Same-sex Marriage Debate Research Articles

The Charter Is Not a Blueprint for Moral Conformity

Canadian jurisprudence is earnest in supporting diversity and religious freedom. It is in the context of the same-sex marriage debate, that commitments were made by Canadian political leaders, and by the S.C.C. in both the TWU 2001 and Reference cases to support diverse views on marriage and political liberation. TWU deserves its accreditation because of the following points: first, state “neutrality” requires the Canadian state to respect and conditionally defer to the morally laden belief systems of religious associations rather than to assume, as some seem to interpret the term, a commitment to no moral position(s). Such deference is not absolute, but should be extended absent an infringement of traditional health and safety concerns of the state. When TWU takes the position that traditional marriage is a moral truth, the state must, with the boundaries of health and safety, respect and protect it, even though it might not agree. Second, there is no law against TWU’s practice of traditional marriage. Thus, it is hard to argue that to limit marriage to its traditional mode within a voluntary community somehow threatens the health or safety of others. Third, the concept of “Charter values,” such as equity or pluralism, cannot properly mean the elimination of Charter rights, such as freedom of religion, speech, and association. Justice Campbell, was correct to note that the Charter cannot be the moral blueprint for our society, as the state has no secularizing mission. The Charter is not a sword to enforce state ideology but, rather, a shield to be used to protect individuals and groups from the state.

Human Rights and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate in Australia

Australia is currently confronting the issue of whether to legalise same-sex marriage. Thus far debate has been conducted with little reference to human rights theory. This article draws on the theories of John Rawls and John Stuart Mill and analyses whether, by confining the right to marry to heterosexual couples, the law infringes the right to privacy and, conversely, whether the legalisation of same-sex marriage would infringe religious rights of those who are unwilling to provide goods and services to same-sex couples. In so doing, the article adopts a comparative approach, drawing on case law from the United States. The article examines the way in which political debate on the issue has been conducted by the major parties in Australia, and concludes that both the Liberal-National coalition and the Labor party have been motivated by a desire to appease the religious right within their ranks, at the expense of human rights principles.

The sexuality bind: same-sex marriage and structures of homophobic violence

ABSTRACTPierre Bourdieu increasingly engaged psychoanalytic concepts in his work throughout his life. However, he focussed his analysis on the social causes of psychic processes, and had a particularly ambivalent relationship with Lacanian psychoanalysis. This article therefore engages Lacanian theory to address what analysis from a psychoanalytic direction of causality can bring to Bourdieusian social theory. I contend that Lacanian theory can provide two key insights, demonstrated by reference to the same-sex marriage debate. First, I argue that fields are socio-historically constructed through the enactment of an imagined fantasy. Marriage has consequently institutionalized a cultural capital that reflects the imaginary of the dominant. I term this cultural capital ‘heterosexualness’. Second, I argue that the Lacanian account of the symbolic order allows the logic underlying political violence to be elucidated. This logic, illustrated through the concept of the sexuality bind, legitimizes violence against the Other when they violate the imagined rules of the field. Applying these insights, I conclude that the legalization of same-sex marriage fails to break down the symbolic boundaries between ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’ that found the sexuality bind, instead reproducing the imaginary form of the sexuality bind institutionalized in marriage itself. This reproduces both an unequal right to national governance, and the imagined value of heterosexualness. By considering the psychoanalytic direction of causality, this article thus finds that the legalization of same-sex marriage will reinforce both the sexuality bind and the legitimacy of homophobic violence.

Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to avoid exposure to one another's opinions

Ideologically committed people are similarly motivated to avoid ideologically crosscutting information. Although some previous research has found that political conservatives may be more prone to selective exposure than liberals are, we find similar selective exposure motives on the political left and right across a variety of issues. The majority of people on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate willingly gave up a chance to win money to avoid hearing from the other side (Study 1). When thinking back to the 2012 U.S. Presidential election (Study 2), ahead to upcoming elections in the U.S. and Canada (Study 3), and about a range of other Culture War issues (Study 4), liberals and conservatives reported similar aversion toward learning about the views of their ideological opponents. Their lack of interest was not due to already being informed about the other side or attributable election fatigue. Rather, people on both sides indicated that they anticipated that hearing from the other side would induce cognitive dissonance (e.g., require effort, cause frustration) and undermine a sense of shared reality with the person expressing disparate views (e.g., damage the relationship; Study 5). A high-powered meta-analysis of our data sets (N=2417) did not detect a difference in the intensity of liberals' (d=0.63) and conservatives' (d=0.58) desires to remain in their respective ideological bubbles.

