the paper i wrote for english 101
Because of the major civil rights movements of the Sixties and Seventies, the United States has been going through a continuous sociological evolution. The traditional roles of men and women are transforming as we come into an age where individuals are treated with equal respect, regardless of sex. For example, in many households, women support the family and men care for the children. More men are taking maternity leave from work, and more women are choosing not to change their last names after marriage, or not to get married at all. As these roles change, so does society, accommodating and adapting to sociological changes. So, after years of fighting for equality, gay and lesbian citizens who are finally being given a chance to gain equal footing under law through marriage face the pit-falls of “traditional gender roles”. Therefore, to deny same-sex couples the right to marry is unconstitutional because it restricts gays and lesbians from being afforded equal rights and protections under the law based on narrow and out-dated gender conventions.
The issue of same-sex marriage surfaced in the mid-Nineties. Alaska and Hawaii were first to pass state amendments that banned same-sex marriage, and, according to Karen Ann Gajewski, Nebraska and Nevada were the first to pass such amendments in the new millennium. In November of 2004, eleven states voted anti-gay marriage amendments into their state constitutions and, in some states, these amendments were worded to include same-sex civil unions. Last week, Kansas voters voted 70% in favor of amending their state constitution to ban same-sex marriage (Rustow). As of this day, eighteen states have amendments in their state constitutions that ban gays and lesbians from being legally married. When the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that denying Massachusetts citizens the right to marry because they were of the same sex was unconstitutional, people rushed to voice to their Congress people their support or opposition to such an amendment in their state. Massachusetts's conservatives soon attempted to pass a bill similar to the Defense of Marriage act, passed by President Clinton in 1996, though the bill failed (“Out”). As stated in a column in the Economist, even the President had something to say about same-sex marriage, stating he would support a Constitutional amendment that would limit marriage to one male and one female in order to “[protect] the most fundamental institution of civilization... [from] activist judges” (qtd. in “Case”). The debate still continues, though many have yet to look at the true driving force of the issue- that issue being gender conventions.
To get a clear picture of what gender conventions are, we must first understand what part conventions play in our society, and how these conventions are learned. When a child is born, they begin a life-long journey of socialization. According to Lisa McIntyre, “socialization is the process by which people acquire social competency and through which the society perpetuates the fundamental nature of existing social structures” (143). According to Merriam-Webster, a convention is “a rule of conduct or behavior” (“Convention”). Thusly, for every social structure, we have correlating conventions; for every status there is a role- and through socialization we learn how to these two major components of society interact to maintain stability. There are even conventions for socialization. Children in American culture are socialized differently depending on their biological sex. The conventions (rules) for one's socialization are evident from a very early age. For example, in our culture, the color blue is used to represent a baby boy and all the perceived characteristics assigned thereto, and pink is used to represent a baby girl and all the perceived characteristics assigned thereto. Because expecting parents must at once begin the socialization process, many parents expecting a male child would never think of painting their son's nursery pink. The characteristics assigned to the color pink are attributed to a baby girl, and because their perception that these characteristics are not compatible with their baby boy, parents choose not to paint the baby's nursery pink. On the other hand, interestingly, some parents would choose to paint their daughter's room blue. One of the greatest double-standards of this culture are that women can act like and dress like men, but men cannot do the opposite without being in conflict with convention. The case of the baby boy's nursery color is a simple example of a gender convention defining what a man and a woman should be in a society. In our modern culture, men and women are supposed to fit a fairly flexible standard of demeanor and behaviors. Empathy and for example is considered a feminine quality and engaging in intimate conversation with others is considered feminine behavior. Aggression is considered a masculine quality and engaging in competitive sports is considered masculine behavior. It is well known that all people can express each of these qualities and engage in both of these behaviors, but it remains that they are attributed to a gender- masculine or feminine. Because these attributions are deeply ingrained at an early age, many do not understand their implications, although they do acknowledge the existence of such conventions. For example, a young boy who exhibits behavior attributed to young girls, such as playing with dolls, is in conflict with the conventions of his gender. His parents may scold him, punishing him only because “dolls are for girls”, not fully understanding the implications of their scolding. To understand, we must ask why- “What about dolls makes them only for girls?” When this question is examined, one will find the answer lies in the behind the hurdles of narrow and out-dated gender conventions. Dolls are supposed to be for girls because girls are supposed to grow up to become mothers. A mother is supposed to do most of the caring for, and be more involved emotionally with the child. To foster this behavior in young girls, their parents buy them dolls so they can learn to be a good “mommy”, imitating their mothers who were brought up with nearly the same conventions. For a little boy to play with dolls and exhibit the same nurturing and loving behavior, he is perceived as being feminine, even though his behavior is positive. But the fact remains that he is only being punished because he is a male, and because of this he is taught that it is wrong for him to exhibit that behavior in society. He may grow to have a son of his own, whom he scolds for playing with dolls, and the vicious cycle is perpetuated.
