Suchergebnisse

Does sexual orientation and gender identity matter at election time? While previous literature has explored the effect of candidate gender and ethnicity on electoral results, this is the first study to quantitatively investigate the impact of sexual orientation. We build an original dataset combining individual-level data on more than 3,000 candidates in the 2015 UK election with sociodemographic indicators at the constituency level. In addition to sexual orientation and other demographic characteristics, we include candidate education, political experience, and campaign spending. We find that LGBT candidates generally do not have a negative impact on party vote share. Even in more conservative environments, LGBT candidates perform at least as well as their straight counterparts. This work is important to understand the consequences of descriptive representation and, relatedly, how rapid social change happens.

This issue brief will focus on voting behavior within the Gay and Lesbian community. The data provided will prove that members of the LGBT community usually vote strongly Democratic and typically perceive their ideological preferences as more aligned with the Democratic Party and progressive candidates. In addition, there is a discussion what LGBT voters may use as their criteria for choosing candidates, and what that criteria may show about the evolution of Gay and Lesbian voting in the U.S.

Offering a critical introduction into LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) transnational identity in the media, this book examines performances and representations within documentary and fiction oriented texts. An interdisciplinary approach isput forward,revealing new potentials for non western queer identity. REBECCA BEIRNELecturer in Film, Media and Cultural Studies at the University of Newcastle, Australia SAHAR BLUCKworks in production for a creative advertising agency PERI BRADLEY Associate Lecturer in Film and TV at Southampton Solent University and University of Southampton, UK CUNYET CAKIRLAR Research Associate in the Centre for Intercultural Studies, University College London, UK MARGARET COOPER Sociologist at Southern Illinois University, USA BRUCE DRUSHELAssistant Professor in the Department of Communication at Miami University, USA SERKAN ERTIN Currently teaching at the Western Languages and Literatures Department, Kocaeli University, Turkey DANIEL FARRIndependent Scholar living and working in Lynchburg, USA JENNIFER GAUTHIERAssociate Professor of Communication Studies at Randolph College in Virginia, USA SAMAR HABIB Affiliated Scholar at UC Berkeley's Beatrice Bain Research Group and a visiting Professor at San Francisco State, USA DAVID OSCAR HARVEYPhD candidate in the department of Cinema and Comparative Literature, University of Iowa, USA ANDREW HOCK SOON NGSenior Lecturer in literary studies at Monash University, Malaysia JASON HO KA-HANGTeaches in the Department of Comparative Literature at the University of Hong Kong KATE HOULDENPhD graduate in the English Department of Queen Mary, University of London, UK STEPHANIE SELVICKPhD candidate and lecturer at the University of Miami, Florida, USA GUSTAVO SUBEROSenior Lecturer in Cultural Studies at Coventry University, UK RICHARD REITSMAAssistant Professor of Spanish and Latin American Studies at Canisius College in Buffalo, New York, USA BRYCE J. RENNINGERPhD candidate in the Media Studies program at Rutgers University, USA ERNST VAN DER WALLecturer in Visual Studies at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa

Out and Running is the first systematic analysis of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) political representation that explores the dynamics of state legislative campaigns and the influence of lesbian and gay legislators in the state policymakin.

Abstract
We apply an intersectional framework to explore how connections to marginalized communities interact with candidate demographics to shape vote choice in U.S. politics. In an original experiment manipulating candidates' race, gender, sexuality, and endorsements, we show that endorsements by organizations advocating for marginalized communities shape voter evaluations to the same, if not greater, degree as candidate demographics. Moreover, the effects are particularly pronounced for candidates receiving an endorsement from an LGBT advocacy organization. Attitudes toward marginalized communities are mapped onto candidates with ties to those communities, whether the candidate is a member or not; we call this process associational affect. Identity has a complex role in shaping vote choice, and, absent an investigation of power and interlocking social hierarchies, it alone is insufficient to explain vote choice.

