Those discussing the pros and cons of gay marriage often cite gay divorce as a reason against marriage. The existence of divorce is not evidence in support of preventing couples from marrying, just as the existence of death should not discourage people from having children. Studies of heterosexual partnerships show that no matter the divorce rate, marriage is more stable than cohabitation.

Marriage creates a firmer bond through social and legal responsibilities. The financial workings of marriage allow a couple to become more economically interdependent. Married couples may own property with less tax than ownership by two individuals. Tax cuts make it easier for one spouse to financially rely on the other. Much of family law deals with these sort of financial matters.

The other side of the coin discourages break-ups: spouses are legally obligated for certain debts incurred by the other. Divorce is more difficult, time-consuming, and expensive than merely walking out on somebody. It also provides important protections for non-working spouses.

In considering the pros and cons of same sex marriage, the cultural pressures on gay couples are rarely mentioned. Gay couples face a wealth of prejudice, including the assumption that gay men and lesbians are promiscuous and incapable of sustaining a committed relationship.

One reason to end the gay marriage ban is that gay marriage would further integrate gay culture into open society. In addition to legal obligations to care for spouses, there are also social expectations that make marriage a stabilizing element in a relationship. Society expects people to care for their spouses and stick with them through difficulties. Friends and acquaintances, family and work mates regularly check in on the health of a spouse and how the relationship is going. Divorce, although no longer socially crippling, is seen as a blow to confidence.

There are protections in marriage that are not replicated in law, and part of the gay marriage debate is about gaining these protections. Without marriage, lesbian and gay couples are not automatically entitled to medical decision making powers and visitation rights at hospitals, not entitled to bereavement leave, not automatically granted inheritance rights or pensions. Unmarried same sex couples do not receive protections as families of crime victims, such as confidentiality of address or the right to make a victim impact statement when their partner is harmed. Partners of police officers and fire-fighters are not entitled to service pensions if their partner is killed in the line of duty.

Gay marriage does not automatically entitle couples to the above benefits, as gay marriage is still a separate legal matter to heterosexual marriage. However, the legalization of gay marriage makes the establishment of these benefits a simpler matter: if institutions do not provide these benefits, it is a clear-cut case of discrimination.

San Francisco tested California's gay marriage laws in 2004 when the city began issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. Although the licenses were revoked, the San Francisco gay marriage action heated up the California gay marriage debate. Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco's Superior Court ruled that California's ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional and likened the ban to racial segregation in schools.

In 2005 the California Assembly passed the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, which defines marriage as between 'two persons.' Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill.

Opponents called the Assembly's voluntary move arrogant and in defiance of a voter-approved law limiting marriage rights to male-female couples. In 2000, California voters affirmed the definition of marriage as a union between two members of the opposite sex.

The law preventing gay marriage is a 1977 law defining marriage as 'between a man and a woman.'

The laws regarding gay marriage in New York have been tested by the legalization in Massachusetts. Massachusetts law prevents couples from states that have banned gay marriage from marrying in Massachusetts. However, a Rhode Island couple challenged Massachusetts courts for a marriage license. The judge found that there were no explicit prohibitions in Rhode Island law that would prevent the license being granted.

Gay marriage activist groups stated that the finding established a precedent for gay marriage in New York. The couple, who had been together for 19 years, traveled to Massachusetts to apply for a license. Before they could marry a 1913 law was used to prevent the marriage.

Anti gay marriage groups often argue that allowing gay marriage, which is against the teachings of many churches, is an impediment of religious freedom. This argument comes from a misunderstanding of marriage and, indeed, the law. In order to guarantee freedom of belief and religion, governments separate the state from religion. Laws are designed to allow people to act according to their beliefs. The benefits that a government bestows on married couples are a part of law.

Marriage, for social purposes, is a civil and religious event. In some ceremonies, the two are celebrated at once, but couples must always undergo a civil marriage in order for the marriage to be considered legal. Religious wedding ceremonies unite the couple in the eyes of that religion's deity.

In legalizing gay marriage states and countries are establishing laws that allow gay civil marriages. It is up to each church to decide whether or not gay unions are acceptable within their doctrine, and establish rites.

Gay marriage has long been an issue for Hawaii. Between 1980 and 1988 gay rights activists examined the state's laws and began building a lawsuit. Most of the struggle for Hawaii gay marriage has been through the court system since then.

In May 1993, when challenged to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple, the Hawaii Supreme Court gave a split positive decision on the issue, but the Hawaii Legislature reacted by amending marriage law to define marriage as between a man and a woman. In 1996, in another court case, the court ordered the state to issue a same sex marriage license, but this was vetoed by the State Attorney General.

In 1998 part of the election ballot for the Hawaii State Legislature included a proposed constitutional amendment to limit marriage to heterosexuals. Gay marriage groups labeled the bill unconstitutional as it limited one segment of the constitution for unequal protection.

The issue of Hawaii gay marriage is still being discussed, but all moves to this date have failed.