Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

Heverly 1

Haley Heverly
CAS 137H
Dr. John Minbiole
November 5, 2015
Paradigm Shift: From Adam and Eve to Adam and Steve
Critical Analysis
I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is
consistent with that position (Clinton, 1996). By proclaiming his stance on the Defense of Marriage
Act, President Bill Clinton gives the impression of supporting the typical heteronormative, nuclear
family. However, as seen in contemporary times, this statement is considered blatantly homophobic,
and would be dismissed with overwhelming, critical disapproval. What was once deemed perverse and
unnatural, homosexuality and other non-heteronormative identities are now viewed as significant
aspects of societal structures. Resulting from the counterculture of the 1960s, the AIDs epidemic in the
1980s, to the Supreme Court legislative decision to lift same sex marriage bans, marriage equality has
progressed rapidly in recent decades.
Initially, people that had colonized and established themselves in the United States were openly
against any type of non-heterosexual relations. Up until the 1960s, heterosexuality was the only norm
and was held as a very high standard in society. As the counterculture of the 1960s boomed in later
years, sexuality started to become more open and not as strictly heterosexual. People began exploring
homosexuality and other varying types of sexualities and identities. Even though younger people were
becoming more sexually free, there was still a large push against this by baby boomers and other older
generations.
One particular example of this resistance is the Stonewall Riots. In 1969, a gay bar, The
Stonewall Inn, was raided by police because they suspected illegal behavior; this behavior being
homosexual activity. As many people fled the scene, others began to riot and march the streets of New

Heverly 2
York City to demonstrate against the unjust way they were being treated. These riots lasted for three
entire days and had little media coverage. The media had barely covered this large and obvious news
story to avoid any backlash because at the time people were still avidly against homosexuality. One can
infer that because there was so little coverage, the United States had refused to acknowledge the
inequality among sexual identities within itself. Later, in the 1980s, HIV/AIDs became a national
problem. With the discovery of this disease linking back to homosexual activity, United States citizens
had become outraged with the gay community. Without a cure or prevention, people were in a panic
and had to put the blame on someone and since the 1980s were filled with conservative, republican
presidents, the gays were to blame. Moving into the late 1990s, President Bill Clinton advocated and
signed the Defense of Marriage Act. This piece of legislation universally banned same sex marriage
within the United States and no state was forced to recognize a same sex marriage from another state.
For example, Massachusetts was the first state to recognize same sex marriages and if a couple had
gotten married there and moved to Texas, Texas did not have to recognize that marriage and any
marriage benefits were denied.
Today, nearly 20 years after President Bill Clinton passed and signed the Defense of Marriage
Act, same sex marriage is recognized in all 50 states that make up the United States of America. The
Supreme Court case that pushed for this radical change is Obergefell v. Hodges. Obergefell being the
one fighting to have same sex marriage recognized by the federal government and all 50 states. When
same sex couples won their civil right to marriage on June 26, 2015, it felt as if the entire nation was
celebrating. President Barack Obama even got the White House to have rainbow lights shone on the
front to symbolize the day that equality won.
Looking further into the same sex marriage debate, the most notable characteristic is that there
are two sides to this controversial issue. There is the longevity of the opposed, conservative view and
the younger, more liberal view on the topic. Those against same sex marriage say it ruins the sanctity of

Heverly 3
traditional marriages, while those supporting same sex marriage believe it to be a problem within the
institution of marriage itself (Bartle 797). It is apparent that with any subject considered to be
controversial, there are two sides with very strong opinions that seem to battle forever. With that in
mind, it is easy to see that the opposed position had the upper hand for most of the existence of both
views (Bartle 797). Only within the last 40 to 50 years has the Gay Rights Movement picked up any
speed. By looking at this fast-acting, radical change, an individual can conclude that same sex marriage
is a generational opinion. The free-loving children of the 1960s began the movement, which then
comes to fruition with the millennials in 2015.
Moreover, these opposing sides need a reason as to why they either deny or support the nontraditional marriage. To continue looking at the work by Bartle, it can be perceived that this sudden
opinion reversal is caused by a newer, more freethinking generation. There was not an established
LGBTQA community prior to the 1960s (Bartle 798). As years pass, more groups of people are added
to this list because there is a never-ending list of identities. This development can be attributed to the
media glamorizing non-heterosexual celebrities and figures (e.g. Caitlyn Jenner and Neil Patrick
Harris).
Previously, President Bill Clinton was quoted with his view obviously disapproving of same sex
marriage. Further examination of President Clinton's statement on the Defense of Marriage Act reveals
that he is not as inherently homophobic as he seems. He quickly begins the speech by saying he is not
against homosexual individuals or couples, but merely against the federal government recognizing the
union between two people of the same gender identity. He also continues to protect himself by asking
congress to pass an addition to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an addition protecting against
the prejudice of only gays and lesbians in the workplace (Clinton, 1996). To close this announcement,
President Clinton reiterates his point of view on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; he

