December 6, 2010
A Painful Waiting for Love Equality
The controversy over marriage equality has been a major issue in the United States for many years. This issue has evolved and progressed by the legalization of interracial marriages, but there is still a long road to complete equality. Same-sex marriages are deprived of full rights that heterosexual marriages receive in society today. Marriage has been defined by society as the legal and sacred status entered by a man and a woman. Therefore the marriage between same-sex couples is prohibited because there is still homophobia of the acceptance of marriage between someone other than a man and a woman. With turndowns like Proposition 8 in California, the struggle for a change seems inaccessible. But same-sex couples continue to pursue their dream of legal marriage in the United States, not only as a civil union, but by receiving their fundamental rights. Politically setting certain restrictions on issues like same-sex marriage, that don’t benefit society as a whole is the best way to maintain control and order. The historical ban on interracial marriages and the recent ban of same-sex marriages are used as a form of legal and social power to set limitations for minority groups based on race, gender and sexuality.
In American law there were prohibitions to any marriage that did not involve a man and a woman of the same race, which limited the fundamental rights and liberties for minority groups. Although now legal, some interracial marriages were illegal until the 1967 Supreme Court case of Loving v Virginia. One of the many couples affected by the ban of interracial marriages was Mildred and Richard Loving. This couple tried to evade the Racial Integrity Act, a Virginia state law banning marriages between any white person and any non-white person. The Supreme Court ruled that Virginia had anti-miscegenation laws that violated the Fourteenth Amendment. In Loving v Virginia: “To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so subversive of the principal of equality as the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law” (Eskridge and Hunter 799). An individual should have the right to marry anyone they wish without worrying about the racial backgrounds of the person. As the fourteenth amendment states, no person can be deprived of “liberty”, in this case the liberty to chose the partner of his or her choice. Other interracial marriage court cases like the Arizona case of Kirby v Kirby, where the “Caucasian” husband wanted an annulment because he found out his wife was a person of Negro blood, portray how the laws make race an important component in marriage.What is the most upsetting is the fact that the Virginia Racial Integrity Act and the Arizona law clearly state that the marriage “between any white person and any NON-white person” is illegal. These cases among others prove that these acts were done in an effort to maintain white superiority. Setting restrictions on the rights of racial minorities keeps the white race in power and subordinate in society in order to have more political authority. By restricting the marriages between interracial couples the government prevents the contamination of blood, meaning having mixed children. The white race will maintain their White Supremacy by not only discriminating against racial minorities but also against homosexuals. Many white homosexuals are discriminated against because of their sexual preference, which proves how a dominant group in an effort to maintain power will sometimes go against their own people.
The acceptance of same-sex marriages is based on American conservative politics and the society influenced by a heteronormative ideology. Same-sex couples have been brutally discriminated against by the government and society. The argument from opponents of same-sex marriages is that a marriage is strictly between a man and a woman, which is the traditional, religious belief. But there might be a more critical idea that builds the opposition against same-sex marriages: the procreation and breeding of children. Barbara Cox states in her article that “The current definition of marriage is rationally related to the State’s legitimate interest in channeling opposite-sex relationships into marriage because of the propensity of sexual contact between opposite-sex couples to result in pregnancy and childbirth” (Cox 155). Since same-sex couples can’t have children it makes their marriage invalid. The government wants couples to have children so they can benefit society economically. A bigger family means more money is being spent and more taxes being paid. Having children is an economic benefit that the same-sex couples can’t provide. In society, gay marriages are not accepted because heterosexists have a homophobia against all gay people. Opponents of gay marriages believe that “By admitting gay people into a fundamental mainstream, same sex-marriage would contribute to the denormalization of heterosexuality, the denormalization of traditional gender roles, and perhaps even the undermining of sex binarism itself” (Eskridge 1360). Heterosexists want to maintain the heterosexual norm of the relationship between a man and a woman, and gay couples obviously do not fit in. Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and (since March 3rd of this year) Washington D.C. have understood that change can be good, and by legalizing gay marriage they have tried to fit gay people into society. But there is still the fear that if we give gay marriages the state’s imprimatur, the official stamp of approval, the dominant group will not have total power and control over minorities.
The deprivation of same-sex marriages in many states has, limited the basic human rights guaranteed by the constitution of this country. Interracial marriages became legal, so why can’t same-sex marriages do so as well? Forbidding same-sex marriages keeps the government in dominant over the gay minority. The hegemonism of the government and heterosexists will manage the gay and racial minorities’ lives until absolute acceptance for everyone occurs. We should not continue the “separate but equal” doctrine now with same-sex marriages. We need an equal doctrine for all citizens of the Untied States.
Cox, Barbara. "'A Painful Process Of Waiting': The New York, Washington, New Jersey, and Maryland Dissenting Justices Understand That 'Same-Sex Marriage' Is Not What Same-Sex Couples Are Seeking." 45 California Western Law Review 139. Fall 2008.
Eskridge, William. "Sexual and Gender Variation in American Public Law: From Malignant to Benign to Productive." 57 UCLA Law Review 1333. June 2010.
Eskridge, William and Nan Hunter. Gender, Law and Sexuality. New York: The Foundation Press, 1997 and 2009.
Flores,Julia
No comments:
Post a Comment