Search results

This chapter uncovers the destabilizing and transformative dimensions of a legal process commonly described as assimilation. Lawyers working on behalf of a marginalized group often argue that the group merits inclusion in dominant institutions, and they do so by casting the group as like the majority. Scholars have criticized claims of this kind for affirming the status quo and muting significant differences of the excluded group. Yet, this chapter shows how these claims may also disrupt the status quo, transform dominant institutions, and convert distinctive features of the excluded group into more widely shared legal norms. This dynamic is observed in the context of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights, and specifically through attention to three phases of LGBT advocacy: (1) claims to parental recognition of unmarried same-sex parents, (2) claims to marriage, and (3) claims regarding the consequences of marriage for same-sex parents. The analysis shows how claims that appeared assimilationist – demanding inclusion in marriage and parenthood by arguing that same-sex couples are similarly situated to their different-sex counterparts – subtly challenged and reshaped legal norms governing parenthood, including marital parenthood. While this chapter focuses on LGBT claims, it uncovers a dynamic that may exist in other settings.

This chapter examines how opponents of same-sex marriage have used rights discourse to construct an identity of themselves as victims, and construct gays and lesbians as deviant “others.” I find that conservative rights discourse has been more effective outside the courtroom than in it. This is because these arguments rely on implicit discriminatory stereotypes which are frequently exposed under the scrutiny of dispassionate judicial actors. However, in a popular arena, they are free to operate with considerably less scrutiny. Here, rights discourse is used to mask discriminatory stereotypes and lend legitimacy to positions that would be rejected if made explicitly.

The legalization of same-sex marriage changed the parenting landscape for LGBTQ parents in a variety of ways. Parenthood is presumably different now that same-sex marriage is officially legal. Experiences among LGBTQ couples in the post-legalization of same-sex marriage era raise questions about the context of growing recognition and cultural acceptance of same-sex relationships. I conducted in-depth interviews with LGBTQ parents to learn how they navigate parenting and the construction of parenting roles in the context of a society that has legalized same-sex marriage, yet still is rooted in heteronormative notions of family and parenthood. Specifically, I ask: How do LGBTQ couples construct and make sense of their roles as parents, particularly within the contemporary context of the legalization of same-sex marriage? Understanding the contexts that shape LGBTQ parents’ experiences aids in not only understanding the lives of LGBTQ parents and their families better, but also developing a deeper understanding of contemporary parenting identities and experiences more broadly.

The 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision accomplished more than the national legalization of same-sex marriage; it also laid bare a deep rift among US Supreme Court justices over the question of whether and how religious objections to same-sex marriage should be accommodated in this new era of marriage equality. This chapter will explore the rift revealed in Obergefell between the Court’s differing conceptions of religious free exercise and will highlight the ways in which this legal dispute was translated into a forceful mode of conservative religious activism in the buildup to the groundbreaking 2016 election.

Purpose – Historically, the gay and lesbian community has been divided over same-sex marriage along gender lines, with gay men its most frequent supporters and lesbians its most frequent critics. In recent years, however, in localities where same-sex marriage has been available, the gender polarity around same-sex marriage has reversed, with lesbian couples constituting the majority of those married. Although same-sex marriage is framed in a gender-neutral way, the higher rate of lesbians marrying suggests that gay men and lesbians may have different stakes in, demand for, and benefits from access to marriage.Methodology – Drawing on interviews with 42 participants (24 women; 18 men) in the 2004 San Francisco same-sex weddings, I qualitatively analyze how and when gender comes to be salient in the decision by same-sex couples to marry.Findings – Explicitly attending to the intersections of gender, sexual identity, and family, I find that lesbians and gay men did not systematically offer different narratives for why they married, but parents did offer different meanings than childfree respondents: the apparent gender gap is better described as a parenthood gap, which has a demographic relationship to gender with more lesbians than gay men achieving parenthood in California. Scholarship on the gendered experience of reproduction suggests that the importance of gender in the experience of queer parenthood may persist even if parity in parenthood were reached.Originality/value – Findings attest to the importance of attending to the intersections of gender, sexual identity, and family for scholars of same-sex marriage.

Quantitative research on the segregation of same-sex partners in the USA is new, and limited by challenges related to the accurate measurement of segregation and data errors. The purpose of this paper is to provide a novel approach to re-examine residential segregation between same-sex partners and different-sex partners in the USA.

Two versions of the dissimilarity index and corrected same-sex partners data from the 2010 decennial census were used. Effects of different geographic scales were examined.

Results reveal that the levels of segregation of both male and female same-sex partners were higher at metropolitan- vs state-levels; the levels of segregation was lower when measured using the unbiased as compared to the conventional version of the D-index; and male same-sex partnered households were more segregated from different-sex partnered households than were female same-sex partnered households.

Future studies should be attuned to geographic scale effects and should not ignore the bias of the D-index.

This study provides a better test of the differences between the two versions of the D-index and contributes to the literature by examining the segregation of both male same-sex partners and female same-sex partners across different geographic scales.

In total, 11 US legal jurisdictions have enacted registration schemes of various types. The purpose of this paper is to clarify, describe and analyse the developments of these various same‐sex relationship types in the USA and the role State constitutions play in this process.

The paper analyses the various types of registration schemes and categorises them into different theoretical themes as well as analysing the jurisdictions which permit and prohibit same‐sex relationship legal recognition.

The findings indicate that State constitutions have been used in order to gain access to legal recognition as well as to deny access to rights and duties of legally recognised relationships. A classification has been put forward which categorises and catalogues which states have used their constitutions to prohibit as well as permit same‐sex marriage and registered same‐sex relationships.

This type of categorisation is valuable in attempting to keep track of and understand the very fast‐moving area of law and law making, especially for other legal jurisdictions which may be able to use the theoretical approach of one of the US states.

This paper seeks to answer the practical question whether the institutionalisation level of same‐sex relationships can affect the social acceptance of lesbian women and gay men in Europe, and highlight some of the factors that can potentially determine the incidence of homophobia in 26 European countries.

The study contributes to the literature on acceptance of lesbian women and gay men in Europe by using the European Social Survey dataset, focusing especially on a key variable measuring the agreement level with the statement that gay men and lesbians should be free to live their own life as they wish. For data analyses, explanatory models were constructed by applying multilevel mixed‐effects linear regression.

The study presented empirically tested arguments that the introduction of same‐sex partnership legislation can lead to a decrease of anti‐gay/lesbian attitudes, as has happened in the European countries examined in this study.

Future research in more societies is needed to examine the long‐term effects of the introduction of same‐sex partnership legislation on homophobia.

A key policy implication of highlighting that the provision of equal rights for gay and lesbian citizens in the form of same‐sex marriage and registered partnership can positively influence attitudes, is to urge policy‐makers to introduce these legal frameworks in order to create a more inclusive society.

The content presented in this paper is based on the authors’ own original research.

Undergraduate legal studies classrooms are ideal places in which to engage discourses on judging, and to invite students to analyze and understand contemporary cultural and political representations of the proper roles of judges and judging in democracies. This chapter examines undergraduate understandings of judicial independence and judicial activism, via class discussions surrounding the judicial retention election in Iowa in 2010. The election was occasioned by the groundbreaking state supreme court case Varnum et al. v. Brien (2009), legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. Drawing on participant–observation research as a professor in these courses, and examining student dialogue, class discussion, and web-board postings on the topic, I find that legal studies students are able to articulate a complex range of views regarding the judiciary, judicial activism, and same-sex marriage. Their ability to engage in (mostly) civil discourse on the topic of judging is of particular societal importance, given the limitations of contemporary public discourses about judging. These findings point, as well, to the potential role for engaged academics in expanding and contextualizing public conversations about judicial independence, judicial activism, and rights. The chapter also highlights, however, limits in that educational experience, in particular students' lionization of legal processes, simultaneous to their cynicism about, and lack of engagement in, electoral/political processes. This points to the development of interdisciplinary legal studies curricula as a means toward effective education for democracy.

To identify the Obama administration’s policy responsiveness to the (African) American LGBT communities.

Theory development and content analysis.

Civic universalism, as a theory, can explain President Obama’s evolution on his support for marriage rights for same-sex couples. Obama employed the concept of e pluribus unum in his many approaches to LGBT responsive politics.

To date, theoretical development within the social sciences of LGBT policy responsiveness is limited.

Very little is written on the subject of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered) politics in the 21st century. The study of the LGBT experience generally has been devoid of political variables because of a lack of attention toward LGBT issues, until recently, in national political party agendas. In this chapter, we review some of the contours of the LGBT community’s fight for political recognition in the United States as a precursor to the election and reelection of President Obama. Drawing parallels with presidential responsiveness toward Blacks in their quest for rights, we examine the Obama administration’s LGBT public policy initiatives as administrative policy and programs. We conclude by identifying new areas of research to explore on LGBT politics.