Foucaultian Analysis of Same-Sex Marriage In the U.S.

Background and Purpose: The conservative right in the United States has used same-sex marriage as a cultural wars’ strategy to rally their base by passing laws, blocking laws, creating ballot initiatives etc. This project utilized Foucaultian methods for framing the power relationships within the discourse that characterize the same sex marriage in the United States. The methodology of this project developed a genealogical discourse analysis of same sex marriage in the United States, and how it led to the Obergefell decision by SCOTUS.

Methods: This project utilized Foucaultian discourse analysis for framing the theoretical understanding of the power relationships within the discursive practices that characterized same-sex marriage in the United States from 1970-2015. This Foucaultian discourse analysis utilized an archeology and genealogy of same-sex marriage in the United States. The archeological artifacts around same-sex marriage were drawn from local, regional, and national newspaper articles, reports, and editorials from 1970-2015. The archeological artifacts identify an object of knowledge in the discourse--same-sex marriage. The three principal aspects of the archeology of these discursive practices included the emergence of the discourse, authorities of delimitation, and grids of specification. In addition to the archeology, the genealogical elements of the discourse were apprised using Foucault’s concepts of a-- subjugated discourses, local beliefs and understandings, and conflict and power relations.

Findings: The emergence of the discourse focused on where various discourses surfaced in articles, editorials, reports, and court cases. Key periods of discourse/debate around same-sex marriage were center around political campaigns, ballot initiatives, and politicians The authorities of delimitation addressed in the analysis of who was allowed to speak about same-sex marriage. In these media discourses same-sex marriage was often heterosexual people speaking for LGBTQ people or LGBTQ people being spoken of. Often those speaking about same-sex marriage were editorialists, lawyers, politicians, and religious leaders. Finally, the grids of specification identified how same-sex marriage was described, defined, and labeled in the artifacts. Often language used to describe same-sex marriage was stigmatizing and derogatory, such as “lawless,” “immoral,” and “abomination.” The subjugated discourses are those whose voices were over shadowed in same-sex marriage discourse which were often members of the LGBTQ community who were not heard outside of court cases. Analysis of the local beliefs and understandings of same-sex marriage often focused on sexuality and parenting, but not marriage itself. Finally, the conflict and power relations within every aspect of archeology and genealogy was analyzed to show who held power and voice in the discourse on same sex-marriage overtime, and how that changed.

Conclusion and Implications: Same-sex marriage discourse was a precursor to the rise of legislation against it, which increased in years before major presidential elections. The purpose of creating discourse on same-sex marriage was to mobilize a conservative electorate, and in several states created laws restricting the rights of same-sex couples. Yet increasing discourses on same-sex marriage led to the public sentiment against these laws. Further, the legal challenges lead to the Obergefell decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States.