Since Minnesota’s Baker v. Nelson decision against same-sex marriage in 1971,
two states have ruled in favor of same-sex couples wishing to marry (Eskridge 1996).
The first, Hawaii, handed down its decision in Baehr v. Lewin, on May 5
th
, 1993, though
this decision was later overturned by constitutional amendment. The Massachusetts
Supreme Court also ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. Marriage licenses were first
issued on May 17
th
, 2004 however a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex
marriages in favor of civil unions is proceeding (New York Times 2004). On April 25
th
,
2000 Vermont passed a law providing some recognition for homosexual couples in civil
unions (Gomes 2003).
At the same time, three-quarters of U.S. states have passed Defense of Marriage
Acts, which limit the definition of marriage to that between a man and woman (Lewin
2003). The result of these actions has been to push the debate over legal protections and
the definition of marriage to the state courts, and federal government.
Despite this flurry of legislation and legal decisions, public attitudes towards
homosexuals have changed little in the past three decades. Between 1970 and 1977, 70%
of the public considered homosexuality ‘always wrong’ (de Boer 1978). Recent work by
the Pew Research Center shows the percentage of the population holding an unfavorable
view of homosexuals remains just over 60% (Pew 2003). This finding is particularly
important in the context of increasing numbers of same-sex couples raising children and
some religions performing commitment ceremonies for same-sex couples (Eskridge
1996; Gomes 2003).
It is apparent that the issue of homosexual civil unions and marriage is
increasingly relevant both to elites and the public, as well as increasingly divisive.
However, little scholarly attention has been focused on the rationales offered by opposing
2
Convention