Because our culture strives for an ideal of respect for all diversity, we must move past the conventions of gender in our society- to treat each and every individual as a human being, regardless of their biological sex, and to make a person's character the most important aspect of each individual, whether or not their character is in line with what gender conventions dictate. In the case of same-sex marriage, while the focus remains on equal rights and protections under law, the issue of gender conventions has eluded many. As reported by Kathleen Hull, many supporters of same-marriage cite that legal benefits such as having a spouse receive health insurance benefits or the tax benefits that espoused couples could receive are some of the few legal reasons why they support civil marriage (635). Those who oppose same-sex marriage cite children and children's well being as the motivating factor for their opposition (Glenn 25). It is widely believed by many that marriage is an institution through which two people can start a family. Many same-sex couples have started families without marriage, but as stated by Barbara Dority, those families are in desperate need of the benefits of civil marriage to ensure their family's well being. According to Charlene Gomes, “34 percent of lesbian and 22 percent of gay male couples are raising children under the age of eighteen”.
The driving force of opponents to same-sex marriage is the belief that a female mother and a male father are essential to the proper development of a child. While research on this issue is hazy, it is their perception of what kind of parents gay and lesbian couples can be which must be scrutinized to discover to what degree gender conventions affect their opposition. Opponents of same-sex marriage believe that two men cannot be suitable parents because of their perception of what a man is based on gender conventions. Even more, their perception of what a gay man is- sex-crazed and pedophillic in extreme views, leads them to believe that two gay men could not be suitable parents. In their view, a man does not have the level of characteristics necessary to nurture and emotionally bond with a child which are necessary for healthy development, although a man may be well-equipped to physically care for the child. This idea is simply false, as evidenced by the many children raised by single fathers. The belief that two women cannot be suitable parents is less accepted because of the many single mothers who raise families, but the belief that some form of “male-influence” is needed seems to be be somewhat wide-spread. In addition, many opponents feel that children of same-sex couples may be more likely to become homosexual themselves, although there is no evidence to support their claim (Moss 103). Overall, the opposition faced by proponents of same-sex marriage is widely based on the hurdles of gender convention that are out-dated because they limit what a person can and cannot be. The Massachusetts Supreme Court justices that ruled on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage were not being activists- they were preserving our freedom to refuse to adhere to such conventions if our nature is not in-line with them. The argument proposed by opponents to same-sex marriage are nothing more than thinly veiling hatred driven by a fear of change- it definitely has no basis in except for in their own reality.
Works Cited
Alderson, Kevin G.. “A Phenomenological Investigation of Same-Sex Marriage.” Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 13.2 (2004): 107-123. Academic Premier. EBSCOhost. Holyoke Community Coll. Lib., Holyoke, MA. 8 April 2005.
.
Dority, Barbara. “An Equal Right to Marry.” Humanist 56.6 (1996): 37-40.Academic Premier. EBSCOhost. Holyoke Community Coll. Lib., Holyoke, MA. 8 April 2005.
.
Gajewski, Karen Ann. “Civil Liberties Watch.” Humanist 61.1 (2001). Academic Premier. EBSCOhost. Holyoke Community Coll. Lib., Holyoke, MA. 8 April 2005.
.
Glenn, Norval D.. “The Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage.” Society 41.6 (2004): 25-29. Academic Premier. EBSCOhost. Holyoke Community Coll. Lib., Holyoke, MA. 8 April 2005.
.
Gomes, Charlene. “The Need for Full Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage.” Humanist 63.5 (2003): 15-22. Academic Premier. EBSCOhost. Holyoke Community Coll. Lib., Holyoke, MA. 8 April 2005. .
Hull, Kathleen. “The Cultural Power of Law and the Cultural Enactment of Legality: The Case of Same-Sex Marriage.” Law & Social Inquiry 28.3 (2003): 629+. Academic Premier. EBSCOhost. Holyoke Community Coll. Lib., Holyoke, MA. 8 April 2005.
.
McIntyre, Lisa J.. The Practical Skeptic: Core Concepts in Sociology. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, 2002.
Moss, Kevin. “Legitimizing Same-Sex Marriages.” Peace Review 14.1 (2002): 101- 108.Academic Premier. EBSCOhost. Holyoke Community Coll. Lib., Holyoke, MA. 8 April 2005. .
“The Case for Gay Marriage.” The Economist 28 Feb. 2004: 9. Academic Premier. EBSCOhost. Holyoke Community Coll. Lib., Holyoke, MA. 8 April 2005.
.
Rostow, Ann. “Kansas Voters Ban Gays from Marrying.” PlanetOut. 6 April, 2005. 9 April, 2005. .
Wheatley, Mickey. “On Being Homosexual in the 21st Century.” Social Policy 30.4 (2000): 36- 42. Academic Premier. EBSCOhost. Holyoke Community Coll. Lib., Holyoke, MA. 8 April 2005. .
The issue of same-sex marriage surfaced in the mid-Nineties. Alaska and Hawaii were first to pass state amendments that banned same-sex marriage, and, according to Karen Ann Gajewski, Nebraska and Nevada were the first to pass such amendments in the new millennium. In November of 2004, eleven states voted anti-gay marriage amendments into their state constitutions and, in some states, these amendments were worded to include same-sex civil unions. Last week, Kansas voters voted 70% in favor of amending their state constitution to ban same-sex marriage (Rustow). As of this day, eighteen states have amendments in their state constitutions that ban gays and lesbians from being legally married. When the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that denying Massachusetts citizens the right to marry because they were of the same sex was unconstitutional, people rushed to voice to their Congress people their support or opposition to such an amendment in their state. Massachusetts's conservatives soon attempted to pass a bill similar to the Defense of Marriage act, passed by President Clinton in 1996, though the bill failed (“Out”). As stated in a column in the Economist, even the President had something to say about same-sex marriage, stating he would support a Constitutional amendment that would limit marriage to one male and one female in order to “[protect] the most fundamental institution of civilization... [from] activist judges” (qtd. in “Case”). The debate still continues, though many have yet to look at the true driving force of the issue- that issue being gender conventions.
To get a clear picture of what gender conventions are, we must first understand what part conventions play in our society, and how these conventions are learned. When a child is born, they begin a life-long journey of socialization. According to Lisa McIntyre, “socialization is the process by which people acquire social competency and through which the society perpetuates the fundamental nature of existing social structures” (143). According to Merriam-Webster, a convention is “a rule of conduct or behavior” (“Convention”). Thusly, for every social structure, we have correlating conventions; for every status there is a role- and through socialization we learn how to these two major components of society interact to maintain stability. There are even conventions for socialization. Children in American culture are socialized differently depending on their biological sex. The conventions (rules) for one's socialization are evident from a very early age. For example, in our culture, the color blue is used to represent a baby boy and all the perceived characteristics assigned thereto, and pink is used to represent a baby girl and all the perceived characteristics assigned thereto. Because expecting parents must at once begin the socialization process, many parents expecting a male child would never think of painting their son's nursery pink. The characteristics assigned to the color pink are attributed to a baby girl, and because their perception that these characteristics are not compatible with their baby boy, parents choose not to paint the baby's nursery pink. On the other hand, interestingly, some parents would choose to paint their daughter's room blue. One of the greatest double-standards of this culture are that women can act like and dress like men, but men cannot do the opposite without being in conflict with convention. The case of the baby boy's nursery color is a simple example of a gender convention defining what a man and a woman should be in a society. In our modern culture, men and women are supposed to fit a fairly flexible standard of demeanor and behaviors. Empathy and for example is considered a feminine quality and engaging in intimate conversation with others is considered feminine behavior. Aggression is considered a masculine quality and engaging in competitive sports is considered masculine behavior. It is well known that all people can express each of these qualities and engage in both of these behaviors, but it remains that they are attributed to a gender- masculine or feminine. Because these attributions are deeply ingrained at an early age, many do not understand their implications, although they do acknowledge the existence of such conventions. For example, a young boy who exhibits behavior attributed to young girls, such as playing with dolls, is in conflict with the conventions of his gender. His parents may scold him, punishing him only because “dolls are for girls”, not fully understanding the implications of their scolding. To understand, we must ask why- “What about dolls makes them only for girls?” When this question is examined, one will find the answer lies in the behind the hurdles of narrow and out-dated gender conventions. Dolls are supposed to be for girls because girls are supposed to grow up to become mothers. A mother is supposed to do most of the caring for, and be more involved emotionally with the child. To foster this behavior in young girls, their parents buy them dolls so they can learn to be a good “mommy”, imitating their mothers who were brought up with nearly the same conventions. For a little boy to play with dolls and exhibit the same nurturing and loving behavior, he is perceived as being feminine, even though his behavior is positive. But the fact remains that he is only being punished because he is a male, and because of this he is taught that it is wrong for him to exhibit that behavior in society. He may grow to have a son of his own, whom he scolds for playing with dolls, and the vicious cycle is perpetuated.
