Suchergebnisse

This paper provides an overview of disclosure with regard to contributions in favor of and against California's Proposition 8 measure that banned same-sex marriage. Using publicly available data, out-of-state and in-state contributions are mapped, and the geography of California state politics and the consequences of disclosure are discussed.

A major procedural question looms over the two marriage cases currently before the U.S. Supreme Court: Do the parties who seek to defend the marriage-recognition bans have standing to advance their views? The question arises because the governments that would have Article III standing, by virtue of their enforcement authority, are not defending their own laws. Instead, in Hollingsworth v. Perry, private parties are attempting to take up the state government's mantle to de fend Proposition 8, which withdrew marriage rights from same-sex couples in California. And in United States v. Windsor, five members of the House of Representatives leadership seek to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the name of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG).

On November 4, 2008, California voters passed Proposition 8, 52% to 48%, a ballot measure that amended the California Constitution to read that marriage is between one man and woman. Voters simultaneously concluded a four year pursuit of same-sex marriage rights in California and started a new, more passionate debate over same-sex marriage. While religion emerged as a point of contention and unification in news headlines, often these headlines ignored the complexity of religious beliefs surrounding same-sex marriage. Using in-depth interviews and content analysis of newspaper articles, I study how liberal California religious leaders, as potential political actors within the gay rights movement, talk about and act on their beliefs regarding same-sex marriage in their congregations and communities.

One of the premier social issues in contemporary US politics is that of same-sex marriage. This research explores language use and identity construction by same-sex marriage supporters through narratives of discrimination. This paper analyzes data collected through the non-profit Marriage Equality USA, wherein narrators respond to a survey question about experiences of discrimination during California's Proposition 8 campaign, a statewide initiative that repealed the rights of same-sex couples to marry. In doing so, narrators use ideologies of religion and religious affiliation to: (1) construct a victim identity in relation to their experiences, (2) use this as a springboard to challenge their victimization, (3) establish opposition between individual and institutional positioning of religious identity, and (4) switch roles with their victimizers with respect to victim and empowered positions. In doing so, narrators use victimization as empowerment to convey a progressive position in an inevitably successful social movement.

Two fundamental standing problems plague Proposition 8's proponents and the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) in the marriage cases currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. First is the Article III double-dipping problem, to which this Essay's title refers. This problem arises because those parties purport to derive their Article III standing by asserting the governments' interest in defending the challenged marriage laws. Yet the governments in both cases, via their chief legal officers, have taken the position that excluding same-sex couples from marriage is unconstitutional. To permit this Janus-faced commitment to both sides of the cases would render the concept of the government interest incoherent for Article III standing purposes. The second problem is that Proposition 8's proponents and BLAG both lack the enforcement powers that give rise to the government's "direct stake" needed for standing in federal court.

On November 4, 2008 California voters passed Proposition 8, and accordingly same-sex marriage was banned under the state constitution. Proposition 8 is now being considered by the Supreme Court. The proposition has sparked national debate about the nature of the relationship between the state and citizens' sexuality and corresponding rights; calling into question the practice of allocating rights and privileges on the basis of sexuality and family form. Proponents of the proposition, who can be classified as predominantly socially conservative, want to maintain the status and privileges of marriage for heterosexuals; arguing that allowing same-sex marriage threatens the legitimacy, sanctity and strength of traditional heterosexual marriage. This article examines the extent to which three Californian pro-same-sex marriage organizations (Equality California, Join the Impact, and the Courage Campaign) have challenged and/or appropriated social conservative and neoliberal discourses in their effort to gain access to the rights and privileges that are currently administered through marriage.

On November 4, 2008 California voters passed Proposition 8, and accordingly same-sex marriage was banned under the state constitution. Proposition 8 is now being considered by the Supreme Court. The proposition has sparked national debate about the nature of the relationship between the state and citizens' sexuality and corresponding rights; calling into question the practice of allocating rights and privileges on the basis of sexuality and family form. Proponents of the proposition, who can be classified as predominantly socially conservative, want to maintain the status and privileges of marriage for heterosexuals; arguing that allowing same-sex marriage threatens the legitimacy, sanctity and strength of traditional heterosexual marriage. This article examines the extent to which three Californian pro-same-sex marriage organizations (Equality California, Join the Impact, and the Courage Campaign) have challenged and/or appropriated social conservative and neoliberal discourses in their effort to gain access to the rights and privileges that are currently administered through marriage.