26.12.2013 Views

Save PDF (1.9 MB) - CORE

Save PDF (1.9 MB) - CORE

Save PDF (1.9 MB) - CORE

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

As with Canada, the United States can claim a long history of same-sex couples<br />

requesting marriage licences. As far back as 1971, Jack Baker and Michael<br />

McConnell, a gay couple from Minnesota, filed a lawsuit claiming the right to marry<br />

(Eskridge, 1996, p.48). However, the scale of the challenge facing marriage equality<br />

activists was made clear in the Minnesota Supreme Court’s ruling, Baker v. Nelson,<br />

which claimed an exclusively heterosexual pedigree for marriage dating as far back<br />

as the Book of Genesis (Clarkson-Freeman, 2004, p. 4). The case for marriage<br />

equality was not strengthened by the continuing legal prohibition of sodomy, with<br />

legislation in some states dating back to the British colonial era. Legislation<br />

prohibiting sodomy remained in force in all US states until 1961 when Illinois became<br />

the first to decriminalise. California followed suit in 1975, though thirteen states still<br />

operated sodomy laws as recently as 2003, when they were struck down by the U.S.<br />

Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas (Bala, 2006).<br />

The relatively late dismantling of sodomy laws has exerted a chilling effect on LGBT<br />

rights in the US. Culturally, these laws have provided a highly authoritative<br />

statement of hetero-normative stigma, whereas in legal terms, they have been<br />

invoked to thwart LGBT equality in a range of policy areas including employment,<br />

housing and child custody. (Green, 1997, p.145). The interesting, if contested,<br />

parallels between legal restrictions on same-sex and interracial marriage in the<br />

United States are also relevant, and it is worth recalling the terms of Loving v.<br />

Virginia, the US Supreme Court ruling that set aside the remaining state-level bans<br />

on interracial marriage back in 1967. Loving v. Virginia explicitly frames marriage not<br />

only as a fundamental right, but also as a legitimate personal objective, asserting<br />

that, “the freedom to marry has long been recognised as one of the vital personal<br />

rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men [sic].” (findlaw.com,<br />

2012 (online)).<br />

The Defense of Marriage Act, 1996<br />

South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.<br />

22

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!