Heverly 4
wants to make it clear that the Defense of Marriage Act solely serves the purpose of the federal
government not recognizing same sex marriage (Clinton, 1996). In regards to the paradigm shift, this
text has relevance. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed and signed by President Bill Clinton in
1996, not even 20 years before same sex marriages were recognized among all states. His statement is a
sign of the times. In the 1980s, homosexual men in particular were discriminated against because of the
discovery of AIDs and that feeling of disgust had continued to the 1990s. By banning the federal
identification of same sex marriages, it alleviates some of the agitated feeling towards homosexuals.
But, at the same time, this ban takes away a fundamental civil right for a human being.
Another text worth acknowledging is a political cartoon by J.F. DeFreitas, which looks at both
sides of the same sex marriage debate. In this drawing there is a newly married couple made up of two
women celebrating their new right to marriage, and in the back there is a heterosexual couple walking
behind them. The man in the couple in background is looking at the lesbian couple and believes this is
a good thing simply because he thinks it is hot (DeFreitas). The wife of the man says that this is
threatening her marriage, a common excuse of those combatting same sex marriage. It is clear to the
viewer that this does not really threaten the heterosexual marriage because the man is merely looking at
the couple, he is not taking anything further. The wife is opposed simply because of her own jealousy.
The lesbian couple as done nothing to the heterosexual couple to threaten marriage, it is only the ideas
of the straight couple that is threatening themselves (DeFreitas). This political cartoon is representative
of how non-homosexual couples view homosexual couples. It is believed by outsiders that this
difference could possibly destroy marriage as a whole and even hurt them personally. Any person
viewing the cartoon is aware that the lesbian couple is doing absolutely nothing to harm the
heterosexual couple, they aren't even aware that they are there because they are merely focused on their
newfound right to have a recognized marriage.

Heverly 5
In addition to President Clinton's statement on the Defense of Marriage Act and DeFreitas'
political cartoon, another important text to analyze is the majority opinion of the Supreme Court's
decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that legalized same sex marriage. Justice Kennedy delivered
the majority opinion of the court. In essence, the court decided to rule in favor of Obergefell to overturn
a previous case that didn't require all states to recognize same sex marriages that were officiated in
other states (White). This landmark case is a huge win for the LGBTQA community because it is a sign
that the opinion of the United States is changing. By creating this universalization of marriage, later
generations can grow up thinking this is normal. With that in mind, these younger children and those
not yet born will be considered more liberal and accepting than their parents ever were. One day, it will
be considered almost primitive that people were not allowed to wed only because of their sexual
orientation.
All in all, the shift from discrimination to protection of same sex marriage is a rapid
advancement as a society. Millennials and upcoming generations caused this rapid change because of
their progressive and liberal mindset and drive to create more equality. The three texts that have been
analyzed and the theory on the change all work together to show that a new generation decided that this
change is necessary. This accelerated revision allowed the United States to come together to help an
oppressed group of people.
As time changes, so do people. By looking at the shift in opinion on same sex marriage, it is
apparent that this generational opinion will only continue to grow in favor of supporting and protecting
the oppressed. The first step is marriage, and one can only hope this constant uphill battle will continue
to move in a positive direction.

Heverly 6
Works Cited
Bartle, Eli. "Same-Sex Marriage." Encyclopedia of Social Problems. Ed. Vincent N. Parrillo. Vol. 2.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2008. 797-798. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web.
5 Nov. 2015.
Clinton, Bill. "President Clinton's Statement on DOMA." President Clinton's Statement on DOMA.
N.p., 1996. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.
DeFreitas, J. F. "A Message to America's Homophobes: No One Really Gives a S**t Anymore If Gays
Get Married!" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2015.
White, Edward Douglass. "THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES." American Bar
Association Journal 7.7 (2015): 341-43. Web. 27 Oct. 2015.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi