Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Sexuality Research and Social Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  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.

References

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, M. (2015). Same-sex marriage and the future of the LGBT movement: SWS presidential address. Gender & Society, 29(3), 321–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1987). The force of law: Toward a sociology of the juridical field. The Hastings Law Journal, 38, 805–853.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandzel, A. (2005). Queering citizenship? Same-sex marriage and the state. GLQ, 11(2), 171–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrington, C. (1999). No place like home: Relationships and family life among lesbians and gay men. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, Philip. (2012). Regnerus study controversy guide. Family Inequality Blog. Retrieved 22 Jan 2016 from https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/regnerus-study-controversy-guide/.

  • Cohen, Philip. (2015). Children in same-sex parent families, dead horse edition. Family Inequality Blog. Retrieved 1 Feb 2016 from https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/children-in-same-sex-parent-families/.

  • Coontz, S. (1997). The way we really are: Coming to terms with America’s changing families. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, L. (2004). No future: Queer theory and the death drive. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Faigman, D. L. (2005). Laboratory of justice: The Supreme Court’s 200-year struggle to integrate science and the law. New York: Times Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallup. (2015). Marriage. Retrieved 30 Jun 2015 from http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx.

  • Gates, Gary. (2012). 200 researchers respond to Regnerus paper. Family Inequality Blog. Retrieved 22 Jan 2016 from https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/200-researchers-respond-to-regnerus-paper/.

  • Gates, Gary (2013). LGBT parenting in the U.S. Retrieved 1 Jul 2016 from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGBT-Parenting.pdf.

  • Heath, M. (2009). State of our unions: Marriage promotion and the contested power of heterosexuality. Gender & Society, 23(1), 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Josephson, J. (2005). Citizenship, same-sex marriage, and feminist critiques of marriage. Perspectives on Politics, 3(2), 269–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimport, K. (2014). Queering marriage: Challenging family formation in the United States. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luibheid, E. (2004). Heteronormativity and immigration scholarship: A call for change. GLQ, 10(2), 227–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PBS. 2015. Anti-gay organizing on the right. Retrieved 27 Jun 2015 from http://www.pbs.org/outofthepast/past/p5/1977.html.

  • Randles, J. (2012). Marriage promotion policy and family inequality. Sociol Compass, 6(8), 671–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. (1988). Deconstructing equality-versus-difference: Or, the uses of poststructuralist theory for feminism. Fem Stud, 14(1), 32–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, J. (1990). Brave new families: Stories of domestic upheaval in late twentieth century America. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trubeck, D. M. (1972). Max Weber on law and the rise of capitalism. Wisconsin Law Review, 3, 720–753.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umberson, Debra, Shannon Cavanagh, Jennifer Glass, & Kelly Raley. (2012). Texas professors respond to new research on gay parenting. Huffington Post. Retrieved 22 Jan 2016 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/debra-umberson/texas-professors-gay-research_b_1628988.html.

  • Valverde, M. (2006). A new entity in the history of sexuality: The respectable same-sex couple. Fem Stud, 32, 155–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters, S. D. (2014). The tolerance trap: How God, genes, and good intentions are sabotaging gay equality. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, M. (1993). Fear of a queer planet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weston, K. (1991). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Court Cases Used

  • Baehr v. Miike, 74 Haw. 530, 852 P. 2d 44 (1993).

  • Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F. 3d 648 (CA7 2014).

  • 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).

  • Latta v. Otter, 771 F. 3d 456 (CA9 2014).

  • Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (1981).

  • Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

  • 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.

Ohio (No. 14-556, Obergefell v. Hodges)

  • 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).

Kentucky (no. 14-574, Bourke v. Beshear)

  • 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).

Michigan (no. 14-571, DeBoer v. Snyder)

  • 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).

Tennessee (No. 14–562, Tanco v. Haslam)

  • 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).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sociology and Women’s and Gender Studies, Wheaton College, 26 E. Main St, Norton, MA, 02766, USA

    Katherine Mason

Authors
  1. Katherine Mason
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katherine Mason.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares that she has no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Katherine Mason is an assistant professor of Sociology and Women’s and Gender Studies at Wheaton College in Massachusetts. She would like to thank Dawn Dow for providing invaluable guidance on legal conventions, terminology, and jurisprudence throughout the writing process. Thanks also to Natalie Boero, Jennifer Carlson, Hyun Kim, Michelle Martin-Baron, Karen McCormack, Justin Schupp, Javier Treviño, and Amy Zimmerman for their helpful feedback and to the anonymous reviewers at Sexuality Research and Social Policy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mason, K. “Won't Someone Think of the Children?”: Reproductive Futurism and Same-Sex Marriage in US Courts, 2003-2015. Sex Res Soc Policy 15, 83–98 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-017-0279-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-017-0279-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation