Archive for Uncategorized

Final Blog

{ July 3, 2008 @ 10:35 pm } · { Uncategorized }
{ Tags: , , } · { Leave a Comment }


As I stated on the first day of class, I am 100% and completely for gay marriage. I have grown up in a world where my mother is white and my father is Mexican. My uncle is Catholic and his wife, my aunt, is Jewish. Most importantly and relevant to this class, however, is the fact that I grew up with two women. Wendy and Karen were two of my mom’s best friends from college. They are two of the most welcoming and friendly people I have ever met. I grew up spending one week each summer in a beach house on the Jersey shore. Each time we went Wendy and Karen would meet up with us. I learned from a very young age that Wendy and Karen were girlfriends. Never in my life have I ever thought that the fact that two WOMEN I knew were girlfriends was wrong. I always grew up thinking that it was perfectly normal. That is where my stance on this issue really plays in. I guess you could say I have been pro-gay marriage since I was about the age of four.

This was always my stance on the subject; however, I never really looked in depth at all of the issues surrounding the matter of same-sex marriage. I know that Wendy and Karen are now married, so I was aware that a law had been passed at some point that allowed same-sex marriage/union/partnership to happen. I believe it was the first week of class that really opened my eyes up to how much this social movement has really been through. We had to write a timeline of the social movement we were following, and at this point is when I really saw that the fight for same-sex marriage is not even close to being over. However, there are a lot of key moments that have been monumental for the movement.

Massachusetts in the year of 2004 legalized same-sex marriage. This was a huge step from the smaller step that had occurred in Vermont in 2000. In 2000, Vermont allowed same-sex civil unions to be legalized, but they still were not called marriages. There is an article on cnn.com written by Deborah Feyerick and Sheila Steffen called “Same-sex Marriage in Massachusetts, 4 Years Later”. This article basically wanted to get the opinion from a male same-sex married couple about how the law change has affected them. In the state of Massachusetts since the date that it legalized same-sex marriage, more than 10,000 gay and lesbian couples have exchanged vows. Although yearly amount of gay marriages occurring has decreased, the legalization has changed the lives of many gay and lesbian couples.

Interviewed in the article were David Wilson and Rob Compton. They both agree that being able to call the other one “husband” and not “partner” is very empowering. Being legalized as husband and husband has also made Wilson and Compton eligible for certain benefits. An example that they brought up was the fact that they have hospital visitation rights. I myself had never even thought about the benefits that seem as simple and small as hospital visitation rights. Other benefits include health insurance through the other spouse’s work, the right to file joint state tax returns, transfer property, inherit shared assets, and make medical decisions for a spouse.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/16/feyerick.samesex.marriage/

Another area of interest for me was to see what our presidential candidates feelings were on the issue of gay marriage. From reading the article, “A Tightrope on Gay Marriage” by Matthew E. Berger on msnbc.msn.com, I saw that this is really a very heated issue between John McCaine and Barack Obama. It appears that John McCaine is saying one thing to conservative groups and another to the mainstream media. So there is that aspect of controversy surrounding John McCaine.

However, Barack Obama does not go without controversy on the subject as well. In the article, it says that Obama opposes “divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constition or those of other states. Also in the article, however, it states that he does support civil unions, but on a questionnaire he stated that he did not support gay marriages. So there is a bit of going back on his words and not really sticking to one specific stance on the issue. And the McCain camp has accused him of changing his position that he had originally declared.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/01/1178023.aspx

There is another article from cbsnews.com that addresses the same areas of concern surrounding Barack Obama and his stance on gay marriage. The article is “Does Obama Supports Gay Marriage?” by Rich Lowry. The article starts out by saying that Obama may be the first presidential candidate to support gay marriage. This article really brings to the eyes of the country that Barack is taking a different stance than any other candidate that has ever run for president. Even if Barack does not entirely support marriage for same-sex marriage as it is for male/female marriage; he still supports the acts of civil unions. I know this is not exactly what someone with beliefs similar to mine wants to hear, but at least it is a step in the direction in which I agree with. California citizens were trying to overthrow the new law that legalizes same-sex marriage, and California in the end overturned the attempt to ban the new law. When this happened Barack came out and said that he respects the decision of the California Supreme Court. Although this might upset some people due to the fact that it may come off in the wrong way. It may come off as if he respects that the will of the California people was disregarded, I do like the fact that he respects something that no other president has ever supported.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/23/opinion/main4124256.shtml?source=search_story

