The figure below, borrowed from Good via Graphic Sociology, is a great example of the way that social problems are not given or automatic, but must be made. It shows that, in 1998, gay marriage was not largely a social issue that needed to be addressed at the state level. Only Alaska had taken a stand on gay marriage.
Somehow gay marriage became a threat. And, by 2004, many states had passed resolutions making it illegal. Note that they needed to do so specifically because the possibility of legal gay marriage had gained support for the first time in (recent?) U.S. history. This was, essentially, a backlash against gay marriage that proved that pro-gay marriage initiatives were gaining ground, even as states moved to counter them.
The backlash continues through 2009, with a handful of states saying “yes” to gay marriage, creating a conflict that simply did not exist in 1998.
This is a great example of how social “problems” are socially constructed. Social processes, like activism and media attention, affect what issues gain the attention of the day, whether that be homelessness, nuclear power, teen pregnancy, global warming, or same-sex commitment.
The figure also reminds us that all of those anti-gay marriage laws can be interpreted as progress for the pro-gay marriage effort. The laws prove that gay marriage is on the agenda.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 26
Scapino — January 11, 2010
"The figure also reminds us that all of those anti-gay marriage laws can be interpreted as progress for the pro-gay marriage effort. The laws prove that gay marriage is on the agenda."
Small comfort for the states that passed constitutional amendments; the anti-gay marriage supermajority is using its dying gasps to make sure that the tyranny of the temporary majority can't be repealed until the pendulum swings all the way to the other side, adding years and years of future inequality before that extra 10% of the population comes around.
Of course, here in Ohio, we also sold a portion of our constitution to a casino developer, so we may just be beyond help.
cb — January 11, 2010
You say "Only Alaska had taken a stand on gay marriage" in 1998, but it looks like Hawaii had too.
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist — January 11, 2010
we should ban divorce, too. That way it's only fair to force all heterosexual couples stay in their miserable marriages while gays are not allowed to get married.
DJ — January 11, 2010
In my opinion, it's merely a testament to the surge in power of religionists in America.
It was a preemptive strike to legislate their beliefs into law ...essentially, a type of theocratic fascism, that was reactionary against progressive modernity, with its threats of democratic freedoms.
Jeff Kaufman — January 11, 2010
The 2004 massachusetts image should be rainbow.
Elena — January 11, 2010
In other news, you know which country just legalised same-sex marriage? Portugal.
Fernando — January 11, 2010
I don't get it. What is the difference between civil and legal?
Restructure! — January 11, 2010
But does it have to be that way? Was same-sex marriage banned in some Canadian provinces or territories before it was legalized?
Evan — January 12, 2010
Woa - If we are being the change we want to see, lets be honest with ourselves.
Homosexuality is about who an individual is attracted to.
Transgender is about what gender an individual identifies with.
The only connection they have to each other is that they are hated by many under a similar moral sexuality outrage.
Not to mention, by using white(or gray)the chart implies that non-action is neutral.
Shanti — January 16, 2010
Maine legalized gay marriage but the voters took it away again.
Caroline — January 22, 2010
A bit late and a bit off-topic but this post did remind me of a wonderful printmaking project, 'Sometimes I'm Married' which maps the United States divided in a similar fashion to the graph shown above - into areas of married/not married/might be married. The project is ongoing, the map revisted each year legislation changes, with hopes I suppose that eventually the whole country will be cut away, despite California taking a step back in 2009 and having to be filled back in. Anyway, very interesting from an art and political point of view and worth a look - http://woodblockdreams.blogspot.com/2009/08/sometimes-im-married-2009.html