at them casually.
Then there are those that explicitly forbid same-sex relationships and
will actively campaign to delegitimize same-sex marriage (Brewer and
Wilcox, 2005; Hull and Hull, 2006; Olson, Cadge, and Harrison, 2006;
Trandafir, 2014). This is the segment of the anti-LGBT movement that is
actively hostile members of that community. Such heterosexist bigots are
not content with the “live and let live” mantra. Instead, they want to actively
control the lifestyles of the LGBT community with a view to preventing
members from fully and freely expressing themselves.
In the worst cases, some religions have called for the harassment and
even murder of LGBT people to take them out of society (Berg, 2010;
Bernstein and Taylor, 2013; Boertien and Vignoli, 2019; Brandzel, 2005;
Brewer and Wilcox, 2005; Brown, 1994). For their part, LGBT campaigners
have pointed out the inherent hypocrisy of preaching a message of love
for the universe and then select a segment of the population to torment.
Often, the calls to violence against LGBT people are couched in terms of
protecting the cultural heritage of the wider community and its morals. Many
members of the wider community are willing to ignore the implications of
these approaches unless it actively affects a member of their own family or
someone that they know and love. Hence, the use of coming out to ensure
that many families recognized that they may have an LGBT person in their
midst.
There are countries where heterosexism is so deeply entrenched that
virtually all aspects of community life are distinctly unwelcoming to LGBT
people. In Iran, for example, there is a definite homophobic slant to virtually
aspects of community life, yet this country pays for gender reassignment in
some cases (Shulman, Gotta, and Green, 2012; Smith, DeSantis, and Kassel,
2006; Smith, 2005, 2007). Some have highlighted this contradiction as an
indicator of the complexities within Europe which cannot be reduced to
tropes about Islam.
Then there are examples of developed countries engaging in heterosexist
behavior. For example, a seemingly liberal democracy in the form of
Japan creates significant hurdles for anyone wishing to engage in gender
reassignment (Franke, 2006; Gaines and Garand, 2010; Gerstmann, 2017;
Gher, 2007; Goldberg-Hiller, 2009; Hester and Gibson, 2007). Japan ranks
very highly on the human development index. It is therefore surprising that
the country has adopted reactionary approaches to gender realignment. This
is particularly puzzling given that the Conservative theocracy of Iran has a
much more liberal approach to this issue.
Despite the generalized antipathy towards LGBT people, there are
pockets of liberal thought in the worlds’ major religions and smaller sects
(Hull, 2003; Hull and Hull, 2006; Hunter, 2012; Josephson, 2005; Judge,
Manion, and De Waal, 2008; Kail, Acosta, and Wright, 2015). This reflects
the fact that not every follower is willing to adopt all the most extremist
interpretations of doctrinal dictates. Some engage in a process of analysis
and critique, which allows them to arrive at conclusions that are decidedly
far more liberal than their community. Those that have alternative views on
LGBT people have actively welcomed this community, even if there is a
threat of excommunication and exclusion.
In turn, the LGBT community has responded to these overtures by moving
away from the more conservative segments of the religious community and
towards those segments that are more accepting and welcoming (Brown,
1994; Buchanan, 1984; Buffie, 2011; Cahill and Cahill, 2004; Chambers,
1997; Chamie and Mirkin, 2011; Coolidge, 1997). This is a natural
progression in which people seek comfort from areas and communities that
are more welcoming of them. It is therefore not surprising that traditional
and conservative sects in organized religion are losing LGBT members of
their congregation. At the same time, there are LGBT people that would
not like to leave their traditional religious upbringing, and yet they wish
to express their identity. This has led to internalized conflicts that severely
affect the mental health of religious LGBT people.
There are those religious members of the LGBT community that advocate
for change within those conservative communities (Lenhardt, 2008; Lewis,
2005; Lewis and Gossett, 2008; Lodola and Corral, 2010; Lupia et al., 2010;
MacDougall, 2000). This strategy is based on the calculus that it may be
easier to change an institution from the inside rather than becoming an
outside agitator. Besides, those LGBT members of the religious congregation
may resent the possibility that they are being driven out of their faith for no
other reason other than their identity, orientation, and preference. Hence,
they make a decision to remain within the institutions and fight the prejudice
from within its sources.
Instead of running away from prejudice and bigotry, these activist LGBT
voices call for confrontation to change attitudes, if not behavior (Barclay
and Fisher, 2003; Ellison, Acevedo, and Ramos‐Wada, 2011; Hull, 2003;
Lannutti, 2007; Pinello, 2006). It takes a lot of courage to confront people
who are in a position of privilege and have no intention of moderating or
giving up that privileged position. The numbers may also not be on the
side of the reformers who often constitute a relatively small segment of the
religious community. It is also not always clear as to the kind of responses
that they will be getting. Some religious communities have been known to
become even more conservative and closed when they are challenged on
any doctrinal issues.
One of the acts of defiance against prejudice has been to conduct religious
same-sex weddings (Goldberg-Hiller, 2009; Hester and Gibson, 2007; Hogg,
2006; Hooghe and Meeusen, 2013; Hull, 2001, 2003). In these instances,
the LGBT people are not willing to accept a second-class position within
their religious community. They will then conduct a religious ceremony
with willing participants. However, the religious institution itself may not
recognize the union as such. The main point for the LGBT community is
that to conduct a wedding ceremony on their terms.
There is a sense in which marginalized LGBT couples are responding
to the established religion with vigor and determination. That is why some
LGBT couples deliberately choose to make use of these opportunities for

a clandestine “unauthorized wedding” rather than having a civil wedding.
Those who call for the protection of marriage may be of the view that LGBT
people are being deliberately uncooperative with a reasonable compromise.
However, it is important to remember that this is a compromise that is
envisaged by governments that do not wish to engage in damaging debates
with the Religious Right (Wedgwood, 1999; Widiss, Rosenblatt, and
NeJaime, 2007; Wight, LeBlanc, and Lee Badgett, 2013; Wilson, 2013).
Hence, it is not about giving LGBT people dignity. Rather it is an exercise
in compromised values and goals. Some religions have an altogether more
accommodating view on same-sex relationships, even if it is steeped in
obscure interpretations. One such religion is Buddhism.
5.2. BUDDHIST PERSPECTIVES ON LGBT

COMMUNITIES
Buddhism has been ambivalent about homosexuality, partially because of
the ambiguity of Buddhist teachings (Smith, 2007; Soule, 2004; Strasser,
2018; Sullivan, 2004; Tamagawa, 2016; Trandafir, 2014; Trosino, 1993).
This ambivalence has attracted many to a religion that is not entirely within
their cultural heritage. Buddhism is seen as an open form of religion that can
be welcoming to diverse communities who are entirely outside its Eastern
origins. Hence, the popularity of Buddhism within the younger generation.
There have been instances where Buddhism has side-stepped the ongoing
debates concerning same-sex marriage. For example, there was no official
stance with regards to same-sex marriage (Auchmuty, 2004; Corvino and
Gallagher, 2012; Hester and Gibson, 2007; Kreitzer, Hamilton, and Tolbert,
2014). This is quite different from the Anglican Union, which is being torn
apart by disputes over doctrinal matters such as the ordination of women
bishops and the solemnization of LGBT marriages. So far, Buddhism has
emerged as a religion that can be adjusted to any context regardless of how
liberal it is.
In any case, some have argued that religion is not necessarily anti-
equality at its foundation. Most of the anti-LGBT rhetoric that has emerged
over the years is due to cultural conditioning rather than any mandates from
Buddhism (Lodola and Corral, 2010; Lupia et al., 2010; MacDougall, 2000;
McVeigh and Maria-Elena, 2009). In this case, Buddhism benefits from the
absence of religious texts that explicitly condemn same-sex marriage or even
call for violence against LGBT people. That is a quite different proposition
from Islam and Christianity, where conservative voices can point to specific
parts of the religious texts that condemn same-sex relationships.
The liberal and accepting interpretation of Buddhism has opened
opportunities for greater acceptance of sexual minorities. Some voices argue
that in the absence of any condemnation of same-sex marriages in Buddhism,
it is possible to undertake marriage ceremonies for LGBT people. Others
have used Buddhist principles to call for an acceptance of LGBT people
and the institution of their marriages (Barker, 2012; Baunach, 2012; Beck,
2013; Berg, 2010; Bernstein and Taylor, 2013; Boertien and Vignoli, 2019).
Such advocacy work has cemented the Buddhist reputation for tolerance
and acceptance. For young people, this is an attractive proposition when
compared to traditional religions that are increasingly reactionary in response
to any gains made by the LGBT community in terms of marriage equality.
The notions of human dignity in Buddhist traditions are particularly
attractive when making a proposition for marriage equality. Figure 5.2
highlights some of the Buddhist principles that have formed the basis of
accepting same-sex marriage. For example, there is an emphasis on accepting
difference, accepting oneself, and a social response that is accepting (Hogg,
2006; Hooghe and Meeusen, 2013; Hull, 2001, 2003; Hull and Hull, 2006;
Hunter, 2012; Josephson, 2005).
Figure 5.2: Buddhist perspectives on LGBT communities.
Source: MDPI.
Some liberal voices have taken the liberty to provide opinions in
support same-sex marriage, a case in point being the testimony given to
the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law which took place on
the 11th of October 1995 (Auchmuty, 2004; Corvino and Gallagher, 2012;
Hester and Gibson, 2007; Kreitzer, Hamilton, and Tolbert, 2014). Other
liberal voices include Robert Aitken of the Honolulu Diamond Sangha. One
of the explanations that is provided is through reference to the Four Noble
Abodes which include compassion, loving-kindness, equanimity, and joy
in the attainment of others. Hence, these voices call for compassion when
engaging with LGBT people who wish to formalize their relationships
through marriage.
Some people in the Buddhist traditional respectfully call on LGBT
people not to lead selfish lives (Chamie and Mirkin, 2011; Coolidge, 1997;
Corvino and Gallagher, 2012; Cox, Navarro-Rivera, and Jones, 2014). This
advice has sometimes been interpreted as an implicit condemnation of
LGBT sexuality. In doing so there is an assumption that sexual expression
outside marriage and within the LGBT community is a form of self-centered
sexual conduct. Others disagree and believe that the self-centered conduct is
one which is non-consensual, harmful, or exploitative.
All these elements of self-centered sexual conduct can occur within a
heterosexual marriage as well as a same-sex marriage (Bernstein and Taylor,
2013; Boertien and Vignoli, 2019; Brandzel, 2005; Brewer and Wilcox, 2005;
Brown, 1994; Buchanan, 1984). Buddhism also condemns discrimination,
and some voices have been vocal about the anomaly of certain sexual
rights that are accorded to heterosexual couples but not accorded to same-
sex relationships. Hence Buddhism inadvertently challenges the notion
that heterosexist narratives are somehow more valid than LGBT lives and
experiences. It also means that the rules concerning marriage are applied
consistently and fairly without necessarily favoring one type of relationship
over others.
Those within the Buddhist communities that advocate for the acceptance
of same-sex relationships argue that they would become more settled and
healthier if they were acknowledged with the same rights as those offered to
heterosexual couples (Sherkat et al., 2011; Shulman, Gotta, and Green, 2012;
Smith, DeSantis, and Kassel, 2006; Smith, 2005, 2007). Hence, the continued
discrimination against LGBT people is recast as an injustice in the Buddhist
tradition. Such injustice can only be properly addressed by accepting LGBT
people in the wider Buddhist community. These progressive attitudes are
one of the main reasons for the increased popularity of Buddhist among
younger generations. The religion takes on a socially conscious approach
to the human condition, which is virtually unmatched by other established
religions. Buddhism generally accepts diversity, and the LGBT community
is seen as being part of the diversity of humanity (Chamie and Mirkin, 2011;
Coolidge, 1997; Corvino and Gallagher, 2012; Cox, Navarro-Rivera, and

Jones, 2014). This universalist approach has sometimes been critiqued by
conservative voices who argue that a religion that has no firm principles is
one that is a cult or a fad. Those that advocate for Buddhism in mainstream
lives argue that far from having no principles, it is a principled religion. The
only difference is that its principles are inclusive and accepting of LGBT
people.
There is an emphasis on love, companionship, and community which
is inclusive of LGBT people rather than placing them on the margins as
an outcast group (Eskridge, 1993, 1999; Fingerhut, Riggle, and Rostosky,
2011; Flores, 2015; Franke, 2006; Gaines and Garand, 2010). It is for this
reason that many young people, particularly those with connections within
the LGBT community, have found Buddhism to be an infinitely more
attractive religious option than the more strident traditional religions. It is
an attractive option for people that are spiritual in their orientation but have
been exhausted by the constant criticism and social exclusion that they get
from their own religions. Although Christianity has had a traditionally wider
audience, its stricter interpretations of marital doctrines have rendered it
unpopular with cultural liberals.
5.3. CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVES ON LGBT

COMMUNITIES
Although there exists a stereotype of the Christian Church being decidedly
anti-LGBT in its doctrine, there is also a lot of diversity emerging within
the Christian community (Buffie, 2011; Judge, Manion, and De Waal, 2008;
Pierceson, 2014; Walls, 2010). Christianity has sometimes been associated
with some of the worst excesses against LGBT people. At best, the Church
has been accused of looking the other way as LGBT people were harassed.
At worst, there is a suspicion that the Church has been an active participant
in creating a societal perspective in which LGBT people have no space.
Currently, the Church is held to account based on equality legislation and
changing perspectives on sexual morality.
Some of the different responses to LGBT people within the Christian
Church are due to specific cultural and ethnic dynamics that happen to
coincide with the existence of Christianity (Lewis, 2005; Lewis and Gossett,
2008; Lodola and Corral, 2010; Lupia et al., 2010; MacDougall, 2000;
McVeigh and Maria-Elena, 2009). For example, there has been a revival of
Pentecostal religious fervor in Africa. This has coincided with the enactment
of laws against same-sex marriages. Some laws are so extreme that they
call for the death penalty against LGBT people for no other reason other
than their identity, sexuality, and preferences. The traditional churches may
not be as extreme as this position, but they have stood back as increasingly
heterosexist legislation has been passed.
The divide that some churches are facing is definitively associated with
changes in values across different regions(Dorf, 2011; Koppelman, 1996;
Koppelman, 2014; Wilson, 2013). As Europe became more liberal, other
parts of the world became more conservative. Figure 5.3 demonstrates
the polarization between Europe and Africa on LGBT rights as a case in
point. The contrasting points of view have raised debates about the role
of coloniality and the need to allow different regions to develop their own
perspectives on same-sex relationships.
Figure 5.3: Contrasting African and European perspectives on homosexuality.
Source: DW MDPI.
As a result, there are advocates for LGBT people as well as those that
are distinctly anti-LGBT in their teachings or practices (Pinello, 2006;
Powell, Quadlin, and Pizmony-Levy, 2015; Rimmerman and Wilcox, 2007;
Rosenfeld, 2014; Rothblum, 2005). The Church is not a monolithic institution
with homogenous perspectives on same-sex relationships. Indeed, the
diversity of perspectives can be so extreme, ranging from those that conduct
same-sex marriages to those that are calling for the institutionalized murder
of LGBT people. This diversity of perspectives then must be reconciled with
the fact that attitudes towards human sexuality are changing, and they have
impacted on our generalized conceptualization of marriage.
Some Christian denominations have focused on the practice of
homosexuality as being distinct from the person. Hence, it is possible for a
person to be a homosexual without engaging in sexual activity and therefore
remaining faithful to the religion (Chamie and Mirkin, 2011; Coolidge, 1997;
Corvino and Gallagher, 2012; Cox, Navarro-Rivera, and Jones, 2014). Such
compromises have been presented as a possibility to include members of the
Church congregation who are struggling with same-sex attraction. However,
LGBT advocates have criticized this approach because it turns human
sexuality into a disease or failing that must be cured. These campaigners are
looking for acceptance that does not unfairly judge LGBT people.
In this case, the principle of “hating the sin, but loving the sinner” is
referenced (Brandzel, 2005; Brewer and Wilcox, 2005; Brown, 1994;
Buchanan, 1984; Buffie, 2011; Cahill and Cahill, 2004; Chambers, 1997).
However, there are those who are of the view that this compromise is about
ensuring that Christians can engage in heterosexist behavior whilst avoiding
accountability for their hateful actions. For the victims of this discrimination,
it does not matter whether the perpetrator has good intentions or not. The
outcome is still negative for them, and they consider it an outrage that such
issues remain common aspects of modern society.
The LGBT community has been largely outraged by the suggestion that
it must suppress its sexuality to meet the demands of religious conservatives
who have never been friendly to the community (Badgett, 2009; Ball,
2013; Berg, 2010). The Catholic Church specifically called for celibacy as
a response to homosexuality in the Church. Similarly, the Anglican Church
had initially suggested that same-sex couples could live together if they
practiced celibacy. Such a level of intrusion in the personal lives of adults
has since been inappropriate and unworkable. For instance, it is practically
impossible to ascertain whether couples are celibate.
The Christian Church has often reflected the prejudices and predilections
of the community it serves (Brewer and Wilcox, 2005; Kogan, 2003;
Smith, 2007; Walls, 2010). Some have criticized this approach because
it is complacence. For them, the Church has a duty and responsibility to
challenge the status quo if it is harmful to a segment of the population.
Part of that challenge may be confronting powerful institutional forces that
threaten the very existence of the Church. They argue that the Church must
not fall into the same trap as during the times of commercial slavery when
Biblical texts were used to justify one of the worst crimes against humanity.
Churches are required to adhere to the national and regional laws of
their context. A case in point are those churches in the European Union
which cannot be seen to be undermining the values of that part of the world.
Hence, European Churches are distinctly more liberal than their African
counterparts (Josephson, 2005; Judge, Manion, and De Waal, 2008; Kail,
Acosta, and Wright, 2015; Kandaswamy, 2008). By way of contrast, the
African Church is set in a context that has been fervent in its pursuit of
Pentecostal renewals. Hence, it becomes virtually impossible for any Church
in Africa to successfully advocate for same-sex marriages. The critics might
highlight the fact that a lot of the homophobia that exists in Africa today is
the result of missionary work. So, in a sense, the Church is responsible for
the problem it is trying to resolve.
Churches have sometimes chosen to moderate their doctrinal
interpretations to suit their contexts. For example, the Church of Sweden
might be a lot more tolerate than the Church of Uganda. Yet they all belong to
the same Anglican Union. Some might argue that this is a pragmatic decision
because congregations emanate from the community (Kandaswamy, 2008;
Klarman, 2012; Kogan, 2003; Koppelman, 1996, 1997, 2014). Others might
see it as another failing on the Church which will not confront prejudice
even when ample opportunities are presented.
There is a danger in becoming a campaigning institution. This is a
danger which the Church is uniquely sensitive to. If the Church is perceived
to be against the norms and values of its potential congregation, then there
is every chance that the Church will struggle to fill its pews (Beck, 2013;
Hester and Gibson, 2007; Lupia et al., 2010; Smith, 2007). The days when
the government could force congregations into Churches are long gone.
Younger people are taking this opportunity to reject churches that do not
align with their personal values.
Where the Church has sought to develop an opinion and practice outside
the mainstream, it has faced calls for disestablishment and even abolishment
(Brandzel, 2005; Gerstmann, 2017; Klarman, 2012; MacDougall, 2000;
Sherkat, De Vries, and Creek, 2010). Nowhere is this clearer than the
Church of England. Henry VIII broke ties with Rome because it did not
grant him divorce. Since then, the Church has rarely dared to challenge
royal supremacy. Even where the conduct of the monarch and the family
go against church teachings, a compromise is always found. The advocates
for same-sex marriage can then not understand why their cause should be
subjected to scrutiny when the causes of others (such as kings and princes)
are welcomed with compromise.
The churches that go against popular opinion may face revolts and even
calls for closure. This affects both liberal and conservative contexts. For
instance, those Churches that advocate for same-sex marriages are assumed
to be anti-Biblical in Africa and will face significant hostility (Alderson,
2004; Appleton, 2005; Auchmuty, 2004; Badgett, 2009; Ball, 2014, 2015;
Barclay and Fisher, 2003). Threats have been made against priests and clergy
who are perceived to be lenient when it comes to LGBT issues. Indeed, there
could be a threat of being outed in the national newspapers and accused of
being a homosexual.
Liberal contexts can be equally intolerant of alternative opinions. When
some African countries enacted heterosexist legislation that sought to
murder LGBT people, there was an outcry about intolerance from Western
Europe and North America. By way of contrast, any Church in Europe that
advocates strongly against LGBT rights is likely to be ostracized and may
even lose its tax benefits (Baunach, 2012; Goldberg-Hiller, 2009; Lodola
and Corral, 2010; Smith, 2005). It could then be argued that intolerance is
not the exclusive proclivity of conservative regions. Liberals can be equally
intolerant of conservative voices.
The failure to reconcile cultural differences has fractured the Church.
Each side is deeply entrenched in its perspectives and is convinced that it is
in the right. There is virtually no room for compromise. In some instances,
the Church has faced calls for schism when there is no agreement on the
issue of same-sex marriage (Koppelman, 2014; Kramer, 1996; Kreitzer,
Hamilton, and Tolbert, 2014; Lahey and Alderson, 2004; Langbein and Yost,
2009). Some see this as the sad demise of a once strong religion. Meanwhile,
alternative religions such as Islam are advancing, yet they are in many ways
more heterosexist than the Christian Church.
Whereas religious conservatives are of the determined view that
homosexuality is a grievous sin against God, others have more liberal
interpretations (Brewer and Wilcox, 2005; Brown, 1994; Buchanan, 1984;
Buffie, 2011; Cahill and Cahill, 2004; Chambers, 1997; Chamie and Mirkin,
2011). This has led to ongoing debates and conflicts that have sometimes
ended in court. Conservatives believe that they are the true representatives of
what the Church must be to be consistent with Biblical teaching. Meanwhile,
liberals believe they represent what the Church ought to be when interpreting
Biblical texts with a modern lens. The two sides are engaged in what appears
to be an intractable battle.
Surprisingly, some Churches have gone even beyond the expectations
of LGBT campaigners in terms of welcoming diversity. The Metropolitan
Community Church is an example of such an organization that roots its
support of LGBT couples in scripture, albeit with a different interpretation
from the one preferred by the more conservative denominations (Smith,
Trandafir, 2014). This Church has been criticized for watering down the
gospel to attract liberal followers. However, it remains an option for LGBT
people that have been ostracized in mainstream Christianity.
One of the foundations is that the world “homosexual” is a relative
creation and is not to be found in the original versions of the sacred texts
(Ball, 2014; Damslet, 1992; Hooghe and Meeusen, 2013; Langbein and Yost,
2009; Pearl and Galupo, 2007). Hence, what is deemed to be a condemnation
of homosexuality is a condemnation of licentiousness and other ungodly
acts such as incest, idolatry, greed, sloth, theft, promiscuity, and adultery.
Others argue for a complete removal of old texts that are no longer relevant
to a modern congregation that cannot accept the stoning or murder of people
because of their sexuality.
Those that believe in the Bible not condemning homosexuality argue
that the command to form families and be in communion are for all
couples regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual (Dorf,
2011; Ellison, Acevedo, and Ramos‐Wada, 2011; Eskridge, 1993, 1999;
Fingerhut, Riggle, and Rostosky, 2011). Another arm of their argument is
that Christianity calls for brotherhood, empathy, equality, and dignity. That
means that the Church must be inclusive of LGBT people, otherwise it is
diverging away from the vision of a united community that was envisaged
by scripture.
Because God is perfection, he cannot create that which is imperfect
(Kogan, 2003; Koppelman, 1996, 1997, 2014; Kramer, 1996; Kreitzer,
Hamilton, and Tolbert, 2014). Therefore, heterosexuality, bisexuality, and
being transgender are part of God’s perfection in creation. Hence, people
from the LGBT community should be treated as a gift from God rather than
treating them as outcasts to be reviled and ostracized. This argument calls
for a compassionate understanding of LGBT people and the struggles they
face due to discrimination. There is significant debate on the true nature of
homosexuality in the Bible and how Christians are supposed to respond to
it (Webb and Chonody, 2014; Wedgwood, 1999; Widiss, Rosenblatt, and

