On June 26, Kendra Williams’ email buzzed as she was leaving work. An accountant in a mid-sized New York City firm, she thought it could be something important from her boss. It was and it left Williams in tears. “He asked us to meet with HR first thing on Monday to sort out paper work extending benefits to same-sex spouses,” she says. The war for >same-sex marriage in the United States is over, perhaps, marking a watershed moment in the global battle for equality. On June 26, Justice Anthony Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court declared that same sex couples couldn’t be “…condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilisation’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.” Williams and her partner have been together for 34 years and she plans to make the proposal “grand”.
The U.S. is the most recent addition to a long list of countries that have legalised LGBT civil unions. In 1953, ONE Magazine , the first national gay publication in the U.S., asked, ‘Homosexual Marriage?’ It took 62 long years to get an affirmative. The Netherlands legalised same-sex marriages in 2001, followed by Britain in 2014. In January this year Luxembourg’s Prime Minister Xavier Bettel married his partner Gauthier Destenay; the first European political leader to do so. In this context, Dr. Charles Silverstein — who fought relentlessly from 1973 to convince psychiatrists that homosexuality was not a mental disorder — says, “The ruling was inevitable given how many American states had approved gay marriage, and how many foreign countries did so, even Catholic ones. A bit embarrassing for Americans that many countries throughout the world accepted gay marriage ahead of us. It is amazing to me that gay Irish aren’t permitted to march in the St. Patrick’s Day parade in NYC, but they have been marching in Ireland for many years. Stuffy Americans!”
For a country beleaguered by episodes of mass shooting and outpourings of racist rage like the June 17 mass murder in Charleston, South Carolina, this seems to be an assertion of the American ideals of equality embedded in the Declaration of Independence that says, “All men are created equal”. “This is certainly an important ruling and will go a long way to remove stigma, especially for lesbians in professional spheres,” says Dr. Lisa Moore, Professor, University of Texas at Austin (UT-Austin). “But while this will hopefully help create more acceptance, it doesn’t in any way address other important issues concerning the LGBT community like violence against lesbians and transgender women of colour, for example.”
Janice Rhoshalle Littlejohn, journalist, filmmaker and co-author of Swirling: How to Date, Mate, and Relate Mixing Race, Culture, and Creed , agrees. “This is indeed a time for celebration for it marks a huge achievement in civil rights for all Americans,” she says. “However, parity in pay for women is still not equal; the minimum wage still needs to be raised in the majority of states in this country; violence against women and children remain deplorably high, as is poverty and as those dying from gun violence. Maybe we can use this instance of marriage equality as a further example of how we can work together to bring about real lasting positive social change in other areas as well.”
There is little doubt that this is a ruling with many positive ramifications. The most immediate and positive is its resolution of basic legal complexities. Erica Lehman, attorney-at-law, California, explains, “Before it was made a universal law, 30 states in the U.S. allowed gay marriage. So I could be legally wedded in New York. But if I had to move jobs to Louisiana, my marriage would not be recognised. I was forced to stay on in New York even though I found better jobs elsewhere.”
For many, this is still surreal. Anandaroopa Saraswati, from Westminster, California, says, “I didn’t think that marriage equality in all 50 States would happen in my lifetime. I worked on the ‘domestic partner’ campaign (Prop K) in San Francisco in 1990; and, at that time, the legislation was framed in terms of ‘domestic partner’ because no one thought ‘marriage’ was politically viable.”
The U.S. is on Newsweek ’s list of top 12 homophobic countries along with India. Though it’s too early to examine the kind of influence the ruling will have on societal attitudes, there is little doubt that prejudice runs deep. Aabresham Kapadia, a young graduate student at a mid-western university, says he found “better acceptance here”. While last Friday was “elementally freeing”, his librarian whom he considered a friend, was “aghast”. “She genuinely believes that gay people shouldn’t have marriage rights,” he says, a tinge of surprise in his voice. “She strongly believes that we make terrible parents and given time will destroy humanity.” Recently the Girl Scouts of America returned a $100000 donation because the donor said the money couldn’t be used for transgender girls. As Time magazine reported, “Some Americans are using a web service by Rightwingnews.com to add an American flag filter to their Facebook profile photos as part of the backlash against the legalisation of gay marriage in the U.S.”
