Same-sex marriage (also known as gay marriage) is marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender. Supporters of legal recognition for same-sex marriage typically refer to such recognition as marriage equality.

Since 2001, ten countries have begun allowing same-sex couples to marry nationwide: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden. Same-sex marriages are also performed and recognized in Mexico City and parts of the United States. Some jurisdictions that do not perform same-sex marriages recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere: Israel, the Caribbean countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, parts of the United States, and all states of Mexico.

The introduction of same-sex marriage has varied by jurisdiction, resulting from legislative changes to marriage laws, court challenges based on constitutional guarantees of equality, or a combination of the two. In some countries, allowing same-sex couples to marry replaced a previous system of civil unions or registered partnerships.

The recognition of such marriages is a civil rights, political, social, moral, and religious issue in many nations. The conflicts arise over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into marriage, be required to use a different status (such as a civil union, which either grant equal rights as marriage or limited rights in comparison to marriage), or not have any such rights. A related issue is whether the term ''marriage'' should be applied.

One argument in support of same-sex marriage is that denying same-sex couples legal access to marriage and all of its attendant benefits represents discrimination based on sexual orientation; several American scientific bodies agree with this assertion. Another argument in support of same-sex marriage is the assertion that financial, psychological and physical well-being are enhanced by marriage, and that children of same-sex couples benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union supported by society's institutions. Court documents filed by American scientific associations also state that singling out gay men and women as ineligible for marriage both stigmatizes and invites public discrimination against them. The American Anthropological Association avers that social science research does not support the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon not recognizing same-sex marriage. Other arguments for same-sex marriage are based upon what is regarded as a universal human rights issue, mental and physical health concerns, equality before the law, and the goal of normalizing LGBT relationships. Al Sharpton and several other authors attribute opposition to same-sex marriage as coming from homophobia or heterosexism and liken prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past prohibitions on interracial marriage.

One argument against same-sex marriage arises from a rejection of the use of the word "marriage" as applied to same-sex couples, as well as objections about the legal and social status of marriage itself being applied to same-sex partners under any terminology. Other stated arguments include direct and indirect social consequences of same-sex marriages, parenting concerns, religious grounds, and tradition.

Terminology

Definitions of marriage

Anthropologists have struggled to come up with a definition of marriage that absorbs commonalities of the social construct across cultures. Many proposed definitions have been criticized for failing to recognize the existence of same-sex marriage in some cultures, including in more than 30 African cultures, such as the Kikuyu and Nuer.

With several countries revising their marriage laws to recognize same-sex couples in the 21st century, all major English dictionaries have revised their definition of the word ''marriage'' to either drop gender specifications or supplement them with secondary definitions to include gender-neutral language or explicit recognition of same-sex unions. The Oxford English Dictionary has recognized same-sex marriage since 2000.

Alan Dershowitz and others have suggested reserving the word ''marriage'' for religious contexts as part of privatizing marriage, and in civil and legal contexts using a uniform concept of civil unions, in part to strengthen the separation between church and state. Jennifer Roback Morse, the president of the anti-same-sex marriage group National Organization for Marriage's Ruth Institute project, claims that the conflation of marriage with contractual agreements is a threat to marriage.

Terms for same-sex marriage

Some proponents of legal recognition of same-sex marriage, such as Freedom to Marry and Canadians for Equal Marriage, use the terms ''marriage equality'' and ''equal marriage'' to indicate that they seek equal benefit of marriage laws as opposed to special rights.

Opponents of same-sex marriage such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the Southern Baptist Convention use the term ''traditional marriage'' to mean marriages between one man and one woman. Anti-same-sex-marriage activist Maggie Gallagher argues that equating same-sex and opposite-sex marriages changes the meaning of marriage and its traditions.

Some publications that oppose same-sex marriage, such as ''WorldNetDaily'' and Baptist Press, have an editorial style policy of placing the word ''marriage'' in scare quotes ("marriage") when it is used in reference to same-sex couples. In the United States, the mainstream press has generally abandoned this practice. Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media argues for use of quotation marks on the grounds that marriage is a legal status denied same-sex couples by most state governments. Same-sex marriage supporters argue that the use of scare quotes is an editorialization that implies illegitimacy.

Associated Press style recommends the usages ''marriage for gays and lesbians'' or in space-limited headlines ''gay marriage'' with no hyphen and no scare quotes. The Associated Press warns that the construct ''gay marriage'' can imply that marriages of gay and lesbian couples are somehow legally different from those of opposite-sex couples.

History

Ancient

Various types of same-sex marriages have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies. Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.

An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.

The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire. For instance, Emperor Nero is reported to have engaged in a marriage ceremony with one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus "married" a Carian slave named Hierocles. It should be noted, however, that ''conubium'' existed only between a ''civis Romanus'' and a ''civis Romana'' (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a so-called marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases). Furthermore, "''matrimonium'' is an institution involving a mother, ''mater''. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, ''in matrimonium ducere'', so that he may have children by her." Still, the lack of legal validity notwithstanding, there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, but the exact frequency and nature of "same-sex unions" during that period is obscure. In 342 AD Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (''C. Th.'' 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.

A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on April 16, 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.

Modern

In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation in the world to grant same-sex marriages. Same-sex marriages are also granted and mutually recognized by Belgium (2003), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010), Iceland (2010) and Argentina (2010). In Mexico same sex marriage is recognized in all 31 states but only performed in Mexico City. In Nepal, their recognition has been judicially mandated but not yet legislated. 250 million people (or 4% of the world population) live in areas that recognise same-sex marriage.

Current status

Legal recognition

Same-sex marriage is legally recognized nationwide in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden. In the United States, same-sex marriages are not recognized federally, though same-sex couples can marry in six states and one district. In Mexico, same-sex marriages are only performed in Mexico City, but these marriages are recognized by all Mexican states and by the Mexican federal government. Israel does not recognize same-sex marriages performed on its territory, but recognizes same-sex marriages performed in foreign jurisdictions. In Brazil, a same-sex couple may convert their civil union into marriage with the approval of a state judge, if approved that marriage is recognized in all the national territory.

Argentina

On July 15, 2010, the Argentine Senate approved a bill extending marriage rights to same-sex couples. It was supported by the Government of President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and opposed by the Catholic Church. Polls showed that nearly 70 percent of Argentines supported giving gay people the same marital rights as heterosexuals.

Belgium

Belgium became the second country in the world to legally recognize same-sex marriages on June 1, 2003, with the coming into force of a bill passed by the Belgian Federal Parliament. Originally, Belgium allowed the marriages of foreign same-sex couples only if their country of origin also allowed these unions, however legislation enacted in October 2004 permits any couple to marry if at least one of the spouses has lived in the country for a minimum of three months. A 2006 law enabled legal adoption by same-sex spouses.

Canada

Legal recognition of same-sex marriage in Canada followed a series of constitutional challenges based on the equality provisions of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms''. In the first such case, ''Halpern v. Canada (Attorney General)'', same-sex marriage ceremonies performed in Ontario on January 14, 2001 were subsequently validated when the common law, opposite-sex definition of marriage was held to be unconstitutional. Similar rulings had legalized same-sex marriage in eight provinces and one territory when the 2005 ''Civil Marriage Act'' defined marriage throughout Canada as "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others."

Iceland

Same-sex marriage was introduced in Iceland through legislation establishing a gender-neutral definition of marriage introduced by the coalition government of the Social Democratic Alliance and Left-Green Movement. The legislation was passed unanimously by the Icelandic Althing on June 11, 2010, and took effect on June 27, 2010, replacing an earlier system of registered partnerships for same-sex couples. Prime Minister Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir and her partner were among first married same-sex couples in the country.

Israel

Israel's High Court of Justice ruled to honor same-sex marriages granted in other countries even though Israel does not recognize such marriages performed under its own jurisdiction. A bill was raised in the Knesset (parliament) to rescind the High Court's ruling, but the Knesset has not advanced the bill since December 2006.

Mexico

On December 21, 2009, Mexico City's Legislative Assembly legalized same-sex marriages and adoption by same-sex couples. The law was enacted eight days later and became effective in early March 2010. On August 10, 2010, the Mexican Supreme Court ruled that while not every state must grant same-sex marriages, they must all recognize those performed where they are legal.

The Netherlands

The Netherlands was the first country to extend marriage laws to include same-sex couples, following the recommendation of a special commission appointed to investigate the issue in 1995. A same-sex marriage bill passed the House of Representatives and the Senate in 2000, taking effect on April 1, 2001.

In the Netherlands' Caribbean special municipalities of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba, marriage is presently restricted to heterosexual couples, however a law enabling same-sex couples to marry has been passed and is planned to come into effect by 10 October 2012. The Caribbean countries Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten, forming the remainder of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, do not perform same-sex marriages, but must recognize those performed in the European territory of the Netherlands.

Norway

Same-sex marriage became legal in Norway on January 1, 2009 when a gender neutral marriage bill was enacted after being passed by the Norwegian legislature in June 2008. Norway became the first Scandinavian country and the sixth country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage.

Gender neutral marriage replaced Norway's previous system of registered partnerships for same-sex couples. Couples in registered partnerships are able to retain that status or convert their registered partnership to a marriage. No new registered partnerships may be created.

Portugal

On January 8, 2010, the parliament approved, with 126 votes in favor, 97 against and 7 abstentions, same-sex marriage. The President promulgated the law on April 8, same-sex marriage become legal since June 5, 2010, thus Portugal became the eighth country to conduct nationwide same-sex marriage.

South Africa

In a 2002 landmark decision that paved the way for later legal extensions of same-sex rights, South Africa became the first country in Africa to legally permit adoptions by same-sex couples. The Court (Judge Lewis Skweyiyi) held, "Family life as contemplated in the constitution (of South Africa) can be lived in different ways. The stability, support and affection envisaged by the Child Care Act can be provided by people in permanent same-sex relationships." Same-sex marriage became legal in South Africa on November 30, 2006 when the Civil Unions Bill was enacted after having been passed by the South African Parliament earlier that month. A ruling by the Constitutional Court on December 1, 2005 had imposed a deadline of December 1, 2006 to make same-sex marriage legal. South Africa became the fifth country, the first in Africa, and the second outside Europe, to legalize same-sex marriage.

United States

In the United States, although same-sex marriages are not recognized federally, same-sex couples can legally marry in six states (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont) and the District of Columbia and receive state-level benefits. The states of New Jersey, Maryland, and Rhode Island do not facilitate same-sex marriages, but do recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, as does California in some cases, in particular those established when the state briefly allowed same-sex marriage in 2008. Additionally, several states offer civil unions or domestic partnerships, granting all or part of the state-level rights and responsibilities of marriage. Thirty-one states have constitutional restrictions limiting marriage to one woman and one man.

In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage solely as a union between a couple of the opposite sex for all federal purposes and allowing for the non-recognition amongst the states.

A 2005 federal district court decision, ''Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning'', holding that prohibiting recognition of same-sex relationships violated the Constitution was overturned on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in 2006, which ruled that "laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples ... do not violate the Constitution of the United States."

In 2006, the Supreme Court of the State of Washington concluded that encouraging procreation within the framework of marriage can be seen as a legitimate government interest furthered by limiting marriage between opposite-sex couples.

In 2010, United States District Court for the Northern District of California stated the evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. Proponents of excluding same-sex couples from marriage were unable to reply how permitting same-sex marriage impairs or adversely affects the assumption that the state's interest in marriage is procreative. When asked to identify the evidence at trial that supported the contention responsible procreation is really at the heart of society's interest in regulating marriage, proponents' counsel replied he did not have evidence of this point.

In July 2010, a federal court held key provisions of DOMA unconstitutional; the Department of Justice entered an appeal on October 12, 2010. President Barack Obama is officially opposed to same-sex marriage, although he "supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples", a full repeal of DOMA, and called California's Proposition 8 outlawing same-sex marriage in 2008 "unnecessary". In August 2010, Proposition 8 was declared unconstitutional under the United States Constitution in a federal court case, ''Perry v. Schwarzenegger'', but the ruling has been stayed pending appeal by a higher court; the judge found the ban unconstitutional, ruling that "Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification". Proponents of Proposition 8 appealed the District Court's ruling, and licensing of marriage ceremonies has been delayed by the 9th Circuit Court issuing a stay until the appeal process is completed; in addition, the 9th Circuit also assured a speedy trial.

Subject debated

Australia

Australia bans recognition of same-sex marriages. The ban is somewhat supported by the Catholic Church and the two largest political parties. The current Gillard federal Labor Party government is reluctant to progress toward same sex marriage asserting that marriage remains the preserve of heterosexual couples only. In February 2010, the Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young's Marriage Equality Bill was rejected by the Senate. Senator Hanson-Young re-introduced the bill to the Senate in September 2010. The bill will sit on a notice paper until the major parties agree to a conscience vote on it. A Greens motion urging federal MPs to gauge community support for gay marriage was passed by the House of Representatives on 18 November 2010.

The Australian Capital Territory is the first jurisdiction in Australia to legalise civil partnerships ceremonies for gay couples. However, they are not recognised in Australian jurisdictions outside of that territory. Registered partnerships are available in New South Wales, Tasmania and Victoria. From 1 July 2009 Centrelink recognised same-sex couples equally regarding social security – under the common-law marriage, de facto status or unregistered cohabitation. There is a bill before the Tasmanian Legislative Council to recognise same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

Colombia

On Tuesday July 26 2011, The Constitutional Court of Colombia ordered the Colombian Congress to legislate on the matter of same-sex marriage and that if they fail to, same-sex couples will be granted all marriage rights in two years (on June 20th 2013) automatically.

Europe

The current government of Luxembourg intends to legalize same-sex marriage. As of June, 2011, Germany will face a vote on same-sex marriage. The issue was opened by the senate of the city-state of Hamburg, and will be voted on in the Federal Bundesrat.

In France in 2006, a 30-member non-quorum parliamentary commission of the French National Assembly published a 453-page ''Report on the Family and the Rights of Children'', which rejected same-sex marriages. Also, the French National Assembly voted against same-sex marriage June 15, 2011 (bill of Patrick Bloche about same-sex marriage). Finland may legalize same-sex marriage after the 2011 parliamentary elections; Minister of Justice Tuija Brax has said her Ministry is preparing a reform to amend the Marriage Act towards gay marriage by 2012. There is active consideration of same-sex marriage within political parties in the United Kingdom (notably the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats and Green Party).

Nepal

In November 2008, Nepal's highest court issued final judgment on matters related to LGBT rights, which included approving gay marriage. Based on the court recommendation the government announced its intention to introduce a same-sex marriage bill by 2010. Same-sex marriage and protection for sexual minorities will be included in the new Nepalese constitution currently being drafted.

New Zealand

New Zealand's Marriage Act 1955 recognizes marriage rights only for opposite-sex couples. New Zealand's Parliament rejected a bill that would have prohibited the recognition of same-sex marriage in New Zealand in December 2005. The marriage laws consider transsexuals who have undergone reassignment surgery as having changed sex for legal purposes, following Family Court and High Court of New Zealand decisions in 1995.

Nigeria

In 2006, Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo introduced legislation that prohibits same-sex marriages and criminalizes anyone who "performs, witnesses, aids or abets" such ceremonies. Among the Igbo people of Nigeria, there are circumstances where a marriage between two women is allowed, such as when a woman has no child and the husband dies.

International organizations

The terms of employment of the staff of international organizations (not commercial) in most cases are not governed by the laws of the country where their offices are located. Agreements with the host country safeguard these organizations' impartiality.

Despite their relative independence, few organizations recognize same-sex partnerships without condition. The agencies of the United Nations recognize same-sex marriages if and only if the country of citizenship of the employees in question recognizes the marriage. In some cases, these organizations do offer a limited selection of the benefits normally provided to opposite-sex married couples to ''de facto'' partners or domestic partners of their staff, but even individuals who have entered into an opposite-sex civil union in their home country are not guaranteed full recognition of this union in all organizations. However, the World Bank does recognize domestic partners.

Other legally recognized same-sex unions

Civil unions, civil partnerships, domestic partnerships, registered partnerships, or unregistered partnership/unregistered co-habitation legal status offer varying portions of the legal benefits of marriage and are available to same-sex couples in: Andorra, Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Slovenia, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Uruguay. They are also available in parts of Mexico (Coahuila and the Federal District) and the United States (California, Hawai'i, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Washington and the federal District of Columbia).

In some countries with legal recognition the actual benefits are minimal. Many people consider civil unions, even those that grant equal rights, inadequate, as they create a separate status, and think they should be replaced by gender-neutral marriage.

Transgender and intersex persons

When sex is defined legally, it may be defined by any one of several criteria: the XY sex-determination system, the type of gonads, the type of external sexual features, or the person's social identification. Consequently, both transsexuals and intersexed individuals may be legally categorized into confusing gray areas, and could be prohibited from marrying partners of the "opposite" sex or permitted to marry partners of the "same" sex due to legal distinctions. This could result in long-term marriages, as well as recent same-sex marriages, being overturned.

The problems of defining gender by the existence/non-existence of gonads or certain sexual features is complicated by the existence of surgical methods to alter these features. Estimates run as high as 1 percent of live births exhibiting some degree of sexual ambiguity, and between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births being ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention, including sometimes involuntary surgery to address their sexual ambiguity.

In any legal jurisdiction where marriages are defined without distinction of a requirement of a male and female, these complications do not occur. In addition, some legal jurisdictions recognize a legal and official change of gender, which would allow a transsexual to be legally married in accordance with an adopted gender identity.

In the United Kingdom, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 allows a person who has lived in their chosen gender for at least two years to receive a gender recognition certificate officially recognizing their new gender. Because in the UK marriages are for mixed-sex couples and civil partnerships are for same-sex couples, a person must dissolve his/her marriage or civil partnership before obtaining a gender recognition certificate. Such persons are then free to enter or re-enter civil partnerships or marriages in accordance with their newly recognized gender identity. In Austria, a similar provision requiring transsexual persons to divorce before having their legal sex marker corrected was found to be unconstitutional in 2006.

In Quebec prior to the legalization of same-sex marriage, only unmarried persons could apply for legal change of gender. With the advent of same-sex marriage, this restriction was dropped.

In the United States, transsexual and intersexual marriages typically run into the complications detailed above. As definitions and enforcement of marriage are defined by the states, these complications vary from state to state.

Controversy

While few societies have recognized same-sex unions as marriages, the historical and anthropological record reveals a large range of attitudes towards same-sex unions ranging from praise, to sympathetic toleration, to indifference, to prohibition. Opponents of same-sex marriages have argued that recognition of same-sex marriages would erode religious freedoms, and that same-sex marriage, while doing good for the couples that participate in them and the children they are raising, undermines a right of children to be raised by their biological mother and father.

Some supporters of same-sex marriages take the view that the government should have no role in regulating personal relationships, while others argue that same-sex marriages would provide social benefits to same-sex couples.

The debate regarding same-sex marriages includes debate based upon social viewpoints as well as debate based on majority rules, religious convictions, economic arguments, health-related concerns, and a variety of other issues.

Judicial and legislative

There are differing positions regarding the manner in which same-sex marriage has been introduced into democratic jurisdictions. A "majority rules" position holds that same-sex marriage is valid, or void and illegal, based upon whether it has been accepted by a simple majority of voters or of their elected representatives. In contrast, a "civil rights" view holds that the institution can be validly created through the ruling of an impartial judiciary carefully examining the questioning and finding that the right to marry regardless of the gender of the participants is guaranteed under the civil rights laws of the jurisdiction.

Religion

Arguments on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate are still often made on religious grounds and/or formulated in terms of religious doctrine. One source of controversy is how same-sex marriage affects freedom of religion. Some religious organizations (citing their religious beliefs) refuse to provide employment, public accommodations, adoption services and other benefits to same-sex couples. Some governments have made special provisions for religious protections within the texts of same-sex marriage laws.

Pope John Paul II, then head of the Roman Catholic church, criticized same-sex marriage when it was introduced in the Netherlands in 2001. His successor Pope Benedict XVI has maintained opposition to the institution, considering it amongst "the most insidious and dangerous threats to the common good today".

Some Christian groups have been vocal and politically active in opposing same-sex marriage legalization in the United States. Roman Catholic advocates of monogamous heterosexual marriages contend that same-sex relationships cannot be considered marriages because marriage, by definition, necessarily involves the uniting of two members of the opposite sex. Other religious arguments for an opposite-sex definition of marriage hold that same-sex relationships should not be recognized as marriages because same-gender sexual activity is contrary to God's will, is immoral, and subverts God's creative intent for human sexuality. Christian opposition to same-sex marriage also comes from the belief that same-sex marriage normalizes homosexual behavior and would encourage it, instead of encouraging resistance to same-sex attraction.

Some Abrahamic religious arguments against same-sex marriage are based upon Old Testament passages that discuss the fate of Sodom (), command that one "not lie with mankind, as with womankind" (), and state that those that do "shall surely be put to death", while others are based upon New Testament passages on topics of people going against "natural use" in their lust (), the "unrighteous" (), and the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah (). Christian groups that have been vocal and or active in their opposition to same-sex marriages include the Assemblies of God, Church of God in Christ, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as Mormons), the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference, the Conservative Mennonite Conference, the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, the Hutterite Brethren, the Orthodox Church in America, the Brethren in Christ, the Mennonite Church USA, the Roman Catholic Church, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (OU), and the United Pentecostal Church International. In 2009, a group of Christian leaders from various denominations issued the Manhattan Declaration, an "influential statement that united evangelicals and Catholic leaders in fighting abortion and gay marriage"; as of November 2010, the Declaration had been signed by over 475,000 individuals.

Christian supporters of same-sex marriage have stated that marriage rights for same-sex couples strengthens the institution of marriage and provides legal protection for children of gay and lesbian parents. Bible-based arguments for same-sex marriage rights include that the word "homosexual", as found in modern versions of the Bible, is an inaccurate translation of the original texts. The word "Homosexual" as used in modern translations of the Holy Bible may be a transliteration and not a direct translation of the original text; Neither Vine's Expository Dictionary nor Strong's Concordance (two significant bible reference works) contain the word "homosexual,". There is no direct biblical prohibition of marriage rights for same-sex couples. The Christian Bible does not define the institution of marriage. Biblical texts used by non-affirming Christian organizations to condemn homosexuality, and by extension same-sex marriage, may refer only to specific sex acts and idolatrous worship lacking any relevance to contemporary same-sex relationships. Supporting marriage rights for gays and lesbians is viewed by many affirming Christians as a Christ-like commitment to the equality and dignity of all persons. The United Church of Canada asserts that "human sexual orientations, whether heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual, are a gift from God", whilst the Yearly Meeting of Quakers in the United Kingdom decided to offer same-sex marriages, though national law permits only civil partnerships.

On July 4, 2005 the United Church of Christ (UCC), at their 25th General Synod, voted to support full legal and religious marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples making it the first mainline Christian denomination in the United States to support and promote same sex marriage equality. The UCC is a liberal Christian denomination with a long history of supporting gay rights, women's rights, African-American civil rights and other issues of social justice.

Unitarian Universalism, a liberal faith tradition, supports same-sex marriage. It has taken an active role advocating for LGBT rights and same-sex marriages are often performed in UU congregations.

In addition to the churches that have already included gays and lesbians in their marriage tradition, others including the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church U.S.A, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Church of Scotland are discussing the issue among their members.

Judaism, like Christianity, contains varying views on the issue of marriage rights, both politically and religiously, for same-sex couples. Some Orthodox Jews maintain the traditional Jewish bans on both sexual acts and marriages amongst members of the same sex, but other orthodox rabbis, such as Steven Greenberg, disagree. Some Conservative Jews reject recognition of same-sex unions as marriages, but permit celebration of commitment ceremonies, while others recognize same-sex marriage. The Union for Reform Judaism (formerly known as the Union of American Hebrew Congregations) supports the inclusion of same-sex unions within the definition of marriage. The Jewish Reconstructionist Federation leaves the choice to individual rabbis.

From the Islamic perspective, a majority of Muslim legal scholars cite the rulings of the prophet Muhammad and the story of Lot in Sodom as condemnation of homosexuality. Given that Islam views marriage as an exchange between two parties where the man offers protection and security in return for exclusive sexual and reproductive rights to the woman, same-sex marriages cannot be considered legal within the constraints of a Muslim marriage.

Buddhist scripture and teachings do not take a consistent stance against homosexuality, and do not specifically proscribe nor endorse same-sex marriage; thus, there is no unified stance for or against the practice.

Some Wiccan communities are supportive of same-sex marriages, but as Wicca is a non-dogmatic and non-monolithic religious movement, there is no unity of opinion or official position on the subject.

Children and the family

Literature indicates that parents' financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union. Scientific research has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents. According to scientific literature reviews, there is no evidence to the contrary.

Maggie Gallagher and Margaret Somerville argue that a child has a right to be raised by a father and a mother, and that legalizing same-sex marriage undermines that right.

Education controversy

The subject of how the legalization of same-sex marriage affects public education is a source of controversy. An argument sometimes used by supporters is that teaching about same-sex marriage in schools will help children to be more open minded by exposing them to different types of families. There is concern from opponents of same-sex marriage that it will undermine parental rights over their children's education.

Same-sex marriage opponents express concern that the information being presented in schools might not be accurate, might omit medical, psychological and legal impacts of homosexuality, and might be age-inappropriate. There has also been concern that educators who disagree with same-sex marriage curricula could be punished.

