Hello everyone,
This blog is going to be the final blog that I will post regarding gay marriage. I will incorporate some articles to show the progress of the movement and, hopefully, make the argument that you should ultimately support gay marriage. As I mentioned in my introduction at the beginning of the summer session, I support gay marriage and I hope that through this blog opened a different (and unbiased) perspective on the issue. Some media related videos are posted in previous blog posts for your enjoyment. Some material I will post again to reinforce the history and some of the issues and other articles I hope you will take with you to help fight for equality, not only for the gay community and other minority groups in the United States and possibly the world.
First up is the article that I previously found at the Human Rights Campaign organization. They are a group that fights for the equality for the GBLTQ community. According to their website, they provide an in depth timeline of the gay rights movement based on court decisions. The link is http://www.hrc.org/justice/resources/justice_timeline.pdf from 1965 to 2006. In addition to this, 6 total United States have legalized gay marriage and at least 3, including California, currently banned gay marriage. One notable thing is that the courts and psychologists have considered homosexuality as mental disorder and later was taken off of “mental disorder” list. I consider this an interesting because many people who oppose this find homosexuality is a choice or a mental disorder (although these ideas are outdated). The reason why this was taken off of the list as well as being an outdated idea is because science shows and believes that homosexuality is more biological. According to The Toronto article, “Gayness linked to brain; Study finds similarities in MRI scans of gay men and straight women; lesbians and straight men” by Joseph Hall he says, “A new Swedish study showing important similarities between the brains of homosexual men and straight women provides important new proof that people are born gay, a top Canadian researcher says” (Hall 1). This supports the claim that homosexuality is biological rather than a choice or a mental disorder. In this section, the aim is to show the long history of this movement and has made huge strides since then. In the future, I hope all discrimination is eradicated and taken away from everyone’s heart.
The Associated Press contributed to the next Fox News online article. In the article entitled, “Miss California Sparks Furor With Gay Marriage Comments on Miss USA Telecast” (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517137,00.html), it says, “When asked by judge Perez Hilton, an openly gay gossip blogger, whether she believed in gay marriage, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, said ‘We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised’” (AP 1). This shows that there is a lot of prejudice regarding same sex marriage. One flaw in Carrie Prejean’s argument (shown by the above paragraph) that you do not “choose” your sexuality, but homosexuality is biological. The next issue is that this answer caused a huge controversy that probably lead to her termination from the pageant. By this answer, it still shows that people still believe that a “marriage” is only between a man and a woman. This goes to show that there are many people are still closed minded to the point where they are unable to be open to other possibilities; that couples can go beyond what they believe as traditional and what has always been to the point where they cannot be open to what will be.
As we know, Massachusetts was the first state in the United States to allow gay marriage. According to the article by the Associated Press on Fox News online entitled, “Mass. Court: Gay Civil Unions Not Enough”, it says, “Massachusetts lawmakers must give gay and lesbian couples full and equal marriage rights, the state's highest court ruled Wednesday” (AP 1 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110432,00.html). With this ruling, it allowed, for the first time, to allow gay marriage to become legal in the United States and gave way for 6 total states in the United States to allow marriage to allow the GBLTQ community to wed. This is a part of what the community wants. All the group wants is to be equal, including under the United States law, to be equal as straight couples. To this community, this was the beginning of what they were striving for. On the other hand, when the events regarding California’s Prop. 8 was upheld by the California’s Supreme Court, the gay community there will fight that proposition. According to the AP’s article on Fox News online entitled, “Gay Marriage Fight to Return to California Ballot”, it says, “Within minutes of the Supreme Court's 6-1 ruling, gay leaders said they were moving into campaign mode with an eye toward trying to repeal Proposition 8 at the ballot box as early as next year” (AP 1 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/27/gay-marriage-fight-return-california-ballot/). When the community sees injustice being done, they will do everything they can do to correct it. All they are fighting for is equal rights that straight couples have including, but not limited to, marriage, seeing their partners in hospital, joint tax returns, etc.
Finally, the last, but certainly, an important subject that should be talked about is violence against gays and lesbians. According to an article found at the Human Resource Campaigns article entitled, “Hate Crimes and Violence Against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People” by Michelle A. Marzullo and Alyn J. Libman at http://www.hrc.org/documents/ResearchOverview_HateCrimes.pdf. According to them, they say, “Statistical information collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation consistently shows that lesbian, gay and bisexual people, and those perceived to be LGB, are attacked more than heterosexuals relative to their estimated population size in the United States” (Marzullo 5). By this that more so than not that anyone who is gay, or at least perceived as gay, is more likely will be attacked in a violent crime. There are many interesting statistics in this article. But a vile story includes the story of Lawrence King. He was a student in a High School’s computer room in the head just because he was gay. It is stories like this that involve under age kids that make this issue tragic. Not that the child is gay and expressed it, but was killed over his sexuality. It is part of the reason why the gay community is pushing for equality. They do not want to be victims of crimes that often go unnoticed. This is why gay community wants state and federal recognition those crimes against homosexuality as hate crimes because they are a minority and there are many violent crimes against gay people.
There is a lot of information here that you should really consider. All the articles I provided here in this blog and all my blog entries I really do find persuasive because they were insightful and informative.
Now in this section, I will express my personal views on this movement. You can agree or disagree with my argument in part or in whole. Regardless of your personal opinions on gay rights, I feel that from the local to federal governments and everything in between, gay couples should have every right that straight couples have. Here’s my opinion on the marriage aspect of this movement: either everyone can marry or no one should marry. Regardless if you look at this as a religious and/or state ceremony, what is going on is that 2 people making an agreement with each other to stay truthful together and not see anyone else. Plain and simple. If you can provide marriage to heterosexuals plus marital rights, you can do so for homosexuals. It also works the other way, if you CANNOT provide marriage plus the marital rights to homosexuals, heterosexuals SHOULD NOT have it either. Technically you DO NOT NEED a marriage to be monogamous and love the person of your dreams. I feel that equality is in order and should be recognized not only nationally, but globally as well. Furthermore, my opinion has not changed over the course of the semester. In fact, I'm even more for the support of gay marriage, before the course began.
I hope that you have enjoyed my blog.
Sincerely,
Steven Weingarten
Sources:
The Toronto Star
http://www.hrc.org/justice/resources/justice_timeline.pdf
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517137,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110432,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/27/gay-marriage-fight-return-california-ballot/
http://www.hrc.org/documents/ResearchOverview_HateCrimes.pdf
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Hot topics: Gay Marriage: Wednesday assignment #4
Hello everyone,
In this blog, the focus will be on terrorism. It will focus on the idea that there is a certain strategic logic behind it. Robert Pape’s article “Blowing up an Assumption” and Charles Tilly’s article “Violence, Terror, and Politics as Usual” argues this point. The point also extends to the idea that no matter how random violence appears, the violence is not always random. I will also apply these ideas to gay marriage.
One note that Pape strongly makes is that the Muslim extremists is that they want what they consider their “homeland”. In his article, he says, “What nearly all suicide terrorist attacks actually have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in seeking aid from abroad, but is rarely the root cause” (Pape 1). According to this, the Muslim groups in the Middle East are only fighting for what they believe is theirs. The religious forefront is only the face that they are showing. Now the religious face of is not a complete fraud. Since their religion is based off of the Judeo- Christian religion, the homeland that they claim they are fighting for is Jerusalem (as where Jews and Christian believe there holy homeland is as well). They, therefore, will use extreme tactics; including using a twisted version of their religion, to obtain what is current Israel as their country. They also use this twisted version of their religion to recruit new members and keep them as long as possible. Another aspect to this is that they want to be free from foreign influence especially from democratic Western influences. In the case, of all things, Americans being in Iraq and Afghanistan (and possible Pakistan and Iran), a main reason of the violence is to try to get the U.S. and their allies out of the region. Their religion dictates their life and do not want to modernize especially with the influence of the western nations like the U.S. and Britain.
In agreement, Tilly says, “In 1999, then, the State Department anticipated a distinction that took on enormous political force after Muslim suicide squads crashed packed passenger jets into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center in September 2001: on one side, terror affecting U.S. interests; on the other side, essentially local and regional conflicts” (Tilly 6). He argues through this point, like Pape, is that terrorism affects everyone. After September 11, 2001, obviously it affected the U.S. and its allies by going into a war in the Middle East. The other side of this is that the perpetrators want national attention of their local and regional conflicts. They wanted, through the war that they got the attention that they want. From there, the terror extremists in the Middle East are continuing their actions by attacking American troops in the region that they, ironically, do not want Western influence and democracy in the region. They feel that western influence is wrong and twisted that it should be influencing the Muslim world in the Middle East.
I would like to explain my position. I do agree with the authors. When it comes to violent extremists for any protest movements, wherever they are, there are reasons and motives for them beneath the surface. Now regarding gay marriage in the United States, these ideas can be applied as well to the gay rights movement. Keep in mind here that the objectives of gay marriage are definitely more transparent than terrorist’s objectives. All that gay rights activists want is equal rights under the law. They use many different kinds of tactics, not including violent tactics. The most aggressive I’ve seen this movement is is a protestor of Prop 8 in California on November 4, 2008. In the video (where I’m sure you can find it on YouTube.com), that this protestor was heckling an elderly women who voted in favor of Proposition 8 which banned gay marriage in a constitutional amendment. It stirred up some media attention (I think from CNN). With this kind of attention and tactics are highly questionable and should not be engaged in. On that note, tactics should only be applied if they are tasteful, respectful, and in such a way that does away with negative aspects of the gay movement, but, most importantly, enhances the positive aspect of the gay rights movement. I think that one day, marriage will be for everyone.
Sincerely,
Steven Weingarten
In this blog, the focus will be on terrorism. It will focus on the idea that there is a certain strategic logic behind it. Robert Pape’s article “Blowing up an Assumption” and Charles Tilly’s article “Violence, Terror, and Politics as Usual” argues this point. The point also extends to the idea that no matter how random violence appears, the violence is not always random. I will also apply these ideas to gay marriage.
One note that Pape strongly makes is that the Muslim extremists is that they want what they consider their “homeland”. In his article, he says, “What nearly all suicide terrorist attacks actually have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in seeking aid from abroad, but is rarely the root cause” (Pape 1). According to this, the Muslim groups in the Middle East are only fighting for what they believe is theirs. The religious forefront is only the face that they are showing. Now the religious face of is not a complete fraud. Since their religion is based off of the Judeo- Christian religion, the homeland that they claim they are fighting for is Jerusalem (as where Jews and Christian believe there holy homeland is as well). They, therefore, will use extreme tactics; including using a twisted version of their religion, to obtain what is current Israel as their country. They also use this twisted version of their religion to recruit new members and keep them as long as possible. Another aspect to this is that they want to be free from foreign influence especially from democratic Western influences. In the case, of all things, Americans being in Iraq and Afghanistan (and possible Pakistan and Iran), a main reason of the violence is to try to get the U.S. and their allies out of the region. Their religion dictates their life and do not want to modernize especially with the influence of the western nations like the U.S. and Britain.
In agreement, Tilly says, “In 1999, then, the State Department anticipated a distinction that took on enormous political force after Muslim suicide squads crashed packed passenger jets into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center in September 2001: on one side, terror affecting U.S. interests; on the other side, essentially local and regional conflicts” (Tilly 6). He argues through this point, like Pape, is that terrorism affects everyone. After September 11, 2001, obviously it affected the U.S. and its allies by going into a war in the Middle East. The other side of this is that the perpetrators want national attention of their local and regional conflicts. They wanted, through the war that they got the attention that they want. From there, the terror extremists in the Middle East are continuing their actions by attacking American troops in the region that they, ironically, do not want Western influence and democracy in the region. They feel that western influence is wrong and twisted that it should be influencing the Muslim world in the Middle East.
I would like to explain my position. I do agree with the authors. When it comes to violent extremists for any protest movements, wherever they are, there are reasons and motives for them beneath the surface. Now regarding gay marriage in the United States, these ideas can be applied as well to the gay rights movement. Keep in mind here that the objectives of gay marriage are definitely more transparent than terrorist’s objectives. All that gay rights activists want is equal rights under the law. They use many different kinds of tactics, not including violent tactics. The most aggressive I’ve seen this movement is is a protestor of Prop 8 in California on November 4, 2008. In the video (where I’m sure you can find it on YouTube.com), that this protestor was heckling an elderly women who voted in favor of Proposition 8 which banned gay marriage in a constitutional amendment. It stirred up some media attention (I think from CNN). With this kind of attention and tactics are highly questionable and should not be engaged in. On that note, tactics should only be applied if they are tasteful, respectful, and in such a way that does away with negative aspects of the gay movement, but, most importantly, enhances the positive aspect of the gay rights movement. I think that one day, marriage will be for everyone.
Sincerely,
Steven Weingarten
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Hot topics: Iran and Gay Marriage: Friday Assignment #4
Hello everyone,
In this blog, I will make a little change and focus on the protests and the crisis that are facing the citizens of Iran. In this blog, I will focus on the technology, university students’ actions, and how gender plays a key part in the protests in Iran. I will also make a brief mention how technology, student actions, and gender plays a role in gay marriage.
