Wednesday, June 26, 2013

States' rights for the win?

i'll be very upfront here: i am not a legal scholar, and everything i'm about to say comes from my amateur ability to analyze court opinions.

according to my facebook newsfeed, equality (that pesky concept) has been achieved! the supreme court overturned DOMA! even google incorporated a rainbow graphic for folks who searched words like 'gay' or 'lesbian'.

i certainly would not begrudge folks their celebrations. many people have worked very hard on multiple levels to facilitate this legal gain. congratulations! however, it's important to note that the same supreme court that overturned DOMA also dismantled the voting rights act of 1965. so, when we exclaim 'equality!', whose equality are we really talking about?

there is something strikingly similar about these two cases. most notably, both opinions rely on federalism and the ability of states to make their own decisions. in justice kennedy's majority opinion for overturning DOMA, he commented that it would violate federalism and states' rights to "chart their own course" (new york times). justice roberts wrote the majority for the decision on the voting rights act, explaining that the voting rights act of 1965 departed from the principle of states' rights.

now i understand that these are complicated, multi-faceted decisions that deal with more than the question of federalism. however, that they both had this thread in common is not inconsequential. there is a relationship between the court deciding that states have the right to grant marital status and the court determining that the federal government does not have the right to regulate states' voting laws. i don't know what the connection is between the timing of these decisions or the convergence of their use of federalism. i'd love to hear what folks think about this!

i do think that if the gay and lesbian movement is invested in fighting for equality, then today is a difficult day because many gained legal access to rights based on the same principles that the court used to de-prioritize the rights of others. therefore, at the same time that gay, lesbian, and queer couples will celebrate their legal claim to marital status, other folks will confront greater obstacles to their right to vote. for example, the state of texas already announced its intention to go ahead with voter id laws - racist laws that will disenfranchise many.

while overturning DOMA certainly facilitates greater access to rights for many glq couples, the connection between these two decisions is troubling. it's more than time to consider who is being included and who is being excluded from the idea of 'equality'.





2 comments:

  1. well said. i've been thinking and talking a lot about this today, and my sleep-deprived, emotionally exhausted brain doesn't know what to think. thanks for being a balanced voice in this discussion. i would love to process with you and hear more of your thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Something interesting that I learned that I didn't realize about the VRA is that it also has to do with redistricting & gerrymandering. I might not be completely getting the facts straight on this, so don't quote me, but what I understand is that Wendy Davis actually won her Senate seat because of the VRA, essentially--because the Texas lege was trying to redistrict things so that as many counties as possible would be majority white, but that it was overturned due to the VRA...which means that she could very well lose her seat.

    ReplyDelete