Effects of same-sex marriage

The American Psychological Association stated in 2004:

The institution of civil marriage confers a social status and important legal benefits, rights, and privileges. ... Same-sex couples are denied equal access to civil marriage. ... Same-sex couples who enter into a civil union are denied equal access to all the benefits, rights, and privileges provided by federal law to married couples ... The benefits, rights, and privileges associated with domestic partnerships are not universally available, are not equal to those associated with marriage, and are rarely portable ... Denial of access to marriage to same-sex couples may especially harm people who also experience discrimination based on age, race, ethnicity, disability, gender and gender identity, religion, and socioeconomic status ... the APA believes that it is unfair and discriminatory to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage and to all its attendant benefits, rights, and privileges.

The American Sociological Association stated in 2004:

... a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman intentionally discriminates against lesbians and gay men as well as their children and other dependents by denying access to the protections, benefits, and responsibilities extended automatically to married couples ... we believe that the official justification for the proposed constitutional amendment is based on prejudice rather than empirical research ... the American Sociological Association strongly opposes the proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

The Canadian Psychological Association stated in 2006:

The literature (including the literature on which opponents to marriage of same-sex couples appear to rely) indicates that parents' financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union. As the CPA stated in 2003, the stressors encountered by gay and lesbian parents and their children are more likely the result of the way society treats them than because of any deficiencies in fitness to parent. The CPA recognizes and appreciates that persons and institutions are entitled to their opinions and positions on this issue. However, CPA is concerned that some are mis-interpreting the findings of psychological research to support their positions, when their positions are more accurately based on other systems of belief or values. CPA asserts that children stand to benefit from the well-being that results when their parents' relationship is recognized and supported by society's institutions.

The American Anthropological Association stated in 2005:

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The United Kingdom's Royal College of Psychiatrists has stated the following. The statement uses the term "civil partnership" and not gay marriage.

... lesbian, gay and bisexual people are and should be regarded as valued members of society who have exactly similar ''[sic]'' rights and responsibilities as all other citizens. This includes ... the rights and responsibilities involved in a civil partnership ...

Health issues

Recently, several psychological studies have shown that an increase in exposure to negative conversations and media messages about same-sex marriage creates a harmful environment for the LGBT population that may affect their health and well-being.

In 2010, a Mailman School of Public Health study examining the effects of institutional discrimination on the psychiatric health of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) individuals found an increase in psychiatric disorders, including a more than doubling of anxiety disorders, among the LGB population living in states that instituted bans on same-sex marriage. According to the author the study highlighted the importance of abolishing institutional forms of discrimination, including those leading to disparities in the mental health and well-being of LGB individuals. Institutional discrimination is characterized by societal-level conditions that limit the opportunities and access to resources by socially disadvantaged groups.

Gay activist Jonathan Rauch has argued that marriage is good for all men, whether homosexual or heterosexual, because engaging in its social roles reduces men's aggression and promiscuity. The data of current psychological and other social science studies on same-sex marriage in comparison to opposite-sex marriage indicate that same-sex and opposite-sex relationships do not differ in their essential psychosocial dimensions; that a parent's sexual orientation is unrelated to their ability to provide a healthy and nurturing family environment; and that marriage bestows substantial psychological, social, and health benefits. Same-sex couples and their children are likely to benefit in numerous ways from legal recognition of their families, and providing such recognition through marriage will bestow greater benefit than civil unions or domestic partnerships.

In 2009, a pair of economists at Emory University tied the passage of state bans on same-sex marriage in the US to an increase in the rates of HIV infection. The study linked the passage of same-sex marriage ban in a state to an increase in the annual HIV rate within that state of roughly 4 cases per 100,000 population.

Legal issues

Fictional same-sex marriage

Same-sex marriages and relationships have been a theme in several fictional story arcs, mythology, cult classics, and video games. In the video games Fable II and The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim same-sex marriage is possible.

There has been some debate as to whether same-sex marriage is legal in the Star Trek universe, as there is very little mention of homosexuality in Star Trek, but during The Next Generation and the Voyager series, rumors often circulated around the topic. The independent fan series Star Trek: Hidden Frontier actually had a same-sex marriage ceremony in the series finale, but this is completely non-canon.

See also

Adoption by same-sex couples

Divorce of same-sex couples

Family law

Homosexuality

LGBT rights in Europe

Marriage rights and obligations

Marriage, unions and partnerships by country

Same-sex marriage and the family

Status of same-sex marriage

Timeline of same-sex marriage

Religion

Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches

Religion and sexuality

Religious views on same-sex marriage

Same-sex marriage and Judaism

U.S. specific

Defense of Marriage Act

LGBT rights in the United States

Marriage gap (U.S. centric)

Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States

Supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States

Same-sex controversy in the U.S. Census 2000

Uniting American Families Act

Historical

Adelphopoiesis (''"brother-making"'')

The Leveret Spirit

Documentaries and literature

''A Union in Wait''

''Freedom to Marry''

''Marriage Under Fire''

''Pursuit of Equality''

''Marriage Equality USA''

''The Gay Marriage Thing''

MTV's True Life: ''I'm Gay and I'm Getting Married''

Footnotes

Bibliography

External links

Google Map of "World homosexuality laws"

Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons

''Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco'' California Supreme Court Opinion overturning ban on same-sex unions, May 15, 2008

Same-Sex Marriage: Developments in the Law", Emily Doskow, NOLO, 2008.

Varnum Et. Al. v Brien Polk County Iowa Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Overturns Ban on Gay Marriage 3Apr2009.

ar:زواج مثلي br:Dimezioù etre paotred pe etre maouezed bg:Еднополов брак ca:Matrimoni homosexual de:Gleichgeschlechtliche Ehe es:Matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo eo:Samseksa edz(in)eco fa:ازدواج همجنس‌گرایان fr:Mariage homosexuel gl:Matrimonio entre persoas do mesmo sexo ko:동성 결혼 id:Pernikahan sejenis it:Matrimonio fra persone dello stesso sesso he:נישואים חד-מיניים ka:ერთი სქესის წყვილთა ქორწინება lt:Tos pačios lyties asmenų santuoka hu:Azonos neműek házassága mk:Брак меѓу исти полови mr:समलिंगी विवाह nl:Homohuwelijk ja:同性結婚 no:Likekjønnet ekteskap pl:Małżeństwo osób tej samej płci pt:Casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo ro:Căsătorie între persoane de același sex ru:Однополый брак sl:Istospolna poroka sr:Истополни брак sh:Istopolni brak fi:Samaa sukupuolta olevien avioliitto sv:Samkönat äktenskap ta:ஒருபால் திருமணம் tr:Eşcinsel evlilik uk:Одностатевий шлюб vi:Hôn nhân đồng giới wuu:同性婚姻 yi:זעלביקער-געשלעכט חתונה zh:同性婚姻

Name	Chris Christie
Order	55th
Office	Governor of New Jersey
Lieutenant	Kim Guadagno
Term start	January 19, 2010
Predecessor	Jon Corzine
Office2	United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey
Nominator2	George W. Bush
Term start2	January 17, 2002
Term end2	December 1, 2008
Predecessor2	Robert Cleary
Successor2	Ralph Marra (Acting)
Birthname	Christopher James Christie
Birth date	September 06, 1962
Birth place	Newark, New Jersey
Party	Republican Party
Spouse	Mary Pat Foster
Residence	Mendham
Alma mater	University of DelawareSeton Hall University
Religion	Christian (Catholic)
Signature	Chris Christie Signature.svg }}

Christopher James "Chris" Christie (born September 6, 1962) is the 55th and current Governor of New Jersey. Upon his election to the governorship in November 2009, Christie became the first Republican to win a statewide election in New Jersey in 12 years. Christie, an attorney, previously served as United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey.

Early life and family

Chris Christie was born in Newark, New Jersey, the son of Bill Christie and Sondra Grasso Christie. He was raised in Livingston, graduating from Livingston High School. Christie graduated from the University of Delaware with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science in 1984 and Seton Hall University School of Law with a Juris Doctor degree in 1987. Christie was admitted to the Bar of the State of New Jersey and the Bar of the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, in December 1987.

In 1986, Christie married Mary Pat Foster, a fellow student at the University of Delaware. After marriage they shared a one-room apartment in Summit, New Jersey. Mary Pat Christie pursued a career in investment banking, eventually working at the Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald. She left the firm in 2001 following the September 11th attacks, only recently returning to work part-time. They have four children, Andrew (born 1993), Sarah (born 1996), Patrick (born 2000), and Bridget (born 2003). Christie and his family reside in Mendham Township.

Christie is of Irish and Sicilian descent.

Early career

Lawyer

In 1987, Christie joined the law firm of Dughi, Hewit & Palatucci of Cranford, New Jersey. In 1993, he was named a partner in the firm. Christie specialized in securities law, appellate practice, election law, and government affairs. He is a member of the American Bar Association and the New Jersey State Bar Association and was a member of the Election Law Committee of the New Jersey State Bar Association.

Morris County Freeholder

Christie, at the time a resident of Mendham, was in 1994 elected as a Republican to the Morris County, New Jersey, Board of Chosen Freeholders, with Christie and a running mate having defeated incumbent freeholders in the party primary. After that election, the defeated incumbents filed defamation lawsuits against Christie based on statements made during the primary campaign. Christie had incorrectly stated that the incumbents were under investigation for violating certain local laws. The lawsuit was settled out of court.

As freeholder, Christie required the county government to obtain three quotes from all qualified firms for all contracts. He led a successful effort to bar county officials from accepting gifts from people and firms doing business with the county. He voted to raise the county's open space tax for land preservation; however, county taxes on the whole were decreased by 6.6% during his tenure. He successfully pushed for the dismissal of an architect hired to design a new jail, saying that the architect was costing taxpayers too much money. The architect then sued Christie for defamation over remarks he made about the dismissal.

In 1995, Christie announced a bid for a seat in the New Jersey General Assembly; he and attorney Rick Merkt ran as a ticket against incumbent Assemblyman Anthony Bucco and attorney Michael Patrick Carroll in the Republican primary. Bucco and Carroll, the establishment candidates, defeated the up-and-comers by a wide margin. After this loss, Christie's bid for re-nomination to the freeholder board was unlikely, as unhappy Republicans recruited John J. Murphy to run against Christie in 1997. Murphy defeated Christie in the primary. Murphy, who had falsely accused Christie of having the county pay his legal bills in the architect's lawsuit, was sued by Christie after the election. They settled out of court; nevertheless, Christie's career in Morris County politics was over by 1998.

Lobbyist

In 1998 Christie registered as a lobbyist for the firm of Dughi, Hewit & Palatucci, alongside fellow partner and later, gubernatorial campaign fundraiser Bill Palatucci. Between 1999 and 2001, Christie and Palatucci lobbied on behalf of, among others, GPU Energy for deregulation of New Jersey's electric and gas industry; the Securities Industry Association to block the inclusion of securities fraud under the state's Consumer Fraud Act; Hackensack University Medical Center for state grants, and the University of Phoenix for a New Jersey higher education license.

United States Attorney

Christie served as the chief federal law enforcement officer in New Jersey from January 17, 2002 to December 1, 2008. His office included 137 attorneys, with offices in Newark, Trenton and Camden. Christie also served as one of the 17 U.S. Attorneys on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' advisory committee.

Appointment

On December 7, 2001, Christie was nominated to be the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. He was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on December 20, 2001, and sworn into office on January 17, 2002.

Controversy surrounded his appointment; some members of the New Jersey Bar professed disappointment at Christie's lack of criminal law experience and his history as a top fundraiser for George W. Bush's 2000 presidential campaign. The extent of the role played by Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove, also became an issue after Christie's law partner, William Palatucci, a Republican political consultant and Bush supporter, boasted that he had selected a United States attorney by forwarding Christie's résumé to Rove.

Christie has stated that his distant familial connection to Tino Fiumara never came up during his Federal Bureau of Investigation background check for his position as a U.S. Attorney; he told ''The New York Times'' in 2009 that he had assumed that investigators were aware of the connection. During his tenure as U.S. Attorney, Christie recused himself from his office's investigation, indictment, and prosecution of Fiumara for aiding the flight of a fugitive.

Achievements

Despite the initial misgivings over his degree of experience, Christie received praise for his history of convictions for public corruption. During his tenure, Christie's office won convictions or guilty pleas from 130 public officials, both Republican and Democratic, on the state, county and local levels without losing a single case. The most notable of these convictions included those of Hudson County Executive Robert C. Janiszewski in 2002 on bribery charges, Essex County Executive James W. Treffinger in 2003 on corruption charges, former New Jersey Senate President John A. Lynch, Jr. in 2006 on charges of mail fraud and tax evasion, State Senator and former Newark mayor Sharpe James in 2008 on fraud charges, and State Senator Wayne R. Bryant in 2008 on charges of bribery, mail fraud, and wire fraud.

