Are we okay with the status quo? Why?

By Dr. Darrell Spurlock

One of my areas of interest as an academic is about the ways in which we justify the status quo.  That is, how we accept, implicitly or explicitly, the way things are, even when we may disagree with them.  For example, how do well-meaning people, LGBT and straight, accept that fact that there is fundamental inequality in that, in most states, loving LGBT couples have essentially none of the same automatic legal rights that married couples have?  Surveys show more positive attitudes toward marriage equality now than ever, but why aren't folks compelled to fix what is remains wrong with how most states actually treat LGBT couples?

I would suggest that one explanation is system justification.  System justification theory deals with the ways in which we adopt attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors which perpetuate - and sometimes bolster - the status quo.  Not only do those in the majority group (in this case, straight persons) justify the status quo, but those in the oppressed group do as well.  When LGBT persons would rather not publicly demonstrate or provide legal challenges to the social and legal inequalities they suffer, do their actions appear to justify the status quo (though they may have good reasons for not wanting to be activists)?  When people striving for marriage equality view the increased support for civil unions as evidence that the dominant group is coming around when in fact there has been little positive change in state laws on marriage, are they justifying the status quo?  In reality, for every state that moves toward marriage equality, two or three move away.

Sometimes I wish marriage were still a mostly religious institution and the legal aspects were just instruments of a civil society.  Reconciling and affirming faith groups could marry whomever they wished.  Faith communities who preferred not to marry such couples would have that right as an expression of religious freedom.  The state remains neutral on the issue and provides legal rights to anyone who enters into the proper contracts.  It all seems so simple. 

I'm not sure what it will take to counter the the paradox of (a) increasing public acceptance of LGBT relationships, coupled with (b) increasing numbers of states which deny legal rights to anyone seeking to have their relationships recognized by the state.  It seems perhaps a classic case of how our unconscious works against what we publicly profess to be true.  Do we value LGBT persons and the relationships they enter with others?  The polls would say, "Yes."  Are we as a country committed to fairness and equality in society?  The polls would say, "Yes."  Do we support fairness in marriage, so that loving couples, no matter their sexual orientation or gender identity, can enjoy the same legal rights as heterosexual couples?  The polls would say, "No."  Our minds and hearts must be at work carefully justifying the status quo in the face of what we can clearly identify as injustice.