SOC FPX 2000 Assessment 4 Framing an Issue from the Sociological Perspective

• SOC FPX 2000 Assessment 4 Framing an Issue from the Sociological Perspective

Introduction

One common question that remains common in everyday American discourse is the cycle that made same-sex marriage a contagious public policy area. To answer the question, it is crucial to investigate the work that different gatherings have played all through the long term, including political players, the key arguments raised, and the causes and consequences of the debate (Cravens, 2019). 

Other important issues to address include the critical new turns of events, policy issues, and the policy changes that took place all through the long term, and the merits of the arguments raised by leaders, among other gatherings and organizations.

The question of the merits of the arguments made is crucial, noting that they shaped the eventual fate of the policy decisions made and the fact that these affect many gatherings in the community. The cycle shows many aspects of social construction that are best explained using sociological theories, helping center essential occasions, and the work they played in making same-sex marriage a significant policy change area (Cravens, 2019).

Through the exploration of social construction and the occupation of theory all the while, the analysis of the evidence shows that same-sex relationships don’t fit the mainstream constructions of sexuality, and therefore remain a minority gathering and identity as such, in many circles (Cravens, 2019). This paper investigates the cycle that the debate on gay marriages took in the past, towards the ongoing status of complete legalization in 2015.

Overview and Description of Central Issue

Same-sex marriage remained a significant area of debate in the US all through the long term, as national, state, and local policies and leaders held that it was illegal and ought not be allowed. 

The primary message communicated by many individuals from the community includes that atypical sexual practices and orientation affect the social fabric of the United States, and its values and morality.

The manifestations of the issue include that many specialists and individuals from the public have challenged the public authority and courts in cases like Baker v. Nelson (1972) and also Singer v. Hara (1974) during the 1970s. Other cases include Baehr v. Lewin (1993) during the 1990s, and Goodridge v.

 Department of Public Health (2003) (Cravens, 2019) during the 2000s. In all the cases, the people were challenging the denial of their human rights to partake in their sexual inclinations (Umberson et al., 2015). The final and most notable change came in 2015 after the High Court abolished all state-level bans on same-sex marriage.

The Evolution of the Gay Rights Movement

During the 1960s, the following era began after years of activism, when in 1961; Illinois State banned its anti-homosexuality laws and allowed the free expression of homosexuality. Despite the headway made, the gatherings remained discriminated against, and a portion of the directives in force included that in New York City, homosexuals couldn’t be served alcohol because they were regarded as disorderly (Martos, Wilson, and Meyer, 2017). In 1966, gay people defied the laws banned anti-gay liquor laws, and that incited the repeal of the legislation.

The paragraph outlines the significant events surrounding the Stonewall uprisings in 1969, which sparked a new wave of activism in the LGBTQ+ rights movement. It details how the riots against policy victimization led to the establishment of groups like the Gay Liberation Front, Gay Activists Alliance, and Street Transvestites Action Revolutionaries, all dedicated to protesting discriminatory laws. 

The 1970s marked a pivotal shift in the movement, resulting in notable achievements, such as the Supreme Court ruling that allowed transgender woman Renée Richards to compete in national tournaments as a woman and the acceptance of LGBT individuals in leadership roles. This context emphasizes the importance of activism in advancing rights and societal recognition for the SOC FPX 2000 Assessment 4 Framing an Issue from the Sociological Perspective

The National mMarchof 1979 reinforced Gay and Lesbian Rights in the US. Similar degrees of activism characterized the 1980s and 1990s, and in 1992, the District of Columbia legalized gay and lesbian sexual partnerships in another law, and California passed a similar law in 1999. In 1993, the most executive court in Hawaii held that banning gay marriages breached the constitution of the state, reinforcing the rights of the gathering.

The Evolution of the Federal Legislation on Gay Rights in the  Last Decade

During the last decade, the activism for gay rights and gay marriages has advanced significantly and has gotten considerable change in the area, including the banning of all anti-gay laws in the US. The major players in the debate included political parties, noting that in 2008, the Democratic National Convention communicated help for same-sex marriage, while the Republican National Convention communicated opposition (Fejes, 2014).

 In 2009, the courts dived into the debate, noting that the Iowa High Court held that same-sex marriages were constitutional, during the case Varnum v. Brien.

SOC FPX 2000 Assessment 4 Framing an Issue from the Sociological Perspective

The public skipped the debate as well, noting that Iowa citizens eliminated the justices who made the Varnum decision and maintained same-sex marriages. 

Law Makers equally played a task in the debate, noting that in 2009, new Hampshire adopted legislation legalizing same-sex marriage. Political leaders similarly engaged in the discussion, noting that in 2009, President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard Act, imposing more stringent restrictions against hate crimes because of sexual orientation. In 2011, the Legislative head of New York State passed the Marriage Equality Act, legalizing same-sex marriage.

Important Political Players in the National Debate

A year later, the Lead representative for Washington, ML, and Maryland Lead representative also signed laws legalizing same-sex marriages. In 2012, North Carolina Citizens cast a lot against same-sex marriages, while the US High Court held that statutes illegalizing same-sex marriage were illegal during the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger (Martos, Wilson, and Meyer, 2017).

In 2014, the Attorney general declared that the National government would recognize same-sex marriages in Utah, toward the finish of 2013 and the start of 2014. Further court cases followed, showing support for same-sex marriages; however, at that point, the major break came in 2015 when the High Court struck down all bans against same-sex marriage (Fejes, 2014).

Soon after, government institutions, among others, began lifting the restrictions on gay people, including the KKids and Girls Scouts organization and the US military, SOC FPX 2000 Assessment 4 Framing an Issue from the Sociological Perspective.

Application of a Sociological Theory to Understand the Issue of Gay Rights

Sociological theory can best explain the revolutionary journey and the highs and lows announced in the fight for the rights of same-sex marriages. The ideal theory for explaining the changes is the structural-functional approach, which is based on the fundamental view that society is a mind-boggling organization of interconnected gatherings and frameworks that work in unison to cultivate stability and solidarity.

 According to the theory, human life is guided by the social designs in place in society, which are the primary drivers of social behavior.

The theory best explains the opposition to same-sex marriage by political parties, government agencies, courts, and the general public in the new past (Martos, Wilson, and Meyer, 2017). Generally, the various gatherings engaged in the debate were challenging the adoption of same-sex marriage, for the fear that it would infiltrate the collective conscience of the American community. 

The view is that by allowing and legalizing same-sex marriages, the American community would regard it as a normal and accepted practice, which would influence more people to enter similar marriages.

For example, when Iowa electors pushed to eliminate the justices who maintained same-sex marriage, during The Barnum decision, they tried to set an example in the community, for other appointed authorities, and also the national government (Fejes, 2014). In reality, by sending the adjudicators away, the citizens guaranteed that others wouldn’t maintain same-sex marriage in Iowa State, which they felt would safeguard the social fabric of the community.

Tactics Activists Used to Challenge and Further Gay Rights

Open revolt and activism endeavors by individuals from the public, particularly gay gatherings continued to be the leading kind of activism, challenging the public authority and agencies, for example, the courts to regard gay rights (Morini, 2017). 

Starting in 2004, the public and movement leaders used different tactics to communicate their message, including advertisements, official statements, and community-based conversations. One example is the 2004 losing campaigns, which pondered the views of the community about gays and same-sex marriage (Morini, 2017). 

In 2009, activists drove further, and lawmakers adopted the Mathew Shepherd Act, which illegalized all hate communicated towards gay and lesbian people.

The commission’s decision also emphasized that gay people should be treated the same way as others in the community, in the workplace, and other areas (Sepper, 2014). In 2012, further activism incited the statement by the US Department of Housing prohibiting discrimination of gays in government-assisted housing areas. 

Later on, in 2014, fights in Idaho and civil disobedience assisted push gay rights with fur. Read more about our sample SOC FPX 2000 Assessment 4 Framing an Issue from the Sociological Perspective for complete information about this class.

References

Andersen, E.A. (2017). Transformative Events in the LGBTQ Rights Movement. Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality, 5(2 Art. 10), 441-475.

Cravens, R.G. (2019). Same‐sex marriage and the public policy process. Policy Sexuality, Gender & Policy, 2, 43-58.

Fejes, F. (2014). Gay Rights and Moral Panic. Gordonsville: Palgrave Macmillan Limited.

Glass, C.M., & Kubasek, N. (2008). The Evolution of Same-Sex Marriage in Canada: Lessons the U.S. Can Learn from Their Northern Neighbor Regarding Same-Sex Marriage Rights, Michigan Journal of Gender & Law, 15(1), 143-204.

Martos, A.J., Wilson, P.A., & Meyer, I.H. (H (2017). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) health services in the United States: Origins, revolution, and contemporary landscape. PLoS ONE, 12(7), 1-18.

Morini, M. (2017). Same-Sex Marriage and Other Moral Taboos: Cultural Acceptances, Change in American Public Opinion and the Evidence from the Opinion Polls. European journal of American studies, 11-3, 1-20.

Sepper, E. (2014). Doctoring Discrimination in the Same-Sex Marriage Debates. Indiana Law Journal, 89(2 Art. 5), 703-762.

Umberson, D., Thomeer, M.B., Kroeger, R.A., Lodge, A.C., & Xu, M. (2015). Challenges and Opportunities for Research on Same-Sex Relationships. J Marriage Fam., 77(1), 96-111.