same sex family essay video

In families with same-sex parents, the kids are all right

Research Fellow at Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University

Disclosure statement

Jennifer Power has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council, VicHealth, Relationships Australia and ACON. She currently works on a project funded by the Australian Commonwealth Government.

La Trobe University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

A central argument made against same-sex marriage is that children born into these marriages will be disadvantaged: they will grow up with inappropriate gender role modelling, be bullied at school and suffer poorer emotional well-being than their peers.

Same-sex attracted people may come to parenthood in many ways – though former heterosexual relationships, as a foster parent or a step parent. Increasingly, lesbian couples and single women are forming families using known sperm donors (a friend of the couple) or a clinic-sourced anonymous donor. Male couples are also increasingly turning to egg donation and surrogacy services to become parents.

The 2011 Australian Census counted 33,714 same-sex couples. Around 4,000 of these couples had dependent children living with them. But this is likely to be an under-representation, as not all same-sex attracted people declare their relationship in the census and single parents who identify as same-sex attracted would not be identified.

In the United States , of the 594,000 same-sex couple households in 2011, 115,000 reported having children.

People may not agree with gay marriage on moral or religious grounds. But the argument that it harms children does not stack up against current evidence.

In 2010, American researchers published results from a meta-analysis of 33 studies comparing the well-being of children raised by opposite-sex couples with children raised by same-sex couples. This study found no evidence that children raised by same-sex parents fared any worse than other children on a range of behavioural, educational, emotional or social outcomes.

The researchers also concluded there was no evidence that children raised by a single parent or same-sex couples were less competent or well-rounded than other children. If anything, studies of single-parent families show these men and women are more flexible in their parenting styles than they are given credit for. Men are capable of gentle, nurturing parenting. Women are capable of setting rules and boundaries for children, while also teaching them football.

What about donor-conceived children?

Political concerns about lesbians’ access to fertility services means the well-being of donor-conceived children has entered debates about same-sex marriage and parenting.

In 2013, the story of Narelle Grech , a young Australian woman who had been diagnosed with terminal cancer, hit the news media. Grech was donor-conceived and desperately wanted to meet her biological father before she died.

Grech’s story made a powerful statement about the importance of donor-conceived children having the option to know their genetic heritage. But media reports often gave the impression that every donor-conceived child was searching sadly for their genetic parent.

This is not the case . Some donor-conceived children are highly driven to meet donor parents, some are curious and others aren’t interested. There is no evidence that donor-conception causes children emotional or social damage.

Do children get teased at school?

A 2008 study by the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in the United States found many children raised by same-sex parents had experienced or witnessed some form of homophobic harassment at school.

But more commonly, young people reported feeling excluded or isolated because schools did not acknowledge their family makeup. In some cases, staff actively discouraged students from speaking about their families due to a misguided concern that this amounted to talking about sex or sexuality in the classroom.

Other studies have found more mixed results.

Australian research has shown that some children worry they will experience homophobic discrimination and this anxiety may affect their well-being. But most children with same-sex parents do not encounter more frequent or intense schoolyard bullying than other children.

Additionally, children with same-sex parents generally have good social networks and peer relationships, which are a strong buffer against stigma or discrimination.

Is this research reliable?

Studies on the well-being of children raised by same-sex parents have been criticised because most rely on small “ convenience ” samples. Critics argue convenience sampling is inherently unreliable because people who are healthy and resourceful are more likely to opt in to studies than those who are socially disconnected or less capable.

However, large population-based studies tend to include only a small sub-sample of children raised by same-sex parents. This doesn’t generate the numbers needed for reliable statistical analysis.

Methodological limitations provide fuel for conservative arguments against the validity of these studies. What critics do not acknowledge is that repetition of findings – numerous studies conducted over time and in various locations, all which show children with same-sex parents are doing well – is a major strength of this body of research.

What about same-sex marriage?

Children raised by same-sex parents do better when they are living in a city or country that is more socially progressive and accepting of homosexuality. As such, openly supporting the rights of same-sex couples is one of the best things governments can do to support children being raised by same-sex parents.

Beyond this, funding programs such as the Safe-Schools coalition Australia, which seeks to ensure schools are well-equipped to address homophobia, will have a direct impact on the day-to-day experiences of children with same-sex parents.

• Gay marriage
• Gender diversity
• Gay marriage laws
• Child health
• Same-sex marriage

Events and Communications Coordinator

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

Effects of same-sex parents on children’s adult outcomes: Reviewing a controversial study

2015 study in Social Science Research re-analyzing the publicly available data from a 2012 paper on the life outcomes for children raised by same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by Natasha Sokol, The Journalist's Resource July 25, 2015

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/health/reassessment-effects-same-sex-parents-childrens-adult-outcomes/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

How life outcomes for children with same-sex parents might differ from those raised in traditional unions has been the subject of a large body of academic research . In advance of the Supreme Court’s June 2015 ruling on same-sex marriage, the American Sociological Association prepared an amicus brief that reviewed prior studies on the subject.

In the brief the ASA researchers wrote:

We conclude that there is a clear consensus in the social science literature indicating that American children living within same-sex parent households fare just as well as those children residing within different-sex parent households over a wide array of well-being measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse. Our assessment of the literature is based on credible and methodologically sound studies that compare well-being outcomes of children residing within same-sex and different-sex parent families. Differences that exist in child well-being are largely due to socioeconomic circumstances and family stability.

A 2012 study by Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin, included in the ASA’s literature review, was based on a large, nationally representative random sample of young adults from the New Family Structures Study. A total of 15,058 individuals between 18 and 39 were contacted and screened, and 2,988 were given full surveys. Based on analysis of the survey information, the study concluded that the NFSS “clearly reveals that children appear most apt to succeed well as adults — on multiple counts and across a variety of domains — when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day.” When it was released, the U.T. Austin study received significant support and criticism , even as its methods and conclusions were drawn into question by a large number of sociological researchers .

In a 2015 study published in the July 2015 issue of Social Science Research “Measurement, Methods and Divergent Patterns: Reassessing the Effects of Same-sex Parents,” Simon Cheng of the University of Connecticut and Brian Powell of Indiana University, Bloomington, re-analyzed the publicly available data from the 2012 study. The scholars examined the extent to which the differences found in the original research were attributable to the ways in which family types were defined, and to other analytical and methodological choices.

A particular challenge involved defining and classifying family types: In the original 2012 paper, respondents were considered to be from “intact biological families” if they reported having lived with both their biological mother and biological father from birth until age 19. However, a substantial proportion of these respondents had been removed from this category because their parents were not married at the time of the interview. This potentially over-inflated the positive impact of growing up in an intact biological family, as those whose families may have been unhappy or dysfunctional were not considered to be part of this group. The authors also found that certain methodological decisions increased the number of differences between the outcomes of adult children of same-sex parents compared to adult children of intact biological families.

Nearly 35% of the respondents classified as having been raised in same-sex families provided answers for other questions on the survey that called their data into question. Approximately one-third of the respondents who the original analyses considered to have been raised in same-sex families never lived with the lesbian or gay parent, and half never lived with the lesbian or gay parent’s partner. Of the 236 respondents classified as having been raised in a same-sex household, only 51 could be reasonably understood to have lived in a two-parent same-sex household for at least a year.

After correcting a number of methodological issues — misclassification of data or variables, and use of inappropriate statistical tests — the authors re-ran the original analyses multiple times using different corrective methods.

The paper’s findings include:

• After correcting for errors, adding appropriate control variables, recoding race/ethnicity to reflect multiple (instead of two) categories, and controlling for the effects of misclassified or uncertain data, the authors found only six differences between adult children of lesbian mothers and intact biological families, and three differences between adult children of gay fathers and intact biological families.
• Of the differences found among adult children raised by lesbian mothers, three were extremely questionable, and disappeared following the deletion of one or two extreme data points that were driving the differences. Of the remaining three differences, two were not considered to be objectively worse for either group (identifying as homosexual, and having had a same-sex relationship), leaving only one statistically significant difference between adult children raised by lesbian mothers compared to adult children raised in intact biological families.
• Among the 51 respondents who were identified as having lived in a two-parent same-sex household for at least a year, only four significant differences were demonstrated. Of these, two were not objectively worse (identifying as homosexual and having had a same-sex relationship), and two did not take place during adulthood (receiving public assistance in childhood, and sense of safety and security growing up), and therefore cannot be reasonably considered consequences of their childhood family situation.

“The reanalysis [of the source data] offers evidence that the empirical patterns showcased in the original Regnerus article are fragile — so fragile that they appear largely a function of these possible misclassifications and other methodological choices,” the authors state. “Our replication and reanalysis of Regnerus’s study offer a cautionary illustration of the importance of double checking and critically assessing the implications of measurement and other methodological decisions in our and others’ research.”

Further reading: A 2015 research roundup, “Same-sex Marriage and Big Research Questions Behind the Debate,” gathers together research questions and provides links to associated resources that can help analysts and reporters go beyond the headlines.

Keywords: parenting, LGBT, lesbian mothers, gay fathers, same-sex parents, same-sex parenting, children, family structure, sexuality

About The Author

Natasha Sokol

Why So Many LGBTQ+ Families Are Thriving

Celebrating lgbtq parents during pride month and beyond..

Posted July 10, 2023 | Reviewed by Devon Frye

• A Parent's Role
• Find a family counsellor near me
• Pride is celebrated in a number of ways, not just by LGBTQ individuals, but by families as well.
• Same-sex couples are 7 times more likely to adopt or foster a child when compared to heterosexual couples.
• Over 400,000 children are in the U.S. foster care system, and of those, 100,000 are eligible for adoption.
• Research suggests that children of same-sex parents are thriving in a number of ways.

June officially marked Pride Month, dedicated to the celebration of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals. It began after the Stonewall riots in 1969, where there were a series of gay liberation protests outside the Stonewall Inn in New York City’s Greenwich Village. This marked the beginning of the gay rights movement.

Today, the rainbow flag can be seen hanging from Stonewall and countless other establishments and homes throughout the month of June and beyond. The rainbow itself is a call back to the stripes in the American flag but also symbolizes all of the different and vibrant groups that make up the LGBTQ community.

We’ve come a long way since the late 1960s, and nowadays, Pride is celebrated in a number of ways, and most notably, not just by LGBTQ individuals, but by families as well. In my small New Jersey town of Maplewood, same-sex couples raising children can be found everywhere, and we even have a rainbow crosswalk to express Pride for our own LGBTQ community.

Same-sex couples raising children have been on the rise in the United States, especially after 2015, when the Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage to be legal in all 50 states. Before that ruling, there were a lot of limits on same-sex couples’ ability to adopt children in the U.S., and in fact, the very first time a gay couple was able to adopt a baby was as recent as 1979. But again, a lot has changed since then.

Data from a 2014-2016 community survey suggests that same-sex couples are seven times more likely to adopt or foster a child who needs a home when compared to heterosexual couples (Goldberg & Conron, 2018). This is important, as according to the most recent data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, over 400,000 children are in the U.S. foster care system for various reasons—some have been abused, neglected, or even abandoned by their parents. Of those children, 100,000 are eligible for adoption and need a permanent home.

On top of that, about 20,000 teenagers will age out of the foster care system each year and are faced with living on their own for the first time—never having had a permanent or stable family. These children are at risk for all sorts of adverse outcomes, including poverty, poor education , and homelessness.

Surprisingly, despite the willingness of same-sex couples to adopt, and the ever-growing need for children in the foster care system to be placed with adoptive parents, there are still some people in the U.S. who don’t think same-sex couples should be able to adopt. In fact, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, there are still states that allow private adoption agencies to refuse adoptions to same-sex couples, and there are even welfare agencies that are permitted to limit resources to same-sex couples based on religious exemptions.

The rationale behind these limitations is that growing up with same-sex parents somehow isn’t in the best interest of children. But there is no actual scientific evidence that this is the case. In fact, all existing evidence suggests that families with same-sex parents are thriving.

Starting back in the early 1990s, research was already showing no evidence that the development of children with same-sex parents is compromised in any way relative to children of opposite-sex parents (Patterson, 1992). More recent research comparing children adopted by same-sex versus opposite-sex parents over the course of development confirms these findings, showing that children’s adjustment and family function does not differ at all on the basis of parents’ sexual orientation .

Instead, what most predicted behavioral problems in children was parenting stress , regardless of sexual orientation—something we’ve known to be the case for decades. You could argue that perhaps same-sex parents experience more stress than heterosexual parents because of potential stigma or discrimination , but the study showed that levels of stress did not differ between families. In fact, the families were completely indistinguishable in every way except for the parents' sexual orientation (Farr, 2017).

Research has so strongly shown that same-sex families are thriving that three separate professional organizations—the American Psychological Association (APA), the Australian Psychological Association (APS), and the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA)—have all independently concluded that children’s well-being does not vary based on parents’ sexual orientation (Montero, 2014). In fact, many studies show that there might be several benefits of being raised by same-sex parents.

Importantly, while nearly half of all pregnancies are unplanned, same-sex parents don’t end up with children by accident. In fact, for a same-sex couple, it takes effort to have a child. Adoption, in vitro, or surrogacy all require a significant amount of time and commitment and can cost thousands of dollars. Perhaps because of the extra effort and financial investment required for LGBTQ parents to have children, same-sex parents tend to have a higher socio-economic status, which typically means they are more highly educated and financially stable when compared to opposite-sex parents.

There is also evidence that children of same-sex parents perform better in school than children of opposite-sex parents (Mazrekaj et al., 2020), and are more psychologically well-adjusted (Zhang et al., 2023). Further, same-sex parents tend to be more tolerant of diversity and nurturing in the early childhood years (Zhang et al., 2023), and they distribute labor more evenly in the household and have children who show less gender -stereotyped behavior (Farr, 2017).

All in all, the research is clear—children of same-sex parents are thriving, and on top of that, same-sex couples are helping to provide permanent homes for children who really need them. So during Pride Month and beyond, besides celebrating our pride for LGBTQ individuals, remember to give a special shout-out to our LGBTQ parents , and everything they do for their children.

Farr, R. H. (2017). Does parental sexual orientation matter? A longitudinal follow-up of adoptive families with school-age children. Developmental psychology , 53 (2), 252-264.

Goldberg, S.K., & Conron, K. J. (2018). How many same-sex couples in the US are raising children? UCLA Williams Institute, https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/same-sex-parents-us/

Mazrekaj, D., De Witte, K., & Cabus, S. (2020). School outcomes of children raised by same-sex parents: Evidence from administrative panel data. American Sociological Review , 85 (5), 830-856.

Montero, D. (2014). Attitudes toward same-gender adoption and parenting: An analysis of surveys from 16 countries. Advances in Social Work , 15 (2), 444-459.

Patterson, C. J. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child development , 63 (5), 1025-1042.

Zhang, Y., Huang, H., Wang, M., Zhu, J., Tan, S., Tian, W., ... & Ning, C. (2023). Family outcome disparities between sexual minority and heterosexual families: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Global Health , 8 (3), e010556.

Vanessa LoBue, Ph.D., is a professor of psychology at Rutgers University-Newark.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• International
• New Zealand
• South Africa
• Switzerland
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Starting or Expanding Your Family
• Current Parents
• Join a Peer Support Space
• Attend an Event
• Find an LGBTQ+ Friendly Provider
• Get Help Now
• Ways to Give
• Share Your Story
• Family Equity Justice Project
• Inclusivity Training for Professionals
• Staff & Board of Directors
• Meet Jaymes Black
• Join Our Team

Facts about LGBTQ+ Families

This factsheet provides some basic data about the number of lgbtq+ people in the united states, including the number of lgbtq+ families in the united states and how their families were formed..

Last Updated June 2020 | Download as a PDF

The LGBTQ+ community at a glance

Approximately 4.5% of adults in the U.S. identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer (LGBTQ+). That means that there are more than 11.3 million LGBTQ+ adults in the U.S. ( Conron, 2019 ).

Recent reports from the Williams Institute estimate that 1.4 million adults (.6% of adults) in the U.S. identify as transgender ( Conron 2019 ; Flores et al 2016 ).

Roughly half of the LGBTQ+ population identify as bisexual. ( Gates, Marriage and Family 2015 ).

What do LGBTQ+ families look like?

Like other parents, LGBTQ+ parents are married, unmarried and cohabiting, separated or divorced, and single. There are intact families and blended families, and children who live between households. 

While the prevalence of marriage in the general population continues to decline, the number of same-sex married couples has increased significantly in the last decade as LGBTQ+ people gained the freedom to marry nationwide. Based on data from 2017-2019, it is estimated that there are at least 543,000 married same-sex couples in the U.S. ( Press Release 2019 ; Romero 2017 ; Gallup Poll 2017 ).

According to a 2019 Census Bureau estimate, there are over 469,000 same-sex couples who are unmarried and living together. ( Press Release 2019 ).

How many LGBTQ+ families are there?

Between 2 million and 3.7 million children under age 18 have an LGBTQ+ parent. Many of these children are being raised by a single LGBTQ+ parent, or by a different-sex couple where one parent is bisexual.  Approximately 191,000 children are being raised by two same-sex parents. Overall, it is estimated that 29% of LGBTQ+ adults are raising a child who is under 18 ( LGBT Demographic Data, 2019 ; Press Release 2019 ; Gates, Marriage and Family 2015 ).

How are LGBTQ+ families formed?

The legal and social climate for LGBTQ+ people has a direct impact on how LGBTQ+ people form families and become parents. Historically, in the face of an anti-LGBTQ+ legal and social climate, LGBTQ+ people have tended to come out later in life, oftentimes after having a different-sex relationship. As such, most children today who are being raised by a same-sex couple were conceived in a different-sex relationship.

However, this trend is changing as the legal and social climate has become more accepting of LGBTQ+ people and same-sex relationships. Today, LGBTQ+ people are coming out earlier in life, and an increasing number of same-sex couples are planning and creating their families through assisted reproduction and surrogacy, as well as adoption and foster care. 63% of LGBTQ+ people planning families expect to use ART, foster care, or adoption to become parents ( Family Equality Council 2019; Gates, Marriage and Family 2015 ).

LGBTQ+ people and same-sex couples are more likely to adopt and foster children, compared to their non-LGBTQ counterparts; specifically, same-sex couples are seven times more likely to foster or adopt than different-sex couples ( Goldberg 2018 ).     

LGBTQ+ families at a glance

The proportion of same-sex couples raising kids tends to be higher in more socially conservative areas of the country where LGBTQ+ people have come out later in life, and were more likely to have a child with a different-sex partner earlier in life. Overall, the highest proportions of same-sex couples raising children under age 18 reside in Southern, Mountain West, and Midwestern states – largely rural areas, with the fewest protections for LGBTQ+ families. ( Movement Advancement Project 2019 ; Gates, Marriage and Family 2015 ; Gates 2013 ).

Among LGBTQ+ adults under 50 living alone or with a spouse or partner, 48% of women and 20% of men are raising a child who is under 18 years old. ( Gates 2013 ). When looking specifically at those who live together, the US Census Bureau estimates that 16% of all same-sex couples are raising children under 18 in their household: 9.3 % of male couples and 23% of female couples ( Characteristics, 2018 ).

Racial and ethnic minorities who are LGBTQ+ are more likely to be raising or having kids. More than a third of same-sex couples raising children are racial or ethnic minorities – approximately 12% are African American and 15% Latinx. Out of all LGBTQ+ people aged 25 or older, 34% of African American adults and 39% of Latinx adults are raising children, in comparison to 21% of white adults. ( LGBT Demographic Data, 2019 ; Gates, Marriage and Family 2015 ; Gates, Demographics 2015 ).

LGBTQ+ individuals and same-sex couples raising children have lower incomes than different-sex counterparts and higher levels of poverty. Nearly one in five children being raised by same-sex couples (24%) live in poverty compared to 14% of children being raised by different-sex couples. In 2015, 33% of LGBTQ+ parents raising children experienced food insecurity, compared with 20% of their non-LGBTQ+ counterparts. ( Taylor et. Al, 2016 ; Gates, Marriage and Family 2015 ; Gates, Demographics 2015 ).

Nearly all research shows that individuals in same-sex couples have higher levels of education; however, this is not true for those raising children. Only one third of same-sex couples raising children have a college degree. ( Characteristics, 2018 ; Gates, Marriage and Family 2015 ).

Discrimination against LGBTQ+ families

The LGBTQ+ community has seen considerable legal and social progress in recent years. However, anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination and social stigma remain.

There is no comprehensive federal nondiscrimination law expressly protecting LGBTQ+ people and less than half of states have state nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people.

Parenting and foster and adoption laws, practices, and procedures vary throughout the U.S., and many states do not have express protections for LGBTQ+ parents. Thus, depending on the law of a given state, LGBTQ+ parents may feel vulnerable to discrimination or retribution. This is especially true for transgender parents who have historically faced discrimination in the courts, custody disputes, foster care, and adoption, and a non-biological parent who does not have legally-established rights to her or his child.

In the last few years, there has been a notable increase in hate crimes and hostility toward LGBTQ+ people.

You may opt out or contact us anytime.

Zócalo Podcasts

Why the American Family Needs Same-Sex Parents

Data shows that the country’s most vulnerable kids will benefit if the supreme court rules in favor of gay marriage.

by Gary J. Gates | April 21, 2015

Proponents and opponents of marriage for same-sex couples agree that heated debates about religious liberty are one effect of the marriage debate. But they strongly disagree about what America and its families will look like if same-sex couples can marry throughout the nation. Opponents have made dire predictions of marital instability, falling birthrates, and increases in children being born outside of marriage—in short, the destruction of American families.

But an examination of the data—particularly as it relates to the children in this country most in need of loving and stable families—does not support those predictions. Opponents have made dire predictions of marital instability, falling birthrates, and increases in children being born outside of marriage—in short, the destruction of American families.

In a recent friend-of the court brief that I submitted to the Supreme Court, I explore what demographic and social science research tells us about the impact of the upcoming ruling. Today, nearly 1.4 million men and women are part of the estimated 700,000 same-sex couples living in this country. About 350,000 of them are married couples and 122,000 are raising more than 200,000 children under the age of 18.

Michigan couple April DeBoer and Jayne Rouse , plaintiffs in one of the cases currently before the Supreme Court, offer an example of how same-sex couples already play an outsized role in caring for some of the nation’s most vulnerable kids. They have adopted four children, two with developmental disabilities who require special care. U.S. Census Bureau data show that April and Jayne are not alone.

Same-sex couples are three times more likely than their different-sex counterparts to be raising adopted or foster children. Among married couples, same-sex couples are five times more likely. In states where same-sex couples can legally marry, more than 3 percent of adopted or foster children have same-sex parents. Since only about 0.3 percent of all children in those states have same-sex parents, it means that adopted and foster children there are nearly 10 times more likely than children in general to have same-sex parents.

As marriage becomes more widely available for same-sex couples, they will likely expand their already disproportionate role as parents to some of the nation’s neediest children. In 2013, 19 percent of same-sex couples without children were married compared to 33 percent of those with children. If they had adopted or foster children, the figure was 41 percent. In states where same-sex couples can marry, 60 percent of those with adopted or foster children are married. Clearly same-sex couples raising kids, especially adopted and foster kids, have a strong preference for marriage.

Opponents of marriage for same-sex couples argue that children do best when they are raised by their married biological parents. They reason that reserving marriage only for different-sex couples promotes that ideal. Assuming that kids do best with married moms and dads is a false read of social science research. A more careful review of the literature shows that children tend to do better when they are raised by two parents who are in a stable and committed relationship. Marriage offers a way for many couples to strengthen and support their desire for stability, love, and commitment. Kids with married parents, regardless of the sexual orientation or gender of those parents, benefit from the security that marriage offers to many couples.

What about the argument that reserving marriage for different-sex couples encourages them to raise children within marriage? This argument implies that allowing same-sex couples to marry might decrease the likelihood that different-sex couples decide to marry and have kids. Even if every same-sex couple in the country got married tomorrow, they’d only represent about 1 percent of all married couples. The notion that their marriages could alter the behavior of the other 99 percent of married couples (and unmarried heterosexuals for that matter), especially regarding such important and personal decisions like whether or not to marry or have children, seems ludicrous on the face of it. It turns out that the research agrees.

Two studies published last year in Demography , the premier academic journal in the field, find no evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry has altered the marriage rates of different-sex couples in the U.S. or in the Netherlands , the country that has allowed same-sex couples to marry longer than any other in the world. In 2013, the portion of children being raised by married different-sex parents in the U.S. was actually a little bit higher in states where same-sex couples could legally marry (65 percent) compared to states where marriage was restricted to different-sex couples (64 percent).

The recent events in Indiana and Arkansas prove that a Supreme Court decision bringing marriage for same-sex couples to all parts of the nation won’t end political conflict associated with LGBT rights. But it will improve America’s families. The nation will have more married couples, more kids with married parents, and more stable homes and families for the country’s most vulnerable children. It’s hard to understand how that could ever be a bad thing.

Send A Letter To the Editors

Please tell us your thoughts. Include your name and daytime phone number, and a link to the article you’re responding to. We may edit your letter for length and clarity and publish it on our site.

(Optional) Attach an image to your letter. Jpeg, PNG or GIF accepted, 1MB maximum.

By continuing to use our website, you agree to our privacy and cookie policy . Zócalo wants to hear from you. Please take our survey !-->

Get More Zócalo

No paywall. No ads. No partisan hacks. Ideas journalism with a head and a heart.

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Gay Marriage

By: History.com Editors

Updated: July 10, 2023 | Original: June 9, 2017

In the landmark 2015 case Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that all state bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, making gay marriage legal throughout America. The ruling was a culmination of decades of struggles, setbacks and victories along the road to full marriage equality in the United States.

Early Years: Same-Sex Marriage Bans

In 1970, just one year after the historic Stonewall Riots that galvanized the gay rights movement, law student Richard Baker and librarian James McConnell applied for a marriage license in Minnesota .

Clerk Gerald Nelson rejected their application because they were a same-sex couple, and a trial court upheld his decision. Baker and McConnell appealed, but the state Supreme Court affirmed the trial judge’s decision in 1971 in Baker v. Nelson.

When the couple appealed again, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972 declined to hear the case “for want of a substantial federal question.” This ruling effectively blocked federal courts from ruling on same-sex marriage for decades, leaving the decision solely in the hands of states, which dealt blow after blow to those hoping to see gay marriage becoming legal.

In 1973, for instance, Maryland became the first state to create a law that explicitly defines marriage as a union between a man and woman, a belief held by many conservative religious groups. Other states quickly followed suit: Virginia in 1975, and Florida , California and Wyoming in 1977.

Of course, numerous other same-sex couples across the country had also applied for marriage licenses over the years, but each ended in a somber note like Baker and McConnell’s case. Though the gay rights movement saw some advancements in the 1970s and 1980s—such as Harvey Milk becoming the first openly gay man elected to public office in the country in 1977—the fight for gay marriage made little headway for many years.

Marriage Equality: Turning the Tide

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, same-sex couples saw the first signs of hope on the marriage front in a long time. In 1989, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance that allowed homosexual couples and unmarried heterosexual couples to register for domestic partnerships, which granted hospital visitation rights and other benefits.

Three years later, the District of Columbia similarly passed a new law that allowed same-sex couples to register as domestic partners. Like with San Francisco’s ordinance, D.C.’s domestic partnership status fell far short of full marriage, but it did grant D.C. same-sex couples some important benefits, such as allowing partners to receive health care coverage if their significant other was employed by the D.C. government.

Then, in 1993, the highest court in Hawaii ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage may violate that state constitution’s Equal Protection Clause—the first time a state court has ever inched toward making gay marriage legal.

The Hawaii Supreme Court sent the case—brought by a gay male couple and two lesbian couples who were denied marriage licenses in 1990—back for further review to the lower First Circuit Court, which in 1991 originally dismissed the suit.

As the state tried to prove that there was “compelling state interest” in justifying the ban, the case would be tied up in litigation for the next three years.

The Defense of Marriage Act

Opponents of gay marriage, however, did not sit on their haunches. In response to Hawaii’s 1993 court decision in Baehr v. Lewin, the U.S. Congress in 1996 passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which President Bill Clinton signed into law.

DOMA didn’t ban gay marriage outright but specified that only heterosexual couples could be granted federal marriage benefits. That is, even if a state made gay marriage legal, same-sex couples still wouldn’t be able to file income taxes jointly, sponsor spouses for immigration benefits or receive spousal Social Security payments, among many other things.

The act was a huge setback for the marriage equality movement, but transient good news arose three months later: Hawaii Judge Kevin S. C. Chang ordered the state to stop denying licenses to same-sex couples.

Unfortunately for these couples looking to get married, the celebration was short-lived. In 1998, voters approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in the state.

Pushing for Change: Civil Unions

The next decade saw a whirlwind of activity on the gay marriage front, beginning with the year 2000 when Vermont became the first state to legalize civil unions, a legal status that provides most of the state-level benefits of marriage.

Three years later, Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage when the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples had the right to marry in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, a ruling that, unlike Hawaii’s, wouldn’t be overturned by voters. The state finally introduced the country to gay marriage (minus the federal benefits) when it began issuing same-sex marriage licenses on May 17, 2004.

Later that year, the U.S. Senate blocked a Constitutional amendment—supported by President George W. Bush —that would outlaw gay marriage across the country.

2004 was notable for couples in many other states as well, though for the opposite reason: Ten typically conservative states, along with Oregon , enacted state-level bans on gay marriage. Kansas and Texas were next in 2005, and 2006 saw seven more states passing Constitutional amendments against gay marriage.

But towards the end of the decade, gay marriage became legal in various states, including Connecticut , Iowa , Vermont (the first state to approve it by legislative means) and New Hampshire .

Domestic Partnerships

Throughout the decade and the beginning of the next, California frequently made headlines for seesawing on the gay marriage issue.

The state was the first to pass a domestic partnership statute in 1999, and legislators tried to pass a same-sex marriage bill in 2005 and 2007. The bills were vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger both times.

In May 2008, the state Supreme Court struck down the 1977 state law banning same-sex marriage, but just a few months later voters approved Proposition 8, which again restricted marriage to heterosexual couples.

The highly contentious ballot measure was declared unconstitutional two years later, but multiple appeals kept the matter unsettled until 2013 when the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case. Hollingsworth v. Perry legalized same-sex marriage in California.

United States v. Windsor

The early 2010s continued the state-level battles over gay marriage that defined the preceding decade, with at least one notable event. For the first time in the country’s history, voters (rather than judges or legislators) in Maine , Maryland, and Washington approved Constitutional amendments permitting same-sex marriage in 2012.

Same-sex marriage also became a federal issue again.

In 2010, Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, found Section 3 of DOMA—the part of the 1996 law that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman—to be unconstitutional. Foundations of the act had finally begun to crumble, but the real hammer fell with United States v. Windsor .

In 2007, New York lesbian couple Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer wed in Ontario, Canada. The State of New York recognized the residents’ marriage, but the federal government, thanks to DOMA, did not. When Spyer died in 2009, she left her estate to Windsor; since the couple’s marriage was not federally recognized, Windsor didn’t qualify for tax exemption as a surviving spouse and the government imposed $363,000 in estate taxes.

Windsor sued the government in late 2010. A few months later, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that  Barack Obama 's administration would no longer defend DOMA, leaving a representative of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives to take on the case.

In 2012, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that DOMA violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments for the case.

The following year, the court ruled in favor of Windsor, ultimately striking down Section 3 of DOMA.

Obergefell v. Hodges

Though the U.S. government could now no longer deny federal benefits to married same-sex couples, other parts of DOMA were still intact, including Section 2, which declared that states and territories could refuse to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples from other states. Soon enough, however, DOMA lost its power thanks to the historic Obergefell v. Hodges .

The case involved several groups of same-sex couples who sued their respective states ( Ohio , Michigan , Kentucky  and Tennessee ) for the states’ bans on same-sex marriage and refusal to recognize such marriages performed elsewhere.

The plaintiffs—led by Jim Obergefell, who sued because he was unable to put his name on his late husband’s death certificate—argued that the laws violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment .

In each case, trial courts sided with the plaintiffs, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit disagreed, bringing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Full Marriage Equality Attained

As with United States v. Windsor, conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Stephen Breyer , Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in favor of same-sex marriage rights, ultimately making gay marriage legal across the nation in June 2015.

By this time, it was still outlawed in only 13 states, and more than 20 other countries had already legalized gay marriage, starting with the Netherlands in December 2000. Chile became the most recent country to legalize same-sex marriage in December 2021.

A Pew Research Center poll in 2001 found that 57 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage and only 35 percent supported it. In 2022, a Pew poll found 61 percent of Americans said that the legalization of same-sex marriage is good for society.

HISTORY Vault

Stream thousands of hours of acclaimed series, probing documentaries and captivating specials commercial-free in HISTORY Vault

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

ESSAY SAUCE

FOR STUDENTS : ALL THE INGREDIENTS OF A GOOD ESSAY

Essay: Essay on Same Sex Marriages | Sociology

Essay details and download:.

• Subject area(s): Sociology essays
• Reading time: 6 minutes
• Price: Free download
• Published: 16 June 2012*
• File format: Text
• Words: 1,738 (approx)
• Number of pages: 7 (approx)

Text preview of this essay:

This page of the essay has 1,738 words. Download the full version above.

Introduction

For a number of reasons same sex marriages have been a topic of debate for the last twenty years or so. In Western society ideas about the freedom of the individual have led to the development of personal moral codes. Gay rights activists have also brought the issue to the forefront of debate in many countries and the anti-discrimination laws that have been introduced in Europe and many parts of America have made discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation illegal.

In its many different forms marriage has been a central feature of social organisation in most parts of the world. It is thought to be essential to raising children and to perpetuating the norms and values of a given culture (Parsons, 1951).In the West, marriage is generally understood as monogamous i.e. the union of one man with one woman, in some cultures, however, men are allowed to take a number of wives.

Having more than one wife is known as polygamy and in a study of a large number of societies Murdock (1949) found that polygamy was a central feature in the majority of them.

Generally speaking marriage in all societies is part of the patriarchal structure and has served the interests of men and marginalised and oppressed women (Abbott and Wallace, 1997). The rules governing marriage have also been used to exclude those outside the dominant culture in order to subjugate them. In America marriage was forbidden between Black people until after the Civil War and mixed marriages, or marriage between a white and a black person was illegal in many states until the 1960s. This was also the case in South Africa under Apartheid. This paper will begin by looking briefly at the changing nature of marriage and the family structure in order to discuss the concept of marriage between two people of the same sex.

Changing Family Structure

In the last forty years the UK and other Western countries have experienced changes in marriage, household, and family forms that would have been unthinkable before the Second World War (Giddens, 2001). Many people are less likely to marry than was once the case and they do not tend to marry at such a young age. The rise of the women’s movement has (some theorists argue) led to a rise in the divorce rate and the number of single parent families.

There has also been a growth in the rate of women who have children but have not married and in 1997 they made up 42% of all lone parent households (Social Trends, 2000). However, Crow and Hardey (1992) have argued that it is difficult to be clear about this because of the many different reasons that people become lone parents and because of the changing nature of family structures either through the death of a partner, cohabitation or remarriage which leads to reconstituted families. Second marriages however tend to have a higher divorce rate than first time marriages. By 2000 Wilkinson and Mulgan (1995) predicted that 80% of couples would have lived together prior to getting married, but those who live together may be far more likely to split than married couples. The changing nature of relationships and of the family structure tends to contradict Murdock’s (1949) claim that the nuclear family is universal although social attitudes towards families headed by a lone female still see this as a facet of disorganisation in society rather than a viable family unit. Gonzalez (1970) argues against this view stating that matrifocal families (those headed by a lone mother) are often well organised groups and that the harmful effects attributed to such a family are not really proven. It would seem that any relationships that contradict the patriarchal norm are atypical and therefore should be resisted. This is particularly the case with same sex relationships as these have not, historically, been fully sanctioned by any society.

Homosexuality is still viewed by many as a deviant act and a threat to social organisation and the heterosexual norm. It therefore becomes necessary to marginalise those people who do not conform to this norm (Rutherford and Chapman, 1988). The opposite sex of the two partners in a marriage is legally defined and therefore this makes it difficult to say that two people of the same sex could ever be considered to be legally married. Those who argue for same sex marriages do not agree that this is unchangeable, marriage has changed so much that it may just be a case of going that one step further. While single sex marriages may be the norm it does not mean that they are necessarily the only form that such a relationship can take. Redman (1996) has argued that the changing nature of sexual relations has called into question the view of heterosexuality as the norm and has demonstrated that there are other family forms that work as well or better than the traditional nuclear family. Since it has become illegal in many countries to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation

homosexuality has become more normalised, while this is still a way off from same sex marriages the result has been that in some European countries homosexuals who live together may register with the state and claim some of the rights previously reserved for those who are married.

To some extent this has happened in the UK where since 1999 a homosexual couple who live together may be defined as a family.

However, until the law is changed they do not have, for example, the same pension and inheritance rights as heterosexual married couples.

(Giddens, 2001). From December 2005 same sex couples may register with the Government and although they will be entitled (if they wish) to a commitment ceremony this would not have the legal status of a marriage. Much of the resistance to same sex marriage has also been based on the fact that same sex couples cannot have children, although this is increasingly becoming a redundant argument as procreation is no longer regarded by many as the primary reason for marriage. The recent ruling in Britain to recognise same sex households as a family means that this may have further implications for inheritance rights and for parental status. Gay activists continue to argue for same sex marriage because it gives them the same rights and status as everyone else, they can make life or death decisions (medically) with regard to their partners, whereas at present this is not the case (Giddens, 2001).

Sullivan (1995) has argued that there is an increasing recognition that sexual orientation is conferred by nature rather than chosen and to act or legislate against homosexuals and forbid same sex marriage is to turn them into a marginalised and oppressed minority. He contends that if this is not to happen then homosexuals must be given the right to become legally married.

Gay and Lesbian Households

Gay and lesbian households are sometimes called ‘families of choice’ (Giddens, 2001:192) because such relationships are based on personal commitment rather than the sanction of the law. In 1999 the rights of a male gay couple had their parental rights upheld by having both their names on the birth certificate of children who had been born to a surrogate mother. Hartley-Brewer (1999) maintained that this meant the nuclear family was changing and the emphasis was on the fact that a child had loving nurturing parents regardless of their sexual orientation. Calhoun argues (from a lesbian perspective) for the rights of gay families, thus she writes, …artificial insemination, contract pregnancy, and the like undermine cultural understandings of the marital couple as a naturally reproductive unit, introduce non-related others into the reproductive process, and make it possible for women and men to have children without a homosexual partner (Calhoun, 1997:142-143).

Calhoun is of the opinion that same sex households and relationships should be regarded as normal family relationships in the same way that heterosexual families have been views. She does not believe that same sex marriages tend to support the patriarchal familial structure because of the many forms that the family has taken in the contemporary world, same sex marriages and families are just one more variation on a theme (Calhoun, 1997).

Clearly, even in the context of huge cultural changes and of the changing nature of marriage and the family, same sex families and marriage are still a matter of highly contested debate.

Calhoun (1997) argues that many see the changing nature of marriage and the changes in the reproductive process as a threat to the stability of society rather than an enrichment of it. Both gay and lesbian families and the unmarried mothers who live on state benefits have been scape-goated by government and society. In Britain, in the late 1980s it was illegal to teach the acceptability of homosexual relationships as a legitimate form of family structure (although this has now changed) . Calhoun argues that this kind of scape-goating and resistance to same sex marriages is an attempt to disguise the departure from family norms by the majority of heterosexual couples.

Calhoun contends that the ideology of the family has played a distinctive role in the marginalisation of gay people and in social resistance to same sex households and marriages.

Bibliography

• Giddens, 2001. 4th ed. Sociology. Cambridge, Polity Press
• Haralambos,M. Holborn, M. and Heald, R.2000. 5th ed. Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. London, Harper Collins.
• Parsons, T. 1951 The Social System New York, The Free Press
• Murdock, G. 1949 Social Structure New York, Macmillan.
• Abbott, P. and Wallace, C. 1997. An Introduction to Sociology: Feminist Perspectives. London, Routledge.
• British Social Attitudes Survey 2000. National Centre for Social Research Social Trends (2000) 30 p. 41 Crown Copyright Crow, G. and Hardey, M. 1992 “Diversity and ambiguity among lone-parent households in Modern Britain” in Marsh, C. and Arber, S. eds 1992 Families and Households: Divisions and Change. London, Macmillan.
• Wilkinson, H. and Mulgan, G. 1995 Freedom’s children: Work Relationships and Politics for 18-34 year olds in Britain Today London, Demos
• Rutherford, A. and Chapman, R. 1988 “The forward march of men halted” in Rutherford, A. and Chapman R. eds 1988 Male Order: Unwrapping Masculinity London, Lawrence and Wishart
• Redman, P. 1996 “Empowering men to disempower themselves: heterosexual masculinities, HIV and the contradictions of an anti-oppressive education” in Mairti Mac an Ghaill ed. Understanding Masculinities Buckingham, Open University Press
• Sullivan, A. 1995 Virtually Normal: An argument about Homosexuality, London, Picador Hartley-Brewer, J. 1999”Gay couple will be legal parents” Guardian 28th October 1999 Calhoun, C. 1997 “Family outlaws and rethinking the connections between feminism, lesbianism and the family” in Nelson, H. ed. 1997 Feminism and Familie, Routledge, New York.

...(download the rest of the essay above)

About this essay:

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, Essay on Same Sex Marriages | Sociology . Available from:<https://www.essaysauce.com/sociology-essays/same-sex-marriages/> [Accessed 10-05-24].

These Sociology essays have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies.

* This essay may have been previously published on Essay.uk.com at an earlier date.

Essay Categories:

• Accounting essays
• Architecture essays
• Business essays
• Computer science essays
• Criminology essays
• Economics essays
• Education essays
• Engineering essays
• English language essays
• Environmental studies essays
• Essay examples
• Finance essays
• Geography essays
• Health essays
• History essays
• Hospitality and tourism essays
• Human rights essays
• Information technology essays
• International relations
• Leadership essays
• Linguistics essays
• Literature essays
• Management essays
• Marketing essays
• Mathematics essays
• Media essays
• Medicine essays
• Military essays
• Miscellaneous essays
• Music Essays
• Nursing essays
• Philosophy essays
• Photography and arts essays
• Politics essays
• Project management essays
• Psychology essays
• Religious studies and theology essays
• Sample essays
• Science essays
• Social work essays
• Sociology essays
• Sports essays
• Types of essay
• Zoology essays

Marriage Equality: Same-Sex Marriage Essay (Critical Writing)

Introduction, same sex unions, history of same sex unions, debate on gay marriage.

Marriage has been regarded as one of the most important social institutions in the society. This is because it forms the basis of organization in any given society. “Marriage refers to an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found” (Dziengel, 2010).

Marriage is treated quite differently depending on the norms and values that exist in a given society. The current society is experiencing many social changes, which have influenced the nature of relationships among human beings. Marriage has also been affected by these social changes.

Marriage is today very dynamic and people treat it differently from what it used to be in the past. Same sex unions are becoming popular in many countries and they are quite prevalent in European countries as compared to other places. Same sex marriage is commonly known as gay marriage. “It refers to a legally or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender” (Goldberg, 2010).

“Various types of same sex marriages have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions” (Haider & Joslyn, 2008). The early practice of this type of marriage was witnessed when Emperor Nero married a man who was serving as a servant in his Roman Empire.

Apart from Rome, this practice occurred in China during the Ming Dynasty and also in Spain. This type of marriage had very bad reputation and it was strongly rejected by many individuals and countries. “This attitude has been changing in the past few decades” (Haider & Joslyn, 2008). The twenty first century has witnessed a drastic change in the way people perceive this type of relationship.

Netherlands in the year 2001 emerged to be the first country to allow gay relationships. In 2003 the government of Belgium accepted this type of union. In 2005 both Canada and Spain formally accepted gay marriages. In 2006 the people of South African were allowed to practice gay marriages.

Sweden allowed it in 2009. Last year, Argentina, Iceland and Portugal also accepted this kind of relationship. In Mexico it is legalized but with some restrictions in the sense that it can only be practiced within the city of Mexico. However, all Mexican states acknowledge it.

“Israel does not recognize same sex marriages performed on its territory, but recognizes same sex marriages performed in foreign jurisdiction” (Ronner, 2005). Apart form South Africa, other African countries still remain conservative and they are not willing to accept this relationship. “In the United States, although same sex marriages are not recognized federally, same sex couples can marry in five states and one district” (Smith, 2010).

Opposing Arguments

The subject of gay marriage has been seriously debated in many places. This issue has been discussed both in religious and political circles. The following arguments have been used to reject gay marriage.

The general question is that why should people practice this kind of relationship? This is what the majority of people opposed to it seem to be asking whenever this issue is raised in any discussion. This people contend that legal relationships are only those between men and women. Hence they do not see the sense of people engaging in any other type of intimate relationship (Ronner, 2005).

Marriage is often seen as a religious rite and in this case people look at it from the religious perspective. They therefore believe that if gay marriage is legitimized it would undermine the religious principles. This is because religion has always been used to sanctify marriages (Farrior, 2009).

The dignity of the church has been affected because of the different attitudes adopted by religious leaders on this matter. Some churches are likely to get split because they cannot come to an agreement on how to handle this issue. This has adversely affected their capacity to spread the gospel. Some members of the church have even lost their faith and trust in religion because they do not agree with the church leaders who support this kind of relationship.

For example, the Anglican Church members and their leaders have been arguing about gay marriages. Since some of them support it, they have now formed a separate church. The Catholic Church has also had the same problem. Some Catholic monks have also been accused of child molestation and this has really affected their reputation.

Marriage is naturally understood as an institution for raising children. Same sex marriages do not give children an opportunity to have a good development. “In this case some individuals strongly feel that same sex partners can not provide the moral and psychological support required for raising children” (Goldberg, 2010). This is because such children would find it quite unusual when they realize that their parents have the same sex. This can really affect them psychologically (Goldberg, 2010).

Gay marriages are understood as unnatural unions. “This premise influences other arguments and lies behind many negative opinions about homosexuality in general” (Acevado & Wada, 2011). Since gay relationships are not normal, they should be reduced to social unions instead of being authenticated by the national leaders in a given country. This is because if such abnormal behaviors are allowed, they are likely to become very prevalent in our society in the near future. This may cause very many social problems.

Marriage is also an important cultural symbol. “Apart from marriage being an institution, it is also a symbol representing our culture’s ideals about sex, sexuality, and human relationships” (Haider & Joslyn, 2008). Symbols are very important because it is through them that we develop a sense of belonging to a given society or race. “Thus when the traditional nature of marriage is challenged in any way, so are people’s basic identities” (Haider & Joslyn, 2008).

It would also be difficult and expensive to integrate this people into the society. This is because people have to be taught to accept them. “Teaching people to become tolerant to gay individuals would be expensive” (Smith, 2010).

Supporting Arguments

Even though gay marriage is not supported by some people, I disagree with them because of the following arguments.

Marriage enables people to have access to social and economic needs. “Studies repeatedly demonstrate that people who marry tend to be better off financially, emotionally, psychologically, and even medically” (Ronner, 2005). Therefore if gay couples are guaranteed the right to marry they will probably have the chance to benefit from being married. This will also be helpful to the gay communities at large. For example the gay couples would remain committed in helping each other because of the marriage vows.

It would also be wrong for gay relationships to be treated as civil unions. This is because if the gay individuals can get married, they stand a better chance of enjoying several opportunities. This can not be the case if they are in civil unions. “Equality before the law means that creating civil unions for gays will lead to civil unions for every one else and this type of marriage will be more of a threat than gay unions could possibly be” (Farrior, 2009).

The stability of our society can be enhanced if gay individuals can be given a chance to marry. Even the people who oppose this relationship believe that the family is the basis of our society. Therefore, if more families are formed through gay marriages, we can have a great society. The family also dictates the general trend in the society. Marriage would also facilitate the integration of gay people into their communities. Accepting gay relationships will therefore enhance the strength of our communities.

Many children are leading poor lifestyles and they cannot even access the common basic needs. Destitute children can have a chance to lead a good life if they can be adopted by married gay individuals. This is because they can provide emotional and financial support to such children. This can only be possible if they can be allowed to get married and adopt children.

Many people and groups are increasingly becoming conscious, and more concerned about the human rights. “Another argument that favors same sex marriages is that denying same sex couples legal access to marriage and all of its attendant benefits represents discrimination based on sexual orientation” (Dziengel, 2010). Many people and institutions promoting human rights concur with this assertion. People in same sex unions do not access the rights given to the married people.

Gay couples have faced myriad challenges. Most of them have experienced psychological problems associated with verbal and physical abuse. For example, some of them have been attacked and brutally killed. This is because many people are not wiling to be associated with them hence they always intimidate them. One way of eliminating this stigmatization is by simply making it legal for them to get married.

It has also been noted with a lot of concern that HIV/AIDS is spreading among the gay people because they operate illegally. Marriage would make this people more faithful to their partners. This can reduce the chances of them contracting HIV/AIDS because they will be more responsible.

From the above argument it is very clear that many countries and individuals are increasingly accepting the fact that gay relationships are equally good. It is therefore important for people to stop being conservative only when it comes to marriage, yet they accept other serious changes that take place in their society.

For example, if abortion can be legalized, why no not gay marriages? “Legalizing gay marriages will probably make the social economic and political institutions in our societies more effective” (Smith, 2010). This is because people will have similar goals, and they will not have differences based on sexual orientation. I am therefore optimistic that in the near future many people will support same sex relationships.

Acevado, G., & Wada, R. (2011). Religion and attitudes toward same sex marriages among U.S. Latinos. Wiley -Blackwell Social Science Quarterly , 92, 35-56.

Benard, S. (2009). Heterosexual previlage awareness, previlage and support of gay marriage among diversity course students. EBSCOhost Journal , 58, 3-7.

Dziengel, L. (2010). Advocacy coalitions and punctuated equilibriam in the same sex marriage debate: learning from pro-LGBT policy changes in Minneapolis and Minnesota. Journal of Gay and Lesbian services , 22, 165-182.

Farrior, S. (2009). Human rights advocacy on gender issues: challanges and opportunites. Oxford Journal of Human Rights Practice , 1, 83-100.

Goldberg, A. (2010). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: research on the family life cycle. Claiming a place at the family table: gay and lesbian families in the 21st century , 72, 230-233.

Haider, D., & Joslyn, M. (2008). Belives about the origin of homosexuality and support for gay rights. Oxford Journals public Opinion Quarterly , 72, 291-310.

Ronner, A. (2005). Homophobia and the law (law and public policy). New York: American Psychological Association.

Smith, M. (2010). Gender politics and same sex marriage debate in the United States. Oxford Jourrnals Social Politics , 17, 1-28.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, April 1). Marriage Equality: Same-Sex Marriage. https://ivypanda.com/essays/same-sex-marriage-2/

"Marriage Equality: Same-Sex Marriage." IvyPanda , 1 Apr. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/same-sex-marriage-2/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Marriage Equality: Same-Sex Marriage'. 1 April.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Marriage Equality: Same-Sex Marriage." April 1, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/same-sex-marriage-2/.

1. IvyPanda . "Marriage Equality: Same-Sex Marriage." April 1, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/same-sex-marriage-2/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Marriage Equality: Same-Sex Marriage." April 1, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/same-sex-marriage-2/.

• Gay Marriage and Parenting
• Arguments for Supporting Same-Sex Marriage
• Factors Influencing Perception on Same-sex marriage in the American Society
• Why Gay Marriage Should Not Be Legal
• Gay Marriage Legalization
• Balancing Studies, Work, and Family Life
• Emotions and reasoning
• Correlation Between Multiple Pregnancies and Postpartum Depression or Psychosis

Japan court OKs family name change for man in same-sex relationship

A Japanese family court has allowed a man living with a same-sex partner to adopt the same family name as his partner, judging that the two are in a relationship similar to marriage, the man said Thursday.

The man in his 30s, who wished to be referred to by the pseudonym Akikazu Takami, said he was happy that the Nagoya Family Court in its March 14 ruling had dealt with the issue "sincerely."

Takami's lawyer said such a decision accepting a surname change for a same-sex couple on the basis that they are judged to be in a marriage-like relationship is "rare."

"The decision is expected to broaden options (for same-sex couples) at a time same-sex marriages are not currently recognized" in Japan, the lawyer said.

In Japan, same-sex marriages or civil unions are not legally recognized. The country's Civil Code, meanwhile, requires a married couple to share a surname.

In its decision, the court's Presiding Judge Yukio Suzuki said the couple, who are raising a foster child, "are supporting each other and maintaining stable lives centered on childrearing. Their lives are practically the same as those in heterosexual marriages," according to the lawyer.

Noting that some foreign countries recognize same-sex marriage and that there is growing awareness about same-sex couples in Japan, the judge said, "It is socially acceptable to provide the same level of legal protection as heterosexual couples to a certain degree, to the extent that the current law permits."

Takami, who filed for a surname change with the court in November last year, lives in Aichi Prefecture in central Japan with another man in his 30s who asked to be referred to by the pseudonym Toshimasa Ono, according to the lawyer.

Takami is the foster parent on official documents, while he has not disclosed his sexual orientation to people around him, the lawyer said.

In court proceedings, Takami said he was afraid he would be forced to explain his relationship with his partner during times of emergency, such as if he needed to visit his child at a hospital.

Ono and Takami are also the plaintiffs in a separate lawsuit filed at the Nagoya District Court, where they are arguing that the lack of legal recognition of same-sex marriage is against the Constitution and demanding state compensation due to action not being taken to have it acknowledged.

While the district court ruled in May last year that not recognizing same-sex marriages is unconstitutional, it rejected their demand for compensation. The couple has since appealed the ruling.

Related coverage:

Japan high court rules same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

Trans-skeptical U.S. book finds new Japan publisher

China's sexual minorities suffering violence in "conversion therapy"

May 9, 2024 | KYODO NEWS

Trains restart at Kyoto Station after report of suspicious items

May 5, 2024 | KYODO NEWS

Japan, Germany may hold 1st joint land force exercise next year

May 6, 2024 | KYODO NEWS

Japan disappointed by Biden's "xenophobic" comments

May 4, 2024 | KYODO NEWS

Japan, Brazil agree to jointly protect Amazon rainforest

Japan probing video of msdf ship possibly taken by unauthorized drone.

More from Japan

Kyodo News Digest: May 10, 2024

May 10, 2024 | KYODO NEWS

Gov't panel members see weak yen risks, urge proper BOJ response

Japan and beyond: Week in Photos - May 4-10

Japanese assemblyman quits over harassment of Aussie mayor's daughter

Nuclear waste site survey to go ahead in southwestern Japan town

Japan enacts revised law for swift removal of defamatory online posts

Japan logs record 25.34 tril. yen current account surplus for FY 2023

Japan basketball body not to restore license of convicted coach

Subscribe to get daily news.

To have the latest news and stories delivered to your inbox, subscribe here. Simply enter your email address below and an email will be sent through which to complete your subscription.

* Something went wrong

Please check your inbox for a confirmation email.

If you wish to change your message, press 'Cancel' to go back and edit.

Thank you for reaching out to us. We will get back to you as soon as possible.

Thousands Believe Covid Vaccines Harmed Them. Is Anyone Listening?

All vaccines have at least occasional side effects. But people who say they were injured by Covid vaccines believe their cases have been ignored.

Shaun Barcavage, 54, a nurse practitioner in New York City, said that ever since his first Covid shot, standing up has sent his heart racing. Credit... Hannah Yoon for The New York Times

Supported by

• Share full article

By Apoorva Mandavilli

Apoorva Mandavilli spent more than a year talking to dozens of experts in vaccine science, policymakers and people who said they had experienced serious side effects after receiving a Covid-19 vaccine.

• Published May 3, 2024 Updated May 4, 2024

Within minutes of getting the Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine, Michelle Zimmerman felt pain racing from her left arm up to her ear and down to her fingertips. Within days, she was unbearably sensitive to light and struggled to remember simple facts.

She was 37, with a Ph.D. in neuroscience, and until then could ride her bicycle 20 miles, teach a dance class and give a lecture on artificial intelligence, all in the same day. Now, more than three years later, she lives with her parents. Eventually diagnosed with brain damage, she cannot work, drive or even stand for long periods of time.

“When I let myself think about the devastation of what this has done to my life, and how much I’ve lost, sometimes it feels even too hard to comprehend,” said Dr. Zimmerman, who believes her injury is due to a contaminated vaccine batch .

The Covid vaccines, a triumph of science and public health, are estimated to have prevented millions of hospitalizations and deaths . Yet even the best vaccines produce rare but serious side effects . And the Covid vaccines have been given to more than 270 million people in the United States, in nearly 677 million doses .

Dr. Zimmerman’s account is among the more harrowing, but thousands of Americans believe they suffered serious side effects following Covid vaccination. As of April, just over 13,000 vaccine-injury compensation claims have been filed with the federal government — but to little avail. Only 19 percent have been reviewed. Only 47 of those were deemed eligible for compensation, and only 12 have been paid out, at an average of about $3,600 .

Some scientists fear that patients with real injuries are being denied help and believe that more needs to be done to clarify the possible risks.

“At least long Covid has been somewhat recognized,” said Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist and vaccine expert at Yale University. But people who say they have post-vaccination injuries are “just completely ignored and dismissed and gaslighted,” she added.

In interviews and email exchanges conducted over several months, federal health officials insisted that serious side effects were extremely rare and that their surveillance efforts were more than sufficient to detect patterns of adverse events.

“Hundreds of millions of people in the United States have safely received Covid vaccines under the most intense safety monitoring in U.S. history,” Jeff Nesbit, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said in an emailed statement.

But in a recent interview, Dr. Janet Woodcock, a longtime leader of the Food and Drug Administration, who retired in February, said she believed that some recipients had experienced uncommon but “serious” and “life-changing” reactions beyond those described by federal agencies.

“I feel bad for those people,” said Dr. Woodcock, who became the F.D.A.’s acting commissioner in January 2021 as the vaccines were rolling out. “I believe their suffering should be acknowledged, that they have real problems, and they should be taken seriously.”

“I’m disappointed in myself,” she added. “I did a lot of things I feel very good about, but this is one of the few things I feel I just didn’t bring it home.”

Federal officials and independent scientists face a number of challenges in identifying potential vaccine side effects.

The nation’s fragmented health care system complicates detection of very rare side effects, a process that depends on an analysis of huge amounts of data. That’s a difficult task when a patient may be tested for Covid at Walgreens, get vaccinated at CVS, go to a local clinic for minor ailments and seek care at a hospital for serious conditions. Each place may rely on different health record systems.

There is no central repository of vaccine recipients, nor of medical records, and no easy to way to pool these data. Reports to the largest federal database of so-called adverse events can be made by anyone, about anything. It’s not even clear what officials should be looking for.

“I mean, you’re not going to find ‘brain fog’ in the medical record or claims data, and so then you’re not going to find” a signal that it may be linked to vaccination, Dr. Woodcock said. If such a side effect is not acknowledged by federal officials, “it’s because it doesn’t have a good research definition,” she added. “It isn’t, like, malevolence on their part.”

The government’s understaffed compensation fund has paid so little because it officially recognizes few side effects for Covid vaccines. And vaccine supporters, including federal officials, worry that even a whisper of possible side effects feeds into misinformation spread by a vitriolic anti-vaccine movement.

‘I’m Not Real’

Patients who believe they experienced serious side effects say they have received little support or acknowledgment.

Shaun Barcavage, 54, a nurse practitioner in New York City who has worked on clinical trials for H.I.V. and Covid, said that ever since his first Covid shot, merely standing up sent his heart racing — a symptom suggestive of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome , a neurological disorder that some studies have linked to both Covid and, much less often, vaccination .

He also experienced stinging pain in his eyes, mouth and genitals, which has abated, and tinnitus, which has not.

“I can’t get the government to help me,” Mr. Barcavage said of his fruitless pleas to federal agencies and elected representatives. “I am told I’m not real. I’m told I’m rare. I’m told I’m coincidence.”

Renee France, 49, a physical therapist in Seattle, developed Bell’s palsy — a form of facial paralysis, usually temporary — and a dramatic rash that neatly bisected her face. Bell’s palsy is a known side effect of other vaccines, and it has been linked to Covid vaccination in some studies.

But Dr. France said doctors were dismissive of any connection to the Covid vaccines. The rash, a bout of shingles, debilitated her for three weeks, so Dr. France reported it to federal databases twice.

“I thought for sure someone would reach out, but no one ever did,” she said.

Similar sentiments were echoed in interviews, conducted over more than a year, with 30 people who said they had been harmed by Covid shots. They described a variety of symptoms following vaccination, some neurological, some autoimmune, some cardiovascular.

All said they had been turned away by physicians, told their symptoms were psychosomatic, or labeled anti-vaccine by family and friends — despite the fact that they supported vaccines.

Even leading experts in vaccine science have run up against disbelief and ambivalence.

Dr. Gregory Poland, 68, editor in chief of the journal Vaccine, said that a loud whooshing sound in his ears had accompanied every moment since his first shot, but that his entreaties to colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to explore the phenomenon, tinnitus, had led nowhere.

He received polite responses to his many emails, but “I just don’t get any sense of movement,” he said.

“If they have done studies, those studies should be published,” Dr. Poland added. In despair that he might “never hear silence again,” he has sought solace in meditation and his religious faith.

Dr. Buddy Creech, 50, who led several Covid vaccine trials at Vanderbilt University, said his tinnitus and racing heart lasted about a week after each shot. “It’s very similar to what I experienced during acute Covid, back in March of 2020,” Dr. Creech said.

Research may ultimately find that most reported side effects are unrelated to the vaccine, he acknowledged. Many can be caused by Covid itself.

“Regardless, when our patients experience a side effect that may or may not be related to the vaccine, we owe it to them to investigate that as completely as we can,” Dr. Creech said.

Federal health officials say they do not believe that the Covid vaccines caused the illnesses described by patients like Mr. Barcavage, Dr. Zimmerman and Dr. France. The vaccines may cause transient reactions, such as swelling, fatigue and fever, according to the C.D.C., but the agency has documented only four serious but rare side effects .

Two are associated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, which is no longer available in the United States: Guillain-Barré syndrome , a known side effect of other vaccines , including the flu shot; and a blood-clotting disorder.

The C.D.C. also links mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna to heart inflammation, or myocarditis, especially in boys and young men. And the agency warns of anaphylaxis, or severe allergic reaction, which can occur after any vaccination.

Listening for Signals

Agency scientists are monitoring large databases containing medical information on millions of Americans for patterns that might suggest a hitherto unknown side effect of vaccination, said Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, director of the C.D.C.’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

“We toe the line by reporting the signals that we think are real signals and reporting them as soon as we identify them as signals,” he said. The agency’s systems for monitoring vaccine safety are “pretty close” to ideal, he said.

Those national surveillance efforts include the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). It is the largest database, but also the least reliable: Reports of side effects can be submitted by anyone and are not vetted, so they may be subject to bias or manipulation.

The system contains roughly one million reports regarding Covid vaccination, the vast majority for mild events, according to the C.D.C.

Federal researchers also comb through databases that combine electronic health records and insurance claims on tens of millions of Americans. The scientists monitor the data for 23 conditions that may occur following Covid vaccination. Officials remain alert to others that may pop up, Dr. Daskalakis said.

But there are gaps, some experts noted. The Covid shots administered at mass vaccination sites were not recorded in insurance claims databases, for example, and medical records in the United States are not centralized.

“It’s harder to see signals when you have so many people, and things are happening in different parts of the country, and they’re not all collected in the same system,” said Rebecca Chandler, a vaccine safety expert at the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

An expert panel convened by the National Academies concluded in April that for the vast majority of side effects, there was not enough data to accept or reject a link.

Asked at a recent congressional hearing whether the nation’s vaccine-safety surveillance was sufficient, Dr. Peter Marks, director of the F.D.A.’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said, “I do believe we could do better.”

In some countries with centralized health care systems, officials have actively sought out reports of serious side effects of Covid vaccines and reached conclusions that U.S. health authorities have not.

In Hong Kong, the government analyzed centralized medical records of patients after vaccination and paid people to come forward with problems. The strategy identified “a lot of mild cases that other countries would not otherwise pick up,” said Ian Wong, a researcher at the University of Hong Kong who led the nation’s vaccine safety efforts.

That included the finding that in rare instances — about seven per million doses — the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine triggered a bout of shingles serious enough to require hospitalization.

The European Medicines Agency has linked the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to facial paralysis, tingling sensations and numbness. The E.M.A. also counts tinnitus as a side effect of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, although the American health agencies do not. There are more than 17,000 reports of tinnitus following Covid vaccination in VAERS.

Are the two linked? It’s not clear. As many as one in four adults has some form of tinnitus. Stress, anxiety, grief and aging can lead to the condition, as can infections like Covid itself and the flu.

There is no test or scan for tinnitus, and scientists cannot easily study it because the inner ear is tiny, delicate and encased in bone, said Dr. Konstantina Stankovic, an otolaryngologist at Stanford University.

Still, an analysis of health records from nearly 2.6 million people in the United States found that about 0.04 percent , or about 1,000, were diagnosed with tinnitus within three weeks of their first mRNA shot. In March, researchers in Australia published a study linking tinnitus and vertigo to the vaccines .

The F.D.A. is monitoring reports of tinnitus, but “at this time, the available evidence does not suggest a causal association with the Covid-19 vaccines,” the agency said in a statement.

Despite surveillance efforts, U.S. officials were not the first to identify a significant Covid vaccine side effect: myocarditis in young people receiving mRNA vaccines. It was Israeli authorities who first raised the alarm in April 2021. Officials in the United States said at the time that they had not seen a link.

On May 22, 2021, news broke that the C.D.C. was investigating a “relatively few” cases of myocarditis. By June 23, the number of myocarditis reports in VAERS had risen to more than 1,200 — a hint that it is important to tell doctors and patients what to look for.

Later analyses showed that the risk for myocarditis and pericarditis, a related condition, is highest after a second dose of an mRNA Covid vaccine in adolescent males aged 12 to 17 years.

In many people, vaccine-related myocarditis is transient. But some patients continue to experience pain, breathlessness and depression, and some show persistent changes on heart scans . The C.D.C. has said there were no confirmed deaths related to myocarditis, but in fact there have been several accounts of deaths reported post-vaccination .

Pervasive Misinformation

The rise of the anti-vaccine movement has made it difficult for scientists, in and out of government, to candidly address potential side effects, some experts said. Much of the narrative on the purported dangers of Covid vaccines is patently false, or at least exaggerated, cooked up by savvy anti-vaccine campaigns.

Questions about Covid vaccine safety are core to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign. Citing debunked theories about altered DNA, Florida’s surgeon general has called for a halt to Covid vaccination in the state.

“The sheer nature of misinformation, the scale of misinformation, is staggering, and anything will be twisted to make it seem like it’s not just a devastating side effect but proof of a massive cover-up,” said Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, a vice dean at Johns Hopkins University.

Among the hundreds of millions of Americans who were immunized for Covid, some number would have had heart attacks or strokes anyway. Some women would have miscarried. How to distinguish those caused by the vaccine from those that are coincidences? The only way to resolve the question is intense research .

But the National Institutes of Health is conducting virtually no studies on Covid vaccine safety, several experts noted. William Murphy, a cancer researcher who worked at the N.I.H. for 12 years, has been prodding federal health officials to initiate these studies since 2021.

The officials each responded with “that very tired mantra: ‘But the virus is worse,’” Dr. Murphy recalled. “Yes, the virus is worse, but that doesn’t obviate doing research to make sure that there may be other options.”

A deeper understanding of possible side effects, and who is at risk for them, could have implications for the design of future vaccines, or may indicate that for some young and healthy people, the benefit of Covid shots may no longer outweigh the risks — as some European countries have determined.

Thorough research might also speed assistance to thousands of Americans who say they were injured.

The federal government has long run the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program , designed to compensate people who suffer injuries after vaccination. Established more than three decades ago, the program sets no limit on the amounts awarded to people found to have been harmed.

But Covid vaccines are not covered by that fund because Congress has not made them subject to the excise tax that pays for it. Some lawmakers have introduced bills to make the change.

Instead, claims regarding Covid vaccines go to the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program . Intended for public health emergencies, this program has narrow criteria to pay out and sets a limit of $50,000, with stringent standards of proof.

It requires applicants to prove within a year of the injury that it was “the direct result” of getting the Covid vaccine, based on “compelling, reliable, valid, medical, and scientific evidence.”

The program had only four staff members at the beginning of the pandemic, and now has 35 people evaluating claims. Still, it has reviewed only a fraction of the 13,000 claims filed, and has paid out only a dozen.

Dr. Ilka Warshawsky, a 58-year-old pathologist, said she lost all hearing in her right ear after a Covid booster shot. But hearing loss is not a recognized side effect of Covid vaccination.

The compensation program for Covid vaccines sets a high bar for proof, she said, yet offers little information on how to meet it: “These adverse events can be debilitating and life-altering, and so it’s very upsetting that they’re not acknowledged or addressed.”

Dr. Zimmerman, the neuroscientist, submitted her application in October 2021 and provided dozens of supporting medical documents. She received a claim number only in January 2023.

In adjudicating her claim for workers’ compensation, Washington State officials accepted that Covid vaccination caused her injury, but she has yet to get a decision from the federal program.

One of her therapists recently told her she might never be able to live independently again.

“That felt like a devastating blow,” Dr. Zimmerman said. “But I’m trying not to lose hope there will someday be a treatment and a way to cover it.”

Apoorva Mandavilli is a reporter focused on science and global health. She was a part of the team that won the 2021 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for coverage of the pandemic. More about Apoorva Mandavilli

Advertisement