Search Results

An overview of the formation of one of the main campaign groups seeking marriage for same-sex couples: Marriage Equality. The strategy of this group was to improve LGBT visibility and justify why same-sex couples could only achieve equality through access to civil marriage. Its second strategy was political engagement. This was an intrinsic aspect to ensure that those in positions of political power would implement the changes required to introduce marriage equality.

Chapter 9 provides a background to the formation of Yes Equality, a group dedicated to establishing marriage for same-sex couples. This chapter continues with the announcement of the referendum on marriage equality and an assessment of the campaign in the immediate run-up to the referendum.

This chapter warns that same-sex couples today face the challenges of enduring bigotry—as with emancipated black people who gained the right to marry in the 19th Century, the bigotry that justified the long-standing exclusion of sexual minorities from civil marriage will survive the repeal of that exclusion and fuel a backlash against the new rights holders. The chapter urges same-sex couples to prepare for the ways in which access to marriage licenses will lead to new forms of state discipline and regulation driven by homophobia. It also points out that what the marriage equality cases have done for gay people has not, and cannot, be accomplished for individuals bearing the signature of racial inferiority. In the marriage cases, lesbians and gay men have accomplished a kind of re-branding of what it means to be homosexual—they have been awarded a type of “dignity of self-definition” that law and culture still deny to African Americans. Finally, the chapter cautions that the members of the gay community who have succeeded, through marriage equality gains, in lifting a badge of inferiority that marked them are those who are willing or able to present their relationships as respectable. The process of redeeming the social reputation of “good gays,” depends on a contrast with “bad gays” who do not want to marry or discipline their sexual selves into a tidy couple form.

Chapter 5 examines how Black women state legislators employ forms of Black political identity when representing their constituents, specifically when it comes to groups that are constructed as deserving and undeserving constituents. By exploring Black women’s stances on marriage equality legislation, which, this study contends, is a racialized issue for African Americans, this chapter demonstrates that the elected women have a nuanced view of Black political identity. As in the previous chapter, the chapter incorporates a generational analysis to show that the younger African American women state legislators are more progressive and push back against the tropes of Black culture that construct same-sex marriage as deviant.

Recounting the historic referendum results announced on Saturday 23 May 2015, this chapter introduces how Ireland shot onto the global stage as the first country to extend civil marriage to same-sex couples through a popular vote. Televisions across the world beamed images of people taking to the streets of the capital city and across the twenty-six counties in celebration, in tears and in solidarity.

This chapter focuses on the content and meaning of the mainstream discourses about the living wage and marriage equality as well as how each changed in the decade of its emergence. The book’s hypothesis is that the difference in the way these two movement issues appeared in public discussion is a significant factor in the differential impact that each has had on American politics generally, and the differential outcomes that the two social movements have had in achieving lasting success. This chapter lays out those differences in mainstream public discourse by submitting the text to both the qualitative textual analysis engaged in throughout the book, as well as the quantitative examination that is the subject of this chapter. The method of textual analysis throughout has been inductive, and the qualitative and quantitative examinations are inextricably linked.

This chapter introduces the modern push for marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. The information provided here serves two purposes. The first is to explore a typical and widely known example of backlash politics in civil rights debates. The second is to illustrate the substantive backdrop for the concurrent push for same-sex parenting rights, explored in detail in Chapter 4. Although marriage equality is on the verge of widespread legalization and acceptance, this chapter provides a survey of its volatile and visible politics between 1996 and 2006, in the aftermath of the Hawaii Supreme Court’s nod toward validating same-sex marriage. In particular the chapter reviews early marriage equality efforts, details the context and character of polarization between 1996 and 2006—including insights from advocates and opponents, analyzes media coverage and public opinion, and updates current political and judicial developments.

This chapter argues that while legal equality is now a reality in most blue states, it is still far off for LGBT individuals living in most red states. a phenomenon that remains true even if same-sex couples are able to marry nationwide. The chapter urges that the movement, after marriage equality, turn “back to work” by prioritizing the passage of antidiscrimination laws. It contends that such a prioritization will require two strategic shifts: first, an increased investment in local rather than national lobbying, and second, an increased investment in swing and red states. The chapter also flags two important questions that the movement must address when it goes “back to work:” (1) whether to lobby for limited or expansive laws, and (2) how to use litigation and lobbying in ways that support, rather than undermine, each other. In exploring these issues, the chapter counsels that lobbying must not entertain exemptions from antidiscrimination laws that apply only to claims brought by LGBT plaintiffs and activists should reject proposed laws that fall short of what may be achieved through successful litigation under existing antidiscrimination laws.

This chapter delineates the ways in which marriage equality advocates emphasized the needs and interests of primarily white and well-to-do lesbian and gay families while ignoring those of LGBT parents of color. It argues that because same-sex marriage advocacyoverlooked the family circumstances of the majority, and the most disadvantaged, of children raised by gay and lesbian parents, future advocacy must put the needs of those children at the forefront. It also questions the assumption by many in the marriage equality movement that the recognition of same-sex marriages will help solve the legal parentage questions arising from the formation of LGBT families. It urges advocates not to conflate marriage with parentage. By focusing so intently on marriage, advocates have ignored the fact, for example, that children sometimes have two parents who are not interested in marriage. The focus on marriage rather than on parentage, the chapter argues, has created troubling blindspots for the LGBT movement, blindspots that can be removed only if advocates recognize the need to separate parentage questions from those of marriage.

Researchers studying same-sex couples have become part of the ongoing public conversation about marriage equality. Two broad research topics have been center stage. First, policy makers and attorneys have turned to social science research to answer basic questions about the lives of lesbians and gay men. In particular, are the relationships of same-sex couples fundamentally similar to those of heterosexual men and women and are same-sex relationships influenced by the same dynamic processes as heterosexual couples? Second, what is the social and psychological impact of legalizing same-sex relationships and of the divisive public debates on this topic? This chapter reviews empirical research addressing these two broad topics.

This chapter explores some of the challenges in implementing marriage equality, including resistance from some government officials; the enactment of religious-based exemptions allowing public officials and private individuals to refuse to facilitate marriages by same-sex couples; and the absence of legal antidiscrimination protections for sexual minorities and transgender individuals in most states. The chapter also discusses the possibility that the attainment of the marriage equality objective may leave progressives feeling less inclined to expend money and energy on LGBT issues. In addition, the chapter urges those in the movement to pay greater attention to the challenges and complexities raised by both HIV/AIDS and transgender issues. Finally, the chapter envisions the American LGBT rights movement becoming more engaged with questions of international human rights and the treatment of sexual minorities in developing nations.

This chapter analyzes tensions between marriage equality and religious freedom in the United States using three organizing frameworks. The first, congruence and conflict, highlights a common premise within religious objections to same-sex marriage: namely, that laws and policies should reflect citizens’ religious virtues, creating a congruence between civil society and government. In contrast, the second framework posits a distinction between civil and religious marriage—“civil marriage” as a secular legal category designating an equally accessible public institution, and “religious marriage” as a feature of private morality without the force of law. By heeding this distinction, the chapter argues, marriage equality and religious liberty become compatible. The third framework addresses the role of moral disapproval in justifying discriminatory laws. Chronicling constitutional jurisprudence on liberty and equality, it is argued that appeals to upholding traditional morality are not sufficient to justify legislative classifications that disadvantage persons on the basis of sexual orientation.

Opponents of marriage equality have claimed that the most important social function of marriage is to encourage mothers and fathers to take responsibility for their offspring and that allowing same-sex couples to marry dangerously undermines that function because it delinks marriage from procreation. This chapter examines the development, nature, and scope of the responsible procreation objection to same-sex marriages. It pays particular attention to the link between welfare reform and same-sex marriage bans by explaining how conservatives have defended both based on the need for the government to promote responsible procreation among heterosexuals. The chapter concludes that the responsible procreation claims raised by marriage equality opponents are historically unsound, factually unsupportable, and morally indefensible.

This chapter explores the campaign for marriage equality, focusing on an effort to pass a pro-marriage equality ballot referendum in Maine in 2012. The marriage equality coalition in Maine connected to the social change matrix primarily by harnessing the power of its message. By using the language of marriage equality, connecting to prospective voters, and developing trust on a personal level, the campaign seems to have perfected the art of messaging. A deeper look into the campaign shows that it seems to have harnessed the other components of the matrix as well: that of network and medium. Freedom to Marry formed as a national organization that connected to local organizations that worked at the state level to promote marriage equality through a number of legal mechanisms. They used tools such as conference calls and e-mail to communicate instantaneously throughout the country. Indeed, digital technology helped facilitate the work of the campaign in many ways. Canvassers had iPhones and iPads as they went door-to-door, using these devices to show video clips to prospective voters. In addition, the campaign was able to circulate the stories prospective voters had shared through social media.

I explore the public marriage debate through an allegorical reading of “marriage equality” in Iowa in 2009. Drawing on participant observation with a multiracial group of lesbians organizing a queer community center in Des Moines, Iowa, I narrate the extraordinary moment when the state granted new rights and a new sense of family legitimacy to same-sex couples. Both sides in the political debate claimed the high ground of the civil rights movement as touchstone for legitimacy. I draw on voices of lesbian mothers of color in particular to challenge both sides of the dialogue. I consider, in particular, “colorblind” narratives of equality on both conservative and liberal sides of the public debate. I explore the ways that sociopolitical narratives about white motherhood as salvation for vulnerable “orphans” functioned as an avenue toward political redemption for white lesbian mothers who now have the “choice” to save their children from the stigma of illegitimacy.

This chapter explores the theological and ethical landscape of arguments about same-sex marriage. It examines in turn each of the arguments proposed by the Vatican and the U.S. bishops in their opposition to marriage equality and finds them insufficient to justify the church’s endorsement of civil discrimination against gay and lesbian couples. It demonstrates that homosexual couples can be open to the gift of life, that homosexual activity can be genuinely complementary, and that homosexual acts can be natural in the normative sense. It presents descriptions of multiple Catholic perspectives on marriage equality and arguments for why it will not harm marriage, the dignity of persons, or children. It provides several rationales for promoting marriage equality, including its advantages to couples, families, and society in general—the same advantages that accrue when heterosexual marriage is promoted. The chapter includes a response from the perspective of an African American Protestant minister and ethicist. The response notes the rising ecumenical consensus on matters of marriage, procreation, and homosexuality.

The previous chapter set the stage for comparing the living wage and marriage equality movements, noting that the two emerged during the same time, each out of larger and older movement sectors possessing not only different issues, but more importantly, disparate conceptions of power and distinct organizational structures, organizational cultures, and inter-organizational environments that led to divergent preferences regarding institutional venue choice and political tactics. The last chapter focused on telling the tale of the political emergence, structure, strategy, and outcomes of the efforts of the living wage movement between 1994 and 2004. This chapter explores the marriage equality movement in the same terms, telling the tale of how same-sex marriage came to be as a political issue and, in remarkably short order, also came to be politically accepted on the short list of political issues of perennial political importance in America’s national politics.

Chapter 5 focuses on support for LGBT rights among Blacks and Latinos. In a May 2015 Pew survey, 59% of non-Latino whites (Anglos) and 56% of Latinos said that they support marriage equality but only 41% of Blacks agreed. Whites, Latinos, and Blacks have all become more supportive over time but support has not increased equally or at the same rate. This chapter describes four experiments, two with each ethnoracial group, testing the power of in-group primes, using same-race interviewers or ethnoracial in-group elite cues to deliver counter-stereotypical messages about marriage equality. The results of two randomized field experiments with Black respondents support the Theory of Dissonant Identity Priming; experiments with Latino respondents also support the theory, although to a lesser degree that reflects the weaker elite primes available.

This chapter contends that there are important differences between lesbians and gay men in matters of relationships and monogamy, differences that have been largely ignored by both scholars and advocates. It argues that the push for LGBT rights, and in particular the need to present a unified and sympathetic “gay and lesbian” subject to the courts and public in order to attain marriage equality, has led many community leaders to “closet” gender differences. The chapter argues that the success of the marriage equality campaign may offer greater opportunities for admitting and engaging divergent gender patterns. But it also warns that the attainment of marriage equality may lead to a renewed attack on LGBT people, gay men in particular, whose sexual relationships fall outside of traditional and monogamous ideals. It also argues that there is a danger that some lesbians will disassociate themselves from gay men, given demographic trends showing that the former are more likely to participate in monogamous relationships and serve as parents.