Essay Instructions: Hello, I'd like a bid on what a 10 page paper would cost utilizing this outline, and research questions (not all of them, of course, but at least a half to a majority of them)...and the annotated bibliography is also attached. I can actually fax the papers themselves or email them I guess...but I can't send the books. Or, the writers can access their own sources and I will supplement with my research of those sources. I'd like to get this done tonight. Thanks, Oliver at 415-244-1856. P.s. I'm a member of your service.
A CONTRAST IN SOCIAL CONTRACTS:
MEDIA ARTICULATION OF THE RITES OF
HETEROSEXUAL VERSUS HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE RIGHTS
All adult bonding unions, marriages and consecrations; as well as divorces should be publically regarded within the same parameters of respect, hopefulness and, if dissolved, regret ? and without prejudicial notice of the configuration of the genders of the partners.
It is therefore systemically unfair that the mainstream media ? religious, political, entertainment, and educational -- extol the values of marriage and all its activities differently, dependent upon whether the consenting adult role models share sexual category or not.
Outline Statement: A CONTRAST IN SOCIAL CONTRACTS: MEDIA ARTICULATION OF THE RITES OF HETEROSEXUAL VERSUS HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE RIGHTS
A. Current Empirical Facts: (2 pgs.)
a. State Constitutions and The States of marriage:
1. The Vermont Model
2. The Massachusetts model
3. The California Model
4. Major Laws Pending: In and Out of Court
5. One or Two, International equivalents
b. Federal Laws and Founding Documents: (1 pgs.)
1. Declaration of Independence
2. Federal Constitution
3. DOMA
4. After DADT, as it applies to a spousal dependent
B. Major Representatives of the Public Page, Broadcast and Internet (2 pgs.)
C. Media Methodology: (4 pgs.)
a. Common methods of portrayal of Heterosexual Marriage
b. Contrasted methods of portrayal of Homosexual Marriage
c. Civil Unions.
d. The Learning Curve: Educational Institutions
D. Major Organizations, Pro vs. Con: (4 pgs.)
a. Subjectively Review:
1. Psychological and Medical
2. Religious
b. Objectively Review:
1. Legal
2. Economic
E. Summation: Conflicts and Solutions: (2 pgs.)
a. Alternatives
b. Consequences
Annotated Bibliography
Campbell, D. E., & Monson, J. (2008). The religion card. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(3), 399-419.
The authors Campbell and Monson (2008) depict, sometimes by state, a contradictory array of public responses to ballot initiatives and/or a candidate interpretation. They correlate non-related world view identity issues with a voter?s political awareness of basic gay marriage issues. A racial cross-over is given as an example of these attitudes becoming a candidate-defining factor. Factors are discussed as linked to the success or failure of hypothetical and actual candidates -- as well as to the pre-election-indicators of the composition of their constituency bases. It becomes therefore important to understand the applicability of presumed religious bias vs. presumed secular outlook upon the mobilization or demobilization of political participants. Apparently, one might surmise, it is important not only to emphasize the American tradition of separation of church and state, but also to identify the hailing of the values of one or the other; or both.
Chauncey, G. (2005). Why Marriage? : The history shaping today's debate over gay equality. New York: Basic Books.
Following the 2004 American presidential election, a series of local ballot initiatives, hills of public advertising, and heaps of television, and radio, and Internet traffic emerged as the naysayers of political or organizational affiliation with the human equivalent of gay marriage i.e. gay people. Public sentiment in large portions of the country, taking corporeal form, divided into winning legions efficiently changing State Constitutions; while the losing legions -- seeking sympathetic alliances with human rights organizations ? managed to change the image of gay people ? from feverishly seeking sex, to fervently committed to love. Parenting by same-gender couples increased very dramatically, as did the controversy and isolated prohibitions against it ? in spite of glowing and growing reports of its benefits, especially to children in need. Aligning gay marriage with abortion, child abuse and the end of civilization ? strange bed fellows indeed ? the religious right reigned supreme as the bully pulpit. A reasonable question evolves from this volume, as to the depth of this segregation and to what extent it betokens further violence and victimization vs. respect and cooperation. ?The Present as History? (Chauncey, Contents page, 2004) has been quoted on both sides as undoubtedly this could supersede even the struggles for choice under the doctrine of ?Separate, But Equal? ? since the losers could be adjudicated unequal and legally separate.
Crowley, S. (2007). Tolerance and the christian right. Communication & Critical/Cultural Studies, 4(1), 102-105. doi:10.1080/14791420601138427
Inerrancy, as a social norm, knows no boundaries. Neither logic, love, nor the laws of the land may limit its vision, so concludes Crowley (2007) in this terse testament of the values and taboos common to certain sections of the American religious right. Additional links are given to relevant websites that should be explored in terms of their portrayal of gay marriage and non-gay intimacy, within the constellation of legal and ethical co-habitation. By studying these sites and the unseen operators, a logical assessment of how it is possible for mutually seeking, sexually mature, and pair bonded sexually active persons who are living together under their roof of any sexual orientation(s) and genital configuration(s) to be socially accepted within the context of this branding by conservative Christianity. A small sampling of radio responses could initiate a larger survey.
Films Media Group. (2003). Homosexuality: A religious perspective. Films On Demand. Retrieved from Flash, http://digital.films.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?aid=12280&xtid=33675. (Accessed March 04, 2011) by permission.
By viewing a series of short films or DVD?s, I was able to see and to hear the testimony of over one-hundred and fifty individuals commenting on their general opinion or their official opinion of homosexuality and/or gay marriage. The series was made by visiting an equal number of sites in England and abroad. The makers have made every effort to include all faiths, genders, racial and national groups, ages, and sexual orientations. Care has been taken when possible, to ?knit? together testimony that ?tags? or connects to the other. The name and affiliation is often imposed as are footnotes. Actual locations of historical sites relevant to the discussion are used to setup some scenes prior to dialogue about a targeted time or subject area. In all ways this is a neutral and professional audio video document which requires no script or action line, other than the introductions to parts, and the brief final presentations that accurately summarize the speaker?s points of view. Its usefulness lies primarily in the emotional context of official dogma or passionate personal opinions, and the occasional conflict between that same dogmatic position and a personal conversion.
Liebler, C. M., Schwartz, J., & Harper, T. (2009). Queer tales of morality: The press, same-sex marriage, and hegemonic framing. Journal of Communication, 59(4), 653-675. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01451.x
Framing, as an interpersonal theory, is a technique of forming consensus utilized by journalists and social communitarians with a pragmatic tool. This technique will be described and utilized to examine the journalist?s own manner of preparing for mass communication and for establishing the balance(s) for which this trade is known. Liebler (2009) questions whether the daily papers and wire services are ? contrary to the examination put upon other minority-marriage news belonging in the venue of power and cultural context ? sufficiently likely to challenge hegemonic hetero-normative definitions of marriage. Specifically, I will deploy the relevant framing which references the dryads of comparison between civil rights, moral choices and political expediency. I will examine the larger question as to whether the apparent impact is neutral and has existed so for centuries, without posing any diminishing effect upon the dominate hegemony, which has been designed, after all, as a means of enforcing property rights.
Lipton, M. (2006, October). Commentary: Queer comes the bride. Canadian Journal of Communication. pp. 937-945.
This witty journal paper is concerned with several genre films. The author proceeds with a scholarly examination of the coherence of the contractual differences, inherent between heterogeneous marriage and marriages between human beings who do not or cannot fulfill the macroscopic standards very well, but who can fulfill or exceed the microcosmic extensions exceedingly well ? at least on film. Initially the paper appeals to the lust of our young country. The poetic tensions of a young girl for a similar lady titillates without the effort of either. In another, there is the telling of the civil wedding of a rather young (consenting adult) male with another. The tabloid film introduces the exchanges of pasties, labyrises, cock rings and leather. This lubricates the imagination and reminds us of the inexorable free will celebration of choice. Unfortunately this also postulates a non-ancillary playground of guilt in which all must suffer. Thereafter the pangs of two mature want-to-be married women who commit snow angels on the church lawn of one of their fathers ? who is also the reverend minister there -- is a lament for the inevitable rejection by the Grace United Methodist Church. The conclusion concerns a different young man whose wedding attire conceals all that is legal, and reveals all that is lethal to the desire incarnate that could lead to the burning of faggots at the stake. It?s a fashion ?stake-ment.? While obviously assimilation will bring on many changes, it is likely to be an exotic parade. There are those who seek marriage to emulate a nuclear family; and those who seek to unify and to explode blissfully, but differently.
Moats, D. (2004). Civil wars: A battle for gay marriage. Orlando: Harcourt Press, Inc.