Regarding the protests in Iran, technology has played a significant role. There is no way to describe how important it has played a role. Technology allows us know what is going on in the protests. I learned from the Fox News channel on TV that journalists are not allowed in Iran, or at least, not reporting from there. So the only source of information is from the video taken from the protestors and posting it on twitter and YouTube. Not only that, the internet is also being used to help the Iranians. In the web article, “Crisis in Iran Sparks Global Guerrilla Cyberwar” by Fox News website on June 16, 2009 at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526627,00.html, it says, “The election crisis in Iran has ignited a full-on guerrilla cyberwar, with Twitterers and techies across the globe pitching in to help protesters in that country access the Internet, and official Iranian government Web sites being knocked offline. The U.S. State Department even reportedly weighed in, with an unnamed official telling Reuters Tuesday that it had asked Twitter not to ‘shut down its system in Iran.’” (Fox news 1). The reasons why that these pages are being used is that it is our only source of information so we know what is going on in the country. It is also being used to show the injustices that are happening in Iran. The government is say that twitter or YouTube should not reject the material because they need to know what is going on and how to approach political and, possibly, diplomatic relations with Iran to fully resolve the issue.
On the student’s side of the issue, they are taking a stance with the issue. In Iran, many students are taking a proactive role in the protests. That is especially true considering many of the protesters belong to the younger generation. According to the article from Fox News’ website entitled, “Young Iranians Express Hope, Fear in Aftermath of Elections” by Adelle Nazarian, she says, “Samereh [an unidentified 27 year old women], who moved to Shomal from Tehran for work a few months ago, compared the Iranian government to the Taliban. She said people are fed up and willing to die for their country” (Nazarian 1) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526781,00.html. So many young people are taking such a proactive in making sure that they and their future are taking such a drastic approach in making social change. The younger generation is taking it to the extreme to voice their opinion, and to make sure that democracy truly works in Iran and not shown to be a fraud by a narcissistic hateful dictator.
In this protest there are some people in this protests are women. Now that is interesting because in that region of the world where women are treated like property and cannot do anything the women in United States take for granted such as having jobs or simply going out in public. In this case, they are drastically helping the protests in Iran. There is one woman in particular who is seen as martyr to the protesting. According to the article on Fox News’ website entitled, “Neda Soltan, Young Woman Hailed as Martyr in Iran, Becomes Face of Protests” by Melissa Tabatabai, she says, “‘Neda,’ whose identity could not be verified by FOXNews.com, was reportedly gunned down by paramilitary police Saturday during protests in the capital city. Videos posted on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter show her bleeding from the nose and mouth as a crowd tries unsuccessfully to stanch the flow and save her life” (Tabatabi 1) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,528133,00.html. Despite the obvious sexism in the region, this girl is being raised high on a pedestal. In the article, it was mentioned that Neda did not support either candidate but the one thing that she wanted was “Freedom for all” according to her fiancé. When this event occurred, it showed the injustices of the region and the tyranny of the dictator. Since then, she became an icon of the movement.
Now I would like to apply some of these concepts to gay marriage. In the gay rights movement in the United States, technology does play a key role. In gay marriage, technology such as television and the internet are the primary ways in which activists gets the word out about the movement and to help create change. They use these tools to get in touch with the general public to create awareness and acceptance about the gay lifestyle. In this day and age, students are taking a role in the gay rights movement. Many students and younger people do not feel it matters what a person’s sexuality is and feels that no one should intrude on it. About once a year, there is a day of silence that many GBLTQ members and supporters do not speak and create awareness for the gay community members. Regarding gender and sex, I do not feel that it makes a big impact. There are many men and women involved with this movement that makes a huge significant difference.
Sincerely,
Steven Weingarten
Sources online from Foxnews.com:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526627,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526781,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,528133,00.html
In this blog, I will make a little change and focus on the protests and the crisis that are facing the citizens of Iran. In this blog, I will focus on the technology, university students’ actions, and how gender plays a key part in the protests in Iran. I will also make a brief mention how technology, student actions, and gender plays a role in gay marriage.
Regarding the protests in Iran, technology has played a significant role. There is no way to describe how important it has played a role. Technology allows us know what is going on in the protests. I learned from the Fox News channel on TV that journalists are not allowed in Iran, or at least, not reporting from there. So the only source of information is from the video taken from the protestors and posting it on twitter and YouTube. Not only that, the internet is also being used to help the Iranians. In the web article, “Crisis in Iran Sparks Global Guerrilla Cyberwar” by Fox News website on June 16, 2009 at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526627,00.html, it says, “The election crisis in Iran has ignited a full-on guerrilla cyberwar, with Twitterers and techies across the globe pitching in to help protesters in that country access the Internet, and official Iranian government Web sites being knocked offline. The U.S. State Department even reportedly weighed in, with an unnamed official telling Reuters Tuesday that it had asked Twitter not to ‘shut down its system in Iran.’” (Fox news 1). The reasons why that these pages are being used is that it is our only source of information so we know what is going on in the country. It is also being used to show the injustices that are happening in Iran. The government is say that twitter or YouTube should not reject the material because they need to know what is going on and how to approach political and, possibly, diplomatic relations with Iran to fully resolve the issue.
On the student’s side of the issue, they are taking a stance with the issue. In Iran, many students are taking a proactive role in the protests. That is especially true considering many of the protesters belong to the younger generation. According to the article from Fox News’ website entitled, “Young Iranians Express Hope, Fear in Aftermath of Elections” by Adelle Nazarian, she says, “Samereh [an unidentified 27 year old women], who moved to Shomal from Tehran for work a few months ago, compared the Iranian government to the Taliban. She said people are fed up and willing to die for their country” (Nazarian 1) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526781,00.html. So many young people are taking such a proactive in making sure that they and their future are taking such a drastic approach in making social change. The younger generation is taking it to the extreme to voice their opinion, and to make sure that democracy truly works in Iran and not shown to be a fraud by a narcissistic hateful dictator.
In this protest there are some people in this protests are women. Now that is interesting because in that region of the world where women are treated like property and cannot do anything the women in United States take for granted such as having jobs or simply going out in public. In this case, they are drastically helping the protests in Iran. There is one woman in particular who is seen as martyr to the protesting. According to the article on Fox News’ website entitled, “Neda Soltan, Young Woman Hailed as Martyr in Iran, Becomes Face of Protests” by Melissa Tabatabai, she says, “‘Neda,’ whose identity could not be verified by FOXNews.com, was reportedly gunned down by paramilitary police Saturday during protests in the capital city. Videos posted on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter show her bleeding from the nose and mouth as a crowd tries unsuccessfully to stanch the flow and save her life” (Tabatabi 1) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,528133,00.html. Despite the obvious sexism in the region, this girl is being raised high on a pedestal. In the article, it was mentioned that Neda did not support either candidate but the one thing that she wanted was “Freedom for all” according to her fiancé. When this event occurred, it showed the injustices of the region and the tyranny of the dictator. Since then, she became an icon of the movement.
Now I would like to apply some of these concepts to gay marriage. In the gay rights movement in the United States, technology does play a key role. In gay marriage, technology such as television and the internet are the primary ways in which activists gets the word out about the movement and to help create change. They use these tools to get in touch with the general public to create awareness and acceptance about the gay lifestyle. In this day and age, students are taking a role in the gay rights movement. Many students and younger people do not feel it matters what a person’s sexuality is and feels that no one should intrude on it. About once a year, there is a day of silence that many GBLTQ members and supporters do not speak and create awareness for the gay community members. Regarding gender and sex, I do not feel that it makes a big impact. There are many men and women involved with this movement that makes a huge significant difference.