Human rights apply universally, this means that human rights are inherent in every human being, however in the 2019 candidates for civil servants selection procedure there is discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, dan transgender people who are not allowed to take part in the selection because they have a deviant sexual orientation. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a study to review from the perspective of human rights regarding this issue. The purpose of this study is to find a way out of the problem of discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, dan transgender people. The research method used in this paper is a normative legal research method because of the absence of norms in this problem so that it must be studied with a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. The results of the study from this paper show that the reason for the urgency of the attorney general of the republic of Indonesia in regulating the prohibition for lesbian, gay, bisexual, dan transgender people is because the prosecutor profession requires special skills so that these rules must be enforced However, after being reviewed from the perspective of human rights, the prohibition arrangement clearly violates the provisions of the 1945 Constitution. So from the results of the study, the conclusion that can be drawn to solve this problem is of course the need for the government to make an appropriate legal rule regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, dan transgender people so that in the future there will be no polemics. Hak Asasi Manusia berlaku Universal, hal ini berarti hak asasi manusia melekat pada diri setiap manusia, namun dalam prosedur persyaratan seleksi calon pegawai negeri sipil tahun 2019 terjadi diskriminasi terhadap kaum lesbian, gay, bisexual, dan transgender yang tidak boleh mengikuti seleksi tersebut karena memiliki orientas seksual menyimpang. Oleh karena itu perlu dilakukan suatu kajian untuk meninjau dari perspektif hak asasi manusia mengenai permasalahan ini. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah mencari jalan keluar dari permasalahan diskriminasi terhadap kaum lesbian, gay, bisexual, dan transgender tersebut. Adapaun metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penulisan ini adalah metode penelitian hukum normatif karena adanya kekosongan norma dalam permasalahan ini sehingga harus dikaji dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan konseptual. Hasil studi dari penulisan ini menunjukan adanya alasan urgensi dari kejaksaan agung republik Indonesia dalam mengatur larangan bagi kaum lesbian, gay, bisexual, dan transgender ini adalah karena profesi jaksa memerlukan keahlian yang khusus sehingga aturan tersebut harus diberlakukan, namun setelah ditinjau dari perspektif hak asasi manusai pengaturan pelarangan tersebut jelas telah melanggar ketentuan-ketentuan yang tertuang dalam undang-undang dasar 1945. Maka dari hasil studi tersebut kesimpulan yang dapat diambil untuk menyelesaikan permasalahn ini tentunya adalah perlunya pemerintah membuat sebuah aturan hukum yang tepat mengenai kaum lesbian, gay, bisexual, dan transgender agar kedepannya tidak lagi terjadi polemik.

Preface -- Acknowledgements -- Contents -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- Editors and Contributors -- Part I Setting the Context -- Chapter 1 Sorting Out the 2016 U.S. Elections -- The Setting -- 114th Congress -- The 2016 Campaigns -- Incumbents (Still) Rule -- The Design of the Book -- References -- Chapter 2 Voting Behavior in the 114th Congress -- What Causes Races to Be Competitive? -- Do Members in Competitive Races Behave Differently Than Other Members? -- Presidential Support and Party Unity -- Key Votes -- Support for Donald Trump -- Voting Behavior in the 114th Congress and the 2016 Election Results -- Analysis -- References -- Chapter 3 Voter Suppression Policies in the 2016 Campaign Cycle -- Two Positive Trends -- The Voter Fraud Myth-Back with a Vengeance -- Voter Suppression 2016-Style -- Analysis -- References -- Chapter 4 What to Tweet when the Top Is Toxic? Gauging References to the 2016 Presidential Candidates in House Members' Social Media Posts -- Toxicity at the Top -- A Brief Review of the Twitter Use of Members of Congress -- References to the In-Party Presidential Candidate Using Official Accounts -- References to the Out-Party Presidential Candidate Using Official Accounts -- Race Competitiveness -- Campaign Accounts -- Reflection on 2016 -- References -- Chapter 5 Broken, Cracked, and Missed Ceilings: Female and Minority Candidates in the Congressional Races of 2016 -- Racial/Ethnic Minorities and Gender: The 2016 Election in Perspective -- Women's Races: Senate -- Women's Races: House of Representatives -- Minority Races: House of Representatives -- LGBT Candidates -- Analysis -- References -- Part II U.S. House of Representatives -- Chapter 6 California 49th Congressional District: A Near Upset in the Golden State -- The 49th Congressional District -- The Candidates -- Darrell Issa -- Doug Applegate

Discover why LGBT voters support conservative political platforms that don't benefit the LGBT communityRecent studies show that the vast majority of the LGBT community considers itself politically liberally. Yet nearly 25% of all LGBT voters helped re-elect George W. Bush in 2004?who are these people and why did they make that choice? Gay Conservatives examines why conservative LGBTs join political groups and support political candidates that not only don't favor policies that benefit the LGBT community, but in some cases, advocate prejudicial policies. This thought-provoking book looks at the

"Recent studies show that the vast majority of the LGBT community considers itself politically liberal. Yet nearly 25% of all LGBT voters helped re-elect George W. Bush in 2004. Who are these people and why did they make that choice? Gay Conservatives examines why conservative LGBTs join political groups and support political candidates that not only don't favor policies that benefit the LGBT community, but in some cases, advocate prejudicial policies. This book looks at the impact of "group consciousness" on conservative LGBTs and how it affects political power and social construction."--Jacket

Exit polls from the 2014 midterm election suggest that 4% of the electorate identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, representing the highest recorded LGB turnout in a midterm election since 1998. These LGB voters, 75% in fact, overwhelmingly supported Democratic candidates in key congressional races. If LGB people had not voted in the 2014 election, Virginia Senator Mark Warner and Vermont Governor Peter Chumlin would have both been defeated by their Republican challengers. The strong LGBT support for Democratic candidates becomes even more decisive during close races. This research brief considers the impact of the LGBT vote in the 2014 midterm election.

AbstractObjectiveMany state legislatures have moved to restrict LGBT students' rights, and the Supreme Court has veered toward greater protection of religious free exercise protection over LGBT nondiscrimination policies. Some studies have found that rights framings are associated with heightened affective and attitudinal polarization, while others have argued that rights framings lead to greater tolerance. Do religious liberties frames affect policy attitudes or group affect? And are some groups' use of religious liberties frames more persuasive?MethodsWe utilize data from a survey that experimentally varies candidate statements on inclusion of LGBT issues in schools using a religious liberties frame and by the group asserting religious liberties. We use the experiment to document the extent to which religious liberties framings shift support for restriction of LGBT rights in schools and affect toward religious and LGBT Americans.ResultsOur analysis suggests there are few direct effects, but that responses to religious liberties frames reflect debates within the parties about morality, social group conflict, and civic nationalism.ConclusionOur results add to the growing literature on religious liberty, and we argue that there is a need to understand why religious liberties frames produce effects in some circumstances but not in others.

While as a group the EU Member States are among the most advanced countries when it comes to protection and non-discrimination of LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex) persons, there remain huge differences among them. This is reflected in the limited competences of EU in this field (e.g. family law, education etc.). Even when the EU is competent to take concrete measures, they are normally subject to unanimity rules which makes progress slow. At the same time, the achievement of certain accepted goals with regard to other policies (internal market, security and asylum, staff regulations etc.) has made possible certain compromises between the Member States that have improved the situation (sometimes only after a clarification through the case law of the ECJ). In addition, despite the uneven acceptance within the UE, in its foreign relations the EU (or at least certain actors like most importantly the Parliament) the EU is increasingly demanding a minimum threshold regarding he respect of human rights (also of LGBTI persons). This is particularly importance for so-called candidate countries and in commercial relations with developing countries.

Queerness has always been marked by its untimely relation to socially shared temporal phases, whether individual (developmental) or collective (historical). (McCallum and Tuhkanen 6) The 2017 promotional campaign that launched Season Nine of Logo's award-winning reality competition TV series RuPaul's Drag Race (RPDR) spoke directly to anxieties circulating within LGBT communities in the US and beyond as a result of the 2016 election of Donald Trump (LogoTV). More specifically, the marketing strategy asserted the programme's timely relation to an unfolding history that seemed unrelentingly bleak. For, despite candidate Trump's pledges to support the LGBT community, his administration immediately undertook actions that rolled back Obama-era advances. Trump reassigned the senior advisor for LGBT health in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), fired every member of the President's Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, attempted to ban all transgender people from serving in the US military (later limited to a ban on those who have transitioned), and sought to rescind workplace protections for LGBT people that had been recognised under Title VII of the Civil Right Act. As we write this Introduction in late 2018, Trump's administration announced plans to redefine gender as "biologically fixed", which will effectively "define out of existence" 1.4 million transgender Americans in the US (Green, Benner, and Pear). Sensing the growing vulnerability of queer life at the epicentre of this gathering storm, RPDR asserted its importance to American politics and culture. Prior to the airing of the season's first episode in March 2017, TV spots and online ads featured the tagline, "drastic times call for dragtastic measures", with Ru Paul proclaiming "we need America's next drag superstar now more than ever" (@RuPaul; LogoTV).