Because our culture strives for an ideal of respect for all diversity, we must move past the conventions of gender in our society- to treat each and every individual as a human being, regardless of their biological sex, and to make a person's character the most important aspect of each individual, whether or not their character is in line with what gender conventions dictate. In the case of same-sex marriage, while the focus remains on equal rights and protections under law, the issue of gender conventions has eluded many. As reported by Kathleen Hull, many supporters of same-marriage cite that legal benefits such as having a spouse receive health insurance benefits or the tax benefits that espoused couples could receive are some of the few legal reasons why they support civil marriage (635). Those who oppose same-sex marriage cite children and children's well being as the motivating factor for their opposition (Glenn 25). It is widely believed by many that marriage is an institution through which two people can start a family. Many same-sex couples have started families without marriage, but as stated by Barbara Dority, those families are in desperate need of the benefits of civil marriage to ensure their family's well being. According to Charlene Gomes, “34 percent of lesbian and 22 percent of gay male couples are raising children under the age of eighteen”.
The driving force of opponents to same-sex marriage is the belief that a female mother and a male father are essential to the proper development of a child. While research on this issue is hazy, it is their perception of what kind of parents gay and lesbian couples can be which must be scrutinized to discover to what degree gender conventions affect their opposition. Opponents of same-sex marriage believe that two men cannot be suitable parents because of their perception of what a man is based on gender conventions. Even more, their perception of what a gay man is- sex-crazed and pedophillic in extreme views, leads them to believe that two gay men could not be suitable parents. In their view, a man does not have the level of characteristics necessary to nurture and emotionally bond with a child which are necessary for healthy development, although a man may be well-equipped to physically care for the child. This idea is simply false, as evidenced by the many children raised by single fathers. The belief that two women cannot be suitable parents is less accepted because of the many single mothers who raise families, but the belief that some form of “male-influence” is needed seems to be be somewhat wide-spread. In addition, many opponents feel that children of same-sex couples may be more likely to become homosexual themselves, although there is no evidence to support their claim (Moss 103). Overall, the opposition faced by proponents of same-sex marriage is widely based on the hurdles of gender convention that are out-dated because they limit what a person can and cannot be. The Massachusetts Supreme Court justices that ruled on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage were not being activists- they were preserving our freedom to refuse to adhere to such conventions if our nature is not in-line with them. The argument proposed by opponents to same-sex marriage are nothing more than thinly veiling hatred driven by a fear of change- it definitely has no basis in except for in their own reality.
Works Cited
Alderson, Kevin G.. “A Phenomenological Investigation of Same-Sex Marriage.” Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 13.2 (2004): 107-123. Academic Premier. EBSCOhost. Holyoke Community Coll. Lib., Holyoke, MA. 8 April 2005.
.
Dority, Barbara. “An Equal Right to Marry.” Humanist 56.6 (1996): 37-40.Academic Premier. EBSCOhost. Holyoke Community Coll. Lib., Holyoke, MA. 8 April 2005.
.
Gajewski, Karen Ann. “Civil Liberties Watch.” Humanist 61.1 (2001). Academic Premier. EBSCOhost. Holyoke Community Coll. Lib., Holyoke, MA. 8 April 2005.
.
Glenn, Norval D.. “The Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage.” Society 41.6 (2004): 25-29. Academic Premier. EBSCOhost. Holyoke Community Coll. Lib., Holyoke, MA. 8 April 2005.
.
Gomes, Charlene. “The Need for Full Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage.” Humanist 63.5 (2003): 15-22. Academic Premier. EBSCOhost. Holyoke Community Coll. Lib., Holyoke, MA. 8 April 2005. .
Hull, Kathleen. “The Cultural Power of Law and the Cultural Enactment of Legality: The Case of Same-Sex Marriage.” Law & Social Inquiry 28.3 (2003): 629+. Academic Premier. EBSCOhost. Holyoke Community Coll. Lib., Holyoke, MA. 8 April 2005.
.
McIntyre, Lisa J.. The Practical Skeptic: Core Concepts in Sociology. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, 2002.
Moss, Kevin. “Legitimizing Same-Sex Marriages.” Peace Review 14.1 (2002): 101- 108.Academic Premier. EBSCOhost. Holyoke Community Coll. Lib., Holyoke, MA. 8 April 2005. .
“The Case for Gay Marriage.” The Economist 28 Feb. 2004: 9. Academic Premier. EBSCOhost. Holyoke Community Coll. Lib., Holyoke, MA. 8 April 2005.
.
Rostow, Ann. “Kansas Voters Ban Gays from Marrying.” PlanetOut. 6 April, 2005. 9 April, 2005. .
Wheatley, Mickey. “On Being Homosexual in the 21st Century.” Social Policy 30.4 (2000): 36- 42. Academic Premier. EBSCOhost. Holyoke Community Coll. Lib., Holyoke, MA. 8 April 2005. .