Sincerely,
Steven Weingarten
Sources online from Foxnews.com:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526627,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526781,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,528133,00.html
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
And Barack says......
One thought of mine on this video is this: our politicians is pretty much our government and make our laws. To say that government is not intruding or involved in marriage (or civil unions) is like saying that Bill Clinton never had an affair. Sorry Mr. President the government is already involved. This issue will always face the government.
If the government was truly neutral , then there would be no favor or law promoting homosexual or heterosexual marriage and everyone would have civil unions or marriage and have equal rights. It would be treated like the separation of church and state (or in this case, separation of marriage and state).
If the government is to take an equal rights approach, then the government should one of two things. 1. Either allow the gay community to be wed in a marriage and have equal rights as heterosexuals or 2. marriages of any kind would be prohibited in the future, current marriages be null and void, and all "marriage rights" like adoption, visitation in the hospital, etc. would be overturned.
Hot Topics: Gay Marriage Wednesday Assignment #3
Hello everyone,
In this blog, I will talk (again) about the ideas of Dr. Martin Luther King’s and Malcolm X’s ideas of radical protest. I will apply those ideas to a couple readings from class. I will also go on to discuss how radicalism and anarchism is a valid option for social protests and if “in your face” tactics are a valid approach to a social protests through social and political means.
First of all, I would like to define the term “radical”. It is advocating extreme measures to obtain the goals being sought by a particular group. To touch on the ideas of Dr. King’s and Malcolm X’s opinions on affirmative action, they both had separate and opposite ideas. Dr. King had believed that non violent action through civil disobedience such as “sit-ins” was the proper route in a protest. On the other hand, Malcolm X felt that non violence action would not work nor would it be effective in obtaining the changes that they were seeking. To that end, he felt that a more active and, even, a violent approach was the proper route to go when protesting. In terms of looking at protests, one might see the actions of the protestors as anarchism. In the article, “An Introduction to Anarchism” by Liz A. Highleyman, she says, “In an ideal anarchist society, it is hoped that the needs of the community as a whole can be met in a just manner without unduly impinging on the free will and self-determination of the individuals within it” (Highleyman 4). In other words, an individual rights and free will not be infringed upon while the needs and benefits of a particular community are met. This applies to Dr. King and Malcolm because either one of their tactics can easily work and gain support provided that it benefits the African American community. I
Now, in terms of gay marriage, there is one tactic used on the gay community. Keep in mind that this may be an intentional or an unintentional act, but it happens on the gay community. It can be used in a positive way for the gay community, negatively being used on the opposition’s side or on the individual themselves. I am talking about the radical tactic of “outing” gay people. By this, it is a person other than the gay individual establishes to everyone that he or she is gay. I do not believe that regardless of the benefits or drawbacks of outing someone. It is a bad tactic to use. A persons sexuality is not one else’s business except for the individual. But to use radicalism in a social protest such as gay equality, I do not feel that it is a good radical tactic on the side of the gay community. Here’s how I figure it: in this day and age in American society, there is a lot of prejudice against the gay community. In some cases, there is even deliberate act of violence against the group as well as teens and young adults are committing suicide because they are severely depressed that they are gay; and that they cannot change themselves to be gay and fit in like everyone else. You are even at risk of losing your job and benefits and risk being a victim of a violent crime including murder (at any age). Despite the risks, there are some people including celebrities that have “come out”. Some of those celebrities include Ellen DeGeneres, Rosie O Donnell, and the Adam person from the hit TV show American Idol to name a few. With this in mind, they have and are doing well since they have come out. Even Ellen DeGeneres got married when gay marriage was legal during the short time in California. But there have been celebrities that have been outed, for example, like Ricky Martin. Since he became popular in North America, he has always had a high volume of fans from the gay community which have sparked rumors of his sexuality. I could be mistaken here, he never gave a straight answer to the question of his sexuality, but it is at least speculated that he is bisexual. I feel that no one should out anyone else for any reason. It can lead to many consequences including, but not limited to losing your job, being a victim of crime, or possibly being an outcast of your family and friends. Tactics such as vigils, proper education, communicating with legislators, and others are very effective tools in the fight for equality.
Also, some are wondering if there are certain circumstances that radical or anarchic protests might be a valid option for a social movement should ensue. Ultimately, I do not think that either anarchic or radicalism allows a protest to be effective because there would be complete and total chaos. If you allow radicalism or anarchy as a mean to protest something like gay marriage, then anything can happen. You can kidnap many legislators in a state not allowing gay marriage until they and the legal system legally allow gay marriage without it being reversed on appeal of any sort. You might see more violence since the gay community wants equal rights and the opposition do not want to see equality. I fear a worse society if anarchy and radicalism are used as tactics. This same logic applies to the opposition of gay community. Similarly, I do not mind “in your face” kind of tactics as long as they are legal and are not rude and inconsiderate of other people. As long as both sides are playing fair, legal, and based on the facts. In your face tactics are probably the most valid of the three mentioned in this paragraph.
Sincerely,
Steven Weingarten
In this blog, I will talk (again) about the ideas of Dr. Martin Luther King’s and Malcolm X’s ideas of radical protest. I will apply those ideas to a couple readings from class. I will also go on to discuss how radicalism and anarchism is a valid option for social protests and if “in your face” tactics are a valid approach to a social protests through social and political means.
First of all, I would like to define the term “radical”. It is advocating extreme measures to obtain the goals being sought by a particular group. To touch on the ideas of Dr. King’s and Malcolm X’s opinions on affirmative action, they both had separate and opposite ideas. Dr. King had believed that non violent action through civil disobedience such as “sit-ins” was the proper route in a protest. On the other hand, Malcolm X felt that non violence action would not work nor would it be effective in obtaining the changes that they were seeking. To that end, he felt that a more active and, even, a violent approach was the proper route to go when protesting. In terms of looking at protests, one might see the actions of the protestors as anarchism. In the article, “An Introduction to Anarchism” by Liz A. Highleyman, she says, “In an ideal anarchist society, it is hoped that the needs of the community as a whole can be met in a just manner without unduly impinging on the free will and self-determination of the individuals within it” (Highleyman 4). In other words, an individual rights and free will not be infringed upon while the needs and benefits of a particular community are met. This applies to Dr. King and Malcolm because either one of their tactics can easily work and gain support provided that it benefits the African American community. I
Now, in terms of gay marriage, there is one tactic used on the gay community. Keep in mind that this may be an intentional or an unintentional act, but it happens on the gay community. It can be used in a positive way for the gay community, negatively being used on the opposition’s side or on the individual themselves. I am talking about the radical tactic of “outing” gay people. By this, it is a person other than the gay individual establishes to everyone that he or she is gay. I do not believe that regardless of the benefits or drawbacks of outing someone. It is a bad tactic to use. A persons sexuality is not one else’s business except for the individual. But to use radicalism in a social protest such as gay equality, I do not feel that it is a good radical tactic on the side of the gay community. Here’s how I figure it: in this day and age in American society, there is a lot of prejudice against the gay community. In some cases, there is even deliberate act of violence against the group as well as teens and young adults are committing suicide because they are severely depressed that they are gay; and that they cannot change themselves to be gay and fit in like everyone else. You are even at risk of losing your job and benefits and risk being a victim of a violent crime including murder (at any age). Despite the risks, there are some people including celebrities that have “come out”. Some of those celebrities include Ellen DeGeneres, Rosie O Donnell, and the Adam person from the hit TV show American Idol to name a few. With this in mind, they have and are doing well since they have come out. Even Ellen DeGeneres got married when gay marriage was legal during the short time in California. But there have been celebrities that have been outed, for example, like Ricky Martin. Since he became popular in North America, he has always had a high volume of fans from the gay community which have sparked rumors of his sexuality. I could be mistaken here, he never gave a straight answer to the question of his sexuality, but it is at least speculated that he is bisexual. I feel that no one should out anyone else for any reason. It can lead to many consequences including, but not limited to losing your job, being a victim of crime, or possibly being an outcast of your family and friends. Tactics such as vigils, proper education, communicating with legislators, and others are very effective tools in the fight for equality.
Also, some are wondering if there are certain circumstances that radical or anarchic protests might be a valid option for a social movement should ensue. Ultimately, I do not think that either anarchic or radicalism allows a protest to be effective because there would be complete and total chaos. If you allow radicalism or anarchy as a mean to protest something like gay marriage, then anything can happen. You can kidnap many legislators in a state not allowing gay marriage until they and the legal system legally allow gay marriage without it being reversed on appeal of any sort. You might see more violence since the gay community wants equal rights and the opposition do not want to see equality. I fear a worse society if anarchy and radicalism are used as tactics. This same logic applies to the opposition of gay community. Similarly, I do not mind “in your face” kind of tactics as long as they are legal and are not rude and inconsiderate of other people. As long as both sides are playing fair, legal, and based on the facts. In your face tactics are probably the most valid of the three mentioned in this paragraph.
Sincerely,
Steven Weingarten
Friday, June 19, 2009
Friday Assignment #3: Hot Topics: Gay Marriage
Hello everyone,
In this blog, the focus will be on the emotions regarding the gay movement and how that relates to the “face/ figurehead” of the gay rights movements. Later, I will talk about the emotions relate to the opposition people particularly the religious front.
There are a variety of emotions that comes along the gay rights/ marriage movement. There are 2 main kinds of fronts within the same sex rights supporters. There is the fight involved with getting equality, which includes providing awareness, educating the public, dealing with politicians and the public, campaigns, etc. and the next set of emotions comes from the passing of laws for marriage and/or rights that allows gays to be equal to straight couples. Yes these are the categories that the emotions for this movements fall into. The primary emotions when it comes to the fight for equality are neutral emotions. They include concern, the desire to help others understand the cause, wanting to have others to see a better picture of the issue of homosexuality. When it comes to this aspect of emotions of this movement, it comes from the emotions of helping others. The next set of emotions is tethered to the idea of laws passed that legalizes gay marriage and rights. When these major events happen, the community are all happy, excited, and overwhelmingly optimistic that this will spread to other states. This shows that their fight for equality is finally paying off and that this should continue until the community is complete equal rights as heterosexuals. But on the other hand, the exact opposite happens when such laws/ amendments disallows equal rights and marriage to homosexuals. When the gay community see what they feel as discrimination of which people of the state are enforcing (through state laws or amendments), they are outraged, angry, in shock and awe. While legislating equality brings the group unspeakable joy, the banning of equality brings the group unspeakable disappointment and disgruntled. When the prevention of equalities for this group is put into law, it definitely feels like a miscarriage of justice and that the law, the government, etc. has failed them.
Now, it’s time to apply these emotions to the tactics at hand. They gay rights/ marriage supporters use these emotions in few different ways. One tactic is using the dead, victims of hatred from the opposition. The gay community tells tragic stories of people getting murder just because their gay such as the Lawrence King story (link in previous blog). They want you to feel sad and want you to prevent such atrocities. The community wants you to look at your gay friends and/or family member and asks you through your emotions to support them being gay. The community uses your emotions as a tactic to support their cause.
As mentioned in the previous blog, I feel there are 2 sets of unsung faces, the living and the deceased victims from hate. With the living, I feel that the image that it puts forth to the public is what you get as it presents to its members or potential recruits. The gay community and their supporters want is equality and to end discrimination. They want the law to recognize them as first class and not second class citizens. They do not want to be told by anyone else that they’re any less just because of a different sexual orientation. They use this logic that to appeal to the public to find potential recruits.
Here is another note that I would like to explore, there are emotions and tactics that engage in their opposition, particularly when it comes to the religious fundamental/evangelical type. PLEASE NOTE: NOT EVERYONE WHO OPPOSES GAY MARRIAGES IS EITHER RELIGIOUS OR A BIGOT. JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE ON THE SUBJECT DOES NOT MAKE YOU A HATEFUL PERSON OR THAT YOU DISLIKE THE GAY COMMUNITY OR INDIVIDUAL GAY PEOPLE. I want to make my position clear on that. But the concern in this paragraph is on the religious right forcing its way into the law. It is recent that religion in general got involved with the gay marriage/ right movement. Their arguments include it’s not natural, encouraging other people to be gay, not good for kids, etc. It just comes from the idea that just because homosexuality does not correspond with their bible and their g-d’s word. So how does the gay community react to this creed? Obviously, they would feel disrespected and understandably angry that people exhibits much hate towards them. Despite the rise in negative emotions on the side of the gay rights movement and their supporters, this community tries to understand why they can have so much hate towards them as in what truly good and genuine reason why they are so hateful. In my experience with seeing their hatred on ASU’s Tempe campus periodically over the past 3 years, there is no good reason. As much as I do not want to say it, they use our 1st amendment to shield their bigotry. As long as they are shouting, engage in a cross-cultural dialogue or whatever provided that nothing illegal is going on. When it comes to this kind of idea, it saddens me that there is still so much hate and sorrow that is still affecting so many people.
Sincerely,
Steven Weingarten Time 4:54PM Friday
In this blog, the focus will be on the emotions regarding the gay movement and how that relates to the “face/ figurehead” of the gay rights movements. Later, I will talk about the emotions relate to the opposition people particularly the religious front.