‘One can hardly call them homophobic’: Denials of antigay prejudice within the same-sex marriage debate

The United Kingdom’s Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act (2013) was framed by the Government as an equality measure and, as such, those who opposed the legislation were likely to be sensitive to possible accusations of prejudice. This article examines opposition to marriage equality within the British press and explores how denials of homophobia were made. Opponents to same-sex marriage attended to commonsense notions of ‘homophobes’, either by aligning their views with categories of persons not typically considered homophobic or by distancing their views from a homophobic other. Opponents also offered a counter-accusation that it was liberal supporters of same-sex marriage who were intolerant. Parallels are drawn with discursive literature on racist discourse and it appears that despite social scientists’ attempts to expand the concept of antigay prejudice, homophobia is commonly referred to in terms of irrational bigoted individuals.

The European Court of Human Rights and Same-Sex Marriage. The Consensus Approach

The European Court of Human Rights and Same-Sex Marriage. The Consensus Approach

Rights, Reflection, and Reciprocity: Implications of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate for Tolerance and the Political Process

AbstractContentious battles over state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Acts suggest a fundamental refashioning of the “culture war” clashes in American politics. Conservatives — particularly religious conservatives — have come to champion a politics of rights, using “liberal weapons” (rights) to win battles or at least stave off loses. This raises important questions about the long-run effects of making rights claims. Does rights claiming lead to balkanization and reinforce group boundaries or is rights claiming an education in the democratic process that promotes tolerance? Drawing on evidence from an experimental design, we find that exposure to rights claims made by clergy regarding exemptions from participation in same-sex ceremonies acts as a prime to boost tolerance of selected least-liked groups, an effect particularly potent for evangelical Protestants.

Liberalism, Republicanism and Same-Sex Marriage

The controversy regarding same-sex civil marriage is currently one that is shedding more heat than light on matters of political first principles. One way of conceiving the same sex marriage debate in the Western democracies is to compare and contrast the approaches that could be taken by liberals and republicans. This is a useful exercise because it brings out not only some of the key issues involved in the same-sex marriage debate but also unpicks some of the differences between liberal and republican approaches to one of the most controverted topics in contemporary politics. I will argue that liberal and republican approaches are at least partly consonant and that by reconciling core ideas from each approach can help us theorise and legislate on the issue of same-sex marriage in a helpful way. At the same time, alternative approaches may not help achieve the social progress that same sex marriage represents. In making this argument I will draw on the notion raised by Jurgen Habermas on the ‘internal relation’ between human rights and popular sovereignty, contrasting it with approaches to human rights that see rights as trumps over conceptions of the political common good. I conclude that same-sex civil marriage is clearly justifiable in civil law - from both the liberal and republican perspective.

Reporting on LGBTIAQ Politics

This article considers the importance of intersectionality in reporting. In this article I claim that the characterisation of the same-sex marriage debate in Australian mainstream media prevents any serious, nuanced evaluation of the movement. Through an analysis of recent news reports and opinion pieces, I illustrate the way that implicit dichotomous assumptions and language use create a myopic understanding of the same-sex marriage debate.

The augmented newsbeat: spatial structuring in a Twitterized news ecosystem

This article deals with the intertwining of digital and nondigital spaces of news reporting. It focuses specifically on how Twitter affects spatial and temporal orderings of news ecosystems. At the New York state government, actors within the space permeate informational barriers through Twitter while enabling others to follow and engage in events from remote locations. The always-on mentality of tweeters not only blurs boundaries between work life and private life but also helps correspondents to get access to and pass on information instantly, as well as to better anticipate events. The proliferation of digital spaces enhances awareness of nondigital spaces but requires coordination between the two. This paper is based on over two years of field research, involving observation, interviews, digital ethnography of the state house twitterverse and content analysis of journalists’ tweets during the same-sex marriage debate.

The Big Question: How Do Sex and Sexuality Affect One’s Role in Society?

The Big Question: How Do Sex and Sexuality Affect One’s Role in Society?

The Social Consequences of Dissociation: Lessons from the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

This essay explores two problematic functions of dissociation in publicly distributed, anti-same-sex marriage talking points guides. I argue that the organizations responsible for these guides use dissociation to sidestep self-identified conflicts between their values and actions and to disguise arguments based on social animus as claims about abstract concepts such as marriage. To further the study of dissociation in public discourse, I advocate a broader view: arguments that merely attempt to create the kind of fundamental, conceptual divisions for which dissociation is known—but do not succeed—can still have social consequences and warrant close study.

The use and abuse of religious beliefs in dividing and conquering between socially marginalized groups: The same-sex marriage debate.

This article discusses the use and abuse of religious beliefs and their role in divide-and-conquer strategies. Divide-and-conquer strategies are engaged to disrupt potential coalitions between and among marginalized group members, specifically sexual minority groups and people of color. Tensions between these groups have been exacerbated by the debate on same-sex marriage and comparisons between the discriminatory treatment of each group. A component of this discussion includes a brief exploration of one of the historical abuses of religious doctrine used to legitimize the marginalization of people of color and sexual minorities in the United States. For African Americans, one form of marginalization was reflected in criminalizing interracial marriage, and for members of sexual minority groups, a form of marginalization is denying group members the right to marry. The author also explores culturally competent and respectful disciplinary and clinical responses to religiously derived prejudice against sexual minority group members and people of color and discusses the implications for multicultural discourse.

Gender and parenthood: biological and social scientific perspectives

The essays in this collection deploy biological and social scientific perspectives to evaluate the transformative experience of parenthood for today's women and men. They map the similar and distinct roles mothers and fathers play in their children's lives and measure the effect of gendered parenting on child well-being, work and family arrangements, and the quality of couples' relationships. Contributors describe what happens to brains and bodies when women become mothers and men become fathers; whether the stakes are the same or different for each sex; why, across history and cultures, women are typically more involved in childcare than men; why some fathers are strongly present in their children's lives while others are not; and how the various commitments men and women make to parenting shape their approaches to paid work and romantic relationships. Considering recent changes in men's and women's familial duties, the growing number of single-parent families, and the impassioned tenor of same-sex marriage debates, this book adds sound scientific and theoretical insight to these issues, constituting a standout resource for those interested in the causes and consequences of contemporary gendered parenthood.

Fixing the meaning of marriage: political symbolism and citizen identity in the same-sex marriage debate

This article explores the ways in which politicians use same-sex marriage as a sign that both conveys a wide range of meanings to the electorate and implicates the construction of particular citizen identities. Politicians' views discussed range from those of Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard to George W. Bush and Barack Obama. By analysing the ways in which heteronormative signs are contested, the article questions whether measures such as same-sex marriage are as unambiguously normalizing as critics like Butler suggest. For, despite some normalizing aspects, same-sex marriage can also challenge the way in which heteronormative citizen identities have been constructed. That is precisely why some conservative (and not so conservative) politicians see it as a threat while others see same-sex marriage as an important sign of progress. Meanwhile, what had been intended as a reassuring sign for the religious right contributed to Australian Labor losing votes on the left.

Marriage and the Metaphysics of Bodily Union

One current line of argument against the legalization of same-sex marriage, advocated primarily by the New Natural Lawyers, is that marriage is a pre-political insti tution that has, as an essential element, a bodily union requirement. They argue that same-sex couples cannot realize bodily union in their sexual activities and thus cannot meet the structural requirements of marriage. Accordingly, they argue that the same-sex marriage debate must be framed as a debate about what marriage is, and not, as it was in the anti-miscegenation precedents, about who can get married. I argue that their position, which promulgates a set of pernicious stereotypes about same-sex couples, is, first of all, internally inconsistent. According to their own metaphysical principles about bodily un ion, they provide no rational basis for the claim that same-sex couples cannot realize bodily union and thus that same-sex couples cannot be married. Second, I argue for a deflationary account of the significance of bodily union. While same-sex couples, like heterosexual couples, can realize bodily union, this sort of union has no moral signifi cance and thus cannot be the factor that distinguishes marriages from other sorts of rela tionships. Finally, I suggest that they have no basis for their claims about the inferiority of same-sex relationships.

Before the Bride Really Wore Pink

Before the Bride Really Wore Pink

Coming Out and Fitting In: Same-Sex Marriage and the Politics of Difference

This article argues in favour of same-sex marriage, but only under certain conditions. Same-sex marriage ought to be introduced in the Australian context in order to remedy the formal inequalities between lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) citizens and their heterosexual/cisgendered counterparts. One common method of justifying the introduction of formal same-sex relationship recognition has been via the promotion of LGBT "normalcy." This article explores such a trend by analysing popular media and advertising, since media representations and coverage have been shown to affect the way the general public "learns, understands, and thinks about an issue" (Li and Lui 73). This article finds that the promotion of normalcy can, in fact, perpetuate hetero-norms, and only offer LGBT people an imaginary social equality. Such normalisation, it is suggested, is detrimental to a wider goal of gaining respect for LGBT people regardless, not in spite of, their identity and relationships. Yet, this article maintains that such imaginary equality can be avoided, so long as a plurality of possibilities for one’s intimate and familial life are actively legitimated and promoted.

Marriage and the Homosexual Body: It's About Race

Any analogy between race and homosexuality cannot erase the fact that skin color has marked and continues to mark bodies for special punishment and necessary protection. Yet, the analogy has also been forged in the struggles against sexual discrimination and in the courts to recognize same-sex marriage as a basic civil right. My purposes here are, first, to review the role the race-sexual orientation analogy has played in same-sex marriage debates, second to examine the analogy within the context of race and queer theories and, finally, to suggest a racial dimension to sexuality that marks the homosexual body.

Some Gays and the Queers

Some Gays and the Queers