Marriage equality in the United States is a right that has been partially protected. While contemporary U.S. law protects marriage between couples of different races, it has generally limited the union to exist only between a male and a female. This is problematic, as most states have prohibited same-sex couples from marrying, instead demoting them to civil unions or domestic partnerships. White supremacists and heterosexists have both used their biased definitions of marriage as a hegemonic weapon of discrimination against subaltern non-whites and homosexuals.
The ban of interracial marriage by the hegemonic Caucasian society in the early to mid 20th century perpetrated the ideology of white supremacy at the expense of non-whites. Anti-miscegenation laws prevented whites from marrying non-whites. These Draconian laws were discriminatory to both white and non-whites as it restricted their fundamental right to marriage. However, the people most stigmatized by this law were minorities because of the pervasively racist climate in America at the time. As Peggy Pascoe states in “Miscegenation Law and Ideologies of Race,” anti-miscegenation laws were the “ultimate sanction of the American system of white supremacy” (Pascoe 49). Adding fuel to the system was scientific racism, a concept prevalent in the late 19th through early 20th century based on fraudulent and often contradictory evidence of racial inferiority. This form of pseudoscience is evident in court cases involving miscegenation proceeding Loving v. Virginia such as Kirby v. Kirby. Kirby v. Kirby, as noted by historian Peggy Pascoe, was a case heavily influenced by scientific racism as the courts determined the race of the defendant Mayellen Kirby, who was sued by her Caucasian husband Joe Kirby after discovering her mixed ethnicity (Pascoe 46-48). Only when the case Loving v Virginia was brought up to the U.S. Supreme Court were anti-miscegenation laws treated with strict scrutiny and found to be unconstitutional. It is Loving v. Virginia that did away with white supremacist society’s utilization of marriage as a tool of social injustice. The inequality of marriage was one of the most potent weapons of bigotry used to prove apparent racial inferiority of non-whites, yet it is not only been utilized against minorities but homosexuals as well.
Marriage inequality was not only the weapon of choice reserved for white supremacists, but also for heterosexists against homosexuals. In a largely heteronormative society, marriage between same-sex couples in the United States has been illegal, save for the five states of Massachusetts, Iowa, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Vermont (Vestal) . Instead of marriage, some states allow civil unions and domestic partnerships, which have some but not all of the benefits that a marriage is guaranteed. Section 3 of The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) interprets marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman.” Barbara Cox argues that the government denies same-sex couples the fundamental right of marital equality because it is trying to make marriage “an exclusively heterosexual institution” (Cox 143). The attempt to elevate the power of marriage as a privilege solely for heterosexuals is also evident in California’s ratification of Proposition 8 in 2008. The voters that passed Proposition 8 as well as the California government that ratified it were essentially influenced by their extreme heterocentric ideology. However, in 2010, the constitutionality of Proposition 8 was successfully challenged at the U.S. District Court level in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger. It was ruled unconstitutional and is currently being appealed to the United States Appeals Court. Because both the state and the federal government tries to make marriage exclusively heterosexual, gays are forced to choose either civil unions or domestic partnership options in the states that allow them. Cox continues by stating that even the use of the terms “same-sex marriage” or “gay marriage” is not recognition of same-sex couples’ fundamental right to marry (Cox 143). Cox further adds what social ills arise as our heteronormative society continues to use the term “same sex marriage”:
“When those of us who advocate for marriage quality refer to the marriages as we want as “same-sex marriage” or gay marriage, we may be encouraging the courts, the legislatures, and the public to understand that we are seeking something different from the fundamental right to marry that individuals in opposite-sex couples enjoy” (147).
The use of the term “same-sex marriage” and the limitation on homosexual couples to civil unions are both practices that make the broad concept of “marriage” a right only heterosexual couples can retain.
As a result of the heterosexist and white supremacist society elevating their hegemonic ideals over subaltern rights through marriage, they effectively rendered non-whites and gays as second-class citizens, although in different ways. The key difference between the discrimination of both non-whites and gays is that both whites and minorities were mutually disallowed from marrying, thus inadvertently denying a fundamental right to the hegemonic white supremacy. Unlike the miscegenation laws of the past, the denial of marriage to same-sex couples does not inhibit the marital rights of heterosexual couples. Thus, heterosexuals are not denied any of the marital privileges offered to them, unlike whites were in years past under anti-miscegenation laws. However, racial minorities and gays still share a similarity in that the laws influenced by hegemonic ideals turned them second-class citizens because their fundamental right to marry has been denied.
Heterosexists and white supremacists have socially constructed United States law as a way to prevent homosexuals and non-whites from “harming” traditional conceptions of marriage. Despite the evidence that strongly suggests non-homosexual marriages as harmless, opponents continue to argue that marriage between same-sex couples harm heterosexual ones (Head). For example, the language the word “Defense” in the Defense of Marriage Act is a way the government eschews marriage between same-sex couples by reasoning that it is not safe to society. The use of the words synonymous with “defense” is recurring throughout law such California’s Proposition 8’s other name “California Marriage Protection Act.” Evident in the language of laws is the government trying to “protect” marriage between heterosexual couples from an “invasion” of homosexuality or other non-heterosexual orientations. As fellow colleague Jonathan Pardon noted in his essay "The Connection Between Interracial and Same-Sex Marriages," same conception of “protection” existed with anti-miscegenation laws, the goal of which was to prevent interracial mixing between whites and non-whites (Pardon). Such similarities are further proof of how the hegemonic power will attempt to demonize subaltern groups and make them socially deviant. Portraying them as dangerous towards the dominant traditional forms of marriage only adds to their discrimination. The institution of heterocentric and white supremacist ideology used marital inequality as a weapon of “defense” for traditional values concerning marriage.
As a result of the white supremacist and heterocentric society utilizing marriage as a tool of discrimination against non-whites and gays, a deadly binary opposition was created that separated the hegemonic groups from the subaltern ones. The binary opposition between whites and non-whites is evident in the anti-miscegenation laws. Peggy Pascoe argues that the marital court case of Kirby v. Kirby set the tones for modern racial ideology (Pascoe 48). The case is significant in that it introduced racial ideology not through biology, as scientific racism did, but through other factors such as intellect, culture, and morality (Pascoe 48). These factors that determine race still reinforced the binary opposition between non-whites and whites. It is even more unfortunate that while anti-miscegenation laws have been long gone since Loving v. Virginia, the binary opposition between whites and non-whites has not. The binary opposition society enforces between heterosexuals and homosexuals are too evident through marital laws as well. An example is the use of the word “gay marriage” in many laws. As mentioned earlier, Barbara Cox argued that the use of the term “same-sex marriage” or “gay marriage” is not recognition of true marital equality (Cox 143). This subtle use of language proves how society uses the word “marriage” as something exclusively heterosexual as opposed to “gay marriage.” The use of the term only creates the perceptions of gays inferior or deviant from our heteronormative society. The term “gay marriage” only creates a social separation between homosexuals and heterosexuals through the socially dogmatic perspective of marriage. As heteronormative society continues use of marriage to set a binary opposition between heterosexuals and homosexuals, it is only using the same method utilized by white supremacist society not too long ago.
The abuse of marriage equality by the hegemonic groups of white supremacy in the past and heterosexism in the present is an aspect both bigoted groups have in common when discriminating against non-whites and gays. A subtle tool such as marriage turned out to be a weapon of social injustice used against these disadvantaged groups. It is unfortunate that contemporary 21st century society uses methods that harken back to the racist 20th century society. Pervasive attitudes of discrimination against marriages of interracial couples in the past and same-sex couples in the present share few differences but are ultimately similar because the fundamental right of marriage was denied to them by a largely prejudiced society.
Works Cited
Vestal, Christine. "Gay marriage legal in six states." Stateline. April 2009, 2009.
Head, Tom. 10 Really Bad Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage . 2010.
Pardon, Jonathan. "Final Paper-The Connection Between Interracial and Same-Sex
Marriages." 6 December 2010. Blogger.
<http://jpatron808.blogspot.com/2010/12/final-paper-connection-
between.html>.
Pascoe, Peggy. "Miscegenation Law, Court Cases, and Ideologies of 'Race' in
Twentieth Century America." Journal of American History 83 (June
1996):44-69.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment