Colorado Civil Unions: Why Let Gay Couples Have Rights?

Last week, gay marriage and civil union legislation played out in legislatures across the country with varied results (Associated Press, 2012).  In New Jersey, Governor Christie vetoed gay marriage legislation that had made it through the legislature, while in Washington state, Governor Gregoire signed similar legislation into law (Associated Press, 2012).  Meanwhile, in Colorado, the Colorado State Senate Judiciary Committee recently weighed in on civil union legislation, voting in favor by a 5-2 margin (Moreno, 2012).  The bill is expected to get through the Democrat-controlled Senate, while facing a tough fight in the Republican-controlled House (Moreno, 2012). At stake in the religiopolitical debate are minority rights, equality, the legal and social definition of marriage and family; perhaps even our national character and the separation of church and state.

As the debate rages anew here in Colorado, familiar arguments from well-trenched positions have reemerged in the battle, as supporters argue for fairness, equal rights, and legal protection for same-sex couples and their children (Bartels, 2012).  While opponents argue that same-sex couples are immoral, that civil unions will lead to same-sex marriage, that marriage is between a man and a women, and that to allow same-sex marriage or even civil unions will lessen traditional marriage and by extension society (Bartels, 2012).  In addition, opponents frequently argue that children are better off when they have a mother and a father.  What should Coloradans make of these arguments?

Gay couples face overwhelming discrimination as the price of their sexuality; discrimination that is “baked” into the legal system, tax system, into the very fabric of society.  For example, Bernard and Lieber (Bernard & Lieber, 2012) found that gay couples would incur between roughly $41,000 and $460,000 dollars in additional costs over heterosexual couples, as a result of being in a committed, lifelong, same-sex, relationship.  The additional costs came from increased tax liability, reduced benefits, and increased legal costs (Bernard & Lieber, 2012).  The lesson for gay couples is simple; it pays to be straight.

Discrimination also occurs in the legal system, where despite anti-discrimination legislation, judicial stereotypes and bias in child custody cases is still a pervasive problem (Kendall, 2003).  Kendall (2003) finds that:

The judicial animus in these cases is directed at adult lesbians and gay men, the true brunt of the discrimination is borne by their children, who are inevitably harmed by decisions that undermine their love and respect for their parents and their pride in their families-and, by extension, themselves. (p. 1)

The irony in the situation is thick, as many opponents of civil union and same-sex marriage are arguing that gay parents somehow harm their children, a point of view recently articulated by GOP presidential contender, Rick Santorum (Krasny, 2012).  While Santorum lacked specifics on how specifically children of gay parents are harmed (Krasny, 2012), Zach Wahls, a University of Iowa student and Eagle scout that happens to be the child of a lesbian couple was eloquent in front of the Iowa legislature as he argued that “the sexual orientation of my parents has had zero affect on the content of my character” (James, 2011, p. 1).

Of course, it isn’t surprising that Zach turned out fine, despite having lesbian parents. Social science research has found “that children who grow up in homosexual families are much like children who grow up in heterosexual families” (Brym & Lie, 2007, p. 316).  Moreover, the scientific research is so overwhelmingly consistent, that the American Psychological Association (2004) issued a policy statement indicating that 1) they support legal protections for gay couples and their children, 2) they support protection of the parent-child relationships of same sex parents, 3) they will take a leadership role in opposing discrimination based on sexual orientation, and 4) they will take an active role informing public discussion and policy development.  In summary, gay couples face ongoing discrimination in a variety of social institutions resulting in higher costs, less rights, and fewer legal protections than similar heterosexual couples, despite scientific research that suggests equal rights for same-sex couples would benefit society.  Why does civil society work to prevent gay couples from equal rights?

The simple answer is likely religion, or more correctly, the religiopolitical perspective shared by lawmakers and clergy, whose origins are scriptural in nature.  According to Brym and Lie (2007), many in the United States are part of a vast religious revival, while others are increasingly secular, “resulting in a world that is neither more secular, but one that is certainly more polarized” (p. 343).  Nowhere is polarization more apparent than in the gay marriage public debate.  Despite the founder’s intention to separate church and State, religion clearly holds sway in political life.  As the Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee considered the civil union legislation, whose testimony opposed civil unions?  It was clergymen from both Catholic and Evangelical Churches, arguing that “homosexuality is immoral“ (Bartels, 2012, p. 1) and “anything that lessens [traditional marriage] lessens society at large. Marriage is the cornerstone of society” (Moreno, 2012, p. 1).   Conservative members of the GOP echo their reasoning, as if in one voice.  GOP contender Rick Santorum argued that “The uniqueness of marriage is it provides an intrinsic good to society” (Krasny, 2012, p. 1).  The gay marriage debate has demonstrated that church and State are bound together, seeking to use the definition of marriage as a legitimizing myth to prevent gay couples from participating equally in a civil society; their position a moral argument, rather than a legal one.

States legislatures and citizens across these United States are in the midst of determining whether gay people will receive equal rights and treatment under the law.  At stake, is more than the welfare of gay couples and their children.  Rather, the outcome of this debate will have implications for our national character and perhaps even more importantly, set the stage for the degree to which the United States will behave as a theocracy.  The XIV Amendment of the Bill of Rights is clear, stating “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (United States, 1868).  How then, can we citizens of these United States allow discrimination of gay couples?  There is no place in this debate for moral arguments, as the Bill of Rights is clear; the debate is about what is legal and what is right.  Who are clergy members to deny a person their rights based on a moral argument?  More importantly, who are we as citizens to deny gay couples their rights?  Providing equal protection under the law is an easy decision.  Deciding whether we will allow the U.S. religious revival to dominate politics to the point that citizens lose their civil rights is proving to be a tougher debate.


American Psychological Association. (2004, July 30, 2004). Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children  Retrieved February 19, 2012, from

Associated Press. (2012, February 18, 2012). Legislatures open same-sex marriage brawl on multiple fronts  Retrieved February 18, 2012, from

Bartels, L. (2012, February 16, 2012). Vote by Colorado Senate panel embraces civil unions  Retrieved February 18, 2012, from

Bernard, T. S., & Lieber, R. (2012, October 2, 2009). The High Price of Being a Gay Couple Your Money. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from

Brym, R. J., & Lie, J. (2007). Sociology : your compass for a new world (Brief ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

James, S. D. (2011, February 3, 2011). Son of Iowa Lesbians Fights Gay Marriage Ban  Retrieved February 19, 2012, from – .T0Euqpi_FLo

Kendall, K. (2003, 2003). Lesbian and gay parents in child custody and visitation disputes. Human Rights, 1.

Krasny, R. (2012, January 5, 2012). Santorum sees “harm” to children with same-sex parents  Retrieved February 19, 2012, from PGM460 Week 6 Critical Thinking Richard Rock.docx

Moreno, I. (2012, February 16, 2012). Colorado Civil Union Bill Advances In State Senate; Headed Toward Showdown In Republican-Controlled House. Huffington Post  Retrieved February 18, 2012, from

United States. (1868). The Bill of Rights [graphic .]. Washington DC: United States Congress.



Social Dominance Theory: The U.S. Minority Experience

The United States is often viewed as a classless society (Fiske-Rusciano, 2009), where everyone has an equal opportunity to be successful and yet, despite significant legislation intended to provide equal rights and opportunities, there continue to be disturbing disparities that are suggestive of systematic problems that prevent equal participatation in U.S. society by minorities. African-Americans and Hispanics have less wealth than whites (Kochhar, Fry, & Taylor, 2011), earn less income than whites (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009), have lower rates of participation in higher education (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011), and have unequal representation in the U.S. Congress (U.S. Congress & Manning, 2011). In the 19th century, De Tocqueville (1839), described his observations of U.S. democracy, concerned over the “tyranny of the majority” or the ability of the majority to hold unequal power over the minority. While De Tocqueville was not explicitly worried over ethnic or racial minorities, the observations appear nonetheless prophetic. The white majority has dominated nearly every aspect of social life in the United States since the country’s inception, holding economic, political, legislative, and religious power (Zinn, 2003). In addition, white majority perspectives have dominated U.S. cultural life including language, art, media, and history (Zinn, 2003). It is plausible to believe that minorities, have long been in a subordinate relationship to the dominant white society in the United States, and are members of a near-permanent underclass enforced by white institutions and individuals, to maintain their dominant social status, and justify unequal distribution of resources.

