So American marriage law, and the English law that it was derived from, presumed that the wife was both financially and sexual subservient to the husband. In a world where marriage is defined as a union between a dominant man and a submissive woman, each fulfilling unique gender roles, the case for marriage discrimination is clear. How can both the dominant male role and the submissive female role be carried out in a marital union if the union does not include one man and one woman? This, according to Justice Ginsburg, is why marriage was understood to exclude same-sex couples for so many centuries.
This is the blog for History 128, Claremont McKenna College, spring 2015. It is open only to students enrolled in the class. Please use this blog to post articles and links related to the themes of the course. You can also post comments or questions on our readings, reflections on outside events that you attend, and notices of upcoming events of interest to the class. To generate discussion, please also read and comment on other postings. Check back regularly for updates!
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
RBG and Marriage Equality
Ian Millhiser: Justice Ginsburg Eviscerates The Case Against Marriage Equality In Just Five Sentences
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I love this argument and think it's extremely powerful, but haven't seen it used very often by activists. I wonder how it could be integrated into queer and feminist politics in a culturally legible way. Thoughts?
ReplyDelete