While I was looking up different articles I actually found a very interesting article. It put the issue of gay marriage in a light that I, myself, have never seen it put in before. I figured since I have been touching on the presidential candidate views on gay marriage, I decided to put this article in as well. The article is titled, “Study: Gay Marriage Good for Economy.” This was a study done by the UCLA School of Law. The study says that same-sex weddings could create hundreds of new jobs and could add millions of dollars into California’s economy. The way that the UCLA School of Law went about their study was by studying the economic impact of gay marriage in Massachusetts after it was legalized, and this is how they developed their predictions for California. The study is predicting that in the next three years gay weddings will generate $64 million in additional tax revenue, and another $9 million in marriage-license fees. I just thought that this was an interesting interpretation about a different kind of impact gay marriage will have on states. There is so much negative light shed on the subject, it was nice to see a more positive (even if it seems outlandish) light on gay marriage.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/09/national/main4167209.shtml?source=search_story

One last issue I wanted to look at was the scientific aspect that is surrounding the topic of homosexuality. I have never necessarily agreed with the concept of the “gay gene”, or that there is something in the body that is different in gay men and straight men. However, it is an interesting subject and can be persuasive. In the article “Brain Responses Differ in Gay, Straight Men” which was a study that showed that homosexuals react to male sex horomones like women. It states that a homosexual male’s mind responds more like a woman when reacting to a chemical derived from the male sex horomone. What they did in the study was take heterosexual men and women and homosexual men and expose them to chemicals derived from male and female sex horomones. When the candidates sniffed a chemical that comes from testosterone, portions of the brain that are involved in sexual activity were only activated when women and homosexual men sniffed the substance. Heterosexual men had no reaction to the substance. So even though I do not believe that “being gay” is a biological issue, this study does bring up a great point.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7791888/

In the end, everyone is entitled to what they believe. I just hope that everyone’s opinions about certain subjects are coming from individual opinions within themselves. I was raised Catholic. A religion that openly is against same-sex marriage. However, I still believe that there is nothing wrong with a man loving another man, or a woman loving another woman. Towards the end of this course we have really focused in on the media. I do believe that the way the media portrays homosexuals is not always correct. There is something people call the “flaming gay”. This is in reference to a man that acts extremely feminine. I feel that this is the image that the U.S. links to gay men. Also, that the image linked to gay women is a very “butch” look. I know many gay men, and none of them act the way the media portrays gay men. Throughout this course I have learned a lot about the issue of gay marriage. I hope to see many more states follow in the footsteps of Massachusetts and California, but I will just have to wait and see and keep my fingers crossed.

Opinion Based Assignment 4

{ June 27, 2008 @ 9:18 pm } · { Uncategorized }
{ Tags: , , } · { Comments (3) }

I took a class my sophomore year at ASU. It was Women’s History 1865 to the present. In this class we studied mainly the women’s movement. Throughout the semester I found myself becoming a little worried about our generation in general. The women in the women’s rights movement had such a fire inside of them. They wanted equality so badly and they were going to stop at nothing to be considered equal to men. It took the women so many years to get the satisfaction they were looking for, but nothing was big enough to discourage them. I really envied people who felt so strongly about a subject that they would stand at events and protest them. Same goes for the antiwar protests. During the Vietnam War there were so many intense protests by individuals who were against the war. Now in today’s society the only form of protest that goes on is through conversations at lunches about President Bush and ribbon stickers posted on cars. Maybe even a bumper stick of a little boy peeing on the word WAR, but that is as far as our individual protests seem to go today. I do believe that there is some truth to the Bono-ization concept that Naomi Klein talks about in her article.

As citizens today we look to other people to see what their approach is on certain subjects. More specifically we look to celebrities today to see where they stand on certain issues. There are few people who are actually looking to themselves to be the ones to stand up for what they believe in. You see many people walking around with different rubber wristbands stating what they believe in, but you do not see people walking in the streets with signs yelling out what they believe is right and what they believe is wrong.