NeJaime, 2007; Wight, LeBlanc, and Lee Badgett, 2013). A case in point is
John Boswell, a historical who argues that there were early signs of same-
sex marriage in the form of the rite of adelphopoesis that was performed by
Saint Bacchus and Saint Sergius in the 4th century. This was a rite of brother-
making which some have interpreted as being an early version of same-sex
marriage.
The LGBT has not merely relied on interpretations of scripture but has
taken direct action to ensure that Christian organizations are not allowed to
discriminate against LGBT people (Badgett, 2009; Cox, Navarro-Rivera,
and Jones, 2014; Hogg, 2006; Lahey and Alderson, 2004; Onuche, 2013).
These conflicts have taken place in a range of public spaces. There have
been legal and social conflicts over issues such as the provision of services
in orphanages, homeless shelters, summer camps, social service agencies,
healthcare centers, retreat houses, athletic programs, education, and even
hotel accommodation.
In response, religious organizations have argued that they are merely
followed their doctrinal dictates when discriminating against LGBT people
(Buffie, 2011; Meezan and Rauch, 2005; Trosino, 1993; Wilson, 2013). The
courts have weighted these rights against the rights to personal freedom.
In due course, many religious institutions have been granted the right to
discriminate if they can demonstrate that this results from a faithfully held
belief.
Because the operation of the mind is a difficult aspect to test, the reality
is that religious institutions continue to discriminate against LGBT people
(Cox, Navarro-Rivera, and Jones, 2014; Damslet, 1992; Dorf, 2011; Ellison,
Acevedo, and Ramos‐Wada, 2011). Many bigots hide behind religion as a
protective mechanism against laws that are meant to prevent discrimination.
Others use the fact of their faith as a tool to play the victim and garner public
sympathy when they are the perpetrators of hate crimes against LGBT
people.
Of course, some might argue that it is entirely up to a person how
they feel, and that bigotry is no crime if not exercised by way of illegal
actions (Koppelman, 2014; Kramer, 1996; Kreitzer, Hamilton, and Tolbert,
2014; Lahey and Alderson, 2004; Langbein and Yost, 2009). However, the
experiences of LGBT people have shown that unless there is clear protection
for them, discrimination will continue. Some religious institutions are
adopting a compassionate approach to these problems and welcoming people
with open arms regardless of their identity, orientation, and preference. One
such institutional is the community of Unitarian Universalists.
5.4. PERSPECTIVES OF UNITARIAN UNIVERSAL-

ISTS AND UNITARIANS ON LGBT COMMUNITIES
The Unitarian and Universalist churches have taken on a distinctly welcoming
stance to LGBT people and the possibility of their marriage (Vanita, 2005;
Walls, 2010; Wardle, 1996; Webb and Chonody, 2014; Wedgwood, 1999).
Indeed, these denominations have engaged in activism that is meant to drive
marriage equality. Conservative Christians have been outraged by this open
approach and have argued that the liberal denominations are not Christian in
their teaching and practice.
Universalists emphasize the humanity of LGBT people to develop
genuine empathy for them. This is a uniquely different approach from
Christian conservatives who actively seek to undermine and prevent marriage
equality (Baunach, 2012; Goldberg-Hiller, 2009; Lodola and Corral, 2010;
Smith, 2005). The unconditional positive regard aspect of this approach is
quite different from the traditional Christian point of view, where one had to
be a good adherent to be positively regarded.
Universalists have a long history of positively and actively engaging with
LGBT activism. The acceptance of the LGBT community started as far back
as 1996 when the United States Unitarian Universalist General Assembly
voted with substantial majorities to perform same-sex ceremonies (Corvino
and Gallagher, 2012; Damslet, 1992; Kramer, 1996; Kreitzer, Hamilton,
and Tolbert, 2014). It was remarkable that a Christian denomination would
have such a result in a democratic process. The result would herald other
important milestones in the Universalist campaign to gain acceptance for
LGBT people.
All these developments show that universalists being ahead of their
times. These milestone votes were long before federal and state law had
started to legitimize these relationships (Hester and Gibson, 2007; Hogg,
2006; Hooghe and Meeusen, 2013; Hull, 2001, 2003; Hull and Hull, 2006).
That means that these ceremonies did not have the force of law and did not
accrue any legal benefits for the marriage, apart from the celebratory and
community aspects. LGBT people who underwent universalist ceremonies
were not protected by federal law, but at the very least, they could enjoy the
companionship and overt support of their Church.
Other parts of the world followed what was happening in the USA in
the Universalist communion. Similarly, Canadian Unitarian Universalist
congregations took the same liberal stance to LGBT communities (Brandzel,
2005; Gerstmann, 2017; Klarman, 2012; MacDougall, 2000; Sherkat, De
Vries, and Creek, 2010). The British congregation advocated for same-sex
marriage, even if unable to perform legally permissible ceremonies. Figure
5.4 summarizes the universalist principles upon which the acceptance of
LGBT couples is founded.
Figure 5.4: Perspectives of Unitarian Universalists and Unitarians on LGBT

communities.
Source: Pinterest.
The Universalist congregation has also ordained LGBT priests and
officers within the institution, hence cementing its reputation as a gay-friendly
Church (Beck, 2013; Berg, 2010; Bernstein and Taylor, 2013; Boertien and
Vignoli, 2019; Brandzel, 2005; Brewer and Wilcox, 2005). That acceptance
has come at the cost of being shunned by other more conservative Christian
denominations. Indeed, some refer to the Universalists as a cult without core
Christian principles.
The ordination of James Stoll in 1969 as the first gay minister was
controversial in the wider Christian community (Buchanan, 1984; Buffie,
2011; Cahill and Cahill, 2004; Chambers, 1997; Chamie and Mirkin, 2011;
Coolidge, 1997). However, the Universalists have been passing resolutions
that support people regardless of their orientation and identity. In fact, the
Universalists were one of the first to accept transgender people as part of
their clergy.
Services of union between LGBT couples have been performed in this
Church as far back as 1984 (Corvino and Gallagher, 2012; Damslet, 1992;
Kramer, 1996; Kreitzer, Hamilton, and Tolbert, 2014). The importance
of the Universalists is that they demonstrate the possibilities of accepting
LGBT people and yet remaining religious within the Christian communion.
However, the level of animosity that Universalists have faced from other
Christian denominations also demonstrates the dangers for any Christian
organization that seeks to welcome LGBT people with open arms. Unlike
Christianity, Islam is fairly consistent in its heterosexist views towards
same-sex marriages.
5.5. ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVES ON LGBT

COMMUNITIES
Most interpretations of Islam are unequivocal about the immorality and
illegality of same-sex relationships (Onuche, 2013; Pearl and Galupo,
2007; Pierceson, 2014; Pinello, 2006; Powell, Quadlin, and Pizmony-
Levy, 2015). Whereas this ideological consistency has been perceived to be
discriminatory, it has given the religious institution some stability. Muslims
have no qualms about denying the reality of LGBT people or their rights.
Public opinion shows that, if anything, Muslims are even more homophobic
than the wider communities in which they live.
Islam has come to be associated with intolerance towards LGBT people,
the only exception being a single Mosque in South Africa. It is not surprising
that in many areas where Islam dominates, homophobia, and transphobia
are on the rise (Lannutti, 2005, 2007; Lee and Hicks, 2011; Lenhardt,
2008; Lewis, 2005; Lewis and Gossett, 2008). For liberal Europeans, this
pattern is troubling, and some have called for stricter controls on Muslim
migrants. The fear is that Islam will turn other parts of the world into more
intolerant places through radicalization. Generally, Islamic nations have
not been welcoming to LGBT people and their fight for equality. That is not
to say that there are no Muslim-majority countries that have explored the
possibilities of legalizing same-sex marriage (Koppelman, 2014; Kramer,

1996; Kreitzer, Hamilton, and Tolbert, 2014; Lahey and Alderson, 2004;
Langbein and Yost, 2009). Examples include Tunisia, Albania, and Turkey.
Such patterns may indicate a glimmer of hope for LGBT people that they
may eventually be accepted in Muslim-majority countries.
Geopolitics has sometimes forced Muslim countries to moderate their
stance on homosexuality. Certainly, any country that harbors ambitions of
joining the European Union cannot be seen to be discriminating against
LGBT people (Eskridge, 1999; Fingerhut, Riggle, and Rostosky, 2011;
Flores, 2015; Franke, 2006; Gaines and Garand, 2010). Turkey is one such
country, and it is remarkable how the country has been at pains to demonstrate
its democratic values, ahead of a possible accession to the European Union.
It is important to understand that homophobia is not exclusive to the
Muslim community. For example, there are European countries such as
Poland and Hungary where there is a concerted effort to restrict LGBT rights
(Widiss, Rosenblatt, and NeJaime, 2007; Wight, LeBlanc, and Lee Badgett,
2013; Wilson, 2013). In these communities, the heterosexism is masked as
a protection of national heritage values. Interestingly, LGBT people seem to
be conspicuously excluded from that heritage.
In a democratic society, the government cannot be seen to be going
against the express wishes of its populace. One of the challenges for Muslim-
majority countries is that their populations are even more homophobic than
the state (Hull, 2001, 2003; Hull and Hull, 2006; Hunter, 2012; Josephson,
2005; Judge, Manion, and De Waal, 2008). Hence, it is virtually impossible
to pass LGBT rights based on a popular vote. LGBT advocacy groups argue
that this is a human right and should never be subjected to any democratic
vote. It is as ridiculous as suggesting that there should be a vote as to whether
slavery can be reintroduced.
Meanwhile, LGBT people must deal with challenging circumstances
in Muslim-majority countries. The advocates for same-sex marriage in
Muslim-majority countries are few and far-in-between (Rosenfeld, 2014;
Rothblum, 2005; Saez, 2011; Sanders, 2012; Schragger, 2005; Sherkat, De
Vries, and Creek, 2010). That means that it is possible to arrest, try, imprison,
and execute LGBT people with little international attention. Where some of
the more gruesome acts are filmed and clandestinely shared on social media;
the West shakes its head and rings its hands in frustration. Some of these
Muslim-majority countries are oil-rich and few Western powers are willing
to compromise their access to such a resource.
In Muslim-majority class, the entire establishments is virtually

uniformly anti-LGBT. For the most part, virtually all political parties will be
against LGBT rights to stand any chance of getting elected (Alderson, 2004;
Appleton, 2005; Auchmuty, 2004; Badgett, 2009; Ball, 2014, 2015; Barclay
and Fisher, 2003). As Figure 5.5 shows, some Muslim locations such as a
Turkey and Palestine have seen an increase of intolerance against LGBT
people. This is not an accident but is a reflection of the priorities of those
communities. Reformers are faced with the daunting prospect of trying to
change deeply entrenched views.
Figure 5.5: National diversities in the level of acceptance of homosexuality.
Source: BBC.
CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY
This chapter has briefly compared the religious perspectives on
homosexuality, including perspectives from Buddhist, Christian, and Islamic
traditions. LGBT people have responded in kind by moving away from

those institutions that do not respect their rights. Others have opted to stay
within those institutions and try changing them from within. Such efforts
have had a mixed record. The next chapter focuses on the institutionalized
homophobia that is emerging in Africa as a case in point.
CHAPTER 6
CASE STUDY OF INSTITUTIONALIZED

HOMOPHOBIA IN AFRICA
CONTENTS
6.1. Lgbt Rights in Africa......................................................................... 144
6.2. History of LGBT Communities in Africa........................................... 148
6.3. Case Study of Uganda and Kenya.................................................... 151
6.4. Schism in the Anglican Union Over Same-Sex Marriage.................. 157
6.5. Case Study of LGBT Rights in South Africa....................................... 163
Chapter 6 Summary................................................................................ 165
Recently, Africa has become an epicenter of homophobia and specific

legislation that seeks to set the cause of LGBT rights backwards. This chapter
seeks to examine the reasons behind this renewed effort to marginalize
LGBT communities. The first section will explore the history of LGBT
rights in Africa. The second section highlights the experiences of some
LGBT communities that exist in Africa. In the third section, we will explore
the case study of homophobia in Kenya and Uganda. The 4th section will
explore the potential schism of the Anglican communion over the African
stance on homosexuality. The chapter will then close with a more positive
outlook from South Africa in terms of LGBT rights.
6.1. LGBT RIGHTS IN AFRICA

For the most part, Africa has remained traditionally anti-LGBT in its social
and legal stance (Sanders, 2012; Schragger, 2005; Sherkat, De Vries, and
Creek, 2010; Sherkat et al., 2011; Shulman, Gotta, and Green, 2012).
However, such an assumption can be misleading. There are examples of
traditional African societies that were either not bothered about LGBT
people or alternatively included them in community life. The biggest
influence when turning Africans homophobic has been religion, whether
it is Christianity or Islam. Recently, the Pentecostal Church has continued
with the tradition to devastating effect for LGBT people.
Nevertheless, it important not to stereotype Africa without fully
understanding its context and diversity. For example, the assumption that
modern Africa is an entirely homophobic place may be misplaced. There
are exceptions such as Cape Verde and South Africa (Gher, 2007; Goldberg-
2013; Hull, 2001). Whereas LGBT people may not be welcomed with open
arms, they are not being threatened with death or public lynching. Some
of this reticence is partly due to Western authorities that have bulldozed
African governments into moderating their stance lest they lose foreign aid
budgets that are so vital to these struggling economies.
Many Africans are ashamed by the portrayal of the continent as a
backwater of LGBT rights. However, there are others that are proudly
homophobic, safe in the knowledge that most African nations, if not
African communities, are decidedly anti-LGBT (Hunter, 2012; Josephson,
2005; Judge, Manion, and De Waal, 2008; Kail, Acosta, and Wright, 2015;
Kandaswamy, 2008). Often, this homophobia is supported through reference
to Biblical texts. Even where governments moderate their stance to retain
Case Study of Institutionalized Homophobia in Africa 145
foreign aid, there is evidence that individual people are still as heterosexist
as ever.
This contrasts with the progression of LGBT rights in Western Europe,
the Americas, and Oceania (Gher, 2007; Goldberg-Hiller, 2009; Hester and
Gibson, 2007; Hogg, 2006; Hooghe and Meeusen, 2013; Hull, 2001). Africa
is lagging behind the world in LGBT rights, with the possible exception
of Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East which have even worse
records on these issues. Figure 6.1 is a summary of the situation of LGBT
rings in Africa, which compares very unfavorably with Europe, North
America, South America, and parts of Asia (Beck, 2013; Fingerhut, Riggle,
and Rostosky, 2011; Josephson, 2005; Lewis, 2005; Rosenfeld, 2014; Smith,
2005).
Figure 6.1: LGBT rights in Africa.