Social Dominance Theory

Social Dominance Theory is the lens through which the experiences of African- Americans and Hispanics will be examined in this paper, and as such; require a brief review of its major tenets. Developed by Pratto and Sidanius (1999), Social Dominance Theory (SDT) describes the observation that all human societies with a resource surplus are structured as group- based social hierarchies with dominant and subordinate groups, whereby the dominant groups control access to resources; a condition the authors consider universal to humanity. Pratto and Sidanius (1999) argue that the common structure for the group hierarchy is trimorphic and based on three distinct systems that include an age system, gender system, and an arbitrary-set system that can be class, race, ethnicity, religion, origin, or otherwise, and that the group structures are created from the combined effects of discrimination from individuals, institutions, and intergroup processes. The coordination of discrimination occurs across individuals and institutions, through the notion of legitimizing myths; the ideas or values that are shared between dominants and subordinates alike (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). SDT is a valuable lens through which to examine minority experiences, using race and ethnicity as the arbitrary-set systems, in the hopes of shedding light on the ways in which individual and institutional discrimination combine with legitimizing myths to maintain inequality in the U.S.

SDT and the African-American Experience

from the earliest arrival of African slaves to America’s shores in 1619, the African- American experience in the United States has been one of subjugation and subordination (Zinn, 2003). During slavery, a common legitimizing myth of the time was “the argument that slavery was actually benevolent and in the interest of Blacks because they were simply incapable of attending to their own affairs suggesting that slavery was not only economically advantageous but morally compelling (Zanna & Olson, 1994, p. 309)”. Whereas the combined effect of the Emancipation Proclamation and the Union victory should have begun a new era of freedom for slaves, instead, whites continued to dominate African-Americans using institutions besides slavery. Laws took away African-American voting rights, like poll taxes, property qualifications, and literacy tests (Zinn, 2003); additionally, there were Jim Crow segregationist laws and practices that “extended overt racism against African-Americans into the middle of the twentieth century (Fiske-Rusciano, 2009, p. 173)”.

The birth of the twentieth century saw African-Americans continue to be subordinate to the white dominant class (Zinn, 2003). In the period between the 1870s and 1940s, religious institutions in the South were segregated and “the southern religious community often gave aid and comfort to the forces that adopted disenfranchisement, legal segregation, and proscription (Hill, Lippy, & Wilson, 2005, p. 715)”. The segregation of churches served to create exclusively African-American churches that developed into socially distinct institutions of African-American faith and served as rallying points for social justice (Hill, et al., 2005). African-American churches are an example of what Pratto and Sidanius (1999) would call a hierarchy-attenuating institution, or an institution that works to moderate the influence of institutions that enhance inequality, like a white dominated justice system, white schools, or white religious institutions. Other hierarchy-attenuating institutions that took form in the early twentieth century include the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and later, during the Civil Rights movement, equally transformative organizations formed, supporting social justice for African- Americans, like the Congress of Racial Equality, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, and the Southern Poverty Law Center (Zinn, 2010). The civil rights era saw rapid change beginning with the landmark case, Brown vs. the Board of Education, which “held that segregated schools were inherently unequal because of the message that segregation conveyed: that African-American children were an untouchable cast, unfit to go to school with white children (Lawrence, 1990, p. 446)”. The era culminated in the latter half of the sixties with the Civil Rights Act of 1965, a series violent racial conflagrations in cities across the United States in 1967 that pitted white police officers against African-Americans, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Zinn, 2010). These examples of from the civil rights movement serve to illuminate the SDT concept of a collaborative intergroup processes, or process shared by dominants and subordinates alike, that are supported by legitimizing myths (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). The riots can be considered self-debilitating behavior given they affected primarily African-American neighborhoods, while the behavior may have reinforced the bias of white police officers, suggestive of a collaborative intergroup process that reinforces the existing hierarchy.

