Advertisement

Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 159–177 | Cite as

The Same-Sex Marriage Debate in the Us and Representations of Scandinavia

  • Edward Ashbee
Article

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state could not deny ‘the protections, benefits and obligations’ of marriage to same-sex couples because of a clause in the state’s constitution that prohibits ‘the creation of second-class citizens’ and the failure of the state to establish a rational basis for such a denial. In February 2004, in an advisory judgement, the Court ruled that civil unions, such as those established in neighbouring Vermont, would create an ‘unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples.’ (University of Missouri — Kansas City School of Law, Hillary Goodridge & Others vs. Department of Public Health & Another, SJC-08860, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, (2003), https://doi.org/www.law.umkc.edu)
  2. 2.
    Exodus International, North America, FAQs — Is homosexuality genetic?, (2005), https://doi.org/www.exodus-intemational.org.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The White House, President Calls for Constitutional Amendment Protecting Marriage, (2004), https://doi.org/www.whitehouse.gov.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    From October 1989 onwards, the Danish registered partnership law provided that whenever — in Danish law — there were references to ‘marriage’ or ‘spouse’, the same responsibilities and rights would be extended to same-sex in a registered partnership. There were, however, exceptions. Registered partners could not adopt, have joint custody of children, or be married in the established churches. In 1999, the restrictions on adoption and custody were withdrawn, except that registered partners cannot adopt children outside of Denmark. The partnership laws in the other Nordic countries are broadly similar although the Swedish law — which was enacted in 1994 — imposed rather more restrictions on couples, although many of these were lifted by further legislation passed in 2003. Partnerships from one of the countries are recognised in the other countries as well.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andrew Sullivan, ‘The conservative case’, in Andrew Sullivan (ed.), Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con — A Reader, New York, Vintage Books, (2004), p.155. To some extent, there are ties and associations between the ‘conservative case’ for same-sex marriage and themes, most notably conceptions of ‘citizenship’, that have been the subject of debate within the gay and lesbian movement. Whereas gay rights advocates back the call for same-sex marriage, regarding it as the rightful extension of political citizenship and a further step in the ‘civil rights revolution’, ‘queer theorists’ assert that marriage is structurally rooted in ‘heteronormativity’: ‘…extending same-sex marriage rights is a way to incorporate and assimilate gays and lesbians into the norms of the national polity. Such rights will provide order … That is, they will make gays and lesbians intelligible and acceptable to the state as citizens.’ (Google Scholar
  6. 5a.
    Amy L. Brandzel,’ Queering citizenship? Same-sex marriage and the state’, GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 11:2, 2005, p. 194). Like Sullivan, queer theorists regard marriage as a constraining institution that reproduces dominant norms. In contrast with Sullivan, who embraces such notions, this forms the basis for a rejection of marriage and the other trappings of citizenship.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 6.
