4/22/11

At a San Francisco fundraiser on Wednesday of this week, Obama was talking about how his work was not finished, and that it would take more than one term to get done everything that he wanted to get done.  In the middle of the speech, someone shouted out, "gay marriage!" and Obama again replied, "Our work is not finished."  Some people are taking this to mean that Obama was dropping a hint that gay marriage is a part of his "unfinished business."  I have been following Obama's remarks about gay marriage throughout this social movement blog because obviously he plays a big role and holds a large stake in the issue, and because I think it's interesting to try to figure out where he really stands on this issue.  It's remarkable that during the duration of this assignment, I have gone from speculating that Obama secretly fully supports gay marriage, to learning that Obama made a statement about the unconstitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, to speculating that my first speculation was completely off.  And now this comment from him sparks further debate about where he stands.  Only time will tell where Obama's "evolution" on the matter will take him next.
(http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/04/another-obama-hint-on-gay-marriage.html)

Another interesting story: Gary Johnson, who supports legalizing marijuana, abortion rights, gay rights, opposes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and doesn't go to church, is running for president as a GOP candidate.  This is interesting because obviously his stances on these issues would lead you to believe that he was a liberal Democrat.  Could this be a starting point where more and more Republicans begin to extend their libertarian philosophies to social issues as well as economic ones?  I think it's time they do.  Again, only time will tell.
(http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/04/former_new_mexico_governor_gar.html)

And lastly, coming from a silly source (Perez Hilton--who I love, and love to hate), more people than ever before are supporting gay marriage.  Actually, the graph that Perez presents is pretty cool:

The blue line represents people that are for same-sex marriage, and the red line represents people that oppose same-sex marriage.  Now, I have no idea where Mr. Hilton got this graph from, but still, it's interesting to look at.  And of course, Perez says all of this much more eloquently and funnily than I ever could, so I would say read his blog post about it:
(http://perezhilton.com/2011-04-20-public-opinion-in-favor-of-same-sex-marriage)

4/15/11

In a small win for the gay rights movement, a New Jersey school board has stopped blocking pro-gay websites on middle school and high school campus computers.  Two NJ high school students complained about the blocking of the sites to the American Civil Liberties Union, which I'm assuming is kind of a big deal to make a complaint to them.  The students argued that gay-bashing sites were not being blocked.  I can't believe that this kind of thing is still happening ins schools.  It seems so not with the times.  I mean, I also am dumbfounded as to why gay marriage is not legal, but at least that's a little more legitimate and has lots of con arguments that people are making.  But banning websites is just unacceptable.  Sometimes it takes this kind of story for me to realize that social movements really do take time to reach the entire country and across the globe.
(http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/12/new-jersey-school-stops-blocking-pro-gay-websites/)

Columnist Richard Socarides from the Huffington Post is arguing that the Census should count the number of gay people.  They count race, gender, and ethnicity, so why not sexual orientation?  He tried this argument for the 2000 Census, and they said no, because of timing issues.  It was too late.  But Socarides thinks it was more than this, and I think so too.  In his words, counting sexual orientation in the Census would "be an implicit acknowledgement that we were an integral--and out--part of the American family, an idea that was probably too provocative for some."  I completely agree with him; I think that a big part of the reason that people do not support gay marriage, despite the myriad of different reasons, is that people are afraid and homophobic, and this applies in this Census case as well.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-socarides/gay-power-strength-in-num_b_848281.html)

Maryland's gender identity anti-discrimination bill has died in the Maryland State Senate.  "Among the tactics used to defeat the bill was the Not My Shower website, which claimed that heterosexual men in dresses would invade public locker rooms to molest little girls."  I don't think there's really anything more to say about that.
(http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/04/maryland-gender-identity-bill-dies.html)

4/8/11

Following Obama's announcement that DOMA is unconstitutional, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services decided to put deportation proceedings on hold concerning immigrant married same-sex couples.  But this week, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services have decided to deport those couples.  This is because the Obama administration said it must still support DOMA until it is repealed, which prevents U.S.-born individuals from sponsoring a foreign-born same-sex spouse. Which really sucks. To me the fact that they still have to support it sounds like complete BS, but then again Obama does have to follow the law and "what the people want." Representative Jackie Speier, a California Democrat, had this to say:

“USCIS had it right the first time. We should put a halt on the deportation cases of all married, LGBT binational couples who are currently being discriminated under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This unfortunate backtrack means more LGBT families will be ripped apart because our immigration laws only give protections to heterosexual couples.”

I completely agree.  This story popped out to me among the throngs of gay rights blogs, news stories, and websites I get sent to my email every week because just this past weekend, me and Jill attended the Trans-forming Gender Symposium for our project right here on CU's campus, and one of the events we attended at the symposium was a film entitled "Esmeralda del Desierto."  After the film, which is about an immigrant transgendered person trying to get to America to have her procedure done, we listened to a talk by a man who advocated that the immigrant rights social movement and the gay rights social movement need to work together.  They currently rarely do, and he argued that it would benefit both groups in the long run if they shared ideas, successes, and failures.  Maybe the USCIS should take a page out of his playbook.
(http://www.care2.com/causes/civil-rights/blog/house-lawmakers-chastiae-immigration-officials-on-gay-immigration-stance/)

Speaking of President Obama, Bill Maher has made a bold statement that I have also been thinking for a long time now: "Now that a Cheney, a McCain, and a Bush have come out to support gay marriage, it's your turn, Obama."  Obama has said that his views are still "evolving" around gay marriage.  I have always thought that Obama secretly completely backs and supports gay marriage but knew it wouldn't get him the presidency, so he hid it.  But now I'm not so sure.  More and more, it really seems like Obama is sort of struggling with this issue.  Maher left these parting words: "Who are you waiting for?  The state of Alabama?  The Reverend Fred Phelps?"  Ha.
(http://www.gayapolis.com/news/artdisplay.php?artid=7796)

This story also caught my attention this week.  The NAACP is electing a new generation of leaders, who, in many cases, are not African American.  These leaders say that broadening the NAACP's message to include civil rights for people of all races, including Latino issues and gay rights, is really what the organization is about.  But others are saying that doing this would dilute the mission of the organization that was founded to represent African American people.  I think it's great that NAACP wants to broaden their horizons, because it would include many more people within their mission.  However, this might also be a problem because it would affect the strong identification that some black people feel for the NAACP.  Black issues may get put on the back burner in some cases while the organization focuses on different issues.  So I can see both sides of this.
(http://www.npr.org/2011/04/04/135121163/new-naacp-leaders-broaden-groups-mission)

4/1/11

Happy April 1st and April Fool's Day!  This week marks the 25th anniversary of the passing of the gay and lesbian rights bill in New York City.  Even though the idea of including sexual orientation in non-discrimination laws was thought of in New York by a group called the Gay Activists Alliance in 1971, New York was actually one of the last states to pass this law.  I thought this article was interesting because the title is "25 Years of Gay Rights in New York," and that just shows how long this battle has been played out publicly and privately for even longer.  Also, we can't really say there's been 25 years of gay rights in New York, there's been 25 years of a law; the 'rights' part has been taking a little longer.  The fact that New York was one of the last states to pass these laws strikes me as well because now, New York is thought of to be one of the more "gay-friendly" states where most people support gay marriage.
(http://www.gayapolis.com/news/artdisplay.php?artid=7732)

It's being advertised that on April 15th, a gay civil rights group from Hungary will hold a protest in Budapest.  They are protesting a draft of Hungary's new constitution.  In the constitution, marriage is defined in a way that is segregating.  The group says the constitution goes against its fundamental purpose of "promoting social cohesion." I think it's interesting to talk about something like this happening in another country, Europe specifically, because, because the chairman of one of the groups protesting says himself that "this is unlike anywhere in Western Europe."  Everywhere else bans discrimination based on sexual orientation, and by my understanding many Western European countries have passed pro-gay marriage laws.
(http://www.politics.hu/20110331/gay-rights-groups-to-hold-protest-against-new-constitution-on-april-15)

A new study by the Public Religion Research Institute shows that support for gay rights is growing among Catholics.  The study shows that Roman Catholics are more supportive than the general public and other Christians.  FOr example, 63% of Catholics support gay and lesbian people serving openly in the military, and 60% favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt kids.
(http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=1320132)

In Indiana, a 40-10 vote decided that a new amendment to the Indiana constitution would be passed banning gay marriage AND civil unions.  Amendment sponsor Senator Dennis Kruse said that the amendment would "provide maximum protection for the basic family unit of society."  This represents a perfect example of a retentive argument.  This senator wants nothing to change, and is scared of what the "family unit" might become, even though it has already changed and this senator makes himself seem scared and naive when he talks about the "basic family unit."  Gay and lesbian couples aside, the basic family unit is no longer so basic.  It's already changed.  In that way, the senator is also using a reversive argument, because he wants things to go back to the way they were.  He wants to persuade people that this direction we're going in is dangerous, and it will threaten the families of the future.
(http://news.collegemedianetwork.com/news/ind-senate-oks-amendment-banning-gay-marriage)

3/18/11

This week at Brown University, students rallied in support of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Rhode Island, carrying posters with words like 'equal rights' and 'love.'  I always think it's interesting when students are acting out in support of a social movement, because many believe that our generation is the one that must act to make sufficient change, and subsequently that our generation also has the skills and beliefs in order to make that happen.
(http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_news/providence/providence-brown-gay-marriage-rally)

Also this week, 62% of voters in Delaware approve of civil unions, which don't give marriage to gay couples but provide many of the same benefits and responsibilities of marriage, while 31% oppose.  Actual legalization of civil unions in the state has yet to happen, but lawmakers are pushing for it.  However, there is already a strong opposition to the legislation, especially from the Delaware Family Policy Council.  But Ellen Goodman, President of Equality Delaware, was optimistic that the legislation will be passed.
(http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=7834&MediaType=1&Category=26)

"While supporters of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) are quick to point out that it won bipartisan support in Congress and was signed into law by a Democratic president, they neglect to mention that many of those lawmakers have since had a change of heart."  And Bill Clinton is no exception.  Clinton recently said that the previous position he held on gay marriage was wrong.
(http://www.queerty.com/doma-signer-bill-clinton-gives-yeah-on-gay-marriage-20090714/)

3/11/11

Two weeks ago in this blog, I talked about a monumental statement from the Obama Administration that caused the gay community around the nation to celebrate: the Administration would no longer support DOMA as constitutional, possibly paving the way for same-sex marriage to be legalized across the country.  A week after this game-changing stance was articulated, Jodi Picoult's new book went on sale.  It couldn't have come at a better time.  It is Picoult's own version of her pro-gay personal mission statement, fleshed out in novel form.  "Sing You Home" hit shelves at a time when the gay rights movement is even more alive than ever.  And it became even more of a personal issue for her when Picoult's son came out as gay while she was in the process of writing the book.  This book, I feel, can in a way be a kind of manifesto for the gay rights movement, if in however small a way.  Because Picoult's own stance as pro-gay rights and marriage has become even more personal because of her son, this book is the physical written-out reinforcement of her place as a gay rights activist.  Picoult says, "I am an activist...I'll be totally honest with you: If you can even change a single mind, it's worth it."  This book serves as the ultimate form of persuasion for this social movement, because Picoult has many loyal fans. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/books/jodi-picoults-new-gay-rights-novel-couldnt-be-more-timely/article1933872/)

The Washington Square News shed some light on something that has been named as the beginning of the gay rights movement: the play "The Boys in the Band."  This play was the first of its kind to portray homosexual characters as people with hopes, dreams, and feelings.  It was extremely successful Off-Broadway, and had a film adaptation with the name title in 1970.  Here is the event that actually "spurred" the movement though: a year after "The Boys in the Band" opened, police stormed into a bar in NYC to arrest people for 'homosexual acts.'  Gays and lesbians fought back, causing a riot.  And a year after that, on the exact same date, the very first gay pride march occurred.  Light is shed on all of this in Crayton Robey's new documentary film entitled "Making the Boys," which chronicles these events and says that they would never had happened without the success of "The Boys in the Band." (http://www.nyunews.com/arts/2011/03/08/08boys/)

Also this week, about 250 people in New Mexico protested in support of gay marriage and gay civil rights.  They dressed in bright colors, shook instruments, displayed rainbow-colored banners, chanted, and beat drums.  Even though this is a relatively small occurrence in a place that's not local, I always try to look for the news of people actually going out and doing something in support of this social movement, instead of a piece of legislature being passed or a celebrity speaking in favor or against gay marriage and rights in general.  This is the core of social movements: the people in New Mexico utilized songs, slogans, and symbolic acts to support the cause and promote their view.  "'I just love my gay dads,' 7-year-old Alegra Sewell said. 'And I want them to get married.'"

(http://www.dailylobo.com/index.php/article/2011/03/gay_rights_protests_stop_traffic)

2/25/11

Lately, I have been obsessed with a YouTube video that shows a 10-year-old girl named Maria singing Lady Gaga's brand new single "Born This Way."  Maria slows the song down and accompanies it with the piano, and her voice is incredible.  And I love this song, so it just makes it that much better!  Recently, Lady Gaga made a surprise appearance on a radio talk show to talk to Maria about the YouTube video, saying that she fully supports the young singer and even invited Maria to come sing on the stage with her at her concert in Toronto.  However, the interesting result of this is that Gaga's endorsement of 10-year-old Maria has garnered much criticism from the gay community, and that news was one of the things in my Google Alerts this week.  Here's their complaint: Maria omits a certain line from "Born This Way" in her version of the song.  The line is "No matter gay, straight, or bi/Lesbian transgendered life/I'm on the right track baby/I was born this way".  The blog that I looked at says that one of Lady Gaga's biggest fan groups, gays and lesbians, is turning against her in some instances because of this.  They say that she is more concerned with publicity than gay rights, calling her hypocritical.  I think this is so interesting, not just because I love this particular YouTube video but because I also wondered the same thing when I first saw the video.  I thought, "She has to know that some of her lyrics are missing...".  People are in so much uproar about Gaga praising a version of her song that cuts out "the most important lyric".  I can definitely see where the criticizers are coming from, but I don't think that Lady Gaga endorsing a little 10-year-old girl should cause this much uproar and outrage from the gay community. (http://www.suite101.com/content/gays-turn-against--lady-gaga-a350396)

"Mark down Wednesday, February 23, 2011, as a crucial turning point in the movement toward equality for all Americans."  That's a pretty powerful statement, and that's the exact sentence that began an article in the online San Diego Gay & Lesbian News.  So what happened on this fateful day?  The Obama Administration said it will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as constitutional.  Jon Davidson, quoted in the article, called this a monumental moment.  I think this is pretty cool, as it is the first piece of news since I started this blog that has really gotten the gay community and gay rights movement excited and energized in a big way.  This is definitely a victory around the nation! (http://sdgln.com/news/2011/02/24/change-heart-doma-marks-historical-moment-gay-rights)

On another note, in Kansas this week, a student published a column in his high school's newspaper about how same-sex relationships "just are not normal" and even quoting a Bible verse saying that people involved in gay or lesbian relationships shall be put to death.  The article is coming under fire, with arguments from both sides of the controversy.  I think that this article went too far and should not have been published.  I thought that our school systems were past this by now, as it is clear that this is a form of hate speech, whether the student realizes it or not.
(http://www.kansas.com/2011/02/23/1732068/anti-gay-column-in-east-high-newspaper.html)

2/18/11

This week, there were many of the typical stories of celebrities endorsing gay marriage, but there was also a unique happening that you don't hear of very often when it comes to gay rights: on Valentine's Day on Monday of this week, there was a flash mob in support of gay marriage at the Iowa Statehouse.  Out of nowhere, people started dancing to "All You Need is Love" by the Beatles in order to "deliver a message of love."  This comes just two weeks after the Republican-controlled Iowa House approved a bill that seeks to add an amendment to the Iowa Constitution that bans any legal recognition of same-sex couples, including marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships.  I wanted to include this here because it's a change and something new.  I love flash mobs, and I think it's cool to see that people are willing to just come out in a peaceful way in support of love and gay rights.  It's nowhere near an image event, but the flash mob will probably get coverage in the local area where it took place and make people think about something new on Valentine's Day (http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=7571&MediaType=1&Category=26).

Also on Valentine's Day across the nation, people from Marriage Equality USA, GetEQUAL, and Equality Action Now banded together to request marriage licenses from courthouses and county clerks' offices.  Everyone knew they were going to get turned away, but it was the spirit of all these people gathering together on a day of love that was so inspiring.  One person said, "marriage is a civil right, not a heterosexual privilege" (http://www.sacbee.com/2011/02/14/3400903/gay-marriage-advocates-make-push.html) and (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gay-rights-advocates-renew-push-sex-marriage-valentines/story?id=12911051)

Lawmakers in Hawaii passed a bill giving same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual married partners.  It was an 18-5 vote from the Senate in favor!  The bill must now be signed into law by governor Neil Abercrombie.  The bill "extends the same rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities of spouses in a marriage to partners in a civil union."  It's not exactly gay marriage, but it's definitely a step, and this story especially means a lot to me because I grew up in Hawaii.
(http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gk0eQ8pzINpsUFY919Ms9C1RjHng?docId=CNG.68e525354daffd868eac000986513f10.221).

In Maryland, the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee voted 7-4 in support of recognizing same-sex marriage.  The legislation now goes to the full Senate for debate next week, and it is expected to be a heated and long debate. (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/2011/02/senate_committee_backs_gay_mar.html).

2/11/11

I got about 15 Google Alert emails about my social movement this week.  AKA way more than I could ever write about.  This definitely represents a shift from other weeks, as I have only gotten about 5 emails per week in the past.  I don't think that this increase really has anything to do with one particular event happening, but for some reason everyone has decided to write about gay rights this week.  I picked the ones that stood out to me:

This weekend, Valentine's Day weekend, the Reverend Billy and the "Church of Life After Shopping" will hold their second annual un-marriage ceremony for straight married couples who support gay marriage.  This will occur in Central Park in New York City, and will include the couples getting "un-married," in support of the "no marriage until gay marriage" stance that many have taken on, such as Jason Mraz and Brangelina.  The articles says that the purpose of this is to hold New York governor Cuomo to his promise: "I want to be the governor who signs the law that makes equality a reality in the state of New York" (http://www.revbilly.com/events/unmarriage-until-gaymarriage-2011).  I found this interesting because I'm pretty sure this constitutes an image event.  It's happening in a very popular and visible place and will undoubtedly be controversial and garner media attention.  The only problem with this is that it most likely won't act as a mind bomb--most people are already aware of the "no marriage until gay marriage" stance because of its popularity among celebrities.

Another piece of news that I thought was very unique was about a 7-year-old boy named Malcolm who sent $70 to the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, along with a note that read: "I am sending you this money because I don't think it's fair that gay people are not treated equally" (http://www.passportmagazine.com/blog/archives/2328-Seven-Year-Old-Boy-Stands-Up-For-Gay-Rights.html).  The article includes a precious picture of Malcolm and a picture of the actual note that he wrote.  This event, although not an image event, definitely constitutes a visual argument, like we read about in Friday's reading.  Seeing the boy's face and the picture of his 7-year-old handwriting writing about gay rights at such a young age will definitely hit people and make them think.

The last thing I'm going to talk about is an opinion article by Thomas Hale, a gay man who professes to be "saddened and angered by the state of gay rights in America," particularly the rate at which it has been progressing.  Reading this article, I assumed it was written by an older person for some reason, but Thomas Hale is actually a freshman at Texas Christian University.  I was very impressed with the article he wrote, and he even included, in his last paragraph, an allusion to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s 'I Have a Dream' speech.  I won't summarize the entire article, because it basically just refutes a bunch of anti-gay arguments; one line in it article provides a good summary: "I fully support Democratic Iowa state Rep. Bruce Hunter, who said, 'Here's the funny thing about rights--they're not supposed to be voted on.'"  I thought this article conveyed a very frustrated tone in the beginning, and ended with a hopeful tone.  There have been both successes and setbacks in the gay rights movement, but big changes are much rarer.  Hale mentions that the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' was one of those big changes.  But they need to happen much more often.  (http://www.tcudailyskiff.com/opinion/gay-rights-progress-too-slowly-1.2461575?MMode=true)

2/4/11

This week, I added the term "gay rights" to my Google Alerts, but I didn't get as many hits as I did for "gay marriage."  I think this is because gay marriage has recently been such a hot-button topic and issue, more so than the more general "gay rights."

One of the big pieces of news this week (well, not necessarily big, but big in the gay rights world I think) was that Utah State Senate Minority Leader Ross Romero said in a YouTube video that gay rights is the civil rights challenge of our generation.  Romero said this on Human Rights Day, and his purpose is to prevent suicide in the gay community.  Some of his remarks were: "Remember, you are not alone and it gets better."  (http://qsaltlake.com/2011/02/03/romero-gay-rights-the-‘civil-rights-challenge-of-our-generation’/)  While not making an 'argument,' per say, Romero calls on specific people (the Utah governor and other legislative leaders) to join him in his effort to stop suicide among gay teens.  This relates to the ad we looked at in class for wecansolveit.org.  The We Can Solve It ad partly uses an innovative argument by saying that it's time for Americans to come together to fight climate change.  I think that Romero's comments fall under this category as well: he has a nagging dissatisfaction with the existing order of inequality but yet faith in underlying norms and values.

I also found an op-ed article in The Baltimore Sun online which gave reasons for opposing gay marriage.  The article's main question: Do children matter in Maryland?  The author bases his entire stance that marriage should be left for a man and a woman off of this one question.  The author argues that gay marriage has nothing to do with equality or even sexual orientation.  Instead, the author argues, the issue is about whether "the birth and nurture of children remains a priority in this state." (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-same-sex-marriage-20110201%2C0%2C2030527.story).  The response, published in the same online newspaper, says that "nothing could better expose the utter emptiness of the anti-gay marriage position." (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs-ed-gay-marriage-letter-20110203,0,3576861.story)
Although this is nothing groundbreaking and the original op-ed's argument was obviously very old and weak and easy to refute, I found it interesting that this argument is still being made as if it's new and that a counter-article was written in the same paper in direct response.  The original op-ed definitely uses a Retentive argument, because he says in the beginning of the article that everything could take a turn for the worst if Maryland decides to "radically change" the definition of marriage in the state.  The author wants things to stay how they are.

1/28/11

Last week, I signed up for Google Alerts for "gay marriage."  I got about 10 emails for that, so I'm going to focus on gay marriage again for one more week, and I'll try to go a little more broad next week.

The first thing that I though was interesting was that a new poll came out that confirms that a majority of people in New York support gay marriage.  They found that 56% supported it, while 37% did not.  The study was done by Quinnipiac University, and is the highest level of support ever that the University has recorded.  The most interesting part about this, though, is that on April 15, 2004, which is not that long ago in my opinion, the poll showed that 55% opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage, and only 37% were for it.  That's a complete one-eighty, and I think that's pretty cool that in 7 years the state of New York could change their opinions so drastically.  This is definitely a big step for the gay rights movement, because if the majority of the people support it, although it is only in one state, how much longer can we really ignore that?

(http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/54885/poll-affirms-majority-support-for-same-sex-marriage/)

I found this second article, written on Tuesday of this week, very interesting because it's something I have been thinking about for a while now.  It's about President Obama and his views on same-sex marriage.  Obama has always said in his speeches that he supports civil unions and domestic partnerships, but not gay marriage.  However, I have always thought that if he weren't the President, he would be all for gay marriage.  The article says that in 1996, Obama routinely stated that he supported same-sex marriage, and opposed an amendment to the Constitution saying that marriage was only between a man and a woman.  Obama also favored repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, causing some states to recognize marriages that were legal in other states.  The writer of the article, Austin Cline, says this:

"So, to recap: President Obama -- who has in the past said he supports same-sex marriage, who has consistently opposed any effort to block same-sex marriage, and who says he might support it (again) in the future -- opposes same-sex marriage.  The Washington Post, speculating in its news pages about Obama's future evolution to open supporter of same-sex marriage, sounds a cautionary political note: 'Indeed, public opinion is so divided on the issue that the president would probably need months to sway voters to his position.'  Once he decides, what it is, of course."

I wasn't aware that Obama had showed this much support for this movement in the past.  Ever since I first heard Barack Obama say that he did not support same-sex marriage, but only civil unions, I suspected that he was a "closeted" supporter.  He knew that if he were "all for" gay marriage, he probably would not have been elected, and that is a definite problem.

(http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/01/25/obamas-hypocrisy-on-gay-marriage-civil-rights.htm)

One more thing:  Jason Mraz is engaged, but he has announced that he will not get married until gay marriage is legal, following in the footsteps of Brad and Angelina.  Mraz actually announced this at the same benefit concert that Elton John made his comments at last week, but for some reason the news about Jason Mraz didn't come out until this week.  More and more celebrities are making this statement, but I don't think Mraz's comments specifically will really cause a stir because it's no secret that a LOT of celebrities have spoken out about legalizing same-sex marriage.

(http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/24/jason-mraz-no-wedding-till-gay-marriage-is-legal/)

I've noticed that most of the articles I'm reading, even if they highlight a setback in the gay rights movement, seem to be for gay rights and gay marriage.  Maybe that's because those are the articles that I've been looking for?  I'll try next week to maybe find articles from people who are not supporters, and see what those articles have to say.

In terms of the rhetorical situation, the exigence is obvious: that gays/lesbians do not have many of the same rights that heterosexual people do.  This is a situation that calls for action to be taken.  The audience of this social movement is really everyone.  I think my social movement is trying to reach out to   children, young adults, middle-aged adults, and senior citizens alike.  Their biggest audience is probably those who identify themselves to be gay or lesbian, but my social movement is trying to convince gay people and straight people alike that gays and lesbians deserve to be treated with respect and deserve to have the same rights as everyone else.  Another big audience could be lawmakers and politicians, because these are the people that have the power to implement the necessary changes.  The constraints that are used to compel the audience into action might be their morals, how they grew up, who their parents are, whether they know someone who is gay or not, whether they are gay themselves or not, and religion and politics.  The list could be endless.

1/21/11

My social movement watch this semester is going to be the gay rights movement, and sometimes more generally, LGBTQ rights.  I'm having a little bit of trouble working out this Google Reader thing...this week I'm going to focus on gay marriage specifically.  So here is some of the news that I found about my social movement this week:

An interesting development this week was Elton John speaking out as pro gay marriage at a charity event in L.A., when previously, he had stated that he had no desire to get married and was fine with a civil partnership with his partner, David Furnish.  Some think that John recently becoming a father with Furnish may have changed his opinions.  He now states, "It seems so ridiculous I could be with my partner for 17 years and we have a son, and my partner and I can't get married."  He then threw out the F-bomb, to a rousing cheer and applause from the audience.

Also this week...a setback in Iowa as Republicans hope to ban both gay marriage and civil unions.  This is an effort to reverse a unanimous State Supreme Court decision in 2009 in favor of marriage equality.  But in Washington, D.C., the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the legalization of gay marriage.  Bishop Harry Jackson wanted to state his case against same-sex marriage, but the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics refused to put a marriage initiative on the ballot, saying it would be discrimination if they did so.  Go D.C.!

Another interesting blog I found was Dan McLaughlin writing that same-sex couples are far less likely to have children than opposite-sex couples.  He gives numerous statistics on this and then goes on to say that this is a compelling reason why same-sex couples should not be allowed to get married.  This was one of the first links that came up when I searched for blogs/articles about gay marriage.

The tone of most of the coverage...was pretty mellow.  With the exception of the Elton John story, most of the articles were fairly short, with just a few paragraphs.  Nothing seemed to stir things up, it was just kind of the same 'ol, same 'ol.  There didn't seem to be too much news; my search resulted in many different websites and blogs with the same three stories over and over again that I mentioned.  I think this social movement might be in kind of a stagnant place right now, from what I can see in the news from the search on gay marriage that I did.  No really big setbacks, no really big successes either.  But that could definitely change in a very short period of time.

---------------------------------
http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2011/01/19/the-winning-statistic-in-the-same-sex-marriage-debate/
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/supreme_court_rejects_gay_marriage_challenge_in_dc.php
http://www.accesshollywood.com/elton-john-lashes-out-at-gay-marriage-opponents_article_42589?__source=rss%7Clatest_news
http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2011/01/iowa-gop-hopes-to-ban-gay-marriage-civil-unions-pastors-mobilizing-to-dismiss-liberties-revoke-right.html