Impact on the LGBTQ Community - Research Paper Example

Impact on the LGBTQ Community Gay marriage has been a controversial topic since time immemorial. The basis of this ban is primarily founded on ethical and moral grounds, as well as legal mandates in relation to the right to marry and the ability to procreate. For the most part, most states in the US have a ban against gay marriage. In recent years however, the outcry for changes in this practice have become stronger. Nevertheless, gay marriage remains an unpopular and legally prohibited practice in most states. Proposition 8, with ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry is an initiative constitutional amendment which is called California Marriage Protection Act. It is a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment which was passed during the November 2008 state elections. This proposition includes the provision Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights to the California Constitution. It basically mandates that only marriages between a man and a woman can be valid in California. This provision has been met with mixed reactions among advocates of gay marriage, and from those who basically disagree with the provisions of this law. This paper presents a testament to the prevalence of prejudice of programs and laws directed at eliminating prejudice or improving minority experience. This study shall consider Proposition 8 and analyze its efficacy using empirical and theoretical evidence. This program is ineffective because it increases the risk of prejudice against the LGBTQ community, and its provisions are basically discriminatory against this community’s right to marry. More details on this discussion are specified below. Body Literature Review Different studies have been carried out on Proposition 8 and its prejudicial impact on the LGBTQ community. In a study by Maisel and Fingerhut (2011) the authors evaluated the consequences of the campaign linked with California’s Proposition 8 on the well-being of LGBs, as well as their personal relationships. About 350 LGBs participated in the study 5 days before the 2008 election. The study revealed that participants were ambivalent about Proposition 8; others however reported experiencing both negative and positive emotions on the proposition. They were also ambivalent about the impact of the proposition on their relationships with friends, family, their co-workers, and their partners (Maisel and Fingerhut, 2011). The campaign was able to establish opportunities for both support, as well as stigmatization. In effect, the results manifest the impact of campaigns on the outcomes, and on targeted individuals. Fingerhut, et.al., (2010) discussed that political debates and policies which pertain to same-sex marriage have psychological and social impacts on same-sex couples, as well as to their families and friends. Their study sought to advance literature on these impacts. The study revealed an international, interdisciplinary and methodologically diverse collection of research which discuss the social and psychological effects on marriage amendment policies; on civil marriage compared with other statuses for same-sex marriage in other countries; and on how anti-gay marriage initiatives impact on heterosexual allies and intergroup relations (Fingerhut and Riggle, 2010). In general, this study was able to establish that different approaches and different groups set forth findings which basically support the notion that denying civil marriage has significant public health implications as well as policy implications. The proposition has impacted significantly on the LGBT community, fostering discrimination and significant prejudicial practices, not just in terms of their right to marry, but in terms of their other civil rights as well. Most of the studies seen on the impact of same-sex marriage campaigns highlight the psychological consequences for the LGBTs. In Rotosky, et.al., (2009) study, authors carried out an online survey in order to evaluate minority stress and psychological distress among the LGBs after the 2006 elections. At this time, nine states included marriage amendments on the ballot which restricted gay marriage. In this Rotosky (2009) study, participants in these states registered higher degrees of minority stress and psychological distress, as compared to other states. This study concluded that marriage amendments created stressful environments for LGBs. Moreover, political campaigns carried out before the actual election dates subjected much of the LGB population to negative and vilifying words and images. During the November 2008 elections, the Marriage Equality USA (2009) carried out a survey which determined the impact of the campaign and the passage of Proposition 8 on the LGBT community. According to this survey, the LGBTI individuals went through verbal abuse, homophobia, physical harm, and other types of discrimination during the Prop 8 campaign. The children of same-sex couples also expressed fear because of the hate they encountered from those with homophobic tendencies; they feared that they would become subject to violence or would be taken away from their families (Marriage Equality USA, 2009). LGBTI adolescents, including their supporters were also subjected to bullying in schools as a result of the passage of Prop 8; Prop 8 seemingly fostered the homophobic environment and legalized emotional violence against them (Marriage Equality USA, 2009). All in all, these studies support the fact that the Prop 8 has created discriminatory tendencies against LGBT community, subjecting them to psychological distress, and opening up their fears in relation to violence and vilifying labels from the homophobic public. In a 2007 study by Williams, he also discusses that being ostracized is also about being ignored and excluded. Much research has been carried out on the impact of ostracism on individuals and these researches have indicated that initial reactions as well as minute forms of ostracism can cause a person much distress. It then causes a person to feel needs of wanting to belong; and it creates issues on self-esteem and on control. Ostracism also reduces the meaning of one’s life, and causes feelings of sadness and anger to increase (Williams, 2007). Despite individual and situational qualities which can lead to an easy dismissal of the ostracism, the above effects can still be seen. Based on the case of Jennifer as evaluated by Williams (2007), individuals can sometimes become differentially sensitized according to their specific needs which are thwarted; based on their individual differences; and according to their evaluation of who ostracizes and why. Such differences can then create a need, needs for restorative behaviors which range from being socially attentive and being vulnerable to influence or even being antisocial (Williams, 2007). According to data from the Marriage Equality USA (2009), the psychological stress experienced by the LGBs during the campaigns was akin to the concept of stigma. A study by Link and Phelan (2009) also establishes that stigma is seen when different related elements come together. In the first element, individuals differentiate and label human differences; secondly, the dominant beliefs associate these labeled individuals to unpleasant qualities and unsavory stereotypes; thirdly, labeled individuals are categorized in order to establish some form of separation from them and the rest of society; fourthly, labeled individuals lose their status and experience discrimination which often leads to unfavorable results; finally, stigmatization is wholly based on admittance to social and political power which allows labeling of differences, the establishment of stereotypes, the separation of labeled individuals into categories, and the full application of disapproval and exclusion (Link and Phelan, 2009). As a result of the stigma, discriminated individuals often gather in groups in order to support each other and those who have similar qualities of stigma usually consider each other as a group. The messages and experiences these groups share with each other often come to define their goals and ideologies. Moreover, they often end up communicating with each other their hopes and desires as an individual and as a group (Brena, 2010). In applying these concepts to the above analysis, by virtue of the stigma against the LGBTs, they often become separated physically, socially, and emotionally from the rest of society. Their separation is based on the label placed on them by society and they often come together as a group, sharing their hopes and desires with each other. Most of them also seek to cope with the stigma against them by banding together as a group, forming help and support groups in order to discuss ways to counter the labels against them and to seek the same rights enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts (Brena, 2010). Nevertheless, regardless of their efforts to fight these labels, policies like that of the Prop 8 still seek to categorize them and box them in, negating their claims to the same civil rights enjoyed by heterosexuals. Theories of discrimination In order to establish whether or not a certain policy is discriminatory, it is important to first establish theories of discrimination in order to establish a clear understanding of discrimination and its various applications. There are three theories suggested as determinants in establishing whether discrimination is wrong and inasmuch as they consider discrimination to be wrong practices, they also acknowledge the fact that some discrimination in policy-making calls for distinctions, including the granting of favors to particular individuals. These theories include the result-based theory, the process-based, and the expressive based theories (Farra, 2010). Results-based theory The result-based theory focuses on the end of the timeline, or the impact of the discriminatory practice. In other words, the focus of this theory is on the end-effect of the discriminatory act. Discrimination can have various negative effects on the discriminated social group. For the most part, discrimination can result to feelings of insecurity in the discriminated group. It can cause a stigma on the group wherein the discriminatory act degrades the group’s or the target’s identity, in terms of his ethnicity, socioeconomic standing, or sexual preference (Farra, 2010). The anti-caste principle can find application in this results-based theory. Legal practices which highlight morally irrelevant distinctions in ways which create second-class citizenship must be deemed invalid. Laws must therefore be deemed offensive based on the equal protection of rights if they perpetuate the caste system (Farra, 2010). The caste system is based on systemic disparities, including poverty or employment and if inequality is seen in these areas, then the stigmatized group would be subjected to caste-based treatment (Farra, 2010). Systemic disparities often bring about blows on self-respect, creating second-class citizens. An analysis by Professor Sunstein on these the results-based theory establishes that homosexuals “are not a lower caste because they are not generally worse off than heterosexuals in the traditional spheres of social welfare. They are however, targets of discrimination and prejudice” (Farra, 2010, p. 7). Professor Sunstein emphasizes that the ban on same-sex marriages support a gendered and sex-based cast system. He further points out that based on socially accepted theories, banning same sex marriages are attempts at supporting the natural differences that men and women have. These specific and natural differences mostly relate to sexual activity (Farra, 2010). The end-goal in this case is to keep females and males within their designated sexual roles. In effect, men must not be married to men because this union would support a sexual relationship wherein a man would have to play a female role. For men to carry out passive sexual roles means a violation of natural gender roles – that of the male being superior to the female (Farra, 2010). The female, in this instance is doomed to a passive sexual role. In effect, the discrimination seen in same sex marriages is the end-result of the caste-like treatment of women, who are actually subjected to sexual discrimination due to the traditional understanding of gender-based roles. The ban on gay marriage as established by Proposition 8 is therefore not just based on discrimination against the homosexuals, but also a caste-like treatment of women and on the traditional roles they have to play in any relationship and in general society. Results-based theory Another theory on discrimination is the process-based theory. Where the results-based theory focuses on the end or the result of the discrimination, the process-based theory focuses on the activity leading up to the discriminatory act (Farra, 2010). Process-based theories focus on the fact that an activity is not valid if there is an error in decision-making. The defect is seen in the contaminating element which often manifests as bias to a group, including the desire to cause harm to such group. The case of United States v. Carolene Products, Co. expresses the process-based theories within the Equal Protection Clause (Farra, 2010). This case establishes that prejudice against minorities is a special condition which usually curtails the operation of political activities usually meant to protect the minorities, which may require more judicial assessment. Prejudice and discrimination in the political processes denigrates the process, creating less than favorable results which can damage the minorities which these political processes seek to protect (Koppelman, 1996). The case developed the federal protection principle, linking the discriminatory impact of an act to a prejudicial purpose. The process-based theory also emphasizes that the classification of a law must be linked to the actual purpose of the law. In general, laws have several purposes, first, to protect public welfare and second to eliminate evil (Farra, 2010). Based on this structure, valid laws which utilize rational classifications to remove an evil would have to include those who are in the same situation in relation to the goal or aims of the law. The impact of sexual orientation discrimination is relatively apparent. The Supreme Court has already established that constitutional amendments which are meant to prevent homosexuals from wanting legal and executive protection can be evaluated as based on hostility and is therefore not valid under the federal Equal Protection Clause (Farra, 2010). In general, the Supreme Court has established that laws which cause harm to an unpopular individual or a group of individuals are not actually linked to any significant government interests, and therefore these violate the equal protection clause and its related principles. Expressive-based theory The expressive-based theory establishes ideas which lie in between the results-based and the process-based theories (Hellman, 2008). In the idealization of discrimination as a timeline, the highlight is on the act during implementation or the type of signal which the act actually manifests. In terms of the equal protection clause, the focus of this theory is on whether or not the meaning of a practice indicates that a target group of people does not matter as much to the government (Farra, 2010). Supporters of the equal protection clause point out that distinctions are morally democratic when it denigrates the groups which are affected. Each person has his own worth and the government cannot send the message of a disparity in moral worth by setting forth the impression that one group of has less worth than other groups of people (Hellman, 2008). The issue seen in establishing distinctions among the people is that doing so would indicate that some individuals are less worthy than others. Since differential treatment is unavoidable, the important consideration is whether some styles involving differential treatment deprive individuals of their respect and moral worth (Hellman, 2008). Demeaning acts deny individuals of his moral worth. And such acts have social and power dimensions. History and culture protect the social aspects of the analysis. The status of the speaker as far as those who are discriminated are concerned helps inform the power dimension of the analysis (Hellman, 2008). Governmental policies can denigrate if both elements are sufficiently satisfied. The process-based theory is different from the caste theory and the results-based theory since it transfers the focus of the assessment away from the impact of the discrimination to the expressive quality of the discrimination (Hellman, 2008). Individuals do not have to be members of the caste to feel denigrated or discriminated against. Instead, the act is belittling if it articulates a person’s unequal moral worth apart from the person’s social reality or the existence of a caste system (Hellman, 2008). The insinuations of assuming an expressive-based theory in gay marriages and sexual orientation discrimination are still not clear. The vagueness is based on the fact that making judgments on what is demeaning is an interpretative activity and there is some gray area on whether something is actually demeaning (Hellman, 2008). An assessment of different elements of society may indicate that a specific act focusing on LGBT may be demeaning. On the alternative, a person may believe that homosexuals are rich, Caucasian, residing in urban areas, and therefore, they may conclude that gay rights issues are concerns of the bourgeoisie (Farra, 2010). The expressive based theory may therefore not see discriminatory acts as demeaning. He may also conclude that discriminatory acts against homosexuals may be intended to put off homosexuals from seeking special rights or rights which they do not actually need. Amendment versus revision In California, the Supreme Court argued that Proposition 8 was an amendment, not exactly a revision of the constitution. The SC argued that as Prop 8 adapted the State’s provisions on same-sex couples, the couples were still under the protection of the equal protection clause, including their other civil rights. What was only withheld were their rights to marry. The court therefore acknowledged the fact that the proposition created a limited exception to the equal protection clause. The court was also quick to point out that Prop 8 affected the basic foundations of the equal protection clause because it downgraded the rights of the LGBT minority well below the rights of the heterosexual majority (Farra, 2010). The court ruled that a policy would only be considered a revision when it implements changes in the nature of the frameworks set forth by the constitution. Since fundamental changes are the basis of the amendment/revision evaluation, the court naturally relied on the limited exception of Prop 8 to establish that the proposition was not fundamental enough to be deemed a revision of the constitution of California. The court’s limited characterization of the equal protection clause was highly influenced by its equally limited construction of the right which gay couples supposedly retained even with the passage of Prop 8 – the right to be legally married (Chemerinsky, 2005). Such an understanding resulted to a seemingly reasonable application of the equal protection clause because in the end, same sex couples were only denied their right to marry, not denied their right to have relationships with each other. However, the court did not figure for the impact of denying these couples their basic right to marry – that denying them such basic right also denied legitimacy to their rights to the civil institution of marriage, making them vulnerable to discrimination in relation to other civil rights. Proposition 8 and the due process clause Regardless of the decisions of the Supreme Court, there are basic tenets of equal protection of the laws which are radically denied by the passage of Proposition 8 policy. Under the due process clause, Proposition 8 signifies a significant violation. Based on the 14th Amendment, the state must not “deprive a person of life, or property without due process of law”. Marriage is one of the basic liberties supported by this provision and in order to fulfill the mandates of the 14th Amendment, government interference on marriage must be specifically fashioned to serve a significant state interest (Croyle, 2011). A discussion by relationship psychologist Peplau established that denying the gays and lesbians their right to due process and the right to marry also deny them their right to gain the physical, psychological, and social privileges of being married (Minter, 2010). By denying them such right, their overall psychological and physical well-being would be compromised and they would likely seek medical care for these health issues. Peplau further went on to discuss that the quality of homosexual relationships are also similar to heterosexual relations and in allowing homosexual couples to marry, no harm would not come into the marriage institution (Minter, 2010). In the application of the due process clause, there is no marked difference seen in homosexual and heterosexual marriages which would negate the application of the same privileges granted to most individuals. In a radio interview with Kipling Williams (Radio National, 2004), he discusses about ostracism, rejection, and social exclusion, and how these acts can seriously undermine the confidence of individuals. In effect, discriminating and socially excluding the LGBTs can seriously impact on their confidence and damage their self-confidence. Proposition 8 and the equal protection clause Based on the 14th amendment, the state is prevented from denying a person his right to the equal protection of the laws. The court has already utilized the equal protection laws to support laws which discriminate against a protected class (Croyle, 2011). The psychological impact of Proposition 8 all boils down to the failure of the equal protection clause. The message which is being sent with the passage of Proposition 8 is that legitimacy is given to the discriminatory practices against gays and marriages as far as marriage is concerned (Wollan, 2010). The negative implication also which is seen in this case bears down on the impact of these marriages on the children of gays and lesbians who can grow up as well-adjusted children, but by virtue of their parents’ sexual orientation may have to endure discriminatory practices from other children who know that their homosexual parents do not have a legally sanctioned relationship (Wollan, 2010). Moreover, the way these children are raised would even be improved, leading to an improved psychological well-being for these children and their parents. Various studies have been released by the American Psychological Association on various studies which describe the psychological stress which are seen in the prohibition of same-sex marriages (Marriage Equality USA, 2009). The equal protection clause is supposed to provide these individuals with a right to be equally protected from discriminatory practices, however, Proposition 8 goes counter to the constitutional right. A survey of 1200 LGBTI individuals revealed that due to the passage of Proposition 8, their rights to be protected and to be afforded the equal protection of the laws have been stripped. They experienced physical harm, gay slurs, violent crimes, and similar homophobic acts (Marriage Equality USA, 2009). Many families have also been torn apart because of this proposition and communities have been destroyed because of divisions between the LGBT community and their supporters and on the other side, the homophobes. Conclusion Based on the above discussion, there are programs of the government which seem to eliminate prejudice, but actually promote discrimination. One of these policies is Proposition 8. Proposition 8 is a policy which seemingly seeks to promote the rights of LGBTs to domestic partnerships, however, denies them their right to marriage. This policy is against the provisions of the equal protection clause and the due process of law. Lacking the legal protection of the law on the rights of these individuals to marry, it opens them up to discrimination from the rest of society, and potentially denies them other rights which they can claim by virtue of their marriage and by virtue of their having equal protection of civil rights. Works Cited Ball, C. (2010). From the closet to the courtroom: five LGBT rights lawsuits that have changed our nation. New York: Beacon Press. Brena, M. (2010). The Effects of Proposition 8 in the LGBT Rights Movement in Orange County. A Journal of Undergraduate Work, 1(3), Retrieved 30 October 2011 from http://journals.chapman.edu/ojs/index.php/e-Research/article/view/88/308 Chemerinsky, E. (2005). Same Sex Marriage: An Essential Step Towards Equality, 34 SW. U. L. REV. 579, 584 Croyle, J. (2011). Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Proposition 8, and the fight for same-sex marriage. Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 19(1), 425-435. Farra, A. (2010). Comment: Theories of discrimination & gay marriage. Maryland Law Review Endnotes, 69(1), 1-25. Fingerhut, A., Riggle, E., & Rostosky, S. (2011). Same-Sex Marriage: The Social and Psychological Implications of Policy and Debates. Journal of Social Issues, 67(2), 225–241. Hebl, M., Foster, J., Mannix, L., & Dovidio, J. (2001). Formal and Interpersonal Discrimination: A Field Study of Bias Toward Homosexual Applicants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, pp. 815-826 Hellman, D. (2008). When is discrimination wrong? Harvard University. Retrieved 29 October 2011 from http://www.hup.harvard.edu/resources/educators/pdf/HELWHX.pdf Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Prentice-Hall. Koppelman, A. (1996). Antidiscrimination law and social equality. Connecticut: Yale University Link, B. & Phelan, J. (2001). Conceptualizing Stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 693(393). Chapman University. Retrieved 29 October 2011 from http://find.galegroup.com.libproxy.chapman.edu:2048/gps/start.do?prodId=IPS Maisel, N. & Fingerhut, A. (2011). California's Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: The Campaign and its Effects on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Individuals. Journal of Social Issues, 67(2), 242–263. Marriage Equality USA. (2009). Prop 8 Hurt My Family: Ask Me How. Marriage Equality. Retrieved 29 October 2011 from http://www.marriageequality.org/uploads/REPORT%20TWO_PROP_8_HURT_MY_FAMILY_FINAL_VERSION.pdf Minter, S. (2010). Perry v. Schwarzenegger Proceedings, Day 9. California Progress Report. Retrieved 08 November 2011 from http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=node/7378 Mitchell, N. (2004). Interview with Kipling Williams. Radio National. Retrieved 07 November 2011 from http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/mind/stories/s1066040.htm Rotosky, S., Riggle, E., Horne, S & Miller, A. (2009). Marriage Amendments and Psychological Distress in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual (LGB) Adults. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56 (1): 56-66 Williams, K. (2007). Ostracism: The Kiss of Social Death. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), pp. 236–247 Wollan, M. (2010). Same-Sex Marriage Case, Day 4: Economics. New York Times. Retrieved 08 November 2011 from http://bayarea.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/same-sex-marriage-case-day-4-economics/. Read More