“What Is God Doing with Marriage?”
Working Group Discussion on Marriage
April 23, 2005
Augsburg College, Minneapolis
Resource Material from:
Laura Boisen
Associate Professor of Social Work
Augsburg College
Historically social work has had a commitment to fighting oppression and to alleviate social and economic injustice. The social work profession through the National Association of Social Workers’ (NASW) Code of Ethics and the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) accreditation guidelines specifically name gay and lesbians as members of oppressed groups. NASW adopted a formal policy statement on gay issues in 1977 and updated the Code of Ethics in 1994 and 1996 to emphasize its ban on discrimination – including sexual orientation (Mallon, 1998). Standard 4.02 reads: “Social workers should not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any form of discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, political belief, religion, or mental or physical disability” (Reamer, 1998, p. 206).
Although the social work profession espouses an open and affirming attitude toward gays and lesbians, their actions have not always reinforced the policy statements and some believe heterosexism and heteronormativity* are prevalent within social work (Mallon, 1998; Hylton, 2005; Laird & Green, 1996). For example, Hylton (2005) believes the social work profession has historically contributed to the marginalization of lesbian women by participating in the labeling of homosexuality as deviant and has erased the sexual orientation of some prominent women in the social work profession (e.g. Jane Addams, Grace Abbott and Sophonisba Breckinridge) as lesbians. Aronson (1995) believes the lack of recognition of prominent lesbian social workers and the collusion of social workers to label lesbians as mentally ill has helped maintain the majority culture’s bias toward gays and lesbians.
Other signs of ambivalence have been noted. While CSWE revised its accreditation standards in 1992 to require schools of social work to include lesbian and gay content, a motion in 1996 at the annual meeting asked for a waiver for “certain religiously affiliated organizations” (Mallon, 1998). Social work programs also place little emphasis on recruiting and retaining gay and lesbian students and faculty (Mackelprang, Ray, & Hernandez-Peck, 1996). Mallon (1998) asserts that mainstream social work journals have been slow to publish articles that address the needs of lesbian and gay men. The majority (81%) of non-research social work textbooks either contained no references to gay and lesbian issues or contained negative portrayals of this population (Hylton, 2005).
This ambivalence is troublesome given the social justice foundation of the social work profession. Secondly as a practice profession, social workers are acutely aware of the factors that families require for positive outcomes.
Bell (1997) states the vision of a just society is one “in which the distribution of resources is equitable and all members are physically and psychologically safe and secure” (p. 3). Unfortunately the United States does not represent this vision for all members of society. In fact, many believe that the oppression of select groups is pervasive within our society and embedded throughout our social institutions and within individual consciousness (Van Soest & Garcia, 2003; Bell, 1997; Rothenberg, 2004; Adams, Bell & Griffin, 1997). Bulhan (1985) defines oppression as one segment of the population preventing another segment from attaining access to resources and/or acting to inhibit or devalue them in order to dominate them. At the core of oppression is difference; differences in race, gender, class, and sexual orientation are over-laden with value judgments and stereotypes which carry implicit statements about the individual’s moral characteristics and ability. This social construction of difference underlies the systems of oppression that determines how power, privilege, wealth, resources, opportunity and status are distributed.
We are surrounded by differences every day and our society chooses to place a value on some of them. By valuing the characteristics and lifestyles of certain individuals or groups and devaluing those of others, society constructs some of its members as “others.” These “others” are understood to be less deserving, less intelligent, even less human. Once this happens, it is possible to distribute wealth, opportunity, and justice unequally without appearing to be unfair (Rothenberg, 2004, p. 119).
This explanation of oppression and difference is widely adhered to by the social work profession and gays and lesbians are seen as one group that is oppressed. Social work practitioner concerns for gay and lesbians go further than just the sheer unfairness of oppression however. The lack of power, privilege, resources, opportunity and status can negatively impact gay and lesbian families.
Whether U.S. society sanctions gay and lesbian couples or not, they exist. They exist as couples and they exist with children. It is estimated that millions of children are being raised by the estimated 10 million lesbian and gay people who reside in the U.S. (McCammon, Knox, & Schacht, 2004).