I completely agree with Klein when she says the forms of protest today are “less dangerous and less powerful”. I really would love to see a movement take place today that has half the fire and heart that the antiwar movement of the 60s had. Or have someone as iconic and Martin Luther King Jr. speaking out for what he believes in. There is not one person today that has even some of the strength that someone like Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, or Susan B. Anthony had, in my opinion. What is even scarier to me is that even if there was someone like that today leading a movement; that people would still be to afraid to follow that person’s lead. As a society we are stuck in a place where we do believe in movements, but we are not ready to put our lives on the line to fight for what we believe in.

I think that there are many factors that make young people today different from people in the antiwar protests. I believe that back then there was a lot more to fight for. People that were going into the war had known people or even had family that was in another war such as World War II. They knew what war could bring to people. It is strange because there was about the same time gap between World War II and the Vietnam War, as there was from the Vietnam War to the war we are fighting now in the Middle East. So I do not know exactly what factors there are that make young people different today. However, if I had to choose one I think the choice would be very simple. I think ambition is one of the main factors that are the difference in young people today.

Text Based Assignment #4

{ June 27, 2008 @ 8:35 pm } · { Uncategorized }
{ Tags: , , } · { Comments (1) }

Media coverage in this day and age is one of the key persuader’s of society. The media chooses what it wants to cover for the public to see. The media chooses which people they want the world to pay attention to. There are so many different ways for the media to get information out to people these days. Before you would have to wait for the morning paper, or watch the news whenever it came on. Today there are countless ways to get updates on what is going on in the world. You can do it the old fashioned way and watch CNN or read the morning paper with you’re breakfast everyday. However, now if you’re out of the house when the news is one you can DVR it, search it on Google, Yahoo, YouTube, etc. You can receive email notifications. Even email notifications are not restricted to your computer anymore. If you own a Blackberry you can have emails sent directly to your phone. Media coverage is almost impossible not to see in society today. It is everywhere. The involvement that the media chooses to have with a certain movement can either be seen as a good thing or a bad thing. Media coverage without a doubt brings much needed attention to the eyes of society. However, the attention can either help the movement out or it can in a way cripple the movement.

In the G&J text Todd Gitlin writes, “The observer changed the position of the observed.” This statement is a short statement that is absolutely loaded with meaning. This statement is basically saying that media being the observer can change even the way people in their own social movement, view their movement. One of the movements I think that has been affected by the media is probably the environmental movement. The environmental movement has been around for some time now. Cotgrove and Duff stated in the chapter on environmentalists in the G&J text on page 75, “As was stressed earlier, environmentalists are far from being a homogeneous group.” I feel personally that the environmental movement has become slightly more homogeneous. Mostly because of the media coverage that has taken place in the “green” and global warming aspect of the environmental movement.

There have been documentaries done such as “An Inconvenient Truth” by Al Gore about global warming. The documentary really shook the globe. However, I really feel the “go green” tagline has been one of the most media covered movements in while. There are so many ways to go green and people have been following this movement due to the fact that it is everywhere. People are buying smart cars or hybrid cars to help out pollution due to gasoline. Also, recycling has become a huge part of society today. I lived in Peoria and there were always recycle bins you could go to if you chose to at local parks, but now there are recycle trash cans for every household. There is even a criteria checklist that green projects must fulfill to even be classified as “green.” With all of this “green” thinking going on and being broadcasted everyday I do feel that the environmental movement will be linked with the term “green” for quite some time to come, and the media has had a huge involvement in this. This is why I think that the environmental movement is more homogenous than ever.

Opinion Based Assignment #3

{ June 20, 2008 @ 9:11 pm } · { Uncategorized }
{ Tags: , , } · { Leave a Comment }

There are always different ways to go about getting your point across. There have been many different examples given in history. Some follow the more passive approach, and some follow a more radical approach. I was actually just watching Forrest Gump today and there was the scene that had to do with the Vietnam War protests. That is an example of a protest that followed the Malcom X way of thinking and went to “any means necessary” to get the movements point across. I mean anyone who sees the words “make love not war” can relate it back to that movement. I think that the protests were definitely radical in getting the point across. I do not know a lot of details about that movement, nor if there were more offensive tactics used by the group. However, if there were offensive images used at any time then I disagree with those entirely.

The pro-life movement is not a concept I necessarily agree or disagree with. However, the way that this particular movement attempts to get people to open their eyes are sometimes very offensive to me personally. Walking around on campus my freshman year of college I remember being shocked by the signs that were being put up about abortion. Images of babies in a pool of blood, or aborted babies arms holding money is not the only way to get the point across. I think the equivalent would be if the pro-choice movement made signs with a murdered baby and a thumbs up sign. It just would not be the most appropriate way to go about it. In that particular case I do not agree with the radical approach at all. When is crosses the line and becomes offensive is when it goes too far.

Another example is when there are people shouting on the sidewalk against the gay rights movement. I saw a woman once wearing a shirt stating “all homos go to hell”. You have a right to believe in whatever you want to believe in, but you should not try to offend people in the process. Good does not always come out of it. In this particular moment the lady was yelling Bible verses in front of the MU wearing that shirt. The only thing that happened was that two men went up and started kissing right in front of her. So when you approach something radically, all you are going to get back is the exact same reaction from the opposite viewpoint. It does not always solve the topic at hand.

In terms of the Clothesline project, I think that the project had the right idea. However, I do believe with the people who were saying that you cannot always prove that the act of rape took place. So I think that wearing the names of people who had allegedly raped them would get people to pay attention, but it could also bring a lot of negative light to the project as well. Especially, if someone’s name showed up and that person had actually never raped anyone. So I think that the radical approach can sometimes be viewed at as the most efficient way to go about getting your point across, but I do not think it is necessarily the best and most appropriate way.

Text Based Assignment #3

{ June 20, 2008 @ 8:46 pm } · { Uncategorized }
{ Tags: , , } · { Comments (2) }

The gay rights movement I feel is really built on the emotions that the members of the movement feel individually, and also the emotions that they convey as a group. Members of the gay rights movement need to be strong to deal with the criticism and harsh words they have thrown at them by people who object the movement. Strength is the main emotion that I would relate to the gay movement. Another emotion that can be related to the movement is a sense of resentment. I feel that they are fighting so hard for something that has taken a long time to move in a positive direction. It is almost as if member’s resentment is what feeds their strength. They have been the underdog of society for so long. Now it is finally their time to demand for what they believe is acceptable in our society today, and they are finally getting what they have been asking for. So like I said before on an individual level there is a lot of resentment, but on a group level it is their strength that stands out. However, some of the images that the movement tries to use to help their emotional appeal most of the time can be taken in two different ways. The images that are associated with same-sex relationships can either be viewed by someone as beautiful or they can be viewed as disgusting.

However, I do believe the face that the group presents to the public is the same one that is presented to people that the movement sees as potential members. It is a face that is asking for acceptance, and in this particular movement the people that join already feel what the movement feels. It is not like the movement tries to get their members to feel something. It is a very personal movement.

In G&J on page 155 James M. Jasper states, “Emotions are also tied to moral values often arising from perceived infractions of moral rules.” I think that this is a way that the gay rights movement relates to the larger social aspect. Everyone has moral values in which they believe in. However, this can work against the movement as well. Seeing that people have rejected the movement based on their own personal moral values. If they view same-sex relationships as immoral then they are against the movement from the beginning. However, the part of society that is open to any relationship can relate to the movements moral values as well.

There are three dimensions of identity that are discussed in the book: Identity for empowerment, identity as goal, and identity as strategy. I believe that the gay rights movement’s identity is based of the concept of identity as goal. Identity as a goal is described on page 237 by Mary Bernstein as “activists may challenge stigmatized identities, seek recognition for new identities, or deconstruct restrictive social categories as goals of collective action.” The gay rights movement is trying to reconstruct the image of marriage. Not necessarily reconstruct the image of marriage as a whole, but adding another light to it. The movement is “seeking recognition” from society to be viewed as a normal way of life.

Opinion Based Assignment #2

{ June 13, 2008 @ 6:41 pm } · { Uncategorized }
{ Tags: , , } · { Comments (2) }

In general, I think that it takes a great person to be the face of a huge social movement. If someone is told to name a male and female that were associated with the Civil Rights Movement, chances are Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks are going to be the names coming out of individuals mouths. They were the landmarks of what that movement stood for. However, even though sometimes there are people associated with a particular movement, they sometimes are replaced by a mere image of what people looked like who were a part of the movement. For instance, I relate the beginning of the women’s rights movement to Susan B. Anthony. However, it seems that when you mention the words “women’s rights” of “feminists”, people tend to say names such as “lesbians” or even more derogatory names. An image of an angry women protesting pops into their head. I think it does benefit a movement to have an iconic person that is worthy of being the figurehead for the movement. A lot of times I would think it would be better to have someone that is well-respected as the leader. Imagine if the Black Panther Party members had outshined Martin Luther King, Jr. The movement might have a different light cast on it, if Martin Luther King, Jr. was not so highly associated with the Civil Rights Movement.

