Final Paper: The Watchful White Eye

 Historically, interracial and same-sex marriage bans have represented careful political eye in American households. By placing the minority under this vigilant white heterosexual eye, the United States government has the ability to control the privacy of its citizens, as well as how they are represented in public. It is evident that through cases and laws such as Griswold v. Connecticut, Bowers v. Hardwick, and the Naturalization Act of 1907, the United States has been and is continuing to attempt to erase groups of people, beginning in the private home and extending towards the public sphere. Because marriage is, by nature, a legally contractual relationship, it relies on the law to uphold its social status. These cases and laws demonstrate the government distancing themselves from the minority, or the opposite of the white heterosexual norm. The examination of historical interracial and same-sex marriage laws reveal that through government control of its citizens’ private lives, it therefore has authority over public citizenship, thus promoting white supremacy and heteronormativity in our vastly diverse and ever-changing modern society.

Intersectionality between womanhood and race creates a complex relationship with and discussion about how the government blurs lines between private and public in regards to marriage. The Naturalization Act of 1907 was a clarification of the Act of 1855 that declared that the citizenship of a woman follows that of her husband, with the Act of 1855 declaring that foreign-born women who married American men were given American citizenship upon marriage (Cott 82, 87). Both of these acts implied that if an American woman were to marry a foreign man, she would lose her citizenship, which is exactly what occurred to an American citizen, Ng Fung Sing, who married a Chinese man, which made her, under American law, Chinese as well (Cott 92). This was all part of the commitment to keep Chinese immigrants, along with immigrants of color in general, out of the American body—in threatening the removal of citizenship, the United States kept mixed children, such as Chinese-American children, out of the country, therefore “cleansing” it. Naturalization, or the process in which U.S. citizenship is granted to permanent residents after meeting requirements established by Congress, demonstrates a sense of belonging to something, which in this case, is the country of the United States. The act of forcing a woman’s citizenship and cultural identity to align with her husband’s not only eliminates her sense of individuality and belonging to a country, but also signifies a feeling of betrayal from the country. Generally, however, the United States intends to push women who “betray” the country out of it. Naturalization implies that an identity is assumed to be a certain way—the “natural” way. If one’s identity falls outside of the assumption, one might be legally considered a citizen, but not fully socially or politically accepted as one, and are therefore considered unnatural. Naturalization acts as a threat to women who may be pursuing a husband who is not of American citizenship. In becoming subject to United States law and therefore the watchful white eye within their homes, one must completely devote themself to the country in order to prove their worthiness of citizenship. It demonstrates the ostracization of others and convinces American women that they should marry within the country, continue American “tradition,” and raise their children to do the same. It displays the maintenance of white supremacy, and to some extent, modern segregation, in that it convinces women to stay away from immigrant men. In relation to the concept of naturalization comes the inherently American concept of the melting pot which was used for years as a way for the country to promote its diversity. However, giving the term a closer look gives way to the evident white supremacy behind it. In forcing a heterogenous group to become homogeneous, it strips certain groups of their true identities and categorizes them as the majority race (ECPS). In the United States, society, along with the government and its policies force immigrants to become white, patriotic Americans, even if they are a person of color. Even the notion that they were once an immigrant implies to many Americans and the government that they could betray the country at any point. In an attempt to prevent that betrayal, the government and society forces cultural assimilation onto immigrants. Generally, the concept of the melting pot implies that the white eye promotes acculturation within the public and private spheres. If one wants to keep their citizenship, they must conform to American standards and completely dedicate themselves to the country in order to pledge their allegiance.

In placing legal consequences on homosexual activity, the government successfully literally and socially criminalized queer people. The 1965 decision of Griswold v. Connecticut protected the right for married couples to buy contraceptives without government restrictions, which was a response to the 1873 law called the Comstock Act that had previously defined contraceptives as illegal (Oyez). Following the 1965 decision, contraceptives were still illegal for unmarried couples and would be until 1973 (Ploeg and Belluck). What this proved was that America was stuck in a period of extreme traditionalism, and that Christian values were deeply rooted into that traditional foundation. Because having sex before marriage is considered immoral by Christian standards, and due to the American value that “traditional” marriage should be between a man and woman, giving heterosexual married couples the right to get contraceptives placed them at the center of American ideology. These legal events solidified conservative American values in addition to erasing the possibility for queer people to be a part of society at the time. This traditionalism continued to be seen in the government and its policies with the 1986 case of Bowers v. Hardwick, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not protect the right of gay adults to engage in private, consensual sodomy (Oyez). This placed a heterosexual eye within queer homes that surveilled and made queer people’s intimate lives a public affair. This law was not just an invasion of privacy through control of bodily autonomy, it was also an invasion and intervention of one’s personal gender and sexual identity. In criminalizing sodomy, there was a clear attempt to criminalize homosexuals on the whole. It also impacted queer relationships, in that it criminalized their love and intimacy in a way that white heterosexual love never was or will be. In the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, it is mentioned how these laws “affect[ted] aspects of marriage once viewed as essential,” (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015). This is in reference to the “essence” of marriage, which is commonly considered to be the romance and union between two people who are fully committed to each other. In creating laws with the specific intent to expel homosexual love, the government clearly displayed how they thought queer people should be perceived in the public sphere. This was a clear example of the government transforming private life in order to push a narrative for a specific group towards the public. In this case, it not only threatened queer people in private, in that they felt as though they were constantly being watched, but it also threatened them in public, convincing them to act more heterosexual in order to not be deemed a criminal. By criminalizing homosexuality, the effort to erase it from the heteronormative society was evident; to the government, that indoctrination began in the homes and ended in the public sphere. 

Even in modern society can a political attempt to erase queerness in the public sphere be seen, with the intent to prevent the extension of queer rights for future generations. In 2022, following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas claimed that the Supreme Court should reconsider same-sex marriage and contraceptives, indicating once more a time in which queer rights was taking a step back. This not only brings up conversations of traditionalism and conservatism attempting to insert itself back into American society, but once more brings up conversations of restricting private life. With this coming after restricting the right to a safe abortion, it is clear that in also restricting the right to contraception and homosexual activity, the Supreme Court would attempt to force the nuclear family on many. The preservation of this “natural” heteronormative society is, in fact, unnatural. In restricting one’s right to contraceptives, marriage, and abortion, it creates a false narrative for many people in the United States, forcing them to fit into the stereotypical white heterosexual mold that does not align with their actual identity. Generally, the United States would rather push falsehoods on its citizens who fall outside of the norm in order to preserve an image of heteronormativity and whiteness, despite being a country that prides itself on its diversity. However, an opposing phenomenon occurring in our current society is queer youth and even older generations of LGBTQ+ people feeling more comfortable to come out. An article titled “What It’s Like to Be a Queer Teenager in America Today” claims that because Generation Z has grown up in a more accepting environment that has conversations about gender and sexuality, they feel more comfortable with their identities. It also argues that “young people don’t necessarily feel the need to formally come out at all,” as queerness in modern society is so normalized (Paris, Cain Miller). While that does not necessarily mean that everyone in society, along with the government, always accepts LGBTQ+ people, it does mean that it is easier to be seen and understood by the general public. Oftentimes these conversations are brought up by the government through policies that may attempt to push the queer community out of the public realm, along with pushing the notion that homosexuality should be considered an abnormal identifying trait. The heterosexual eye that the government attempts to place in American homes places less of a threat to the identity of the queer Gen Z community due to the external and loud pride they have. Generally, what this says about the future of the LGBTQ+ community is that they will continue to be pushed into hiding by politics and society, while being accepted and welcomed within the community.

Ultimately, attempts to slow the process to gaining queer rights have been evident in American history, with events in the present attempting to do the same. The concept of naturalization, paired with the idea of the melting pot, is used to promote heteronormativity, white supremacy, and American nationalism in ways that erase its citizens’ true identities. In the effort to restrict one’s personal affairs in regards to relationships and contraception, the Supreme Court has successfully placed white heterosexual couples at the center of American ideology, and therefore has reinforced white supremacy in modern society.

Works Cited

"Bowers v. Hardwick." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1985/85-140. Accessed 19 Nov. 2023.

Cott, Nancy. “Justice For All? Marriage and Deprivation of Citizenship in the United States.” Justice and Injustice in Law and Legal Theory, edited by Austin Sarat and Thomas R. Kearns, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, 1998, pp. 77–97.

Forgey, Quint, and Josh Gerstein. “Justice Thomas: SCOTUS ‘should Reconsider’ Contraception, Same-Sex Marriage Rulings.” POLITICO, 24 June 2022, www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/thomas-constitutional-rights-00042256. Accessed 17 Nov. 2023.

“Griswold v. Connecticut.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1964/496. Accessed 18 Nov. 2023.

“Melting Pot.” European Center for Populism Studies, 27 Dec. 2020, www.populismstudies.org/Vocabulary/melting-pot/#:~:text=The%20melting%20pot%20theory%20of,assimilated%20into%20the%20predominant%20society. Accessed 4 Dec. 2023.

Paris, Francesca, and Claire Cain Miller. “What It’s Like to Be a Queer Teenager in America Today.” The New York Times, June 3, 2023. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/06/03/upshot/up-lgbtq-teens.html. Accessed 3 Dec. 2023. 

Ploeg, Luke Vander, and Pam Belluck. “What to Know about the Comstock Act.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 May 2023, www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/us/comstock-act-1978-abortion-pill.html. Accessed 18 Nov. 2023

Supreme Court of the United States. Obergefell v. Hodges. no. 14–556, 26 June 2015.