While the end of the Civil Rights era saw significant changes in legislation ending years of overt discrimination, as we take stock over forty years later, we find that institutionalized discrimination still exists. In The 2000 Presidential Election in Black and White, Rusciano (2008) notes that votes in largely black districts were invalidated at a higher rate than those in largely white districts, likely because of dilapidated voting machines in poorer black neighborhoods. Campbell (1984) describes in To Be Black Gifted and Alone, the plight of a successful black women attempting to deal with the pressure and resentment of living a liminal existence, not at home with former friends that occupy a different social class, while equally not at home with white colleagues.

Of course, the numbers speak for themselves, the 2010 Census indicate that African- Americans make up 12.6% of the U.S. population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010), and yet only make up 1.5% of the total number of households in the top income quintile and nearly 33% of the bottom 20% income quintile (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). In addition, the African-American unemployment rate in the United States remains twice the rate of their dominants white counterparts (U.S. Department of Labor, 2011). In spite of legislation guaranteeing equal rights under the law, African-Americans have yet to attain anything resembling full equality, as measured by access to positive social value, “or desirable material and symbolic resources such as political power, wealth, protection by force, plentiful and desirable food, and access to good housing, health care, leisure, and education” (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999, p. 272). Rather, African- Americans continue to have a disproportionate share of negative social value, things like underemployment, disproportionate punishment, stigmatization, and vilification. For example, the U.S. Department of Justice statistics demonstrate the disproportionate African-American share of capital punishment, making up 41.5% of prisoners on death row in the United States (U.S. Department of Justice & Snell, 2010).

To conclude the view of the African-American experience in the United States, African- Americans continue to have a lower share of resources representing positive social value and a significantly higher share of resources representing lower social value. Inequality likely continues because of the combined effect of individual discrimination, institutional discrimination, and collaborative intergroup processes that maintain the existing hierarchy.

SDT and the Hispanic Experience

As established in the introduction, people of Hispanic origin in the United States suffer from many of the same socioeconomic disparities as African-Americans, with unequal access to wealth, income, and power. For purposes of contrast, the Hispanic experience will be reviewed with a focus on the violence of arbitrary-set systems, the role of hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths in the continue subordination of Hispanics in the United States, and an examination of hierarchy-enhancing and hierarchy-attenuating cultural institutions that allow the exploration of the impact of white culture on the minority experience.

In the debate over Hispanic immigration to the United States, many Americans appear to lose sight of the historical context of the Hispanic experience in the United States, particularly that of Mexican-American Hispanics whose families have geographical roots that predate their lands annexation by the United States. In the early 1800s, Mexico was a large country that won independence from Spain, whose national territory included what today is Mexico, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Utah and parts of Colorado (Zinn, 2003). Half of Mexico was taken by force following the successful U.S. invasion of Mexico, the same war that ironically sparked Henry David Thoreau’s act of civil disobedience that later became one of the seminal works outlining the duty of citizens to resist unjust civil government (Zinn, 2003). The invasion of Mexico was a violent and aggressive act that included not only the violent subjugation of the Mexican people, but widespread violence, theft, and rape of the civilian population.

Reviewing the conquest of Mexico in light of SDT, one observes the interplay between gender systems and arbitrary-set systems described by Pratto and Sidanius (1999), who note that only in arbitrary-set systems is the extreme type of violence described by Zinn (2003) found. Pratto et al., (2006) describe the lethality of arbitrary-set system violence:

Arbitrary-sets are the only type of system in which total annihilation is found. That is, there are cases in which one clan or race or ethnic group has exterminated another. There are no known cases in which adults killed all the children, or men killed all the women, in a society. Finally, while by definition, the age system is focused on the control of children by adults, and the gender system is focused on men’s control of women, social dominance theory argues that arbitrary-set hierarchy primarily focuses on the control of subordinate males by coalitions of dominant males. This, in fact, is a primary reason that arbitrary-set hierarchy is associated with extraordinary levels of violence. (p. 274)

While the rape of Mexican women and girls might appear to be gender system domination, SDT concludes that rape is used primarily as a tool of arbitrary-set system violence to further enhance subordination (Pratto, et al., 2006). While the conquest was Mexico was a violent affair, there was a significant debate in the United States on the righteousness of the war, with Americans on both sides of the debate. Proponents of the war argued primarily for the legitimizing myth of “manifest destiny” and to save the Mexican people from their vices (Zinn, 2003). According to Zinn (2003), one newspaper, the Congressional Globe, wrote, “we must march from ocean to ocean…It is the destiny of the white race, it is the destiny of the Anglo-Saxon race (p. 171)”. So there is considerable irony in the modern immigration debate, given the historical context for the U.S. relationship with Mexicans, began as one of territorial conquest, and racism as a pretext for social domination.

As we consider the modern immigration debate in terms of the hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths that frame the debate, there are several related myths. The first myth to address is the notion that immigrants are responsible for U.S. economic problems. The Federation on American Immigration Reform, a special interest group with racist origins (The Pioneer Fund, 2011; Zeskind, 2005), frame the myth by distributing reports that suggest illegal immigrants that cross the border from Mexico are tax-evaders, heavy users of social services, have high rates of criminality, and take American jobs (FAIR, 2010), costing U.S. taxpayers $113 billion dollars annually (Martin & Ruark, 2010) Unbiased reports and peer reviewed research tell a different tale, suggesting that illegal immigration is an economic wash, neither helping nor hurting the economy (Hanson, 2007) and that illegal immigrants actually pay significant social security taxes whose benefit they can never claim, roughly $500B in 2005 (O’Carroll, 2006). Reports of higher incarceration rates are true, but that does not necessarily mean that Hispanic illegal immigrants engage in higher rates of criminal activity, because institutional discrimination in the justice system accounts for higher incarceration rates as subordinates absorb a higher share of negative social value. One study found, that after adjusting for institutional bias, Hispanic illegal immigrants had lower rates of criminal activity and surmised that questionable legal status was a contributing factor (Hagan & Palloni, 1999). Despite significant evidence to the contrary, the hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myth that Hispanic illegal immigrants are the cause of U.S. economic problems, serves to allow dominant institutions, namely the U.S. government, to attempt to legislate discriminatory immigration policies that maintain the dominant hierarchy. For those that believe that a discriminatory immigration policy is unlikely to pass, a quick review of the last one hundred years tells a very different story, as both the Mexican “Repatriation” Campaign and “Operation Wetback” were the result of hierarchy-enhancing immigration policies that forcibly deported millions of Mexicans, many of them U.S. citizens (U.S. Commission On Civil Rights, 1980). Those policies had as much to do with immigration as does the immigration debate today, meaning the debate simply continues the tradition of social domination that began with the conquest of Mexico.

Media portrayals of Hispanics are another element of how cultural institutions support discrimination. The National Association of Hispanic Journalists for many years published the Network Brownout Report, studying Latino portrayal in the national media (Montalvo & Torres, 2006). The report demonstrates the role of the media as a hierarchy-enhancing institution, with nearly 30% of images analyzed depicting negative images of Latinos, where “images of day laborers standing in a parking lot or immigrants crossing the border often provide viewers with a negative, menacing and stereotypical depiction of Latinos (Montalvo & Torres, 2006, p. 13)”. While white dominated media institutions use legitimizing myths and stereotypes to enhance the existing hierarchy, Latino social justice organizations work to moderate the impact of mainstream media by providing an altogether different view.

The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) is a Latino social justice organization born out of the civil rights movement that seeks to combat discrimination and advocate for Latino rights, using media to educate the Latino community, challenge discriminatory stereotypes, and help the community take action (Rock, 2011). NCLR challenges stereotypes by providing alternative views in the mainstream media and through social media, using public service announcements and the NCLR ALMA Awards, a nationally televised awards show similar to the Oscars, but with a distinct focus on Latino entertainers, to promote “fair, accurate, and representative portrayals of Latinos in entertainment (Murgia, 2011, p. 1)”. NCLR, a hierarchy-attenuating organization, attempts to use media to provide a dramatically different media portrayal of Latinos in order to attenuate the effects of the dominant hierarchy.

The Hispanic experience illuminates how the extreme violence possible within arbitrary- set systems male groups, created dominant hierarchies allowing the dominant group to control resources, like territory, and subordinate other male-groups. In addition, the Hispanic experience has allowed a view into how the legitimizing myths described in SDT have had a significant impact on Hispanics through their use in promoting both war and discriminatory laws to justify the maintenance of the existing hierarchy. Finally, it is possible to view the current immigration debate and understand the role that both hierarchy-enhancing and hierarchy-attenuating institutions play in framing both dominant and subordinate views of the legitimizing myths that surround the debate.


Our national and social history, viewed from two very different perspectives, tells two very different stories. The U.S. remains dominated by whites controlling the institutions of power that define our cultural and historical context, therefore, our history is replete with legitimizing myths that justify the behaviors, both noble and heinous, that led the U.S to this place in history. American exceptionalism, Manifest Destiny, the United States as a beacon, and the American Dream, are powerful stories through which current and past events are framed. From the viewpoint of subordinate groups, America’s legitimizing myths are debilitating, and create a situation where both dominants and subordinates act in concert to maintain white domination over institutions, wealth, income, and items of positive social value.

Individuals in the subordinate group can achieve success in the United States, however, there are often consequences for subordinates that access resources of positive social value, such as in the story mentioned earlier by Campbell (1984), about Leanita McLain, a successful black journalist. McLain could not handle the pressures of deviating from the existing gender-set and arbitrary-set systems, as social forces from both dominant and subordinate institutions and individuals became too much to handle, so rather than continue to existing in the space between dominants and subordinates, she took her own life (Campbell, 1984).

Social Dominance Theory is useful to understand the complex interplay of forces, both institutional and individual, that combine to preserve existing hierarchies. This theory allows sociologists and historians to examine the past and present, not through the lens of either dominants or subordinates, but rather, to take a step back and examine our past and present using the holistic viewpoint of our shared humanity, and perhaps in doing so, inform a better future where resources are shared more equally.


Campbell, B. M. (1984). To be Black, Gifted, and Alone. In R. Fiske-Rusciano (Ed.), Experiencing race, class, and gender in the United States (5th ed., pp. 175-179). Boston, Mass.: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

FAIR. (2010). Federation for American immigration reform 2010 annual report (pp. 32). Washington DC.

Fiske-Rusciano, R. (2009). Experiencing race, class, and gender in the United States (5th ed.). Boston, Mass.: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Hagan, J., & Palloni, A. (1999). Sociological criminology and the mythology of Hispanic immigration and crime. Social Problems, 46(4), 617-632.

Hanson, G. H. (2007). The economic logic of illegal immigration. Council on Foreign Relations, 26(April 2007), 1-52.

Hill, S. S., Lippy, C. H., & Wilson, C. R. (2005). Encyclopedia of religion in the South (2nd ed.). Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press.

Kochhar, R., Fry, R., & Taylor, P. (2011). Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks, Hispanics Pew Social & Demographic Trends. Washington DC: Pew Research Center.

Lawrence, C. R., III. (1990). Acknowledging the Victims’ Cry. In R. Fiske-Rusciano (Ed.), Experiencing race, class, and gender in the United States (5th ed., pp. 446-448). Boston, Mass.: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Martin, J., & Ruark, E. (2010). The fiscal burden of illegal immigration on United States taxpayers (pp. 1-95). Washington DC: Federation for American Immigration Reform.

Montalvo, D., & Torres, J. (2006). 2006 network brownout report: The portrayal of Latinos and Latino issues on network television news, 2005. In N. A. o. H. Journalists (Ed.), Network Brownout Report (pp. 1-24). Washington DC: National Association of Hispanic Journalists.

Murgia, J. (2011). ALMA Awards 2011  Retrieved August 26, 2011, 2011, from

O’Carroll, P., Jr. (2006). Statement for the record: Administrative challenges facing the Social Security Administration.  Washington DC: U.S. Senate

Committee on Finance Retrieved from

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 271-320. doi: 10.1080/10463280601055772

Rock, R. (2011, September 1, 2011). Social Media, Social Change: How the National Council of La Raza Uses Social Media to Advance Latino Issue. journey24pointoh  Retrieved September 2, 2011, 2011, from

Rusciano, F. L. (2008). The 2000 Presidential Election in Black and White. In R. Fiske-Rusciano (Ed.), Experiencing race, class, and gender in the United States (5th ed., pp. 175-179). Boston, Mass.: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance : an intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression (Vol. x, 403 p.). Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

The Pioneer Fund. (2011). The Founders  Retrieved August 10, 2011, from

Tocqueville, A. d., Reeve, H., & Spencer, J. C. (1839). Democracy in America (3rd American ed.). New York: G. Adlard.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). Table HINC-05. Percent Distribution of Households, by Selected Characteristics Within Income Quintile and Top 5 Percent in 2009. In new05_000.htm (Ed.). Washington DC: U.S Census Bureau.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). 2010 National Population by Race. In c2010br-02.pdf (Ed.). Washington DC: U.S Census Bureau.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Table 227. Educational Attainment by Selected Characteristics: 2009. In 11s0227.pdf (Ed.). Washington DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

U.S. Commission On Civil Rights. (1980). Historical dimiscrimination in the immigration laws. In R. Fiske-Rusciano (Ed.), Experiencing race, class, and gender in the United States (5th ed.). Boston, Mass.: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

U.S. Congress, & Manning, J. (2011). Membership of the 112th Congress: A Profile. (0160537177). Washington: U.S. G.P.O. : For sale by the U.S. G.P.O., Supt. of Docs., Congressional Sales Office Retrieved from

U.S. Department of Justice, & Snell, T. (2010). Capital Punishment, 2009—Statistical Tables. In cp09st.pdf (Ed.). Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

U.S. Department of Labor. (2011). Table A-2. Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age. In empsit.t02.htm (Ed.), (pp. Economic News Release). Washington D.C.: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Zanna, M. P., & Olson, J. M. (1994). The psychology of prejudice. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Zeskind, L. (2005, October 23, 2005). The new nativism. The American Prospect  Retrieved August 10, 2011, from

Zinn, H. (2003). A people’s history of the United States : 1492-present ([New ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

Zinn, H. (2010). The Twentieth Century : a people’s history. New York, NY: MJF Books.

On Social Tyranny

          Since the birth of democratic forms of government, long have critics been concerned with majority power over minorities and individuals.  Alexis de Tocqueville, perhaps expressed the concept best with the phrase “tyranny of the majority” (Tocqueville, Reeve, & Spencer, 1839, p. 280), describing how the majority can influence an electoral process to the detriment of minority participants and individual liberty.  In Mill’s (2003) work, On Liberty, he notes that the majority rule in the electoral process is not the only issue, but that democracies must also guard against the “tyranny of the prevailing opinion or feeling” (p. 91) or the tendency and ability of society to impose its cultural norms on all constituents through non-civil means.  Mill warns that failure to conform to societal pressures can result in imposed limits on the ability of minorities to fully participate in society (Mill, et al., 2003).  We see Mill’s cause for concern in contemporary American society, as debate rages on same-sex marriage, and many states are limiting the rights of LGBT community and the individuals therein from participating in marriage, the societal convention that recognizes a relationship and confers certain rights and obligations upon those in the relationship.  In the case of same-sex marriages, the majority is creating public policy that limits minorities from participating fully in American society.  While we continue to face the majority rule issue in contemporary U.S. politics, public and special interest groups offer a way for minority groups to promote social change via a wide range of activities designed to influence the political process.