In reading the article, “The Ladies Before Rosa: Let Us Now Praise Unfamous Women” by Paul Hendrickson, he tells the stories of women who had similar experiences to that of the famous Rosa Parks. However, these women’s situations and stories never made quite the stir that Rosa Parks story did. At the beginning of the article there is the story of Claudette Colvin. Colvin made the same choice as Rosa Parks. On March 2, 1955 she sat on a bus and refused to get off. However, she was simply carried off and arrested. There are other women who stood up for what they believed in as well. However, it was Rosa Parks that is remembered as the only one that said no. In the article, Colvin says that she believes it was her status that kept her from being the one that was remembered. She was not a part of the “middle class”. She was fifteen years old. Whereas Rosa Parks was a middle-aged, well-respected youth leader before she ever sat on the bus and refused to get off. Claudette Colvin was probably looked at as a rebellious teenager. So I do think that the movement would have veered into an entirely other direction had Claudette Colvin been the face of the movement instead of Rosa Parks.

I really enjoyed the article, “Ain’t I a Woman” by Sojourner Truth. The way that she spoke during her speech is how I relate what ladies of the women’s right movement must have been like. I cannot pin point an exact person that I would choose to be the face of a women’s rights movement, if another movement took place today. I do believe that the leader would be a woman that could appeal to all women. It is safe to say that I do not agree with the women’s views in the ERA article by Young. I do not think that women have to play a certain role in the marriage. Women should not have to cater to their husband and take on the role of a housewife. I grew up in a home where my mother ended up being more successful in her field than my father. So I have always believed that women can have the best of both worlds, a good career and a family. I was brought up knowing that as a women or man, you should always be able to support yourself. So I think the ideal woman is someone that can balance it all.


Text-Based Assignment #2

{ June 13, 2008 @ 6:38 pm } · { Uncategorized }
{ Tags: , , } · { Comments (1) }

Framing is used as an attraction to get people to pay attention to the movement and maybe even start to feel that they agree with the movement based off of the way it is “framed”. On page 52 of the G&J text state that there are three different types of framing. There is diagnostic framing which is where a movement convinces potential prospects that a problem needs to be addressed. There is prognostic framing where the movement convinces people that there are appropriate strategies, tactics, and targets. Then there is motivational framing which urges people to get involved in the activities. I think that the gay marriage issues that I have chosen to follow has definitely addressed framing through both diagnostic and motivational. They have showed people that there is a problem with the fact that same-sex couples are not legally allowed to be married. Also, I think that people in the movement have been very big on motivational framing. As far, as a collective identity, I do believe that there are a few identities that people associate with the gay rights movement. Some people see the movement in a beautiful light, and others may see the identity as something that is sinful and wrong. A symbol that is associated with the gay rights movement that helped frame it is the rainbow flag.

However, not everyone frames the movement in the same way. People might see the movement in the form of a man wearing a dress in high heels with extremely heavy make up on. Or they might frame the movement in a religious way and how being homosexual is a sin.

The environmental movement and the gay rights movement have a couple of things in common. Both of these movements are trying to convince the world that there is a problem. The environmental movement states on page 75 of the G&J text that they way we behave is against Nature and that basically the way we behave will have its repercussions. In the end our children will suffer for our misbehaving towards nature. The gay movement is not trying to get this exact point across, but I can relate them both to each other in a small way. I think it would be great for children to grow up in a world where it is okay by the law to get married to someone of the same sex. I grew up believing that it was okay. Did that make me want to become a lesbian? No, but it did instill in me a respect for all people. However, it is stated in the G&J text on page 75 as well, that the environmental group is not homogenous. There are many different sections to this group. I think that the gay rights movement is working towards a same collective goal, which in a certain way makes them homogenous. So that is how they differ.

