Progay/Antigay: The Rhetorical War over Sexuality
Publication Year: 2000
Issues such as lesbians and gay men serving openly in the military, same-sex marriage and the inclusion of sexual orientation in anti-discrimination and hate crime laws have evolved along with the rival progay and anitgay communities. As a result of public policy debates, the U. S. progay movement has moved toward an essentialist, non-sexual identity while traditionalists have shifted toward a secular public self-representation. This book analyzes the internal disagreements within the two movements.
- Front Matter
- Back Matter
- Subject Index
- Chapter 1: Emergence of the Variant Sexuality Issue Culture
- Chapter 2: Analysis of Communication in Contests over Variant Sexuality
- Chapter 3: Appeals in Progay and Traditionalist Discourses
- Chapter 4: Antagonistic Construction of Identity and Conflict
- Chapter 5: Debate within Communities
- Chapter 6: Same-Sex Marriage: A Case Study
- Chapter 7: Criticism of the Variant Sexuality Issue Culture
Rhetoric & Society[Page ii]
edited by Herbert W. Simons, Temple University
Michael Billig, Department of Social Sciences, Loughborough University
Carole Blair, Department of American Studies, University of California, Davis
Richard H. Brown, Department of Sociology, University of Maryland
Rosa Eberly, Division of Rhetoric and Composition, University of Texas, Austin
Dilip Gaonkar, Communication Studies, Northwestern University
James Jasinski, Department of Communication & Theatre Arts, The University of Puget Sound
Joyce Irene Middleton, Department of English, University of Rochester
Janice Rushing, Communication Department, University of Arkansas
Allen Scult, Department of Speech Communication, Drake University
This series will publish a broad-based collection of advanced texts and innovative works encompassing rhetoric in the civic arena, in the arts and media, in the academic disciplines, and in everyday cultural practices.
Books in this series:
Control and Consolation in American Culture and Politics: Rhetorics of Therapy
Dana L. Cloud
Communication Criticism: Developing Your Critical Powers
Jodi R. Cohen
Analyzing Everyday Texts: Discourse, Rhetoric, and Social Perspectives
Glenn F. Stillar
Progay/Antigay: The Rhetorical War Over Sexuality
Ralph R. Smith and Russel R. Windes
Copyright © 2000 by Sage Publications, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Sage Publications, Inc.
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
Sage Publications Ltd.
6 Bonhill Street
London EC2A 4PU
Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd.
Greater Kailash I
New Delhi 110 048 India
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Smith, Ralph R.
Progay/antigay: The rhetorical war over sexuality / by Ralph R. Smith, Russel R. Windes.
p. cm.—(Rhetoric & society; v. 4)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-7619-1646-6 (cloth: alk. paper)—ISBN 0-7619-1647-4 (pbk.: alk. paper)
1. Homosexuality. 2. Homosexuality—Public opinion. 3. Gay rights. 4. Rhetoric. I. Windes, Russel R. (Russel Rayl), 1930- II. Title. III. Rhetoric & society (Thousand Oaks, Calif.); v. 4.
HQ75.15 .S6 2000
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Acquiring Editor: Margaret H. Seawell
Editorial Assistant: Sandra Krumholz
Production Editor: Astrid Virding
Editorial Assistant: Victoria Chen
Typesetter: Marion Warren
Indexer: Teri Greenberg
To a multitude of friends, our “Old Time Throng”from New York to San Francisco to San Diego, with whom we shared affinities, adversities, and achievements, and from whom we learned to cope more sanely with hostility and more rationally with the irrational. These loving friendships made our lives together over forty years a succession of days of wine and roses.
This book brings news of some interesting symmetries between a movement and a countermovement, broadly labeled “progay”and “antigay.”In large ways and small, each talks past the other, exhibiting what Barbara Herrnstein Smith has felicitously called the “micro-dynamics of incommensurabilty.”But in a curious way, these antagonists also depend on each other, play off of each other, adapting arguments in light of each other's rhetoric. The prize as usual in conflicts between movements is third party support: news media, legislators, judges, and that amorphous, often fickle entity called “public opinion.”But progay and antigay also use rhetoric to shore up support within their ranks. So, different as they are ideologically, each is alike in demonizing the other while masking internal differences as they project myths of unity.
These intricate steps in the dance of progay/antigay are not much different from those found in conflicts between other movements. But movement studies tend to focus on one movement, giving short shrift to the movement's evil twin. And most movement scholars tend to be unschooled in the give and take of argumentation. So this book is valuable, [Page viii]not just as a contribution to gay/lesbian studies, but as a case study in the rhetoric of controversy between movements and countermovements more generally.
Smith and Windes come to the study of progay/antigay as rhetoricians of a certain type. They are Burkeians and they are well up on movement theory by communication scholars and social scientists. The result is an integration of Burkeian rhetorical criticism and movement theory that William Gamson and I could only dream of when I visited with him in Ann Arbor back in 1977. Bill Gamson has done much since then to lay the groundwork for the study of what he calls “issue cultures,”textual practices that become relatively fixed in discussions of public controversies. Opposing groups generate “interpretive packages,”collections of collectively held ways of seeing and of arguing that, as Smith and Windes put it, are “forged in the crucible of reciprocal antagonism.”
“Rhetoric”is an old word, made rich but also ambiguous by a long history of inconsistent usage. Some rhetoricians confine their study to oratory, others to the written word, but Burkeian theory extends the purview of rhetoric to symbol-using (mis-using) of every kind, focusing on reciprocal but “incomplete”antagonism as rhetoric's paradigmatic case. Moreover, in keeping with interpretive social science, Burkeian theory is constructionist, anti-essentialist, focusing not just on what progays and antigays say and believe, but also on the role of rhetoric in the making and molding of identities such as homosexual and heterosexual.
Arguably, it is impossible to maintain a constructionist stance consistently, for, taken to its logical extreme, such a stance would render issues of truth and non-truth unintelligible, and render activisim of any sort indefensible. Smith and Windes make clear that their constructionism is methodological—a bracketed compartmentalized anti-essentialism that leaves citizens free to act on rights they believe to be inalienable, including the right of all citizens to discover for themselves their sexual orientation, and then to embrace beliefs and behaviors which reflect both that discovery and their inalienable right of choice.
But ironically, their methodological anti-essentialism gives them a certain freedom as scholars to put aside personal predilections and treat progay and antigay rhetorics evenhandedly. Some gay and lesbian scholars/activists will chafe at that. But as Joshua Gamson observed, in a pre-publication review, “the book fills a gap in the literature on political communication surrounding sexuality with sophistication, balance, and thoroughness.”
