In Search of a More Perfect Heteroarchy

Vermont, Civil Unions and the Harm of “Separate-but-Equal

Bibliographic Data

ID3633979
AuthorsSusan L Thomas (Hollins University, corresponding author)
Year2005
Volume50
Issue1
Pages27-51
Publication date2005-12-14
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Homosexuality (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0091-8369 • E-ISSN: 1540-3602
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1300/j082v50n01_02
PMID16368663
OpenAlexW1585496204
LanguageEN
Citations received3
References cited12

This article focuses on the Vermont civil union solution to the state Supreme Court's mandate in Baker v. State (1999). Using non-subordination theory, the author argues that rather than being a legal victory for lesbians and gay men, the Vermont law integrally contributes to the maintenance of an imbalance of power between heterosexuals and lesbians and gays. The article analyzes the rhetorical strategy employed by lawmakers to respond to what they perceived and portrayed as a menace posed by same-sex marriage and demonstrates that lawmakers reinforced apprehensions surrounding lesbian and gay identity and asserted the familiar heterosexist narrative in an effort to quell the threat posed by Baker. The article concludes that the legislature's genuine motivation behind civil unions was validating their own and their constituents' misplaced fears regarding gay and lesbian identity, and pacifying those fears by denying equal marriage rights to gays and lesbians in an attempt to appear responsive to a perceived threat to heterosexual primacy

Human sexuality · Identity (music · Legislature · Lesbian · Narrative · Political science · Politics · Power (physics · Sexual identity · Sociology · State (computer science · Subordination (linguistics · Supreme court · Victory · Gender Studies · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Law, Rights, and Freedoms · Legal Systems and Judicial Processes

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub