Same-Sex Marriage at the Government Level

Categories: Gay Gay Marriage Gay Rights Pro Gay Marriage

Essay, Pages 8 (1977 words)

Views

Some people believe after the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges–the court case that legalized same-sex marriage on the federal level–the fight for gay rights in the United States was finally coming to an end. What other rights do LGBT citizens not have after attaining the highest civil right of them all? The battle for gay rights in the United States is not over even though LGBT citizens now have the right to marry; in fact, same-sex marriage was just a stepping stone for other battles to come.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get your custom essay on

“ Same-Sex Marriage at the Government Level ”

Get custom paper

NEW! smart matching with writer

LGBT people are still discriminated against in the workplace in many states. Although several Federal Circuit Courts have ruled that LGBT discrimination in the workplace is a form of sex discrimination, others have declined such cases or dismissed the issue in order to not cause confusion across the country as to where, in one region, LGBT discrimination is protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; and in others, it is not (Wolf).

Another issue is the anti-transgendered bathroom bills that have appeared in many state legislatures. Although North Carolina is the only state that managed to pass such a bill (which was later repealed), they continue to be reintroduced in some states each year. In 2016, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam signed into law a bill that allows counselors and therapists 'with sincerely held principles' the right to reject LGBT clients on the grounds of those held principles (Almasy). In Mississippi, a law titled 'Protecting Freedom of Conscience From Government Discrimination Act' allows almost any individual or organization the right to discriminate against LGBT people at work, school, or in the community, based on religious grounds (Miller).

Clearly, the fight for LGBT rights is not over.

Gay rights have not become less of a human rights issue in the United States. Although these human rights violations are not as severe as in some places such as Uganda, where homosexuality is illegal and punishable by a prison sentence and discrimination is prevalent (Dicklitch, Yost, Dougan), discrimination is directed at LGBT individuals in the United States still has detrimental effects. Laws that allow discrimination and discrimination in general have an indirect impact on LGBT individuals in the United States–in particular, to their mental health and well-being. Discrimination or expectations of prejudice act as stressors in the lives of LGBT people and this excess stress contributes to mental health disorders (Bostwick, Boyd, Hughes, & West).

A study on LGBT youth in 2010 shows that one-third of the participants met the criteria for a mental disorder with 17% for conduct disorder, 15% for major depression, and 9% for posttraumatic stress disorder. Of the group studied, 31% had attempted suicide at some point in their lifetime (Mustanski, Garofalo, & Emerson). These laws, or lack thereof, give LGBT people reason to expect discrimination even before it occurs or to just avoid situations altogether where they might face conflict. A lesbian pastor in Mississippi, Brandiilyne Mangum-Dear said, 'You’re being treated disrespect, as a second-class citizen—not even a citizen, an outsider. And after a while, that begins to tear a person down, to hurt them emotionally and spiritually. Rejection is hard for everyone, and we get it over and over' ('All We Want is Equality'). In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1 states that all humans are equal in rights.

Article 2 states that everyone has the rights and freedoms set forth in the Declaration without any distinction of any kind, which includes sex. Although Article 2 does not explicitly state sexual orientation, discrimination based on sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination. Article 23 states that everyone has the right to work. In the United States, LGBT individuals have fewer rights than their heterosexual counterparts and their choices in employment are limited due to their sexual orientation. Public acceptance played some role in the evolution of gay rights. Since the late 1990s, the media has portrayed lesbian and gay characters in movies and TV shows such as Will & Grace as normal people that have the same wants, needs, and values as heterosexuals. Further, celebrities that people have grown to love, such as Ellen DeGeneres, coming out also played a role.

This has more of an impact on younger generations because they have more access to positive images of LGBT individuals as opposed to younger generations forty years ago. Knowing someone that is LGBT has also played a role in shifting public opinion on gay rights. Through having contact with an individual that identifies as LGBT, it reduces prejudice and anxiety about future interactions and allows individuals to see positive aspects of themselves in the person they are interacting with through empathy (Ayoub and Garretson p.1065). Discrimination against the LGBT community and gay rights advocates have a long history in the United States. In 1953, Executive Order 10450, signed by President Dwight Eisenhower, commanded the dismissal of government workers who engaged in sexual perversion and other immoral acts; although it did not mention homosexuality explicitly, many LGBT people lost their jobs in what was precisely a witch hunt for LGBT people.

The reasoning for this was gays and lesbians working in government served as security risks because they were an easy target for blackmail since they were already partaking in immoral acts (Troops, p. 94). In 1956, Evelyn Hooker– at a meeting at the American Psychological Association–presented research that compared the mental health of heterosexual and homosexual men. The results show that there was no difference in the mental health of these two groups. This was the first research that showed homosexuality was not a mental disorder and paved the way for future research (American Psychological Association). The turning point for gay rights advocacy, however, came from the Stonewall Riots in 1969. Stonewall Inn was a popular gathering place for sexual minorities. Police raids happened frequently at Stonewall Inn, which caused those that frequently go to become increasingly angry with their mistreatment; in June 1969, LGBT people 'fought back with sometimes violent demonstrations on the street outside the bar against repressive police tactics' (Kaplan).

