thesis statement about legalizing same sex marriage

Evidence is clear on the benefits of legalising same-sex  marriage

PhD Candidate, School of Arts and Social Sciences, James Cook University

Disclosure statement

Ryan Anderson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

James Cook University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

Emotive arguments and questionable rhetoric often characterise debates over same-sex marriage. But few attempts have been made to dispassionately dissect the issue from an academic, science-based perspective.

Regardless of which side of the fence you fall on, the more robust, rigorous and reliable information that is publicly available, the better.

There are considerable mental health and wellbeing benefits conferred on those in the fortunate position of being able to marry legally. And there are associated deleterious impacts of being denied this opportunity.

Although it would be irresponsible to suggest the research is unanimous, the majority is either noncommittal (unclear conclusions) or demonstrates the benefits of same-sex marriage.

Further reading: Conservatives prevail to hold back the tide on same-sex marriage

What does the research say?

Widescale research suggests that members of the LGBTQ community generally experience worse mental health outcomes than their heterosexual counterparts. This is possibly due to the stigmatisation they receive.

The mental health benefits of marriage generally are well-documented . In 2009, the American Medical Association officially recognised that excluding sexual minorities from marriage was significantly contributing to the overall poor health among same-sex households compared to heterosexual households.

Converging lines of evidence also suggest that sexual orientation stigma and discrimination are at least associated with increased psychological distress and a generally decreased quality of life among lesbians and gay men.

A US study that surveyed more than 36,000 people aged 18-70 found lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals were far less psychologically distressed if they were in a legally recognised same-sex marriage than if they were not. Married heterosexuals were less distressed than either of these groups.

So, it would seem that being in a legally recognised same-sex marriage can at least partly overcome the substantial health disparity between heterosexual and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons.

The authors concluded by urging other researchers to consider same-sex marriage as a public health issue.

A review of the research examining the impact of marriage denial on the health and wellbeing of gay men and lesbians conceded that marriage equality is a profoundly complex and nuanced issue. But, it argued that depriving lesbians and gay men the tangible (and intangible) benefits of marriage is not only an act of discrimination – it also:

disadvantages them by restricting their citizenship;

hinders their mental health, wellbeing, and social mobility; and

generally disenfranchises them from various cultural, legal, economic and political aspects of their lives.

Of further concern is research finding that in comparison to lesbian, gay and bisexual respondents living in areas where gay marriage was allowed, living in areas where it was banned was associated with significantly higher rates of:

mood disorders (36% higher);

psychiatric comorbidity – that is, multiple mental health conditions (36% higher); and

anxiety disorders (248% higher).

But what about the kids?

Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue that children raised in same-sex households perform worse on a variety of life outcome measures when compared to those raised in a heterosexual household. There is some merit to this argument.

In terms of education and general measures of success, the literature isn’t entirely unanimous. However, most studies have found that on these metrics there is no difference between children raised by same-sex or opposite-sex parents.

In 2005, the American Psychological Association released a brief reviewing research on same-sex parenting. It unambiguously summed up its stance on the issue of whether or not same-sex parenting negatively impacts children:

Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.

Further reading: Same-sex couples and their children: what does the evidence tell us?

Drawing conclusions

Same-sex marriage has already been legalised in 23 countries around the world , inhabited by more than 760 million people.

Despite the above studies positively linking marriage with wellbeing, it may be premature to definitively assert causality .

But overall, the evidence is fairly clear. Same-sex marriage leads to a host of social and even public health benefits, including a range of advantages for mental health and wellbeing. The benefits accrue to society as a whole, whether you are in a same-sex relationship or not.

As the body of research in support of same-sex marriage continues to grow, the case in favour of it becomes stronger.

• Human rights
• Same-sex marriage
• Same-sex marriage plebiscite

Educational Designer

Lecturer, Small Animal Clinical Studies (Primary Care)

Organizational Behaviour – Assistant / Associate Professor (Tenure-Track)

Apply for State Library of Queensland's next round of research opportunities

Associate Professor, Psychology

Same-sex marriage legalization associated with reduced implicit and explicit antigay bias

Downloadable content.

• Ofosu, Eugene
• Eric Hehman (Supervisor)
• The current research tested whether the passing of government legislation, signaling the prevailing attitudes of the local majority, was associated with changes in citizens’ attitudes. Specifically, with ~1 million responses over a 11-year window, we test whether state-by-state same-sex marriage legislation was associated with decreases in anti-gay implicit and explicit bias. Results across five operationalizations consistently provide support for this possibility. Both implicit and explicit bias were decreasing prior to same-sex marriage legalization, but decreased at a sharper rate following legalization. Moderating this effect was whether states passed legislation locally. While states passing state-level legislation experienced a greater decrease in bias following legislation, states that never passed local legislation demonstrated increased anti-gay bias following federal legalization. Our work highlights how government legislation can inform individuals’ attitudes, even when these attitudes may be deeply entrenched, and socially and politically volatile
• La recherche présente a testé si l’adoption par le gouvernement de lois reflétant l’avis d’une majorité de citoyens, est associée avec des changements d’attitude de citoyen(ne)s. Grâce à 1 million d’observations sur plus de 11 ans, nous avons examiné si la légalisation du mariage gai pour chaque état américain a été associée avec la diminution des préjugés homophobes implicites et explicites. Cinq modèles statistiques appuient fortement notre hypothèse. Bien que les préjugés implicites et explicites étaient en diminution avant la légalisation du mariage homosexuel, les deux types de préjugés ont diminué plus rapidement après. Cet effet était modéré par le pallier de gouvernement ayant mis en œuvre la légalisation. Spécifiquement, les états ayant adopté la légalisation au niveau de l’état ont vu une diminution des deux types de préjugés après la légalisation, tandis que ceux n’ayant pas légalisé le mariage gai au niveau de l’état ont vu une augmentation des préjugés après la légalisation au niveau fédéral. Notre recherche souligne comment les lois gouvernementales peuvent influencer les attitudes individuelles, même quand ces attitudes sont fortement enracinées et sujettes aux débats sociaux
• McGill University
•  https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/concern/theses/xg94ht93x
• All items in eScholarship@McGill are protected by copyright with all rights reserved unless otherwise indicated.
• Department of Psychology
• Master of Science
• Theses & Dissertations

The Anti-Social Effects of Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage: Fact or Fiction?

• Published: 07 November 2020
• Volume 18 , pages 1060–1077, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Laura Langbein   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3899-1543 1 ,
• Brandon Ranallo-Benavidez 2 &
• Jane E. Palmer 3  

711 Accesses

8 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Introduction

Previous research examines the effects of same-sex marriage on many child and family outcomes, but only a small subset examines the effects of laws on those outcomes. We evaluate the effects of same-sex marriage legalization in the USA on four socio-familial outcomes.

We use currently available public data from the U.S. Census and CDC to analyze changes in state-level legalization of same-sex marriage on rates of child poverty, divorce, marriage, and children living in single-parent households within each state from 2011 to 2016. The estimators use traditional cross-sectional time-series methodologies, along with adjusting for high-dimensional fixed-effects (HDFE) clustering to account for both spatial and temporal dependence of state-time observations.

We find no evidence to validate claims of negative ramifications from same-sex marriage legalization on these outcomes.

With respect to the arguments articulated in Supreme Court amici briefs, we show that assertions of negative social effects of legalized same-sex marriage are largely unsupported.

In addition to illustrating the gains from HDFE estimators, we conclude that warnings of likely negative effects from same-sex marriage, such as disallowing adoption by same-sex couples, are not credible.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The Direct Effects of Legal Same-Sex Marriage in the United States: Evidence From Massachusetts

Legal recognition of same-sex couples and family formation.

On the magnitude, frequency, and nature of marriage dissolution in Italy: insights from vital statistics and life-table analysis

There are extensive discussions that critique (e.g., Marks, 2012 ) and defend the validity (e.g., Amato, 2012 ) of these studies. One major study that found negative impacts of same-sex parents on child outcomes (Regnerus, 2012 ) was criticized when a replication did not come to the same conclusion (Cheng & Powell, 2015 )

Louisiana, Utah, Texas, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and West Virginia (listed here in same order as listed on the legal brief).

In economics, non-price entry barriers (such as refusing to hire based on race or gender) are inefficient: they impose costs not only on the excluded group but also on consumers or employers, while conferring smaller benefits (higher wages) on the privileged group. There are no social benefits.

Considerable research shows that marriage in general benefits both the two parents and the children, partly due to scale economies along with more income. In addition to within family benefits, external benefits of marriage include reduced demand for many social services (e.g, welfare and other income supports; police) that might otherwise be required if there were more single-parent families. See Ribar ( 2015 ); Sawhill and Thomas ( 2005 ); Thomas and Sawhill ( 2002 ); Sawhill and Haskins ( 2016 ); McLanahan and Sawhill ( 2015 ); Zissimopoulos, Karney, and Rauer ( 2015 ).

The early adopter control states include the 2013 legalizers (CA, DE, HI, MD, MN, NJ, NM and RI) and the earliest adopters (MA, 2004; CT, 2008; IO, V, 2009; NH, DC, 2010; NY, 2011; ME, WA, 2012). The treated states, forced to adopt by Windsor (except IL, which voluntarily adopted after Windsor) include OR, ID, MT, WY, NV, UT, AZ, CO, OK, WI, IL, IN, PA, WV, VA, NC, and SC. Omitted states (the late legalizers, forced to legalize by Roe in 2015) include ND, SD, NE, KS, TX, MO, AR, LA, MI, OH, KY, TN, MS, AL, GA, FL)

However, as a robustness check, we also provide a secondary model specification that drops all states from our “control” group which did not have same-sex marriage for multiple years prior to 2014. The results in Tables  1 , 2, 3, and 4 do not change.

Note that Illinois was the only state post- Windsor to voluntarily legalize same-sex marriage.

For ease of interpretation, we use state-year levels in the dependent variables. However, because we use state fixed effects, the focal coefficient B represents the average within state difference in the dependent variable between treatment and control state (Ludwig & Cook, 2000 ); it is not a between state difference. As a robustness check, when we use difference-in-difference estimates of the relation between state-year changes in the policy adoption variable to state-year changes in dependent variables, along with the control variables and state fixed effects, the results do not change appreciably.

The SUR estimates show that the residuals are correlated:

Correlation matrix of residuals:

childpov divorce marriage sglpar

childpov 1.0000

divorce 0.0259 1.0000

marriage − 0.1606 0.5399 1.0000

sglpar 0.3548 0.0124 0.0768 1.0000

Breusch-Pagan test of independence: chi2(6) = 246.067, Pr = 0.0000.

We also estimated an xtreg with state-level fixed effects (Cameron & Trivedi, 2009 ; Wooldridge, 2010 ). Similar to Ludwig and Cook’s ( 2000 ) assessment of the Brady bill, we also performed a specification of ordinary least squares analysis with controls, heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors, and state and year fixed effect regressors. We do not show the results, but they do not differ from the results that we present.

Excluding 2013 legalizing states is a robustness check to provide a model where all the “control” states had same-sex marriage legalization for more than just 1 year. The results do not change.

These findings are robust to replacing rates in the dependent variables with log of rates. Neither the statistical nor substantive results changed. Data available upon request.

Opponents prefigured adverse effects of legalized same-sex marriage; therefore, we used directionally one-sided tests.

Adams, J., & Light, R. (2015). Scientific consensus, the law, and same sex parenting outcomes. Social Science Research, 53 , 300–310.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Alabama (2015) http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/14-556_State_of_Alabama.pdf .

Allen, D. W. (2006). An economic assessment of same-sex marriage laws. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 29 (3), 949–980.

Google Scholar  

Allen, D. W. (2010). Who should be allowed into the marriage franchise? Drake Law Review, 58 , 1043–1079.

Allen, D. W. (2013). High school graduation rates among children of same-sex households. Review of Economics of the Household, 11 , 635–658.

Allen, D. W., & Price, J. (2015). Same-sex marriage and negative externalities: A critique, replication, and correction of Langbein and Yost. Econ Journal Watch, 12 (2), 142–160.

Amato, P. (2012). The well-being of children with gay and lesbian parents. Social Science Research, 41 (4), 771–774.

American College of Pediatricians, Family Watch International, Marks, L. D., Regnerus, M. D., Sullins, D. P. (2015). Amici curiae brief supporting respondents, Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584.

Anderson, R. (2013). Marriage: What it is, why it matters, and the consequences of redefining it . Washington DC: The Heritage Foundation.

Badgett, M., Nezhad, S., Waaldijk, C., & van der Meulen, R. (2014). The 962 relationship between LGBT inclusion and economic development: 963 An analysis of emerging economies . Washington DC: US Agency 964 for International Development & The Williams Institute.

Biblarz, T., & Stacey, J. (2010). How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 72 (1), 3–22.

Cameron, A. C., Gelbach, J. B., & Miller, D. L. (2011). Robust inference with multiway clustering. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 29 (2), 238–249.

Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2009). Microeconometrics using stata . College Station: STATA Press.

Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2010). Microeconomics using Stata . College Station, TX: Stata Press.

Casper, L. M., McLanahan, S. S., & Garfinkel, I. (1994). The gender-poverty gap: What we can learn from other countries. American Sociological Review, 59 (4), 594–605.

Cere, D., & Farrow, D. (2004). Divorcing marriage: Unveiling the dangers in Canada’s new social experiment . Montreal, Ontario: The Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law and Culture.

Chen, W. H., & Corak, M. (2008). Child poverty and changes in child poverty. Demography, 45 (3), 537–553.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cheng, S., & Powell, B. (2015). Measurement, methods, and divergent patterns: Reassessing the effects of same-sex parents. Social Science Research, 52 , 615–626.

Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66 (4), 848–861.

Cherlin, A. J. (2009). The marriage go-round . New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

Chinni, D. (2004). Is the post-election red tinge a mandate? Don’t bet on it. Christian Science Monitor. https://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1104/p09s01-codc.html .

Cohen, L. R., & Wright, J. D. (2011). Research handbook on the economics of family law . Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Correia, S. (2017a). REGHDFE: Stata module for linear and instrumental-variable/GMM regression absorbing multiple levels of fixed effects. Boston, MA: Statistical software components, Boston College Department of Economics. https://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/ s457874.html .

Correia, S. (2017b). A feasible estimator for linear models with multi-way fixed effects. (working paper). http://scorreia.com/research/hdfe.pdf .

Dao, J. (2004, November). 4 . New York Times: Same-sex marriage issue key to some GOP races https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/politics/campaign/samesex-marriage-issue-key-to-some-gop-races.html .

Dillender, M. (2014). The death of marriage? The effects of new forms of legal recognition on marriage rates in the United States. Demography, 51 , 563–585.

Dinno, A. (2014). Comment on “The effect of same-sex marriage laws on different-sex marriage: Evidence from the Netherlands.”. Demography, 51 , 2343–2347.

Ellis, B. J., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., Pettit, G. S., & Woodward, L. (2003). Does father absence place daughters at special risk for early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy? Child Development, 74 (3), 801–821.

Family Equality Council. (2018). Joint Adoption Law. https://www.familyequality.org/get_informed /resources/equality_maps/joint_adoption_laws/ .

Family Research Council. (2015). Amicus curiae brief supporting respondents and affirmance, Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584.

Felter, C., & Renwick, D. (2019). Same-sex marriage: Global comparisons. Council on Foreign Relations . https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/same-sex-marriage-global-comparisons .

Flouri, E. (2007). Fathering and adolescents’ psychological adjustment: The role of fathers’ involvement, residence and biology status. Child: Care, Health and Development, 34 (2), 152–161.

Flouri, E., & Buchanan, A. (2003). The role of father involvement in children’s later mental health. Journal of Adolescence, 26 , 63–78.

Frank, N., Weeden, K., & Baker, K. (2018). What does the scholarly research say about the well-being of children with gay or lesbian parents? Ithaca, NY: Center for Study of Inequality. https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/ .

Gallup (2019). Support for gay marriage stable. https://news.gallup.com/ poll/257705/suupport-gay-marriage -stable.aspx.?version=print.

Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love, and eroticism in modern societies . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Goings, R. B., & Ford, D. Y. (2017). Investigating the intersection of poverty and race in gifted education journals: A 15-year analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62 (1), 25–36.

Goodfriend, M. (1992). Information-aggregation bias. The American Economic Review, 82 (3), 508–519.

Harper, C. C., & McLanahan, S. S. (2004). Father absence and youth incarceration. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14 (3), 369–397.

Hawkins, A. J., & Carroll, J. S. (2015). Beyond the expansion framework: How same-sex marriage changes the institutional meaning of marriage and heterosexual men’s conception of marriage. Ave Maria Law Review, 13 (2), 219–235.

Herek, G. (2006). Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: A social science perspective. American Psychologist, 61 (6), 607–621.

Langbein, L., & Lichtman, A. (1976). Across the great divide: Inferring individual level behavior from aggregate data. Political Methodology, 3 (4), 411–439.

Langbein, L., & Yost Jr., M. A. (2009). Same-sex marriage and negative externalities. Social Science Quarterly, 90 (2), 292–308.

Lerman, R. I. (1996). The impact of the changing U.S. family structure on child poverty and income inequality. Economica, 63 (250), S119–S139.

Lewis, G. B. (2005). Same-sex marriage and the 2004 presidential election. PS: Political Science and Politics, 38 (2), 195–199.

Lichter, D. T., & Crowley, M. L. (2004). Welfare reform and child poverty: Effects of maternal employment, marriage, and cohabitation. Social Science Research, 33 (3), 385–408.

Louisiana, Utah, Texas, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and West Virginia. (2015). Amici curiae brief supporting respondents, Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584.

Ludwig, J., & Cook, P. J. (2000). Homicide and suicide rates associated with implementation of the Brady handgun violence prevention act. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284 (5), 585–591.

Manning, W. D., Feltro, M. N., & Lamidi, E. (2014). Child well-being in same-sex parent families: Review of research prepared for American Sociological Association amicus brief. Population Research & Policy Review, 33 (4), 485–502.

Manning, W. D., & Lamb, K. A. (2003). Adolescent well-being in cohabiting, married, and single-parent families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65 , 876–893.

Marks, L. (2012). Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting. Social Science Research, 41 (4), 735–751.

Marquardt, E. (2006). Between two worlds: The inner lives of children of divorce . New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.

Marquardt, E. (2010). The kids are not all right. Human Life Review, 36 (3), 113–115.

Marquardt, E., Glenn, N. D., & Clark, K. (2010). My daddy’s name is donor: A new study of young adults conceived through sperm donation. New York, NY: Institute for American Values. http://americanvalues.org/catalog/pdfs/Donor_FINAL.pdf

Masci, D., & DeSilver, D. (2019). A global snapshot of same-sex marriage. Pew Research Center . https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/21/global-snapshot-same-sex-marriage/ .

Masci, D., Sciupac, E., & Lipka, M. (2019). Gay marriage around the world. Pew Research Center: Religion and Public Life . https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/gay-marriage-around-the-world/ .

McLanahan, S., & Sawhill, I. (2015). Marriage and child wellbeing revisited: Introducing the issue. The Future of Children, 25 (2), 3–9.

Meezan, W., & Rauch, J. (2005). Gay marriage, same-sex parenting, and America's children. The Future of Children, 15 (2), 97–115.

Members of the Kentucky General Assembly. (2015). Amici curiae brief supporting respondents, Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584.

Murray, C. (2013). Coming apart: The state of white America, 1960–2010 . New York, NY: Crown Forum.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 (US Supreme Court, 2015). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf .

Otter, C. L. (2015). Amici curiae brief, Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584.

Posner, R. A. (1973). Economic analysis of law . New York, NY: Little, Brown and Co..

Potter, D. (2012). Same-sex parent families and children’s academic achievement. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74 , 556–571.

Public Religion Research Institute. (n.d.) The American Values Atlas. http://ava.prri.org/home#lgbt/2017/states/lgbt_ssm .

Pujol, J. (2016). The United States safe space campus controversy and the paradox of freedom of speech. Church, Communication and Culture, 1 (1), 240–254.

Regnerus, M. (2012). How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the new family structures study. Social Science Research, 41 (4), 752–770.

Republican National Convention Committee. (2015). Amicus curiae brief supporting respondents, Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584.

Ribar, D. (2015). Why marriage matters for child wellbeing. The Future of Children, 25 (2), 11–27.

Riggle, E., Rostosky, S., & Horne, S. (2010). Psychological distress, well-being, and legal recognition in same-sex couple relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 24 (1), 82–86.

Romaniuc, R. (2016). What makes law change behavior? An experimental study. Review of Law & Economics, 12 (2), 447–475.

Sawhill, I., & Haskins, R. (2016). The decline of the American family: Can anything be done to stop the damage? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 667 (1), 8–34.

Sawhill, I., & Thomas, A. (2005). For love and money? The impact of family structure on family income. The Future of Children, 15 (2), 57–74.

Scholars. (2015). Amici curiae brief supporting respondents and affirmance, Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584.

Scholars of Marriage. (2015). Amici curiae brief supporting respondents, Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584.

Texas Values. (2015). Amicus curiae supporting respondents, Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584.

Thomas, A., & Sawhill, I. (2002). For richer or for poorer: Marriage as an anti-poverty strategy. Journal for Policy Analysis and Management, 21 (4), 587–599.

Trandafir, M. (2014a). The effect of same-sex marriage laws on different-sex marriage: Evidence from the Netherlands. Demography, 51 , 317–340.

Trandafir, M. (2014b). Reply to comment on “The Effect of Same-Sex Marriage Laws on Different-Sex Marriage: Evidence from the Netherlands”. Demography, 51 , 2349–2350.

Trandafir, M. (2015). Legal recognition of same-sex couples and family formation. Demography, 52 , 113–151.

United States v. Windsor, 570 US 744 (2013).

Voss, P. R., Long, D. D., Hammer, R. B., & Friedman, S. (2006). County child poverty rates in the US: A spatial regression approach. Population Research and Policy Review, 25 (4), 369–391.

Wardle, L. D. (2001). Multiply and replenish: Considering same-sex marriage in light of state interests in marital procreation. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 24 (3), 771–814.

Wardle, L. D. (2007). The fall of marital family stability and the rise of juvenile delinquency. Journal of Law & Family Studies, 10 (2), 83–110.

Wax, A. L. (2007). Engines of inequality: Class, race, and family structure. Family Law Quarterly, 41 (3), 567–599.

Wax, A. L. (2009). Review: The family law doctrine of equivalence. Michigan Law Review, 107 (6), 999–1017.

Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross-section and panel data . Boston, MA: MIT Press.

Yancey, G. (2011). Compromising scholarship: Religious and political bias in American higher education . Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.

Young, K. K., & Nathanson, P. (2007). Redefining marriage or deconstructing society: A Canadian case study. Journal of Family Studies, 13 , 133–178.

Zissimopoulos, J. M., Karney, B. R., & Rauer, A. J. (2015). Marriage and economic well-being at older ages. Review of the Economics of the Household, 13 , 1–35.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Public Administration & Policy, American University, 4400 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Kerwin Hall, Washington, DC, 20016, USA

Laura Langbein

Department of Political Science, Winthrop University, Rock Hill, SC, USA

Brandon Ranallo-Benavidez

Department of Justice, Law & Criminology, American University, Washington, DC, USA

Jane E. Palmer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Langbein .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article. All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. The authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article.

Research Involving Human Data

This is an observational study that uses publicly available aggregate data on humans. Specifically, as noted in the abstract of the manuscript, “we use currently available public data from the U.S. Census and CDC to analyze changes in state-level legalization of same-sex marriage on rates of child poverty, divorce, marriage, and children living in single-parent households within each state from 2011 to 2016.”

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Langbein, L., Ranallo-Benavidez, B. & Palmer, J.E. The Anti-Social Effects of Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage: Fact or Fiction?. Sex Res Soc Policy 18 , 1060–1077 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-020-00509-y

Download citation

Accepted : 27 October 2020

Published : 07 November 2020

Issue Date : December 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-020-00509-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Same-sex marriage
• Socio-familial outcomes
• High-dimensional fixed-effects
• Multi-way clustering
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > Journals
• > Law & Social Inquiry
• > Volume 48 Issue 2
• > Same-sex Marriage Legalization and the Stigmas of LGBT...

Article contents

Introduction, the stigmas of unmarried and “unnatural” parenting before the 748 act, the 748 act as stigma cure and catalyst, same-sex marriage legalization and the stigmas of lgbt co-parenting in taiwan.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2022

In 2019, Taiwan became the first country in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage. Celebrated as a victory for global lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights, Taiwan’s 2019 law privileges marriage and biological parent-child ties as the foundation for LGBT family rights and (co-)parental recognition. This article contributes to sociolegal debates about the benefits and limitations of marriage equality by asking how restrictive legal approaches to legitimating LGBT parenthood may harm LGBT families, with consequences both for families ostensibly protected under the new laws and for those denied newly bestowed rights and protections. Drawing from legal and ethnographic research on Taiwan’s same-sex marriage law and the family formation strategies of Taiwanese LGBT parents, we interrogate how marriage equality interacts with related legal domains and prevailing stigmas of illegitimacy, adoption, and homosexuality in Taiwan. Encoded in, and reproduced through, the substance and implementation of law, these stigmas narrow the scope of legal rights and foster potentially discriminatory forms of recognition. The article shows how progressive laws may reduce LGBT family stigma for some, while also creating new stigma interactions that devalue diverse forms of LGBT parenthood.

On May 24, 2017, Taiwan’s Constitutional Court rendered a landmark decision that declared it unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the freedom to marry. Footnote 1 Two years later, facing the deadline imposed by the court decision, the legislature passed the Act for Implementation of J.Y. Interpretation no. 748 (748 Act), granting same-sex couples the right to register a marriage and allowing stepparent adoption of a same-sex spouse’s biological child. Footnote 2 The 748 Act was celebrated widely as a “first in Asia” and a victory for global lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights (Haynes Reference Haynes 2019 ; L. Kuo Reference Kuo 2019 ). Yet the 748 Act is only one step in efforts to secure a broad range of LGBT rights in Taiwan that protect diverse family forms, intimate relationships, and gender and sexual identities.

The emphasis on marriage equality in LGBT-rights movements worldwide has sparked debates about the consequences of privileging the right to marry. Certainly, many LGBT couples have married once it became legally possible to do so in their jurisdictions, and they enjoy considerable benefits as a result. Nonetheless, some scholars and activists caution that legal marriage falls short of resolving all inequalities and forms of discrimination faced by LGBT couples and families (Bernstein and Taylor Reference Bernstein, Taylor, Bernstein and Taylor 2013 ; Murray Reference Murray 2016 ; Polikoff Reference Polikoff and Carlos 2016 ). Some argue that the focus on LGBT marriage rights glorifies marriage and delegitimizes non marital relationships (Warner Reference Warner 1999 ; Duggan Reference Duggan 2004 ; Strauss Reference Strauss 2018 ), potentially deepening exclusions from core citizenship rights that are mediated through marriage and intersecting structural inequalities (Patton-Imani Reference Patton-Imani 2020 ). Others point to non-US legal contexts that locate dignity not in the marital institution itself but, rather, in the “autonomy to choose whether to marry,” legally recognizing multiple intimate relationship options deserving of respect (Lau Reference Lau 2017 , 2618; Cahn and Carbone Reference Cahn and Carbone 2019 ). Looking beyond marriage to parental rights, legal scholars such as Nancy Polikoff ( Reference Polikoff and Carlos 2016 , 141) caution against the “misleading focus on marriage equality as the way to recognize a child’s two parents.” Douglas NeJaime ( Reference NeJaime 2016 , 1265; emphasis in original), by contrast, contends that marriage equality potentially destabilizes family norms that privilege biological, hetero-gendered parenting and that thereby “constrict familial possibilities for all families , both in and out of marriage” (see also Joslin Reference Joslin 2016 , Reference Joslin 2018 ). NeJaime’s ( Reference NeJaime 2018 , 34) more sanguine assessment of marriage equality’s transformative effects, which he later termed “transformation through assimilation,” rests on the US legal context where same-sex parental rights preceded marital rights and where some states have recognized intentional and functional parenthood principles in both marital and non marital relationships.

This article contributes to sociolegal debates about the benefits and limitations of marriage equality by focusing on the Taiwan case where legal marriage constitutes the foundation for LGBT family rights and (co-)parental recognition. We ask how narrow legal approaches to legitimating LGBT parenthood that privilege marital status and biological parenthood may harm LGBT families, with consequences both for families ostensibly protected under the new laws and for those excluded from newly bestowed rights and protections. We argue that stigma is a key mechanism for producing such harms. Stigmatization functions subtly and explicitly to delegitimize non-normative intimacies and families. Both encoded in, and reproduced through, the substance and implementation of law, stigma narrows how law grants rights and recognition, and it limits the form that such rights take. Inspired by developments in theories of stigma since Erving Goffman’s ( Reference Goffman 1963 ) classic study, we examine how law and stigma interact to generate both symbolic and substantive harms that devalue marked groups (Dowd Reference Dowd 1997 ) or exclude them altogether from the law’s protections (Patton-Imani Reference Patton-Imani 2020 ). Without denying the power of stigma to foster social prejudice and internalized shame, we nonetheless emphasize stigma’s structural origins and effects (Fiske Reference Fiske, Gilbert, Fiske and Lindzey 1998 ; Link and Phelan Reference Link and Phelan 2001 ), drawing attention to how hierarchies of sexual and gendered legitimacy permeate legal categories, modes of recognition, and implementation mechanisms, even in marriage equality laws designed to redress discrimination. In short, stigmas against non-normative families are enacted and reproduced through law in sometimes unexpected ways (Abrams Reference Abrams 2015 ; Robertson Reference Robertson 2015 ). Although legal changes may enable some LGBT families to resist stigma, such laws may simultaneously stigmatize in new ways that harm those whose family-formation strategies and identities remain unprotected by heteronormative legal frameworks.

Taiwan’s legal system is deeply heteronormative in orientation, entrenched in sociolegal principles that privilege marriage, “natural” biological reproduction, and patrilineal descent. Given this prevailing legal orientation, we examine the 748 Act’s consequences for diverse ways of becoming or being recognized as a (co-)parent. We argue that the Act, despite its overarching aim of redressing inequality, interacts with related domains of family, adoption, and household registration law to reproduce existing stigmas against non-normative families and create new forms of stigmatization for LGBT parents. Closely attuned to the complex interactions among different legal domains and types of stigma, our analysis interrogates three interacting stigmas prevalent in Taiwan: the stigma of non-marital birth (illegitimacy), non-biological parenthood (adoption), and non-heterosexual identities and intimacies (homosexuality). We document how the stigmas of illegitimacy and adoption emerged first in cases of heterosexual parentage and adoption, how they became associated with the stigma of homosexuality for LGBT parents unable or unwilling to “cover” their sexuality (Yoshino Reference Yoshino 2006 ), and how the 748 Act simultaneously reaffirms and transforms long-standing stigmatization against non-normative parenthood. For instance, although many families benefit from the new legal entitlement to stepparent adoption, parents may simultaneously experience the demand that they marry first, adopt their “own child,” and agree to a parental fitness evaluation as deeply stigmatizing. Others face discriminatory exclusions due to the provisions of the 748 Act itself, its complex interactions with other laws, and how these legal interactions produce and entrench stigmas that LGBT parents themselves sometimes reaffirm as they seek new legal protections. In sum, we show how ostensibly progressive laws may reduce LGBT family stigma for some, while also producing stigmatizing effects that devalue LGBT parenthood and narrow the scope of legally recognizable family formation strategies.

A Note on Legal Context and Methodology

Unlike many countries in North America and Europe, Taiwan offered no options for LGBT co-parental rights before the 748 Act went into effect. Second-parent adoption has never been a legal option in Taiwan, and both stepparent adoption and joint adoption of a nonrelative child were denied to LGBT couples because the adopting parents had to be legally married. Although a LGBT couple might jointly care for their children, only the birth/biological parent or single adoptive parent enjoyed legal parental status. The co-parent could not make medical, financial, or educational decisions on the child’s behalf or claim the child as a dependent for tax or other purposes. Nor did the co-parent have any claim to the child should the legal parent deny access, become incapacitated, or die.

The substantive exclusions faced by LGBT co-parent families were materialized through the administrative legacies of Japanese colonialism and postwar authoritarian rule in Taiwan: the household registration system and national identification (ID) card. Together, these documentation systems have served as the basis for citizenship inclusion and the mechanism for establishing legal spousal or parental status (a birth certificate is required for registering a birth in the household registry, but it does not officially establish legal parentage). Every citizen must be part of a household registry, and every citizen aged fourteen or older is required to obtain a national ID card that includes personal information such as gender, parentage, marital status, spouse’s name, and a unique ID number. Prior to the 748 Act, Taiwan did not acknowledge citizens’ same-sex marriages performed abroad, nor could such couples register a marriage in Taiwan. Taiwan also did not recognize two same-sex parents listed on a birth certificate of a child born abroad either to a surrogate or a lesbian mother. Only the birth mother, biological father, or adoptive parent was able to register the child in the household registry as a single parent whose same-sex couple relationship or co-parenting status was unintelligible to the registry’s heteronormative categories. Put simply, the household registry channeled full citizenship rights exclusively through heterosexual marriage and parental status.

The 748 Act made a limited intervention in this restrictive legal landscape by granting some same-sex couples the right to register a marriage and by creating access to legal co-parentage only for couples that first married and then pursued stepparent adoption of one spouse’s biological child. It denied marriage rights to transnational same-sex couples in which the non-Taiwanese partner hailed from a country that did not recognize same-sex marriage. It also banned joint adoption of a nonrelative child by married same-sex couples, making Taiwan one of only two jurisdictions worldwide to legislate such an exclusion (Lau Reference Lau 2020 ). In short, the 748 Act denied shared parentage to couples unable to marry or without a biological child, and it limited the mechanism for pursuing co-parental rights to stepparent adoption, thereby likening a same-sex union to a subsequent heterosexual marriage that follows upon divorce or death of a previous spouse.

Despite privileging biological children in its narrow recognition of co-parental rights, the 748 Act made no change to the associated laws that restrict LGBT childbearing in the first place. For instance, Taiwan’s 2007 Assisted Reproduction Act limits assisted reproductive technology (ART) access exclusively to infertile, opposite-sex married couples. Footnote 3 To date, lesbians and gay men who desire biological children must travel abroad for costly ART treatment or pursue legally unprotected arrangements at home, such as donor insemination, contractual marriages, or informal surrogacy (surrogacy remains illegal in Taiwan). Lesbian mothers have utilized ART services in Thailand, Cambodia, Japan, the United States, Canada, and Australia, with destinations shifting in response to changing ART access regulations and costs. Gay fathers who seek to conceive through ART face the considerable expense of egg donation and surrogacy, coupled with restrictive laws that limit potential ART destinations. The legal protections for surrogacy in the United States enhance its popularity among those who can afford the high costs, with Thailand and Russia providing cheaper, but legally insecure, options. Overall, the resources required to engage successfully in international ART use place it out of reach for many. By ignoring the exclusionary consequences of unequal ART access in Taiwan, the 748 Act enhanced LGBT parenthood stigma through differential treatment in law (Chen Reference Chen 2019 b).

Our analysis builds collaboratively on our respective research concerning Taiwan’s legalization of same-sex marriage (Chen) and the family formation and recognition strategies of Taiwanese LGBT parents (Friedman). Throughout the article, we also refer to LGBT parents as gay and lesbian or tongzhi parents, the latter term of identification widely used by Chinese-speaking, LGBT communities. In addition to reviewing existing laws, adoption evaluation policies, and court adoption decisions involving heterosexual and LGBT families, Footnote 4 we derive our findings from participant observation and ethnographic interviews with LGBT parents, LGBT rights activists, social workers, and government officials. Our discussion of the 748 Act’s consequences draws primarily from taped interviews with sixty-three LGBT-parent families conducted from July 2017 to July 2020, representing gay fathers (one-third) and lesbian mothers (two-thirds) who became parents before the Constitutional Court decision, in the intervening period before the Act was passed, and after the Act went into effect. During the latter phase, we collected court documents from eleven same-sex stepparent adoption cases, all of which were ultimately approved, two following appeal (as of March 2022, 111 children had been adopted through same-sex stepparent adoption). Footnote 5 Given that these adoption documents are not publicly available and are shared only with the petitioners themselves (who agreed to share them with us), they provide valuable insights into how adoption gatekeepers assessed LGBT parenthood in this new legal domain.

Our interviewees ranged in age from their twenties to fifties, with the majority in their thirties and forties. They clustered primarily in western Taiwan’s urban and peri-urban areas, in communities they characterized along a spectrum from socially liberal to conservative. They hailed from a broad swath of Taiwan’s majority Han society (only a few were Indigenous), with rural and urban family backgrounds that varied by class, geographic locale, ethnic affiliation, and religious orientation. The vast majority had one to two children conceived through intentional childbearing that involved diverse ART strategies, self-insemination, or contractual marriage and reproductive arrangements. The remainder had children in prior heterosexual unions or adopted a nonrelative child. Many resided in two-parent, nuclear households, but others were single parents, had flexible living situations with same-sex partners, or lived with extended kin or hired caregivers who assisted with childcare. Interviews lasted from one to three hours and took place in homes and public spaces (parks, coffee shops, offices, and restaurants) across Taiwan. Repeat interviews and participant observation were conducted with a subset of interviewees. The article integrates insights from ethnographic and legal sources with sociolegal, anthropological, gender, and sexuality scholarship to illuminate how the specific provisions of the 748 Act interact with related legal domains to both reduce and reproduce existing stigmas, generating various forms of recognition, non-recognition, and misrecognition that may create symbolic and substantive harms for LGBT families.

In Taiwan, parenting outside of marriage or through adoption is widely seen as a stigmatized practice whose harms beset both heterosexual and tongzhi parents. Laws and courts have often remedied these stigmas for heterosexual parents by creating a privileged family unit with two, opposite-sex married parents. For LGBT parents before the 748 Act, however, the double stigma of illegitimacy and adoption combined with the stigma of homosexuality to deny their family legitimacy, devaluing their family status and blocking access to the rights and privileges enjoyed by “normative” families. Understanding how sexuality mediated the interacting stigmas of illegitimacy and adoption before the 748 Act will help us understand the Act’s contradictory effects on tongzhi couples’ struggles for legal co-parentage.

The law of legitimacy prevails in Taiwan by dividing children into two unequally valued groups according to their birth mother’s relationship with their biological father. The law affirms that procreation “should” take place within the institution of marriage, and it thereby stigmatizes non-marital children by labeling them as “illegitimate” or “non-marital.” Taiwanese law explicitly identifies illegitimacy with fatherlessness, enabling men to escape the costs of reproducing outside of marriage and creating both symbolic and material harms for the child: an illegitimate child is deemed socially inferior and is legally denied support and inheritance from the biological father. The stigmatization of illegitimacy is enhanced by the comparative “abnormality” of unwed motherhood and fatherlessness. Taiwan’s non-marital birth rate increased only slightly from 2.07 percent in 1990 to 3.83 percent in 2020, an incidence that reflects persistent social preferences for childbearing within marriage (Cheng and Yang Reference Cheng and Yang 2021 ). Footnote 6

Although illegitimacy is defined by family law, its stigma is enacted through interactions between family laws and Taiwan’s household registration law. An “illegitimate” child’s fatherlessness is materialized in the household registry and on the national identity card. Whereas access to information documented in the registry is limited to registry members or a legal party of concern, the information on the national ID is revealed on a daily basis as citizens use it to establish their identity for a wide range of mundane and official purposes. Illegitimacy manifests through the ID entry for a father’s name, which, prior to 2008, publicly circulated the shameful stigma of illegitimacy through the characters “father unknown.” Although the term has since been removed from official documents, the stigma of illegitimacy continues to be reenacted in daily life through the simple dash that now occupies the father’s name slot on the ID. Footnote 7

Heterosexual parents have two options to resolve or conceal the stigma of a non-marital birth. The first option is through the birth mother’s post-birth marriage to the biological father or to a man she claims is the biological father. The second option is paternal acknowledgment without marriage. A birth father can “legitimate” a child without marrying the mother by voluntarily acknowledging the child or by de facto acknowledgment through child support. A single mother can remain unmarried and legitimate her child through forcing the birth father to acknowledge the child, should she be able to prove paternity. Given the heteronormative orientation of Taiwanese society and the prevailing stigmatization of non-marital birth, family members and friends in some instances have agreed to serve as a fake husband or father to protect a child from the harm of illegitimacy, despite the risk of criminal prosecution. Taiwanese courts, like courts in the United States (Maldonado Reference Maldonado 2013 ), have acknowledged “illegitimacy-as-harm” by finding that fatherlessness damages both the mother’s and the child’s reputations. In one case, the court permitted paternity establishment even after the putative father’s death to remedy the child’s many years of suffering. Footnote 8

Adoption provides another resource for heterosexual parents seeking to resolve the stigma of illegitimacy. Yet it bears its own stigma due to its association with infertility, abandonment, divorce, and abuse. Although Taiwanese law no longer distinguishes between an adoptive child and a “natural” child in most circumstances, societal norms devalue adoptive relationships as less authentic and “not natural,” a second-best alternative to create families (Chen and Chen Reference Chen and Chen 2017 ; see also March Reference March 1995 ). The social stigmatization of adoption is enhanced by the low overall adoption rate in Taiwan and the very small number of children available to adopt.

Taiwanese law permits three types of adoption to establish a parental relationship: adoption by a genealogically close blood relative, stepparent adoption, and adoption by a single person or married heterosexual couple who are not the child’s blood relatives. Stepparent and close-relative adoption constitute roughly 80 percent of all adoptions in Taiwan, with stepparent adoption being the most common category (Li, Qiu, and Bai Reference Li, Chin-hui and Li-fang 2017 , 279). Joint adoption of a nonrelative child is an entitlement reserved and mandated for married heterosexual couples only. Footnote 9 Consequently, a married person cannot adopt as a single person, and two unmarried persons cannot jointly adopt a child. Understood this way, adoption law resembles the law of legitimacy by privileging heterosexual marriage and excluding tongzhi couples and all unmarried couples from legitimating a two-parent adoptive family.

Taiwan’s current adoption law requires court intervention and designated roles for adoption agencies and social workers to establish a legal adoptive relationship. A minor’s adoption must be decided according to the “best interests of the child,” a vague principle shot through with gendered ideologies that endorse heteronormative family roles and responsibilities (Fineman Reference Fineman 1995 ; Richman Reference Richman 2009 ; Scott and Emery Reference Scott and Emery 2014 ; Chen Reference Chen 2016 ). Adoption gatekeepers may apply this principle in ways that stigmatize parents as “unfit,” an outcome that potentially besets both heterosexual and LGBT adoptive parents (Richman Reference Richman 2009 , 77). But the two groups face different challenges during the adoption process given its orientation toward ensuring an “ideal” heterosexual co-parenthood.

Two evaluation metrics for parental fitness in heterosexual stepparent adoptions are relevant for comparison with LGBT stepparent adoption in the post-748 Act era. Social workers use marital duration to assess the stability of the couple’s relationship and the likelihood that they will provide a lasting family environment for the child. Footnote 10 Although social workers generally rely on a baseline of two years for this evaluation metric, some courts have approved a shorter marital duration when coupled with premarital cohabitation or a positive assessment of the child’s interaction with the adopting parent. Statistics on approved heterosexual stepparent adoption cases from 2012–17 confirm considerable variation in how this metric is applied: 18.5 percent of couples had been married for less than six months at the time of adoption, 19.6 percent for between six months and one year, 24.2 percent for one to three years, and 15.4 percent for three to six years. Footnote 11 Thus, despite social workers’ emphasis on marital stability, the courts do not appear to set a high bar when it comes to heterosexual couples petitioning for stepparent adoption.

A second parental fitness criterion is the adoptive parents’ willingness to disclose the adoption given a child’s constitutional right to know their familial origins. The working assumption behind the disclosure assessment is that the adoption will otherwise be kept secret, a not unreasonable position given Taiwanese preference for closed adoption and heterosexual stepparents’ general unwillingness to disclose the adoption (Li, Qiu, and Bai Reference Li, Chin-hui and Li-fang 2017 ). Despite disclosure expectations, courts have approved heterosexual stepparent adoption in cases where the adoptive parent was reluctant or even refused to disclose the child’s origins but had established a stable relationship with the child, arguing that approving the adoption was still in the child’s best interest. In other cases, the court approved the adoption but ordered the adopter to receive education on adoption disclosure and to prepare a plan. These outcomes suggest that this parental fitness metric is not a determining factor for courts when approving an adoption that will legitimate the status quo by providing the child with a marital heterosexual family. Educating parents on the merits of disclosure is considered more desirable than rejecting the adoption petition altogether.

For heterosexual parents, therefore, stepparent adoption enables them to cure the stigma of illegitimacy and potentially to conceal the stigma of adoption. Again, the information about one’s parents on personal legal documents contributes to activating or avoiding stigma. In the past, adoption was noted on one’s household registration and national ID card, and an adoptive parent was identified by adding the character “adoptive” to the character for mother or father. Only in 1995 did the government permit heterosexual adoptive parents to conceal the adoptive relationship in their household registry by requesting removal of the “adoptive” character, an option that has since been made automatic with legal amendments that bar its inclusion in the household registry and on the child’s national ID card. By concealing the adoptive relationship in personal legal documents, the amended law aided heterosexual parents who wished to pass as “natural” by covering the adoption and enabling an adopted child to pass as a natural child.

In the pre-748 Act era, tongzhi co-parents did not face the same stigma of adoption because they were denied access to legal co-parentage through either joint or stepparent adoption. They could only adopt as a single person, ostensibly without regard to sexual orientation. A few successfully navigated the legal availability of single adoption without concealing their identity as transgender or tongzhi. As early as 2001, a Taiwan court approved a trans woman’s adoption petition, and, in 2014, an openly lesbian woman successfully petitioned for adoption (Wang, Hsu, and Ilu Reference Wang, Sen-jer and Hsiu-yi 2017 , 291–92). Yet the determination of the best interests of the child could easily discriminate against single adopters, and single stigma could also stand in for the stigmatization of homosexuality or non-normative gender, conflating marital status and sexual orientation discrimination to create significant barriers for tongzhi seeking to adopt.

An iconic adoption case in 2007 proved how high these adoption barriers were given Taiwan’s heteronormative sociolegal environment. A woman in a lesbian relationship petitioned to adopt her sister’s child as a single adopter, but the court rejected her petition on the basis that the child would be teased, bullied, and discriminated against as a result of the adoptive mother’s sexual orientation (otherwise known as the stigmatization argument). Footnote 12 As Helen Reece ( Reference Reece 1996 , 495–96) forcefully argues in her analysis of early British LGBT adoption cases, the stigmatization argument is flawed because it denies societal responsibility for creating a discriminatory environment and instead puts the burden of redressing potential bullying on the parent(s), thus justifying the court’s adoption denial. When lesbian mothers and gay fathers in the United States began to seek child custody through the courts in the late twentieth century, they rejected the logic of this argument, drawing on the US Supreme Court’s 1984 decision in Palmore v. Sidoti to argue, in some cases successfully, that social prejudice should play no role in custody decisions (Cain Reference Cain 2000 ). Footnote 13 Despite strong criticism of the stigmatization argument from Taiwan’s LGBT community and feminist legal scholars (Chen Reference Chen 2010 ; S. Kuo Reference Kuo 2010 ; Lin Reference Lin 2013 ), it became a recognized legal basis for rejecting subsequent LGBT co-parent adoption petitions (Jin and He Reference Jin and Shi-chang 2015 ).

In a series of pre-748 Act test cases in the mid-2010s, lesbian co-mothers who had conceived via ART abroad or donor insemination in Taiwan applied for stepparent adoption as de facto spouses. Although, as Nancy Polikoff ( Reference Polikoff 2009 , 205–6) argues, stepparent adoption is a poor fit for lesbian co-mothers who “plan for a child together,” these Taiwanese couples were willing to accept this poor fit to legitimate their families. Court after court rejected their claims, however, invoking both the stigmatization argument and judicial restraint (even after JY 748 was announced). Footnote 14 The courts argued that cohabiting tongzhi couples were treated the same as unmarried cohabiting heterosexual couples, ultimately finding that marriage, not heterosexuality, justified stepparent adoption.

Once again, the stigmatization argument worked against tongzhi parents even when they were willing to present themselves as de facto husband and wife for the court. Simply put, adoption as a cure to legitimate parenthood was denied for tongzhi co-parents but allowed for married heterosexual couples to resolve the stigma of illegitimacy. This differential treatment suggests that the stigma of homosexuality was so dominating that courts chose to ignore the stigma of illegitimacy or treat it as irrelevant to tongzhi families. From the courts’ point of view, adoption could cure the stigma of illegitimacy if it produced married, opposite-sex parents, but not if it resulted in two parents of the same sex.

The mixed record of tongzhi parents’ efforts to legitimate their families through adoption in the pre-748 Act era supports Kimberly Richman’s ( Reference Richman 2009 ) thesis that the indeterminacy of family law is a double-edged sword that can be used to pursue progressive goals or enforce bias against LGBT parents. The 748 Act advanced equality by granting legal recognition to some same-sex couples and family units. By creating a narrow path to legal co-parenting rights for LGBT couples, however, the Act established three key differences between LGBT and heterosexual parents: the requirement that marriage precede co-parentage recognition, the limiting of legal co-parentage only to couples with a biological child, and the designation of stepparent adoption as the sole mechanism for establishing co-parental rights. This section addresses each of these differences to examine how they generate discriminatory consequences through renewing intersecting stigmas surrounding illegitimacy, adoption, and homosexuality. Although we acknowledge that the 748 Act resolves the challenges faced by some LGBT families, we address new symbolic and substantive harms experienced by those covered by, and excluded from, the law’s limited protections.

The New Illegitimacy

By making same-sex marriage registration the precondition for legal co-parentage, the 748 Act creates a “new illegitimacy” for LGBT parents by privileging valued marital choices and marginalizing non-marital intimate bonds and family structures (Grossman Reference Grossman 2012 ; Murray Reference Murray 2012 ; Polikoff Reference Polikoff 2012 ). Footnote 15 In Taiwan, moreover, the marital demand has also revitalized the stigma of homosexuality by outing tongzhi parents socially and bureaucratically through the inclusion of a same-gender spouse’s name on their identification documents. When combined with the retention of the qualifying character “adoptive” for tongzhi stepparents only, this documentary treatment affirms how the new illegitimacy in Taiwan is defined by the stigma of homosexuality more than the racialized structural inequalities relevant to analyses of renewed illegitimacy stigmas in the United States: marriage remains “elusive or undesirable for many” (Murray Reference Murray 2012 , 436) through interactions between the 748 Act and Taiwan’s household registration laws and identification policies. Tongzhi parents must weigh the outing of their sexuality against the demand that they “opt in” to same-sex marriage registration before becoming eligible to petition for stepparent adoption. Legitimation as a family comes at a price—no state regulation/intervention, no recognition—but state recognition invites anew the stigma of homosexuality.

As discussed above, non-marital childbearing carries a broad social stigma across Taiwanese society. LGBT parents may themselves internalize the stigma of illegitimacy or may fear its anticipated effects on extended family members or in social or bureaucratic encounters. Many tongzhi parents described how their own parents expressed opposition to their childbearing plans because they were not married, ignoring the presence of their same-sex partner. The gendered dimensions of this opposition functioned differently for gay fathers and lesbian mothers due to societal anxieties about unmarried mothers and familial expectations that sons continue the patrilineal family line—in some instances, regardless of how they did so (Brainer Reference Brainer 2019 ). Gay fathers faced concerns about the child’s “lack” of a mother and a man’s ability to perform childcare that is traditionally gendered female (Boyer Reference Boyer and Rafael 2007 , 230); motherlessness in these cases functioned less as a marker of illegitimacy and more as a potential threat to the child’s well-being. Footnote 16 Intending mothers, on the other hand, experienced moral and social condemnation associated with unmarried pregnancy and their own parents’ anxieties about how a child’s fatherlessness would harm the family’s reputation through the stain of illegitimacy.

For some tongzhi parents, family members’ resistance to their childbearing plans reflects how the stigma of illegitimacy interacts with the stigma attached to homosexuality, creating exclusion from familial support networks that is enhanced by legal discrimination. A’mei, a birth mother who became pregnant before the 748 Act went into effect, related how her father had firmly opposed her plan to have a child together with her girlfriend due to her unmarried status, itself a consequence of the unrecognized standing of LGBT intimate relationships. Father-daughter relations grew so strained that A’mei did not visit her parents throughout her entire pregnancy and felt she could not count on their support when she gave birth. Thinking back on that period, A’mei admitted that she was lucky because the 748 Act went into effect two months before her daughter was born, and she married her partner immediately. “Otherwise, I would have been on my own [at the birth], with no one to sign documents for me or anything else.” A’mei’s father only softened his opposition and visited her once his granddaughter had entered the world. Footnote 17 Although A’mei’s experience attests to the legal and social benefits of same-sex marriage, it also affirms the significance of the child’s birth for prompting greater acceptance from senior generations.

Tongzhi parents who themselves endorse the stigma of illegitimacy may view the marital requirement as an additional tool to protect their children from societal discrimination. Some expecting couples in the pre-748 Act era held unofficial wedding ceremonies prior to a child’s birth to affirm their status as parents prepared to create a family. Footnote 18 The stigmatizing consequences of illegitimacy also appeared in some post-Act stepparent adoption petitions—for instance, two lesbian co-mother couples specifically wrote that stepparent adoption would protect their child from the stigma of “father unknown.” These couples used the 748 Act to legitimate their family by curing the stigma of fatherlessness without the presence of a father, revising the illegitimacy argument so that tongzhi couples could benefit from the destigmatizing effect of legal marriage enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts. In so doing, however, these couples reaffirmed the concept of “illegitimacy as injury,” deploying a rights-seeking strategy that Polikoff ( Reference Polikoff 2012 , 722) critiques as a “win backwards” for reviving “the discredited distinction between ‘legitimate’ and ‘illegitimate’ children.”

The “illegitimacy as injury” argument was widely used in the US movement for same-sex marriage and parental rights and was acknowledged in Obergefell v. Hodges , despite criticism from feminist legal scholars (Murray Reference Murray 2012 ; Polikoff Reference Polikoff 2012 , Reference Polikoff and Carlos 2016 ). Footnote 19 Yet it was not as prominent in Taiwan’s marriage equality movement, evidence of divisions within the tongzhi community over prioritizing legal marriage in rights struggles (Liu Reference Liu 2015 ; Lee Reference Lee 2017 ; Chen Reference Chen 2019 a, Reference Chen 2019 b; Ho Reference Ho 2019 ; Kuan Reference Kuan 2019 ). Despite recognizing the social and material value of marriage and intergenerational kinship in Taiwanese society (Chao Reference Chao 2005 ; Hu Reference Hu 2017 ; Brainer Reference Brainer 2019 ), tongzhi remain divided about whether marriage should precede parenting and legal co-parental rights. A 2016 survey found that roughly half of LGBT interviewees believed legal same-sex marriage should come before co-parental adoption, while one-third objected to requiring marriage as the first step (Child Welfare League Foundation 2017 , 23). This diversity of perspectives is reflected in the current marital landscape, where some LGBT parents resist or delay marrying, despite their desire for both partners to enjoy legal recognition as parents. Our interviews suggest that legal co-motherhood is currently more common than legal co-fatherhood, in part a reflection of a higher incidence of co-parenting among lesbian couples and in part, as discussed below, a consequence of the social and professional challenges faced by gay men who openly disclose their sexual orientation. This finding is also consistent with the fact that lesbian marriages have significantly outnumbered gay marriages since the 748 Act’s enactment in 2019. Footnote 20

Tingting, a well-educated, professional lesbian mother from central Taiwan, criticized the tongzhi community for upholding traditional norms that bonded childbearing to marriage. Yet, over the course of two in-depth interviews, Tingting gradually revealed her own ambivalent history of marriage. After Tingting became pregnant through reciprocal in-vitro fertilization (IVF) in Japan, she and her partner traveled to the United States in 2018 to marry and give birth to their son, a decision motivated partly by their desire for his birth certificate to include both of their names. The birth certificate was merely a symbolic statement of their shared parentage, however, for it, like their US marriage, lacked legal validity in Taiwan at the time. Although passage of the 748 Act allowed them finally to register their marriage in Taiwan, the couple had yet to do so even two years later, an outcome that Tingting attributed to mounting tensions in their couple relationship and opposition from her own parents. These challenges had deepened Tingting’s ambivalence about the value of marriage, despite her strong commitment to LGBT family rights and her partner’s parental recognition. Nonetheless, she acknowledged the stigma of her unmarried mother status, having been labeled as a “high risk family” by her local public health bureau because, on paper, she appeared to be a single mother and had failed to follow a regular immunization schedule for her toddler. Footnote 21

Tingting’s example represents a couple with choices, in that she and her partner could marry and embark on the stepparent adoption process if they so chose. Their concerns echo those of other parents who put off marrying to protect their intimate relationship from what they see as legal entanglements that potentially introduce competing interests and calculations into an otherwise emotional bond. Despite acknowledging how this decision has rendered their family vulnerable, such couples prefer to remain “strangers in law” rather than invite the state into their intimate lives, making the so-called “freedom to choose” a Faustian bargain for those profoundly uncertain about the emotional and social costs of state recognition (Patton-Imani Reference Patton-Imani 2020 ; Friedman and Chen Reference Friedman and Chen 2021 ). Footnote 22 Other couples assert that, by requiring marriage as a precondition for co-parental rights, the 748 Act diminishes the value of marriage itself by making it simply one more element that parents must acquire to legitimate their families. One adoptive co-mother made this very point when reflecting on the impact of her marriage: “Speaking honestly, our relationship is the same after marrying, nothing has changed. The benefit of marriage is that I could adopt [my son].” Footnote 23 Using the couple relationship to secure the co-parent’s legal relationship to the child effectively devalues both the parent-child bond and marriage, for neither has legal worth in itself (Polikoff Reference Polikoff 2009 ). As the 2016 survey of LGBT attitudes toward same-sex marriage shows, and interviews with tongzhi parents have confirmed, a significant proportion of parents might be unlikely to marry were it not required for the stepparent adoption process, despite the hard-fought struggle to win marriage rights.

By tethering parental rights to marriage, the 748 Act also affirms how basic citizenship claims are channeled through legal marriage, thereby creating fundamental inequalities for those unable to marry (Patton-Imani Reference Patton-Imani 2020 , 45). The 748 Act’s marital requirement disadvantages couples that feel incapable of exercising their legal right to marry (as opposed to reluctant) and denies core citizenship rights to those formally barred from marrying under the current law. Not only do these two groups experience different degrees of harm, but they also face different temporal horizons of exclusion extending from the denial of basic rights in the present to the potential future risk of parental vulnerability. This future risk is balanced against the more immediate consequences of having one’s sexuality made public by registering a marriage that will be noted in the household registry and on one’s national ID card and potentially reported to one’s workplace. Consequently, LGBT parents who are unable to marry continue to suffer the double stigma of illegitimacy and homosexuality.

Gay fathers predominate among parents who feel unable to marry despite being legally eligible. Gay men are more likely not to be fully out to their family of origin and thus fear the interpersonal, emotional, and, in some cases, financial consequences of being outed to their families once the marriage appears in the family’s household registration (if they have not established a separate registry) and their spouse’s name is added to their national ID card. Initially, a same-sex married couple’s household registration identified their union specifically as a “same-sex marriage,” but the government subsequently removed the term “same-sex” following objections that it violated privacy. Nonetheless, most tongzhi couples emphasized that the spouse’s name alone, by indicating gender, will out them to their families. Such concerns echo long-standing critiques of including marital status on the national ID card that underscore its unjustified invasion of privacy and potential to facilitate marital status discrimination. Although these critiques focused on heterosexual marriage, they suggest how this documentation makes some couples, especially gay men, more vulnerable to existing societal stigmas against homosexuality.

Ming was a thirty-something father of two children biologically related to his partner, James, who conceived through egg donation and surrogacy in the United States. Ming had kept his gay identity, relationship with James, and the children a secret from his parents and brother. Although both partners lived in Taipei, Ming resided with his parents during the week and spent the weekends with James and the children. Ming knew that marrying James would have the “added value” of enabling him to formalize his parental status through adoption, but he hesitated to come out to his mother after keeping his sexuality secret for so long, only doing so almost two years after the 748 Act went into effect. Footnote 24

Ming’s perceived inability to marry also stemmed from professional pressures. Like many gay fathers employed in socially conservative workplaces or professions that required regular disclosure of close family members, Ming feared losing his job or being shunned by coworkers should his marriage become public knowledge (despite statutory prohibitions against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and marital status in place since 2007). The twenty-seven gay fathers we interviewed worked in a diverse range of employment sectors, but the vast majority remained closeted at work. Although some claimed not to worry about disclosing their sexual orientation or marriage, others had been warned by senior management to be discreet or were uncertain about the professional consequences of coming out, having witnessed homophobic comments from colleagues and managers (especially during the fall 2018 lead up to the nationwide referendum on legalizing same-sex marriage). Footnote 25 The stigma of homosexuality encoded in workplace discrimination and coming out anxieties combines with the 748 Act’s marital requirement to enhance the legal vulnerability of co-fathers who feel unable to marry. Granted a “choice” they cannot risk making, fathers such as Ming lack legal protection as a parent despite their substantive care work.

The exclusions enacted by the marriage requirement weigh even more heavily on transnational couples legally barred from marrying in Taiwan because the non-Taiwanese partner hails from a country where same-sex marriage is not legal. Derived from the 748 Act’s interaction with laws and policies regulating international mobility and legal affairs, the marriage ban reaffirms the stigma of cross-border intimacies, especially those with foreign partners who come from presumably “less progressive” countries elsewhere in Asia (Friedman Reference Friedman 2017 ). Most affected couples include partners from Southeast Asia; China, Hong Kong, and Macau; or Japan and Korea. The legal barriers to marriage stem from either Taiwan’s international private law or, for citizens of China, from the administrative regulations governing cross-Strait marriages. Footnote 26 Unable to marry in Taiwan, transnational couples with children face additional barriers to legalizing the non-birth parent’s parental rights and resolving the foreign partner’s vulnerable immigration status. The plight of transnational same-sex couples has sparked several impact litigation cases that have achieved some individual successes in court, but legal reforms that would resolve the transnational same-sex marriage ban altogether still languish under legislative review.

Of the four transnational couples with children in our interview sample, two were blocked from marrying under the 748 Act and therefore lacked guaranteed rights to live together and be recognized as a family unit. The experience of a Taiwanese lesbian co-mother who was separated from her partner and son for nearly a year due to the COVID-19 pandemic’s travel restrictions is illustrative. This woman’s partner resided in Taiwan on a student visa and was outside the country with their son when Taiwan closed its borders in 2020 to all except citizens and foreigners with residency status. Although their son was a Taiwanese citizen, as a minor, he had no one to accompany him back to Taiwan. Making an ironic analogy to the global pandemic, this mother mused aloud that she and her partner have always lived in an endless state of waiting due to her partner’s insecure immigration status and her own lack of a legal tie to her son. Once other same-sex couples began marrying, she acutely felt the burden of her second-class citizenship, deprived of fundamental family protections now enjoyed by others. Footnote 27 The 748 Act’s marriage requirement, therefore, deepens divisions within the LGBT community on the basis of legal and social marriageability. Only those who are entitled, willing, and can afford to marry enjoy the family benefits of the newly available marriage cure.

The Supremacy of “Natural” Parenthood

The second potentially stigmatizing effect of the 748 Act is its limiting of LGBT co-parental rights only to couples with biological children, explicitly barring same-sex spouses from jointly adopting a nonrelative child and denying stepparent adoption rights to a co-parent of a spouse’s previously adopted child (foreclosing an outcome that resembles joint adoption). Footnote 28 These adoption restrictions represent legislators’ response to pressure from anti-same-sex marriage groups who subscribe to the stigmatization argument that children will suffer as a consequence of their parents’ sexuality, while they simultaneously uphold the supremacy of “natural” (that is, biological) parenthood. The ban on joint adoption has the added effect of reaffirming societal stigmatization of adoption in general and enhancing its undesirability among tongzhi seeking to become parents.

The joint adoption ban produces several negative consequences for LGBT parents. Given the high costs of pursuing biological parenthood through ART use abroad, adoption is a more economically feasible path to parenthood for many LGBT individuals and couples. In fact, studies of LGBT family formation in England and the United States have documented a strong willingness to consider adoption instead of prioritizing biological parenthood (Lewin Reference Lewin 2009 ; Rivers Reference Rivers 2013 ; Costa and Tasker Reference Costa and Tasker 2018 ). Yet prevailing stigmas against adoption and concerns about unequal treatment in the adoption process have made Taiwanese LGBT (intending) parents more likely to use ART or donor insemination to have biological children or to raise a child from a previous heterosexual relationship (only three of the families interviewed included an adopted nonrelative child). The 748 Act’s bans on joint adoption and stepparent adoption of a spouse’s adopted child further deepen LGBT adoption reluctance by making the long-fought-for right to marry a source of legal vulnerability. Marriage now blocks a tongzhi co-parent of an adopted child from seeking legal parental rights through stepparent adoption, and it bars the couple from both joint and single nonrelative adoption. These restrictions effectively undermine diverse pathways to becoming parents by denying recognition to two-parent adoptive LGBT families, thereby affirming the double stigma of adoption and LGBT parenthood (Boyer Reference Boyer and Rafael 2007 ).

Given the recent passage of the 748 Act, adoption reluctance in Taiwan’s LGBT community derives from more than legal bans on joint and stepparent adoption of a nonrelative child: equally relevant are widespread concerns that an openly gay or lesbian petitioner will not be treated fairly by adoption agencies, social workers, or the courts (Hong Reference Hong 2019 ). Indeed, studies of same-sex parent adoption in other countries have shown that LGBT parents face greater obstacles to adopting than their heterosexual counterparts (Boyer Reference Boyer and Rafael 2007 ; Farr and Goldberg Reference Farr and Goldberg 2018 ). The three LGBT adoptive parents in our interview sample all described long waiting periods to be matched with a child, required adoption classes that fit poorly with their family circumstances, and demands for multiple court appearances. Yet, by the time these parents embarked on the adoption process, adoption agencies and social workers had received anti-discrimination training regarding same-sex parenthood and family diversity. A government-commissioned study found that, although social workers supported LGBT adoption in principle, they worried that adoption agencies and child welfare institutions would treat tongzhi adopters more strictly out of concerns about the child’s potential “double labeling” as an adopted child and a child of LGBT parents (Child Welfare League Foundation 2017 , 15–16, 34). The report, therefore, confirms LGBT parents’ anxieties about differential treatment (anticipated stigma) while also revealing more progressive views among some adoption gatekeepers (Hong Reference Hong 2019 ).

Although the LGBT adoptive parents in our interview sample had finalized their adoptions before or shortly after the 748 Act went into effect, two parents were already co-residing with same-sex partners despite pursuing adoption as a single person, and one couple had waited to move in together until after the adoption was finalized. The 748 Act’s ban on joint adoption created a significant dilemma for these couples by freighting the decision to marry with the substantive consequence of barring the non-adoptive parent from legal parental rights, thereby rendering all family members vulnerable to potential future harm. An adopted child might enjoy the care of two parents in daily life, but has only one legal parent, creating legal uncertainty should something happen to the legal parent, an outcome that contravenes the best interests of the child principle guiding adoption itself. The legal adoptive parent, moreover, must shoulder sole responsibility for the child should the non-adoptive parent walk away. Finally, the non-adoptive parent has no legal custody remedy should the legal parent become incapacitated or die or should the couple separate and the legal parent deny his or her parental status. These potential harms reproduce for adoptive families the insecure status faced by all LGBT families prior to the 748 Act’s passage. Although a successful case in early 2022 recognized the best interests of the child as the basis for approving a co-father’s petition to adopt his spouse’s previously adopted child (Huang Reference Huang 2022 ), a comprehensive legal response to the joint adoption ban awaits legislative reform or review by the Constitutional Court. Footnote 29 Thus, all other tongzhi adoptive families continue to suffer exclusion from the Act’s protections regarding co-parental rights for an adopted child.

The Poor Fit of Stepparent Adoption

Given that a majority of Taiwan’s LGBT families are formed through intentional childbearing and include children conceived through assisted reproductive technologies and donor insemination, the 748 Act’s reliance on stepparent adoption to establish legal co-parentage provokes the greatest concern among tongzhi parents. The stepparent adoption requirement stigmatizes the non-birth/biological parent who, despite participating in the planning for, birth of, and care of the child, must petition for adoption to become a legal parent instead of being granted presumptive or automatic parentage at birth. Moreover, the specific type of adoption used to confer legal parentage—stepparent adoption—presumes the model of a “reconstituted family” created following divorce and remarriage, which applies in only a small number of cases where a tongzhi couple meets after the child is conceived or born. The “conceptual flaw in analogizing same-sex couples to a step-family,” as Polikoff ( Reference Polikoff 2009 , 205) contends, enhances tongzhi co-parents’ experience of both non-recognition and misrecognition: they are denied recognition as a legitimate parent from the child’s conception and/or birth, and they are misrecognized as a stigmatized “stepparent,” the latter status creating an ostensibly less legitimate family unit (formed through adoption, presumably following divorce and remarriage).

Despite the longer history of LGBT second-parent rights in North America, existing literature consistently finds that many LGBT parents experience the second-parent adoption process as a discriminatory misfit with their own family formation pathways, describing it as intrusive, lengthy, and often financially unfeasible (Connolly Reference Connolly 2002 ; Polikoff Reference Polikoff 2009 ; Park, Kazyak, and Slauson-Blevin Reference Park, Kazyak and Slauson-Blevin 2016 , 128; Feinberg Reference Feinberg 2017 , 79–82; Gash and Raiskin Reference Gash and Raiskin 2018 , 94–96; Patton-Imani Reference Patton-Imani 2020 ). The stepparent adoption requirements enshrined in the 748 Act provoke similar responses from Taiwanese LGBT co-parents with a biological child, many of whom react angrily to “misapplied requirements” (Gash and Raiskin Reference Gash and Raiskin 2018 ) and the time and effort required to obtain “extra things” needed to secure basic protections taken for granted by heterosexual married parents (Patton-Imani Reference Patton-Imani 2020 ). In Taiwan, the adoption process does not typically require legal representation, which reduces the financial burden on LGBT co-parents pursuing stepparent adoption when compared to their US counterparts. Even without burdensome financial costs, however, the adoption process stigmatizes co-parents who have planned their parenthood together because it denies their experience as a parent from birth.

Lena, a Taiwanese lesbian co-mother, posted the following statement after the court approved her stepparent adoption petition in 2020:

Just received the court-issued adoption approval, [I’ve] finally become C’s legal mother. My child was not born my child. Because of this we have dashed about for so long, hoping over these years that C would see that human rights do not fall from the sky. They accumulate over a previous lifetime, interwoven from the blood, sweat, and tears of many. My dear child, born into this imperfect world, remember forever this moment of fearless abandon. #5 years 5 months (Facebook post, August 17, 2020).

By the time Lena wrote this post, she had been partnered with her child’s birth mother for nine years, had planned for the child’s conception at a fertility clinic in Thailand, and had cared for her daughter since her birth in 2015. Although a mother in everyday life, Lena was a stranger to her child in the eyes of the law and was barred from acting as a parent in any official capacity. As she poignantly describes her situation, “my child was not born my child.” Only with the passage of the 748 Act, her subsequent marriage to her partner, and her successful stepparent adoption petition would Lena finally be recognized as a legal parent. Yet, as a consequence of how the Act created co-parental rights, that long-desired status came with the cost, in her eyes, of legal identification as a “lesser” adoptive mother. Footnote 30 Lena’s reference to an “imperfect world” acknowledges the long struggle for LGBT rights in Taiwan that produced this legal compromise, a result of “the blood, sweat, and tears of many.”

In interviews, lesbian co-mothers consistently expressed outrage about how the label of “adoptive” parent misrepresented them and their original co-parenting role, echoing Katie Acosta’s ( Reference Acosta 2021 , 202) account of a US lesbian co-mother who experienced the term “stepmother” as “an insult rather than an affirmation.” These objections expose both the ill fit of stepparent adoption to a couple’s childbearing trajectory and the stigma attached to adoption as a family-formation practice. Whereas a lesbian adoptive mother of a nonrelative child might intentionally identify herself as such to create a positive identity for her adopted child, lesbian co-mothers of a biological child contend that identification as an adoptive mother devalues their maternal role. Footnote 31 Gay fathers who conceived via surrogacy abroad may be less likely to object to the stepparent adoption requirement, having already gone through onerous bureaucratic procedures to recognize the birth father’s paternity and secure the child’s Taiwanese citizenship. Yet they nonetheless face often greater challenges proving their parental fitness when the co-father petitions for stepparent adoption.

Adoption stigma is exacerbated by documentation requirements that out tongzhi stepparents by distinguishing them from their heterosexual counterparts. A tongzhi co-parent’s successful stepparent adoption is documented in the household registry and later on the child’s ID card by adding the character “adoptive” to the character for mother or father, a practice mandated by the government after the 748 Act took effect, despite being barred in heterosexual stepparent adoption cases. This differential treatment of tongzhi parenthood in key identification systems extends beyond the documentation of the stepparent adoption itself. For instance, when married LGBT couples that have secured co-parental rights subsequently create a shared household registry, the status of the parent identified as “household head” determines whether the children are listed simply by gender and birth order (eldest son/daughter) or as “adopted” daughter/son. Once again, LGBT co-parents reject this label because it differentiates them from heterosexual families and misrecognizes their shared parental experience, reaffirming double discrimination as both a tongzhi and an adoptive family. Footnote 32 The parent who is required to adopt experiences misrecognition as a stepparent rather than an intending parent from the beginning. The child is mischaracterized as having only one primary parent, leading to the subsequent stigma of stepparent adoption. Tongzhi parents’ inability to cover the adoption enacts the stigma of adoption to enforce the stigma of homosexuality and vice versa. This differential treatment enhances a sense of inferiority and inequality that may foster adoption reluctance among some LGBT parents.

The procedural requirements of stepparent adoption deepen these stigmatizing effects, especially the demand that parents subject their home, personal history, and family life to the gaze of a social worker or court investigator charged with assessing the adopter’s parental “fitness.” Precisely because tongzhi co-parents of a biological child do not perceive themselves as adoptive parents, they reject the basic premise that the state should have the right to investigate an already existing family household to grant legal recognition. Having invested considerable effort and resources to have and raise a child, many respond angrily to the suggestion that they may not be fit parents, and they associate assumptions of unfitness with bias against their sexuality. Although heterosexual adoptive parents face the same fitness assessment demand from the state, their presumed unfitness bears no relationship to their heterosexuality, nor does it negate a planned childbearing trajectory.

The specific evaluation metrics used by social workers and court actors to assess stepparent adoptions fit awkwardly with most tongzhi parents’ relationship and childbearing histories. When LGBT co-parents decide to pursue stepparent adoption, therefore, they risk both symbolic and substantive harms as a consequence of being assessed on terms they find deeply stigmatizing due to the mismatch between their intentional childbearing and the “reconstituted family” at the heart of stepparent adoption evaluations. With regard to the marital duration criterion, our interviewees were unable to meet social workers’ ideal two-year threshold for heterosexual parents because they could only marry legally in Taiwan beginning on May 24, 2019. Our interviews and perusal of the legislative and judicial records found that, instead of strictly applying this criterion, social workers and courts often use other means to evaluate the couple’s relationship commitment (although see the appealed case discussed later in this article). Footnote 33 These include registering as same-sex partners (available nationwide in 2017), holding an informal wedding ceremony, marrying abroad, participating in couple’s counseling, and providing evidence of a shared life. We might view these alternative metrics as a variation on the cohabitation standard applied to heterosexual couples, although they diversify the bases for evaluating relationship commitment and parental fitness. Nonetheless, LGBT co-parents take issue with the demand that they document their relationship stability in the first place; for many, this evaluation metric calls into question the legitimacy of their already existing family unit.

Second, courts and social workers use the child’s age as another basis for assessing familial stability, parental fitness, and the “need” for adoption. Heterosexual stepparent adoption cases involving an infant, for example, may provoke concern about the adoptive parent’s commitment to, and familiarity with, the child, calling into question the future stability of the parent-child bond. For LGBT co-parents whose intent to parent dates to planning for the child’s conception, however, the application of this metric denies their original parenting experience and investments (financial and emotional).

A lesbian co-mother’s adoption petition that was initially denied by the court but granted on appeal offers some insights into both the discriminatory ill fit of stepparent adoption procedures and the potential for courts to recognize both the intent to parent and functional parenthood. Footnote 34 The couple’s daughter was born shortly after their 2019 marriage, and they filed adoption paperwork before the child was one month old. The court denied the adoption petition on the basis of a short marital duration (despite evidence provided by the couple that they had lived together since 2010 and had married abroad in 2015) and the young age of the child (ignoring the couple’s collective decision to have a child and both parents’ participation in the process of getting pregnant and caring for the child from birth). Although admittedly a rare example of a court strictly applying the marital duration and child’s age criteria, this ruling underscores how easily Taiwanese courts may dismiss the legitimacy of same-sex relationships and intentional childbearing.

Shocked by their rejection, the couple secured legal representation and successfully appealed the first ruling. The appeal court ultimately approved the adoption in June 2020 by distinguishing it from a heterosexual stepparent adoption case, identifying the child as “originally and directly born into and raised in a same-sex family.” As a result, the appeal court rejected the lower court’s assessment of the child’s need to be adopted and instead evaluated the child’s right to be raised by both parents and to be treated as the child of two parents under the law. Footnote 35 This is the first instance that we have found of a court acknowledging the poor fit of stepparent adoption to tongzhi parenting circumstances and implicitly calling upon the legal system to distinguish between the two types of adoption. The appeal court’s rationale for approving the adoption, however, ultimately upheld the ideal two-parent family as emblematic of the child’s best interests.

The third evaluation metric used by social workers and courts is how adoptive parents plan to teach a child about his or her origins, a response, as discussed above, to the societal stigmatization of adoption and the practice among some heterosexual couples of concealing the adoption from the child. Clearly, most LGBT co-parents who engage in intentional childbearing lack the option to “hide” behind the screen of heterosexual reproduction and “natural” parenthood, although we did encounter two cases of contractual marriage between a lesbian and gay man in which the couple did not disclose their sexuality to their children or other family members. In most cases, how LGBT parents explain sperm or egg donors, surrogates, or the process of assisted reproduction in general all constitute evidence of the degree to which they have shared (or intend to share) the story of the child’s conception and biological origins.

For tongzhi stepparent adoptions, however, adoption disclosure evaluations enhance the combined stigmas of adoption and homosexuality because they simultaneously assess the parents’ degree of being out to their families of origin. Given the strong family orientation of Taiwanese society, social workers and courts pay particular attention to cases where parents might not be fully open about their sexuality or where family members “know but don’t talk about it,” expressing concern that either the parent might refuse to share a full origin story with the child or might require that the child not disclose details to extended kin (a concern absent from heterosexual stepparent adoption cases). To protect the child’s “best interests,” courts and social workers might evaluate such a situation negatively for the burdens that it imposes on the child and the comparative absence of an affirming living environment. Parents, by contrast, may challenge the court’s demand that they be “fully out,” a response more common among gay fathers and parents who have limited contact with their families of origin. Footnote 36 If they can demonstrate alternative social support networks, such parents may be able to counter the expectation that they be fully open with their families. After all, as discussed above, courts sometimes grant heterosexual stepparent adoption petitions despite the parents’ reluctance to disclose the adoption. In keeping with this precedent, courts could opt to approve LGBT stepparent adoptions under these circumstances by ordering the parents to receive additional training on adoption disclosure.

The potentially discriminatory consequences of this murky assessment category appear in a stepparent adoption case involving two mothers with a preschool-age son. Footnote 37 Despite living in a socially conservative city, the mothers claimed to be open with their son about his origins (even bringing him to Thailand to show him where he had been conceived), and they introduced him to other LGBT families through children’s books and social interactions. They described their respective families of origin as supportive of their relationship and parenthood. But, during the home assessment visit, the son ostensibly confessed to the social worker that he did not know how to explain his family to his preschool classmates. This statement led the social worker to recommend delaying the adoption until the son turned seven (presumably school age), and the court requested supplementary documentation from the parents before deciding on the case. Flummoxed by the vague request for more documentation, the parents sought guidance from the tongzhi parent community and advocacy organizations. In the end, the parents and the child together visited a family therapist and evidence of that visit appeared sufficient for the court to ultimately approve the adoption.

The co-mothers in this case felt deeply stigmatized by the adoption experience, evidence of how the legal process itself may trigger both internalized stigma and denied recognition as a legitimate family. The burden of resolving the stigma of non-heteronormative parenting is shifted onto LGBT parents who must demonstrate that they have successfully inculcated self-esteem and familial acceptance in their child, both features heralded under the mantle of “best interests of the child” but rationalized as necessary to prepare the child for a discriminatory social environment. Ironically, earlier research on US LGBT adoptive families has found that LGBT couples may be better suited to raising healthy, resilient children because “the very stigmas that make parenthood more difficult for lesbian and gay couples have allowed them to develop the resilience and coping skills necessary to succeed in this difficult task” (Boyer Reference Boyer and Rafael 2007 , 238). Yet, for tongzhi parents in Taiwan, court inquiries into their ability to cope with societal stigma may intensify their own feelings of insecurity about how their sexuality devalues their parental fitness.

A final potential consequence of the stepparent adoption requirement relates specifically to lesbian co-mothers who engage in a recognized adaptation of IVF known as reception of oocytes from partner (ROPA) (Haydon Reference Hayden 1995 ; Mamo Reference Mamo 2007 ). ROPA enables couples to distribute motherhood by using eggs from one partner to create an embryo that is implanted in the womb of the other partner, who is recognized by law as the birth mother. Yet stepparent adoption in Taiwan mandates that the adopting parent is not a direct lineal blood relative of the adoptee, creating a potential legal dilemma for couples that have practiced ROPA because the adopting parent is also the genetic mother. The precise legal consequences for co-mothers who have conceived via ROPA remain uncertain. One social worker we interviewed claimed that some couples do admit to using ROPA during the home visit and she described one case where the social worker included that information in her home study report to the court, with no discernable impact on the adoption decision (although it is unclear how carefully court officials review such documents). Footnote 38

In early 2020, however, a district court in central Taiwan deliberating on a tongzhi stepparent adoption case required a DNA test from the lesbian birth mother, ostensibly to counteract uncertainty about ART procedural standards abroad and the source of the egg used to create the embryo. News of this unprecedented court demand spread rapidly through the tongzhi parent community, exacerbating anxieties among lesbian co-mothers considering stepparent adoption after ROPA. The adopting co-mother in the case, outraged by the DNA test requirement, challenged the couple’s differential treatment in her written response to the court, asking: “Would the court require an opposite-sex couple to provide a DNA test when they petition for adoption?” Footnote 39 The DNA test demand affirms that tongzhi parents must prove or disprove their biological connection to their child, whereas a heterosexual father can establish paternity (true or false) simply by indicating intent. The co-mother’s angry retort echoes Susan Appleton’s ( Reference Appleton 2006 , 270–71) critique that, if a genetic relationship is the sine qua non of original legal parentage, courts should require genetic tests of all children at birth.

Some co-mothers who conceived via ROPA subsequently delayed their stepparent adoption plans for fear that their case would be rejected should the DNA test become a required part of the tongzhi adoption process. One irony of this outcome is that it derives from a reproductive strategy intended to enhance the security of non-birth mothers before legal co-parentage rights became possible (Friedman and Chen Reference Friedman and Chen 2021 ). Yet the families created through ROPA may be legally unrecognizable today because the legal ground has shifted beneath their feet to delegitimize distributed motherhood. For these co-mothers, the resulting harm of not being able to secure legal parentage through adoption is perhaps the greatest burden of all.

To date, if courts know of the presence of ROPA, they have chosen to disregard the inconvenient fact that the adoptive mother shares a genetic tie with the child. Although the current legal risk may be low, it remains to be seen whether these court decisions will ease co-mothers’ anxieties enough to proceed with adoption and whether couples will continue to choose ROPA as a shared reproductive strategy. Moreover, the legal parental rights secured in cases of ROPA could face potential challenges should the co-mothers’ relationship turn contentious. The birth mother could contest the adoption on the grounds that a genetic mother cannot be an adoptive mother under Taiwanese law. Conversely, the genetic mother could use a DNA test to deny the birth mother’s parental rights, a legal challenge to birth mother status yet to be pursued in Taiwan’s courts. Finally, should one mother’s new partner want to pursue stepparent adoption, courts might have to consider a scenario in which a child has more than two legal parents. Footnote 40 In sum, the 748 Act’s route to legitimizing co-parenthood through stepparent adoption creates the additional harm of potentially unstable legal recognition for lesbian mothers who practice distributed motherhood.

Taiwan is not alone in granting LGBT rights and recognition without fully redressing the heteronormative foundations of society (Moreira Reference Moreira, Yarbrough, Jones and DeFilippis 2019 ). Moreover, it follows the path of LGBT movements globally by prioritizing marriage as the first step to securing diverse familial ties. By calling attention to the exclusionary effects of the 748 Act’s narrow legal framing, we underscore how emancipatory laws potentially reproduce existing stigmas and create new stigma interactions that devalue LGBT parenthood. The 748 Act reinforces the double stigma of adoption and homosexuality by denying tongzhi couples’ access to joint adoption, and it creates new illegitimacies by making marriage and stepparent adoption of a biological child the sole path to tongzhi co-parenthood. Both of these consequences reproduce long-standing stigmas associated with non-marital parenthood and adoption, thereby reinforcing a normative family ideal premised on two opposite-sex, married parents and their biological child(ren).

However, we also acknowledge the opportunity that the 748 Act provides for tongzhi parents to legitimate their family and challenge the stigmas originally associated with non-heteronormative parenting. Ironically, it is tongzhi parents’ engagement with the law that introduces new means of devaluing LGBT parenthood through marriage and adoption requirements and their unequal documentation procedures, while also enabling some parents themselves to reaffirm the stigmas of illegitimacy and adoption. Our research demonstrates how legal changes intended to reduce stigma may simultaneously introduce new stigmas or combine existing stigmas in unprecedented ways. This finding explains the illusion of choice among parents ostensibly eligible to benefit from the 748 Act’s protections, many of whom face social and structural constraints that foreclose those choices.

We conclude by summarizing several outcomes of the models used to legalize same-sex marriage and parental rights in Taiwan, with particular attention to their stigmatizing and marginalizing consequences. Despite the promise of legalization, the 748 Act effectively delegitimizes diverse family forms and intimate relationships that fall outside its parameters. For instance, transnational couples (with or without children) excluded from the Act feel even more marginalized and vulnerable, especially as they witness other LGBT couples registering their marriages and enjoying the benefits of legal recognition. The diverse parenting possibilities made available through assisted reproductive technologies are also restricted under the Act by falling outside the scope of legal recognition (that is, how ROPA contravenes the ban on a stepparent adopting a direct lineal blood relation). Moreover, the 748 Act’s denial of joint adoption rights for same-sex spouses further stigmatizes adoption as a family-formation practice and discriminates against couples that co-parent an adopted child. Nor does the 748 Act currently offer any recognition to families with more than two parents, including lesbian and gay couples that may aspire to joint childbearing and parenting arrangements without the cover of contractual marriage.

Certainly, some LGBT parents find the 748 Act simply irrelevant to them and their families, partly because their stigmatization enjoys no cure in current law. The most common examples are those individuals who choose to parent as singles, including single gay fathers who pursue surrogacy abroad and single lesbian mothers who become pregnant through self-insemination using a known donor but do not want to share parental rights. Parents who have conceived children in a prior heterosexual relationship may also not find the 748 Act germane to their life circumstances unless they subsequently marry a same-sex partner who desires to adopt their child(ren). Footnote 41 These examples raise the question of how the law might expand in scope and orientation so that it not only challenges stigma but also introduces the principles needed to justify affirmative support for diverse family forms (Dowd Reference Dowd 1997 , 146).

This leads us back to the contested place of marriage as a precursor to parental rights and recognition. In addition to transnational couples barred from marrying under the 748 Act, there are couples that choose not to or feel unable to marry and, thus, who cannot enjoy the parental rights contingent upon marriage. The stigma consequences of the marriage requirement for LGBT co-parenthood are many—from discriminating against non-marital parents by reinforcing the distinction between so-called legitimate and illegitimate children to devaluing intimate relationships that lack the legal imprimatur of marriage and demanding that LGBT spouses “out” themselves through various bureaucratic procedures and identification requirements. Moreover, the privileging of marriage also empowers social workers and courts to evaluate marital quality and duration as part of the assessment of stepparent adoption petitions, broadening the potential scope for state scrutiny of LGBT families.

Finally, the use of stepparent adoption to recognize co-parental status renders same-sex parent families visible to the law primarily when they conform to heterosexual models of marriage and family. Tensions surrounding how protocols for assessing stepparent adoption petitions are applied to same-sex parent families create contradictory pressures on tongzhi parents: they must recognize their difference from a presumed heterosexual norm (for example, by managing a child’s potential experiences of stigmatization), while, at the same time, they must conform to the model of a reconstituted heterosexual family enshrined in stepparent adoption itself. To legitimate their families, tongzhi parents are required simultaneously to be the same as, and different from, heterosexual married couples. Those who refuse these contradictory demands, rejecting their demeaning and discriminatory features, may find themselves excluded from the protected domain of legal recognition.

We end by pointing to key issues for future concern with the hope that proposed law and policy changes will further destigmatize LGBT parenthood and family formation. First is the need to correct the 748 Act’s differential treatment of LGBT couples by recognizing joint adoption and marriage rights regardless of national origin. Second is the need to broaden domestic access to assisted reproductive technologies while remaining mindful of intersectional inequalities underlying domestic and global reproductive markets and the risk that expanded ART access will exacerbate the stigma of non-biological parenthood. Third, reforming the household registry and national ID system will better protect privacy and the autonomy of personal data, thereby reducing the stigmatizing effects of outing and differential treatment on the basis of sexual orientation. Fourth, better enforcement of the laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace and in schools will reduce the stigmas associated with publicizing one’s sexuality and will weaken the stigmatization argument against LGBT parenthood. Fifth, and finally, is the question of how best to reconceptualize legal parentage to recognize diverse family forms and eliminate the entangled stigmas of illegitimacy and adoption. An answer to this last question requires critical reflection on the privileged status of marriage as a gateway to parental rights, the pros and cons of establishing an intentional and/or functional parenthood doctrine, and the possibility of recognizing more than two legal parents. LGBT parents seeking to legitimate their families face stigmas that may also affect other marginalized families. The goal is to find a path to equality for all LGBT families so that “when they enter, we all enter” (Crenshaw Reference Crenshaw 1989 , 167).

The authors are deeply grateful to the many parents who participated in this study for generously sharing their life experiences and reflections on creating families. We also thank the activists, social workers, legal professionals, and government officials who took time out of their busy schedules to meet with us. An early draft of this article was presented at the June 2020 workshop Stigmatization, Identities and the Law: Asian and Comparative Perspectives, organized by Lynette Chua, George Radics, Rosie Harding, and Sida Liu. We thank the organizers and workshop participants, together with Frank Upham and Ilana Gershon, for critical feedback on earlier drafts. We are grateful to Chang Chun-shu and Sonia Su for research assistance. The journal’s reviewers provided productive comments and suggestions that have made this a much stronger article. Of course, we remain responsible for any errors or inadequacies. Sara Friedman’s research on LGBT families and parenting has been supported by the Fulbright Core Scholars Program, the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation for International Scholarly Exchange (Scholar Grant no. GS023-A-18), and Indiana University’s College Arts and Humanities Institute and East Asian Studies Center. IRB Study no. 1706800944 approval was granted by Indiana University. Chao-ju Chen’s research on non-marital families is funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (Grant no. MOST 109-2410-H-002-137-MY3).

1. 司法院釋字第 748 號 (Judicial Yuan Interpretation no. 748) (2017) (Taiwan).

2. 司法院釋字第七四八號解釋施行法 (Act for Implementation of J.Y. Interpretation no. 748), promulgated May 22, 2019, effective May 24, 2019 (Taiwan) (748 Act).

3. 人工生殖法 (Assisted Reproduction Act), promulgated and effective March 21, 2007, amended January 3, 2018 (Taiwan).

4. We reviewed adoption decisions available in the Judicial Yuan legal database and LawBank, https://law.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/default.aspx ; https://fyjud.lawbank.com.tw/index.aspx .

5. Statistics on file with the authors.

6. Department of Household Registration, Ministry of the Interior, “Population Statistics Data,” Accessed January 7, 2021, https://www.ris.gov.tw/app/portal/346 .

7. 國民身分證及戶口名簿格式內容製發相片影像檔建置管理辦法 (Regulations for Format, Content, Issuance and Management of Photo Files of National Identification Card and Household Certificate), promulgated and effective December 24, 2008, amended December 25, 2020 (Taiwan), subpara. 8, para. 1, Art. 9.

8. 新北地方法院103家調裁字第10號民事裁定 (New Taipei District Court, Civil Division), 103 Jia Diao Cai Zi no. 10 (2014) (Taiwan).

9. 民法 (Civil Code), promulgated December 26, 1930, effective in Taiwan October 25, 1945, amended June 20, 2021 (Taiwan), para 1, Arts. 1074, 1075.

10. Interview with author, June 10, 2020.

11. Statistics on file with authors.

12. 桃園地方法院96養聲字第81號裁定 (Taoyuan District Court, Civil Division), 96 Yang Sheng Zi no. 81 (2007).

13. Palmore v. Sidoti , 466 U.S. 429 (1984).

14. 士林地方法院103司養聲字第126號 (Shilin District Court, Civil Division), 103 Si Sheng Yang Zi no. 126 (2014); 士林地方法院104年家聲抗字第31號 (Shilin District Court, Civil Division), 104 Jia Sheng Kang Zi no. 31 (2015); 臺北地方法院106年家聲抗字第13 號民事裁定 (Taipei District Court, Civil Division), 106 Jia Sheng Kang Zi no. 13 (2017).

15. There were last-ditch efforts before the 748 Act was passed to create alternative forms of legal co-parentage distinct from marriage, such as parent-child registration for a same-sex partner, but these local political initiatives ultimately failed at the central government level. Falu tzu no. 10803503890 letter, Ministry of Justice, April 2, 2019.

16. Interview with author, February 27, 2020.

17. Interview with author, July 25, 2020. All personal names used in the article are pseudonyms.

18. Interviews with author, January 21, 2018; March 1, 2020.

19. Obergefell v. Hodges , 576 U.S. 644 (2015).

20. Ministry of the Interior, “Number of Same-sex Marriages and Divorces,” last modified January 20, 2022, https://www.gender.ey.gov.tw/gecdb/Stat_Statistics_DetailData.aspx?sn=c6qMv7W9Ye0PiAP9dVE8gA%40%40&d=m9ww9odNZAz2Rc5Ooj%24wIQ%40%40 .

21. Interviews with author, May 31, 2019; February 13, 2020.

22. Interviews with author, May 22, 2019; February 25, 2020.

23. Interview with author, April 20, 2020.

24. Interviews with author, July 12, 2017; May 16, 2020.

25. Interviews with author, February 8, 2020; February 27, 2020.

26. 涉外民事法律適用法 (Act Governing the Choice of Law in Civil Matters Involving Foreign Elements), promulgated June 6, 1953, effective June 8, 1953, amended May 26, 2016 (Taiwan), Art. 46.

27. Interviews with author, January 26, 2018; April 27, 2020.

28. 748 Act, Art. 20; Judicial Yuan Gazette 108, no. 48 (2019): 580–81.

29. At the time of this writing in June 2022, a proposal to amend the 748 Act had recently passed Judicial Committee review and awaited party negotiation in the legislature. The proposal requires that the laws regulating adoption by married opposite-sex couples be applied mutatis mutandis to married same-sex couples.

30. Interviews with author, April 28, 2018; May 26, 2019.

31. Interview with author, June 7, 2020.

32. Interview with author, March 24, 2020.

33. Legislative Yuan Gazette 109, no. 11 (2020): 138.

34. Interview with author, July 25, 2020.

35. 桃園地方法院108家聲抗字第90號民事裁定 (Taoyuan District Court, Civil Division), 108 Jia Sheng Kang Zi no. 90 (2019).

36. Interview with author, July 12, 2020.

37. Interview with author, April 20, 2020.

38. Interview with author, June 10, 2020.

39. Interviews with author, March 21, 2020; July 3, 2020.

40. The possibility of recognizing three legal parents has appeared in only one tongzhi stepparent adoption case to date. First denied and then approved on appeal, the case involved the current wife of the birth mother who petitioned for stepparent adoption despite the child’s acknowledgment that she had three mothers, the third being the birth mother’s original partner with whom she conceived the child using ROPA. The former partner contested the adoption as a party of concern. Although acknowledging the former partner’s genetic contribution and parenting role, the appeal ruling denied her legal parental status and associated right to oppose the adoption.

41. Interview with author, May 2, 2020.

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref .

• Google Scholar

View all Google Scholar citations for this article.

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

• Volume 48, Issue 2
• Sara L. Friedman (a1) and Chao-ju Chen (a2)
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2022.32

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Reply to: Submit a response

- No HTML tags allowed - Web page URLs will display as text only - Lines and paragraphs break automatically - Attachments, images or tables are not permitted

Your details

Your email address will be used in order to notify you when your comment has been reviewed by the moderator and in case the author(s) of the article or the moderator need to contact you directly.

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests.

Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

THE LEGALIZATION OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE

Related Papers

Mayrll Louise Santos

The ever-changing trends in the world brought by the growing ideas and modernization indeed limited the faculty of conservatism. Various actions and styles that were behind the bars before were apparently free and accepted in the society. However, there are still cases where conservatism prevails causing conflicts between the traditionalists and progressive individuals. An exemplar to this is the issue of homosexuality. For the longest years, the issue of gay rights has been subjected to a number of heated debates. Such issue had not only touched the social, religious, and cultural aspects, for it also crossed the boundaries of politics. Currently, the LGBTQ, an initialism that stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning community, shares the plight for greater social acceptance and their struggle to practice their constitutional rights as humans too. Included in these rights is their right to marriage.Same-sex marriage sparked a long controversy leading to the dividing views of citizensand involved institutions, fervent debates within the social and cultural norms, and the question of being a political issue were prevalent. However, despite these various contentions against same-sex marriage, there were 21 recorded states where gay marriage is legal nationwide. These countries are Netherlands (2000), Belgium (2003), Canada (2005), Spain (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Argentina (2010), Iceland (2010), Portugal (2010), Denmark (2012), Brazil (2013), England and Wales (2013), France (2013), New Zealand (2013), Uruguay (2013), Luxembourg (2014), Scotland (2014), Finland (signed 2015, effective 2017), Ireland (2015) (Time, 2015). Thus, the issue of same-sex marriage paved the way for debates and researches in several states. As such, this paper attempts to study the possibility of same-sex marriage in the case of one Asian country, particularly the Philippines. The rationale behind this preference originates from the 21 recorded countries where same-sex marriage is legal. And of these 21 countries, none of these is from Asia. The subject matter of this study aims to provide the contrasting views of the involved institutions, particularly the state actors, church, and agents of political socialization in the issue of same-sex marriage. The existence of these varying oppositions relates to the significance of the study. The significance of this study is to determine the influences of state, the church, and other possible agents of political socialization to the legalization of same-sex marriage in case of the Philippines.

Deborah Palacio

Religion & Human Rights

Jayeel Cornelio , ROBBIN CHARLES DAGLE

This article spells out the ways in which religious freedom has been deployed against proponents of same-sex marriage and gender equality in the Philippines. While the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community and allies have appealed to religious freedom to gain equal rights under the law, conservative Christian entities have fought back by invoking also the same idea. They have appropriated religious freedom, which has historically been interpreted by the courts in favour of individual liberties, to defend majoritarian values surrounding sexuality. This article describes this move as the weaponisation of religious freedom in defence of the dominant religion and an assumed majority of Filipinos whose moral sensibilities are purportedly under attack. Towards the end, the article relates this weaponisation to the experience of the Catholic Church in the contemporary public sphere and the militant character of Christianity that continues to view the Philippines as a Christian nation.

Adrienne Monday Mendoza

This mini-research project was conducted to compare the rate of same-sex marriage support between UP, a non-sectarian university, and UST, a sectarian Catholic university.

Danielle Ochoa , Eric Julian Manalastas , Diwa Malaya Quinones

Same-sex marriage in the Philippines remains a highly contentious issue due to the influence of religion in this predominantly Catholic country, where it is often framed as an issue of morality. However, the psychological underpinnings of this religious influence still merits further exploration. Thus, we examined the role of religious behaviors and moral foundations in predicting attitudes toward same-sex marriage among Filipinos. Data from 385 participants revealed that the particular behavior of reading the main sacred text of one's religion, rather than the often-used predictor of religious attendance predicts negative attitudes. Beyond these religious variables, the moral foundation of Purity/sanctity also predicts negative attitudes. Recommendations for further research and possible implications on attitude change are discussed in light of these findings.

Patrick Barrett

IOSR Journals

Gay marriage is the marriage of people of the same sex, legally or socially recognized. Homosexual marriages have been recorded at many places in human history. The Netherlands was the first country to legalize same-sex marriages where it gained legal recognition in 2001. Advocates of same-sex marriage argue that irrespective of sexual orientation, the benefits of marriage are a human right; whereas its adversaries oppose it on the basis of traditions, religion, parental concerns and other damages. The combination of gay couples is recognized in 14 countries. The present paper tries to produce a critical analysis on new trend of homosexual marriage in the world.

Marl Jeric A Robillos

The struggle to end discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons is a global challenge, and one that is central to the United States’ commitment to promoting human rights.” -United Stated President Barrack Obama (2011)

Peter Xenos

The Office of Population of the United States Agency for International Development provides support for this publication under a cooperative agreement with the Program on Population of the of the East-West Center. ... Editorial Committee: Minja Kim Choe Philip Estermann ...

North American Journal of Psychology

Marc Eric S . Reyes

The Philippines is a religious nation and most Filipinos share a collective religious view stemming from the predominance of Catholicism. This view includes traditional opinions on gender roles and prohibition of behaviors associated with non-heterosexuality. Lesbians and gays who deviate from this traditional norm, tend to become targets of discrimination and prejudice. Using a correlational design, the present study aimed to investigate whether religiosity and gender role beliefs predict attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. A total of 633 Filipinos who identified themselves as non-LGBT completed the Centrality of Religiosity Scale, the Gender Role Beliefs Scale-Short Version, and the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale-Revised. Correlational results revealed a significant relationship among religiosity, gender role beliefs, and attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Moreover, regression analysis showed that higher religiosity and more traditional gender role beliefs predicted significantly higher homonegativity among Filipinos who identify themselves as non-LGBT. Additionally, participants have more negative attitudes toward gay men compared to lesbians. Keywords: Filipinos, religiosity, gender role beliefs, attitudes, LGBT

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Bat of Gotham

Jean-Noël Sánchez

Monique Carreon

Notre Dame University

Mohamad Masukat Kuday, MAPD

Carolina S. Ruiz-Austria

Law and Justice

Prasasti Dyah Nugraheni

Kathryn Robert Tee

Miyuki Danzuka

Crixandrei Esterlou A . Chua , Erlinda C . Perlado-Mertens , tere navalta

Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs

anshari ali

Review of Faith and International Affairs

Jayeel Cornelio

Michael Owusu Tabiri

Jurnal Ilmiah Mizani: Wacana Hukum, Ekonomi Dan Keagamaan

Teti Hadiati

British Journal of Multidisciplinary and Advanced Studies

Unram Law Review

ulfia hasanah

Kyle Taclindo

Online Journal of Health Ethics

Chris Akpan

Ijeoma Ucheibe

ostar obinna

christian joshua sangalang

Vivien Clarisse Leynes

Julius Bautista

Lisa Fullam

Rechtsgeschichte - Legal History

Marya Svetlana T . Camacho

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Same Sex Marriage Argumentative Essay, with Outline

Published by gudwriter on January 4, 2021 January 4, 2021

Example 1: Gay Marriages Argumentative Essay Outline

Introduction.

Same-sex marriage should be legal because it is a fundamental human right. To have experts write for you a quality paper on same sex marriage, seek help from a trusted academic writing service where you can buy research proposals online with ease and one you can be sure of getting the best possible assistance available

Elevate Your Writing with Our Free Writing Tools!

Did you know that we provide a free essay and speech generator, plagiarism checker, summarizer, paraphraser, and other writing tools for free?

Paragraph 1:

Same-sex marriage provides legal rights protection to same sex couples on such matters as taxes, finances, and health care.

• It gives them the right to become heirs to their spouses and enjoy tax breaks just like heterosexual married couples.
• It makes it possible for them to purchase properties together, open joint accounts, and sign documents together as couples.

Paragraph 2:

Same sex marriage allows two people in love to happily live together.

• Homosexuals deserve to be in love just like heterosexuals.
• The definition of marriage does not suggest that it should only be an exclusive union between two people of opposite sexes.

Perhaps you may be interested in learning about research proposals on human trafficking .

Paragraph 3:

Same sex marriage gives homosexual couples the right to start families.

• Gay and lesbian partners should be allowed to start families and have their own children.
• A family should ideally have parents and children.
• It is not necessary that the parents be a male and female.  

Paragraph 4:

Same sex marriage does not harm the institution of marriage and is potentially more stable.

• Legalization of civil unions or gay marriages does not  negatively impact abortion rates, divorce, or marriage.
• Heterosexual marriages have a slightly higher dissolution rate on average than opposite sex marriages.

Paragraph 5:

Opponents of same sex marriage may argue that it is important for children to have a father and mother for a balanced upbringing.

• They hold that homosexual couples only have one gender influence on children.
• They forget that that children under the parental care of same sex couples get to mingle with both male and female genders in various social places.

Paragraph 6:

Opponents may also argue that same-sex marriages reduce sanctity of marriage.

• To them, marriage is a religious and traditional commitment and ceremony.
• Unfortunately, such arguments treat marriage as a man-wife union only.
• They fail to recognize that there are people who do not ascribe to any tradition(s) or religions.
• Same sex marriage is a human right that should be enjoyed just like traditional heterosexual marriages.
• It protects the legal rights of lesbian and gay couples and allows them to actualize their love in matrimony.
• It enables them to exercise their right to start families and bring up children.
• It is only fair that all governments consider legalizing same sex marriages.

Read on the best motivational speech ideas .

Argumentative Essay on Same Sex Marriage

For many years now, same-sex marriage has been a controversial topic. While some countries have legalized the practice, others still consider it not right and treat it as illegal. Same-sex marriage is defined as a marriage or union between two people of the same sex, such as a man and a man. Some countries have broadened their perspective on this issue even though for many years, it has never been legally acknowledged, with some societies even considering it a taboo. The United Kingdom, Spain, France, Argentina, the Netherlands, and recently the United States are some of the countries that have legalized it (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). Irrespective of any arguments, same-sex marriage should be legal because it is a fundamental human right.

First, same-sex marriage, if recognized by society, provides legal rights protection to same sex couples on such matters as taxes, finances, and health care. If people live together in a homosexual relationship without being legally married, they do not enjoy the security to protect what they have worked for and saved together. In case one of them dies, the surviving partner would have no right over the property under the deceased’s name even if they both funded its acquisition (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). Legalizing same-sex unions would cushion homosexual partners from such unfortunate situations. They would have the right to become heirs to their spouses and enjoy tax breaks just like heterosexual married couples. Legalization would also make it possible for them to purchase properties together, open joint accounts, and sign documents together as couples.

Same sex marriage also allows two people in love to become one in a matrimonial union and live happily together. Denying homosexual couples the right to marry is thus denying them the right to be in love just like heterosexuals do. Moreover, the definition of marriage does not suggest that it should only be an exclusive union between two people of opposite sexes. According to Gerstmann (2017), marriage is a formally or legally recognized union between two people in a personal relationship. As per this definition, people should be allowed to marry once they are in love with each other irrespective of their genders. Reducing marriage to a union between a man and woman is thus a direct infringement into the rights of homosexuals.

Additionally, gay marriages give homosexual couples the right to start families. Just like heterosexual couples, gay and lesbian partners should be allowed to start families and have their own children. Essentially, a family should ideally have parents and children and it is not necessary that the parents be a male and female. Same sex partners can easily adopt and bring up children if their marriage is legalized and recognized by the society in which they live (Gerstmann, 2017). As one would concur, even some heterosexual couples are not able to sire their own children and resort to adopting one or even more. This is a right that should be extended to same sex couples too given that they may not be able to give birth on their own.

Further, same sex marriage does no harm whatsoever to the institution of marriage, and is potentially more stable. According to a 2009 study, legalization of civil unions or gay marriages does not in any way negatively impact abortion rates, divorce, or marriage (Langbein & Yost, 2009). This makes it quite uncalled for to argue against or prohibit gay marriages. In yet another study, only 1.1 percent of legally married gay couples end their relationships as compared to the 2 percent annual divorce rate among opposite-sex couples (Badgett & Herman, 2011). This implies that heterosexual marriages have a slightly higher dissolution rate on average than opposite sex marriages. It could then be argued that gay marriages are more stable than traditional man-woman marriages. The two types of marriages should thus be given equal chance because neither affects the other negatively. They also have more or less equal chances of succeeding if legally recognized and accepted.

Opponents of same sex marriage may argue that it is important for children to have a father and a mother. They may say that for children to have a good balance in their upbringing, they should be influenced by a father and a mother in their developmental years. Such arguments hold that homosexual couples only have one gender influence over the lives of children and that this is less fulfilling (Badgett, 2009). However, the arguments fail to recognize that children under the parental care of same sex couples get to mingle with both male and female genders in various social places. At school, the children get to be cared for and mentored by both male and female teachers who more or less serve almost the same role as parents.

Those who are opposed to same sex unions may also argue that such marriages reduce sanctity of marriage. To them, marriage is a religious and traditional commitment and ceremony that is held very sacred by people. They contend that there is need to do everything possible to preserve marriage because as an institution, it has been degrading slowly over time. Their concern is that traditional marriages are being devalued by same sex marriages which are swaying people away from being married and instead choosing to live with same sex partners (Nagle, 2010). It is clear here that such arguments treat marriage as a man-woman union only and are thus not cognizant of the true meaning of marriage. Moreover, they fail to recognize that traditions and religions should not be used against same sex couples because there are people who do not ascribe to any tradition(s) or religions.

Same sex marriage is a human right that should be enjoyed just like traditional heterosexual marriages. It protects the legal rights of lesbian and gay couples and allows them the well-deserved opportunity of actualizing their love in matrimony. In addition, it enables them to exercise their right to start families and bring up children. Arguments made against this form of marriage, such as that it undermines traditional marriages, are based on opinions and not facts. Moreover, it is not important for a child to have a father and a mother because there are other places in which they actively interact with people of different sexes. As such, it is only fair that all governments consider legalizing gay marriages.

Badgett, M. V., & Herman, J. L. (2011).  Patterns of relationship recognition by same-sex couples in the United States [PDF]. The Williams Institute. Retrieved from https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Marriage-Dissolution-FINAL.pdf .

Badgett, M. V. (2009). When gay people get married: what happens when societies legalize same-sex marriage . New York, NY: NYU Press.

Gerstmann, E. (2017). Same-sex marriage and the constitution . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Langbein, L., & Yost, M. A. (2009). Same-sex marriage and negative externalities.  Social Science Quarterly , 90(2), 292-308.

Nagle, J. (2010). Same-sex marriage: the debate . New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group.

Winter, B., Forest, M., & Senac, R. (2017). Global perspectives on same-sex marriage: a neo-institutional approach . New York, NY: Springer.

Explore a persuasive essay about strengthening community handled by our tutors following the prompt provided.

Example 2: Sample Essay Outline on Same Sex Marriages

Thesis:  Same sex marriage, just like opposite sex marriage, should be legal.

Pros of Same Sex Marriage

Same sex couples are better at parenting.

• Children brought up by same sex couples do better in terms of family cohesion and overall health.
• Children under the guardianship of lesbian mothers perform better academically and socially.

Same sex marriage reduces divorce rates.

• The divorce rates in a state were reduced significantly after the state legalized gay marriages. Higher divorce rates were recorded in states where gay marriages are prohibited.
• Divorce is not good for family cohesion.

Same sex marriage increases psychological wellbeing.

• Bisexuals, gays, and lesbians feel socially rejected if society views same-sex marriages as illegal or evil.
• After some states banned this kind of marriage, bisexuals, gays, and lesbians living there experienced increased anxiety disorders.

Cons of Same Sex Marriage

Same sex marriages may diminish heterosexual marriages.

• It could be possible for children in homosexual families to think that same sex unions are more fulfilling.
• They might want to become homosexuals upon growing up.

For a holistic development, a child should have both mother and father.

• Absence of a father or a mother in a family leaves a gaping hole in the life of a child.
• A child needs to learn how to relate with both male and female genders right from when they are born.

Other non-typical unions may be encouraged by same sex unions.

• People who get involved in such other acts as bestiality and incest may feel encouraged.
• They might start agitating for their “right” to get married to animals for instance.

Why Same Sex Marriage Should Be Legal

Paragraph 7:

Marriage is a fundamental human right.

• All individuals should enjoy marriage as a fundamental right.
• Denying one the right to marry a same sex partner is akin to denying them their basic right.

Paragraph 8:

Marriage is a concept based on love.

• It is inaccurate to confine marriage to be only between a man and woman.
• Marriage is a union between two people in love with each other, their gender or sexual orientation notwithstanding.

Paragraph 9:

opponents of same-sex marriage argue that a relationship between same-sex couples cannot be considered marriage since marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

• However, this definitional argument is both conclusory and circular.
• It is in no way logical to challenge gay marriage based on this archaic marriage definition.

Same sex marriage should be legalized by all countries in the world. In the U.S., the debate surrounding its legalization should die off because it is irrelevant. People have the right to marry whoever they like whether they are of the same sex.

Same Sex Marriage Essay Example

The idea of same sex marriage is one of the topics that have been widely debated in the United States of America. It has often been met with strong opposition since the majority of the country’s citizens are Christians and Christianity views the idea as evil. On the other hand, those who believe it is right and should be legalized have provided a number of arguments to support it, including that it is a fundamental human right. This debate is still ongoing even after a Supreme Court ruling legalized this type of marriage. However, this debate is unnecessary because same sex marriage, just like opposite sex marriage, should be legal.

It has been proven through studies that same sex couples are better at parenting. A University of Melbourne 2014 study indicated that compared to children raised by both mother and father, children brought up by same sex couples do better in terms of family cohesion and overall health. Similarly, the journal  Pediatrics  published a study in 2010 stating that children under the guardianship of lesbian mothers performed better academically and socially (Gerstmann, 2017). The children also experienced fewer social problems.

Same sex marriages also reduce divorce rates. According to Gerstmann (2017), the divorce rates in a state were reduced significantly after the state legalized gay marriages. This was as per the analysis of the before and after divorce statistics. Likewise, higher divorce rates were recorded in states where gay marriages are prohibited. Generally, divorce is not good for family cohesion especially in terms of caring for children. Children need to grow up under the care of both parents hence the need for their parents to stay together.

In addition, same sex marriage increases psychological wellbeing. This is because bisexuals, gays, and lesbians feel socially rejected if society views same-sex marriages as illegal or evil. A study report released in 2010 showed that after some states banned this kind of marriage, bisexuals, gays, and lesbians living there experienced a 248% rise in generalized anxiety disorders, a 42% increase in alcohol-use disorders, and a 37% rise in mood disorders (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). In this respect, allowing such marriages would make them feel normal and accepted by society.

Same sex marriages may diminish heterosexual marriages and the longstanding marriage culture in society. Perhaps, it could be possible for children in homosexual families to think that same sex unions are more fulfilling and enjoyable than opposite-sex relationships. As a result, they might want to become homosexuals upon growing up. This would mean that standardized marriages between opposite sexes face a bleak future (Nagle, 2010). Such a trend might threaten to throw the human race to extinction because there would be no procreation in future generations.

Same sex unions also fall short because for a holistic development, a child should have both a mother and a father. Absence of a father or a mother in a family leaves a gaping hole in the life of a child. The two major genders in the world are male and female and a child needs to learn how to relate with both of them right from when they are born (Nagle, 2010). A father teaches them how to live alongside males while a mother teaches them how to do the same with females.

Further, other non-typical unions may be encouraged by same sex unions. If the marriages are accepted worldwide, people who get involved in such other acts as bestiality and incest may feel encouraged (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). They might even start agitating for their “right” to get married to animals, for instance. This possibility would water down and deinstitutionalize the whole concept of consummation and marriage. This would further diminish the existence of heterosexual marriages as people would continue to find less and less importance in them.

Same sex unions should be legal because marriage is a fundamental human right. It has been stated by the United States Supreme Court fourteen times since 1888 that all individuals should enjoy marriage as a fundamental right (Hertz & Doskow, 2016). In making these judgments, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the Due Process Clause protects as one of the liberties the freedom to make personal choice in matters of marriage. The Court has maintained that this free choice is important as it allows free men to pursue happiness in an orderly manner. Thus, denying one the right to marry a same sex partner is akin to denying them their basic right.