As far as the pro-life movement and the gay rights movement, there is one big area that these two movements take completely different stances on. That subject is without a doubt religion. The pro-life movement bases a majority of their arguments in what is right in God’s eyes, or what the Bible says is right and is not right. While the pro-life movement uses religion to power their movement, the gay rights movement continually has to fight off strict religious views. Religion is what is used against gay rights movement a majority of the time.

I do not think that there is a particular face that can be names the leader of the gay rights movement. I think the movement is based off a collective idea that a group of people had. There was not one particular person that is the “Rosa Parks” of the gay movement. The movement is a huge group of people who share the same ideal.

Opinion Based Assignment #1

{ June 6, 2008 @ 6:49 pm } · { Uncategorized }
{ } · { Leave a Comment }

In the article “The Unfinished Dialogue of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcom X”, the different styles the two leaders used are discussed. Martin Luther King, Jr. used a more nonviolent approach to his leadership where as Malcom X leaned towards a more radical or “any means necessary” type of attitude. The article explains the two leaders polar opposite upbringings and how these upbringings in a way shaped the was they approached the Civil Rights Movement. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcom X were both looking for the same ending, but identified with their own race in such different ways, and this is why the means at which they strived to get their point across were very different.

It is hard to argue which way is better. Obviously it would be nice if all leaders of social movements would take the non-violent-Ghandi type approach to getting their point across. However, some of the most memorable instances in social movements are when there was a very radical approach that was taken. For instance, when women protested during the Miss America Pageant in the 1960’s it is hard to forget that that happened. A woman parading around with pictures of naked women marked up as if they were animals is an image that will stick in most people’s heads and force them to think about the situation. It is hard to say which tactic is better for social movements, but I do not think that you necessarily need violence to get your point across. However, sometimes that is the only way to get people to listen.

The movement against the Vietnam War is seen as one of the most successful movements in history. That movement was anything but quiet and passive. Even though the movement ran into its own problems, it still had people that firmly believed in what they were protesting about. The members did everything ranging from legal demonstrations to draft resistance. The idea was to get the soldiers out of the war. When veterans came back from the war, they too took part in the movement. I believe that this is when the movement went in a more radical direction. Then as the U.S. troops came home the movement slowly declined.

Another example of how using violence to get a point across was in the Black Panther Party. It is hard not to hear the words “Black Panther” and not immediately think of violent acts. The Black Panthers were working towards equality of African-Americans, but they did not exactly allow people to give them much credibility. One of the flaws with the Party was that they spoke out in the community during the day were also thought to be the people that carried out armed operations at night. This and their way of thinking and speaking about issues seemed to turn people off to the Black Panther Party.

There have also been movements that have not used much violence and it has not exactly worked to their advantage. The Chicano Movement is an example of this. It has been said that the movement was hindered due to the fact that the movement could not pinpoint exactly what it was standing for. Some say it was lead by Caesar Chavez for farm workers, but some say it was for education. In the terms of the educational sphere the Chicano movement has come a long way. At one time there was tension in the movement because at universities it was white people who were teaching about Chicano history, and not by Chicano’s. However, the movement is still in progress in many ways.

The movement that I am following is the gay rights movement. This is a movement that took an extremely radical approach. When the raid of the Stonewall Inn was occurred on June 27, 1969, people of the gay movement reacted in a slew of different ways. There were riots in the streets and not by normally dressed gay men. There were transvestites rioting in the street. Event today during such events as the Gay Pride parades, there are men dressed in gold Speedos or dressed as women. It is great that men feel that it is liberating to be dressed as women, but it is definitely not a calming approach to the issue. The gay rights movement is an extremely strong movement that seems to look to the Malcom X “any means necessary” approach. Not necessarily by being violent, but by using many approaches to get their point across.

The Baby Steps of the Gay Movement (Text Based Assignment #1)

{ June 6, 2008 @ 7:27 am } · { Uncategorized }
{ Tags: , , , } · { Leave a Comment }

It is hard to pinpoint the exact date, or if there even is an exact date, to when the idea or formation of a gay movement started. There is some evidence that states that same-sex unions have been going on since the beginning of recorded history in countries such as Egypt and China. However, as far as the movement today there have been a few key events in the movement’s history. There was in 1951 when The Mattachine Society was formed by Harry Hay. This was considered to be the first national gay rights organization. However, a little over thirty years later in 1982, it was only then that in Wisconsin that it was illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of sexual orientation. The fact that law was made at such a late date shows how much the gay movement has had to wait for tiny steps forward to occur in their movement.

In 2000, was when the big steps finally began to occur and Vermont was the first state to recognize civil unions between male/male and female/female couples. Even though this allows the couples to be given the same benefits and responsibilities as female/male couples, they are not legally allowed to be called married couples. This is because to the state the word marriage is for heterosexual couples. Then in 2003, a judicial judge from Massachusetts stated that denying same-sex couples the ability to be joined in a marriage was unconstitutional. So it is not surprising that on May 17, 2004 in the state of Massachusetts that same-sex marriage was legalized. In 2005, civil unions became legalized in Conneticut and in 2006 they were legalized in New Jersery. In 2008, Oregon allows gay couples to be registered as domestic partners. Being domestic partners allows the couples to some of the same rights as heterosexual married couples. In May of 2008, California came to the conclusion that gay couples have the right to be married, and in June 2008 it will become the second state to legalized same-sex marriage like Massachusetts.

The three events that I think really stand out as landmarks for the gay movement are Wisconsin made it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. That was a step forward as viewing gay people as normal and just as deserving of respect as heterosexual individuals. I also think that when Vermont became the first state to recognize a legal relationship between same-sex couples, that that was a truly key event. Massachusetts being the first state to join same-sex couples in marriage was a huge step as well, but I think that California following suit was an even greater achievement.

Just like many other social movements over time, the gay movement can be linked to the Mass Society Theory. The mass society theory according to the book basically states that there are certain community groups, unions, and even places such as churches that are there to mediate the link between the government and the citizens. When a person feels as if they do not fit in to these groups, they begin to form their own groups, and this is how social movements can occur. After reading this and thinking about the movement that I am focusing on, which is the gay movement, I definitely saw how they coincided with each other. Take the church for instance. There is so much being said about how “the Bible says being gay is wrong” and how it is an unforgivable sin. So it is easy to see that people who are gay or prefer someone of the same sex would feel alienated from a place that is seen as a mediator for society. This might cause them to rebel in the form in a social movement.

Resource mobilization is the idea that people use their social networks and also bring together people who have the same goal in mind. This gives the idea that social movements take a group of people with the same values and idea in mind, and do not just form out of a completely random group of individuals. Gay people who have grown up feeling alienated from their own peers have collectively gotten together and decided to take a stand for themselves and what they believe and feel. They have come together as a group, and instead of getting the door shut in their face by the government over and over again, they are actually having doors opened for them. Even though states that have approved civil unions or domestic partnerships have not approved handing out marriage licenses, it is still a forward step for the gay movement.

As far as cultural approaches go, I think the book brings up a good point. It shows the example of how the animal protection movements made citizens realize that animals were suffering. I think with the more states that legalize gay marriage, the more that people are becoming a little bit more accepting of same-sex marriage, or partnership. Even if it is still hard to have people see that gay marriage can be just as beautiful and “normal” as male/female marriage, the movement is definitely breaking ground, and beginning to open more people’s minds. One of the main goals of the gay movement is to stress that they are just as eligible to share the sanction of marriage as anyone else is.

The gay movement can identify with these different theories and approaches, but I really think that the mass society theory can really be linked to the gay rights movement. It does show that if people are feeling alienated from what is considered “normal” in society, they will search for ways to try to stop the alienation. This is done through social movements at times. The gay movement has had the odds against them for quite a long time, but through the formation and pushing that the movement has done, the right laws are being passed and same-sex couples are being recognized as normal as heterosexual individuals.

Hello Everyone!

{ June 3, 2008 @ 7:17 pm } · { Uncategorized }
{ Tags: , } · { Comments (1) }

Hello, my name is Ada Chavez. I have decided to choose the topic of gay marriage. My mom has known a lesbian couple, Wendy and Karen, since she was in college, so in short I have been around same-sex relationships my entire life. I think female/female or male/male relationships are just as normal, and as acceptable as male/female relationships. Recently, Wendy and Lauren legally got married, and my mother and I were so excited for them. So I really want to look more in depth at the issue. :)

« Previous entries