This dissertation examines attitudes on same-sex marriage and how personal predispositions toward support and the climate of opinion interact to help create attitudes. Over the past few decades, support for gay rights has increased dramatically in the United States and many other countries around the world. I argue that, while the set of basic personal determinants of attitudes toward homosexuality and gay rights stays roughly the same, the impact of such determinants changes over time and space. The framework used in this dissertation draws on attitudinal and political psychology, political sociology and theories of contextual effects. I argue that over the course of their lives, people develop an overall propensity to tolerate or approve of homosexuality and support gay rights based on their political and social characteristics, such as religiosity, partisan or ideological identities, personality characteristics and various demographic characteristics (e.g., education, race, gender and age). The influence of these predispositions on gay rights attitudes is moderated by the political and social environments in which people live. Even among people whose predispositions push them consistently toward support for gay rights, if they live in a homophobic environment, support for gay rights will be attenuated compared to a similar individual living in a more socially tolerant environment.

Over the last few decades, there has been a significant increase in the political and public acceptance of gay men and lesbians. However, this trend of acceptance is not a global phenomenon. Currently over 70 countries still criminalise private consensual same-sex intimacy, among which are 11 of the 12 independent Commonwealth Caribbean states. It should be noted that the anti-gay laws of the Caribbean are rarely used to police consensual private sexual activities. Thus, if private same-sex conduct is rarely penalised, why keep the laws in place, especially in the age where such bans are considered a violation of basic human rights? Many policy makers in the region have cited public opinions about homosexuality as a significant barrier to law reform. However, while a common view is that these laws are anchored by public support, very few studies have emerged to test whether the attitudes and behaviours of the general population are in line with this view. Against this backdrop, this thesis analyses attitudes towards lesbians and gay men and their legal rights in the Commonwealth Caribbean. The thesis begins with an analysis of support for the anti-gay laws in Barbados, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago. The analysis revealed that a majority of the sample supported the maintenance and enforcement of the laws, but did not want same-sex couples to be penalised for having sex in private. This suggests that attitudes may not be as stark as policy makers suggest. The descriptive statistics also show that a significant share of individuals think that the laws (1) reflect moral standards; (2) stop the spread of homosexuality; (3) are important from a public health perspective, and (4) protect young people from abuse. Support for the laws are thus related to beliefs that homosexuality is a 'threat' to the fabric of society. The empirical analysis of support for the laws revealed that religiousness, interpersonal contact and beliefs about the origin of homosexuality were the most reliable predictors of public support. However, age and education were only statistically significant in a few models, and there was no evidence that attitudes varied across religious denominations. This is a contrast to the findings of studies in the West. It was hypothesised that macro-level factors - such as the large share of Evangelicals, anti-gay laws and level of socioeconomic development - could be exerting an influence on attitudes that is stronger than that of these personal characteristics. As such, the study conducted a cross-national analysis of attitudes towards same-sex marriage in 28 countries in the Americas, 6 of which were members of the Commonwealth Caribbean. In general, countries with higher levels of development, smaller shares of Evangelicals and more liberal laws on homosexuality were more approving of same-sex marriage. The results also suggest that the impact of age and/or religion is less prominent in countries with restrictions on same-sex intimacy, lower levels of development and a strong Evangelical presence, confirming the hypothesis that contextual factors could mitigate the impact of some of the individual-level variables. Finally, to get a nuanced view of anti-gay prejudice in the region, a thematic analysis of anti-gay speech in dancehall and reggae - music originating from Jamaica but popular in the region - was presented. The thematic analysis revealed that homosexuality is presented as 'sinful', a 'violation of gendered norms', 'unnatural', a 'threat to society' and a 'foreign lifestyle'. The presentation of homosexuality as a 'foreign' lifestyle suggests that anti-gay prejudice could be related to fears of neo-imperialism and could be a means of rejecting ideological intrusions from the West. This is not surprising, as currently, the fight for the advancement of gay rights is being headed by activists in the West. Based on the thematic analysis, efforts to remove the anti-gay laws should be (or at least appear to be) home-grown to limit public backlash.

Scholarly research on the subject of the swift pace of change in support for same-sex marriage has evolved significantly over the last ten years. The shift has gone beyond the scholarship's initial description amongst demographic groups on how opinion has changed on gay rights issues, like same-sex marriage, to an examination of why the change has occurred. A great deal of the initial research on the topic seemed to focus on demographic traits that suggested a greater propensity toward support for same-sex marriage as time went on. Is the existent literature sufficient to explain why such a dramatic change in public opinion has occurred in the United States? My goal in this paper is to explore the plausibility that electoral events and the public dialogue/debate that surround them have accelerated the impact described in the four predominant theories, cohort succession, contact theory, intracohort theory, and media exposure. This paper includes three separate hypotheses to explore the possible connections between efforts to restrict gay rights at the ballot box and the ever-increasing support for same-sex marriage in public opinion polls. The results provide some preliminary indication that there are plausible connections between individual statewide efforts to restrict gay rights and increases in national public opinion support for same-sex marriage. The first analysis examines electoral events concerning gay rights in states where these issues have faced voters most frequently; California, Maine, and Oregon. The first hypotheses posits a potential connection between exposure to gay rights at the ballot box and greater support for gay rights in subsequent elections concerning gay rights in the same state. No clear or consistent pattern of support emerges for successive electoral measures concerning gay rights where voters have been previously exposed to gay rights question in an electoral context. The second analysis explores national public opinion support for same-sex marriage as statewide ballot measures increase in popularity across the United States. The second hypotheses posits a connection between an increase in statewide electoral events concerning questions of same-sex marriage and an increase in national public opinion support for same-sex marriage with state-to-nation diffusion occurring and prodding upward national public opinion support for same-sex marriage simultaneously. The hypotheses is confirmed by data that suggests as election events on same-sex marriage increase across the United States at the state level, so too increases national public opinion support for same-sex marriage. The third analysis explores the rate of change in support for legal same-sex marriage across the three states where gay rights referenda and ballot initiatives have been most frequent; it posits that in states where voters have greater familiarity with gay rights at the ballot because of previous exposure to them, their support will be greater over time than public opinion measured in other states that have similar political cultures but have not faced the same level of electoral activity on gay rights. The final hypothesis is inconclusive because of the fluid nature of the same-sex marriage debate in the universe of states within the United States. States are handling this salient issue in a number of ways; some legislatures now seem to be taking steps to legalize same-sex marriage statutorily; others may take no action to propel the provision of same-sex marriage equality or end constitutional bans on the practice; while another group of states are leaving activists to litigate the policy in Federal courts or shift the debate toward statewide popular votes on the issue of authorizing same-sex marriage at the ballot box via ballot initiative or referendum.

Same-sex marriage is a subject that has been heavily discussed and argued since the concept of marriage came into existence. Marriage is a relationship that most American citizens are entitled to although it is not yet a fundamental right. As of a very recent court decision, Strawser v. Strange, Civil Action No. 14-0424-CG-C1 finalized on February 9, 2015, Alabama has legalized same-sex marriage; furthermore, thirty-seven states now recognize the legality of same-sex marriage. Marriage, whether it is between a heterosexual or a homosexual couple, should be a fundamental right enjoyed by all. This thesis will explain why same-sex marriage should be a fundamental right. The research presented in this thesis will be scrutinized and thoroughly examined showing the obstacles that same-sex couples face when wanting to legally marry. The United States Constitution, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause will be analyzed and discussed to prove that all fifty states should allow same-sex couples to wed. Citizens view what constitutes a marriage differently depending on their upbringing and residence. This thesis will illustrate why same-sex marriage has been such a widely discussed topic, and it will investigate the influence of religion and the church. Historically, the tradition of marriage has always been between one man and one woman. By examining how the tradition of marriage is changing and using case law decisions, an argument can be formed that marriage should be a fundamental right for all people.

Citizens' increased access to the internet is transforming political landscapes across the globe. The implications for civil society, culture, religion, governmental legitimacy and accountability are vast. In nations where one does not typically expect "modern" or egalitarian ideals to be prevalent among highly religious and conservative populations, those with motivations to unite around socially and culturally taboo causes are no longer forced to silently acquiesce and accept the status quo. The internet has proven to be an invaluable tool for those aiming to engage in social activism, as it allows citizens in highly oppressive authoritarian regimes to covertly mobilize and coordinate online protest events (such as hashtag campaigns, proclamations via social media, signing of petitions, and even DDoS attacks) without the fear of repression. What catalyzes lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) equality movements in authoritarian regimes, specifically with respect to the Middle East and North African region? This thesis argues that gay rights movements are more likely to emerge in politically repressive, more conservative states when new political opportunities--namely access to the internet for purposes of political organization--become available. This master's thesis identifies why LGBTQ movements emerged in Morocco and Algeria, but not in Tunisia until after it underwent democratization. These states will be analyzed in order to gauge the strength of their LGBTQ rights movements and, most importantly, to identify which variables most cogently explain their existence altogether.

Research report submitted to the Faculty of Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Political Studies. March 2015 / This paper examines race and class schisms among South African LGBTI persons using the lens of hate crimes legislation. While much praise is given to South Africa’s constitutional framework which provides for non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, LGBTI persons still face unacceptably high levels of violence and victimisation. An ongoing trend of violent murders of black lesbian women in particular has mobilised advocacy by LGBTI organisations and other civil society actors to call for hate crimes legislation. This paper takes a critical look at hate crimes legislation and the potential problems of its application in a society with gross inequality and power discrepancies. This critique has as its foundation an acknowledgement that action needs to be taken to address the scourge of violence, while at the same time understanding the intersectionality of oppression and the uneven results achieved by liberal legal reform.

The general objective of the study is to assess the role of culture and traditions as stumbling blocks in the legal reform that would lead to the decriminalization of same-sex sexual intercourse. Focuses on the sodomy laws in Africa with specific reference to Uganda. Compares the Ugandan and South African legal regimes. Uganda is chosen because it represents one of the African countries where same-sex unions are specifically prohibited by the Constitution. / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2007. / A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Law University of Pretoria, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Masters of Law (LLM in Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa). Prepared under the supervision of Prof Pierre de Vos of the Faculty of Law, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town South Africa. / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/ / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

When the Supreme Court grants new rights, public awareness is a crucial part of enforcement. Gerald N. Rosenberg and Michael J. Klarman famously criticized minority rights organizations for attempting to gain new rights through the judiciary. The crux of their argument relied heavily on the American media's scanty coverage of Court issues and subsequent low public awareness of Court cases. Using the 2013 United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry rulings as a case study, I suggest that the media environment has changed so much since Rosenberg and Klarman were writing that their theories warrant reconsideration. Minority rights groups now have access to social media, a potentially powerful tool with which to educate the public about the Supreme Court and new rights granted by the Court.

No description available.

In the last forty years, U.S. national and statewide LGBT organizations, in pursuit of "equality" through a limited and focused agenda, have made remarkably swift progress moving that agenda forward. However, their agenda has been frequently criticized as prioritizing the interests of White, middle-class gay men and lesbians and ignoring the needs of other LGBT people. In their shadows have emerged numerous grassroots organizations led by queer people of color, transgender people, and low-income LGBT people. These "queer liberation" groups have often been viewed as the left wing of the GRM, but have not been extensively studied. My research investigated how these grassroots liberation organizations can be understood in relation to the equality movement, and whether they actually comprise a separate movement operating alongside, but in tension with, the mainstream gay rights movement. This research used a qualitative content analysis, grounded in black feminism's framework of intersectionality, queer theory, and social movement theories, to examine eight queer liberation organizations. Data streams included interviews with staff at each organization, organizational videos from each group, and the organizations' mission statements. The study used deductive content analysis, informed by a predetermined categorization matrix drawn from social movement theories, and also featured inductive analysis to expand those categories throughout the analysis. This study's findings indicate that a new social movement - distinct from the mainstream equality organizations - does exist. Using criteria informed by leading social movement theories, findings demonstrate that these organizations cannot be understood as part of the mainstream equality movement but must be considered a separate social movement. This "queer liberation movement" has constituents, goals, strategies, and structures that differ sharply from the mainstream equality organizations. This new movement prioritizes queer people in multiple subordinated identity categories, is concerned with rebuilding institutions and structures, rather than with achieving access to them, and is grounded more in "liberation" or "justice" frameworks than "equality." This new movement does not share the equality organizations' priorities (e.g., marriage) and, instead, pursues a different agenda, include challenging the criminal justice and immigration systems, and strengthening the social safety net. Additionally, the study found that this new movement complicates existing social movement theory. For decades, social movement scholars have documented how the redistributive agenda of the early 20th century class-based social movements has been replaced by the demands for access and recognition put forward by the identity-based movements of the 1960s New Left. While the mainstream equality movement can clearly be characterized as an identity-based social movement, the same is not true of the groups in this study. This queer liberation movement, although centered on identity claims, has goals that are redistributive as well as recognition-based. While the emergence of this distinct social movement is significant on its own, of equal significance is the fact that it represents a new post-structuralist model of social movement. This study presents a "four-domain" framework to explain how this movement exists simultaneously inside and outside of other social movements, as a bridge between them, and as its own movement. Implications for research, practice, and policy in social work and allied fields are presented.