Same-Sex Desire: Then and Now

In the Supreme Court case, Obergefell v. Hodges, Justice Kennedy ruled that under the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, all states must license and recognize marriages between same-sex couples in the same way as straight couples are able to be licensed and recognized (Kennedy 1). Kennedy held that the Constitution’s promise of liberty to all in the Due Process Clause includes the freedom to marry someone of the same sex and bring up children (Kennedy 14). He also invokes the Equal Protection Clause, in saying that it can “help to identify and correct inequalities in the institution of marriage,” such as that with the case of same-sex marriage (Kennedy 21). While the institution of marriage had once been thought of to solely be between one man and one woman, that idea had changed, and according to Kennedy, the Equal Protection Clause could be used to protect groups who were discriminated against or who did not have equal protection under the law, such as same-sex couples who were seeking out marriage.

Justice Scalia dissented from the majority opinion of the Court due to his belief that the Fourteenth Amendment could not extend to a requirement of states to recognize and license marriages between two people of the same sex. In his eyes, marriage was not debated when the Fourteenth Amendment was actually written, so it should not be used as a basis to make the decision to allow same-sex marriage (Scalia 4). Scalia believed that this was an example of the judicial overreach of the court because it was a very unrepresentative Court who made the ultimate decision about same-sex marriage (Scalia 6).

In my opinion, Kennedy’s main argument that gay marriage is protected under the Due Process Clause sounded like a very far stretch from what was actually written in the Constitution. In this respect, I agree with Scalia that the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment should not be extended to a protection of same-sex marriage because it simply does not make sense. His other argument about the Equal Protection Clause is a much more valid argument but he spends much less time with it. While I do believe that it was a monumental decision in American and queer history, I do think that much of Kennedy’s argument was an over-reach, especially in regards to the Due Process Clause.

In the article What’s Next for the LGBT Movement? Urvashi Vaid, Lisa Duggan, Tamara Metz, and Amber Hollibaugh wrote about different issues that were occurring in the LGBT movement in 2013. In particular, Vaid talked about the strength, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats that the LGBT movement experienced in the United States.

First, she mentioned that there are millions of LGBT people and others who “vote progressive,” this generated the world to be more developed (Vaid 2013, 2). A strength about this is that people are open minded about issues than ever before. Vaid wrote, “Young people’s attitude trend strongly for equality,” meaning that a larger movement from the young generation advocate for acceptance of people’s differences (Vaid 2013, 2).

Next, she discussed some weaknesses that are in the queer movement. For example, there are not much representation for transgender people, people of color, or others in queer communities. It is important to have representation of all kinds of people so that everybody feels accepted and recognized. Another issue not being addressed is that only few people contribute their “time or money to queer organizations and LGBT advocacy groups” (Vaid 2013, 2). Without people giving their time to LGBT organizations, there will not be fast improvements.

Then, Vaid continued talking about new opportunities. For example, having a movement on “sexual orientation and gender identity issues” (Vaid 2013, 3). This is important because people acknowledge all kinds of identities that exist. There are also new organizations that address issues of sexuality, gender, race, and poverty. It is crucial that there is a system in which minorities are able to receive help because they won’t feel alone or hopeless. Social media is also a new structure that allows movements to begin, and a safe place where queers can express themselves.

Finally, although there are new perspective on LGBT people, Vaid mentioned about the threats they still experience. Religious and political groups have continued to target LGBT people and their rights to sexual freedom. There are still many people who believe in the “national culture” and do not like when there are changes (Vaid 2013, 4). Some LGBT people still live with fear because not many are able to hold hands with their partners in public without receiving negative glares from others or even get assaulted.

Overall, Urvashi Veid argues that while there are still many changes that have happened in the LGBT movement, LGBT people are still oppressed and there is still more work ahead that needs to be done.

The Pride Parade takes place towards the end of June every year, celebrating the anniversary of the Stonewall rebellion. Ideally, this is where the community comes together and celebrates “being out and proud.” There are Pride marches in almost all of the major cities: from cities on the east coast, like NYC and Washington DC, to cities like Los Angles, located on the west coast. However, some members of the LGBTQ community are debating whether pride is a place for LGBTQ people, or whether the activities have been taken over by the corporate society and straights. In her article, Is Pride Still for Queer People like Me?, Krista Burton believes that straight people and corporations have taken over “Pride.”

In her article, Burton remarks that everywhere you look, there are “small children with rainbows painted on their cheeks… gay people holding hands, kissing. Drag queens [waving] from vintage cars… Dykes on Bikes [roaring] past. The riders were topless. Pride was a party, a huge gay party, and [she] had never been so excited to be invited, or felt so instantly welcome, anywhere” (Burton 2017, 2). Despite all this excitement, this welcoming feeling, Burton believes it is a downfall of Pride. She believes that Pride is now a place for straight white people to feel welcome, despite being welcomed everywhere else. Burton thinks that Pride should only be for people who are not straight. She believes it is supposed to be a celebration for Queers and their partners, so they can feel welcome in a place when they might not feel welcome at home. She believes that if everyone were to ask their “friendly local queer if they are going to the parade… [they’ll] get a “nope,” followed by an ‘it’s too corporate’ or ‘it’s too white’ or ‘it’s too cis.’ Not radical enough, too hot, parking is terrible” (Burton 2017, 2).

However, in my opinion, I believe it is time for people like this to understand that Pride is no longer about protests and anger. Pride is supposed to be a celebration of who you are. While there are still issues plaguing the Gay Community and the American society as a whole, this is not the time to angerly shout and rave about things. In my opinion, I believe that parents bringing their child to Pride will expose them to a group of people that are very similar to them. Having straight people show up, and show their support, can be a good thing for the community. Pride is a time to celebrate the work that advocates have done for the community. There is a time for us to continue the struggle, but that one weekend in June is not it.   

In the recent reading we have read, we learned about the progress of equal rights in the community; however, that progress mainly addresses white, middle-class LGBT folks.

One of the main struggles that LGBT people still face is legal equality for everyone. In the article “What’s Next for the LGBT Movement?”, the authors claim that “[legal equality] still does not address the economic, racial and gender-based inequities affecting low-income LGBT folks, transgender people, people of color (POC), women and others” (Veid 2013, 3). Because the people that benefit are middle-class white people, they easily forget that it is not the same for everyone. One of the ways the authors describe attacking this issue is to broaden alliances with people and fight for more than just gender and sexual freedom, like trans rights, racial inequalities, universal social benefits, and many more (Veid 2013, 7). Arlene Stein also mentions in her article “What’s the Matter with Newark?” that many lower class people cannot only fight for their sexual and gender freedom since a lot of them already have to fight for the inequalities they face economically and socially (Stein 2013, 56). Trying to solve or fight for more pressing issues will lead to addressing gender and sexuality better and more equally because not everyone faces things the same way.

Overall, the LGBT community needs to come together and partner up with other people to bring change to issues that are affecting minorities economically and socially. If people were on the same level, change might have already happened. For right now, it’s important that people fight for the rights of transgender people and the violence they face or other marginalization minorities face in general, to help society see them as equals and not as people who are “different”.