Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Sexuality Research and Social Policy
Published in: Sexuality Research and Social Policy 1/2018

30-03-2017

“Won't Someone Think of the Children?”: Reproductive Futurism and Same-Sex Marriage in US Courts, 2003-2015

Author: Katherine Mason

Published in: Sexuality Research and Social Policy | Issue 1/2018

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

In this article, I analyze the state and federal court cases that established same-sex marriage rights in the USA, from Massachusetts in 2003 to the Supreme Court in 2015. Using content analysis, I examine the legal rhetorics deployed in favor of and against same-sex marriage, focusing on how courts interpreted both sides’ appeals to children’s wellbeing. Such appeals represent a political tactic Lee Edelman (2004) terms “reproductive futurism.” Four child-focused arguments routinely appear in these cases: opponents claim that (1) heterosexual marriage provides an optimal environment for childrearing and (2) marriage is designed to incentivize commitment for sexually irresponsible straight couples via procreative channeling; proponents respond that (3) gay and lesbian couples are just as good as straight couples at raising children and (4) gay marriage bans harm same-sex couples’ children by making them second-class citizens. I argue that the latter “children first” positions emerged—in both proponents’ arguments and court rulings—as a response to opponents’ claims and to the structural constraints of the legal system. This narrowed line of argumentation simultaneously paved the way to legal victory while also limiting the rulings’ usefulness for advancing LGBT rights beyond marriage.
previous article Prevalence of Military Sexual Trauma and Sexual Orientation Discrimination Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Military Personnel: a Descriptive Study
next article Sexual Prejudice in Portugal: Results from the First Wave European Study on Heterosexual’s Attitudes Toward Same-Gender Marriage and Parenting

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Footnotes
1
I use the term “same-sex marriage” to refer to legally recognized marriages between two women or two men. In using this term, I do not claim that “opposite-sex marriage” and “same-sex marriage” are distinct legal or social institutions (contrary to the assertions of some conservative litigants and judges); rather, I use the term as shorthand to denote couples’ marginality in relation to “one man, one woman” legal definitions of marriage.
 
2
The focus of this paper is limited to legal discourses surrounding same-sex marriage. While other discourses (such as religious or biological essentialist discourses) shape public perceptions of LGBT rights and identities, such discourses are beyond the scope of the current study.
 
3
I use “lesbian” and “gay” as shorthand to refer to couples of two women or two men. “Opponents”/“defendants” refers to opponents of same-sex marriage, while “proponents” or “plaintiffs” refers to those advocating in favor of same-sex marriage rights. I use the terms “queer,” “gay/lesbian,” and “LGBT” to describe non-heterosexual couples and sexualities.
 
4
Some same-sex marriage cases, including U.S. v. Windsor, also invoke the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. But because appeals to the Equal Protection Clause have been more common in these cases, I focus on that line of legal reasoning.
 
5
Perry v. Schwarzenegger was appealed to the US Supreme Court (as Hollingsworth v. Perry). When the Supreme Court dismissed the case in 2013 because the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case, Perry went into effect in California.
 
6
Briefs on the merits are documents wherein litigants argue how a case should be decided based on legal precedent and the facts of the case (these include both initial briefs and, later, reply briefs that respond to arguments raised by the other side). Briefs on jurisdiction—documents that argue whether a case should be heard in the first place—are not included in this analysis.
 
Literature
American Psychological Association (APA). (2013). Brief of the American Psychological Association et al. as Amici Curiae on the Merits in Support of Affirmance. SCOTUS Case No. 12-307 (United States v. Windsor).
American Sociological Association (ASA). (2013). Brief of Amicus Curiae American Sociological Association in Support of Respondent Kristin M. Perry and Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor. SCOTUS Case No. 12-307 (United States v. Windsor).
Ball, C. (2014). Same-sex marriage and children: A tale of history, social science, and law. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Bernstein, M. (2015). Same-sex marriage and the future of the LGBT movement: SWS presidential address. Gender & Society, 29(3), 321–337.CrossRef
Boggis, T. (2001). Affording our families: Class issues in family formation. In M. Bernstein & R. Reimann (Eds.), Queer families, queer politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1987). The force of law: Toward a sociology of the juridical field. The Hastings Law Journal, 38, 805–853.
Brandzel, A. (2005). Queering citizenship? Same-sex marriage and the state. GLQ, 11(2), 171–204.CrossRef
Carrington, C. (1999). No place like home: Relationships and family life among lesbians and gay men. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef
Coontz, S. (1997). The way we really are: Coming to terms with America’s changing families. New York: Basic Books.
D’Emilio, J. (1993). Capitalism and gay identity. In H. Abelove, M. A. Barale, & D. M. Halperin (Eds.), The lesbian and gay studies reader. New York: Routledge.
Edelman, L. (2004). No future: Queer theory and the death drive. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRef
Faigman, D. L. (2005). Laboratory of justice: The Supreme Court’s 200-year struggle to integrate science and the law. New York: Times Books.
Heath, M. (2009). State of our unions: Marriage promotion and the contested power of heterosexuality. Gender & Society, 23(1), 27–48.CrossRef
Josephson, J. (2005). Citizenship, same-sex marriage, and feminist critiques of marriage. Perspectives on Politics, 3(2), 269–284.CrossRef
Kimport, K. (2014). Queering marriage: Challenging family formation in the United States. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Luibheid, E. (2004). Heteronormativity and immigration scholarship: A call for change. GLQ, 10(2), 227–235.CrossRef
Randles, J. (2012). Marriage promotion policy and family inequality. Sociol Compass, 6(8), 671–676.CrossRef
Regnerus, M. (2012). How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the new family structures study. Soc Sci Res, 41, 752–770.CrossRefPubMed
Scott, J. (1988). Deconstructing equality-versus-difference: Or, the uses of poststructuralist theory for feminism. Fem Stud, 14(1), 32–50.CrossRef
Stacey, J. (1990). Brave new families: Stories of domestic upheaval in late twentieth century America. New York: Basic Books.
Sullins, P. (2015). Emotional problems among children with same-sex parents: Difference by definition. British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, 7(2), 99–120.CrossRef
Taylor, V., Kimport, K., Van Dyke, N., & Andersen, E. A. (2009). Culture and mobilization: Tactical repertoires, same-sex weddings, and the impact on gay activism. Am Sociol Rev, 74(6), 865–890.CrossRef
Trubeck, D. M. (1972). Max Weber on law and the rise of capitalism. Wisconsin Law Review, 3, 720–753.
Valverde, M. (2006). A new entity in the history of sexuality: The respectable same-sex couple. Fem Stud, 32, 155–162.CrossRef
Walters, S. D. (2014). The tolerance trap: How God, genes, and good intentions are sabotaging gay equality. New York: New York University Press.
Warner, M. (1993). Fear of a queer planet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Weston, K. (1991). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship. New York: Columbia University Press.
Baehr v. Miike, 74 Haw. 530, 852 P. 2d 44 (1993).
Bishop v. Smith, 760 F. 3d 1070 (CA10 2014).
Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F. 3d 352 (CA4 2014).
Brenner v. Scott, 999 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (ND Fla. 2014).
Brinkman v. Long, 2014 WL 3408024 (Dist. Ct. Colo., July 9, 2014).
Burns v. Hickenlooper, 2014 WL 3634834 (Colo., July 23, 2014).
Condon v. Haley, 21 F. Supp. 3d 572 (S.C. 2014).
Garden State Equality v. Dow, 216 N. J. 314, 79 A. 3d 1036 (2013).
Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 994 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (Ore. 2014).
General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Cooper, 12 F. Supp. 3d 790 (WDNC 2014).
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N. E. 2d 941 (2003).
Griego v. Oliver, 2014–NMSC–003, ___ N. M. ___, 316 P. 3d 865 (2013).
Guzzo v. Mead, 2014 WL 5317797 (Wyo., Oct. 17, 2014).
Hamby v. Parnell, 56 F. Supp. 3d 1056 (Alaska 2014).
In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757, 183 P. 3d 384 (2008).
Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 289 Conn. 135, 957 A. 2d 407 (2008).
Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F. 3d 1193 (CA10 2014).
Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (1981).
Majors v. Horne, 14 F. Supp. 3d 1313 (Ariz. 2014).
McGee v. Cole, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2014 WL 5802665 (SD W. Va., Nov. 7, 2014).
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. ____ (2015), consolidates Nos. 14–566, 14–574, 14–571, 14–562.
Brief on the Merits for Petitioners Obergefell et al. (2/27/2015).
Brief on the Merits for Respondent Hodges (3/27/2015).
Reply brief on the Merits for Petitioners Obergefell et al. (4/17/2015).
Brief on the Merits for Petitioners Bourke et al. (2/27/2015).
Brief on the Merits for Respondent Beshear (3/27/2015).
Reply brief on the Merits for Petitioners Bourke et al. (4/17/2015).
Brief on the Merits for Petitioners DeBoer et al. (2/27/2015).
Brief on the Merits for Respondent Snyder (3/27/2015).
Reply brief on the Merits for Petitioners DeBoer et al. (4/17/2015).
Brief on the Merits for Petitioners Tanco et al. (2/27/2015).
Brief on the Merits for Respondent Haslam (3/27/2015).
Reply brief on the Merits for Petitioners Tanco et al. (4/17/2015).
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (ND Cal. 2010).
Rolando v. Fox, 23 F. Supp. 3d 1227 (Mont. 2014).
United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) (No. 12–307).
Brief on the Merits for Petitioner United States (2/22/2013).
Brief on the Merits for Respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (2/26/2013).
Reply brief on the Merits for Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (on behalf of United States) (3/19/2013).
Varnum v. Brien, 763 N. W. 2d 862 (Iowa 2009).
Whitewood v. Wolf, 992 F. Supp. 2d 410 (MD Pa. 2014).
Wolf v. Walker, 986 F. Supp. 2d 982 (WD Wis. 2014).
Yarborough v. Yarborough, 290 U.S. 202 (1933).
Metadata
Title
“Won't Someone Think of the Children?”: Reproductive Futurism and Same-Sex Marriage in US Courts, 2003-2015
Author
Katherine Mason
Publication date
30-03-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Sexuality Research and Social Policy / Issue 1/2018
Print ISSN: 1868-9884
Electronic ISSN: 1553-6610
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-017-0279-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Sexuality Research and Social Policy 1/2018 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

“We Won’t Go Back into the Closet Now Without One Hell of a Fight”: Effects of the 2016 Presidential Election on Sexual Minority Women’s and Gender Minorities’ Stigma-Related Concerns

OriginalPaper

Sexual Prejudice in Portugal: Results from the First Wave European Study on Heterosexual’s Attitudes Toward Same-Gender Marriage and Parenting

OriginalPaper

Sexual Behavior in Sexual Minority Women and Connections with Discrimination

OriginalPaper

Prevalence of Military Sexual Trauma and Sexual Orientation Discrimination Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Military Personnel: a Descriptive Study

OriginalPaper

Violating Gender Norms in the Canadian Military: the Experiences of Gay and Lesbian Soldiers

OriginalPaper

Media’s Influence on Perceptions of Trans Women