    Peter Sprigg, Outrage: How Gay Activists and Liberal Judges are Trashing Democracy to Redefine Marriage, Washington DC, Regnery Publishing, (2004), p.46.Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    Andrew Sullivan, ‘Unveiled: The case against same-sex marriage crumbles’, The New Republic, August 13th, (2001), https://doi.org/www.andrewsullivan.com.Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    Kurtz and some other observers — including Andrew Sullivan — use the phrase ‘gay marriage’ to describe the registered partnerships offered in Scandinavia. For both, it is important to represent the partnerships as ‘marriage’ — and argue that they are seen as a form of marriage — insofar as they have drawn an association between the introduction of partnerships and their impact on heterosexual marriage.Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    Stanley Kurtz, ‘The end of marriage in Scandinavia: the ‘conservative case’ for same-sex marriage collapses’, The Weekly Standard, 9:20, February 2nd, (2004), https://doi.org/www.weeklystandard.com.
  11. 10.
    Childstats.gov, International Comparisons — Population and Family Characteristics Data, (2005), https://doi.org/www.childstats.gov.Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    Stanley Kurtz, ‘The end of marriage in Scandinavia: the ‘conservative case’ for same-sex marriage collapses’, The Weekly Standard, 9:20, February 2nd, (2004), https://doi.org/www.weeklystandard.com.
  13. 11a.
    See also National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families (2004), Testimony before the House Judiciary Committee by Dr Stanley Kurtz, 4-22-04, https://doi.org/www.nationalcoalition.org.Google Scholar
  14. 12.
    Stanley Kurtz, ‘The end of marriage in Scandinavia: the ‘conservative case’ for same-sex marriage collapses’, The Weekly Standard, 9:20, February 2nd, (2004), https://doi.org/www.weeklystandard.com.
  15. 13.
    Stanley Kurtz, ‘Going Dutch?: Lessons of the same-sex marriage debate in the Netherlands’, The Weekly Standard, 9:36, May 31st, (2004), https://doi.org/www.weeklystandard.com.
  16. 14.
    Stanley Kurtz, ‘Deathblow to marriage’, National Review Online, February 5th, (2004), https://doi.org/www.nationalreview.com.Google Scholar
  17. 15.
    Henning Bech, ‘Report from a rotten state: ‘marriage’ and ‘homosexuality’ in ‘Denmark’’, in Ken Plummer, Modem Homosexualities: Fragments of Lesbian and Gay Experience, London, Routledge, 1992, p.144.Google Scholar
  18. 16.
    Stanley Kurtz, ‘The end of marriage in Scandinavia: the ‘conservative case’ for same-sex marriage collapses’, The Weekly Standard, 9:20, February 2nd, (2004), https://doi.org/www.weeklystandard.com.
  19. 17.
    Stanley Kurtz, ‘The end of marriage in Scandinavia: the ‘conservative case’ for same-sex marriage collapses’, The Weekly Standard, 9:20, February 2nd, (2004), https://doi.org/www.weeklystandard.com.
  20. 18.
    Sam Brownback, ‘Defining marriage down’, National Review Online, July 9th, (2004), https://doi.org/www.nationalreview.com.Google Scholar
  21. 19.
    Congressional Record, Marriage Protection Amendment — House of Representatives, September 30th, H7913, (2004), https://doi.org/www.thomas.loc.gov.).Google Scholar
  22. 20.
    William N. Eskridge, Darren R. Spedale, and Hans Ytterberg,’ Nordic Bliss? Scandinavian Registered Partnerships and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate’, Issues in Legal Scholarship, (2004), pp.27–8, https://doi.org/www.bepress.com.Google Scholar
  23. 21.
    Congressional Record, Marriage Protection Amendment — House of Representatives, September 30th, H7913, (2004), https://doi.org/www.thomas.loc.gov.Google Scholar
  24. 22.
    M.V. Lee Badgett, Will Providing marriage Rights to Same-Sex Couples Undermine Heterosexual Marriage? Evidence from Scandinavia and the Netherlands, Council on Contemporary Families and the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, (2004), p. 5.Google Scholar
  25. 23.
    Andrew Sullivan, ‘A Kurtz parallel’, The Daily Dish, January 30, (2004), https://doi.org/www.andrewsullivan.com.Google Scholar
  26. 24.
    William N. Eskridge, Darren R. Spedale, and Hans Ytterberg,’ Nordic Bliss? Scandinavian Registered Partnerships and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate’, Issues in Legal Scholarship, (2004), pp.26–8, https://doi.org/www.bepress.com.Google Scholar
  27. 25.
    William N. Eskridge, Darren R. Spedale, and Hans Ytterberg,’ Nordic Bliss? Scandinavian Registered Partnerships and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate’, Issues in Legal Scholarship, (2004), pp.36–7, https://doi.org/www.bepress.com.Google Scholar
  28. 26.
    Stanley Kurtz, ‘Unhealthy half truths: Scandinavian marriage is dying’, National Review Online, May 25th, (2004), https://doi.org/www.nationalreview.com.Google Scholar
  29. 27.
    Stanley Kurtz, ‘Unhealthy half truths: Scandinavian marriage is dying’, National Review Online, May 25th, (2004), https://doi.org/www.nationalreview.com.Google Scholar
  30. 28.
    On the day of the 2004 presidential election, Urban, a Danish daily newspaper that is distributed freely, reported on Kurtz’s arguments and responses to them in Denmark. See Vibe Halbirk (2004),’ Dansk forskning optræder som et skraemmebillede’, Urban, 2. november, https://doi.org/www.urbanavis.dk.
  31. 29.
    Cecilie Wehner, Mia Kambskard and Peter Abrahamson, Demography of the Family — The Case of Denmark, University of York, (2002), 1, https://doi.org/www.yorLac.uk.Google Scholar
  32. 30.
    Cecilie Wehner, Mia Kambskard and Peter Abrahamson, Demography of the Family — The Case of Denmark, (2002), 16, https://doi.org/www.york.ac.ukGoogle Scholar
  33. 31.
    Ulla Bjomberg and Lillemor Dahlgren, Demography of Family, (2002), p.36, https://doi.org/www.york.ac.uk.Google Scholar
  34. 32.
    Statistics Norway, Children Statistics — Three of four children live with both parents, (2004), https://doi.org/www.ssb.no.Google Scholar
  35. 33.
    Jason Fields, Living Arrangements of Children, Current Population Reports, Washington DC, US Census Bureau, 2001, p.3.Google Scholar
  36. 34.
    Nathaniel Frank, ‘Perverted: quack gay marriage science’, The New Republic, May 3, (2004), p.20.Google Scholar
  37. 35.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana, Docket number: 2004–C- Forum for Equality PAC et. al. vs. Honorable Fox McKeithen et al — Motion for Leave to File Amici Curia Brief on Behalf of Katherine Shaw Spaht, J Randall Trahan and Richard D Moreno, (2004), p. 13, https://doi.org/www.marriagelaw.cua.edu.Google Scholar
  38. 36.
    Robert W. Martin, ‘Apostolic leaders given exclusive White House briefing’, ninetyandnine.com, (2004), https://doi.org/www.ninetyandnine.com.Google Scholar
  39. 37.
    Congressional Record, Federal Marriage Amendment — Motion to Proceed, 108th Congress, Senate, July 12, (2004), S7908, https://doi.org/www.thomas.loc.gov/.Google Scholar
  40. 38.
    Congressional Record, Marriage Protection Amendment — House of Representatives, September 30, 108th Congress, H7912, (2004), https://doi.org/www.thomas.loc.gov.Google Scholar
  41. 39.
    Stanley Kurtz, ‘The end of marriage in Scandinavia: the ‘conservative case’ for same-sex marriage collapses’, The Weekly Standard, 9:20, February 2nd, (2004), https://doi.org/www.weeklystandard.com.
  42. 40.
    Stanley Kurtz, ‘Deathblow to marriage: gay marriage has real implications’, National Review Online, February 5th, (2004), https://doi.org/www.nationalreview.com.Google Scholar
  43. 41.
    Congressional Record, Federal Marriage Amendment — Motion to Proceed, — Resumed, Senate — July 13, 108th Congress, S7966, (2004), https://doi.org/www.thomas.loc.gov/.Google Scholar
  44. 42.
    David Boaz, Privatize Marriage: A Simple Solution to the Gay-Marriage Debate, April 24th, (2004), https://doi.org/www.patriot.net.Google Scholar
  45. 43.
    Jussi M. Hanhimaki, Scandinavia and the United States: an Insecure Friendship, New York, Twayne Publishers, 1997, pp.87–8.Google Scholar
  46. 44.
    Jussi M. Hanhimaki, Scandinavia and the United States, p.123.Google Scholar
  47. 45.
    Congressional Record, Federal Marriage Amendment — Motion to Proceed, 108th Congress, Senate, July 12, (2004), S7908.Google Scholar
  48. 46.
    Amy L. Brandzel,’ Queering citizenship?, p.186.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Taylor & Francis 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward Ashbee
    • 1
  1. 1.Copenhagen Business SchoolDenmark

Personalised recommendations