Undeniably gay and lesbian families have a marginalized status with access to fewer resources and rights than heterosexual families. Married heterosexual couples have access to approximately 1400 rights, benefits and protections that gay and lesbian couples do not have available because they cannot marry (Kotulski, 2004). Kotulski (2004) states there are more than 1138 federal rights that accompany civil marriage and an additional 300 depending on the individual state. These rights and benefits include such areas as taxes, property rights, protection of the parties’ children, death-related matters, employment rights and benefits and so on. They not only enhance the disposable income of the household and insure a safety net should disaster strike but they provide the family members with an inherent feeling of security and safety.
Although there is some disagreement about what characteristics are found in “healthy” families, one overlapping characteristic is the need for a legitimate source of authority, established and supported over time (McCoy, 1996; Becvar & Becvar, 1982). Slater (1995) asserts that couples require “basic boundaries” around their relationship that are respected; validation that the family is legitimate; and, a feeling of membership in a community of similar families. Marriage provides this for heterosexual couples. In contrast, lesbian and gay families are unprotected, discriminated against and sometimes punished with no opportunity for redress (Hartman, 1996). So, gay and lesbian families must create and protect their families haphazardly – perhaps in concert with the “families they choose” (Weston, 1991). Indeed Laird (1996) marvels at the strength and resilience exhibited by gays and lesbians in spite of the oppression they face.
Summary
While not all social work practitioners would agree on the question of gay marriage, there is overwhelming agreement on some issues within the social work literature. Gays and lesbians are discriminated against in a systematic manner; thus defining them as an oppressed group. The marginalization of gay and lesbian relationships places gay and lesbian families at-risk for no other reason than the sexual orientation of the parent(s).
References
Adams, M., Bell, L.A., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1997). Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook. New York: Routledge.
Aronson, H. (1995). Lesbians in social work education: Processes and puzzles in claiming visibility. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 6(1), 5-26.
Becvar, R.J., & Becvar, D.S. (1982). Systems theory and family therapy: A primer. Washington, DC: University Press of America.
Bell, L.A. (1997). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In. M. Adams, L.A. Bell & P. Griffin, Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook. New York: Routledge.
Bulhan, H.A. (1985). Frantz Fanon and the psychology of oppression. New York: Plenum Press.
Hartman, A. (1996). Social policy as a context for lesbian and gay families: The political is personal. In J. Laird & R-J Green (Eds.), Lesbians and gays in couples and families: A handbook for therapists. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Hylton, M.E. (2005). Heteronormativity and the experiences of lesbian and bisexual women as social work students. Journal of Social Work Education, 41(1), 67-82.
Kotulski, D. (2004). Why you should give a damn about gay marriage. LosAngeles, CA: Advocate Books.
Laird, J. (1996). Invisible ties: Lesbians and their families of origin. In J. Laird & R-J Green (Eds.), Lesbians and gays in couples and families: A handbook for therapists. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Laird, J., & Green, R-J. (Eds.) (1996). Lesbians and gays in couples and families: A handbook for therapists. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Mallon, G.P. (Ed.). (1998). Foundations of social work practice with lesbian and gay persons. New York: The Harrington Park Press.
Mackelprang, R.W., Ray, J., & Hernandez-Peck, M. (1996). Social work education and sexual orientation: Faculty, student, and curriculum issues. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 5(4), 17-31.
McCammon, S.L., Knox, D., & Schacht, C. (2004). Choices in sexuality. Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog Publishing.
McCoy, C.W. (1996). Reexamining models of healthy families. Contemporary Family Therapy, 18, 243-256.
Reamer, F.G. (1998). Ethical standards in social work: A critical review of the NASW Code of Ethics. Washington DC: NASW Press.
Rothenberg. P.S. (2004). Race, class and gender in the United States. New York: Worth Publishers.
Slater, S. (1995). The lesbian family life cycle. New York: The Free Press.
Van Soest, D., & Garcia, B. (2003). Diversity education for social justice. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.
Weston, K. (1991). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship. New York: Columbia University Press.
* Heteronomativity is defined as the preeminence of heterosexual relationships and identities; the “norm” by which all other relationship are judged (Hylton, 2005).