[Page ix]Who, then, is this book for? Josh Gamson concludes that it should have a ready market in university libraries and courses, particularly courses for graduate students and undergraduate students focused on (a) sexuality and sex/gender politics, (b) political communication and rhetoric, (c) social movements and collective identity.
I began the Rhetoric & Society series for Sage with a view that a Burkeian approach to rhetoric, a “globalized”rhetoric, as it's been called, was the perfect complement to so much that has been happening in the academy recently under the rubrics of interpretive social science and poststructuralism. Hence the names on the Editorial Board. Hence the books in the series already published.
Yet I believe the Smith/Windes book best exemplifies the promise of a globalized rhetoric. One cannot read it without concluding that the usual distinctions between social science and humanism are untenable.
I say that as an essentialist. I say it also as an anti-essentialist.
Herbert W. Simons, Series Editor[Page x]
Introduction: Public Policy Debate about Variant Sexuality[Page xi]
Homosexuality is an increasingly prominent subject of public policy discussion in the United States and other Western nations. In recent years, debates over measures to protect and extend the civil rights and liberties of lesbians and gay men, along with controversies over policies to discourage homosexuality, have increased so dramatically in frequency, number of participants, and prominence in the mass media that the nature of communication about variant sexuality has been fundamentally altered. Legal scholar Janet Halley (1994) correctly concludes:
The closet no longer reigns in solitary splendor … Its door now opens directly onto the areopagus, the forum, the senate hearing room, the court of law—onto scenes of rational debate, public deliberation, and collective decision making, conducted under the aegis of reasonable discourse. (p. 1727)
Symbolic action in these scenes of public policy formation on variant sexuality constitutes our general subject.
Elements of the controversy over the regulation of sexual behavior frequently have been chronicled and assessed. Most of these published works analyze either progay or antigay advocates, or describe one particular controversy. This valuable literature, on which our present study draws, can be usefully supplemented by analysis of how the process of antagonistic confrontation influences the nature of the debate over public [Page xii]policy concerning variant sexuality. Our intent is not definitively to survey this debate, but rather to examine adversarial engagement, a dynamic recurrent in most controversies. The nature and effects of oppositional relationships occurring in public policy struggles over variant sexuality have been previously surveyed, most notably by legal scholar Didi Herman (1994) and by journalists John Gallagher and Christopher Bull (1996). They each investigate the patterns of contention arising from mutual influence that have been significant for public policy discussion of variant sexuality. Our perspective differs from theirs, however, in that we investigate progay/antigay conflict as a process of collision in which multiple symbolic worlds are created and reconstructed when progay and antigay advocates strive in opposition to one another to influence adherents, allies, opponents, bystanders, and government officials. This is a task appropriate for those who examine public persuasion through rhetorical analysis. Progay/Antigay traces how competing texts weave around and through each other in an ongoing national town meeting on human sexuality. Specifically, we employ rhetorical analysis to describe: (a) how opposing advocates develop rival symbolic communities; (b) patterns of appeals which are generated by interaction among adversaries; (c) the extraordinary influence which opponents exercise on each other; (d) divisions produced by this influence among advocates allied in general purpose but not assumptions and strategies; (e) the influence of context on the types of appeals produced in deliberating particular issues. With reference to the dynamic of adversarial influence, we conclude with recommendations about how public debate over variant sexuality can be conducted more productively and investigated further.Rhetorical Analysis of Public Controversy
Our understanding of public controversy over variant sexuality is grounded in the tradition of rhetorical criticism which developed from the seminal writings of Kenneth Burke, “the foremost rhetorician in the 20th century”(Golden, Berquist, & Coleman, 1997, p. 179). We have consistently drawn upon Burke's (1952) insight that the core subject of rhetoric consists of the “possibilities of classification in its partisan aspects; it considers the ways in which individuals are at odds with one another, or become identified with groups more or less at odds with one another”(p. 22). We seek to travel what Burke identified as the necessary [Page xiii]path of persuasion, into “the Scramble, the Wrangle of the Market Place, the flurries and flare-ups of the Human Barnyard, the Give and Take, the wavering line of pressure and counterpressure”(p. 23). Like Burke, we recognize that the circulation of identification and division around each other “must often carry us far into the lugubrious regions of malice and the lie”(p. 23).
We also accept Burke's methodological insight, cogently described by sociologist Joseph Gusfield (1989a), that understanding rhetorical action demands a “program for analysis of human behavior which is pluralistic and dialectical” (p. 30). In particular, Burke moves us toward the interpretive social sciences, that is, in the direction of “approaches that seek to understand how patterns of consciousness enable us to organize experience”(Gusfield, 1989b, p. 5). We have been particularly impressed by recent social scientific efforts to develop a cultural theory of collective behavior which advances beyond ideology, social strain, and resource mobilization. The “Human Barnyard”cannot be described through theories which solely concern formal belief, social dislocation, or rational actors. By stressing the definitional power of culture, we have sought to bring attention to “how social movement organizations and actors interpret grievances and generate consensus on belief and action … create collective identities … produce frames of meaning … vocabularies of motive, and social dramas necessary to mobilize constituents”(Ellingson, 1997, p. 269). Such a cultural approach recognizes that “social movements tend to become worlds unto themselves that are characterized by distinctive ideologies, collective identities, behavioral routines, and material cultures”(McAdam, 1994, pp. 45–46).
The development of such worlds, and the collisions among them, can be understood in ways which likewise have Burkeian origins. For instance, drawing on Burke's theory of dramatism, sociologists Robert Benford and Scott Hunt (1992) elaborate the principle that “interpreting is a never ending social activity that makes movement scripting, staging and performing possible”(p. 48). They use Burke's method of dramatistic analysis which features “inquiry into cycles or clusters of terms and their functions”(p. 445). Benford and Hunt observe that activists develop lines of action which they believe to be “consistent with their collectively negotiated reality interpretations, idealistic visions and readings of the audiences’ interpretations”(p. 48). We agree that social movements are best understood as dramas through which “protagonists and antagonists compete to affect audiences’ interpretations of power relations in a variety of [Page xiv]domains, including those pertaining to religious, political, economic or lifestyle arrangements”(p. 38).
