In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

>> 127 5 Marriage as Validation Subjects before (and after) the Law Today is quite powerfully about saying “yes.” . . . More than simply claiming the rights and responsibilities of marriage, on a fundamental level, Jason and Richard are telling us today that they believe in the power of this most timeless of human institutions. Their desire to claim this institution is predicated on their need and acceptance of its power. —Eric, officiant at the wedding of Jason and Richard, August 14, 2004 The modern institution of marriage lays claim to many meanings: commitment , love, responsibility, family. But is it also power? Certainly the use of the marriage ritual to enact resistance or make a statement for gay rights leads us to believe so—at least symbolically. From the privileged position of heterosexuality, though, “power” is not something that comes to mind with marriage: linking oneself to another, legally and financially (not to mention emotionally) would seem, if anything, like a dilution of personal power, perhaps even a diminution of autonomy. But committed samesex couples don’t come from this same position of privilege. Unlike their straight counterparts, they have instead struggled to make themselves a unit, to establish formal links to one another and their children, and in many cases to communicate their status and their inexorable link with one another to their loved ones or community. To be able to do so through official legal powers, therefore, represents not so much a loss of power or freedom but a gain in resources and in validation, pride, and inclusion as well. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in its 2012 Perry v. Brown decision 128 > 129 interested couples to seek legitimation via marriage license without the impediments faced by working-class civil litigation complainants. That is not to say that the couples did not have to work hard to realize the tangible benefits of having a marriage license or even educate others on what it meant for their family status. But it almost assuredly did increase the attractiveness of pursuing formal legal validation for their couplehood. Usually focused on the context of commitment ceremonies or civil unions, the existing literature on formalized same-sex unions buttresses the claim that couples do indeed seek validation, and often gain it, through legal or quasi-legal institutions. Badgett asserts, based on the experience in the Netherlands, that same-sex couples experience reduced “minority stress”—the alienation and other ill effects stemming from legal and social exclusion—when they are allowed to marry. Eskridge and Spedale found that the Scandinavian registered partnerships they studied helped to foster understanding between the couple and their social network, increase acceptance of same-sex unions in the broader community, and promote greater tolerance and equality for alternative sexualities and families by fostering dialogue and helping others to recognize the couples’ commitment to one another. Hull found that even public commitment ceremonies not sanctioned by law had the goal and the effect of approximating legality for the purpose of gaining validation, cultural integration, and recognition as a couple. She concluded that although couples were able to enact a form of quasilegality in the shadow of law through these ceremonies, ultimately her data pointed to “the unique cultural power of official law” in conferring not just rights and privileges but the “social and cultural legitimacy which some believe only official law deliver.”5 Affirmation at City Hall: The Experience of Marriage Both in surveys and in interviews, the symbolic and civic validation that marriage provided was a fairly consistent theme. Although there were some objections by survey respondents to the wording of 130 > 131 A look at the qualitative data helps to shed light and add context to some of these trends. Many couples commented that getting married at City Hall had helped them to better perceive the difference between marriage and domestic partnership, having now experienced both. One female couple from San Francisco commented, in a refrain echoed by many others, “We will never be acknowledged as a family and a married couple until we can legally marry. I’m sure there is not a married couple in America who would be satisfied to be called DP [domestic partnership]. No one understands what that means and it certainly doesn’t reflect our marriage.” Some couples directly commented on the notion of domestic partnership as a form of “second-class citizenship.” A well-educated female couple in their sixties commented, “Until we exchanged our marriage vows, we didn’t fully experience how...

Share