Disestablishmentarianism – Last Thoughts on Proposition 8


Posted on November 26th, 2008 by Katherine Franke
 6 comments  

I expect this to be my last post on Prop 8 (though I can’t promise it, if the Cal. Supreme Court does something interesting …).

As the marriage equality movement steps back and evaluates where we go from here, here’s what they’d see: Forty six states have barred same-sex marriage either through state constitutional amendments or state statutes. These laws will be very difficult to overturn. So the work left to be done on same-sex marriage, at least in the next ten years or so, will be:

– wait on the California Supreme Court’s ruling on Prop 8;

– see whether New Jersey will take the same road as Connecticut and find that providing same sex couples Civil Unions and not marriage amounts to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (it’s separate and unequal);

– get the New York, New Mexico and Rhode Island legislatures to pass laws opening up marriage to same sex couples (they are the only states whose laws do not explicitly condone or prohibit same sex marriage); and

– wait on the Iowa Supreme Court, which is hearing arguments on a same-sex marriage challenge on December 9th.

That’s about it for this generation. Not much work left doable. President Obama is not going to make this his signature civil rights issue. Unfortunately, the same-sex marriage movement has produced advances in a few places, but mostly we’re witnessing vicious and hard-to-undo backlash in most states.

So what is to be done? Well, we could take stock, step back wait out this generation of state legislatures and popular sentiments about this issue. And/or we could evaluate the strategy. If, at the end of the day, marriage in this country has become a more heteronormative institution than when we started the “marriage equality” campaigns, then maybe it’s time to shift course: argue for the disestablishment of marriage as a state-sponsored institution. If it can’t be had on fair terms, states shouldn’t be in the business of providing it.

Are there lessons to learn here from the struggles for racial equality? Remember when the city of Jackson, Mississippi was ordered in the 1960s to desegregate the public pools and in response closed all the pools? The flip side of that bad penny is where we are today: if marriage will only be on offer in most states on terms that are explicitly heteronormative, then we should demand that it be shut down.

Disestablishing marriage – a radical idea, surely. But not a crazy one. It’s what the Europeans have been up to for years by crafting alternatives to marriage. But, tragically enough, it’s a strategy that may be legally impossible in the U.S. thanks to the same-sex marriage litigation. In both the California and Connecticut same-sex marriage cases, the state supreme courts found that the people have a fundamental right to be married. That means that the state must be in the marriage business, and is depriving all people of a constitutional right when they step aside and leave the solemnizing of marriages to religious or other private institutions. This strikes me as a perverse, or at least, complex outcome of the same-sex marriage movement: that it has established a new legal norm of a constitutional right to be married.

It’s one thing to say that if you get into the marriage business you can’t do so on discriminatory terms. It’s quite another to say that the state must be in the marriage business. These two arguments need not entail one another, but they have in California and Connecticut. And in Iowa, where the plaintiffs have made the same argument.

My beef here isn’t with those who sincerely feel a need or desire to be married. Rather, it’s with legal and political strategies that open up one form of freedom or equality at a price that forecloses another.

6 comments

  1. Although disestablishmentarianism might sound radical, in fact a huge number of ‘people on the street’ quickly agree that the best solution is to get government out of the marriage business. People do not want their relationships regulated. People do not believe that marital status discrimination is in anyone’s best interests. Prop 8 has accelerated and focused the discussion and empowered the movement, Those who want to join the debate should visit http://www.unmarried.org/blog/blog.

  2. The California Supreme Court actually left the door open for the elimination of marriage, in spite of the fact that the LGBT groups argued that the state could NOT eliminate it. I think the groups were dead wrong about that, and I was glad to see at least the possibility of arguing in the future that the state could offer civil unions for all. Here’s what the court said:

    “We have no occasion in this case to determine whether the state
    constitutional right to marry necessarily affords all couples the constitutional right to require the state to designate their official family relationship a “marriage,” or whether, as the Attorney General suggests, the Legislature would not violate a couple’s constitutional right to marry if — perhaps in order to emphasize and clarify that this civil institution is distinct from the religious institution of marriage — it were to assign a name other than marriage as the official designation of the family relationship for all couples. The current California statutes, of course, do not assign a name other than marriage for all couples, but instead reserve exclusively to opposite-sex couples the traditional designation of
    marriage, and assign a different designation — domestic partnership — to the only official family relationship available to same-sex couples.
    Whether or not the name “marriage,” in the abstract, is considered a core
    element of the state constitutional right to marry…”

  3. […] prize, but rather the affirmative goal of our political and legal projects.  I’ve blogged before about the virtues of disestablishmentarianism when it comes to marriage.  On this view, “marriage equality” is a thin conception of […]

  4. […] Let’s work to disestablish the institution of marriage.  What I wrote almost a year ago about marriage in California applies with equal force today in New […]

  5. I found your blog web site on google and verify just a few of your early posts. Continue to keep up the very good operate. I just additional up your RSS feed to my MSN News Reader. Looking for forward to reading more from you afterward!

  6. That you are rightIbrahim: Search together with Yahoo and google this operater: winxp_Graphic remote collection 945GMLit will work okay using your LG R400 laptop computer Remember to help me since my very own Bluetooth enabled is just not doing work. Earlier the has been functioning but now soon after completely new installation of Screen XP the not working. Even though I have tried out frequently to setup Bluetooth’s operators. If anyone can fix this problem, please help me. We will probably be happy to from this point of view. Regards, Younis

Add a comment


Comments are subject to moderation and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
Columbia Law School or Columbia University.

FEATURED POSTS

CATEGORY CLOUD

"Homeland" Security Abortion Rights Activism Adoption adultery Advocacy Affordable Care Act Alien Tort Claims Act Amicus Brief Asylum Bankruptcy BDS Bullying Census Politics Children Citizenship Civil Unions Clinic Columbia Law School Compulsory Marriage Condoms Contraception Contraception Mandate Cordoba House Criminal Law Cures for Homosexuality Defense of Marriage Act Disability Rights Discrimination Divorce Domestic Partnership Domestic Violence Domestic Workers Don't Ask Don't Tell Earth Day Economic Justice Education Egypt Elections Employment Discrimination ENDA Estate Planning Events Family Law Fellowships femininity Feminism Free Speech Gender and Technology Gender Identity Discrimination Gendering the Economy Gender Justice GSL Online Haiti Hate Crimes Health Care Hilary Clinton Hillary Clinton HIV HIV Discrimination Hobby Lobby Homelessness Homophobia Housing Human Rights Identity Politics Illegitimacy (sic) Immigration Reform In-ing Incest India International Law Intersectional Feminism Islamophobia Israel Jobs Justice Sotomayor King & Spalding Labor Trafficking Land Reform Law School Legal Profession Legal Scholarship Lesbian & Gay Parenting LGBT Parenting Marital Status Discrimination Marriage Marriage Equality Masculinity Medicaid Michelle Obama Migration Military National Security Obama Administration Obama Appointments Obergefell Outing OWS Palestine Parenting Pinkwashing Policing Politics of the Veil Polyamory Popular Culture Pornograpy Pregnancy Presidential Politics Prisons Privacy Products Liability Profanity Prop 8 Prosecutorial Discretion Publications Public Rights/Private Conscience Public Rights/Private Conscience Project Queer Theory Queer vs. Gay Rights Race and Racism Racial Stereotyping Rape Religion Religious Accommodation Religious Exemption Religious Exemptions Religious Freedom Restoration Act Religious Fundamentalism Reproductive Rights Reproductive Technology RFRA Romania Rwanda Sartorial Commentary Schools Sex Discrimination Sex Education Sex Stereotyping Sexting Sex Trafficking Sexual Assault Sexual Duplicity Sexual Harassment Sexual Health Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic Sexual Orientation Discrimination Sex Work Silencing of voices SMUG Sodomy Law Reform Solidarity Sports Supreme Court Surrogacy Technology Title IX Trafficking Transgender Uganda Uncategorized Violence Women and Poverty Women of Color Work Zimbabwe

Academic Calendar  |  Resources for Employers  |  Campus Map & Directory  |  Columbia University  |  Jobs at Columbia  |  Contact Us

© Copyright 2009, Columbia Law School. For questions or comments, please contact the webmaster.