Citizenship, Same-Sex Marriage, and Feminist Critiques of Marriage

Abstract

The debate over same-sex marriage in the United States is fundamentally a disagreement about the nature of democratic citizenship and the meaning of full inclusion of adult citizens in the polity. The facts that marriage has both private and public dimensions, and is described by policy makers as natural and unchanging even as they write laws to define it create confusion among those who publicly contest same-sex marriage. The feminist critique of marriage provides insight on the issue; its critique, along with the questions raised by same-sex marriage, indicates a need to rethink many aspects of the legal regulation of families and intimate life as they affect democratic citizenship.Jyl Josephson is an associate professor of political science and director of women's studies at Rutgers University, Newark (jylj@andromeda.rutgers.edu). She is coeditor, with Sue Tolleson-Rinehart, of the second edition of Gender and American Politics; coeditor, with Cynthia Burack, of Fundamental Differences: Feminists Talk Back to Social Conservatives, and author of Gender, Families, and State: Child Support Policy in the United States. The author thanks Jennifer Hochschild for her editorial guidance. Thanks also to the three anonymous reviewers, and to Cynthia Burack, David Foster, and Stacy VanDeveer, whose questions helped me to clarify my arguments.

A luta pela cidadania (sexual): o dilema italiano entre “natureza e cultura”

“…However, as was pointed out in our textual analysis, there is another faction within the LGBTQ movement that has shifted from a "critical approach" toward a claim of universal citizenship (in the sense of a guarantee of access to rights by virtue of citizenship). This part of the movement reaffirms a refusal to be incorporated into and to conform to the existing patriarchal, heteronormative social order (Josephson, 2005).…”

Queer skin, straight masks: same-sex weddings and the discursive construction of identities and affects on a South African website

“…The relative newness of this institution is not discussed at all, nor are the political hoops through which lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) activist groups had to jump in order to attain such legislative change. The absence of any reference to the politics of marriage in South Africa, together with the repeated use of the word 'lifetime' (which implies that each lifetime will witness a wedding), contribute to make the institution of samesex marriage appear natural and thus apolitical (see also Josephson 2005).…”

“…Whilst the relationship between women and their children is constructed as natural and purely biological, marriage is a way in which fathers are made into political beings. In many cases, kinship laws prioritise marriage contracts over biological paternity, and men's relations to their children are only apolitical and understood biologically when no marriage contract exists to determine paternity (Josephson 2005). Thus, marriage plays a role in eliminating the potential sexual threats of other men, along with the provision of heirs (Mann 1994).…”

Queer Bedfellows of Proposition 8: Adopting Social Conservative and Neoliberal Political Rationalities in California’s Same-Sex Marriage Fight

“…As stated, there are several economic and social rights and privileges that are allocated through marriage, including access to partner employment and health benefits, welfare bonuses, medical information and decision rights, adoption and second parent rights, parental leave benefits, and immigration and travel privileges (Josephson, 2005).…”

“…Gay conservatives such as Andrew Sullivan and Bruce Bawer claim that the erasure of sexuality is a necessary and positive outcome of the legalization of same-sex marriage. The institution of marriage, they argue, will serve to civilize and regulate homosexuals according to the heterosexual values of monogamy, life-long commitment, private dependence and economic self-sufficiency (Bell & Binnie, 2000;Josephson, 2005). Thus, through the structure of marriage, homosexuals can and will assume the same civil responsibilities of their heterosexual counterparts and sexuality will become a matter of private concern.…”