Marriage equality & intersectionality

IF 1.8 4区 社会学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy Pub Date : 2023-04-08 DOI:10.1111/asap.12342
Russell K. Robinson, David M. Frost
{"title":"Marriage equality & intersectionality","authors":"Russell K. Robinson,&nbsp;David M. Frost","doi":"10.1111/asap.12342","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The goal of this study is to understand the extent to which a diverse group of sexual and gender minorities understood the landmark Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality as personally impacting them. Prominent lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) figures have argued that marriage is an oppressive institution and that legalizing same-sex marriage would not benefit the most marginalized members of the community, particularly Black people. Until now, there have been few resources for comparing these claims of scholars and activists with those of members of the communities they claim to represent. Guided by Critical Race Theory and intersectionality, this study centered LGBTQ people of color's lived experiences. A purposive sample of 99 LGBTQ people in Chicago, New York City, and San Francisco were asked whether and how the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) personally impacted them. Most participants described an emotional impact. Relatively few criticized marriages as “heteronormative” or unfit for LGBTQ people. Black participants were less likely than participants of other races to criticize marriage as an institution. Moreover, Black and Latinx participants articulated a more expansive, equality-focused understanding of the right to marry than the Court itself articulated. They described the marriage decision as carrying the potential to empower and elevate their identities in various contexts. For these people, the marriage equality movement was centrally about equality rather than marriage.</p>","PeriodicalId":46799,"journal":{"name":"Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy","volume":"23 2","pages":"219-240"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/asap.12342","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/asap.12342","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The goal of this study is to understand the extent to which a diverse group of sexual and gender minorities understood the landmark Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality as personally impacting them. Prominent lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) figures have argued that marriage is an oppressive institution and that legalizing same-sex marriage would not benefit the most marginalized members of the community, particularly Black people. Until now, there have been few resources for comparing these claims of scholars and activists with those of members of the communities they claim to represent. Guided by Critical Race Theory and intersectionality, this study centered LGBTQ people of color's lived experiences. A purposive sample of 99 LGBTQ people in Chicago, New York City, and San Francisco were asked whether and how the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) personally impacted them. Most participants described an emotional impact. Relatively few criticized marriages as “heteronormative” or unfit for LGBTQ people. Black participants were less likely than participants of other races to criticize marriage as an institution. Moreover, Black and Latinx participants articulated a more expansive, equality-focused understanding of the right to marry than the Court itself articulated. They described the marriage decision as carrying the potential to empower and elevate their identities in various contexts. For these people, the marriage equality movement was centrally about equality rather than marriage.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
婚姻平等与交织性
这项研究的目的是了解不同性别和性少数群体在多大程度上理解最高法院支持婚姻平等的里程碑式裁决对他们个人的影响。著名的女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋、跨性别者和酷儿(LGBTQ)人士认为,婚姻是一种压迫性的制度,同性婚姻合法化不会让社区中最边缘化的成员,尤其是黑人受益。到目前为止,很少有资源将学者和活动家的这些主张与他们声称代表的社区成员的主张进行比较。在批判性种族理论和交叉性的指导下,本研究以有色人种LGBTQ的生活经历为中心。对芝加哥、纽约市和旧金山的99名LGBTQ人群进行了有针对性的抽样调查,询问最高法院在Obergefell诉Hodges案(2015年)中的裁决是否以及如何对他们个人产生影响。大多数参与者描述了情绪影响。相对而言,很少有人批评婚姻是“非规范的”或不适合LGBTQ人群。与其他种族的参与者相比,黑人参与者不太可能批评婚姻是一种制度。此外,黑人和拉丁裔参与者对结婚权的理解比法院本身更广泛、更注重平等。他们将结婚决定描述为
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Recent articles in ASAP have examined social psychological methods in the study of economic and social justice including ageism, heterosexism, racism, sexism, status quo bias and other forms of discrimination, social problems such as climate change, extremism, homelessness, inter-group conflict, natural disasters, poverty, and terrorism, and social ideals such as democracy, empowerment, equality, health, and trust.
期刊最新文献
Associations between negative sexual messaging in childhood and sex guilt in adulthood Anti‐egalitarianism motivates denial of male privilege Do I have to blame the perpetrator if I can't blame the victim anymore? Bystander responsibility in contact sexual violence scenarios Dehumanization in the United States carceral system: Pathways to policy reform Expectancy violations after moral transgressions: Exploring the role of moral disengagement on online vindictive word of mouth
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1