People should also be legally allowed to get into same sex unions since marriage is a concept based on love. It is traditionally inaccurate to confine marriage to be only between a man and a woman. The working definition of marriage should be that it is a union between two people in love with each other, their gender or sexual orientation notwithstanding (Hertz & Doskow, 2016). Making it an exclusively man-woman affair trashes the essence of love in romantic relationships. If a man loves a fellow man, they should be allowed to marry just like a man and a woman in love may do.

As already alluded to, opponents of same-sex marriage argue that a relationship between same-sex couples cannot be considered marriage since marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Based on this traditional definition of marriage, they contend that gay and lesbian couples should not marry. However, as noted by Carpenter (2005), this definitional argument is both conclusory and circular and is thus seriously flawed and fallacious. It is in no way logical to challenge gay marriage based on this archaic marriage definition. That marriage only happens when one man and one woman come together in a matrimony is a constricted view of the institution of marriage. Moreover, there are no reasons accompanying the definition showing that it is the right one or should be the only one (Carpenter, 2005). Therefore, it should be expanded to include same-sex couples. The lack of reasons to support it makes it defenseless thus weak.

Same sex marriages should be legalized by all countries in the world. In the U.S., the debate surrounding its legalization should die off because it is irrelevant. People have the right to marry whoever they like whether they are of the same sex or not. Just like love can sprout between a man and a woman, so can it between a man and a fellow man or a woman and a fellow woman. There is absolutely no need to subject gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to unnecessary psychological torture by illegalizing same sex marriage.

Carpenter, D. (2005). Bad arguments against gay marriage.  Florida Coastal Law Review , VII , 181-220.

Gerstmann, E. (2017).  Same-sex marriage and the constitution . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hertz, F., & Doskow, E. (2016).  Making it legal: a guide to same-sex marriage, domestic partnerships & civil unions . Berkeley, CA: Nolo.

Nagle, J. (2010).  Same-sex marriage: the debate . New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group.

Winter, B., Forest, M., & Senac, R. (2017).  Global perspectives on same-sex marriage: a neo-institutional approach . New York, NY: Springer.

Example 3: Same Sex Marriage Essay

Same Sex Marriage Essay- Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage. Discuss how the idea of gay marriage has changed over the last decade and show the progression of the movement.

Changing Attitudes on Same Sex Marriage Essay Outline

Introduction 

Thesis:  Gay marriage was regarded as an abomination in the early years, but in recent times the attitude of the society towards same-sex marriage is gradually changing.

In 1965, 70% of Americans were opposed to same-sex marriage.

• They cited its harmfulness to the American life.
• Prevalence of AIDS among gay people further increased this opposition.

Social gay movements contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

• Gay movements increased the exposure of members of the society to gay marriage while showing their sufferings.
• Through social movements, the society saw the need for equality and fair treatment of gay persons.

Political movements in support of gay marriage have as well contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

• Political bodies and politicians pushed for equality of gay people in efforts to garner political mileage.
• The influence of politicians changed the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

The incidence of gay people, particularly in the United States has contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

• Increase in the number of gay persons pushed people into accepting gay marriage.
• The media contributed in gathering compassion from members of the society by evidencing the sufferings of gay people.

The judiciary upheld the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.

• In 2014, 42 court rulings were made in favor of gay marriage.
• There are more than 30 states today with policies in support of same-sex marriage.

The increased push for the freedom of marriage contributed to changing the attitude on gay marriage.

• The Supreme Court ruling in 1987 that stopped governments from restricting the freedom of marriage worked in favor of same-sex marriage.

Paragraph 7: 

Supporters of same sex marriage have also increasingly argued that people should be allowed to marry not necessarily based on their gender but on the love between them.

• Restricting marriage to a union between heterosexual couples only creates a biased view of human sexuality.
• An adult should be allowed the freewill to seek for the fulfillment of love by starting a relationship with a partner of whichever gender of their choosing.

Gay marriage has been the subject of social, political and religious debates for many years but over the past two decades, the attitude of the society towards same-sex marriage has changed. Social gay movements and increased incidence of gay people has compelled the community to accept and tolerate gay marriages. The judiciary has as well contributed to this change in attitude by pushing the freedom and right to marriage.

Changing Attitudes on Same Sex Marriage Sample Essay

In the early years, gay marriage was an abomination and received criticism from many members of society. The principal reason as to why many people in society were objected to gay marriage was that it went against religious and societal values and teachings (Decoo, 2014). However, over the past three decades, the perception of society towards the practice has changed. The degree of its social tolerance and acceptance has gradually improved. In the 2000s, numerous social and political lobby groups pushed for a change in insolences towards gay marriage (Decoo, 2014). Though these lobby groups have tried to advocate for the rights of gay people, their principal focus was to change people’s attitudes towards homosexuality.

According to a study conducted in the year 1965 investigating the attitudes of Americans towards gay marriage, seventy percent of the respondents were opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage citing its harmfulness to the American life. Most Americans felt that the practice went against the social and moral values of the American society. In the years between 1975 and 1977, the number of Americans who were not objected to gay marriage increased (Decoo, 2014). However, this number decreased in the years of 1980, when the prevalence of AIDS among gay people hit alarming levels. In the years that followed, the attitudes of the American society towards gay marriage rapidly changed.

The rise of gay social movements has contributed significantly to a change in attitude of the society towards gay marriage. In the early years, people were not exposed to issues of same-sex marriage, but the gay social movements focused on increasing the exposure of gay marriage, while advocating for their equal treatment (Keleher & Smith, 2018). These movements were able to reveal the injustices and unfair treatment that gays were exposed to, and how such unfair treatment tarnishes the image of the society (Keleher & Smith, 2018). The movements persuaded the society to embark on ways of addressing injustices meted out on gay people. Through highlighting these injustices, members of the society acknowledged the need for reforms to bring about impartiality and non-discrimination in marriage.

Political movements in support of gay marriage have as well contributed to changing the attitude of the society towards the practice. As a matter of fact, one of the strategies that gay social movements employed in their advocacy for gay rights were political maneuvering (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The lobby groups approached aspiring politicians, who would advocate for equal rights of gays to garner political mileage. With time, politicians would use the subject to attack their competitors who were opposed to the idea of same sex marriage (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). This increased political support for gay marriage influenced members of the society into changing their attitude towards the same.

The ever increasing number of gays, particularly in the United States, has contributed to a change in the attitude of the world society towards gay marriage. As the number of gays increased in the U.S., it became hard for members of the society to continue opposing this form of marriage (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). Many families had at least one or more of their family members who would turn out to be gay. The perception of gay people by such families would therefore change upon learning that their loved ones were also gay (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The media also played a significant role in gathering compassion from the members of the society by portraying the injustices that gay people experienced (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The society would as a result be compelled to sympathize with gays and lesbians and thus change their stance on same-sex marriage.

Further, the judiciary has also contributed to the change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage. There were states in the U.S. that initially illegalized same sex marriages, prompting gay people to file discrimination lawsuits (Coontz, 2014). Reports indicate that in the year 2014, there were more than 42 court rulings that ruled in favor of same-sex couples (Coontz, 2014). Some critics of same-sex marriage termed these rulings as judicial activism. They argued that the judiciary was frustrating the will of the American society, which was opposed to same-sex marriage (Coontz, 2014). Following these rulings and the increased advocacy for equality and fair treatment of gay people, some states implemented policies is support of same-sex marriage (Coontz, 2014). Today, the entire United States treats the practice as legal, as was determined by the Supreme Court back in 2015.

The increased push for the freedom of marriage has also contributed to changing the attitude on gay marriage. In the early years, there were states, especially in the United States, that opposed interracial marriages, so that a white could not marry an African-American, for instance (Coontz, 2014). In the years before 1967, there were states that restricted people with tuberculosis or prisoners from getting married. Other states also discouraged employers from hiring married women. However, in 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that state governments had no right to deny people of their freedom of marriage (Coontz, 2014). When such laws were regarded as violations of human rights, gay people also termed the restriction of same-sex marriage as a violation of their liberty and freedom to marry.

Supporters of same sex marriage have also increasingly argued that people should be allowed to marry not necessarily based on their gender but on the love between them and their decision as two adults. According to such people, restricting marriage to a union between heterosexual couples only creates a biased view of human sexuality. For example, they point out that this extreme view fails to acknowledge that gay couples also derive fulfilment from their romantic relationships (Steorts, 2015). They additionally contend that an adult should be allowed the freewill to seek for this fulfillment by starting a relationship with a partner of whichever gender of their choosing. Whether they love a man or a woman should not be anybody’s concern. The argument also notes that gay couples who have come out clearly demonstrate that they are happy in their relationships.

Gay marriage has been the subject of social, political, and religious debates for many years but over the past two decades, the attitude of the society towards it has significantly changed. Social gay movements and increased numbers of gay people has compelled the community to accept and tolerate the practice. The judiciary has as well contributed to this change in attitude by pushing the freedom and right to marriage, thereby finally making the practice legal in the United States.

Coontz, S. (2014). “Why America changed its mind on gay marriageable”.  CNN . Retrieved June 23, 2020 from  http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/13/opinion/coontz-same-sex-marriage/index.html

Decoo, E. (2014).  Changing attitudes toward homosexuality in the United States from 1977 to 2012 . Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.

Demock, M., Doherty, C., & Kiley, J. (2013). Growing support for gay marriage: changed minds and changing demographics.  Gen ,  10 , 1965-1980.

Keleher, A. G., & Smith, E. (2008). Explaining the growing support for gay and lesbian equality since 1990. In  Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA .

Steorts, J. L. (2015). “An equal chance at love: why we should recognize same-sex marriage”.  National Review . Retrieved June 23, 2020 from  https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/05/yes-same-sex-marriage-about-equality-courts-should-not-decide/

Our article explores the intricacies of same-sex marriage discourse, offering a debated essay with a structured outline. Explore our speech writer generator free tool and create a good speech.

More examples of Argumentative Essays written by our team of professional writers

• American Patriotism Argumentative Essay
• Argumentative Essay On Marijuana Legalization
• Euthanasia Argumentative Essay Sample
• Argumentative Essay on Abortion – Sample Essay
• Gun Control Argumentative Essay – Sample Essay
• Can Money Buy Happiness Argumentative Essay
• Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay
• Illegal Immigration Argumentative Essay

If you are having any issues choosing a suitable topic for your argumentative essay, worry no more for we have a variety of argumentative topics  to choose from and convince others of your position. Y ou can also get college homework help from Gudwriter and receive a plagiarism free paper written from scratch.

Special offer! Get 20% discount on your first order. Promo code: SAVE20

Related Posts

Free essays and research papers, artificial intelligence argumentative essay – with outline.

Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay Outline In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become one of the rapidly developing fields and as its capabilities continue to expand, its potential impact on society has become a topic Read more…

Synthesis Essay Example – With Outline

The goal of a synthesis paper is to show that you can handle in-depth research, dissect complex ideas, and present the arguments. Most college or university students have a hard time writing a synthesis essay, Read more…

Examples of Spatial Order – With Outline

A spatial order is an organizational style that helps in the presentation of ideas or things as is in their locations. Most students struggle to understand the meaning of spatial order in writing and have Read more…

Connection denied by Geolocation Setting.

Reason: Blocked country: Russia

The connection was denied because this country is blocked in the Geolocation settings.

Please contact your administrator for assistance.

• My Shodhganga
• Receive email updates
• Edit Profile

Shodhganga : a reservoir of Indian theses @ INFLIBNET

• Shodhganga@INFLIBNET
• Banasthali Vidyapith
• Department of Legal Studies (Law)

Items in Shodhganga are licensed under Creative Commons Licence Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).

how to make a thesis statement on why Same sex marriages should be legal

gmni3082 1 / -   May 13, 2010   #1 hi i need help on making a thesis statement for a term paper in apa format on why same sex marriages should be legal in all states and i really need help could someone give me some suggestions

Mizo Metallic 2 / 8   May 14, 2010   #2 Same-sex marriage (also called gay marriage) is a legally or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender. Same-sex marriage is a civil rights, political, social, moral, and religious issue in many nations. The conflict arises 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 usually grants fewer rights), or not have any such rights. A related issue is whether the term "marriage" should be applied. therefore, i agree that same sex marriage should be legal...

triplesmickey 1 / 39   May 15, 2010   #4 Homosexuality does have the consequences of true love, and such cases should not be denied or interdicted. All lovers, by the name of freedom and happiness, should be allowed to possess sanctioned marriage. They themselves should be granted the final gift of marriage, because marriage is an inalienable right of humans. That is what I have thought of so far, because frankly saying, I have never confronted such queer topics of discussion. *P.s. Remember to support your paragraphs with acceptable, undeniable evidence.

Marriage equality appears to have a major economic benefit for countries. Washington State University researchers found that European countries that recognized same-sex marriages kept more of their highly skilled workers from emigrating to the U.S.

The researchers analyzed 20 years of data on HB1 visas, which are reserved for immigrants to the U.S. with advanced degrees and specialized skills. From 2000–2019, a total of 13 European Union countries legalized same-sex marriage—and following that move, the U.S. saw a decrease in new HB1 visas from each of those countries, a drop of about 21% on average. The pattern held even though the enactment of marriage equality in the EU countries happened in different years and under different economic conditions.

"This just shows that having more inclusive policies can make a country more attractive for skilled labor," said Koroles Awad, a WSU Ph.D. candidate in economics.

Awad and co-author WSU economics Professor Jill McCluskey reported their findings in AEA Papers and Proceedings . Their analysis focused on skilled workers coming from European Union countries since it is a political and economic union with a shared labor market, making it possible to isolate the effect of same-sex marriage legalization. In addition, the EU presented a natural experiment as about half of the 27 member countries had enacted marriage equality by 2019, and the other 14 countries had not—and could serve as a control group.

The researchers also looked at the effect of the U.S. first recognizing foreign same-sex marriages in 2013. They found the enactment of that policy slowed the decline of visa admissions from EU countries that already had marriage equality policies, including The Netherlands, Belgium and Spain.

These foreign workers are highly sought after, Awad noted, particularly in STEM fields, those dealing with science, technology, engineering and math.

"There is a lot of effort within the U.S. and in foreign countries to compete for these graduates and keep advanced degree holders in the country," he said. "Marriage equality could be a non-monetary incentive to attract skilled workers, keep them in our economy and keep that STEM advantage."

These findings build on previous work on migration within states in the U.S. before federal marriage equality. That study found that same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with a female head of household were more likely to move to states that recognized same-sex marriage .

The data in this study does not include the sexual orientation of H1B visa holders, but the effect of the recognition of marriage equality was clear on the movement of skilled labor. Statistically, same-sex couples tend to have higher levels of education, but the researchers said the change could also simply indicate that many highly skilled people are drawn to areas with more inclusive policies.

"In general, discriminatory policies are bad for the economy, and this is one way that shows it," said McCluskey. "As a country, we should try to have all people be able to fulfill their potential. If we have policies that are non-discriminatory, then everyone can do better, and it will be better for the economy."

Provided by Washington State University

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Balancing the seesaw: Simultaneously enhancing strength and elongation in metallic materials

8 hours ago

Scientists untangle interactions between the Earth's early life forms and the environment over 500 million years

New study shows that 'super spikes' can increase track running speeds by 2%

9 hours ago

Researchers trap atoms, force them to serve as photonic transistors

New research offers insight on modeling belief dynamics

Report urges bold measures for California agriculture amid climate change

Words like 'this' and 'that' act as attention tools across languages, research shows

10 hours ago

Study offers hope for development of vaccine capable of protecting cattle against malignant catarrhal fever

California a botanical and climate change hot spot

Data from Canadian Artic indicates local Indigenous food production saves costs and carbon

Relevant physicsforums posts, today's fusion music: t square, cassiopeia, rei & kanade sato.

3 hours ago

What are your favorite Disco "Classics"?

Album-versaries, cover songs versus the original track, which ones are better.

16 hours ago

Talent Worthy of Wider Recognition

Jul 27, 2024

Who is your favorite Jazz musician and what is your favorite song?

Jul 25, 2024

More from Art, Music, History, and Linguistics

Related Stories

Political campaigns can induce stress in minorities, finds study on Swiss marriage equality referendum

Jul 22, 2024

Report: Same-sex marriage has caused no harms to different-sex couples

May 13, 2024

Economic historians find gender equality is good for economic growth

Dec 21, 2022

Do couples' wages differ based on interracial versus intraracial marriage?

Jan 24, 2024

Marriages in the US are back to pre-pandemic levels, CDC says

Mar 15, 2024

Women with a disability are more likely to experience child marriage than women without a disability

Oct 10, 2023

Recommended for you

Massive appropriation of labor from the Global South enables high consumption in rich countries

14 hours ago

Beyond casualties: The enduring trauma of bereavement after armed conflicts

Communicating numbers boosts trust in climate change science, research suggests

Jul 26, 2024

Digital food ordering drives increased indulgence and spending, study reveals

Jul 23, 2024

International study highlights large and unequal life expectancy declines in India during COVID-19

Jul 19, 2024

Gender inequality across US states revealed by new tool

Jul 17, 2024

Let us know if there is a problem with our content

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter