Displacing and Nondisplacing Movements

2021 ◽  
pp. 228-239
Author(s):  
Michael J. Rosenfeld
Keyword(s):  
Social Change ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
School Integration ◽  
Marriage Equality ◽  
Social Changes ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Lgbt People ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S

Chapter 17 contrasts the rapid adoption of marriage equality everywhere in the U.S. with the more than sixty years of resistance to school integration. The difference owes a lot to the fact that marriage equality is a nondisplacing movement, meaning no one lost their right to marry when same-sex couples gained the right to marry. In contrast, school integration was a displacing social change. Displacing social changes are harder to achieve and harder to complete. Chapter 17 discusses the Bostock v. Clayton County Supreme Court decision of 2020, which expanded workplace protections to gay, lesbian, and transgender workers everywhere in the U.S. Workplace nondiscrimination is a displacing social change, which means that even with the change in the law, workplace discrimination against LGBT people will not disappear.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gillian Frank ◽  
Bethany Moreton ◽  
Heather R. White
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The Other ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Word Of God ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Sunday Morning ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Civil Marriage ◽  
The Bible ◽  
The U.S

The lines seem so clearly drawn: A white evangelical minister stands in front of his California congregation on a Sunday morning. In one hand he holds a Bible. In the other is the text of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges extending civil marriage rights to same-sex couples throughout the country. “It’s time to choose,” he thunders to thousands of believers in the stadium-style worship center. “Will we follow the Word of God or the tyrannical dictates of government?” His declaration “This is who I stand with” is met with applause from the faithful as he dramatically flings the Court’s decision to the ground and tramples on it, waving the Bible in his upraised hand....

The Early 2000s

2021 ◽  
pp. 131-144
Author(s):  
Michael J. Rosenfeld
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Gay Rights ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Marriage Equality ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
State Laws ◽  
State Supreme Court ◽  
The U.S

Chapter 9 tells the story of Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court decision that finally struck down the remaining state laws that criminalized sodomy. In 2004 Massachusetts became the first state in the U.S. to have marriage equality, following the state supreme court decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. Opponents of gay rights fought furiously to overturn marriage equality in Massachusetts, but once straight people saw that marriage equality cost them nothing, the opposition faded away. Gay rights groups in Massachusetts prevailed despite having many institutional disadvantages. In California in 2008, Proposition 8 was passed by voters to reintroduce a same-sex marriage ban.

Afterword

2021 ◽  
pp. 244-248
Author(s):  
Michael J. Rosenfeld
Keyword(s):  
Social Change ◽  
Gay Rights ◽  
Marriage Equality ◽  
Short Term ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Many ◽  
The U.S ◽  
The Way

Gay rights and marriage equality have advanced so far in the U.S. in the past decade that it would be all too easy to assume that the struggle is over. The opponents of gay rights, however, remain powerful. Readers can take inspiration from how dramatically attitudes toward gay rights have liberalized in the past two decades and how transformative the liberalization of attitudes has been. We live in a world where political lies often seem to have the upper hand. It is worth remembering that despite the many short term advantages that lies can yield in politics, the truth has some long term advantages as well. The way the marriage equality movement prevailed should be a lesson to anyone who wants to make progressive social change.

Just Married

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Macedo
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Gay Marriage ◽  
Public Institution ◽  
Marriage Equality ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Critical Juncture ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
The Right ◽  
Marriage Reform

The institution of marriage stands at a critical juncture. As gay marriage equality gains acceptance in law and public opinion, questions abound regarding marriage's future. Will same-sex marriage lead to more radical marriage reform? Should it? Antonin Scalia and many others on the right warn of a slippery slope from same-sex marriage toward polygamy, adult incest, and the dissolution of marriage as we know it. Equally, many academics, activists, and intellectuals on the left contend that there is no place for monogamous marriage as a special status defined by law. This book demonstrates that both sides are wrong: the same principles of democratic justice that demand marriage equality for same-sex couples also lend support to monogamous marriage. The book displays the groundlessness of arguments against same-sex marriage and defends marriage as a public institution against those who would eliminate its special status or supplant it with private arrangements. Arguing that monogamy reflects and cultivates our most basic democratic values, the book opposes the legal recognition of polygamy, but agrees with progressives that public policies should do more to support nontraditional caring and caregiving relationships. Throughout, the book explores the meaning of contemporary marriage and the reasons for its fragility and its enduring significance. Casting new light on today's debates over the future of marriage, the book lays the groundwork for a stronger institution.

The Courts Begin to Appreciate Gay Rights: Romer and Baehr, 1996

2021 ◽  
pp. 86-101
Author(s):  
Michael J. Rosenfeld
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Gay Rights ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
State Court ◽  
Marriage Equality ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
First Time ◽  
The U.S

Chapter 6 describes two important breakthroughs in the courts for gay rights. In 1996 the U.S. Supreme Court decided Romer v. Evans in favor of gay plaintiffs from Colorado who had had their rights reduced by a voter referendum. The Supreme Court upheld state court rulings which had overturned the referendum. The Romer decision, written by Anthony Kennedy, was the first Supreme Court decision to affirmatively defend the rights of gay people. In the fall of 1996 in Hawaii a same-sex marriage trial, Baehr v. Miike, showed for the first time that the opponents of marriage equality had no scientific or empirical basis for preventing same-sex marriages from being recognized. The marriage plaintiffs won in court, but the voters of Hawaii reinstated the same-sex marriage ban. Hawaii did not become a marriage equality state until 2013.