A personal war, with seemingly the aid or the opposition of every person in Vermont, USA, is cataloged on these pages by the Pulitzer Prize champion. According to the political opponents that day, the day and the vote for civil unions passed ? because so many of the nays became yeahs! According to the public opponents, the speech given that day was the greatest heard in the State house for decades ? giving Vermonters, a pause to ponder and to reflect upon their love for their daughters and sons. This loving account details the struggle of two women in love, no matter who liked it, and who taught all who would listen how to respect their desires for public inclusion. Our obvious quest is to contrast marriage, by name, with de facto civil unions. Is this the big picture for any and all couples who care not about religious solemnities?
Moscowitz, L. M. (2010). Gay marriage in television news: Voice and visual representation in the same-sex marriage debate. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54(1), 24-39. doi:10.1080/08838150903550360
During the 90?s, during the Military vs. Clinton era of debate about ?Don?t Ask, Don?t Tell,? a public stage was set up on the Mall and all comers could apply to be cable televised during the daylight hours that hot Washington weekend. Radical and more than radical GLBT and supportive groups used the rotating microphones as much as possible to discuss Civil Rights, AIDS, re-assigned gender, cross dressing, public sex, and, occasionally, the freedom to serve the country in various ways. The panorama was weakly met in the polls, perhaps, because so many viewers left this TV caf? as quickly as possible. But, from the GLBT community as in the past, it was the radicals who came forward in colorful numbers to protest injustices. During the 2000?s, during the re-invention by the gay community of the postcard to itself, and by the re-visitation and re-discovery of GLBT Community Centers, mini-malls, gymnasiums, etc. -- the media reconfigured a visual miasma of the gay style of life. Today?s same-gender, safe-culture woman and man scape is analyzed, cataloged and coded differently by the in and out press, and documented in this journal essay. The resonant issues today are very different. I will discuss what appears to have been a conscious effort on the part of television journalists to decide how to show the product.
Phy-Olsen, A. (2006). Same-sex marriage. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press.
Regarding gay marriage, the author patiently moves from religion to religion and nation by nation, to compare social conditions that are favorable vs. those that are hostile to the principles. Thus a global perspective is developed with an emphasis on public policy. Using this international cosmology of what has been implemented and whether any circumstances have proved prohibitive ? the author concludes with a lengthy discourse of possible means to inform and to educate the segment of the population leaning to learn. Furthermore, to assist those resistant, a case is made as to the ?Precarious State of Matrimony,? (Phy-Olsen, p.131, 2006) if the current heterogeneous practices remain extant. A contrasting discourse on the use of the entertainment industry, which has helped and healed the nation during periods of change (slavery, civil rights, prohibition, depression, war and women?s rights) is offered. Because the author offers such a broad viewpoint and suggests a contemporaneous social media to refocus the public view, the research will consider the efficacy of this approach.
Pinello, D. R. (2006). America's struggle for same-sex marriage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Written as a chronicle and full of emotion, the author holds forth his hope and joy for this movement for all to consider, regardless of the outcomes. Although initiated into the fray during the Massachusetts decision, the writer became so involved that duty mandated following the progress across the nation all the way to, and up to the time of the irrevocable marriages of 2008 in California. The author has committed to remain a movement documentarian -- connecting, in the process, directly with the formative leaders of nations and national institutions. As a serving professor of John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York, the researcher has gone forth to impartially interview thousands of people whose involvement is substantive, and to record their contributions. The index within the volume is comprehensive, brief and interactive with the on-line resource. The website at www.danpinello.com has been an invaluable source of professional and balanced coverage during the research for this treatise. I will wish to continue to make good use of it in this paper to update my sources and information.
Pories, K., & Leavitt, D. (2004). The m word: Writers on same-sex marriage. Chapel Hill, N.C: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill.
What use are the public sentiments, common sense statements and emotions that have been either spoken or penned by professional writers in current same gender relationships? Although what they say and express in daily living about their choice has hitherto fore largely been ignored in the ?media,? some community sharing has occurred. Some open their pages to discuss ?homo-domesticus.? Others are somewhat bitter by exclusion from membership in what some call ?the couple?s club.? All are at risk of exclusion from the body of laws that protect those legally united with a certificate from ?I do? to post-mortem; and, which provides thousands of social and economic benefits to almost everyone else. Therefore we may employ some parts of this volume to question to what extent members on either side of the issues are harmed and ? specifically ? to what extent are American civil rights diminished and/or human rights increased by the legal prohibition of same-sex unions.
Roleff, T. L., & Williams, M. E. (1997). Marriage and divorce. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.
