What do the sassy bang-style choices of Emerati women and DOMA have in common? Quite a bit, as it turns out. As most of you know, I lived for two years in Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates. While there, I gained insight into a Gulf-load of fascinating cultural phenomena, including the way many Emerati women choose to wear their abayas (full-length black gowns) and hijabs (the matching head covering). Needless to say, bling on the abayas and bangs peeking out the hijabs did not go unnoticed by this sharp-eyed blogger. At the time, I was a little envious of the many bedazzled options available to the savvy abaya wearer (pink and purple sparkles, sweeping rose-flower patterns, rococo gold squares on the cuffs and hem--the list goes on and on).But of the ladies who chose to wear their bangs, often tinted and teased, peeking out of their head coverings...well, that seemed to defeat the whole point. Sure, spiff up your abaya all your want, it's still a relatively shapeless garment that hides your curves, if not the size of your wallet (those blinged up versions aren't cheap.) But either you think strangers should see your hair, or you don't. To me, there didn't seem much point in half-in/half-out, especially when inside sources assured me that Emerati women would go to the salon solely to get their bangs prettified.
How can something like that be just a little OK? Modesty dictates that women cover their hair. Except a large section near the front that frames the face and can be tinted a striking henna hue? It seems to go a bit beyond the letter and the spirit of the law, especially because a woman's bangs are quite a bit of the overall effect. At least a quarter of the total hairdo! UAE advertisements even featured women thus coiffed, exposing the masses to bangs on some, but not others. To the outside observer, it was bewildering. Just what was the point of the whole hair-veiling exercise? (The Quran, by the way, does not require Muslim women to cover up. It's a cultural addition, post Prophet M., peace be upon him.)
Which brings us to the partial repeal of DOMA. The Supreme Court ruling which has so many of us rightfully jubilant forbids the federal government to deny same-sex couples the benefits (and responsibilities) of lawful marriage in states where such marriage is legal. As of today, that's 13. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia. A little more than 25% of the union.
The "bangs" of the United States, if you will.
Justice Anthony Kennedy read out his ruling, filled mostly with legalese, but also with these resounding sentences:
The bang problem, though, is that this equal protection only applies to gay and lesbians citizens of certain states. How can something be just a little unconstitutional? Either marriages should be viewed equally, or they shouldn't. The whole institution shouldn't be shrouded in a black abaya of states rights with just a teased-up pile federal perks peeking out on top for the lucky quarter. It makes absolutely no sense, legally and humanly. Edith Windsor lived with Thea Spryer for decades, and Edith now is eligible for a $360,000 federal tax refund, not because she was married for 40 years, but because she happens to live in New York?
As someone who has lived in this country with a pulse for almost 40 years, I understand why the Supreme Court punted. Shadows of Roe vs. Wade hung heavy in this decision, at least according to the punditry. But it is possible to acknowledge the vast chasm of social values and cultural contexts that exist in the United States today without throwing the Constitution under the bus. I bet you thought I was going to say "throw gays and lesbians under the bus." Well, I wasn't. This isn't just about gay rights; it's about what civil rights truly mean.
Abortion and civil rights are completely different issues. Civil rights don't cause harm of any kind, in any way a sane person would argue. Civil rights don't cost money or charge a fee. Civil rights don't put life-changing outcomes of multiple stakeholders in direct conflict. All these can and have been legitimately argued in the course of the abortion debate. The fact is granting civil rights to oppressed groups often improves life outcomes in countless ways. In his decision, Justice Kennedy evoked the "tens of thousands" of children of gay and lesbian families, claiming that DOMA subjected them to humiliation, and that overturning DOMA would allow them "dignity," "recognition," and "protection." Though only if they live in certain states. The most relevant court case isn't Roe vs. Wade; it's Brown vs. the Board of Education. That ruling was messy and ugly and still hasn't really worked, but can you imagine what would have happened if states were allowed to decide how they wanted to deal with desegregating public schools? Can you imagine what would have happened if the Warren court had taken the "values" of each state into account when making that decision? Put like this, gay marriage is a walk in the park! I can't imagine even the most fire-breathing homophobes blocking courthouses to prevent gays and lesbians from obtaining marriage licenses, as separatist whites attempted to block public schools in the 1950s and 60s. I can't imagine Obama sending the National Guard down to Mississippi, or state troopers turning fire hoses on lesbians in wedding dresses. This fight is different. As the above examples show, it's much less violent and culturally charged than the fights of the past. The battles that raged in the South should never be forgotten or belittled, and I don't mean to do so here. My point is this: given the current context, the Supreme Court should have been inspired to more bravery, not less. They should not have seen themselves as wading into yet another cultural conflict but providing the first steps of cultural healing. Would Birmingham have an African-American mayor today if Brown vs. Board of Education had been thrown back to the states to decide?
This post started out tongue-in-cheek to get your attention, but it's ending in utter seriousness. Civil rights matter. They are not cute and hippie. They are important. Discrimination subjects real people to degradation and humiliation, and, when reversed, allows them dignity and hope. The Supreme Court has said as much, and every single person who was sobbing with relief or cheering or partying in the Castro on Wednesday proves my point. Rules unequally or arbitrarily applied are unsettling and strange, whether it's bangs peeking out from a head covering or the partial repeal of DOMA. As citizens of a nation celebrating 237 years of independence and freedom, we have to be better than 25% right.
