Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Oregon, 2001. / Typescript. Includes vita and abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 231-243). Also available for download via the World Wide Web; free to University of Oregon users.

Thesis advisor: Kenji Hayao / National marriage equality: the legalization of same-sex marriage and recognition that same-sex pairings are to be granted the same privileges under the state as straight pairings, is widely recognized as a turning point for a country’s acceptance of queer identities at all levels of society. More than thirty countries around the world have legalized same-sex marriage, most of them being advanced industrial democracies. Given such hegemony, one may expect that being an advanced industrial democracy is one of the strongest indicators as to whether a country has instituted same-sex marriage. Yet, out of the three Asian countries which meet the criteria: South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, only Taiwan has instituted marriage equality. The timing of progress in East Asia, particularly in Japan, still presents a puzzle to scholars given dominant understandings of queer culture and politics. Through comparative examination of the social and political structures in Taiwan and Japan as they relate to queer rights and expression, I seek to prove that robust democratic institutions and practices are the main factor in securing marriage equality rather than socio-cultural attitudes, judicial processes, or mass political movements. To this point, robust institutions and practices can be defined as those which actively imbue a citizen with more voting power or the amount of political power an individual is granted by the state to determine government policies that affect their life and those of their community. Healthy competition between political parties occurs as a result, meaning issues pertaining to minority communities are much more likely to be part of party platforms. As such, governments are more likely to actively push for social reform and are otherwise disincentivized from alienating minority groups. / Thesis (MA) — Boston College, 2023. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Political Science.

Thesis (M.A.)--Johnson Bible College, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 86-94).

Thesis (M.A.)--Johnson Bible College, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 86-94).

Marriage equality exists in 35 states and the District of Columbia. Activists are waiting on the Supreme Court to issue a ruling and bring the movement to its conclusion. Critics of litigation claim that its effects are limited at best, and that the movement's desired result could be achieved without stepping foot in a courtroom. This Article seeks to examine the marriage equality movement's strategy for getting to this point, particularly the role of courts, and argues that litigation was an effective and necessary means of expanding the freedom to marry.

Before we can properly answer the question “What is marriage?,” we must first be able to answer the question “What is marriage for?” Defining what marriage is, before fully understanding what marriage is for, presumes we already know what marriage is for, when in fact we do not. In a moral sense, marriage is for love. And in a legal sense, marriage is for everyone (regardless of sexuality or race). In this paper I discuss how, regardless of whether you view marriage in a purely moral or in a purely legal light, marriage equality should be afforded to all citizens.

This thesis looks at the state of marriage equality activism in the wake of the Supreme Court’s June 26, 2013 decisions in United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry. Some scholars, such as Gerald Rosenberg, argue that Supreme Court decisions can never affect “significant social change,” either directly or indirectly, while others argue that such decisions can be hugely important in directly affecting policy. My focus is on how activist organizations, which have a substantial track record of directly affecting policy, are influenced by changes to the political environment stemming from major Court decisions regarding social issues. After examining how past litigative efforts such as Baehr v. Lewin and Goodridge v. Department of Public Health have affected the LGBT rights movement, and marriage equality activism specifically, I discuss how organizational strategies have changed minimally, but the political environment in which marriage equality activism is operating has shifted quite a bit, especially in terms of framing and legal precedent. I conclude that Court decisions can indeed have a significant impact on social change by affecting the way in which it is possible for activists on both sides of the issue to shape and deliver their message to the general public, legislators, and courts in future litigative efforts.

While same-sex marriage rights have expanded to twelve states, the time-lag in research and publishing has meant that most published studies on same-sex relationships has relied on a hodge-podge of same-sex relationship types. This study uses interview data with same-sex couples who have wed in the years after marriage became available and examines their incentives to wed and the decision making process they go about in planning their weddings. Against a backdrop of larger debates in the queer community surrounding assimilation and access to benefits, couples are changing how we must think about marriage and creating new norms for the institution. This study seeks to answer the following questions: This raises the following questions: How do a group of people previously barred from a legal institution make the decision to enter into that institution? Do they consciously see the act of marrying as a political decision, as a flouting of convention or as a reproduction of it? Does this shift to marriage represent an assimilationist tendency on the part of participants, or are they changing relationship norms and the institution of marriage itself? Studying the ways in which same-sex couples answer these questions allows us to see the meaning making that those couples do when engaging in public rituals and they will be shaped by access to this institution while changing marriage itself.

abstract: The American courts have become increasingly central to many important political debates. The marriage equality debate, the boundaries between religious freedom and society, the death penalty, eminent domain and many other contemporary issues that have direct effects on the lives of all Americans continue to play out in the court systems. While Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 82 sees the federal and state courts as complementary, this research sees these courts as often-rival political venues that political interests make strategic choices about taking legal actions in. Prior research finds that political interests turn to the state courts for two reasons: The structure of law creates a legal incentive and the political interests have access to state level resources, e.g. attorneys skilled in the laws of a state. Yet, there appear to be important gaps in existing theory. A distinction between state and national political interests is seemingly important. State political interests are embedded within their state political communities; consequently these interests should have strong attachments with their respective state courts. Also, state political interests can be expected to select courts on the basis of political ideology and state judicial selection methods. Prior research has shown the connection between these factors and judicial decision-making, but not interest group participation. To examine these areas of uncertainty, this research collected more than 3500 observations of the participation of political interests in the American courts. Two legal areas were selected: eminent domain and marriage equality. Ultimately, this study finds that state political interests develop strong attachments to their respective state courts and are more likely to enter into the state courts than their nationally-oriented counterparts. This research also finds that judicial ideology and state judicial selection both influence the decision to enter into the state courts. This shows a relationship between these factors and the decision to enter into the state courts. It also suggests that these factors not only affect the choices that judges make, but other actors as well, including political interests. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Political Science 2017

When Taiwan’s Civil Code of Marriage banned same-sex marriage, it contradicted the nation’s constitutional freedom and equality clauses. In order to implement the Right to Marry and Freedom of Marriage amendments, Taiwanese LGBTQ activists took legal action to change this inequality within the marital status. This thesis analyses how Taiwan came to legalise same-sex marriage through litigation and legal reform. By examining the legal grounds, motivation and strategies that went into implementing the same-sex marriage law in Taiwan, the analysis follows the stages of legal reform and evaluates the legal consequences based on the legal theory. Also, the theories of Nussbaum and Pierson allow for viewing the issue from both legal and philosophical theoretical aspects. Finally, after examining the Act for Implementation of J.Y Interpretation No. 748, this thesis aims to show the full picture of the establishment of the same-sex marriage law in Taiwan and how the result of implementing same-sex marriage laws benefits both the LGBTQ community and Taiwanese society. The conclusion addresses some challenges and future hopes for Taiwan, as it is the first nation to have legalised same-sex marriage in Asia.