The state itself is a form of oppression.
In a modern-day context this may seem like a false
statement, however it is quite true. The state oppresses and restrains us every
day, keeping us back from our full potential through its laws and security
apparatus that enforce the whims of the state. Yet, this is not only done on a
physical and economic level, but is also done based on one’s sexuality and
gender identity. Yet, to get a fuller understanding of how the state oppresses
us based on sexuality or gender identity, it is first necessary to ask the
question: What is the state?
The state can be defined in many ways; however there
are several definitions that are accepted such as Max Weber’s definition that
the state is “a human community that
successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within
a given territory.” It can also be defined in
a geographical sense using borders. However, at its heart, the state is made up
of people. While these people may be of different genders or racial/ethnic
groups and hold different positions in the state apparatus, they still make up
the state itself. Merriam-Webster defines the state as “a politically
organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory.” This “politically
organized body of people,” in a modern context, refers to what is called the
federal government.
However, we must take a
deeper look at Weber’s definition. He states in his definition that the state
has a “monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force.” What does that say
about the state, that it needs the use of physical force in order for its
creation? It says that the state itself is inherently violent and that it needs
the consistent use of force in order to maintain its validity, for without the
use of force, the state will no longer exist. In this, there comes the
realization that the concept of the state is in many ways forced down the
throats of the individual and they are forced to accept it.
In the United States
and Western nations in general, the federal government has the power to create
laws and initiatives that may seem as if they are in the best interest of the
public, but are in reality much more about continuing the power of the
state. In order to better understand
this, one must look at the state not as some faceless entity, but rather as a
gang of political elites and their financiers. The entire purpose of these
political elite is to further their own power. One may be familiar with this in
the examples that can be seen under the Bush and Obama administrations.
After 9/11 Bush used
the tragedy as an excuse to further centralize power in the Executive Branch,
but on a larger level to expand the power of the state, allowing for the state
to intrude on the lives of private citizens and to begin the creation of the surveillance
state that is so prevalent today. Obama furthered the power of the state when
he signed the National Defense Authorization Act which allows for the
indefinite detention of US citizens and argued that the President has the power
to engage in extrajudicial assassinations of US citizens. Yet, while the state
is biased towards expanding its own power, it must also be examined in the
framework of sexuality and gender identity and how that plays into the role of
oppressing others.
The state recognizes and
validates the relations of heterosexual couples by allowing them to get married
and giving with them a number of benefits. [1] The state has even gone so far
as to define heterosexual marriage as the
legal marriage, one only need to look at the Defense Of Marriage Act (which is
still in effect) to see this. This oppresses queer people in a legalistic and
psychological sense. Queers are oppressed psychologically as not only are they
viewed in a negative manner and ostracized on a regular basis and by not
allowing queer marriage (this also includes polyamorous relationships), it only
serves to reinforce the notion that they are underprivileged citizens and alienates
them from the larger society.
There are also large
amounts of economic oppression in the form of wage gaps and hiring
discrimination. Currently, it is legal in 29 states to fire an employee based
on sexual orientation and the number increases to 34 if they are transgender.
[2] While there is a law that aims to end this so far nothing has been put into
place and actually the situation is getting worse. A 1995 study revealed that “between
16% and 46% of [lesbian, gay, or bisexual people surveyed] reported having
experienced some form of discrimination in employment (in hiring, promotion,
firing, or harassment).” [3] Today the situation has little changed. [4]
This has a major
negative impact on queers on both an individual and group level as their
earnings are lower than a heterosexual person’s would be, thus contributing to them
being more likely to be poor, especially if they are same sex couples. [5] In
the state now enacting legislation to deal with this problem, they are, at
most, engaging in oppressing queers, or, at least, acting as an accessory to
their oppression.
The state is further oppressing queers in the form of voter suppression,
especially transgendered individuals.
Georgia,
Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas,
and Wisconsin have all passed laws requiring voters to present a government-issued
photo identification before casting a ballot. But the laws impose unique
barriers on transgender individuals, since many do not have an updated
identification — such as a driver’s license — that lists their correct gender.
[6]
This would deter queer individuals
from making attempts to end their oppression in a manner consistent with the
current status quo, that of legalistic reform than actual radical change.
Yet, this oppression by
the state is not only in the West but can be seen all over in the world. In the
African country of Uganda, there was originally a bill bought up in Parliament
that argued that anyone who was caught engaging in homosexual activity should receive
the death penalty. While this particular part of the bill was retracted, the
bill still generally criminalized the “promotion” of homosexuality. In the
country of Indonesia, an LGBT rights advocacy website was banned, with the government
deeming it “pornographic.” [7] Even the much-touted Europe isn’t safe for all
members of the queer community as 17 European countries force transgender sterilization.
[8]
Throughout the world,
members of the queer community are actively under attack by the state. The state
has always betrayed us and continues to be a source of oppression for the queer
community. We need to realize that while it seems that the oppression may end
with the passing of same sex marriage or the criminalization of discriminatory
practices against queers, it will only be a first step in a battle against the
state. The oppression could still take different forms, such as
institutionalizing discrimination. The only way we may every truly be free is
with the destruction of the state.
Endnotes
1: Nolo, Marriage and Rights Benefits, http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html
2: Human Rights Campaign, Pass ENDA Now
End Workplace Discrimination, http://sites.hrc.org/sites/passendanow/index.asp
3: M. V. Lee Badgett, “The Wage Effects of Sexual Orientation Discrimination,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 48
(July 1995): 728
4: Crosby Burns, Jeff Krehely, “Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of
Workplace Discrimination and Harassment,” Center for American Progress, June 2,
2011 (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/workplace_discrimination.html)
5: Lauren Keiper, “Children of gay families more like to be poor: study,”
Reuters, October 25,
2011 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/25/us-gays-families-idUSTRE79O7MC20111025)
6: Eric W. Dolan, “Voter ID laws could disenfranchise more than 25,000
transgender voters: study,” Raw Story, April 15, 2012 (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/15/voter-id-laws-could-disenfranchise-more-than-25000-transgender-voters-study/)
7: International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, IGLHRC Website Banned, http://www.iglhrc.org/cgi-bin/iowa/article/pressroom/pressrelease/1481.html
(February 7, 2012)
8: Nicole Pasulka, “17 European Countries Force Transgender Sterilization,”
Mother Jones, February 16, 2012 (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/02/most-european-countries-force-sterilization-transgender-people-map)