Stonewall led way to the modern movement of gay rights because LGBT individuals took a more active approach rather than a passive approach–like in the past–in fighting for their rights; following Stonewall, numerous gay rights organizations were created and pride parades were established to commemorate the Stonewall Riots every June. The Stonewall Riots are significant because it showed LGBT people were not backing down against government persecution (Kaplan). It is hard to imagine the milestones LGBT rights have made throughout the years. Those that fought during the Stonewall Riots probably never imagined same-sex marriage would be legalized across the United States a little over 40 years later. In fact, gay rights did not always prioritize same-sex marriage. After the modern gay rights movement was established following the Stonewall Riots, many gay rights activists focused on issues such as abolishing anti-sodomy laws, passing hate-crimes legislation and including employment protections for LGBT workers. In fact, many activists would have said fighting for same-sex marriage would be an unattainable, losing-battle, which is why it became a shock to many when, in 1993, Hawaii's Supreme Court ruled in favor of Nina Baehr's petition to marry her female partner in Baehr v. Lewin.

Many activists did not want to force change through litigation for fear of public backlash. Even in 2009, in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which challenged California's Proposition 8–a ballot proposition that eliminated same-sex couples right to marry–gay advocacy groups issued a joint statement entitled 'Why the ballot box and not the courts should be the next step on marriage in California' days before the complaint was filed. Because the stakes were too high to stay out of the case, these advocacy groups still offered their support in Perry. Cases such as these laid the foundation for the eventual Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell. The success of all these cases stem from highlighting the consequences of discrimination and showing their injuries in terms of relationships that were just as traditional as their heterosexual counterparts. Showing shared cultural values and relying less on the differences is what has made LGBT equality in courts a success. Using this frame highlights the intimate relationships LGBT individuals can have with each other instead of focusing exclusively on sexual acts. While this was probably the best approach, it does come with some disadvantages.

By focusing on the similarities and ignoring the cultural differences, it has led to discriminatory acts against LGBT individuals because the underlying issues of sexuality were never addressed. Furthermore, using same-sex marriage as a way to increase public acceptance has come at the cost of people believing the fight for LGBT equality has been won (Cunningham-Parameter). According to Cunningham, 'marriage is not simply an umbrella protection that stands above all others' (p.17). He says that some LGBT individuals cannot reveal their sexual orientation at work or even get married until some form of protections are put in place that will prevent them from losing their job due to their sexual orientation, stating, 'What lesbian employee, for example, would publicly exchange vows with her partner on Saturday if her boss could legally fire her the following Monday' (p.17). This shows a relationship between marriage rights and employment rights. Furthermore, the first states that extended marriage rights to same-sex couples did so only after first having enacted workplace discrimination laws (Cunningham-Parameter).

In 2017, in 28 states, an individual could be fired for being lesbian, gay, or bisexual; in 30 states, an individual could be fired for being transgender (Out & Equal Workplace Advocates). Although several Federal Circuit Courts have ruled that sexual orientation is protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, there is no federal law that prohibits an employer from firing an employee based on their sexual orientation. Lawyers in these courts have argued that discrimination based on one's sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination. For example, if an employer fires a woman for talking about her girlfriend at work, the employer is punishing the woman because she is a woman. If the female employee was a male, she would have not been fired for having a girlfriend. Many people dismiss this argument because it is essentially putting a Band-Aid over the issue of sexual orientation discrimination instead of actually dealing with the real source of discrimination. After all, everyone knows the real issue is sexual orientation and not gender; however, the campaign for same-sex marriage also concealed LGBT sexuality and presented gay couples in court as ordinary people who lack sexual impulses.

Although this argument may seem like a Band-Aid to the issue, it actually does shed light on, not only LGBT individuals but heterosexuals too, because it focuses on heteronormativity and the stereotypes that come with it–the gender norms people should adhere to as a result of heteronormativity (Cunningham-Parameter). Although it was once best thought to approach LGBT equality through referendums in order to avoid public backlash by taking such issues to court, with a growing public acceptance of LGBT individuals, the judicial process seems the best way to approach these issues. With those in Congress everchanging and the continued polarization, attempts at legislation passed through Congress may not be the best approach. With regard to LGBT discrimination in the workplace, many people believe the issue will eventually be taken up by the Supreme Court of the United States since there seem to be conflicting rulings in different circuits. Equality for LGBT individuals in the United States is not only important in the United States; the United States tends to have some global influence; and since there are many gray areas in our laws when it comes to LGBT individuals, according to Browne and Nash, other nation-states could be less willing to take steps to ensure LGBT equality as to not have this same vagueness in their own laws and avoid the pandemonium that comes with it.