Source: Oxfam blogs.
The statistics on LGBT rights in Africa are startling, if not troubling.

Homosexuality has been outlawed in 34 out of 54 African states, with
many showing indications of wanting to outlaw homosexuality if there was
no international pressure against such a course of action (Sanders, 2012;
Schragger, 2005; Sherkat, De Vries, and Creek, 2010; Sherkat et al., 2011;
Shulman, Gotta, and Green, 2012).
The bans are fully supported by vast majorities in African countries.
Many members of these communities call for even more extreme measures
against LGBT people. In Uganda, for example, there was support for sacking
LGBT people, denying them housing, not serving them in shops, reporting
them to authorities, and intermittently imprisoning them.
Even where homosexuality is not outlawed, there will be other forms
of discrimination that hurt LGBT people. Such as is the case in the Central
African Republic and Benin, there is a distinct divide in the application
of certain laws which results in discrimination against LGBT people and
the simultaneous privileging of heterosexual people (Badgett, 2009; Cox,
Navarro-Rivera, and Jones, 2014; Hogg, 2006; Lahey and Alderson, 2004;
Onuche, 2013). In qualitative and even quantitative terms, the restrictions
on LGBT people mean that they are not full citizens in terms of enjoying
all the benefits that should arise out of that status. However, the government
can avoid scrutiny by claiming that there are no laws against LGBT people.
This community is then marginalized and hidden.
Other countries have not criminalized homosexuality. However, there
are still pockets of conservative activism that calls for such a ban. For
example, Rwanda, Mali, Equatorial Guinea, Niger, Ivory Coast, Djibouti,
Madagascar, Burkina Faso, and Benin have not criminalized homosexuality
(Pinello, 2006; Powell, Quadlin, and Pizmony-Levy, 2015; Rimmerman
and Wilcox, 2007; Rosenfeld, 2014; Rothblum, 2005). However, that does
not mean that it is socially accepted or that there is no discrimination.
Members of the wider community look down on LGBT people and take
every opportunity to marginalize them. Meanwhile, the state has no defined
strategy for responding to these issues in an affirming and positive way.
Other countries have decriminalized homosexuality including South
Africa, Angola, Mozambique, Cape Verde, Lesotho, Guinea-Bissau, Gabon,
Botswana, Seychelles, São Tomé, and Príncipe (Barclay and Fisher, 2003;
Gerstmann, 2017; Lewis, 2005; Shulman, Gotta, and Green, 2012). These
countries are a rarity in a continent where homophobia is taking root.
Once the evangelicals lit the fire on heterosexism in Africa, they withdrew
and watched the aftermath from the sidelines. Any attempt to hold them
accountable is met with vague reassurances about the need for Africans to
be allowed to make decisions about their lives without Western influences.
The overall outlook on African for LGBT rights is bleak, despite the
small pockets of liberal policy formulation (Lodola and Corral, 2010; Lupia
et al., 2010; MacDougall, 2000; McVeigh and Maria-Elena, 2009; Meezan
and Rauch, 2005). The population itself is largely supportive of these anti-
LGBT overtures. There are no specific support frameworks for helping those
that are being discriminated against. Even the traditional protections have
been degraded with time in the name of “modernity.” If anything, Africa is
trying to go back to the colonial era of anti-sodomy laws.
Africa is following the patterns of other deprived communities that
have turned on some members to mete out their frustrations. There have
been developing countries that have considered the option of outlawing
homosexuality as far back as 2005 (Lodola and Corral, 2010; Lupia et
al., 2010; MacDougall, 2000; McVeigh and Maria-Elena, 2009). These
overtures are presented as a means of protecting local culture from foreign
influences. Religious leaders are often at the heart of campaign. However,
these anti-LGBT initiatives can also be co-opted be co-opted by opportunistic
politicians who use them to distract the public.
For instance, some have argued that Africa’s problem is not a small
minority of LGBT people who are largely peaceful and going about their
lives (Badgett, 2009; Flores, 2015; Lannutti, 2007; Schragger, 2005). The
real enemies of Africa are the corrupt politicians who have frittered away
every natural resource of opportunity that the continent has. However,
politicians can be compelling in focusing minds on the LGBT community
as a common enemy. Hence, the society forgets its problems and scapegoats
the sexual minority that has been selected for targeting.
In response, developing countries started considering the option of
limiting budget support to countries that discriminate against LGBT people
since 2011 (Buchanan, 1984; Josephson, 2005; Pearl and Galupo, 2007;
Vanita, 2005). Whereas some see this as an example of neo-colonialism,
others see it as a necessary evil. The only langue that oppressive governments
listen to is that language that involves them losing power. Without budgetary
support to buy patronage, these regimes would collapse. Hence, the
moderation of some of the more violent responses to LGBT emancipation.
Many African countries have resisted the pressure to liberalize colonial-
era laws that criminalized homosexual, often with disproportionate and
inhuman punishments for those that are convicted (Judge, Manion, and De
Waal, 2008; Kail, Acosta, and Wright, 2015; Kandaswamy, 2008; Klarman,
2012). In some sense, this represents a regression. Whereas colonial laws were
meant to control the sexualities of the natives, the modern laws target sexual
minorities. The language of the colonial laws is dehumanizing to the LGBT
community. For example, it contains phrases such as “sexual intercourse
against the order of nature,” “unnatural acts,” “sodomy,” “pedophilia,” and
even “bestiality.” All these are designed to create an impression that LGBT
people are really beyond the pale.
There are politicians who have used homophobias as a campaign tool
(Lee and Hicks, 2011; Lenhardt, 2008; Lewis, 2005; Lewis and Gossett,
2008; Lodola and Corral, 2010; Lupia et al., 2010). In doing so, these
politicians have clocked homophobia as a protection of African-traditional
values. This is despite evidence to suggest that homosexuality has long been
an aspect of African communities. The fact that LGBT people are vulnerable
gives politicians the courage to attack them without fear.
Other countries have fallen prey to white evangelicals from the USA
who have exported the largely illegal homophobic policy from the USA to
Africa, where they have found fertile ground in a continent that is dominated
by religious fervor (Kogan, 2003; Koppelman, 1996, 1997, 2014; Kramer,
1996; Kreitzer, Hamilton, and Tolbert, 2014). The pressure from developed
nations to liberalize anti-LGBT laws has been viewed with suspicion,
yet another example of neo-colonialism in which white people try to tell
Africans how to believe and live. All this anti-LGBT action takes place in a
context where there are African citizens and residents that identify as LGBT
people. Such extreme reactions bely the reality that Africa has a long history
of LGBT communities with varying levels of acceptance.
6.2. HISTORY OF LGBT COMMUNITIES IN AFRICA

There have been LGBT communities that have existed in Africa, despite
the modern attempts to write them out of African society completely (Berg,
2010; Bernstein and Taylor, 2013; Boertien and Vignoli, 2019; Brandzel,
2005; Brewer and Wilcox, 2005; Brown, 1994). Ancient Egyptians had an
ambiguous view of homosexuality, however there is no doubt that LGBT
people existed within that society. A case in point are two high ranking
officials known as Khnum-Hotep and Nyankh-Khnum who served under
pharaoh Niuserre in the 5th Dynasty of c. 2494 to 2345 BC. Although
both men had their own wives and families, they were buried together in
one mastaba tomb. Examinations of that tomb have shown the two men
embracing and touching each other with their nose (a representation of a
kiss in ancient Egypt). In the kingdom of Buganda, King Mwanga II (1868–
1903) was said to engage in sexual contact with his male pages (Bernstein
and Taylor, 2013; Franke, 2006; Kail, Acosta, and Wright, 2015; Lodola and
Corral, 2010; Sanders, 2012). However, that charge is disputed because it
is colored by colonial narratives that sought to traduce Mwanga because of
his conflicts with the Christian missionaries. Mwanga resisted colonial rule
and was punished by being traduced as much as possible by the colonial
powers who wrested the history of the kingdom from the natives. Any
strong resistance to colonial rule would be met with extreme violence or
propaganda. Unfortunately, many of these disreputable tactics are now used
by modern-day rogue regimes in Africa.
A significant portion of the world has moved on from some of the worst
persecutions of LGBT people. Yet, many of the harsh penalties against
homosexuality in modern Africa (see Figure 6.2) are based on the myth that
this is a uniquely Western white culture and nonexistent in Africa (Sherkat,
De Vries, and Creek, 2010; Sherkat et al., 2011; Shulman, Gotta, and Green,
2012; Smith, DeSantis, and Kassel, 2006). There is a sense in which Africa
is regressing instead of progressing on these issues.
Figure 6.2: Penalties against LGBT people in Africa.
Source: The Economist.

There are other incidents of LGBT people and communities existing
in Africa, without some of the harsh reactions of the modern era (Cox,
Navarro-Rivera, and Jones, 2014; Damslet, 1992; Dorf, 2011; Ellison,

Acevedo, and Ramos‐Wada, 2011). Ethiopia Bieber (1909), for example,
describes a practice known as “Uranism” (sodomy) among the Semitic
Harari community. He also witnessed similar behavior among the Galla and
Somali. Specific cases of homoerotic practices included mutual masturbation.
Other researchers also describe behavior that could be classified as
being homoerotic. For example, Gamst (1969) reported homosexuality
among the shepherd boys that came from the Cushitic-speaking Qemant
of central Ethiopia (Olson, Cadge, and Harrison, 2006; Onuche, 2013;
Pearl and Galupo, 2007; Pierceson, 2014; Pinello, 2006). Messing (1957)
reported male transvestites (known as “God’s mistakes”) among the Amhara
peasants.
Modern-day African countries may be reluctant to acknowledge their
homosexual citizens. However, there is evidence of their existence. For
example, some Maale men of Ethiopia took on feminine roles including
sexual intercourse with other men (Badgett, 2009; Flores, 2015; Lannutti,
2007; Schragger, 2005). Needham (1973) reported men wearing women’s
clothing among the Meru of Kenya, hence taking on a leadership role during
certain rites and rituals. These men were often homosexuals and sometimes
even married male partners.
Bryk (1964) spoke of insertive pederasts among the Kikuyu (Franke,
Hiller, 2009; Hester and Gibson, 2007). There were also homoerotic
bachelors in the Nandi and Maragoli. These examples demonstrate that
LGBT community existed on the continent. Moreover, they were far from
the pariahs that they are treated as in modern times. It is just that society has
constructed a new reality in which LGBT people are either absent or evil.
Sometimes the experiences of LGBT people in Africa were fraught
with violence and fear (Beck, 2013; Hester and Gibson, 2007; Lupia et al.,
2010; Smith, 2007). A case in point are the reports that the Roman emperor
Constantine exterminated many effeminate priests in 4th century Alexandria.
These stories help in demystifying the experiences of LGBT people. It also
reduces the impact of historical idealization in which there is a fantasy of
a gentler world that existed before. Like in many other parts of the world,
homosexuality was unusual and was treated with suspicion.
Stories of visible stories of homosexuality in North Africa are to be found
in many treatises on African-modern history (Boertien and Vignoli, 2019;
Gaines and Garand, 2010; Kandaswamy, 2008; Lupia et al., 2010; Schragger,
2005). This was particularly prevalent during the era of Mamluk rule. There
was Arabic poetry in literate and cosmopolitan societies which described the
pleasures of pederastic relationships. It is clear that homosexuality or the
notion of same-sex attraction was deeply embedded in these cultures despite
attempts to present it as a modern invention from foreign sources.
Indeed, stories have emerged of Christian boys being sent from Europe to
be deployed as sex workers in Egypt (Lewis and Gossett, 2008; Lodola and
Corral, 2010; Lupia et al., 2010; MacDougall, 2000; McVeigh and Maria-
Elena, 2009). Cairo had reports of cross-dressing men who would entertain
guests with dancing and singing. The Siwa Oasis was strongly associated
with homosexuality for travelers. In all these stories, there is some element
of exploitation. LGBT people are objectified and sensationalized as sources
of sexual pleasure. Those same narratives have seeped into the modern age
where LGBT people are suspected of being incurably promiscuous and
riddled with dangerous diseases.
Some sources indicated that the homosexuality of sections of the
community in historical Africa would try to mimic the traditional heterosexual
marriage. This was done in a ritualistic sense. For example, there was a
group of warriors in the Siwa Oasis that paid dowry for younger men until
the practice was outlawed in the 1940s (Brewer and Wilcox, 2005; Kogan,
2003; Smith, 2007; Walls, 2010). The Nuba tribes in Sudan and the Otoro
experienced transvestic behavior. All this is evidence of a community that
knew of LGBT people and lived with them in relative harmony. That is until
an evangelical revival turned Africa into a hostile place for LGBT people.
Uganda and Kenya two of those countries that were caught up in the fervor.
6.3. CASE STUDY OF UGANDA AND KENYA

Until recently, Uganda was a relatively permissive space for LGBT people
(Strasser, 2018; Sullivan, 2004; Tamagawa, 2016; Trandafir, 2014; Trosino,
1993; Vanita, 2005; Walls, 2010; Wardle, 1996). Indeed, many of the laws
against LGBT people are on the statute books because of colonial legislatures.
However, the precolonial times had incidences of homosexuality or even
homoeroticism. It is precisely because of this reason that the colonial
authorities sought to control the sexuality of Africans whom they assumed
to be overly sexualized. There was a belief that the preoccupation with sex
might prevent the natives from doing the work that the colonial masters had
allocated to them. This is even though LGBT people had been part of the
African community. There are many examples of LGBT people being part of
the community(Barker, 2012; Gher, 2007; Lewis and Gossett, 2008; Smith,
DeSantis, and Kassel, 2006). For example, the Langi had effeminate males
and some even played religious roles among the Banyoro. In the Buganda
kingdom, young male pages entertained the elite. Homosexuality was only
criminalized in 1902 and many of the anti-LGBT laws date back to that area.
That is not to say that LGBT people were widely embraced or that it was
the norm. These were overwhelmingly heterosexual societies. However, the
kind of virulent homophobia that is a current feature of African society was
not pronounced in those early traditional African societies.
Recently, Uganda has experienced an evangelical reawakening that
was inspired by rightwing pastors from the USA (Badgett, 2009; Flores,
2015; Lannutti, 2007; Schragger, 2005). These pastors had been prominent
actors in the bruising culture wars that have been taking place in the USA
for the past half-century. Eventually, it became untenable to deny LGBT
people their rights. The courts sided with the LGBT community. Although
not definitively won, the cultural wars seemingly favor the liberals in the
USA. These pastors identified Africa as an alternative to fight out cultural
wars. Here was fertile ground with a largely under-exposed population with
a tiny fraction of LGBT people who were mostly in the closet. It was a much
easier battle to win that dealing with the highly organized American LGBT
activists that had forced Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton to pay attention to
the HIV/AIDS crisis in America.
Consequently, the government was persuaded to pass an anti-
homosexuality act in 2014 whose provisions were extreme (MacDougall,
2000; McVeigh and Maria-Elena, 2009; Meezan and Rauch, 2005; Moskowitz,
Rieger, and Roloff, 2010). A close examination of the legislation proved it
to be a pernicious mixture of religious fervor and a clear misunderstanding
of what it means to be an LGBT person. The legislation was critiqued for
its extreme measures and haphazard preparation. However, the originator
of the legislation was roundly praised in the local community as a savior
of traditional African values. Nevertheless, some skeptical commentators
suspected that this was an attempt to shore up public support against a
common enemy in the form of LGBT people whilst the government could
mask its incompetence and brutality.
On the international stage, there was an outcry. However, that outcry
was steeped in colonial superior and met a negative response from the local
populace. The Western powers exerted economic and diplomatic pressure
on the government (Lannutti, 2007; Lee and Hicks, 2011; Lenhardt, 2008;
Lewis, 2005; Lewis and Gossett, 2008; Lodola and Corral, 2010). This was
a strategic masterstroke because the government was heavily dependent

on foreign aid to run its vast network of patronage. Although the political
leadership presented with bravado to the effect that the country had enough
resources to cover the budget holes, the writing was on the wall for the
legislation.
The president advised the enraged parliament to hold back on the bill
so as not to scamper the “development” of the nation. An uncomfortable
impasse continued with harsh rhetoric on both sides (Ellison, Acevedo,
and Ramos‐Wada, 2011; Eskridge, 1993, 1999; Fingerhut, Riggle, and
Rostosky, 2011). There were outrages such as a tabloid newspaper that listed
“top gays” in the country. Many fled into exile. Meanwhile, Uganda was in
danger of acquiring a debilitating reputation for homophobia internationally.
The tourist sector was in danger. The politicians decided on a graceful exist
using technicalities without disappointing the local population that was by
now clamoring for the lynching of “gays.”
Eventually, the Supreme Court overturned that law on technicalities
(Barker, 2012; Eskridge, 1993; Hull and Hull, 2006; Lee and Hicks, 2011;
Powell, Quadlin, and Pizmony-Levy, 2015). This saved the blushes of the
administration which could engage in plausible deniability on account of a
reluctant court that had prevented them from implementing the will of the
people. The reality is that the political class in Uganda had underestimated
the fervor of the global LGBT community in putting pressure on powerful
governments to punish Uganda. Later, parliament clandestinely included
anti-LGBT clauses in another law relating to sexual offenses. It remains to
be seen whether this act will be signed into law. The problems brought on
by the Covid-19 pandemic means that the government has so many other
priorities to deal with and is unlikely to entangle itself with another fight
with the international LGBT lobby.
Kenya faces similar forces to Uganda, albeit with less international
attention (Saez, 2011; Sanders, 2012; Schragger, 2005; Sherkat, De Vries,
and Creek, 2010; Sherkat et al., 2011). The first foreign influence on the
perspectives towards LGBT people were the religious doctrines that had
been imported by Persian and Arab traders. Later, Portuguese and Omani
settlers brought their own religious inclinations and culture. For different
reasons, the colonization of Kenya was deeper and more controlled when
compared to Uganda even though the two countries neighbor each other.
When Christian missionaries arrived, they started to disseminate an anti-
LGBT gospel in Kenya (Kramer, 1996; Kreitzer, Hamilton, and Tolbert,
2014; Lahey and Alderson, 2004; Langbein and Yost, 2009). Hence, the
incidences of cross-gender homosexuality in traditional societies became
taboo. Societies that had previously been tolerant were now encouraged to
shun LGBT people. The laws that were put in place were designed to control
everything about the natives, including their sexuality. This was based on
colonial assumptions that African people were somehow subhuman and
deserving of subjugation by the seemingly more advanced Europeans.
Between 1895 and 1963, the colonial government instituted many
anti-sodomy laws that were fashioned on Victorian values of moral
chastity (Boertien and Vignoli, 2019; Brandzel, 2005; Brewer and Wilcox,
2005; Brown, 1994; Buchanan, 1984; Buffie, 2011). All these laws were
supported by and sometimes informed by European Christian missionaries.
The missionaries considered these laws appropriate because they were
consistent with their own interpretation of the Bible. However, the laws also
served to subjugate and control the population in such a way that it would be
susceptible to the message of the gospel. People who are suffering under the
yoke of colonialism may look favorably upon a savior that promises to take
them out of their misery with the possibility of eternal life.
Eventually, the Kenyans had enough of the colonialists. They had seen
through their hypocrisies and misdeeds (Ball, 2014; Franke, 2006; Lee and
Hicks, 2011; Sherkat, De Vries, and Creek, 2010). Calls for independence
were followed by violent struggles. A notable example was the Mau Mau
rebellion which forced European settlers into unspeakable acts of personal
degradation. After some resistance, the British government relented and
Kenya was free of the colonialist, if only on the surface. Like many other
countries, Kenyan remained a dependent on international aid and therefore
subject to patronizing directives from the old colonial masters. In turn,
local politicians invariably presented themselves as worthy custodians of
the independence movement. Part of this assumed role was in buffering
the population against the onslaught of colonial directives via international
institutions. Following independence, virtually all the anti-sodomy laws were
retained by Jomo Kenyatta who argued that since there was no formal word
for homosexuality in the African language, it was a foreign phenomenon
(Hogg, 2006; Hooghe and Meeusen, 2013; Hull, 2001, 2003; Hull and Hull,
2006; Hunter, 2012; Josephson, 2005). Similarly, homophobic statements
were made by President Moi, who took over. Some of the more outrageous
homophobic acts involve the public “outing” of people in major newspapers
and tabloids, which exposes them to violence (see Figure 6.3 for an example).
Figure 6.3: Case study of public outing of LGBT people in Kenyan media.
Source: New Internationalist.

One of the consequences of marginalizing LGBT people has been a rapid
rise in HIV/AIDS since these people are denied access to basic healthcare
(Onuche, 2013; Pearl and Galupo, 2007; Pierceson, 2014; Pinello, 2006;
Powell, Quadlin, and Pizmony-Levy, 2015). This is a self-defeating
approach that puts the rest of the community at risk since people who are
not treated are highly infectious. Besides, the extreme social condemnation
of LGBT people means that many of them are in the closet. Those that opt
to engage in sham marriages place their spouses at risk of contracting HIV/
AIDS, which is at pandemic levels within the LGBT community.
Extensive research was undertaken to highlight the futility of the
policy that had been adopted by the Kenyan government. Indeed, there
were harrowing stories of situational and exploitative homosexuality in
which men were exchanging sexual favors with other men to acquire fish
(Powell, Quadlin, and Pizmony-Levy, 2015; Rimmerman and Wilcox,
2007; Rosenfeld, 2014; Rothblum, 2005; Saez, 2011). The harsh rhetoric
and restrictive laws were not stopping people from being LGBT. On the
contrary, they were driving people underground and creating a dangerous
situation. The background to this seemingly foolhardy approach to policy
was an injection of Pentecostal religious fervor. At the close of the century,

there was renewed hostility to the LGBT community in Kenya and many
organizations were established for the purpose of preventing same-sex
marriage (Damslet, 1992; Dorf, 2011; Ellison, Acevedo, and Ramos‐Wada,
2011; Eskridge, 1993, 1999). Those that called for discrimination against
LGBT people were following the same script as Uganda by quoting the
Bible. The public was generally even more homophobic than the state.
Hence, it made political sense for politicians to assuage the raging masses
by enacting laws that would tighten the noose on LGBT people.
Others were explicitly organized to intimidate and harass LGBT people
(McVeigh and Maria-Elena, 2009; Meezan and Rauch, 2005; Moskowitz,
Rieger, and Roloff, 2010). It was no longer safe to be an LGBT person in
Kenya. Vigilantes could attack suspected “gays” at any moment. The Non-
Governmental Organizations that had been protecting this community were
severely curtailed. The authorities did not seem interested in investigated
this type of hate crime. The reality was that the space for LGBT people in
Kenya was narrowing by the day.
The government put policies in place to oppress LGBT people and
prevent them from ever expressing themselves freely. These were countered
by other organizations that advocated for the rights of LGBT people (Trosino,
1993; Vanita, 2005; Walls, 2010; Wardle, 1996; Webb and Chonody, 2014;
Wedgwood, 1999; Widiss, Rosenblatt, and NeJaime, 2007). They were calls
for colonial laws to be tightened up even more so that any loopholes could
not be used to protect LGBT people.
That is not to say that there were no organizations, people, and
communities that were fighting for LGBT rights in Kenya. A notable
example is the Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Kenya, which was founded
in 2006 (Brewer and Wilcox, 2005; Hull and Hull, 2006; Olson, Cadge,
and Harrison, 2006; Trandafir, 2014). The US government has been at
the forefront of advocating for the rights of LGBT people in Kenya. For
example, it hosted the first LGBT pride event in Kenya on the 26th of June
2012. This gave confidence to LGBT people that no matter how harsh the
rhetoric was, the government was never going to be able to exterminate
them. Even when the Supreme Court declined to help them, LGBT people
continued with their advocacy work.
The two cases of Uganda and Kenya show the resilience of the LGBT
community in pursuit of same-sex marriage and other equalities (McVeigh
and Maria-Elena, 2009; Meezan and Rauch, 2005; Moskowitz, Rieger, and
Roloff, 2010). The harsh realities of operating in Africa have not stopped
LGBT advocates from constantly pushing the boundaries. Africa has been
prominent in other controversies surrounding LGBT people. One such case
is the schism of the Anglican Church over the treatment of homosexuality.
6.4. SCHISM IN THE ANGLICAN UNION OVER

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
The debates concerning same-sex marriage have led to many conflicts, one
of the high-profile ones being within the Anglican communion (Goldberg-
2013; Hull, 2001, 2003). This was one of the longstanding communions
which had resisted attempts to disestablish it in some countries. However,
the failure to reconcile doctrine with the realities of an LGBT community
meant that the Church had to make some difficult decisions. One possible
decision was to separate the conservatives from the liberals to have some
peace in the congregation.
The divisions are so significant that many are talking about the possibility
of a schism between the more conservative wings (Africa and parts of
the development world) and the more liberal wings (Europe and North
America). The conflict started as far back as 1990 when some advocates
were calling for same-sex marriages (Barker, 2012; Baunach, 2012; Beck,
2013; Berg, 2010; Bernstein and Taylor, 2013; Boertien and Vignoli, 2019).
The traditionalists were reluctant to break away but felt that they could no
longer be in communion with a church that was not clear about its position
on homosexuality.
The conservative members of the Church felt that if such marriages
were allowed, they would eventually overtake the place once occupied by
traditional Christian marriage (Langbein and Yost, 2009; Lannutti, 2005,
2007; Lee and Hicks, 2011; Lenhardt, 2008; Lewis, 2005). This was an
outcome deemed to be unacceptable and an imminent danger to the traditional
Christian family. Critics argued that the traditional Christian marriage was
going fast out of fashion and could not be imposed on a society that was
increasingly non-conforming. One of the indicators of these changes was
the fact more and more young people were opting to cohabit rather than
taking on marriage.
One of the challenges for the Church was that it had such a good job in
proselytizing in the colonies that there were more members in Africa than
in Europe. As Figure 6.4 shows, Africans dominate the global Anglican

Communion despite their generally more conservative views on LGBT
rights (Smith, 2005, 2007; Soule, 2004; Strasser, 2018; Sullivan, 2004;
Tamagawa, 2016; Trandafir, 2014). The implication was that the Church
could not afford to completely alienate this part of the community. If it
decided to go with the European version of Christianity, it could potentially
lose the strong congregations in Africa. The message of intolerance towards
LGBT people had been so effectively disseminated in Africa that it was now
impossible to reverse course without causing a major schism.
Figure 6.4: Africans in the Anglican community.
Source: BBC.
The Anglican leadership has since been struggling to reconcile the
various factions (Appleton, 2005; Auchmuty, 2004; Badgett, 2009; Ball,
2014, 2015; Barclay and Fisher, 2003; Barker, 2012). It had been accused of
being either neglectful or complicit in the gradual erosion of Christian values
in Europe. Others felt that the idea of a global Anglican church was outdated
since the congregation was so diverse. It would be difficult to reconcile
all the differences in the regions. The fact that the leader was always the
Archbishop of Canterbury also rankled with African congregations who felt
that this was yet another colonial institution that was refusing to let go of
Africa.
Some of the solutions suggested, such as lifetime celibacy, have angered
the LGBT community and not satisfied the Christian Right (Lannutti, 2007;
Lee and Hicks, 2011; Lenhardt, 2008; Lewis, 2005; Lewis and Gossett,
2008; Lodola and Corral, 2010). Those that were living in Europe and North
America felt that they had struggled too much to acquire freedoms that they
were not willing to sacrifice to appease congregations in Africa. There was a
feeling that Africa was incurably heterosexist, and it was not worthwhile to
try to “civilize” the continent. The critics of African traditions and practices
failed to fully acknowledge the role that the European missionaries had
played in spreading a particular brand of Christianity.
Initially, the position was clear cut following the 13th Lambeth
Conference of 1998 when a resolution was passed rejecting homosexual
practice as being incompatible with Scripture (Brewer and Wilcox, 2005;
Kogan, 2003; Smith, 2007; Walls, 2010). Whereas such a resolution would
satisfy the conservatives, it was bound to annoy the liberals. There would
only be a brief respite before they were calls for the resolution to be clarified.
It was not even certain that such a resolution would not fall foul of European
equality legislation. The Church was on the horns of a dilemma that was
very hard to overcome.
The next challenge was in nuancing the rejection so that it would “hate
the sin but love the sinner” (Rothblum, 2005; Saez, 2011; Sanders, 2012;
Schragger, 2005; Sherkat, De Vries, and Creek, 2010; Sherkat et al., 2011).
This was an old compromise that had achieved the unique position of annoying
all sides but the middle. Conservatives felt that it was not a strong enough
condemnation of homosexuality. Liberals felt that it was an outrageous
form of self-deceit in which the Church could pretend that its discrimination
against LGBT people could be separated from its consequences. Indeed,
many of the people that purported to “love the sinner,” ended up hateful
things to that “sinner.”
It was becoming clear that the Church was not clear as to how to
navigate this sensitive issue. However, the Anglican Communion had
temporarily sided with the conservatives in rejecting the LGBT community.
Such a rejection risked alienating all LGBT Christians, their friends, allies,
and families (Auchmuty, 2004; Corvino and Gallagher, 2012; Hester
and Gibson, 2007; Kreitzer, Hamilton, and Tolbert, 2014). Indeed, some
previous members of the Church felt that this rejection of LGBT people
represented the pinnacle of the intolerance, hypocrisy, and bigotry of the
Church. Many felt that the values of the Church no longer chimed with
their personal beliefs. Others felt betrayed by a seemingly feeble clergy
that was willing to move with any winds. Many defected because they felt
that they had no place in the Church. They then came to the conclusion
that the faith was no longer compatible with their personal values, and they
could not accept the compromises that were being offered (Kandaswamy,
2008; Klarman, 2012; Kogan, 2003; Koppelman, 1996, 1997, 2014). The
mainstream Anglican community was not very proactive in preventing these
defections. Part of their confidence was in the African communion that was
steady, if perhaps challenged by the new Pentecostal movements that were
poaching its congregations.
Many drifted to more liberal sects and denominations, while others
became atheist or agnostic (Hull, 2003; Hull and Hull, 2006; Hunter,
2012; Josephson, 2005; Judge, Manion, and De Waal, 2008; Kail, Acosta,
and Wright, 2015). These sects had been consistently supportive of the
LGBT community. Whereas the mainstream Church dismissed them
as cults, their growing numbers threatened the long-term future of the
Anglican Communion. Nowhere was this more felt than among the younger
generations who voted with their feet.
Younger people were moving to more liberal religions such as Buddhism
or joining liberal churches such as the Universalists (Boertien and Vignoli,
2019; Brandzel, 2005; Brewer and Wilcox, 2005; Brown, 1994; Buchanan,
1984; Buffie, 2011). Without a young generation, any religious institution
is bound to eventually fade away. One possible solution is to embrace that
segment of the young population that was even more radical than the older
generations on issues of human sexuality. That strategy was not particularly
helpful since it would radicalize the Church even more than it already is.
Besides, some argued that the Lambeth resolution was not legally binding
and could not have the force of law in every jurisdiction. Indeed, to continue
discriminating against LGBT people could potentially be illegal in some
jurisdictions (Chamie and Mirkin, 2011; Klarman, 2012; Rimmerman and
Wilcox, 2007; Wedgwood, 1999). That then created a potentially unenviable
situation in which the Anglican Church was legislating for its UK base and
completely neglecting the other congregations in the former colonies. The
ultimate impact would be to separate the Church even if that is not what the
traditionalists wanted.
Despite the resolutions, several Churches have consequently celebrated
same-sex relationships, including the national Churches of Canada, New
Zealand, South India, South Africa, and Brazil (Baunach, 2012; Goldberg-
Hiller, 2009; Lodola and Corral, 2010; Smith, 2005). This is a reflection
of the strong local priorities which valued LGBT people. These Anglican
Churches have developed a formula that is suited to the context. Yet, another
problem arose with conservative churches in Africa demanding that Lambeth

strengthens its support for traditional Christian marriage and implement a
total ban on same-sex weddings.
Some liberal churches such as the Episcopal Church have supported
LGBT rights and even conducted LGBT ceremonies (Trandafir, 2014;
Trosino, 1993; Vanita, 2005; Walls, 2010; Wardle, 1996; Webb and
Chonody, 2014). Such an action has attracted condemnation from the more
conservative groups in Africa who feel that they cannot be in communion
when there is a fundamental disagreement over same-sex relationships.
The conservatives saw this as a betrayal of the gospel and responded by
becoming even more entrenched in their views.
There are serious doctrinal and practical differences which make it
nearly impossible to administer the Anglican Communion as one institution
(Alderson, 2004; Chamie and Mirkin, 2011; Gher, 2007; Koppelman, 2014;
Moskowitz, Rieger, and Roloff, 2010). The Church had traditionally relied
on a consensus that was on the verge of being broken. Besides, the Anglican
headquarters in the UK no longer had as much control as they used to have
during colonial times. The African Church was developing away from its
traditional subservience to Lambeth. Inevitably there would be a collision
of values and practices.
There were legitimate complaints about liberals in Europe trying to
impose their values on Africans. For instance, African Christians complain
about giving up polygyny or polygamy despite it being embedded within
African culture (Pearl and Galupo, 2007; Pierceson, 2014; Pinello, 2006;
Powell, Quadlin, and Pizmony-Levy, 2015). Africans had effectively given
up their traditional religions when they converted to Christianity. The
missionaries had been careful to paint anything that was African as being
evil and against the purpose of God. Now that Europeans had reformed their
own thinking on marriage, they were imposing that thinking on African
congregations against their will.
Africans had embraced the Anglican Church to an even greater extent
than its origins. Many had abandoned their families to enter a Christian
union. They did this to obey the Christian imperative to marry one spouse at
a time (Josephson, 2005; Judge, Manion, and De Waal, 2008; Kail, Acosta,
and Wright, 2015; Kandaswamy, 2008). This was despite their personal
preferences and their cultural upbringing which allowed polygamy. The
Church was in danger of being identified as a colonial agent refusing to
accept that the landscape had changed.
Local Pentecostal churches were taking full advantage of the new pan
Africanist fervor to call for a schism away from the traditional Anglican
Church. Those who had remained faithful to the Church were seeing betrayal
in its failure to defend their beliefs. Hence, African conservatives see a
double standard and excusing the LGBT community for refusing to give up
aspects of their sexuality to remain consistent with Scripture (Cox, Navarro-
Rivera, and Jones, 2014; Damslet, 1992; Dorf, 2011; Ellison, Acevedo,
and Ramos‐Wada, 2011). The Church was not providing clear answers to
challenging questions. Instead, it was presenting muddled compromises that
virtually annoyed all the parties involved.
Then there were nuances about acceptance of same-sex people without
allowing them to be married. The conservatives were clear about the “gay
lifestyle” not being compatible with scripture. Others are more willing to
welcome LGBT people but are unwilling to extend that welcome to marriage
(Lupia et al., 2010; MacDougall, 2000; McVeigh and Maria-Elena, 2009;
Meezan and Rauch, 2005). Depending on location, people could get entirely
different perspectives on marriage. This inconsistency was weakening the
Church and making it ripe for a major collapse.
Conservatives may be cognizant of the wins that the liberal wing has
achieved. However, they feel that same-sex marriage is a compromise too far.
They argue that marriage is such a sacred institution that it must be protected
in a special way even if that course of action means excluding LGBT people
from the institution (Vanita, 2005; Walls, 2010; Wardle, 1996; Webb and
Chonody, 2014; Wedgwood, 1999; Widiss, Rosenblatt, and NeJaime, 2007).
The Anglican Church has so far not been able to identify convincing areas
of commonality. Instead, there is an ongoing conflict between the various
ideological factions within the institution.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that there is no monolithic aversion
to LGBT people in Africa since there are pockets of relative tolerance (Cahill
and Cahill, 2004; Kail, Acosta, and Wright, 2015; Pinello, 2006; Wardle,
1996). Individuals and communities may opt to support LGBT people,
even if they do so in clandestine circumstances. It is true that most African
countries are unfriendly to LGBT people. However, there are exceptions
that merit further exploration. One such exception is South Africa, a case
study that will close this chapter.
6.5. CASE STUDY OF LGBT RIGHTS IN

SOUTH AFRICA
South Africa was the first and leading African country to offer rights to LGBT
people (Berg, 2010; Flores, 2015; Judge, Manion, and De Waal, 2008; Lewis
and Gossett, 2008; Rothblum, 2005; Saez, 2011). This is a position that has
bolstered the country’s image as the most advanced nation on the continent.
It has also given credence to those that aspired to the rainbow nation vision
of inclusivity. Nevertheless, there is an undercurrent of homophobia which
the Church has found difficult to eliminate. Harrowing examples include
corrective rape that is meted out to lesbians to turn them into heterosexuals.
Nevertheless, the histories of LGBT people in South Africa are rich and
complex (Rothblum, 2005; Saez, 2011; Sanders, 2012; Schragger, 2005;
Sherkat, De Vries, and Creek, 2010; Sherkat et al., 2011). The country has
been through many upheavals and the stories of LGBT people are part of
that struggle. South Africa demonstrates the challenges of trying to achieve
perfection in an imperfect world. The struggle for equality is an ongoing one
in South Africa despite the wonderful achievements recorded so far.
It is not true to claim, as some have done, that homosexuality is a
Western import. There is a diverse and complex history of sexualities in
that country. Some of that history includes situational homosexuality in
mines and a colonial mindset that sought to control Black African people,
including their sexuality (Gerstmann, 2017; Gher, 2007; Goldberg-Hiller,
2009; Hester and Gibson, 2007; Hogg, 2006; Hooghe and Meeusen, 2013).
Indeed, the apartheid regime was so concerned by the so-called aberrant
sexual proclivities of their African subordinates. A deliberate and extensive
system of control was imposed.
Despite all these challenges and restrictions, there is a significant
contingent of LGBT people in South Africa. Current estimates show
that between 0.5 and 2 million South Africans identify as being lesbian,
gay, bisexual, or transgender (Shulman, Gotta, and Green, 2012; Smith,
DeSantis, and Kassel, 2006; Smith, 2005, 2007). These are people that
contribute to the well-being of the nation and are deserving of consideration
when making national policy. South Africa has been a pioneer on inclusive
sexualities. In Figure 6.5, we see the first openly gay Imam in South Africa.
Such progressive views on homosexuality are virtually nonexistent in
Africa (Berg, 2010; Hogg, 2006; MacDougall, 2000; Soule, 2004). This is a
prominent case of the country deciding to buck the trend of homophobia and
heterosexist legislation that is sweeping Africa.
Figure 6.5: South Africa’s first gay Imam.
Source: The World Economic Forum.

The resultant attitudes and behaviors towards LGBT people are informed
by traditional mores, folkways, colonial influences, and the aftermath of an
apartheid regime that sought to dehumanize Black South Africans (Widiss,
Wilson, 2013). Lately, those responses have been heavily influenced by
a vibrant human rights advocacy industry with man non-governmental
organizations calling for marriage equality and the elimination of sex-
based, homophobic, and racial discrimination. The presence of a supportive
constitution is important in achieving these changes.
Moreover, South Africa has had to cope with the scourge of AIDS in ways
that necessitated the inclusion of LGBT people in health response strategies
(Walls, 2010; Wardle, 1996; Webb and Chonody, 2014; Wedgwood, 1999;
Widiss, Rosenblatt, and NeJaime, 2007). It is notable that in the post-
apartheid era, South Africa enacted a constitution that was the very first
in the world to outlaw discrimination against LGBT people. Indeed, the
country was the 5th in the world to legalize same-sex marriage. This was a
pragmatic and practical response to a public health crisis. Of course, Soth
Africa is still struggling with HIV/AIDS. However, there are protections for
LGBT people who are in this predicament, unlike in other African countries
where they are shunned and denied their basic rights.
All these steps were sometimes marred by the existence of homophobic
sentiments and act, including so-called corrective rape (Brown, 1994;
Koppelman, 1996; Soule, 2004; Wardle, 1996; Wight, LeBlanc, and Lee
Badgett, 2013). The South African government continues in its efforts to
ensure equal access to reproductive health services, including IVF treatment
and surrogacy. South African same-sex couples can have joint adoptions.
Individuals in South Africa may hold homophobic views and even mete out
violence against members of the LGBT community. Nevertheless, the law
offers some prima facie protection to these communities. The challenge is in
ascertaining whether those protections are sufficient.
Moreover, it is illegal to discriminate against LGBT people based on
their orientation, sexuality, identity, and preference in areas such as service
provision and employment (Saez, 2011; Sanders, 2012; Schragger, 2005;
Sherkat, De Vries, and Creek, 2010; Sherkat et al., 2011). Those LGBT
people living outside the major conurbations continue to face challenges,
including homophobic violence and endemic rates of HIV/AIDS. When
compared to the rest of Africa, South Africa remains a lone beacon of
LGBT rights. There have been calls for laws to be tightened up to reflect
homophobic sentiments within the country and Africa as a whole. However,
the government has resisted such efforts so far.
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY
This chapter has shown that whereas Africa is currently the epicenter of
a homophobic awakening, the continent has always had some LGBT
communities. By comparing the experiences of LGBT people in Kenya,
Uganda, and South Africa, it becomes clear that the present homophobia
is partly whipped up by colonial influences, religion, and political
considerations. South Africa shows that it is possible to include LGBT
people without creating a complete breakdown of society. The next chapter
explores notions of same-sex marriage.
CHAPTER 7
THE NOTION OF SAME-SEX

MARRIAGE
CONTENTS
7.1. The Status of Same-Sex Couples Today............................................. 168
7.2. Historical Progression Towards Same-Sex Marriage.......................... 171
7.3. Global Treatment of Same-Sex Marriage.......................................... 173
7.4. Case Study of the Same-Sex Marriage in the United Kingdom.......... 177
7.5. Case Study of the Same-Sex Marriage in the USA............................ 179
Chapter 7 Summary................................................................................ 182
This chapter explores the meanings and connotations associated with same-
sex marriage. The first section focuses on the contemporary lives of same-
sex couples. The second section summarizes the historical progression
towards same-sex marriage. The third section summarizes certain responses
to same-sex marriage across the globe. In the 4th section, we explore the
implementation of same-sex marriage in the UK. This is then compared to a
similar process in the USA to close the chapter.
7.1. THE STATUS OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TODAY

Some same-sex couples have been able to achieve marriage equality
through significant advocacy work (Cahill and Cahill, 2004; McVeigh and
Maria-Elena, 2009; Tamagawa, 2016; Webb and Chonody, 2014). In doing
so, these couples have sometimes had to rely on straight allies to engage a
skeptical public that may be deeply entrenched in the sexist and homophobic
cultures. The ability for LGBT people to express themselves and lead the
lives they choose has sometimes been subjected to a democratic process
that is predestined to disadvantage them. It is impossible to achieve equality
when the people that are voting on the issue are even more homophobic than
the state which seeks to retain the status quo.
At other times, governments have sought to achieve marriage equality,
but then been prevented from doing so by the fear of alienating a conservative
majority that can overturn electoral wins (Hester and Gibson, 2007; Hogg,
2006; Hooghe and Meeusen, 2013; Hull, 2001, 2003; Hull and Hull, 2006).
Then there are situations in which the public has had a conscious awakening
about the injustices meted out to LGBT people. Hence, there has been a
systematic acceptance of LGBT lifestyles that is then followed by validation
through legal same-sex marriage. Figure 7.1 summarizes the advance of
same-sex marriage rights across the globe. Clearly, Africa is lagging behind
the Americas, Australia, and Northern Europe when it comes to LGBT rights.
The Notion of Same-Sex Marriage 169
Figure 7.1: State of same-sex marriage across the globe.
Source: Council on Foreign Relations.

It is nevertheless important to acknowledge the limitations of legislating
against norms and values that are deeply entrenched (Badgett, 2009; Cox,
Navarro-Rivera, and Jones, 2014; Hogg, 2006; Lahey and Alderson, 2004;
Onuche, 2013). The progress that has been made towards wider acceptance
of LGBT people has also met with a backlash from socially conservative
voices who feel that this minority (typically no more than 5% of the general
population) is being given too much credence and rights. The argument
follows that the state should prioritize the majority in these instances.
Then there are those within the LGBT community whose militant
approach to achieving change has led to legal challenges and even rejection
by the wider community (Chambers, 1997; Strasser, 2018; Trandafir, 2014;
Wedgwood, 1999; Widiss, Rosenblatt, and NeJaime, 2007). Members of
the LGBT community have suffered systematic and historical injustice,
sometimes at the hands of family members and close members of the
community. Young LGBT people are often disowned by their parents and
left homeless. Others are subjected to sexual exploitation and outright abuse.
The scourge of HIV/AIDS and poverty has impacted on the lives of
LGBT people (Ball, 2014; Damslet, 1992; Hooghe and Meeusen, 2013;
Langbein and Yost, 2009; Pearl and Galupo, 2007). Yet, there are still
divisions and internalized homophobia or transphobia within the LGBT
community. White and wealthy members of the LGBT community have
been accused of discriminating against black and poorer people.
Those that are living in developed countries have much better outcomes
than LGBT people that are stuck in developing countries where many are
calling for their extermination (Buchanan, 1984; Buffie, 2011; Cahill and
Cahill, 2004; Chambers, 1997; Chamie and Mirkin, 2011; Coolidge, 1997).
They are protected by laws that prevent discrimination. Besides, they are
part of an emancipated and vocal minority that has not lost its agency over
time due to incremental discrimination. These are the kinds of communities
that can challenge governments and institutions to change. In Africa, LGBT
people have already lost their social and personal agency. They can only
hope for pity when it comes to harassing and even executing them.
The legislative efforts to remove discrimination have yet to win
hearts and minds (Eskridge, 1999; Fingerhut, Riggle, and Rostosky, 2011;
Flores, 2015; Franke, 2006; Gaines and Garand, 2010). Many claim the
right to discriminate against LGBT people as being sacred. Those on the
religious Right belief that it is their obligation to push forward measures
that can reverse any gains that LGBT people have made in terms of equal
opportunities.
Even in a highly industrialized country like the USA, there is disagreement
about what LGBT rights mean and how they can be compared to the overall
rights of the community (Barclay and Fisher, 2003; Ellison, Acevedo, and
Ramos‐Wada, 2011; Hull, 2003; Lannutti, 2007; Pinello, 2006). Meanwhile,
there is a generational divide between those LGBT people that are used to
accepting a closeted status and younger people who find it unacceptable
to hide their sexuality. For some LGBT people, it is imperative that they
are accepted as they are. They are no longer willing to take on the role of
second-class citizens that get crumbs of consideration from a heterosexist
majority.
The legalization of same-sex marriage that started in the Netherlands
on the 1st of April 2001 is slowly making its way through many developed
countries (Hull, 2001, 2003; Hull and Hull, 2006; Hunter, 2012; Josephson,
2005; Judge, Manion, and De Waal, 2008). However, there is a long way
before developing countries can generally consider any protections for
LGBT people. Even where achievements have been made, there are still
areas in which equality is not fully achieved, such as health outcomes.
It is wrong to cultivate a rosy picture of the world in which there is a
gradual but irreversible match towards marriage equality. On the contrary,
many developing countries are actively reviewing their laws with a view
to enforcing further discrimination against LGBT people (Chambers, 1997;
Kandaswamy, 2008; Powell, Quadlin, and Pizmony-Levy, 2015; Webb and

Chonody, 2014). At best, the lives of LGBT people today are full of hope but
also trepidation about their roles and status in society. This is just one aspect
of the progression that LGBT people have been making towards equality.
7.2. HISTORICAL PROGRESSION TOWARDS

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
The progress towards same-sex marriage has been much slower than the
LGBT community might have wanted (Alderson, 2004; Appleton, 2005;
2003). This is because of the entrenched homophobic, sexist, and transphobic
attitudes in society. Nevertheless, there exists some evidence of same-sex
relations, if not marriage, in ancient times.
For example, there are references to same-sex marriage in the Sifra as far
back as the 3rd Century CE. Even in Biblical times, there were references to
forbidden same-sex relations in Leviticus, which were classified as Egyptian
and Canaanite acts (Chamie and Mirkin, 2011; Klarman, 2012; Rimmerman
and Wilcox, 2007; Wedgwood, 1999). John Boswell suggested that there
were same-sex weddings during the Roman Empire, even where they were
reported in a satirical manner). Emperor Elagabalus, for instance, referred
to a blond slave and chariot driver as his husband. The same child emperor
married Zoticus, the athlete in a lavish public ceremony.
These histories belie the notion that homosexuality is a modern
indulgence (Corvino and Gallagher, 2012; Cox, Navarro-Rivera, and Jones,
2014; Damslet, 1992; Dorf, 2011; Ellison, Acevedo, and Ramos‐Wada,
2011). Indeed, virtually every culture has references to homosexuality. The
development of the LGBT community was a response to discrimination
which had to be challenged through collective action. So far, the LGBT
community has been more effective than its constituent parts in changing
laws, values, attitudes, and practices. Marriage is one of the important
milestones in this journey. Interestingly, even early times had examples of
open alternative sexualities.
Nero was the first Roman emperor to marry a man and he married
another man later (Koppelman, 1996, 1997, 2014; Kramer, 1996; Kreitzer,
Hamilton, and Tolbert, 2014). It is important to note that these marriages had
no legal standing singe a marriage could only occur between male and female
Romans. Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issue a law in 342
AD which forbade same-sex marriages in Rome. Those who disobeyed the

Theodosian Code on this edict could be executed (Appleton, 2005; Eskridge,
1999; Langbein and Yost, 2009; Saez, 2011). Violence against LGBT people
is not a modern invention. There was danger in expressing these alternative
sexualities in contexts that were decidedly traditional in their outlook.
It was not only in the Roman Empire that same-sex marriages took place
(Buffie, 2011; Judge, Manion, and De Waal, 2008; Pierceson, 2014; Walls,
2010). For example, Li Yu highlights same-sex marriages in China during
the 17th century. It is not clear whether these same-sex marriages had any
legal validity over time. An examination of relevant historical material is
not conclusive.
Nevertheless, their existence confirms that the notion of same-sex
marriages is not entirely new (Josephson, 2005; Judge, Manion, and De
Waal, 2008; Kail, Acosta, and Wright, 2015; Kandaswamy, 2008). The
marriages or ceremonies also show the complex history of sexualities
and identities that the world has beyond the assumed gender binary and
heterosexist norms that have been revered for so long.
The modern movements in support of same-sex marriage began to
appear in the 1970s and reached a fever pitch at the close of the century
(Koppelman, 1996, 1997, 2014; Kramer, 1996; Kreitzer, Hamilton, and
Tolbert, 2014). Denmark recognized a legal relationship between same-sex
couples in 1989, and these could register their partnerships.
Such partnerships had many of the rights that marriage would entail
(Pierceson, 2014; Pinello, 2006; Powell, Quadlin, and Pizmony-Levy, 2015;
Rimmerman and Wilcox, 2007). However, the partnerships did not extend
the right to secure joint custody of minors or even adopt them. For LGBT
people, the struggle for equality could not be complete without this right.
The Netherlands enacted a law permitting same-sex marriage in 2001
(Chamie and Mirkin, 2011; Klarman, 2012; Rimmerman and Wilcox, 2007;
Wedgwood, 1999). Other countries followed suit, particularly in Europe,
North America, Australia, parts of Asia, and parts of South America. Each
point of reform reflected the efforts of LGBT activists and the willingness
of the local populace to moderate its views on human sexualities. Federal
countries like the USA and Mexico adopted a piecemeal approach where
each state would decide when and how to recognize same-sex marriage
(Badgett, 2009; Cox, Navarro-Rivera, and Jones, 2014; Hogg, 2006; Lahey
and Alderson, 2004; Onuche, 2013). Figure 7.2 demonstrates the federal
approach to same-sex marriage. Eventually, the USA recognized same-sex

marriage via a ruling from the Supreme Court.
Figure 7.2: Historical progress of same-sex marriage in the USA.
Source: ProCon Org.
7.3. GLOBAL TREATMENT OF SAME-SEX

MARRIAGE
The treatment of same-sex marriage can vary significantly (Auchmuty,
2004; Fingerhut, Riggle, and Rostosky, 2011; Lannutti, 2005; Sanders,
2012). Some countries are largely indifferent to its existence and even argue
that there are no LGBT people in their communities. Others acknowledge
the existence of LGBT people and their right to exist. The implication is that
access to LGBT rights is dependent on context and geographical locality. At
other times, those rights are subject to time-related changes in the law.
On one end of the spectrum are those countries that actively protect
LGBT people. Then there are those countries that actively seek to harass,
imprison, and even kill LGBT people (Ball, 2014; Damslet, 1992; Hooghe
and Meeusen, 2013; Langbein and Yost, 2009; Pearl and Galupo, 2007).
These countries on the most extreme ends of the spectrum are only stopped
by the fear of international sanctions or classification as perpetual violators
of human rights.
As Figure 7.3 suggests, a differentiated approach is like to remain the

order of the day when it comes to dealing with same-sex marriage (Judge,
Manion, and De Waal, 2008; Kail, Acosta, and Wright, 2015; Kandaswamy,
2008; Klarman, 2012). Some argue that this differentiated approach is
preferable to an imposed monolithic approach. After all, the LGBT rights
movement was about celebrating diversity.
Figure 7.3: Sexual orientation laws across the globe.
Source: ILGA World via IMD.

Meanwhile, LGBT people must deal with a reality on the ground in
which they are often despised and denied their most basic rights (Appleton,
2005; Auchmuty, 2004; Badgett, 2009; Ball, 2014, 2015; Barclay and Fisher,
2003; Barker, 2012). Sometimes the abuse is so egregious and harmful that
the individual must immigrate to another country. This is a violation that is
not suffered by heterosexual cisgender people on account of their identity,
orientation, and preference. Unfortunately, international authorities have
been slow to recognize this fact.
Unfortunately, immigration procedures are such that the identity and
proclivities of the person may be leaked to the press (Coolidge, 1997; Corvino
and Gallagher, 2012; Cox, Navarro-Rivera, and Jones, 2014; Damslet, 1992;
Dorf, 2011). If the person is not granted refugee status, they run the risk of
being harassed when they return home. There have been harrowing stories
of LGBT people being forced to submit to humiliating tests to confirm or
deny their identity and orientation. In some industrialized nations, LGBT
people are well on their way to receiving the same kind of protections as all
other members of the community.
The variance in responses to and treatment of LGBT people is a
functional of societal dynamics such as culture, tradition, norms, values,
and even political manipulation (Tamagawa, 2016; Trandafir, 2014; Trosino,
One of the harrowing narratives has been that of White evangelicals whose
message of intolerance has been largely debunked and delegitimized in their
home countries. These evangelists then move to Africa to find fertile ground
for radicalizing communities and governments into passing unreasonably
harsh punishments for LGBT people. Afterwards, they return to their home
countries which have better human rights records than Africa.
There is a selective cultural memory in parts of the developing world
where the histories of LGBT people are suppressed (Kandaswamy, 2008;
Klarman, 2012; Kogan, 2003; Koppelman, 1996, 1997, 2014). Some
politicians would prefer it if LGBT people were invisible and did not make
any demands on society despite the discrimination that they face. It is not
uncommon for LGBT people to be insulted, marginalized, institutionalized,
and generally excluded from society for no other reason than who they are.
Such consideration is not a privilege, but a human right. Hence, LGBT
people do not need to prove their worth to be treated with respect with
regards to their identity, sexuality, and preference.
The LGBT identity has been associated with such shame that many
people decide to “remain in the closet” to avoid the inevitable backlash
if they come out as a member of the LGBT community. Societal attitudes
and practices have often lagged legislation when it comes to respecting the
rights of LGBT people (Coolidge, 1997; Kogan, 2003; Rosenfeld, 2014;
Widiss, Rosenblatt, and NeJaime, 2007). Hence, there is a lot of human
suffering in the LGBT community, which never acknowledges or is even
actively minimized. There are politicians that specifically muzzle debates
over LGBT rights because they argue that this is a small minority that should
not be taking up legislative time and resources. The mere fact of addressing
these issues is seen as a major achievement within the LGBT community.
The courts have played active and passive roles in advance of LGBT rights
generally and same-sex marriage (Brewer and Wilcox, 2005; Hull and
Hull, 2006; Olson, Cadge, and Harrison, 2006; Trandafir, 2014). There are
instances where the courts have refused to get involved in the arguments
because they are deemed too controversial. Such was the polarization on
same-sex marriage that some jurists felt that the impartiality and community
sanction of the courts could be in danger depending on how rulings were
made. Constitutional amendments and provisions were frequently quoted to
support one side or the other. At the heart of the dispute were LGBT people
that were looking for the courts to give them relief from centuries of abuse,
exploitation, marginalization, and discrimination.
Some courts took bold decisions that potentially placed them in danger.
Other courts have decided with whatever the majority is assumed to support,
to avoid further scrutiny that is directed at the courts themselves (Soule,
Trosino, 1993; Vanita, 2005; Walls, 2010). Then there are those courts that
have made courageous and revolutionary rulings, which have protected
LGBT people. In either case, the courts were bound to be criticized by one
side.
Those who seek to stop the tide of LGBT acceptance may be offended by
the involvement of the courts (Ball, 2015; Dorf, 2011; Hull, 2001; Lannutti,
2005; Pierceson, 2014; Shulman, Gotta, and Green, 2012). They argue that
this is a political issue that ought to be subjected to a democratic vote. The
problem with such an approach is that it fails to acknowledge the democratic
deficit that LGBT people must overcome when they are no more than 5% of
the potential electorate.
Besides, there are those who are of the view that the human rights of
minorities should never have to be subjected to a democratic vote where they
are bound to lose regardless of the merits of their case (Dorf, 2011; Ellison,
Acevedo, and Ramos‐Wada, 2011; Eskridge, 1993, 1999; Fingerhut, Riggle,
and Rostosky, 2011). This is the same principle that has been applied when
dealing with issues of race and disability-based discrimination. However,
problems were encountered when dealing with sex-based discrimination.
LGBT rights are closely aligned with the latter consideration. The UK
provides an example of a modern European nation grappling with this
sensitive issue.
7.4. CASE STUDY OF THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN

THE UNITED KINGDOM
The United Kingdom was one of the European nations that eventually
permitted same-sex marriage, following the significant debate and various
attempts to find a compromise (Bernstein and Taylor, 2013; Hooghe and
Meeusen, 2013; McVeigh and Maria-Elena, 2009; Strasser, 2018). Currently,
all parts of the UK allow same-sex marriage. Devolution did not slow down
the progress of LGBT rights. As the process moved on, it became clear that
other parts of the UK were looking to cover a democratic deficit that had
emerged due to the dominance of the Westminster Parliament in London.
During the campaign for LGBT rights in the UK, there was a challenge
in terms of ensuring that all regions were on board. At first, it would appear
that England would be the lead in opening the legal framework. There was
an implicit expectation that other parts of the UK could struggle to catch up
with this new liberal. On the contrary, Scotland and Wales are even more
liberal than England on certain issues pertaining to the family (Hooghe
and Meeusen, 2013; Hull, 2001, 2003; Hull and Hull, 2006; Hunter, 2012;
Josephson, 2005; Judge, Manion, and De Waal, 2008). Northern Ireland
has been dominated by a protestant party with strong social conservatism.
However, that has not extended to the prohibition of same-sex relationships
or marriage.
Given the federated nature of the kingdom, there were differences in
the dates of legislation allowing same-sex marriage (Ellison, Acevedo, and
Ramos‐Wada, 2011; Eskridge, 1993, 1999; Fingerhut, Riggle, and Rostosky,
2011). For example, England and Wales recognized same-sex marriages as
far back as March 2014. Scotland followed in December the same year. It t
seemed that the other regions were well ahead of England.
Northern Ireland was the last devolved government to recognize same-
sex marriage in January 2020 (Gher, 2007; Goldberg-Hiller, 2009; Hester
The situation with overseas territories reflected the priorities of the local
communities as well as the level of influence that the “home government” in
the UK could influence the progress of same-sex marriage in those regions.
For example, 9 out of 14 British Overseas Territories have recognized
same-sex marriage (Sherkat et al., 2011; Shulman, Gotta, and Green, 2012;
Smith, DeSantis, and Kassel, 2006; Smith, 2005). The broad time of equal
marriage is summarized in Figure 7.4. It shows that there were many events,
including setbacks before marriage equality could be achieved. Such an
outcome would have been impossible 50 years ago, but the world has now
changed considerably.
Figure 7.4: Timeline of same-sex relationships and marriage in the UK.
Source: UK Government.
It has been necessary to compromise on certain issues for the greater
goal of allowing same-sex couples to be married in the UK (Appleton, 2005;
Eskridge, 1999; Langbein and Yost, 2009; Saez, 2011). One of the first
contentions was the contravention of religious freedoms and independence.
There is an established Church in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland
which already had doctrinal objections to same-sex relationships. However,
some argued that an established national Church could not be seen to be
engaging in activities that were in contravention of government policy to
accept same-sex relationships.
Others felt that the Church should be protected from political interference
and should therefore be able to decline to perform same-sex weddings
(Lahey and Alderson, 2004; Langbein and Yost, 2009; Lannutti, 2005, 2007;
Lee and Hicks, 2011; Lenhardt, 2008). The Church proposed that LGBT
people remain celibate to remain godly. Such a suggestion was rejected
by the community, and the Church comes under considerable pressure to
comply with equal protection clauses in the law.
At the same time, the UK was subject to EU law which was significantly
more liberal on issues of sexuality, identity, and orientation (Shulman, Gotta,
and Green, 2012; Smith, DeSantis, and Kassel, 2006; Smith, 2005, 2007).
Some in the UK resented having to acquiescence to liberal rulings from the
European courts on matters of same-sex marriages. When the government
offered the option of civil partnerships, some LGBT people were not satisfied
with being excluded from traditional wedding ceremonies.
Besides, some heterosexual and cisgender couples argued that they
too should be able to access civil partnerships (Webb and Chonody, 2014;
Wedgwood, 1999; Widiss, Rosenblatt, and NeJaime, 2007; Wight, LeBlanc,
and Lee Badgett, 2013). Eventually, the law progressed to a point when
same-sex marriage was inevitable. One of the signs of change was when
amendments were made to hereditary titles and peerages to reflect the new
reality that some of the most prominent members of the elite were from the
LGBT community and wished to get married. The USA is an example of a
nation with similar values to the UK, but one which has taken an altogether
different approach to LGBT rights.
7.5. CASE STUDY OF THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN

THE USA
The journey towards same-sex marriage in the USA has been complicated by
the framework of a divided and federated government under a constitutional
republic (Buffie, 2011; Cahill and Cahill, 2004; Chambers, 1997; Chamie
and Mirkin, 2011; Coolidge, 1997; Corvino and Gallagher, 2012). This
implies that there is an interplay of power bases, with none having absolute
power to change policy. Hence, there were differences in policy at the state
and national levels. Meanwhile, the courts were being asked to arbitrate
these disputes.
Moreover, the federal government had not yet acknowledged same-sex
marriage, and that provided many states with an indicator of where the overall
government was in terms of offering full rights to LGBT people (Wardle,
1996; Webb and Chonody, 2014; Wedgwood, 1999; Widiss, Rosenblatt, and
NeJaime, 2007). As LGBT people continued to face discrimination, they
eventually managed to persuade the Supreme Court that it was unlawful to
discriminate against them for no other reason than their sexuality, identity,
and preference. The courts had been reluctant to get involved in an issue
that was the preserve of states. However, it was clear that some states were
determined not to do anything to advance the rights of LGBT people.
In the meantime, there were many compromises to be made, and some

of them were offensive to the LGBT community (Smith, DeSantis, and
Kassel, 2006; Smith, 2005, 2007; Soule, 2004; Strasser, 2018; Sullivan,
2004; Tamagawa, 2016). For example, the US military developed a “Don’t
Ask, Don’t Tell” policy or DOMA which meant that military servicemen
and women had to remain closeted to serve. Eventually, that provision was
overturned by the courts, albeit with a lot of controversy about judicial
overreach.
Even today, there are still those who believe that same-sex marriage
was brought into the USA by the backdoor because those who supported
it knew that they would always lose at the ballot box (Lupia et al., 2010;
MacDougall, 2000; McVeigh and Maria-Elena, 2009; Meezan and Rauch,
2005). It must be said that many opinion polls indicate that most Americans
support equality as a principle. The younger generation has been successful
in persuading older people that they cannot continue to sustain a situation
in which some Americans are treated as if they were second-class citizens.
Others have presented it as a civil rights issue.
Figure 7.5: The role of the supreme court in gay marriage bans in the USA.
Source: LA Times.
Nevertheless, there is some disagreement about what equality means
and how it can be operationalized without infringing on the rights of
conscientious objectors (Fingerhut, Riggle, and Rostosky, 2011; Flores,
2015; Franke, 2006; Gaines and Garand, 2010; Gerstmann, 2017). Figure
7.5 highlights the effect of a court ruling on LGBT marriage in a federated
approach. The differentiated approach is meant to give credence to local

sensibilities rather than merely implementing rules that are may be to
the liking of voters. Once states were required to recognize the marriage
rights granted in another state, it was only a matter of time before same-sex
marriages would be legal in the entire USA. Even those states that are still
resisting are aware that marriage equality is here to stay.
It was always clear that the only way that same-sex marriage could be
effectively implemented in the USA was to win hearts and minds (Boertien
and Vignoli, 2019; Gaines and Garand, 2010; Kandaswamy, 2008; Lupia et
al., 2010; Schragger, 2005). To start off with, LGBT people began to reject
the closet, and we’re coming out to friends and family. That dispelled some
of the damaging mythology that had developed around LGBT people as
overly sexed perverts who deserved to be on the margins of society. The
rights of LGBT people had been ignored because they were labeled as being
deviant. Such dismissive tropes held back the journey towards marriage
equality.
The medical community also played its part by removing the stigma of
homosexuality which was once considered to be a mental disorder (Ball,
2013; Berg, 2010; Bernstein and Taylor, 2013). The friends and family of
LGBT people engaged in empathetic advocacy, which eventually persuaded
the politicians that support same-sex marriage was not an electoral abyss but
could also provide opportunities for winning over young people. Coming
out increased the number who were openly part of the LGBT community. It
no longer appeared to be something entirely strange and outside any norm.
Eventually, the courts did their part in showing that anti-LGBT legislation
was irrational and hence illegal (Kandaswamy, 2008; Klarman, 2012;
Kogan, 2003; Koppelman, 1996, 1997, 2014). The landmark cases include
States v. Windsor (2013), which struck down DOMA, and Obergefell v.
Hodges (2015), which made same-sex marriage a civil right. Some consider
the debates surrounding same-sex marriage to be part of a wide cultural war
in the USA.
This cultural war is being increasingly won by the younger generations
that are questioning the prejudices of their ancestors (Shulman, Gotta, and
Green, 2012; Smith, DeSantis, and Kassel, 2006; Smith, 2005, 2007). It is
hard to conceive that any person in the USA would seriously advocate for
the execution of LGBT people for no other reason other than their sexuality,
identity, or preference. Hence, the USA may provide a template for how
LGBT marriages may eventually be accepted in the developing world

following fiercely fought cultural wars.
Currently, such an outcome seems unlikely given the fact that often
young people in Africa are as reactionary, or even more reactionary than
their elders on issues of LGBT lifestyles (Walls, 2010; Wardle, 1996; Webb
and Chonody, 2014; Wedgwood, 1999; Widiss, Rosenblatt, and NeJaime,
2007). Of course, that may change as more of those younger people are
exposed to a Western lifestyle and values. Interestingly, migration patterns
show that many people are moving away from reactionary societies into
ones that are open and welcoming. It may well be that acceptance of LGBT
people is an indicator of an inclusive society that is conducive for sustainable
development.
CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY
This chapter has summarized modern notions of same-sex marriages. It has
also shown the varying degrees of freedom that LGBT people experience
across the globe. One of the emerging issues is the fact that the emancipation
of LGBT people depends on community sanction and legal validation, two
dynamics that are often reactionary in the developing world. This book will
close by looking at the future of same-sex relationships.
CHAPTER 8
THE FUTURE OF SAME-SEX

RELATIONSHIPS
CONTENTS
8.1. National Debates About Same-Sex Relationships............................. 184
8.2. Alternatives to Same-Sex Marriage................................................... 187
8.3. Managing Same-Sex Divorces.......................................................... 189
8.4. Continuing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples..................... 191
8.5. Towards Universal Marriage Equality............................................... 193
Chapter 8 Summary................................................................................ 195
As we close this book, it is pertinent to consider what the future holds for
same-sex relationships. The first section of this final chapter will summarize
some national debates on the issue. The second section will explore
alternatives to same-sex marriage. The third section will explore same-sex
divorces. The 4th section will highlight the continuing discrimination against
LGBT couples. The chapter will then close by summarizing the prospects
for universal marriage equality.
8.1. NATIONAL DEBATES ABOUT SAME-SEX

RELATIONSHIPS
National debates on same-sex relationships have mainly focused on the
rights, if any, that can be extended to LGBT people (Bernstein and Taylor,
2013; Boertien and Vignoli, 2019; Brandzel, 2005; Brewer and Wilcox,
2005; Brown, 1994; Buchanan, 1984). Opponents of reform argued that
there was no point in creating special rights for a small group of people.
Others felt that all minorities must be protected by their home countries
and that included LGBT people. It was also necessary to consider historical
wrongs that had significantly held back LGBT people. Hence, the need
for some level of affirmative action to redress these imbalances. Unless
racial equality, LGBT rights were not always considered to be fundamental
inalienable ones.
Besides, there were arguments that the protections for vulnerable
minorities should be even more stringent given the fact that they rarely
have strong advocates in the mainstream population (Wedgwood, 1999;
Widiss, Rosenblatt, and NeJaime, 2007; Wight, LeBlanc, and Lee Badgett,
2013; Wilson, 2013). Some of the arguments against LGBT-related law
reform was absurd, including the suggestion that LGBT people were not
being discriminated against since they were free to engage in heterosexual
relationships. Cultural Conservatives argued that opening marriage to LGBT
people may have unintended consequences such as the eventual dilution of
national values and norms. Of course, some of these dire predictions were
not supported by the facts. Instead, they had been exploited by reactionary
forces to prevent the advancement of marriage equality.
One of the more unfortunate effects of the debates on same-sex marriage
has been in the increase in partisanship (Coolidge, 1997; Kogan, 2003;
Rosenfeld, 2014; Widiss, Rosenblatt, and NeJaime, 2007). Nowhere is this
more visible than in the USA (see Figure 8.1). One might have assumed that a
Conservative party that believes in personal freedom and self-determination
The Future of Same-Sex Relationships 185
like the Republican Party in the USA would have been outraged at the
idea of the government controlling people’s sexuality. Instead, exceptions
were made ostensibly to protect marriage whilst simultaneously stifling the
aspirations and rights of LGBT people.
Figure 8.1: Partisanship and changes in public opinion on same-sex marriages

in the USA.

However, the reality is that the GOP (grand old party) reflected the
contradictions that underpinned many of the national debates concerning
same-sex marriage (Pierceson, 2014; Pinello, 2006; Powell, Quadlin, and
Pizmony-Levy, 2015; Rimmerman and Wilcox, 2007). On the one hand,
there was a belief in personal freedom and responsibility with limited
government control. On the other hand, social conservatives felt that the
issue of human sexuality was so important that the government had to step
in to prevent people from living LGBT lifestyles without consequence.
Meanwhile, the Liberals started using government agencies to push for
a pro-LGBT agenda, including outlawing discrimination and funding LGBT
support groups (Alderson, 2004; Eskridge, 1993; Lahey and Alderson,
2004; Rothblum, 2005). Instead of becoming a bipartisan issue, same-sex
marriage became popular among members of the political class. For liberal
politicians, it was an opportunity to showcase their generosity and social
consciousness. For conservative politicians, it came to symbolize their
defeat in the cultural wars, and they wished to inflict as much damage as
possible on same-sex marriage.
Across the globe, these debates are being held with varying outcomes
(Wardle, 1996; Webb and Chonody, 2014; Wedgwood, 1999; Widiss,
Rosenblatt, and NeJaime, 2007). Armenia is a case in point where same-
sex marriage was adopted following the Ministry of Justice announced
that it would accept all marriages carried out abroad, including same-sex
marriage. In Bulgaria, the court addressed residency rights for LGBT
couples married abroad and opened the possibility of that claim without
necessarily legitimizing same-sex marriage.
Others have taken a transnational approach such as based on the rulings
of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for countries in South
America such as Chile (Buffie, 2011; Cahill and Cahill, 2004; Chambers,
1997; Chamie and Mirkin, 2011; Coolidge, 1997; Corvino and Gallagher,
2012). China, for its part, has adopted the 3-Nos approach “No approval;
no disapproval; no promotion.” In Cuba, the Union of Jurists of Cuba is
working on legislation that will address and incorporate same-sex marriage.
In the Czech Republic, as many as 75% of people support same-sex
marriage (Wardle, 1996; Webb and Chonody, 2014; Wedgwood, 1999;
Widiss, Rosenblatt, and NeJaime, 2007). Although industrialized, Japan
is yet to recognize same-sex marriage even as cases challenging the status
quo are being appealed. These cases show the differentiated approach to
same-sex marriage across the globe where no single size fits all countries.
For instance, some jurisdictions have considered the option of offering

alternatives to same-sex marriage.
8.2. ALTERNATIVES TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Where full same-sex marriage is not yet offered, some countries have explored
alternatives (Baunach, 2012; Eskridge, 1999; Hunter, 2012; Lenhardt, 2008;
Rimmerman and Wilcox, 2007; Smith, DeSantis, and Kassel, 2006). These
may include civil partnerships and civil unions. Indeed, countries like Japan
have municipalities that offer certification with limited rights despite the
national ban on same-sex marriage. Whereas some saw this as a pragmatic
compromise, others saw it as a means of appeasing the religious right, which
had redefined marriage as an institution that was undeniably religious in
nature. Some religious people do not believe that a civil wedding leads to a
marriage. However, the state recognizes civil weddings and will offer equal
rights to those that have gone through the system.
Some LGBT campaigners have rejected the notion that civil unions can
ever be a substitute for same-sex marriage since, in the public conscience,
they represent an inferior union (Ball, 2015; Dorf, 2011; Hull, 2001; Lannutti,
2005; Pierceson, 2014; Shulman, Gotta, and Green, 2012). The UK was
one of the countries that increased the rights pertaining to civil unions to
ensure that they were not an inferior union under the law. It all depends on
how the civil union is perceived. For some, it remains a respected form of
marriage, while for others, it is a poor alternative to the real marriage that is
undertaken by the Church through a religious ceremony.
Some regions offered the option of registered or unregistered partnerships
(Ball, 2015; Gaines and Garand, 2010; Lenhardt, 2008; Sherkat et al., 2011).
However, those have proved to be problematic since heterosexual, cisgender
people who are not in a romantic relationship have sometimes sought to
invalidate and mock them by requesting them. The institution of marriage is
already contentious without the intervention of agitators that wish to make
a mockery of its processes. At the same time, there were people that were
protesting the absurdity of legal interventions that only affected one part of
the population. They saw civil marriages as an additional form of marriage
that should be open to all couples regardless of their identity and orientation.
For example, a father may enter a domestic partnership with a son to
make a mockery of the union knowing that there is never any intimate
sexual relationship between the partners (Damslet, 1992; Dorf, 2011;
Ellison, Acevedo, and Ramos‐Wada, 2011; Eskridge, 1993, 1999). Others
thought that cohabitation statuses might provide some rights to same-

sex couples, but the courts proved unwilling to enforce them without an
overall national legislative regime. Indeed, some anti-LGBT voices used
the facetious argument that this was a form of reverse discrimination in
which LGBT people were being granted rights that are not available to
heterosexual cisgender people. Even in a single nation such as the USA,
there is significant variation in the rights granted to LGBT couples (see
Figure 8.2 for an illustration).
Figure 8.2: Differentiated same-sex relationships in the USA.
Source: Wall Street Journal.

8.3. MANAGING SAME-SEX DIVORCES

Where same-sex marriages have been allowed, the same problems that
affected traditional marriages have emerged (Alderson, 2004; Chamie and
Mirkin, 2011; Gher, 2007; Koppelman, 2014; Moskowitz, Rieger, and
Roloff, 2010). One of the major problems is handling same-sex divorce.
Figure 8.3 highlights the increasing incidence of same-sex separations and
divorce. Prior to Obergefell v. Hodges in the USA, a same-sex divorce was
only possible in a jurisdiction that accepted same-sex marriage.
That meant that same-sex couples were bound to remain in the regions
that accepted them as opposed to being able to secure a divorce in any
jurisdiction of their current residence or choice (Dorf, 2011; Koppelman,
1996; Koppelman, 2014; Wilson, 2013). Because same-sex unions produced
children and accumulated marital problems, partners were often left in
difficult circumstances in case of a separation. The law sometimes offered
annulment which is not ideal because it treats the marriage as having never
occurred in the first place. That means that none of the couple has any claim
on each other, a significant disadvantage for those vulnerable partners.
Figure 8.3: Rate of same-sex splits in the USA by 2011.
Source: Wall Street Journal.

Besides, there was the psychosocial fear of being ostracized for “wasting”
the hard-won right to marry through a quick divorce (Kramer, 1996;
Kreitzer, Hamilton, and Tolbert, 2014; Lahey and Alderson, 2004; Langbein
and Yost, 2009). Indeed, some anti-LGBT voices were stereotyping LGBT
relationships as being highly transient and sexualized to the point of not
being capable of long-term commitment. It is not just the LGBT community
that struggles with divorce and that ways which is modern procedure are
handled. Many are victims of familial strife and protracted proceedings. The
scrutiny over same-sex divorces could be an indicator of an attitude that
expects LGBT people to be so grateful for the opportunity to marry that they
never waste it through a divorce.
Any unpleasant or protracted public divorce proceedings would then be
quoted as a case in point about the inherent unsuitability of LGBT marriages
(Wedgwood, 1999; Widiss, Rosenblatt, and NeJaime, 2007; Wight,
LeBlanc, and Lee Badgett, 2013; Wilson, 2013). The concern was that if
such stereotypes were not challenged robustly, some of the wins that the
LGBT community had won in the courts and at the ballot could be reversed.
It was relatively easy to socially invalidate LGBT marriages by presenting
them as a gimmick for entitled people that wished to experiment with an
ancient institution. The reality is that some same-sex marriages are more
successful than others. Being an LGBT person is no guarantee that you will
be a successful spouse. Similarly, being heterosexual and cisgender is not
inherently a barrier to divorce. After all, divorce is very much part of our
modern life.
The notion of same-sex divorce was relatively new, and that meant that
the legislative regime had not yet made adequate provisions (Strasser, 2018;
Sullivan, 2004; Tamagawa, 2016; Trandafir, 2014; Trosino, 1993; Vanita,
2005; Walls, 2010; Wardle, 1996). Even the courts had not yet set appropriate
precedents for dealing with such cases. In the USA, state law overrode
federal law on matters of marriage and divorce. This created a complexity
for LGBT couples who lived in the states that had not recognized same-sex
marriage or put restrictions on that institution.
The residency requirements for state marriages meant that couples had
to think about carefully about location (Ball, 2015; Gaines and Garand,
2010; Lenhardt, 2008; Sherkat et al., 2011). Others engaged in jurisdiction-
shopping to be able to access same-sex marriage. Prior to the United States
v. Windsor, states could even refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage
conducted in another state for purposes of divorce. In effect, there were many
obstacles put in place for those LGBT couples that wanted to divorce. This
aspect of LGBT marriage is still being finessed across certain jurisdiction,
even while others do not accept same-sex marriage at all.
8.4. CONTINUING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST

SAME-SEX COUPLES
There are patterns of ongoing discrimination against LGBT people,
regardless of all the changes that have been made to the law to allow for
privileges and rights such as same-sex marriage (Gaines and Garand, 2010;
Gerstmann, 2017; Gher, 2007; Goldberg-Hiller, 2009; Hester and Gibson,
2007; Hogg, 2006). It is tempting to engage in celebratory glorification of
these achievements whilst ignoring the day-to-day challenges that LGBT
people face. The struggle for equality is not complete and there are ongoing
challenges which the LGBT community must negotiate. Even the laws that
were put in place to achieve equality are not completely implemented.
These challenges affect LGBT people regardless of their marital status
(Berg, 2010; Flores, 2015; Judge, Manion, and De Waal, 2008; Lewis and
Gossett, 2008; Rothblum, 2005; Saez, 2011). It is tempting to imaging that
the lack of opportunities for marriage represents the only real challenge for
LGBT people. There are ongoing issues such as lack of access to health,
poor housing, and limited job prospects. Those who come out when they
are minors might be rejected by their family and end up homeless. Besides,
the state cannot legislate against human feelings or force people to be
compassionate when they want to detach from the problems that LGBT
people face. Just like the struggle for racial equality is beset by personal
animal and microaggression, LGBT people are not yet completely accepted.
Indeed, those that can get married may be privileged (Barker, 2012;
Baunach, 2012; Beck, 2013; Berg, 2010; Bernstein and Taylor, 2013;
Boertien and Vignoli, 2019; Brandzel, 2005). Research has shown that
LGBT people from ethnic and religious minorities are often ostracized by
their own communities. They are therefore less likely to come out, engage
in activism, or take advantage of same-sex marriage even if it is accepted in
their country.
Some of the inequalities that existed prior to same-sex marriages are
continuing. Indeed, these inequalities may even be worse as different classes
of LGBT people emerge (Beck, 2013; Hester and Gibson, 2007; Lupia et al.,
2010; Smith, 2007). White liberals who are LGBT, for example, still enjoy
considerable privilege when compared to ethnic minorities who are LGBT.

The issues of racial discrimination and sexism have never completely been
resolved in the LGBT community. Hence, it cannot be said that the LGBT
community is completely united. Some of these issues are beginning to
affect children in LGBT families (see Figure 8.4 for a campaign promotion
against a plebiscite involving children from rainbow families).
Figure 8.4: Voices of children from rainbow families.
Source: The Guardian.

The discriminations that were entrenched in society and law have not
been removed by the reality of same-sex marriage (Barker, 2012; Eskridge,
1993; Hull and Hull, 2006; Lee and Hicks, 2011; Powell, Quadlin, and
Pizmony-Levy, 2015). Indeed, some governments have used the enactment
of same-sex marriage laws as an opportunity to avoid dealing with wider
issues of discrimination. It is easier to set up a law that ostensibly deals with
the problem of overt discrimination, and yet the very foundations of the
community are heterosexist in nature. For those that are on the receiving end
of discrimination, such solutions do not provide them with the right kind of
relief.
The discrimination against sexual minorities continues in a range of
spheres. For example, LGBT people are more likely to lose their job and
even home because of their sexuality, identity, and preference (Coolidge,
1997; Corvino and Gallagher, 2012; Cox, Navarro-Rivera, and Jones, 2014;
Damslet, 1992; Dorf, 2011). Others are forcibly outed by their own peers
and then left to face social disapproval. The mental health of LGBT people
has been severely damaged by the experiences they have of community life,
many of which are immensely negative. There are jurisdictions where it is
legal to terminate someone’s employment once it is discovered that they are
part of the LGBT community.
Even where same-sex marriage has been entrenched, there are many
campaigners who are actively working to reverse those changes (Pearl
and Galupo, 2007; Pierceson, 2014; Pinello, 2006; Powell, Quadlin, and
Pizmony-Levy, 2015). The debates about the nature and quality of same-
sex marriage are ongoing. From that perspective, same-sex marriage is a
milestone but not the end of the story of LGBT rights. If discrimination
continues, the LGBT community will never be completely satisfied with its
lot in wider society. Perhaps a more optimist prospect is to consider how
the journey towards equality can be better mapped to hasten its ultimate
destination towards full acceptance of LGBT people.
8.5. TOWARDS UNIVERSAL MARRIAGE EQUALITY

In a world where prejudice against LGBT people still exists, sometimes to
extremes, it is hard to think of a time when there could be universal same-
sex marriage (Hogg, 2006; Hooghe and Meeusen, 2013; Hull, 2001, 2003;
Hull and Hull, 2006; Hunter, 2012; Josephson, 2005). For the moment, each
jurisdiction has been using an incremental approach based on public opinion.
Of course, that public opinion can be shaped by campaigns including those
led by the media. There have been instances where the struggle for equality
has been held back because certain media outlets have cleverly presented
the LGBT community as being antisocial in different ways. A case in point
is during the HIV/AIDS crisis when the LGBT community was blamed for
bringing this strange disease to the world. Even when the origins of the
condition did not explicitly implicate LGBT people, they were still blamed
for increasing the rate of cross-infection through their assumed promiscuity.
The inclusion of LGBT people will only happen when these tropes are
successfully challenged in the media and in the wider society.
One important trend is that younger people are generally more
welcoming to new ideas and new ways of thinking than the older generation
(Schragger, 2005; Sherkat, De Vries, and Creek, 2010; Sherkat et al., 2011;
Shulman, Gotta, and Green, 2012). Hence, in half a century, it may be the
case that so many people have moved away from anti-LGBT attitudes and
behaviors towards practices that the world has to offer a universal right to
same-sex marriage. Young people have been credited with challenging the
status quo and even encouraging older people to think about the possibility
of achieving equality. They remain the bulwark of the reformist movement.
Hence, any future improvements in equality will have to form meaningful
partnerships with younger people. That is not to say that older people are
incurably heterosexist. For example, there have been instances of baby
boomers taking active steps towards marriage equality. However, in general
terms, the equality movement has been spearheaded by young people.
To win the right to same-sex marriage involve strategic planning and
the building of partners. Working with “straight allies” is going to be of
paramount importance (Koppelman, 1996, 1997, 2014; Kramer, 1996;
Kreitzer, Hamilton, and Tolbert, 2014). Moreover, the next phase of
LGBT rights must address the hearts and minds of people that may have
been vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage. Not everybody will
support LGBT marriage, but they could be persuaded that people from that
community should be discriminated against because of their identity, sex,
and sexuality. There are other priorities (see Figure 8.5 for an example) that
LGBT people might want to be addressed as part of the process of fairness.
Figure 8.5: Policy priorities for LGBT couples.

CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY
The final chapter has shown that same-sex relationships are increasingly
being accepted. However, there are many parts of the world that still
discriminate against LGBT people. Hence, same-sex marriage is not yet a
universal right. Besides, being allowed to marry is one of the many priorities
that LGBT have in their struggle for fairness, equality, and acceptance.
CHAPTER 9
CONCLUDING REMARKS
This book has explored the complex issue of same-sex marriage as an

illustration of the challenges that LGBT people have faced in the past, are
still facing today, and will likely face in the future. We have seen that there is
a diversity of responses to the demands for marriage equality. Moreover, the
power of public opinion and campaigning is demonstrated by those countries
that have allowed same-sex marriage. However, same-sex marriage remains
a dream for many. This is particularly true of LGBT people living in the
developing world. I hope you have enjoyed reading this book and will
explore the other books in the series.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Alderson, K. G., (2004). A phenomenological investigation of same-

sex marriage. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 13(2), 107.
2. Appleton, S. F., (2005). Missing in action-searching for gender talk in
the same-sex marriage debate. Stan. L. & Poly. Rev., 16, 97.
3. Auchmuty, R., (2004). Same-sex marriage revived: Feminist critique
and legal strategy. Feminism & Psychology, 14(1), 101–126.
4. Badgett, M. L., (2009). When Gay People Get Married: What Happens
When Societies Legalize Same-Sex Marriage. NYU Press.
5. Ball, C. A., (2014). Same-Sex Marriage and Children: A Tale of History,
Social Science, and Law. Oxford University Press, USA.
6. Ball, C. A., (2015). Bigotry and same-sex marriage. UMKC L. Rev.,
84, 639.
7. Barclay, S., & Fisher, S., (2003). The states and the differing impetus
for divergent paths on same-sex marriage, 1990–2001. Policy Studies
Journal, 31(3), 331–352.
8. Barker, N., (2012). Not the Marrying Kind: A Feminist Critique of
Same-Sex Marriage. Springer.
9. Baunach, D. M., (2012). Changing same-sex marriage attitudes in
America from 1988 through 2010. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(2),
364–378.
10. Beck, T. A., (2013). Identity, discourse, and safety in a high school
discussion of same-sex marriage. Theory & Research in Social
Education, 41(1), 1–32.
11. Berg, T. C., (2010). What same-sex marriage and religious-liberty
claims have in common. Nw. JL & Soc. Poly., 5, 206.
12. Bernstein, M., & Taylor, V., (2013). The Marrying Kind? Debating
Same-Sex Marriage Within the Lesbian and Gay Movement. U of
Minnesota Press.
13. Boertien, D., & Vignoli, D., (2019). Legalizing same-sex marriage
matters for the subjective well-being of individuals in same-sex unions.
Demography, 56(6), 2109–2121.
14. Brandzel, A. L., (2005). Queering citizenship? Same-sex marriage and
the state. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 11(2), 171–204.
15. Brewer, P. R., & Wilcox, C., (2005). Same-sex marriage and civil
unions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(4), 599–616.
16. Brown, J. G., (1994). Competitive federalism and the legislative
incentives to recognize same-sex marriage. S. Cal. L. Rev., 68, 745.
17. Buchanan, G. S., (1984). Same-sex marriage: The linchpin issue. U.
Dayton L. Rev., 10, 541.
18. Buffie, W. C., (2011). Public health implications of same-sex marriage.
American Journal of Public Health, 101(6), 986–990.
19. Cahill, S., & Cahill, S. R., (2004). Same-Sex Marriage in the United
States: Focus on the facts. Lexington Books.
20. Chambers, D. L., (1997). Polygamy and same-sex marriage. Hofstra
L. Rev., 26, 53.
21. Chamie, J., & Mirkin, B., (2011). Same-sex marriage: A new social
phenomenon. Population and Development Review, 37(3), 529–551.
22. Coolidge, D. O., (1997). Same-sex marriage-Baehr V. Miik and the
meaning of marriage. S. Tex. L. Rev., 38, 1.
23. Corvino, J., & Gallagher, M., (2012). Debating Same-Sex Marriage.
OUP USA.
24. Cox, D., Navarro-Rivera, J., & Jones, R. P., (2014). A Shifting
Landscape: A Decade of Change in American Attitudes About Same-
Sex Marriage and LGBT Issues. Washington, DC: Public Religion
Research Institute.
25. Damslet, O. R., (1992). Same-sex marriage. NYL Sch. J. Hum. Rts.,
10, 555.
26. Dorf, M. C., (2011). Same-sex marriage, second-class citizenship, and
law’s social meanings. Va. L. Rev., 97, 1267.
Bibliography 201
27. Ellison, C. G., Acevedo, G. A., & Ramos-Wada, A. I., (2011). Religion
and attitudes toward same-sex marriage among US Latinos. Social
Science Quarterly, 92(1), 35–56.
28. Eskridge, Jr. W. N., (1993). A history of same-sex marriage. Virginia
Law Review, 1419–1513.
29. Eskridge, Jr. W. N., (1999). Comparative law and the same-sex marriage
debate: A step-by-step approach toward state recognition. McGeorge
L. Rev., 31, 641.
30. Fingerhut, A. W., Riggle, E. D., & Rostosky, S. S., (2011). Same-sex
marriage: The social and psychological implications of policy and
debates. Journal of Social Issues, 67(2), 225–241.
31. Flores, A. R., (2015). Examining variation in surveying attitudes on
same-sex marriage: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 79(2),
580–593.
32. Franke, K. M., (2006). The politics of same-sex marriage politics.
Colum. J. Gender & L., 15, 236.
33. Gaines, N. S., & Garand, J. C., (2010). Morality, equality, or locality:
Analyzing the determinants of support for same-sex marriage. Political
Research Quarterly, 63(3), 553–567.
34. Gerstmann, E., (2017). Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution.
Cambridge University Press.
35. Gher, J. M., (2007). Polygamy and same-sex marriage-allies or
adversaries within the same-sex marriage movement. Wm. & Mary J.
Women & L., 14, 559.
36. Goldberg-Hiller, J., (2009). The Limits to Union: Same-Sex Marriage
and the Politics of Civil Rights. University of Michigan Press.
37. Hester, J. B., & Gibson, R., (2007). The agenda-setting function of
national versus local media: A time-series analysis for the issue of
same-sex marriage. Mass Communication & Society, 10(3), 299–317.
38. Hogg, P. W., (2006). Canada: The constitution and same-sex marriage.
Int’l. J. Const. L., 4, 712.
39. Hooghe, M., & Meeusen, C., (2013). Is same-sex marriage legislation
related to attitudes toward homosexuality? Sexuality Research and
Social Policy, 10(4), 258–268.
40. Hull, K. E., (2001). The political limits of the rights frame: The case
of same-sex marriage in Hawaii. Sociological Perspectives, 44(2),
207–232.
41. Hull, K. E., (2003). The cultural power of law and the cultural
enactment of legality: The case of same-sex marriage. Law & Social
Inquiry, 28(3), 629–657.
42. Hull, K., & Hull, K. E., (2006). Same-Sex Marriage: The Cultural
Politics of Love and Law. Cambridge University Press.
43. Hunter, N. D., (2012). The future impact of same-sex marriage: More
questions than answers. Georgetown Law Journal, 100, 1855–1879.
44. Josephson, J., (2005). Citizenship, same-sex marriage, and feminist
critiques of marriage. Perspectives on Politics, 269–284.
45. Judge, M., Manion, A., & Waal, S. D., (2008). To Have and to Hold:
The Making of Same-Sex Marriage in South Africa. Auckland Park:
Leiden University catalog.
46. Kail, B. L., Acosta, K. L., & Wright, E. R., (2015). State-level marriage
equality and the health of same-sex couples. American Journal of
Public Health, 105(6), 1101–1105.
47. Kandaswamy, P., (2008). State austerity and the racial politics of same-
sex marriage in the US. Sexualities, 11(6), 706–725.
48. Klarman, M. J., (2012). From the Closet to the Altar: Courts, Backlash,
and the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage. Oxford University Press.
49. Kogan, T. S., (2003). Transsexuals, intersexuals, and same-sex
marriage. BYU J. Pub. L., 18, 371.
50. Koppelman, A., (1996). Same-sex marriage and public policy: The
miscegenation precedents. Qlr., 16, 105.
51. Koppelman, A., (1997). Same-sex marriage, choice of law, and public
policy. Tex. L. Rev., 76, 921.
52. Koppelman, A., (2014). Judging the case against same-sex marriage.
U. Ill. L. Rev., 431.
53. Kramer, L., (1996). Same-sex marriage, conflict of laws, and the
unconstitutional public policy exception. Yale L. J., 106, 1965.
54. Kreitzer, R. J., Hamilton, A. J., & Tolbert, C. J., (2014). Does policy
adoption change opinions on minority rights? The effects of legalizing
same-sex marriage. Political Research Quarterly, 67(4), 795–808.
55. Lahey, K. A., & Alderson, K., (2004). Same-Sex Marriage. Insomniac
Press.
56. Langbein, L., & Yost, Jr. M. A., (2009). Same-sex marriage and
negative externalities. Social Science Quarterly, 90(2), 292–308.
Bibliography 203
57. Lannutti, P. J., (2005). For better or worse: Exploring the meanings of
same-sex marriage within the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered
community. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(1), 5–18.
58. Lannutti, P. J., (2007). The influence of same-sex marriage on the
understanding of same-sex relationships. Journal of Homosexuality,
53(3), 135–151.
59. Lee, T. T., & Hicks, G. R., (2011). An analysis of factors affecting
attitudes toward same-sex marriage: Do the media matter? Journal of
Homosexuality, 58(10), 1391–1408.
60. Lenhardt, R. A., (2008). Beyond analogy: Perez v. sharp,
antimiscegenation law, and the fight for same-sex marriage. Calif. L.
Rev., 96, 839.
61. Lewis, G. B., & Gossett, C. W., (2008). Changing public opinion on
same-sex marriage: The case of California. Politics & Policy, 36(1),
4–30.
62. Lewis, G. B., (2005). Same-sex marriage and the 2004 presidential
election. PS: Political Science and Politics, 38(2), 195–199.
63. Lodola, G., & Corral, M., (2010). Support for same-sex marriage in
Latin America. Americas Barometer Insights, 44, 1–9.
64. Lupia, A., Krupnikov, Y., Levine, A. S., Piston, S., & Hagen-Jamar, A.
V., (2010). Why state constitutions differ in their treatment of same-sex
marriage. The Journal of Politics, 72(4), 1222–1235.
65. MacDougall, B., (2000). The celebration of same-sex marriage. Ottawa
L. Rev., 32, 235.
66. McVeigh, R., & Maria-Elena, D. D., (2009). Voting to ban same-sex
marriage: Interests, values, and communities. American Sociological
Review, 74(6), 891–915.
67. Meezan, W., & Rauch, J., (2005). Gay marriage, same-sex parenting,
and America’s children. The Future of Children, 97–115.
68. Moskowitz, D. A., Rieger, G., & Roloff, M. E., (2010). Heterosexual
attitudes toward same-sex marriage. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(2),
325–336.
69. Olson, L. R., Cadge, W., & Harrison, J. T., (2006). Religion and public
opinion about same-sex marriage. Social Science Quarterly, 87(2),
340–360.
70. Onuche, J., (2013). Same-sex marriage in Nigeria: A philosophical

analysis. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science,
3(12), 91–98.
71. Pearl, M. L., & Galupo, M. P., (2007). Development and validation of the
attitudes toward same-sex marriage scale. Journal of Homosexuality,
53(3), 117–134.
72. Pierceson, J., (2014). Same-Sex Marriage in the United States: The
Road to the Supreme Court and Beyond. Rowman & Littlefield.
73. Pinello, D. R., (2006). America’s Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage.
Cambridge University Press.
74. Powell, B., Quadlin, N. Y., & Pizmony-Levy, O., (2015). Public
opinion, the courts, and same-sex marriage: Four lessons learned.
Social Currents, 2(1), 3–12.
75. Rimmerman, C. A., & Wilcox, C., (2007). The Politics of Same-Sex
Marriage. University of Chicago Press.
76. Rosenfeld, M. J., (2014). Couple longevity in the era of same-sex
marriage in the United States. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(5),
905–918.
77. Rothblum, E. D., (2005). Same-sex marriage and legalized relationships:
I do, or do I? Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 1(1), 21–31.
78. Saez, M., (2011). Same-sex marriage, same-sex cohabitation, and
same-sex families around the world: Why ‘same’ is so different book
reviews/comptes rendus/Buchbesprechungen—European Review of
Private Law, 19(5).
79. Sanders, S., (2012). The constitutional right to (keep your) same-sex
marriage. Michigan Law Review, 1421–1481.
80. Schragger, R. C., (2005). Cities as constitutional actors: The case of
same-sex marriage. J. L. & Pol., 21, 147.
81. Sherkat, D. E., De Vries, K. M., & Creek, S., (2010). Race, religion,
and opposition to same-sex marriage. Social Science Quarterly, 91(1),
80–98.
82. Sherkat, D. E., Powell-Williams, M., Maddox, G., & De Vries, K. M.,
(2011). Religion, politics, and support for same-sex marriage in the
United States, 1988–2008. Social Science Research, 40(1), 167–180.
83. Shulman, J. L., Gotta, G., & Green, R. J., (2012). Will marriage matter?
Effects of marriage anticipated by same-sex couples. Journal of Family
Issues, 33(2), 158–181.
Bibliography 205
84. Smith, D. A., DeSantis, M., & Kassel, J., (2006). Same-sex marriage
ballot measures and the 2004 presidential election. State and Local
Government Review, 38(2), 78–91.
85. Smith, M., (2005). The politics of same-sex marriage in Canada and
the United States. PS: Political Science and Politics, 38(2), 225–228.
86. Smith, M., (2007). Framing same-sex marriage in Canada and the
United States: Goodridge, Halpern and the national boundaries of
political discourse. Social & Legal Studies, 16(1), 5–26.
87. Soule, S. A., (2004). Going to the chapel? Same-sex marriage bans in
the United States, 1973–2000. Social Problems, 51(4), 453–477.
88. Strasser, M., (2018). Legally Wed. Cornell University Press.
89. Sullivan, A., (2004). Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con: A Reader.
Vintage.
90. Tamagawa, M., (2016). Same-sex marriage in Japan. Journal of GLBT
Family Studies, 12(2), 160–187.
91. Trandafir, M., (2014). The effect of same-sex marriage laws on
different-sex marriage: Evidence from the Netherlands. Demography,
51(1), 317–340.
92. Trosino, J., (1993). American wedding: Same-sex marriage and the
miscegenation analogy. BUL Rev., 73, 93.
93. Vanita, R., (2005). Love’s Rite: Same-Sex Marriage in India and the
West. Springer.
94. Walls, N. E., (2010). Religion and support for same-sex marriage:
Implications from the literature. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social
Services, 22(1, 2), 112–131.
95. Wardle, L. D., (1996). A critical analysis of constitutional claims for
same-sex marriage. BYU L. Rev., 1.
96. Webb, S. N., & Chonody, J., (2014). Heterosexual attitudes toward
same-sex marriage: The influence of attitudes toward same-sex
parenting. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 10(4), 404–421.
97. Wedgwood, R., (1999). The fundamental argument for same-sex
marriage. Journal of Political Philosophy, 7(3), 225–242.
98. Widiss, D. A., Rosenblatt, E. L., & NeJaime, D., (2007). Exposing sex
stereotypes in recent same-sex marriage jurisprudence. Harv. J. L. &
Gender, 30, 461.
99. Wight, R. G., LeBlanc, A. J., & Lee, B. M. V., (2013). Same-sex legal
marriage and psychological well-being: Findings from the California
health interview survey. American Journal of Public Health, 103(2),
339–346.
100. Wilson, R. F., (2013). Marriage of necessity: Same-sex marriage and
religious liberty protections. Case W. Res. L. Rev., 64, 1161.
INDEX
A Catholicism 81
Catholic region 56
Achievement 191 Christian Church 62, 64, 65
Advancement 184 Christianity 128, 130, 135, 139
Alternative 171, 172 Circumstances 4, 9
Anti-miscegenation 31, 35, 36, 37 Cohabiting 103, 113, 115
Anti-religious 87 Community 2, 4, 6, 11, 20, 22, 24,
Arrangement 92 25, 26, 27, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39,
Athletic program 136 40, 41, 43, 44, 49, 51, 52, 54,
B 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 73, 76, 77,
79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 144,
Behavior 12, 17, 22, 25 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152,
Biblical patriarchy 86 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159,
Biological 55, 56, 58, 112, 116 160, 162, 165
Biological consequences 20 Community life 193
Bultigenerational 20 Community sanction 176, 182
C Companionship 130, 137
Compatibility matrix 18, 19
Cardiovascular 113, 116 Complexity 190
Catholic 64, 79, 82, 84
Complicity 58 Extensive system 163

Compromise 99, 127, 132, 133,
F
134, 140
Conceptualization 62, 63, 67, 68, Financial 107, 110
70, 82, 87 Financial obligation 23
Confucianism 96, 117
Consequently 152 G
Criminality 122 Genetic heredity 21
Critical marital 45 Genocidal-racist 39
Cultural Conservatives 184 Geographical locality 173
Cultural memory 175 global Anglican Communion 158
D Globe 186
Guardianship requirement 69
Democratic 37, 40
Democratic society 75, 124, 140 H
Denomination 91 Harassment 65, 76, 78
Disagreement 44 Harsh punishment 175
Discrimination 4, 25, 120, 121, 129, Health response 164
132, 135, 136, 170, 171, 175, Heterosexism 125, 140, 146
176, 179 Heterosexist 120, 121, 122, 123,
Diversity 62, 72, 77, 78, 79, 81, 174 124, 125, 129, 131, 132, 134,
Dynamics 35, 42, 57 139, 192, 194
E Heterosexuality 18
Heterosexual relationship 184
Economic 2, 11, 13, 18, 22, 23, 24 Homoeroticism 151
Economic activity 13 Homophobes 65
Egalitarianism 30 Homophobic 2, 34, 36, 37, 144,
Elopement 103 148, 154, 156, 164, 165
Enforcement 71 homosexual 122, 132, 134, 135
Entire industry 107 Homosexuality 121, 122, 127, 131,
Equality 32, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 132, 134, 135, 140, 141, 144,
51, 168, 170, 171, 172, 177, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150,
180, 181, 184, 191, 193, 194, 151, 152, 154, 155, 157, 159,
195 163, 171, 181
Ethnographic 13 Homosexual tendencies 6
Eurocentric 14 Hospitalization 116
Eurocentric civilization 36 Hotel accommodation 136
Explicitly 123, 124, 127 Humanity 129, 133, 137
Exploitation 169, 176 Human morality 13
Index 209
Human right 31 M
Human sexualities 172
Management 22, 24
Hypocrisy 66, 84, 124
Marginalization 51, 57, 176
I Marriage 29, 31, 47, 58, 59
Masterstroke 153
Identity 94, 103, 111, 112, 116, 174,
Material 172
175, 179, 181
Medical community 181
Ideological 162
Mental health 193
Illegitimate 9, 10, 11, 18
Metropolitan Community 135
Imbalances 184
Microaggression 191
Immigration procedures 174
Modality 2
Implementing 181
Modern society 84
Inequalities 191
Monogamy 62
Influence 65, 71, 72, 87
Monolithic 94, 98, 131
Inheritance 9, 22, 25, 26
Monolithic approach 174
Interestingly 171, 182
Morbidity 112
Intermarriage 76
Mythology 181
Interplay 179
Interpretation 65, 71, 75, 77, 79, 84, N
125, 127, 128, 130, 133, 135,
Neo-colonialism 147, 148
136, 139
Irrational 181 O
L Obligations 2, 3, 4, 11, 27, 71, 72,
79
Leadership 150, 158
Opportunistic 147
Legal framework 30, 59
Opportunities 12
Legal intervention 187
Opportunity 94, 97, 102, 111, 113,
Legalization 170
186, 190, 192
Legal process 32
Organization 156, 164
Legal requirements 30, 31
Organized religion 120
Legitimacy 9, 11, 12, 30, 34, 50, 53,
Organizing 109
54, 58, 59
Orientation 103, 112, 174, 175, 179
Liberal denominations 137
Original interpretation 75
Liberal interpretations 134
Local populace 172 P
Parental right 56
Patriarchy 74
Pentecostal 44, 81, 87 Religious community 125, 126

Perfection 135 Resource 68, 175
Personality 18, 22 Responsibilities 33, 34, 35, 40, 56,
Physical lynching 36 92, 100
Policy 147, 148, 155, 163 Responsibility 54, 55
Policy reform 82 Romantic 103, 113
Political leadership 153 Romantic relationship 187
Political manipulation 175
S
Politician 175, 181
Polygamous 10, 16, 32, 46, 53 same-sex relationship 184, 188, 195
Polygamy 2, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, Self-determination 184
18, 51, 52 Sexual inequalities 8
Polygynous 95, 111 Sexuality 62, 63, 66, 72, 82, 84, 87,
Polygyny 17, 67, 69, 74 185, 186, 192, 194
Possibility 39, 45, 57, 58 Sexual morality 130
Potential 31 Sexual relationship 187
Pragmatic 164 Sexual union 8
Pragmatic compromise 187 Social capital 8, 10, 22
Proclamation 71 Social conflicts 136
Promiscuity 83 Social consciousness 186
Proposition 127, 128 Social conservatives 5, 37, 41, 43
Protection 2, 4, 5, 27, 170, 175, 184 Social function 97
Protective mechanism 136 Social pressure 107, 110
Protestant Movement 81 Societal expectation 21
Psychosocial 34, 40, 49, 190 Societal institution 3
Public ceremony 171 Societal pressures 5
Public policy 65, 66, 67 Society 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
Public sympathy 136 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 30,
31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40,
R
42, 43, 47, 54, 55, 58, 59, 120,
Radicalization 139 124, 132, 147, 148, 150, 152,
Reactionary 182 157, 165, 171, 175, 181, 182
Realignment 122, 125 Spectrum 173
Relationship 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, Stereotype 130
20, 21, 113, 114, 115, 120, 129 Strategic planning 194
Religiosity 62, 87 Supremacy 37, 38, 44
Religious 46, 187, 191 Sustainable 54
Religious communities 121, 123, Sustainable development 182
126 Symbolize 186
Index 211
Systematic exclusion 30 Transphobia 139

Transphobic 171
T
U
Temporarily 159
Terminology 90 Ultimate destination 193
Theological 62, 82, 85, 88 Uniformity 78
Transactional 21, 22, 25, 26
Transactional relationship 21
V
Transfer 16, 22 Validity 30, 31
Transient 190 Violence 149, 150, 154, 165
Vulnerable 184, 189

Debating Same Sex Marriage An Example of A Cultural Revolution

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Debating Same Sex Marriage An Example of A Cultural Revolution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Debating Same Sex Marriage:

e-book Edition 2022

© 2022 Society Publishing

Margaret Bello-Digamon has Doctorate in Development Management major

Chapter 1 Introduction to the Institution of Marriage................................................ 1

Chapter 2 The Legal Framework of Marriage............................................................ 29

Chapter 3 Religiosity of Marriage............................................................................. 61

Chapter 5 Religious Objections to Non-Heterosexual Couples............................... 119

Chapter 6 Case Study of Institutionalized Homophobia in Africa........................... 143

Chapter 7 The Notion of Same-Sex Marriage.......................................................... 167

Chapter 8 The Future of Same-Sex Relationships.................................................... 183

Chapter 9 Concluding Remarks.............................................................................. 197

Figure 1.1. Traditional religious conceptualization of marriage

AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

1.1. INITIAL CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF

Figure 1.1: Traditional religious conceptualization of marriage.

Source: Catholic-Link via Twitter.

perspective of women or men who otherwise take on the traditional role of

overshadowed by its representation as a bastion of social conservatism. The

1.2. THE IMPLICATIONS OF MARRIAGE

Figure 1.2: Reasons as to why people get married.

Source: Pew Research Center.

society recognizes it as such. It is especially important for a marriage to be

serves the functions that would otherwise be allocated to a father in a Chris-

1.3. TYPOLOGIES OF MARRIAGE

a couple may consider personal vows to be more important than a marriage

Figure 1.3: Basic typology of marriages.

Source: Sociology Guide.

from the standpoint of a Western culture that is heavily influenced by

One of the typologies of marriage that is typically suited to modern

whilst idealizing it as a return to traditional family values, particularly in

1.4. SELECTING A MARRIAGE PARTNER

Figure 1.4: Example of a compatibility matrix for a dating agency.

Source: Lumen Learning.

between second cousins. The USA stigmatizes such marriages as an

1.5. THE ECONOMICS OF MARRIAGE

Figure 1.5: The economics of marriage and divorce.

Source: Trend Hunter.

one is considered to be the “feminine” wife. A lot of internalized homophobia

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

2.1. STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR AN

being recognized can be as dire as being deported. One of the contentious

Figure 2.1: Standard requirements for an effective marriage in North Carolina.

Source: Adapted from Slide Player.

for couples largely depends on what society considers to be important. In

of meeting societal expectations. Nevertheless, society can exert social

2.2. RACE, GENDER IN MARRIAGE

Figure 2.2: Race and intermarriage.

Source: Pew Research Center.

2004; Strasser, 2018; Sullivan, 2004; Tamagawa, 2016; Trandafir, 2014;

2.3. CIVIL UNIONS AND POWER RELATIONS IN

Figure 2.3: The effects of power play in a marriage or intimate relationships.

Source: Semantic Scholar.

particularly in Southern Europe and South America, that normatively have

everyone in every circumstance regardless of how much reform is made.

2.4. REGULATION OF SEXUAL RELATIONS

Figure 2.4: Control of sexual relationships in a marriage.

Source: Slide Player.

outside marriage, a taboo in North America and Europe at the time. In

example, the legitimacy of children resulting out of extramarital affairs by

2.5. LEGITIMACY OF CHILDREN BORN IN AND

As Figure 2.5 shows, in the USA, at least, minorities (Black and

have extramarital affairs must be held accountable for those consequences,