Despite the protections of law afforded all citizens on the United States, significant evidence of the effects of social tyranny permeate American society.  According to the latest U.S. Census data, 56% of the U.S. population consider themselves non-Hispanic whites, while 16% consider themselves Hispanics and 12% consider themselves black (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a).  And yet, according to a Congressional Research Service report, the U.S. Congress is overwhelmingly made up of whites, with nearly 84% reported as white, 5% as Hispanic, and 8% as black (U.S. Congress & Manning, 2011).  There is a clear gap between the ethnic makeup of the U.S. population, and those who represent the population in the political process; but critics might argue that minorities are treated fairly by their elected representatives.

Unfortunately, the evidence would seemingly indicate that whites maintain a consistent economic advantage over Hispanics and blacks, with median household incomes 43% higher than Hispanics and 67% higher than blacks (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b).  Additionally, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that 25% of Hispanics and 25% of blacks were living below poverty level in 2009, with only 9% of whites in the same category (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b).  Census data also shows that Hispanics and blacks are far more likely to lack health insurance than their white counterparts (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b).  Finally, a recent Pew Research Center report found that whites had more than eighteen times the household wealth than that of Hispanic households and more than twenty times the household wealth than that of black households (Kochhar, Fry, & Taylor, 2011).  The evidence would appear to support the notion that minorities continue to suffer under a form of social tyranny that prevents them from participating fully in the benefits of American society and if not for the gains of previous decades of collective action, the situation might well be far worse.

Collective action is an often, successful method for a special interest groups or public interest groups to influence the larger majority and change the dynamics of social tyranny.  Special interest groups can be considered those, “which have a narrow social base, concentrate on limited issues, and, benefit mainly their own members” (Etzioni, 1985, p. 171), while public interest groups “have a broad social base which have a broad social base, address a wide range of issues, and balance members’ interests with a strong commitment to the commonweal” (Etzioni, 1985, p. 171).  Olsen described the logic supporting the effectiveness of collective action to allow a small group to influence a larger group in economic terms, where the benefits of action are concentrated, while the costs are diffused (1971).   Interest groups attempt to influence politics by organizing individuals with common interests, informing the public and elected officials, organizing electoral competition, organizing government, and linking the state and local politics with national politics (“Interest Groups,” 2011).  Collective action in the form of public or special interest groups have long been a force for change in public policy, with well-known examples of dramatic social change witnessed during the civil rights movement and the more recent Arab Spring.

Increasingly, political minorities are using collective action to form both special and public interest groups, to influence public policy in order to benefit as full participants in American society.  Collective action is a fundamental construct of our democratic system that allows minority groups to advance their aims in the face of significant resistance from the majority that has a vested, interest in maintaining the status quo.


Etzioni, A. (1985). Special Interest Groups Versus Constituency Representation. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, 8, 171-195.

. Interest Groups. (2011). Texas Politics  Retrieved August 5, 2011, from

Kochhar, R., Fry, R., & Taylor, P. (2011). Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks, Hispanics Pew Social & Demographic Trends. Washington DC: Pew Research Center.

Mill, J. S., Bentham, J., Austin, J., & Warnock, M. (2003). Utilitarianism ; and, On liberty : including Mill’s Essay on Bentham’ and selections from the writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Austin (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.

Olson, M. (1971). The logic of collective action; public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, Mass.,: Harvard University Press.

Tocqueville, A. d., Reeve, H., & Spencer, J. C. (1839). Democracy in America (3rd American ed.). New York: G. Adlard.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010a). 2010 National Population by Race. In c2010br-02.pdf (Ed.). Washington DC: U.S Census Bureau.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010b). Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009. In p60-238.pdf (Ed.). Washington DC: U.S Census Bureau.

U.S. Congress, & Manning, J. (2011). Membership of the 112th Congress: A Profile. (0160537177). Washington: U.S. G.P.O. : For sale by the U.S. G.P.O., Supt. of Docs., Congressional Sales Office Retrieved from