Social Equity, Homonormativity, and Equality: An Intersectional Critique of the Administration of Marriage Equality and Opportunities for LGBTQ Social Justice
{"title":"Social Equity, Homonormativity, and Equality: An Intersectional Critique of the Administration of Marriage Equality and Opportunities for LGBTQ Social Justice","authors":"C. Daum","doi":"10.1080/10841806.2019.1659044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article begins with a discussion of the current social equity scholarship and advocates for the increased use of intersectional tools in order to make legible those individuals who are made invisible by dominant normativities. The article then proceeds to an examination of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges (576 U.S. ___ [2015]) decision and the subsequent implementation of marriage equality across the states in order to evaluate if policymakers and administrators advanced social equity via their policies and implementation strategies. Particular attention is focused on whether or not state and local policies promote equity between LGBTQ individuals and heterosexuals and gender-conforming individuals and/or equity within LGBTQ communities. A critical intersectional analysis indicates that the tendency of policymakers and administrators to privilege homonormative individuals and relationships and their assimilation into heteronormative institutions advances equality but not equity because these policies actually disadvantage intersectionally identified LGBTQ individuals. The article concludes by proposing that the pillar of social equity be expanded to engage questions of social justice that might empower scholars and administrators to recognize and proactively address the differences within LGBTQ communities.","PeriodicalId":37205,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Theory and Praxis","volume":"42 1","pages":"115 - 132"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10841806.2019.1659044","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administrative Theory and Praxis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2019.1659044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6
Abstract
This article begins with a discussion of the current social equity scholarship and advocates for the increased use of intersectional tools in order to make legible those individuals who are made invisible by dominant normativities. The article then proceeds to an examination of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges (576 U.S. ___ [2015]) decision and the subsequent implementation of marriage equality across the states in order to evaluate if policymakers and administrators advanced social equity via their policies and implementation strategies. Particular attention is focused on whether or not state and local policies promote equity between LGBTQ individuals and heterosexuals and gender-conforming individuals and/or equity within LGBTQ communities. A critical intersectional analysis indicates that the tendency of policymakers and administrators to privilege homonormative individuals and relationships and their assimilation into heteronormative institutions advances equality but not equity because these policies actually disadvantage intersectionally identified LGBTQ individuals. The article concludes by proposing that the pillar of social equity be expanded to engage questions of social justice that might empower scholars and administrators to recognize and proactively address the differences within LGBTQ communities.