I will use only the relevant last chapter of this remarkable book. Our part is a contrasting collection of the pronouncements regarding same-sex marriage of publicly identified individuals who are well known in America society and who represent moderate to very large constituencies. Half do not agree, with the other. They are therefore pendulums of public attitudes in a pluralist society. They represent, in effect, the electorate, the university, the private or public press and the church. While it is substantively true that free speech, public assembly and the unfettered press, is guaranteed in the First Amendment; there are also laws, conventions and powerful interests that frequently overrule controversial statements. The conglomerate of the ten articles within the book, coupled with the single over-view, will compress the prevailing sense and sentiments of an eon. I will listen and balance our debate.
Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What's the right thing to do?. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
What are the relevant political philosophies within the Justice community regarding this issue or issues? Within are the core arguments and basically the conundrum of problems; the problems, of course, for the opposition i.e. those who continue to reframe a distaste for lesbians and homosexuals, and doubly so for any measure which consolidates their voices or justifies their participation as equals under Constitutional Law. This slim and succinct work, created by Dr. Sandel of Harvard University provides insight into compromises necessitated by forestalling implementation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ? especially the liabilities of continuously granting special rights and conditions to evade implementing equal rights. Therefore, I intend to utilize the perspective of Dr. Sandel to: 1) introduce the benefit of Aristotelian logic as it, or if it applies, 2) briefly contrast the issues with those facing Thurgood Marshal and others during the fight and foregone conclusions against Plessey vs. Ferguson, (1896) and 3) the disestablishment proposal of opinion writer, Michael Kinsley as we contemplate the relevant decision of Chief Justice Marshall of the Massachusetts Supreme Court (2003).
Strasser, M. P. (1997). Legally wed: Same-sex marriage and the constitution. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.
The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and The Declaration of Independence are clearly core documents. The author challenges whether the current revisionist positions before the Supreme Court will weaken or reinforce traditional marriage and other decisions in place that are designed to safeguard racial, religious and gender minority interests. A simple compendium of these analysis offered to conservative, radical right or religious right organizations could, but should not, be used to demand exceptions and compensation for loss of Constitutional freedoms ? especially if second class citizenship is allowed to be codified in or near Constitutional law. A strong, but brief case, for resolving this controversial, but constitutionally simple conflict will be offered.
Sullivan, A. (2004). Same-sex marriage, pro and con: A reader. New York: Vintage Books.
Beginning with the oratory of Plato and progressing with either literary or cautionary observations through ancient history, the author has given us an anthology with a very long view. This canon seeks to be a cogent and comprehensive collection, and provides insightful interviews, comments and articles from elevated personages, highly literate and influential religious leaders quoting and explaining the fundamental Old Testament and Quran passages, as well as editors or writers from almost every credible publication. As such it is a reference rock of ages, and will be employed as such.
A Partial List of Research Questions
1. What is the logic or intent of the language used by elected officials when supporting or opposing gay marriage?
2. What are some of the substantive positions by elected officials or by the spokesperson(s) of any worldly government regarding gay marriage?
3. What, if any, political or related financial consequences are current or potential?
4. Can you state a point of view, accepting or opposing any of the salient points?
5. What is the language or the intent of the logic used by the media when framing the dimensions, effects or repercussions of gay marriage?
6. What, if possible, are the contrasting attitudes of various media sources about gay marriage?
7. What are the significant bench marks of the media coverage of gay marriage?
8. To what extent does the Internet have to do with the issues, the participants, the potential for change one way or the other?
9. Can you state a point of view, accepting or opposing any of the media stances of which you are aware?
10. What court actions, adjudications, decisions and so on have been presented and what, if any, has been the impact within their jurisdiction?
11. Are there any significant issues that you can address, recognize, or question yet to be resolved?
12. Can you state a point of view, accepting or opposing any of the salient points either to be heard or concluded?
13. Briefly, how many gay marriages approximately have been registered in the United States and other countries? What is the breakdown by State? How does this contrast numerically with civil unions?
14. What is the logic and relevant substantial issues regarding the conclusions, preachments and choice of authority by the various churches that have spoken out about gay marriage?
15. What are some of obvious moral arguments, if any, regarding gay marriage and ? if related ? to any sexual activity or orientation?
16. What are some of the polarities of opinion within the various religious communities?
17. Have there been any dynamic changes within the religious community regarding gay marriage?
18. What, if any, are the variety of beliefs and attitudes about gay marriage within the GLBT community?