There are a variety of emotions that comes along the gay rights/ marriage movement. There are 2 main kinds of fronts within the same sex rights supporters. There is the fight involved with getting equality, which includes providing awareness, educating the public, dealing with politicians and the public, campaigns, etc. and the next set of emotions comes from the passing of laws for marriage and/or rights that allows gays to be equal to straight couples. Yes these are the categories that the emotions for this movements fall into. The primary emotions when it comes to the fight for equality are neutral emotions. They include concern, the desire to help others understand the cause, wanting to have others to see a better picture of the issue of homosexuality. When it comes to this aspect of emotions of this movement, it comes from the emotions of helping others. The next set of emotions is tethered to the idea of laws passed that legalizes gay marriage and rights. When these major events happen, the community are all happy, excited, and overwhelmingly optimistic that this will spread to other states. This shows that their fight for equality is finally paying off and that this should continue until the community is complete equal rights as heterosexuals. But on the other hand, the exact opposite happens when such laws/ amendments disallows equal rights and marriage to homosexuals. When the gay community see what they feel as discrimination of which people of the state are enforcing (through state laws or amendments), they are outraged, angry, in shock and awe. While legislating equality brings the group unspeakable joy, the banning of equality brings the group unspeakable disappointment and disgruntled. When the prevention of equalities for this group is put into law, it definitely feels like a miscarriage of justice and that the law, the government, etc. has failed them.
Now, it’s time to apply these emotions to the tactics at hand. They gay rights/ marriage supporters use these emotions in few different ways. One tactic is using the dead, victims of hatred from the opposition. The gay community tells tragic stories of people getting murder just because their gay such as the Lawrence King story (link in previous blog). They want you to feel sad and want you to prevent such atrocities. The community wants you to look at your gay friends and/or family member and asks you through your emotions to support them being gay. The community uses your emotions as a tactic to support their cause.
As mentioned in the previous blog, I feel there are 2 sets of unsung faces, the living and the deceased victims from hate. With the living, I feel that the image that it puts forth to the public is what you get as it presents to its members or potential recruits. The gay community and their supporters want is equality and to end discrimination. They want the law to recognize them as first class and not second class citizens. They do not want to be told by anyone else that they’re any less just because of a different sexual orientation. They use this logic that to appeal to the public to find potential recruits.
Here is another note that I would like to explore, there are emotions and tactics that engage in their opposition, particularly when it comes to the religious fundamental/evangelical type. PLEASE NOTE: NOT EVERYONE WHO OPPOSES GAY MARRIAGES IS EITHER RELIGIOUS OR A BIGOT. JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE ON THE SUBJECT DOES NOT MAKE YOU A HATEFUL PERSON OR THAT YOU DISLIKE THE GAY COMMUNITY OR INDIVIDUAL GAY PEOPLE. I want to make my position clear on that. But the concern in this paragraph is on the religious right forcing its way into the law. It is recent that religion in general got involved with the gay marriage/ right movement. Their arguments include it’s not natural, encouraging other people to be gay, not good for kids, etc. It just comes from the idea that just because homosexuality does not correspond with their bible and their g-d’s word. So how does the gay community react to this creed? Obviously, they would feel disrespected and understandably angry that people exhibits much hate towards them. Despite the rise in negative emotions on the side of the gay rights movement and their supporters, this community tries to understand why they can have so much hate towards them as in what truly good and genuine reason why they are so hateful. In my experience with seeing their hatred on ASU’s Tempe campus periodically over the past 3 years, there is no good reason. As much as I do not want to say it, they use our 1st amendment to shield their bigotry. As long as they are shouting, engage in a cross-cultural dialogue or whatever provided that nothing illegal is going on. When it comes to this kind of idea, it saddens me that there is still so much hate and sorrow that is still affecting so many people.
Sincerely,
Steven Weingarten Time 4:54PM Friday
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Wednesday Assignment #2: Hot Topics: Gay Marriage
Hello everyone,
In this Wednesday’s blog will focus on figureheads. For consistency, I will remain on the topic of gay rights/ gay marriage. Also, I will also briefly talk about Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks as figure heads during the civil rights movement.
If I were to choose a figurehead for the gay rights movement, that is going to be a difficult task to do because this protest encompasses a wide variety of people in the categories of race, gender/sex, age, religion, political stance, etc. (i.e. a wide variety of intersectionality). As mentioned in a previous blog, and by Kimberle Crenshaw in her article, “Women Of Color At The Center: Selections From The Third National Conference On Women Of Color And The Law: Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color”, defines intersectionality as “I used the concept of intersectionality to denote the various ways in which race and gender interact to shape the multiple dimensions of Black women's employment experiences” (Crenshaw 2). In this case I am going to use the slightly more expansive version of this definition to, not only include race and gender, but also age, religion, political stance. It is because the experience of the gay community can fall and can be looked into any of these categories; all of which make up a person regardless of their sexuality. I want to make sure that the experiences of the gay community as well as a figurehead to be included. Similarly with a huge and diverse community of the GBLTQ group, I feel that there cannot be a truly one good figurehead in the sense of one individual person.
Regarding intersectionalities, it does seem very difficult to really and truly find a figurehead. Then, it now occurs to me that there are many people who are figureheads and can also be the face of this movement. These people can be classified into two different groups of these unsung heroes. The first group, and most importantly, is those who have been murdered just because of their sexuality. One such example is a politician named Harvey Milk. He was a politician who was elected in 1977 and took office in 1978 as a city supervisor. In November of 1978, he was assonated. It was because that, not only because he was gay, but the first openly gay man to be elected to government. Many people are killed every year because of their sexuality. There are students like Matthew Shepard, a college student (see http://www.hrc.org/sites/hatecrimes/video-progress_since.asp), or 15 year old Lawrence King (see http://www.hrc.org/sites/hatecrimes/lawrence_king.asp). The other group is the people who the living people who are gay, bisexual, lesbian, transgendered (and transsexual), and Queer people. These people are your every day Joes (in or out of the closet) who are gay. These people deserve your utmost respect because they live in a society that treats them as second class citizens. In that society, it can be filled with hatred, unacceptance, knowing they do not have the same rights as same couples, worrying about losing their jobs or health benefits for themselves and partners, and, most importantly, worried of being a victim of violence or death only because of their sexuality.
This section is going to explore the benefits and drawbacks of having a figurehead for your group. If there were figurehead(s) for the gay community, then there would be some benefits to it. They would be able to direct the community to help prompt rallies, protests, and other kinds of activity. Also, they would have some credibility to direct change in legislature to help promote legalizing equality to the GBLTQ community. They would be able to encourage the community and supports to help educate the rest of society that homosexuality is not a bad thing and something that you cannot get rid of. Another benefit is that a figurehead such as Rosa Parks (but for the gay community) can spark an entire movement. In this case, it would provide many demonstrations and other kinds of “awareness” tactics that would allow a higher likelihood in getting equality. On the other hand, there are some pitfalls that come along with being a figure head. One scenario with being a figurehead, it can spark riots, violence, and other acts of criminal activity. For example, in the case of Rodney King who was assaulted by 4 white police officers. After their acquittal, many African Americans protested, rioted, and other violent acts of criminal behavior to show the injustice of prejudice. In the case of gay marriage, if a figurehead comes about, it may spark the wrong kind of actions as in engaging criminal behavior. Another pitfall for being a figurehead, it is that you are a martyr. If like Rosa Parks, you may be arrested for breaking the law by civil disobedience and breaking the law.
There is also one more topic I would like to address. That topic would be about the Civil Rights movement. The question is: would the Civil Right movement have been different if Claudette Colvin was the face for their protest? According to the article, “The Ladies before Rosa: Let Us Now Praise Unfamous Women” by Paul Hendrickson. He says, “…[Claudette Colvin] was a small, modest, ascetic-looking, wholly untainted 42-year-old seamstress and civic activist and youth leader: a perfect and righteous symbol for igniting not just a year-long boycott but an entire movement” (Hendrickson 289-290). Also, she was also taken off the bus kicking and screaming. She was arrested because of her civil disobedience. This took place nine months before Rosa Parks declined to give up her seat and got arrested herself for the same thing. If Claudette was the icon for the Civil Rights movement, I would not know how different it would be. The protests could have died out, especially before its time or we could see African Americans equal of every single way as a white person. I feel that all the events during the Civil Rights movement should remain the same because it dramatically influenced and positively affected their status quo as United State citizens.
Sincerely,
Steven Weingarten
In this Wednesday’s blog will focus on figureheads. For consistency, I will remain on the topic of gay rights/ gay marriage. Also, I will also briefly talk about Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks as figure heads during the civil rights movement.
If I were to choose a figurehead for the gay rights movement, that is going to be a difficult task to do because this protest encompasses a wide variety of people in the categories of race, gender/sex, age, religion, political stance, etc. (i.e. a wide variety of intersectionality). As mentioned in a previous blog, and by Kimberle Crenshaw in her article, “Women Of Color At The Center: Selections From The Third National Conference On Women Of Color And The Law: Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color”, defines intersectionality as “I used the concept of intersectionality to denote the various ways in which race and gender interact to shape the multiple dimensions of Black women's employment experiences” (Crenshaw 2). In this case I am going to use the slightly more expansive version of this definition to, not only include race and gender, but also age, religion, political stance. It is because the experience of the gay community can fall and can be looked into any of these categories; all of which make up a person regardless of their sexuality. I want to make sure that the experiences of the gay community as well as a figurehead to be included. Similarly with a huge and diverse community of the GBLTQ group, I feel that there cannot be a truly one good figurehead in the sense of one individual person.
Regarding intersectionalities, it does seem very difficult to really and truly find a figurehead. Then, it now occurs to me that there are many people who are figureheads and can also be the face of this movement. These people can be classified into two different groups of these unsung heroes. The first group, and most importantly, is those who have been murdered just because of their sexuality. One such example is a politician named Harvey Milk. He was a politician who was elected in 1977 and took office in 1978 as a city supervisor. In November of 1978, he was assonated. It was because that, not only because he was gay, but the first openly gay man to be elected to government. Many people are killed every year because of their sexuality. There are students like Matthew Shepard, a college student (see http://www.hrc.org/sites/hatecrimes/video-progress_since.asp), or 15 year old Lawrence King (see http://www.hrc.org/sites/hatecrimes/lawrence_king.asp). The other group is the people who the living people who are gay, bisexual, lesbian, transgendered (and transsexual), and Queer people. These people are your every day Joes (in or out of the closet) who are gay. These people deserve your utmost respect because they live in a society that treats them as second class citizens. In that society, it can be filled with hatred, unacceptance, knowing they do not have the same rights as same couples, worrying about losing their jobs or health benefits for themselves and partners, and, most importantly, worried of being a victim of violence or death only because of their sexuality.
This section is going to explore the benefits and drawbacks of having a figurehead for your group. If there were figurehead(s) for the gay community, then there would be some benefits to it. They would be able to direct the community to help prompt rallies, protests, and other kinds of activity. Also, they would have some credibility to direct change in legislature to help promote legalizing equality to the GBLTQ community. They would be able to encourage the community and supports to help educate the rest of society that homosexuality is not a bad thing and something that you cannot get rid of. Another benefit is that a figurehead such as Rosa Parks (but for the gay community) can spark an entire movement. In this case, it would provide many demonstrations and other kinds of “awareness” tactics that would allow a higher likelihood in getting equality. On the other hand, there are some pitfalls that come along with being a figure head. One scenario with being a figurehead, it can spark riots, violence, and other acts of criminal activity. For example, in the case of Rodney King who was assaulted by 4 white police officers. After their acquittal, many African Americans protested, rioted, and other violent acts of criminal behavior to show the injustice of prejudice. In the case of gay marriage, if a figurehead comes about, it may spark the wrong kind of actions as in engaging criminal behavior. Another pitfall for being a figurehead, it is that you are a martyr. If like Rosa Parks, you may be arrested for breaking the law by civil disobedience and breaking the law.
There is also one more topic I would like to address. That topic would be about the Civil Rights movement. The question is: would the Civil Right movement have been different if Claudette Colvin was the face for their protest? According to the article, “The Ladies before Rosa: Let Us Now Praise Unfamous Women” by Paul Hendrickson. He says, “…[Claudette Colvin] was a small, modest, ascetic-looking, wholly untainted 42-year-old seamstress and civic activist and youth leader: a perfect and righteous symbol for igniting not just a year-long boycott but an entire movement” (Hendrickson 289-290). Also, she was also taken off the bus kicking and screaming. She was arrested because of her civil disobedience. This took place nine months before Rosa Parks declined to give up her seat and got arrested herself for the same thing. If Claudette was the icon for the Civil Rights movement, I would not know how different it would be. The protests could have died out, especially before its time or we could see African Americans equal of every single way as a white person. I feel that all the events during the Civil Rights movement should remain the same because it dramatically influenced and positively affected their status quo as United State citizens.
Sincerely,
Steven Weingarten
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Friday Assignment 2: Hot topics: Gay Marriage
Hello everyone,
This next blog on gay marriage is about the framework, as in how the movement frames itself to those who support gay marriage and who has framed them (through intersectionality and other factors). Comparing and contrasting the framing of the gay marriage movement with that of the pro life and the environmental movements. And, finally, the last section will focus on the consequences of framing the issue and how the gay movement can be “re-framed” so it can be more inclusive.
In this first section, I will be focusing on the framework of gay marriage and who framed it. Now the idea of framing a social movement, protest, or conflict, is to make it inclusive to a specific group of people (in my blog’s case: the gay community and their supporters). The issue must be framed and resonate with the beliefs, feelings, and desires of potential recruits of the specific cause. These frames can take the FORM of anything including appealing stories, powerful clusters of symbols, slogans/ catchy words, attributions of blame for social problems, etc. A form in the gay community is the rainbow flag symbolizing their pride as being Gay Bisexual, Lesbian, Transgender, or Queer. Another form of framework of the gay rights movement is your sexuality as being political, and civil as well as social as the three components of equality. What does that mean? The political aspect of the gay rights movement is asking politicians and legislators enforce equal rights and disallow discrimination as well as having the same benefits as heterosexuals. They want to be a legally recognized group to be allowed to married and be afforded the same rights as straight people. It is a civil and social issue because of the discrimination involved with this issue. As people looked at African Americans, women, etc. before their movements is how the gay community is looked at currently. They are looked as second class citizens, not worthy of equal status as straight couples. Next, is how intersectionality is involved with this movement.
Those who usually frame this protest are gay community and supporters are the ones actively leading this protest. It is difficult to pin down any real salient characteristics such as race, sex/gender, socioeconomic class, religion, or political affiliation. It is difficult because they gay community are comprised of different races, sexes, class, religion or political affiliations. If your gay, you’re gay it does not matter which of these categories you fall in. People who are not only gay, but their supporters are spread in all these intersectionalities as well. The challenges and difficulties that are posed by intersectionalities of gay rights is that there are people from all of these groups and all are asking for equal rights for the gay community.
Now I am going to compare and contrast the pro life and environmental movements with the gay rights movement. Comparing and contrasting different movements are vital in the study of different movements because it allows to see the strengths and weaknesses are involved with each movement and what can be improved. In comparison to the pro life and environment movements, they all have their target audiences like the religious people and women in the pro life issue and for those who are conscious about making the Earth better in environmentalism. They all try to provide awareness and educate the public by the means that suits their need. Typically, these means go from education to protesting in public. On the other hand, these protests are obviously different because they are different protests and trying to reach different goals. One difference is faces. In the environment movement, the prime face is Al Gore who is the one who is working day and night to try to try to improve the environment. Similarly, in the pro life movement, the “real” face there is the unborn child because they are claiming that they are alive and deserve equal rights and should not be murdered. But in the gay movement, the “real” face is really the community. Recently, the runner up in American Idol came out as gay and he claimed they he did not want to be the poster boy for the gay community. For personal reasons, there may not be a poster person for gay rights and it’s just defaulted to the community at large. When these movements, particularly the gay rights movement, the way they try to get support is to going out to the public and gain support from the public. Some strategies include donations, signing people up as members to the cause, talking to politicians and legislators, campaigning for equality and advertising that to the public.
At least one consequence of the gay rights movement being framed this way is that there are people who hate gay people (not that every person in opposition hates gay people). These are the people who passionately are fighting against the gay rights movement are the kind that are shaken up to their core. These people include, but are not limited to fundamental/evangelical religious people and homophobia people. These groups and others they gather to support their cause tries to suppress the gay rights movement. An example of that is proposition 8 in California in 2008 elections. I do not think that anyone is excluded from this movement because it does affect everyone.
One last thing is there any in which the gay marriage can be re-framed to be more inclusive. It could be more inclusive if there most prominent group that is by gay people for gay people. This group will work closely with other organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) to not only fight for equal rights, but this group would help the gay community financially (reasonably of course), help gay folks come out to their family, and just over all help the gay community and their families. Adding this kind of framework would be useful if there was one centralized organization.
Sincerely,
Steven Weingarten
This next blog on gay marriage is about the framework, as in how the movement frames itself to those who support gay marriage and who has framed them (through intersectionality and other factors). Comparing and contrasting the framing of the gay marriage movement with that of the pro life and the environmental movements. And, finally, the last section will focus on the consequences of framing the issue and how the gay movement can be “re-framed” so it can be more inclusive.
In this first section, I will be focusing on the framework of gay marriage and who framed it. Now the idea of framing a social movement, protest, or conflict, is to make it inclusive to a specific group of people (in my blog’s case: the gay community and their supporters). The issue must be framed and resonate with the beliefs, feelings, and desires of potential recruits of the specific cause. These frames can take the FORM of anything including appealing stories, powerful clusters of symbols, slogans/ catchy words, attributions of blame for social problems, etc. A form in the gay community is the rainbow flag symbolizing their pride as being Gay Bisexual, Lesbian, Transgender, or Queer. Another form of framework of the gay rights movement is your sexuality as being political, and civil as well as social as the three components of equality. What does that mean? The political aspect of the gay rights movement is asking politicians and legislators enforce equal rights and disallow discrimination as well as having the same benefits as heterosexuals. They want to be a legally recognized group to be allowed to married and be afforded the same rights as straight people. It is a civil and social issue because of the discrimination involved with this issue. As people looked at African Americans, women, etc. before their movements is how the gay community is looked at currently. They are looked as second class citizens, not worthy of equal status as straight couples. Next, is how intersectionality is involved with this movement.
Those who usually frame this protest are gay community and supporters are the ones actively leading this protest. It is difficult to pin down any real salient characteristics such as race, sex/gender, socioeconomic class, religion, or political affiliation. It is difficult because they gay community are comprised of different races, sexes, class, religion or political affiliations. If your gay, you’re gay it does not matter which of these categories you fall in. People who are not only gay, but their supporters are spread in all these intersectionalities as well. The challenges and difficulties that are posed by intersectionalities of gay rights is that there are people from all of these groups and all are asking for equal rights for the gay community.
Now I am going to compare and contrast the pro life and environmental movements with the gay rights movement. Comparing and contrasting different movements are vital in the study of different movements because it allows to see the strengths and weaknesses are involved with each movement and what can be improved. In comparison to the pro life and environment movements, they all have their target audiences like the religious people and women in the pro life issue and for those who are conscious about making the Earth better in environmentalism. They all try to provide awareness and educate the public by the means that suits their need. Typically, these means go from education to protesting in public. On the other hand, these protests are obviously different because they are different protests and trying to reach different goals. One difference is faces. In the environment movement, the prime face is Al Gore who is the one who is working day and night to try to try to improve the environment. Similarly, in the pro life movement, the “real” face there is the unborn child because they are claiming that they are alive and deserve equal rights and should not be murdered. But in the gay movement, the “real” face is really the community. Recently, the runner up in American Idol came out as gay and he claimed they he did not want to be the poster boy for the gay community. For personal reasons, there may not be a poster person for gay rights and it’s just defaulted to the community at large. When these movements, particularly the gay rights movement, the way they try to get support is to going out to the public and gain support from the public. Some strategies include donations, signing people up as members to the cause, talking to politicians and legislators, campaigning for equality and advertising that to the public.
At least one consequence of the gay rights movement being framed this way is that there are people who hate gay people (not that every person in opposition hates gay people). These are the people who passionately are fighting against the gay rights movement are the kind that are shaken up to their core. These people include, but are not limited to fundamental/evangelical religious people and homophobia people. These groups and others they gather to support their cause tries to suppress the gay rights movement. An example of that is proposition 8 in California in 2008 elections. I do not think that anyone is excluded from this movement because it does affect everyone.
One last thing is there any in which the gay marriage can be re-framed to be more inclusive. It could be more inclusive if there most prominent group that is by gay people for gay people. This group will work closely with other organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) to not only fight for equal rights, but this group would help the gay community financially (reasonably of course), help gay folks come out to their family, and just over all help the gay community and their families. Adding this kind of framework would be useful if there was one centralized organization.
Sincerely,
Steven Weingarten
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
