As a gay African-American man living in the South, the Supreme Court’s recent historic rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act and the Voting Rights Act carry significant meaning for me. But they’ve also left me feeling a bit conflicted.
Let’s start with the Defense of Marriage Act, more affectionately known as DOMA. Signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, DOMA barred the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages granted in states where gay marriage is legal. On Wednesday, June 26, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court deemed DOMA unconstitutional.
Although I am recently single, I was in a relationship for more than 20 years. And although we were committed to one another, our union was not legally supported, which brought into question simple things like benefits, property and even the ability to be at my partner’s side when he was taken to the emergency room.
Striking down the Defense of Marriage Act not only changed the dynamic for many gay families – it validated them in a way that had been historically absent. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion, “The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.” Justice Kennedy went on to share that, “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”
This should be a good thing, right? So why am I conflicted?
Probably because this ruling sanctions same-sex marriage in 13 states and the District of Columbia, but surprise, surprise, North Carolina – and the 37 other states where gay marriage isn’t legal – is not one of them.
To explain what this ruling means on a more local level, I spoke with someone who is historically committed to equality for not just the LGBT community but all communities, someone I respect: Q Notes Editor Matt Comer.
“In short, the Supreme Court ruling on DOMA changes nothing for same-sex couples who seek to marry here,” Comer told me. “North Carolina still does not recognize, nor does it perform, same-sex marriages. On the positive side, those LGBT families here who do have legal marriages from elsewhere are immediately eligible for the more than 1,100 benefits, rights and responsibilities the federal government affords married couples. That’s a step in the right direction – one that will ultimately pave the way for full equality for all families across these great United States.”
Any historically marginalized community’s movement toward equality has been a process, so although the ruling does not affect my immediate situation, I can see the big picture.
Maybe I’d feel better if we hadn’t retreated on another front – ending discrimination in voting.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 ensured that state and local governments could not pass laws that would deny American citizens the right to vote based on race. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the Voting Rights Act removed a safeguard in monitoring jurisdictions with a history of discriminatory practices. Now, those areas don’t have to seek pre-approval of any voting changes that may affect minorities.
On the one hand we should celebrate a step in the right direction of marriage equality for all couples. But by amending the Voting Rights Act, SCOTUS basically opened the door for voter suppression, which plunges us back to a pre-civil rights era of discriminatory practices and compromised democracy.
Mere hours after the SCOTUS decision on the Voting Rights Act, North Carolina legislators announced a slew of voting laws that would negatively affect minorities in this state, including measures that would eliminate early voting, Sunday voting and same-day registration provisions.
The North Carolina House recently passed a voter-ID bill, a move that didn’t go unnoticed by state activists. Soon after the vote, North Carolina NAACP President Rev. Dr. William Barber sent an email to members to explain the bill.
“The North Carolina State House just passed a bill requiring identification to vote but prohibiting the use of private college IDs as an acceptable form of identification. It’s the first of several new laws the state legislature is trying to enact to restrict voting rights for people of color, as well as young, disabled, and elderly voters.”
Eleanor Roosevelt once said, “Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both.”
I guess my real conflict comes from the fact that I cannot compartmentalize two communities that I am linked to, so it does not matter which one is being marginalized. Either way, I’m hurt.
Related Stories
This article appears in Jul 3-9, 2013.
I feel the same way that you have expressed. The SCOTUS results were bitter sweet at best…but ambiguous as well.
There is definitely much work left to be done, they did not remove the blindfolds they just let us peek.
@Jaybadz I am glad to see that I am not the only one feeling a little bitter sweet at the rulings…smile Thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts on this topic!
@niurys Antomarchy You are so correct that we still have much work to do and I love your analogy of the blindfold. Thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts!
Great article. I had the same feelings. It seemed odd that I was grieving the loss of rights which got lost in the DOMA celebrations. It almost felt like some weird mind trick. Yes, we have so much work to do.
@Ms. Durden I am glad that I am not the only one that was feeling some kind of way…smile It did seem somewhat surreal. Thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts on this topic!
Great article Sir. It’s really sad because sometimes I read things on Yahoo, Google, and some of your articles and I honestly feel like I’ve traveled back in time. It always throws me for a loop to see what’s really going on. I sit and scratch my head and I’m like what year is this exactly? Am I going to try and walk in to one of my favorite diners and see a sign telling me I’m not able to dine there anymore. With some of the foolishness going on I wouldn’t be surprised if some place in some little town right now didn’t have one of those signs. I always feel like we get two steps forward only to be dropped kicked ten steps back. SMH!
@Tiffene Love Screenwriter. You are correct that it seems things are going in reverse as it relates to public policy and civil rights but what allows this is indifference. We should be outraged when any group’s civil liberties are being threatened it we had a more universal voice of protest it would be harder to marginalized any group. Thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts on this subject!
CL Staff:
How about an article that explores what percent of SCOTUS decisions are divided right along political party lines. How many of the justices are just tools of their political party, rather than actually ruling on the merits of the appeal.
@DLP I like that idea but I will leave that to one of my more politically learned colleagues as I typically focus on media and culture. I think it would be great to see that topic explored. Thank you for reading and your suggestion!
@ DLP,
Pretty sure the majority of SCOTUS decisions are unanimous. They just don’t media attention like DOMA or VRA.
@ Charles Easley,
I wish your “discomfort” was seated in the fact that 1,100 benefits are granted to married people that aren’t granted to single people. You (black, gay, single) are entitled to exactly the same rights as I (white, straight, married). In the DOMA ruling, J. Kennedy writes, “DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty.” The problem is that the 1,100 federal benefits given to marrieds do the same.
The DOMA ruling is very troubling in that it (a) ignores the Founders’ core principle that INDIVIDUALS are endowed with equal rights; (b) recognizes government as the arbiter/licenser of marriage. You probably know that the most aggressive campaign to require “marriage licenses” came after the Civil War in an attempt to prevent “mixed-race” (I put race in quotes because I only acknowledge the human race) marriages.
PS: I am a “Ron Paul Republican” who voted against Amendment One.
PPS: The root issue in the DOMA case was Ms. Windsor’s desire to avoid the Estate Tax on an inheritance from her spouse of over $3 million. The irony therefore is that had Ms. Windsor been straight, she’d have been vilified as “a greedy one-percenter unwilling to pay her fair share”.