Claims of misuse of deferred prosecution agreements

Christie has been accused of using his office's role in crafting deferred prosecution agreements to award lucrative federal monitoring positions in no-bid contracts to friends, supporters, and allies. Questions first arose after Christie awarded a multimillion dollar, no-bid contract to David Kelley, another former U.S. Attorney, who had investigated Christie's brother, Todd Christie, in a 2005 fraud case involving traders at the Wall Street firm, Spear, Leeds & Kellogg. Kelley had declined to prosecute Todd Christie, who had been ranked fourth in the investigation-initiating U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) complaint among twenty traders who earned the largest profits for their company at the expense of their customers. The top three were indicted, as were eleven other traders.

Christie was similarly criticized for his 2007 recommendation of the appointment of The Ashcroft Group, a consulting firm owned by Christie's former superior, the former United States Attorney General John Ashcroft, as a monitor in a court settlement against Zimmer Holdings, an Indiana medical supplies company. The no-bid contract was worth between $28 million and $52 million. Christie defended the decision, saying that Ashcroft’s prominence and legal acumen made him a natural choice. Christie declined to intercede when Zimmer's company lawyers protested the Group’s plans to charge a rate of $1.5 million to $2.9 million per month for the monitoring. Shortly after the House Judiciary Committee began holding hearings on the matter, the Justice Department re-wrote the rules regarding the appointment of court monitors.

Christie also faced criticism over the terms of a $311 million fraud settlement with Bristol-Myers Squibb. Christie’s office deferred criminal prosecution of the pharmaceutical company in a deal that required it to dedicate $5 million for a business ethics chair at Seton Hall University School of Law, Christie's alma mater. The U.S. Justice Department subsequently set guidelines forbidding such requirements as components of out-of-court corporate crime settlements.

In June 2009, Christie was called before the House Judiciary Committee as part of its consideration of new regulations on deferred prosecution agreements. In his testimony, he defended his decisions to award no-bid, high-paying federal monitoring contracts to law firms that his critics say constitute a conflict of interest. Christie left the meeting after two and a half hours of questioning, against the requests of the Committee's chairman, stating that he had to attend to pressing business in New Jersey.

Claims of partisan attacks

Christie has been criticized for subpoenaing Senator Robert Menendez during his contested 2006 campaign, just two months before the election. Christie's aides have insisted that they initiated the action in response to an article that appeared in ''The Record'', which reported that in 1994, when Menendez was a U.S. Representative, he had leased his former home to a social service agency that he had helped obtain federal financing. The non-profit group paid Menendez more than $300,000 over nine years to rent the building. Menendez claims to have cleared the arrangement with the Congressional ethics office, a step that had also been reported previously by New Jersey newspapers. According to Menendez, just prior to signing the rental lease, he cleared it by phone with a lawyer on the staff of the United States House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Following the subpoena, the lawyer, who no longer works with the Committee, came forward to say that while she doesn’t recall the conversation, it probably happened—and that if she were advising Menendez now she would tell him, as she apparently did then, that there was nothing improper about the arrangement. As of August 2009, nothing has come from the investigation.

Cell phone monitoring and alleged entrapment

In 2005, Christie prosecuted the Hemant Lakhani terrorism case, in which the defendant claimed that he had been entrapped. In that case, Christie's office relied on an informant who had been dismissed by the FBI as unreliable for fabricating claims of terrorist activity. For more than a year, the informant, working with the U.S. attorney's office, solicited Lakhani for access to arms. Lakhani was unable to obtain anything until an undercover agent contacted him and supplied him with a fake missile. In an interview with the public radio program "This American Life," Christie brushed off suggestions that Lakhani was entrapped by law enforcement, defending the Lakhani prosecution.

In April 2009, Christie came under fire from the ACLU for authorizing warrantless cellphone tracking of people in 79 instances. Christie has stressed that the practice was legal and court approved.

Governor of New Jersey

Christie filed as a candidate for the office of Governor on January 8, 2009. In the primary on June 2, Christie won the Republican nomination with 55% of the vote, defeating conservative opponents Steve Lonegan and Rick Merkt. He then chose Kimberly Guadagno, Monmouth County sheriff, to complete his campaign ticket as a candidate for lieutenant governor. On November 3, Christie defeated Corzine by a margin of 48.5% to 44.9%, with 5.8% of the vote going to independent candidate Chris Daggett.

Christie took office as Governor of New Jersey on January 19, 2010. He chose not to move his family into Drumthwacket, the official governor's mansion, and instead resides in Mendham, New Jersey.

Accomplishments

On February 9, 2010, he signed Executive Order No. 12, which placed a 90-day freeze on the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) and established the Housing Opportunity Task Force to examine the State's affordable housing laws, constitutional obligations, and the effectiveness of the current framework.

On February 11, 2010, Christie signed Executive Order No. 14, which declared a "state of fiscal emergency exists in the State of New Jersey" due to the projected $2.2 billion budget deficit for the current fiscal year (FY 2010). In a speech before a special joint session of the New Jersey Legislature on the same day, Christie addressed the budget deficit and revealed a list of fiscal solutions to close the gap. Christie also suspended funding for the Department of the Public Advocate and called for its elimination. Some Democrats criticized Christie for not first consulting them on his budget cuts and for circumventing the Legislature's role in the budget process. In late June 2011, Christie utilized New Jersey's line item veto to eliminate nearly $1 billion from the proposed budget, signing it into law just hours prior to the July 1, 2011, beginning of the state's fiscal year.

On August 25, 2010, it was announced that New Jersey had lost out on $400 million in federal Race to the Top education grants due to a clerical error in the application by an unidentified mid-level state official. In response to the decision, Christie criticized the Obama administration for the decision on the grounds that it was an example of bureaucracy gone wrong and that the administration failed to communicate with the New Jersey government. However, information later came to light that the issue was raised with Christie's Education Commissioner Bret Schundler, and in response Governor Christie asked for Schundler's resignation. Schundler initially agreed to resign, but the following morning asked to be fired instead, citing his need to claim unemployment benefits. Schundler maintains that he told Christie the truth, and that Christie is misstating what actually occurred. The New Jersey Education Association rebuked Christie by suggesting that his rejection of a compromise worked out by Schundler with the teachers' union on May 27 was to blame.

References

External links

Office of the Governor ''official state site''

|- |- |- |- }} |-

Category:1962 births Category:American people of Sicilian descent Category:American people of Irish descent Category:American people of Italian descent Category:Governors of New Jersey Category:Living people Category:New Jersey County Freeholders Category:New Jersey lawyers Category:New Jersey Republicans Category:People from Livingston, New Jersey Category:People from Morris County, New Jersey Category:Republican Party state governors of the United States Category:Seton Hall University School of Law alumni Category:United States Attorneys for the District of New Jersey Category:University of Delaware alumni

da:Chris Christie de:Chris Christie fr:Christopher Christie nl:Chris Christie ja:クリス・クリスティ pl:Chris Christie pt:Chris Christie ro:Chris Christie ru:Кристи, Крис sv:Chris Christie vi:Chris Christie

Name	Daniel Choi
Nickname	Dan Choi
Allegiance	United States of America
Branch	United States Army,New York National Guard
Serviceyears	1999-2010
Rank	First Lieutenant
Battles	Operation Iraqi Freedom
Laterwork	}}

Daniel "Dan" Choi (born 1981) is a former American infantry officer in the United States Army who served in combat in the Iraq war during 2006-2007.He became an LGBT rights activist following his coming out on ''The Rachel Maddow Show'' in March 2009 and has been publicly challenging America's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, which forbids lesbian, gay andbisexual (LGB) service members from serving openly.

On October 19, 2010, Choi applied to rejoin the US Army.

Early life

Choi is a native of Orange County, California, the son of a Korean-American Baptist minister. He graduated from Tustin High School then attended the United States Military Academy at West Point.

Choi was very active with extracurriculars during his high school years. He served as student body president, was on the varsity swim team, and was the marching band drum major. During his senior year, after watching Saving Private Ryan, he decided to attend West Point.

Military education and career

Choi graduated from West Point in 2003 with degrees in Arabic and environmental engineering. Choi served as an infantry officer in Iraq with the 10th Mountain Division in 2006 and 2007. In June 2008, he transferred from active duty Army to the New York National Guard. Choi served as a National Guardsman with the 1st Battalion, 69th Infantry, based in Manhattan.

Choi received a discharge letter following his coming out on ''The Rachel Maddow Show''. In response, Choi penned an open letter to U.S. President Barack Obama and the United States Congress. In the letter, Choi challenged the morality and wisdom of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, writing that the policy is "a slap in the face to me. It is a slap in the face to my soldiers, peers and leaders who have demonstrated that an infantry unit can be professional enough to accept diversity, to accept capable leaders, to accept skilled soldiers."

Despite his appeal and a Courage Campaign petition signed by almost 162,000 people, on June 30, 2009, a panel of New York National Guard officers recommended that Choi be discharged from the military. As of February 2010, Choi was serving again in his National Guard reserve unit, the discharge having not yet been "finalized". On June 29, 2010, Choi's discharge was finalized.

Choi is among 59 gay Arabic linguists, along with nine gay Farsi linguists, who have faced a discharge from the U.S. military from 2004 through 2009, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Gay rights activism

Since Choi's coming out, 38 West Point alumni also came out and announced the formation of Knights Out, an organization of West Point alumni who support the rights of LGBT soldiers to serve openly. Choi was one of the founding members and is the spokesperson for the group. The organization offers "to help their alma mater educate future Army leaders on the need to accept and honor the sacrifices of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender troops."

Choi has also spoken at numerous gay rights events, including a march in Los Angeles following the California Supreme Court's affirmation of Proposition 8. On May 27, 2009, he addressed a demonstration of gay activists outside the Beverly Hilton Hotel, where President Barack Obama was speaking at a Democratic National Committee fund raising event.In addition, Choi spoke at the 2009 Pride Rally in New York City and served as a Grand Marshal alongside Knights Out in San Francisco's 2009 Gay Pride Parade.

On July 16, 2009, Choi was in Culver City, California, to introduce the premiere of Abe Forman-Greenwald's documentary called ''Silent Partners''. The documentary is the fourth episode in the ''In Their Boots'' series, with the episode focusing on the partners of LGBT soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. In the episode, Choi criticizes the U.S. military's neglect of the partners of service members.

In February 2010 Choi was selected to be a Grand Marshal of the 41st Annual New York LGBT Pride March by its producers,Heritage of Pride. At the event, Choi led the Pledge of Allegiance at the New York City Council Chambers.

2010 arrests

On March 18, 2010, Choi and another ousted military officer, Capt. Jim Pietrangelo, handcuffed themselves to the fence of the White House. They were eventually removed with the use of a master handcuff key and arrested. Choi and Pietrangelo were initially set to be tried for "failure to obey a lawful order" on April 26, 2010. Trial was postponed until July 14, at which time the charges against both men were dropped.

On April 20, 2010, Choi and Pietrangelo again participated in a self-chaining protest on the White House fence with Petty Officer Larry Whitt, Petty Officer (Rtd.) Autumn Sandeen, Cadet Mara Boyd and Cpl. Evelyn Thomas. All six were removed with a master hand-cuff key and arrested.

On May 27, 2010, Choi and Pietrangelo began a hunger strike until President Obama ends DADT and adds a non-discrimination policy to the military code. They ended the hunger strike seven days later, with Choi saying, "The fast of the past seven days has been a success because people have been educated to the use of fasting as a tool to bring attention to a set of clear political and social demands."

Court ruling, reinstatement of commission

On October 12, 2010, U.S. federal judge Virginia Phillips ordered the Department of Defense to stop enforcing “don’t ask, don’t tell” –the law that prohibits openly gay people from serving in the military. On October 19, Judge Phillips further refused a federal government request to stay the order pending appeal. That same day, Dan Choi went to the Times Square recruiting station in New York to rejoin the U.S. Army (referred to in one source as "reaccesion"); his request is in process. Choi reaffirmed his intention to rejoin the service on December 19. Following the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" by Congress, Choi was present at the U.S. Interior Department to attend President Obama's signing of the bill on December 22, 2010.

2011 arrest in Moscow

On May 28, 2011, Choi was among a number of both Russian and foreign activists (including Louis-Georges Tin and Andy Thayer) who were arrested by Moscow police when Moscow Pride was held in spite of a ban by city authorities.

See also

Sexual orientation and the United States military

Knights Out

West Point

References

External links

"Iraq War Vet Facing Discharge Helps Lead Massive Rally for Gay Rights"(Video, transcript). Choi appearance. ''Democracy Now!'' October 13, 2009.

"I Have No Regret to Anybody in the Military." (Video, transcript). Choi appearance, interview. ''Democracy Now!'' August 4, 2010

Category:1981 births Category:American people of Korean descent Category:United States Military Academy alumni Category:American military personnel of the Iraq War Category:LGBT Asian Americans Category:American military personnel discharged for homosexuality Category:American military personnel of Asian descent Category:United States Army officers Category:Harvard University alumni Category:Baptists from the United States Category:Korean Baptists Category:LGBT Christians Category:People from Orange County, California Category:Living people Category:LGBT rights activists from the United States

he:דן צ'וי zh:丹尼尔·崔