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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The purpose of this article is to classify and study the features of the types of non-standard marriages existing in Russia (de facto, sham, same-sex marriages), in order to adjust their legal regulation by the state.

The authors of the article examined the theoretical and practical problems of state recognition and regulation of non-standard marriages not recognized by the state, and justified a new strategy of support (in the case of de facto marriages) or counteraction (in the case of sham marriages) of these social phenomena by the state and law. In the light of the negative attitude of Russian citizens to same-sex marriages, the possibility of their support in the future is justified.

Having studied three types of non-standard marriages, the authors substantiate the need for a different approach of the state to further legal regulation of these social phenomena. It is proved, that in relation to same-sex marriages, the existing non-recognition and negative attitude of the legislator and society in Russia to their legalization will last until the attitude towards sexual minorities in general, changes in Russian society. De facto marriages should be introduced into the legal field, they should be given a normative definition and outline the general legal framework of the rights of de facto spouses and their children. As for sham marriages, it is proposed to consider the lack of intention to create a family and the selfish interest to be their main features pursued by one or both spouses entering into a sham marriage.

The originality and value of the research is stipulated by the consideration of the legal regulation of marriage and family issues in the historical context of the development of the Russian state, as well as the evolution of ideas about morality in Russian society. The changing attitude of society towards de facto marriages, the increase in the number of unregistered married couples indicates the transformation of the moral values of young people and the need for the state to promote the legal protection of such married couples without trying to prohibit or restrict them. Existing approaches to the legal regulation of sham marriages require adjustments, including incorporating the notion of “fictitious divorce” in family legislation.

This paper seeks to explore the attitudes of lesbian mothers towards same‐sex marriage, focusing in particular on how they perceive the relationship between marriage and children's best interests.

The paper draws on 36 semi‐structured interviews with lesbian mothers living in British Columbia and Alberta, comparing their views on marriage and children's best interests with those articulated by lesbian and gay litigants during the Canadian same‐sex marriage campaign.

It was found that few of the mothers made any positive link between having married parents and children's best interests. Only a quarter of the couples had married or intended to marry.

Whether the views expressed in this research will be embraced by the next generation of lesbian mothers is difficult to predict. Prospective lesbian mothers will be able to marry before having children, will likely experience greater societal pressure to marry, and may have weaker ties to feminist politics. The issue should be revisited to see whether the views expressed in the research resonate with the next generation of mothers.

Law reform directed at same‐sex families should not presume that lesbians perceive there to be any positive relationship between marriage and children's best interests.

The paper provides empirical data on how lesbian mothers understand the relationship, if any, between having married parents and children's best interests. It challenges the universality of the very traditional views expressed in the same‐sex marriage litigation, and argues that amongst the wider lesbian mothering community attitudes towards the relationship between marriage and parenting are considerably more diverse.

This article addresses Taiwanese public opinion on same-sex marriage, connecting it to the 2020 general election.

Original survey data are combined with analysis of the existing literature and 2020 election results.

Original survey data find that nearly one in five respondents have changed their views on same-sex marriage since its legalization, with most of those who have changed their views more opposed to legalization than before. However, this shift and its related support for the Kuomintang (KMT) do not appear to have influenced election results.

The results suggest that positions on same-sex marriage remain somewhat in flux, while the success of the pro-legalization Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) may lead to additional LGBT rights.

This combines original survey data with election results to analyze the effects of same-sex marriage legalization on the election outcome.

Following the landmark 2003 Ontario Court of Appeal decision legalizing same‐sex marriage, some same‐sex couples sought to formalize their unions through legal marriage. The purpose of this paper is to explore the personal and political reflections of recently married same‐sex couples on the meaning of their marriages for themselves, their partners, their community as well as the implications for progressive social change in the broader social world.

An ethnographic approach was employed to semi‐structured in‐depth qualitative interviews with six lesbian and gay couples.

An emerging thesis is that, while seeking access to a most conventional and conformist institution, same‐sex couples inadvertently become “cutting edge” couples as they make public their declarations of love and commitment and model new and challenging notions of marriage.

The paper provides a snapshot of a small number of interviews that took place approximately 11 months after the Ontario Court of Appeal decision.

Law should take into account the importance of social and legal recognition of marriage for all. The heteronormativity of marriage is thus challenged from within, to make these types of marriages truly cutting edge.

The paper provides evidence of the personal and political reflections of people who had the choice to get married and did, at a time when this was seen as really cutting edge. Few personal accounts exist which provide a picture of the continued importance of marriage to human beings.

The progressive limits to rights mobilization have become starkly apparent in the past two decades. No new suspect classes have been forthcoming from the Supreme Court since 1977 despite continued demands for legal recognition by lesbians and gays, indigenous peoples and others interested in expanding civil rights doctrine. Public tolerance for civil rights measures has likewise dried up. Since the 1960s, referenda on civil rights have halted affirmative action programs, limited school busing and housing discrimination protections, promoted English-only laws, limited AIDS policies, and ended the judicial recognition of same-sex marriage, among other issues. Nearly 80% of these referenda have had outcomes realizing the Madisonian fear of “majority tyranny”¹ and signaling the Nietzschean dread of a politics of resentment (Brown, 1995, p. 214; Connolly, 1991, p. 64).