Feminist sociologist Sharmila Rudrappa, at UT-Austin, views this as a “double-edged sword.” A specialist in gender and immigration issues, she says, “At one level the ruling recognises the right of people to marry irrespective of how they identify socially or sexuality wise. But, on the other hand, is marriage the most ideal way to go? Among heterosexual couples, marriage hasn’t proved to be the most ideal social institution. So why do we assume that it will work for LGBT communities?” Questioning the associations of many benefits tied to marriage, she says, “Most important among these benefits are healthcare and child custody. Without this law, my lesbian partner, for example, might not be able to access healthcare. A question to ask here is: why are so many benefits accessible only through marriage and no other form of civil partnership? Some companies, which allowed partners to access benefits like healthcare, are now pressuring gay employees to get married.” She fears that the ruling might add to the labels associated with LGBT populations. “The ruling might add to the characteristic of promiscuity commonly associated with gay communities, for not everyone wants to be married.”
Dr. Robert Byrd, assistant professor, University of Memphis, echoes this, “The ruling is great for those in monogamous relations who want to get married. But for those who might not be in such relations or don’t want to get married, things might actually get tougher.” Besides, as Rochelle who works with LGBT youth in Los Angeles, says, “People must understand that this law just legalises marriage. It says nothing about increasing resources for LGBT youth who are coming out or those who are homeless and abandoned by their families because of their sexuality.”
The government has done little to support LGBT populations. The country has a dark history of assaults and hate crimes against gay and lesbian people. The Williams Institute says 40 per cent of the homeless youth served by agencies identify as LGBT. Most schools and colleges have inadequate resources to help youth coming out. Already the purviews of the act are under threat.
Calling the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage “lawless”, Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, says state workers can refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples if it goes against their religious beliefs. It’s these issues that raise uncomfortable questions on its scope and future. Whitney Ginder, who thought the ruling was “a beautiful, validating moment”, says its now time to look ahead. A Ph.D. Candidate in Consumer Science at Auburn University, Ginder, says, “Obviously the passage of The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) needs to be the next big priority. The ruling on marriage loses a bit of its lustre when you consider the fact that, in a number of states, LGBT citizens can still be fired or denied public accommodation as a result of their sexual orientation. There is an imperative need to educate those who fear what they don’t understand.” As Dr. Silverstein says, “We have a mopping up job to do in very conservative states. They will do everything they can to prevent gay rights. But these people are dying and being replaced by younger generations who are listening to a different drummer. The tidal wave of gay rights moves slower in some states, but it will eventually wash over even the most conservative states.”
Given the economic and cultural influence of the U.S. in India, many voices on twitter and Facebook urged the Indian government to review sexuality-related laws in the country. But, as celebrations broke out on Twitter with hastags like #LoveWins and millions of Facebook profile pictures appeared streaked in rainbow colours, questions about celebrating what was termed a “US decision” began to surface. Paromita Kundu, a communications professional, was accused of “overlooking the prevalent issues in India” just because she changed her profile picture. “Someone remarked ‘you're already married, so what are you happy about?’” she says. “I wrote a post clarifying that ‘I’m happy that someone, somewhere has taken a big step towards a positive change and I'm proud to celebrate it’.”
While the ruling can be deemed a victory of love or relentless activism that refused to be cowed down, there is no denying that it certainly helped open a dialogue about LGBT rights the world over. It has legalised what is considered a fundamental right while simultaneously extending and underlining the state’s role in the lives of citizens. But why choose marriage over ending discrimination in the workplace, which the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) seeks to do? Is the idea of same-sex couples being together without state-sanctioned sanctity so very uncomfortable? For now, it can only be hoped that this recently won war isn’t a signal for even bigger battles involving governments and common citizen rights.
