In this article, I distill the complex discourse of queer theory into four claims and then employ those claims to construct an original interpretation of the 2003 decision of Lawrence v. Texas in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas law criminalizing same-sex sodomy and overturned the 1986 case of Bowers v. Hardwick. Drawing on the queer performance in the reality television show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, I characterize Lawrence as a makeover of Bowers. Using Queer Eye’s parody of sexual identity as a model, I offer a parody of judicial power, and conclude that my application of queer theory produces a better account of the complexity of constitutional change and a more savvy understanding of the persistence of power than that which is typically offered in conventional constitutional discourse.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allen, Ted, Kyan Douglas, Thom Filicia, Carson Kressley, Jai Rodriguez. 2004. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy: The Fab 5’s Guide to Looking Better, Cooking Better, Dressing Better, Behaving Better, and Living Better. New York: Clarkson-Potter.
2.
Apostilidis, Paul. 2001. “Homosexuality and “Compassionate” Conservatism in the Discourse of the Post-Reaganite Right.”Constellations8: 78-105.
3.
Bakhtin, Mikhail M.1984a. Rabelais and His World. Translated by Helene Iswolsky. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
4.
Bakhtin, Mikhail M.1984b. Problems of Doestoevsky’s Poetics. Translated by Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press.
5.
Bergman, David. 2004. Gay and Lesbian Review Worldwide10: 18-18.
6.
Bower, Lisa. 1994. “Queer Acts and the Politics of Direct Address: Rethinking Law, Culture, and Community.”Law and Society Review28: 1009-1033.
7.
Brest, Paul. 1981. “The Fundamental Rights Controversy: The Essential Contradictions of Normative Constitutionall lScholarship.”Yale Law Journal90: 1063-1109.
8.
Brettschneider, Marla. 2004. “Questing for Heart in a Heartless World: On the Question of Same-Sex Marriage.”PEGS: Journal of the Good Society1 (2): 6-19.
9.
Burgess, Susan. 1992. Contest For Constitutional Authority: The Abortion and War Powers Debates. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
10.
Burgess, Susan. 2001. “A Fine Romance: Keith Whittington’s Originalism and the Drama of U.S. Constitutional Theory.”Law and Society Review35: 931-942.
11.
Burgess, Susan. 2005. “Did the Supreme Court Come Out in Bush v. Gore? Queer Theory on the Politics of the Performance of Shame,”differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies: 16: 126-146.
12.
Burgess, Susan. Forthcoming. “Who’s Your Daddy? Legitimacy, Parody, and Soap Operas in Contemporary Constitutional Debate,”Law, Culture, and the Humanities.
13.
Butler, Judith. 1990Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, New York: Routledge.
14.
Cuddon, J. A.1999. The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory. New York: Penguin.
15.
Doty, Alexander. 1993. Making Things Perfectly Queer: Interpreting Mass Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
16.
Dworkin, Ronald. 1977. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17.
Dworkin, Ronald. 1986. Law’s Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18.
Fiske, John. 1989. Understanding Popular Culture. London: Unwin-Hyman.
19.
Halley, Janet. 1993. “The Construction of Heterosexuality.” In Michael Warner, ed., Fear of a Queer Planet, pp. 82-104. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
20.
Harris, Wendell V.1992. Dictionary of Concepts in Literary Criticism and Theory. New York: Greenwood Press.
21.
Jagose, Annamarie. 1996. Queer Theory: An Introduction. New York: NYU Press.
22.
Miller, D. A.1988. The Novel and the Police. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Newton, Esther. 2000. Margaret Mead Made Me Gay: Personal Essays, Public Ideas. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
25.
Norton, Anne. 2004. Leo Strauss and the Politics of Empire. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
26.
Perretti, Terri Jennings. 1999. In Defense of a Political Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
Phelan, Shane. 1994. Getting Specific: Postmodern Lesbian Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
28.
Preminger, Alex. 1965. Princeton Encylcolpedia of Poetry and Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29.
Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. First aired February 24, 2004. www.bravotv.com/Queer_Eye_for_the_Straight_Guy/
30.
Rand, Erica. 1995. Barbie’s Queer Accessories. Durham: Duke University Press.
31.
Rollins, Joe. 2004. AIDS and the Sexuality of Law: Ironic Jurisprudence. New York: Palgrave/Macmillan.
32.
Rupp, Leila, and Verta Taylor. 2003. Drag Queens at the 901 Cabaret.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33.
Rosenberg, Gerald. 1991. The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34.
Scott, James.1985. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
35.
Sedgwick, Eve (1985) Between Men: English Literature and Homosocial Desire. New York: Columbia, 1985.
36.
Sedgwick, Eve1990. Epistemology of the Closet. Berkeley: University of California Press.
37.
Sedgwick, Eve1993. Tendencies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
38.
Sontag, Susan. 1990. Against Interpretation, “Notes on ‘Camp.’,” pp. 275-292. New York: Anchor Books.
39.
Stychin, Carl. 1995. Law’s Desire: Sexuality and the Limits of Justice. New York: Routledge.
40.
Sunstein, Cass. 2004. “Did Brown Matter?”New Yorker, April 28.
41.
Thomas, Kendall. 1993. “Corpus Juris (Hetero) Sexualis: Doctrine, Discourse, and Desire.” In Bowers v. Hardwick 1 GLQ: Journal of Gay and Lesbian Studies1 (1): 3-47.
42.
Warner, Michael, ed. 1993. Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
43.
Whittington, Keith. 1999. Constitutional Interpretation: Textual Meaning, Original Intent, and Judicial Review. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
44.
Bowers v. Hardwick 478 U.S. 186 (1986)
45.
Brown v. Board 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
46.
Carey v. Population Services International 431 U.S. 678 (1977)
47.
Eisenstadt v. Baird 405 U.S. 438 (1972
48.
Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1966)
49.
Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
50.
Meyer v. Nebraska 262 U.S. 390 (1923)
51.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters 268 U.S. 510 (1925)
52.
Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
53.
Skinner v. Oklahoma 316 U.S. 535 (1942); 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