Getting (Un-)Hitched

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-284
Author(s):  
Brook J. Sadler ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
Individual Autonomy ◽  
Children And Families ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Majority Opinion ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Civil Marriage ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S

In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges. Although I concur that same-sex couples should have the right to marry if anyone does, I argue that civil marriage is an unjust institution. By examining the claims employed in the majority opinion, I expose the Court’s romanticized, patriarchal view of marriage. I critique four central claims: (1) that marriage is central to individual autonomy and liberty; (2) that civil marriage is uniquely valuable; (3) that marriage “safeguards” children and families; and (4) that marriage is fundamental to civil society.

Authenticity, Respectability, and the Desire for Marriage

2021 ◽  
pp. 209-216
Author(s):  
Michael J. Rosenfeld
Keyword(s):  
Social Change ◽  
Social Movement ◽  
Gay Rights ◽  
The Political ◽  
Marriage Equality ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Political Left ◽  
Domestic Partnership ◽  
Gay Rights Movement

With marriage equality victorious, chapter 15 delves into the question of why so many on the political Left, in the gay rights movement and in academia, failed to appreciate how practical and radical marriage equality would be. Many social movement scholars and gay rights activists had claimed that same-sex couples did not really want to marry. Yet once same-sex couples had the option to marry, they voted with their feet and their hearts to get married by the hundreds of thousands. California same-sex couples chose marriage over domestic partnership by a 20-to-1 margin once they had the choice. Some critics from the Left had argued that marriage equality was not radical enough. The success of marriage equality suggests that there may be nothing as radical as a social change that is also practical and rooted in tradition.

The Future of LGBT Politics

2022 ◽  
pp. 34-42
Author(s):  
Karla L. Drenner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Shared Set ◽  
The Future ◽  
Political Selection ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S

This chapter summarizes the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in national policymaking. In the United States there exists a nationally shared set of beliefs, values, and customs, or cultural universals. However, these shared attributes vary according to place and political affiliation. Extending the right to marry to same-sex couples through judicial means precipitated a backlash in which religious groups and individuals turned to legislative solutions to contest the court's decision and their obligation to recognize marriage equality. As the final arbiter of law in the United States, the nine unelected justices of the U.S. Supreme Court play a significant role in policymaking, and their attitudes and decisions regarding policy are tied to the political selection of justices. In the future, decision making from the court to further extend the rights of LGBT citizens may be directly tied to the increasingly partisan selection process for justices.

The Evolution of Same-Sex Marriage Policy in the United States

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Poggione
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Policy Outcomes ◽  
Marriage Equality ◽  
Strategic Choices ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
State And Local ◽  
The U.S

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that same-sex couples have the right to marry, and newspapers across the country declared that gay couples could now exercise this right in all 50 states. While the Obergefell decision was an important moment in history and a significant victory for the LGBT movement, it was not an immediate and complete change in policy. Rather, the change emerged slowly over decades from numerous complex interactions among federal, state, and local governmental actors. These same actors continue to influence marriage equality even after the Supreme Court’s historic ruling. A careful consideration of the path of marriage equality demonstrates the importance of federalism in the evolution of policy in the U.S. context. Not only does the extent of federal involvement influence state decision-making, but state policies also respond to the policymaking processes in other states. Examining the progression of marriage rights for same-sex couples also illustrates how variation in state government institutions shape policy outcomes in the U.S. system. For example, aspects of state courts such as judicial capacity influence the nature of state policy responses on the issue of gay marriage. Finally, focusing on marriage equality provides an opportunity to consider how institutions of government and political actors strategically interact to influence the policymaking process. For example, advocacy coalitions make strategic choices to focus on levels and institutions of government that are more responsive to their interests. Overall, same-sex marriage policy and the scholarship that investigates it highlight the complex and sometimes convoluted development that characterizes the policymaking process on many important issues in American politics and society.

scholarly journals A Consistent Inconsistency—An Interpretationof Sections 23 and 56(1) of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms of Québec

2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 379-403
Author(s):  
Barbara Pierre
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The State ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

The writer advocates the view that courts interpret statutes so as to achieve their aim; that being justice in the case: as between the parties and in respect of the law. This is identified as the common thread that explains the apparent erratic behaviour of the courts in their use of the various methods or rules of interpretation. The Supreme Court decision, Attorney General of Québec v. 2747-3174 Québec Inc., is analysed against the background of this theory and is seen to give support to it. The court is shown to use various rules of interpretation, which lead the majority to a wide, and the minority to a narrow, interpretation of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms of Québec. Yet it is clear that in both cases the rules are merely a means to an end: justice as between the parties and in respect of the law. In context of the case, this means establishing a balance between the competing interests of the State and the citizen that conforms to the law relating to fundamental rights and in particular, the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms of Québec. As far as the State is concerned, it has a vested interest in confirming the constitutionality of its many administrative tribunals, which play an essential role in enabling the State to discharge its responsibility to govern. Citizens, on the other hand, need to be protected from the violation of their rights, in particular the right to an independent and impartial tribunal in matters relating to the determination of their rights and obligations, or charges brought against them. The Charter must be interpreted so that, in its scope and content, it gives real protection, but, consistent with the separation of powers doctrine, the interpretation must not amount to a usurpation by the courts of the role of the government to govern. The writer concludes that the opposing conclusions of the majority and minority are more a consequence of the difference in the opinion of the judges as to the manner in which the balance should be struck, as opposed to the rules of interpretation used by them.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document