The terms “identity,” “frame,”and “movement/countermovement dialectic”further define our perspective. We are centrally concerned with the process of creating identity out of the sociality of collective action. Burke (1959/1937) points out that “‘identification’ is hardly other than a name for the function of sociality” (p. 266). Rhetorical critic Maurice Charland (1987) extends Burke's point that audience members do not exist prior to communication but come into existence as they “participate in the very discourse by which they would be ‘persuaded’” (p. 133). Charland is right that the creation of subject positions is an historically contingent textualizing process. “The subject is a position within a text. To be an embedded subject is to experience and act in a textualized world”(p. 141). We are led by this theory of constitutive rhetoric to accept his conclusion that we ought to be “mindful not only of arguments and ideographs, but of the very nature of the subjects that rhetoric both address and leads to come to be”(p. 148). We have adopted a view which denies a “real”identity existing in advance of communication, believing that every aspect of human interaction—agent, agency, act, scene, and purpose—are problematic because, as Charland states, the “position one embodies as a subject is a rhetorical effect”(p. 148). Specifically, gay people and their opponents—who they are and what they want—do not exist prior to communication, but come into existence through their rhetorical acts.
Our approach which stresses the rhetorical development of identity is supported by recent works describing the construction of the subject within social movement culture. Sociologist Mary Bernstein (1997) notes, for example, that shared collective identity is not only necessary for mobilization, but is a goal of social movement rhetoric as either the construction of an identity or the deconstruction of identity categories, and ultimately is employed in strategies of critique and education (pp. 535, 538). We will explore subsequently how gay/lesbian and traditionalist actors use identity constructs as weapons to achieve dominance. Even the grievances which movements seek to highlight are intimately related to the identities which movements construct and deploy (Johnston, Larana, & Gusfield, 1994, p. 23). Recent interest in identity as rhetorical accomplishment develops out of the poststructuralist trend to question accepted symbolic boundaries: “What appears to be a difference is reinterpreted, discovered to be little more than a distinction rooted in power or a move in a rhetorical game”(Wolfe, 1992, p. 310). Throughout our [Page xv]analysis of the dynamic of antagonistic enjoinment in the variant sexuality controversy, we will be concerned with the rhetorical creation of identity, difference, and boundaries.
Within our approach, identities are rhetorical constructs created through discourse, not simply the products of innate biological and psychological characteristics or the results of dysfunctional social structures. We agree with sociologists Hunt, Benford, and David Snow (1994) that the construction of identity is inherent in social movement framing activities. “Not only do framing processes link individuals and groups ideologically but they proffer, buttress, and embellish identities that range from collaborative to conflictual”(p. 185). Both progay and antigay advocates have created a range of identities in order to accomplish persuasive purposes.
The concept of framing (creating patterns for organizing thought about issues), which is important to our understanding of rhetorical criticism, also has Burkeian origins, specifically in his concept of “terministic screens”(i.e., words which direct our attention into a particular point of view). Burke (1966) observes that “much that we take as observations about ‘reality’ may be but the spinning out of possibilities implicit in our particular choice of terms”(p. 46). Symbolic framing involves imposing interpretive schemata which simplify and condense experience by “selectively punctuating and encoding objects, situations, events, experiences, and sequences of actions with one's present or past environments”(Snow & Benford, 1992, p. 137). Conceived as modes of articulation and attribution, collective action frames focus attention on situations perceived to be problematic, “making attributions regarding who or what is to blame, and articulate an alternative set of arrangements including what the movement needs to do in order to affect the desired change”(Hunt, Benford, & Snow, 1994, p. 190). In the controversy over variant sexuality, the language which advocates employ creates and limits grievances, casts heroes and villains, projects modes of effective action, and envisions desirable outcomes.
Frames do not exist in isolation, however. They occur as part of a struggle to achieve dominant meaning. Consequently, the agonistic struggle for domination is central to our interpretation of symbolic action. Burke (1952) observed that “individual universes as such do not compete” (p. 22). However, within rhetoric, “their universality becomes transformed into a partisan weapon. For one need not scrutinize the concept of ‘identification’ very sharply to see, implied in it at every turn, its ironic counterpart: [Page xvi]division”(p. 23). Much of the drama of social controversy lies in division between movements and countermovements, “that a variety of movement outcomes, from resource mobilization to longevity, depend upon scripting and sustaining agon”(Benford & Hunt, 1992, p. 51). Put another way, meaning construction occurs through a “process of contention within a discursive field as speakers jockey to gain legitimacy for their positions, the support of targeted audiences, and the opportunity to implement their solutions”(Ellingson, 1997, p. 272). Clearly, the struggle to produce identities and frames is, therefore, undertaken in an atmosphere charged with conflict, while opposing movements battle “for primacy in identifying the relevant issues and actors in a given political struggle”(Meyer & Staggenborg, 1996, p. 1635). In controversies over variant sexuality, struggle against “the enemy”plays an important role in all aspects of collective behavior.
Our interpretation of the progay/antigay drama has also been influenced by several elements in rhetorical theorist Raymie McKerrow's (1989) concept of a critical rhetoric which examines “the dimensions of domination and freedom as these are exercised in a relativized world”(p. 91). We share his interest in a rhetoric which is involved in the process of “demystifying the conditions of domination”(p. 91) while, at the same time, recognizing that we have created a partial understanding by patching together fragments of texts. This is a self-conscious attempt to respond to rhetorician Michael McGee's (1990) challenge to “reconcile traditional modes of analysis with the so-called post-modern condition by understanding that our first job as professional consumers of discourse is inventing a text suitable for criticism”(p. 288).
We are working in a relativistic rhetorical tradition which emphasizes the construction of “truth claims”through symbolic action. Therefore, we have attempted to discipline our own preferences among these claims and their political consequences. Our emphasis on the symbolic construction of reality, however, makes us skeptical of claims which are based on “self-evident”natural facts or faith commitments to a supernatural ordering of the universe. To use philosopher Ian Hacking's (1999) typology of the varieties of social constructionism, we have taken historicist and ironic stances toward struggle over the regulation of variant sexuality. Our purpose does not include proceeding further into the unmasking of ideas, stripping them of authority in order to serve reformist or revolutionary purposes (pp. 66–67). As politically active individuals who are committed to voicing many of the ideals and goals which we characterize [Page xvii]as progay, we find such purposes entirely congenial. As activists, we find nothing objectionable to discrediting the worldview and rebutting the truth claims of antigay opponents. But, as rhetorical critics seeking to understand the symbolic acts present in progay/antigay conflict, we strive to limit ourselves to the premises that (a) all constructions of meaning are contingent results of historical circumstances and (b) constructions of reality as they exist are inevitably in the world and cannot rationally be used to refute each other.
Though we are concerned with using rhetorical analysis in a neo-Burkeian mode to understand better progay/antigay debate, we certainly do not limit our interpretation to those propounded by professional rhetoricians, nor do we systematically attempt to improve critical methods. Throughout this discussion, we are frequently drawn to the insights of scholars in a variety of academic fields: anthropology, history, literature, philosophy, political science, and sociology. Without assuming the title of rhetorician, these scholars provide helpful direction for the study of how human beings influence one another through symbols. Nor have we attempted to structure their ideas about symbolic action into an innovative theory. Directly stated, our purpose is to comprehend more completely one aspect of public conversations about sexuality. Our primary concern remains antagonistic enjoinment of progay and antigay discourses, and not centrally the analysis of methods of rhetorical criticism.Main Arguments of the Analysis
Focus on the mutual influence of adversarial relationships, combined with our concept of rhetorical criticism, pushes us toward a particular program of analysis. This analysis supports the contention that understanding the dynamics through which advocates seek to establish dominance requires appreciation for how rhetorical strategy is influenced by interactions among advocates of rival public policy positions. Rhetorician Celeste Condit Railsback (1984) correctly asserts that critics should not focus “on the advocacy of only one side of a controversy,”but instead ought to analyze the “social text created by the advocates of various sides of the controversy, interacting with each other and the public”(pp. 419–420).
Several rhetorical critics have explained how opponents in public controversy constrain one another's strategic choices and persuasive appeals. [Page xviii]Rhetorical critic Jeff Bass (1991) suggests that reactionary rhetoric is often studied in isolation from its opposite, the rhetoric of reform, and that “this kind of analysis tends to deflect our attention away from the manner in which it may interact with and be influenced by reform rhetoric”(p. 427). He concludes that the “strategies employed by one side to persuade an audience influence the other's selection of strategies and appeals far beyond an invitation to engage in a game of rhetorical one-upmanship”(p. 427). Rhetorical critic Charles Taylor (1992) emphasizes the “dialogic”relationship between advocates of creationism and evolution, attempting to explain how each constrains the other (pp. 278–279). These studies, though largely limited to adjustment of argumentative strategy, point toward the uncharted territory in which adversarial supporters of particular public policies are influenced to draw specific appeals from their armamentarium in order to shape one another's identity claims and relational and situational definitions.
The study of communication about public policy toward variant sexuality initially can be organized by recognizing that symmetrical relationships of interdependence and mutual influence developed in recent decades between proponents and opponents of a civic culture which tolerates and even celebrates lesbians and gay men. The symmetry of the contest over sexuality may arise, in part, from the similarities of opponents. With respect to the United States, some analysts have suggested that groups working for and against public policy reforms favorable to gay and lesbian persons resemble one another in their strategies and their location in the political system (Gallagher & Bull, 1996, p. xiv). In this view, each side (a) uses strong emotional appeals to broaden its base of support; (b) functions most effectively when there is an immediate threat to dramatize; (c) achieves power within one political party; (d) must struggle against the skepticism and suspicion of the majority of Americans. Each finds within public struggle a source of empowerment (Hannigan, 1991, p. 325). These claims to similarity, however, must be balanced against recognition that gay/lesbian and traditionalist advocates often seem to be speaking a mutually incomprehensible language, argue from different premises, act within different social milieu, and are, in many other respects, significantly dissimilar. Our central point is that those locked in combat over variant sexuality exercise deep mutual influence over one another. Their oppositional discourses shape presentation of collective identity; they influence definition of controversy, contribute [Page xix]to understanding the relationship between antagonists, and heighten dissent among advocates of any one general position on homosexuality.
The examination of gay/lesbian public policy issues begins in Chapter 1 with a description of the general public policy controversy over variant sexuality and with an overview of the emergence of conditions which produced the current extensive public debate about homosexuality. Significant variations have occurred through time and across cultures in the construction of homosexuality and the degree to which it is accepted. Our own culture's engagement with the public policy implications of homosexuality hinges on the emergence of a particular type of gay/lesbian subject (i.e., a subspecies of humanity). This subject's appearance is the precondition for both the development of a gay/lesbian community and a set of movements which constitute a powerful political force for public policy change. Simultaneously, fundamentalist and other traditionalist movements have gathered strength, in part based on their resistance to homosexual activism. Often working through organizations dedicated to influencing public sentiment, gay/lesbian and traditionalist advocates have become principal voices in our present complex controversy about variant sexuality.
Unraveling the complexity of this controversy requires analysis of the language, collective action, and interactive communication produced within an issue culture. Each kind of analysis provides insight into an aspect of public policy dispute. In our attempt to understand and analyze public policy debate, the production of arguments, ideographs and condensation symbols are important. Equally significant is the mobilization as movements of interpretive communities (i.e., groups which coordinate their personal interpreting behaviors). The concept of issue culture (the textual practices which become relatively fixed in discussion of a public question) allows us to focus on language and social mobilization through the lens of framing processes which occur during the production of interpretive packages (i.e., collections of frames through which advocates seek to impose their point of view about a controversy). These interpretive packages are forged in the crucible of reciprocal antagonism. Chapter 2 elaborates on language, collective action, and interactive communication as means to understand variant sexuality controversies.
Advocates for progay and antigay positions have constructed a variety of elemental appeals which surface in different combinations in most public policy disputes about homosexuality. The generative premise for these [Page xx]appeals is that there is a link between private behavior and public action. Traditionalist discourse consists of appeals which attempt to make homosexuality publicly invisible as well as attacks on public policy programs which encourage homosexuality. In contrast, gay/lesbian discourse consists of efforts to make sexual difference visible in the public sphere, to refute antigay appeals, and to justify public policy favorable to lesbians and gay men. Chapter 3 explains our understanding of this pattern of appeals, stressing that these appeals are not forged through isolated thought, but in the production of discourse intended to achieve symbolic dominance.
Contests of representation provide strategic structure for the variant sexuality issue culture. Through the process of making public claims, traditionalist and progay advocates strategically construct themselves, their relationships to their antagonists, and their legitimate position in the public sphere. Both lay claim to virtue in their struggle against an evil nemesis. The projections generated in contests of representation are creations designed to establish a dominant interpretive package. Chapter 4 traces the interaction between advocates which produces reciprocal influence important to public action concerning variant sexuality.
Both progay and antigay interpretive packages are ambiguous in the sense that they contain not a single position, but a range of alternative claims. Divisions develop among advocates who want their own interpretive versions to be dominant within either the traditionalist or progay positions. These divisions are influenced by concerns with representation in public policy contests. In Chapter 5, we describe the development of such divisions, with major emphasis on disputes within the gay/lesbian political community over competing versions of identity and their strategic consequences for public policy formation.
Different contexts produce different patterns of persuasive interaction because specific public policy disputes filter out particular elements of the traditionalist and progay interpretive packages. The recent Congressional debate on the Defense of Marriage Act is an example of this process. The struggle over gay marriage narrowed the range of gay identity, enhanced themes of gay/lesbian participation in civic life, and raised issues of social stability. The marriage debate will be examined in detail in Chapter 6 as an example of reciprocal influence within an institutional context.
Antagonistic enjoinment in the debate over variant sexuality has significant implications for the study and criticism of public communication. Chapter 7 describes several of these implications, concluding with suggestions for research which might profitably be conducted to advance our [Page xxi]understanding of reciprocal influence in a variety of issue cultures. We will suggest that rhetorical critics can contribute to improving the discussion of gay/lesbian public policy questions if they encouraged reduction of opportunistic and shallow argument, the formulation of more substantive appeals, a rethinking of identity claims, and a deeper appreciation of the fundamental challenges which attempts at moral persuasion make to beliefs about how society ought to be constituted.Analytic Limitations and Difficulties of Terminology
Discussion of the politics of variant sexuality must necessarily recognize that political discourses on homosexuality are nested within a larger culture. Though traditional political theory separates politics and culture, in practice they are closely connected (Bronski, 1998, p. 248). Law professor Robert Cover (1983) provides an important description of the relationship which holds between law and policy on the one hand and the environing moral culture on the other. He writes that “we inhabit a nomos—a normative universe.”The legal system, principles of justice, formal institutions, and social conventions are “but a small part of the normative universe that ought to claim our attention”(p. 4). As a consequence, Cover asserts, public policy must be understood as part of the complex narrative myths which underlie culture. He argues that these myths establish a “repertoire of moves—a lexicon of normative action—that may be combined into meaningful patterns culled from the meaningful patterns of the past”(p. 9). Variant sexuality is not a separate subject to be explored in isolation from other elements of culture because, as social scientist Jeffrey Weeks (1977) asserts, “attitudes to homosexuality are inextricably linked to wider questions: of the function of the family, the evolution of gender roles, and attitudes to sexuality in general”(p. 2).
Although our attention here focuses on debate over public policy, we must bear in mind that the substance of persuasive discourse produced in these debates bubbles up from our most fundamental cultural assumptions. Further, these beliefs and myths are dynamically created. They are not only the artifacts of the past, but a continuing creation produced through cultural production and struggle. Mass media, for instance, creates representations of gay and lesbian persons which then become suppositions in political discourse. Vito Russo (1987) in his analysis of lesbian [Page xxii]and gay characters in film demonstrates the presence (and absence) of a range of images which flicker through popular culture. Similarly, sociologist Joshua Gamson (1998) shows how the changing guidelines for success in reaching mass audiences create new rules for understanding the behavior of both progay and antigay advocates. More generally, as philosopher Morris Kaplan (1997) points out, “a distinctive feature of modernity is that it supplements the juridical and repressive model of state action with a pervasive system of social relations that produces new institutional settings, modes of knowledge, and forms of subjectivity”(p. 71). Despite our emphasis on politics and the law, the widest definition of our topic is the creation of new social contexts, knowledges, and subjects through political communication. We do not avoid a discussion of cultural issues. Instead, we are focusing on the political aspects of the culture, including those fundamental beliefs which undergird the appeals and strategies which recurrently are expressed in the variant sexuality controversy. We leave to others the equally important subject of the influence of popular culture on political outcomes.
Our concentration on the process of antagonistic enjoinment further limits systematic discussion of the many factors which produced particular patterns of appeal and representation. A comprehensive account of discourse on variant sexuality public discourse would take into consideration the availability of models for imitation, adaptation to specific political opportunities, motives other than those involved in confrontation, and, perhaps of greatest importance, variation among institutional contexts in which progay and antigay discourses are produced.
On a variety of occasions throughout this analysis, we place adversarial influence within institutional context. For instance, institutional setting is important for the emergence of the progay/antigay contest, for the secularization of antigay rhetoric, for the production of different progay self-representations, and for the essentialization of gay identity in formal deliberative debate. Beyond this, we recognize that different institutional environments distribute power in unequal ways; they constitute diverse primary audiences and establish conflicting standards of rationality and acceptability. In brief, they encourage particular rhetorical strategies and discourage others. A comprehensive interpretation of discourse on variant sexuality would give prominence to such institutional influences. Our interest in foregrounding the effects of the antagonistic interdependence of progay and antigay advocates, however, leads us in this monograph to place institutional contexts in the background. This should not imply, [Page xxiii]however, that such contextual influence is beside the point of our analysis, but merely often in shadows around our main point.
Language, the most salient feature of culture, simultaneously enables and obscures public policy debate about variant sexuality. Discussions about the regulation of sexuality are conducted in a variety of lexicons which are deployed as weapons in struggles over specific issues. Each key word and phrase which threads through variant sexuality public issue contests contains a history, a strategy, and a critique. Choice of terms for use in engaging in public argument and for describing public discussion invariably signifies a commitment to a contested position and to a particular way of understanding sexuality. Among the crucial terms that come to mind is “variant sexuality,”a frequently used phrase which has the virtue of nonjudgmental neutrality and inclusiveness. The term, however, could conceivably include groups such as pedophiles, a classification to which many gay activists would object. The word “sodomite”invokes a long history of denunciation and criminalization of sexuality. “Homosexual”is generally believed to medicalize same-sex erotic behavior, connoting the sense of pathology and possible treatment. The term “homosexuality”also sets up a homosexual/heterosexual binary which falsely structures perception of sexuality. Others object that “homosexual”wrongly constitutes a type of person rather than rightly naming only a behavior.
“Gay”or “lesbians and gay men”are terms often derided as being non-descriptive, opportunistically invented for political reasons, or too prescriptive of the kinds of persons named. The addition of “transgender”has the ambiguity of describing not only lesbians and gay men but cross-dressing heterosexuals. The term “bisexual”has been objected to on the grounds that it truly describes no actual sexual actors and that it inconveniently focuses attention on behavior rather than a fundamental class of persons. “Sexual orientation”is a generally accepted term, even though there has been objection that it is an ill-defined concept which naturalizes a certain kind of person. The word “queer,”recently favored by some progay advocates and academics for its virtue of inclusiveness as well as its function both in reversing the valence of a traditional epithet and in subverting the received sexual order, is offensive to many lesbians and gay men precisely because it has long been used as a term of opprobrium, inviting discrimination and violence.
The language used to name those who oppose gay/lesbian political action is no less a terminological minefield. A number of terms imply that religion is the origin of antigay sentiment. Words such as “fundamentalist,” [Page xxiv]“evangelical,”and “new religious right”are frequently used pejoratively for individuals who oppose homosexual movements. However, such terms leave out opposition justified on secular grounds and suggest that religious opponents are merely a radical minority. The term “homophobe”to describe an individual who either dislikes homosexuals or opposes gay political action can be attacked as pathologizing proper moral views, as a diagnosis without basis, and as a mere epithet. “Bigot”and its variants has been frequently employed by progay advocates to describe their opponents, and has been rejected as simple name-calling by individuals who define themselves as “people of faith.”
There is no means through which to compromise the innumerable semantic disagreements which mine the battlefield of public policy whose subject is same-sex sex. These disagreements are, in fact, useful artifacts marking boundaries between opposed groups as well as indicators of the deployment of particular rhetorical strategies. In examining these public policy debates, some conventions of usage, even though arbitrary, might provide clarity and consistency. In general, we propose to use the terms “progay”and “antigay”to denote opposing sides in public policy debate. Variants of the term “gay and lesbian”will refer to homosexuals within progay discourse. Similarly, the term “homosexual”will be used during analysis of antigay advocacy. Antigay advocates frequently will be called “traditionalists,”a neutral term which suggests that antigay impulses have origin in both secular and religious beliefs.
References[Page 203]1985). Structural foundations of the gay world. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 27, 658–671. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0010417500011701(1987). The rise of a gay and lesbian movement. Boston: Twayne.(1999). Moral regulation and the disintegrating Canadian state. In B. DAdam, J. W.Duyvendak & A.Krouwel (Eds.), The global emergence of gay and lesbian politics: National imprints of a worldwide movement (pp. 12–29). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.(1999). Introduction. In B. DAdam, J. W.Duyvendak & A.Krouwel (Eds.), The global emergence of gay and lesbian politics: National imprints of a worldwide movement (pp. 1–9). Philadelphia: Temple University Press., , & (1990). The politics of righteousness: Idaho Christian patriotism. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.(1980). What changed in the seventies. In Gay Left Collective (Ed.), Homosexuality: Power and politics (pp. 52–63). London: Allison and Busby.(1996). Straight news: Gays, lesbians, and the news media. New York: Columbia University Press.(American Civil Liberties Union. (1998). Statewide anti-gay marriage laws. [On-line]. Retrieved in 1998 from http://www.aclu.org/issues/gay/gaymar.html.1995). African identities. In L.Nicholson & S.Seidman (Eds.), Social postmodernism (pp. 103–115). New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511520792.006([Page 204]1998, November 23). California to vote on gay marriages. New York Times, p. A12.(1999). Biological exuberance: Animal homosexuality and natural diversity. New York: St. Martin's Press.(We are everywhere: Historical sourcebook of gay and lesbian politics (pp. 234–236). New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1949).1955). Homosexuality and the western Christian tradition. Boston: Beacon Press.(1997). The issue culture of the gay and lesbian religious controversy in the age of AIDS: Moral argumentation in American mainline religious communities as a symbolic contest between competing interpretations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: Temple University, Philadelphia.(1997). Preservation of innocence. In M.Blasius & S.Phelan (Eds.), Balmer, R. (1989). Mine eyes have seen the glory: A journey into the evangelical subculture in America. New York: Oxford University Press.(1984). Culture, myth, and ideology as public argument: An interpretation of the ascent and demise of “southern culture.”Communication Monographs, 51, 339–352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390206(1991). “Levellers”: The economic reduction of political equality in the Putney debates, 1647. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 77, 427–445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335639109383972(1993). A place at the table: The gay individual in American society. New York: Simon & Schuster.(1981). Homosexuality and American psychiatry: The politics of diagnosis. New York: Basic Books.(1995). From stuck debate to new conversation on controversial issues: A report from the Public Conversations Project. Journal of Feminist Therapy, 7(1/2), 143–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J086v07n01_14, , , , & (1993). Frame disputes within the nuclear disarmament movement. Social Forces, 71, 677–701.(1992). Dramaturgy and social movements: The social construction and communication of power. Sociological Inquiry, 7, 36–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1992.tb00182.x, & (1966). Identity as a problem in the sociology of knowledge. European Journal of Sociology, 7, 105–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003975600001351(1998, June 30). Flurry of anti-gay remarks has G.O.P. fearing backlash. New York Times, pp. A1, A19.(1997). Celebration and suppression: The strategic uses of identity by the lesbian and gay movement. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 531–565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/231250(1995). Homos. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1980). The politics of autonomy. In Gay Left Collective (Ed.), Homosexuality: Power and politics (pp.85–92). London: Allison & Busby.(1994). The anti-abortion movement and the rise of the religious right: From polite to fiery protest. New York: Twayne.([Page 205]1994). Gay and lesbian politics: Sexuality and the emergence of a new ethic. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.(1997). ONE. In M.Blasius & S.Phelan (Eds.), We are everywhere: A historical sourcebook of gay and lesbian politics (p. 309). New York: Routledge., & (1992). Introduction. In W. J.Blumenfeld (Ed.), Homophobia: How we all pay the price (pp. 1–19). Boston: Beacon Press.(1986). Social movements and political power: Emerging forms of radicalism in the West. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.(1996). Privacy and the politics of intimate life. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.(1996). Slouching toward Gomorrah: Modern liberalism and American decline. New York: Regan Books.(1980). Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality: Gay people in western Europe from the beginning of the Christian era to the fourteenth century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1990). Categories, experience and sexuality. In E.Stein (Ed.), Forms of desire: Sexual orientation and the social constructionist controversy (pp. 133–173). New York: Garland.(1994). Same-sex unions in premodern Europe. New York: Villard Books.(1991). Language and symbolic power. Oxford: Polity Press.(1994). Structures, habitus, power: Basis for a theory of symbolic power. In D. B.Dirks, G.Eley, & S. B.Ortner (Eds.), Culture/power/history: A reader in contemporary social theory (pp. 155–199). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.(1996). Postmodernism and queer identity. In S.Seidman (Ed.), Queer theory/sociology (pp. 333–361). Cambridge: Blackwell.(1984). Culture clash: Making of a gay sensibility. Boston: South End.(1995). Sexual liberation versus identity politics. Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review, 2(1), 23–25.(1998). The pleasure principle: Sex, backlash, and the struggle for gay freedom. New York: St. Martin's Press.(1998, July 10). Moral majority: Lott ignites firestorm by mixing religion & politics. Frontiers, p. 17.(1996, Fall). Class politics versus identity politics. The Public Interest, pp. 116–124.(1994). Fundamentalism and the control of women. In J. S.Hawley (Ed.), Fundamentalism and gender (pp.175–201). New York: Oxford University Press.(1993). The culture of desire: Paradox and perversity in gay lives today. New York: Crown.(1981). Ideologies in two gay rights controversies. In J. W.Chesebro (Ed.), Gayspeak: Gay male and lesbian communication (pp. 291–302). New York: Pilgrim.(1977). The Anita Bryant story: The survival of our nation's families and the threat of militant homosexuality. Old Tappan, NJ: Revell.([Page 206]1997, June 10). Adultery issue is America's religious war. Los Angeles Times, p. B7.(1981). Ho hum, another work of the devil: Buggery and sodomy in early Stuart England. In S. J.Licata & R. P.Peterson (Eds.), Historical perspectives on homosexuality (pp. 69–78). New York: Haworth Press.(1970). The rhetoric of moral conflict: Two critical dimensions. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 56, 120–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335637009382993(1952). A rhetoric of motives. New York: Prentice Hall.(1959). Attitudes toward history. Boston: Beacon Press. (Original work published 1937).(1966). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and methodBerkeley, CA: University of California Press.(1968). Interaction: Dramatism. In D. L.Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (pp. 445–452). New York: Crowell Collier Macmillan.(1994). Petition drives: Pros and cons. [Online]. Retrieved January 1995 from http://www.cyberzine.org/html/RRight/watch129b.(1995). Setting the record straight: What research really says about the social consequences of homosexuality. Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family.(1997). Private lives, public conflicts: Battles over gay rights in American communities. Washington, DC: CQ Press., , & (1993). Community organizing and the religious right: Lessons from Oregon's Measure Nine campaign. Radical America, 24(4), 67–83.(1994a). Preface. In C.Calhoun (Ed.), Social theory and the politics of identity (pp. 1–7). Oxford: Blackwell.(1994b). Social theory and the politics of identity. In C.Calhoun (Ed.), Social theory and the politics of identity (pp. 9–36). Oxford: Blackwell.(1994). The religious right: The assault on tolerance & pluralism in America. New York: Anti-Defamation League.(1992). The new religious right: Piety, patriotism, and politics. Chapel Hill, NC: University of South Carolina Press.(1993). The culture of disbelief: How American law and politics trivialize religious devotion. New York: Basic Books.(1983). A confrontation perspective on the study of social movements. Central States Speech Journal, 34, 69–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510978309368116(1995). The ethics of marginality: A new approach to gay studies. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.(1987). Constitutive rhetoric: The case of the Peuple Quebecois. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 73, 133–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335638709383799(1994). Gay New York: Gender, urban culture, and the making of the gay male world, 1890–1940. New York: Basic Books.(1994). Reflections on gay and lesbian rhetoric. In R. J.Ringer (Ed.), Queer words, queer images: Communication and the construction of homosexuality (pp. 77–88). New York: New York University Press.([Page 207]1992). “I am what I am” (or am I?): The making and unmaking of lesbian and gay identity in High Tech Gays. Discourse, 15, (1), 11–26., & (1995). Sex, lies, and civil rights: A critical history of the Massachusetts gay civil rights bill. In D.Herman & C.Stychin (Eds.), Legal inversions: Lesbians, gay men, and the politics of law (pp. 141–161). Philadelphia: Temple University Press., , & (1999). Out for good: The struggle to build a gay rights movement in America. New York: Simon & Schuster., & (1993, January 27). Lawmakers revolt over plan to lift ban on gay service. New York Times, pp. A1, A8.(1980). The politics of gay culture. In Gay Left Collective (Ed.), Homosexuality: Power and politics (pp. 172–186). London: Allison & Busby., & (1985). Strategy or identity: New theoretical paradigms and contemporary social movements. Social Research, 52, 663–716.(Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate. (1996, July 11). Hearing on S. 1740: A bill to define and protect the institution of marriage. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.1987). Crafting virtue: The rhetorical construction of public morality. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 73, 79–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335638709383795(1990). Decoding abortion rhetoric: Communicating social change. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.(1991). The rhetoric of equality and the expatriation of African-Americans, 1776–1826. Communication Studies, 42, 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510979109368318, & (1993). Crafting equality: America's Anglo-African word. Chicago: University of Chicago Press., & (Congressional Record. (1996). 11 July: H7441-H7449; 12 July: H7481-H7506; 6 September: S9986-S10005; 10 September: S10100–10139.1991). Identity/difference: Democratic negotiations of political paradox. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.(1983). The rhetoric of the moral majority: An analysis of romantic form. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69, 159–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335638309383644(1995). “Getting the family right”: Legislating heterosexuality in Britain, 1986–91. In D.Herman & C.Stychin (Eds.), Legal inversions: Lesbians, gay men, and the politics of law (pp. 162–211). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.& (1983). Nomos and narrative. Harvard Law Review, 97, 4–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1340787(1993, May 10). Gay glue. New Republic, p. 18.(1985). Byron and Greek love: Homophobia in 19th-century England. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.(1992). The gay and lesbian liberation movement. New York: Routledge, Chapman & Hall.(1985). Resolving the paradox in politicized Christian fundamentalism. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 49, 248–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570318509374201, , & ([Page 208]1995). Identity strategies: Representing pregnancy and homosexuality. In D.Danielson & K.Engle (Eds.), After identity: A reader in law and culture (pp. 39–60). New York: Routledge.(1995). Introduction. In D.Danielson & K.Engle (Eds.), After identity: A reader in law and culture (pp. i–xviii). New York: Routledge., & (1989). Shadow in the land: Homosexuality in America. San Francisco: Ignatius Press.(1991). From “gay is good” to the scourge of AIDS: The evolution of gay liberation rhetoric. Communication Studies, 42, 43–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510979109368320(1994). “Die non”: Gay liberation and the rhetoric of pure tolerance. In R. J.Ringer (Ed.), Queer words, queer images: Communication and the construction of homosexuality (pp. 45–76). New York: New York University Press.(1997). The prophetic tradition and radical rhetoric in America. New York: New York University Press.(1993). Coming out of homosexuality: New freedom for men and women. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press., & (1991). Who is black: One nation's definition. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.(1981). Definition and meaning of sexual orientation. Journal of Homosexuality, 6(4), 51–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v06n04_04(1993). A critique and synthesis of biological essentialism and social constructionist views of sexuality and gender. Journal of Homosexuality, 24(3/4), 1–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v24n03_01, & (Defense of Marriage Act. (1996). [Online]. Retrieved February 1997 from http://www.hrcusa.org/issues/leg/doma/billtext.html.1983). Sexual politics, sexual communities: The making of a homosexual minority in the United States, 1940–1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1989a). Gay politics and community in San Francisco since World War II. In M. B.Duberman, M.Vicinus, & G.Chauncey (Eds.), Hidden from history: Reclaiming the gay and lesbian past (pp. 456–473). New York: New American Library.(1989b). The homosexual menace: The politics of sexuality in cold war America. In K.Peiss & C.Simmons (Eds.), Passion and power: Sexuality in history (pp. 226–240). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.(1992). Making trouble: Essays on gay history, politics, and the university. New York: Routledge.(1989). Spiritual warfare: The politics of the Christian Right. Boston: South End Press.(1995). Roads to dominion: Right wing movements and political power in the United States. New York: Guilford Press.(1993). After the cold war: Culture as politics, politics as culture. Social Research, 60, 531–544.([Page 209]1994). Introduction. In N. B.Dirks, G.Eley, & S. B.Ortner (Eds.), Culture/power/history: A reader in contemporary social theory (pp. 3–45). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press., , & (1990). Children at risk: The battle for the hearts and minds of our kids. Dallas, TX: Word Publishers., & (1997). Direct democracy and minority rights: Opinions on antigay and lesbian ballot initiatives. In S. L.Witt & S.McCorkle (Eds.), Anti-gay rights: Assessing voter initiatives (pp. 107–125). Westport, CT: Praeger., & (1978). Purity and danger: An analysis of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Original work published 1966).(1997). Taking the initiative: Anti-homosexual propaganda of the Oregon Citizen's Alliance. In S. L.Witt & S.McCorkle (Eds.), Anti-gay rights: Assessing voter initiatives (pp. 17–32). Westport, CT: Praeger.(1992). True to our tradition. In W. J.Blumenfeld (Ed.), Homophobia: How we all pay the price (pp. 187–204). Boston: Beacon Press.(1993). Stonewall. New York: Penguin.(1997). The Anita Bryant brigade. In M.Blasius & S.Phelan (Eds.), We are everywhere: Historical sourcebook of gay and lesbian politics (pp. 443–450). New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1977).(1995). Making it perfectly queer. In L.Duggan & N. D.Hunter (Eds.), Sex wars: Sexual dissent and political culture (pp. 155–172). New York: Routledge.(1990). Wrestling with the social boa constructor. In E.Stein (Ed.), Forms of desire: Sexual orientation and the social constructionist controversy (pp. 209–238). New York: Garland.(1995). Homosexual unmodified: Speculations on law's discourse, race, and the construction of sexual identity. In D.Herman & C.Stychin (Eds.), Sexual inversions: Lesbians, gay men, and the politics of law (pp. 46–73). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.(1997). A homosexual ghetto? In M.Blasius & S.Phelan (Eds.), We are everywhere: Historical sourcebook of gay and lesbian politics (pp. 340–343). New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1965).(1994). Homographesis: Essays in gay literary and cultural theory. New York: Routledge.(1964). The symbolic uses of politics. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.(1988). Constructing the political spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1993). The new politics of class: Social movements and cultural dynamics in advanced societies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1979). Sexuality and the state: The Briggs initiative and beyond. Socialist Review, 9(3), 55–72., & (1997). Understanding the dialectic of discourse and social action: Public debate and rioting in antebellum Cincinnati. In D.McAdam & D. A.Snow (Eds.), Social movements: Readings on their emergence, mobilization, and dynamics (pp. 268–280). Los Angeles: Roxbury Press.([Page 210]1997). Against gay marriage. In A.Sullivan (Ed.), Same-sex marriage: Pro and con (pp. 57–60). New York: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1991).(1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x(1990). Gay politics, ethnic identity: The limits of social constructionism. In E.Stein (Ed.), Forms of desire: Sexual orientation and the social constructionist controversy (pp. 239–293). New York: Garland.(1999). Gay and lesbian movements in the United States: Dilemmas of identity, diversity, and political strategy. In B. DAdam, J. W.Duyvendak & A.Krouwel (Eds.), The global emergence of gay and lesbian politics: National imprints of a worldwide movement (pp. 30–90). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.(1992). Generations and paradigms: Mainstreams in lesbian and gay studies. Journal of Homosexuality, 24, (1–2), 7–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v24n01_02(1996). The case for same-sex marriage: From sexual liberty to civilized commitment. New York: Free Press.(1997). Lesbian and bisexual identities: Constructing communities, constructing selves. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.(1992). Since when is marriage a path to liberation? In S.Sherman (Ed.), Lesbian and gay marriage (pp. 20–26). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.(1995). The gaze revisited, or reviewing queer viewing. In P.Burston & C.Richardson (Eds.), A queer romance: Lesbians, gay men and popular culture (pp. 13–56). New York: Routledge., & (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity.(1980). Listen America. New York: Bantam Books.(1981). The fundamentalist phenomenon: The resurgence of conservative Christianity. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.(1988). Cultures of solidarity: Consciousness, action, and contemporary American workers. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.(1994). Law, morality, and “sexual orientation.”Notre Dame Law Review, 69, 1049–1076.(1987). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.(1992). British cultural studies and television. In R. C.Allen (Ed.), Channels of discourse, reassembled ((2nd ed., pp. 284–326). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.1995). The Irish Supreme Court and the constitution of male homosexuality. In D.Herman & C.Stychin (Eds.), Legal inversions: Lesbians, gay men, and the politics of law (pp. 29–45). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.(1998). A loss that moves us forward, is in the end, a victory. Human Rights Campaign. [Online]. Retrieved September 1998 from http://www.hrcusa.org/issues/index.html.([Page 211]1990). The history of sexuality: An introduction. (R.Hurley, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1978).(1989). Unruly practices: Power, discourse, and gender in contemporary social theory. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.(1992). Collective identity and activism: Networks, choices, and the life of a social movement. In A. D.Morris & C. M.Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 156–173). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press., & (1997). Lesbian feminism and the gay rights movement: Another view of male supremacy, another separatism. In M.Blasius & S.Phelan (Eds.), We are everywhere: Historical sourcebook of gay and lesbian politics (pp. 499–510). New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1981).(1991). Inside/out. In DianeFuss (Ed.), Inside/out: Lesbian theories, gay theories (pp. 1–10). New York: Routledge.(1992). Reification in legal reasoning. In J.Boyle (Ed.), Critical legal studies (p. 18). New York: New York University Press. (Original work published 1980).(1994). The rise of fascism in America. In M.Thompson (Ed.), Long road to freedom: The Advocate history of the gay and lesbian movement (p. 396). New York: St. Martin's Press.(1996, July 23). Love & war. Advocate, pp. 22–28.(1996). Perfect enemies: The religious right, the gay movement, and the politics of the 1990sNew York: Crown., & (1989). Silence, death, and the invisible enemy: AIDS activism and social movement “newness.”Social Problems, 36, 351–367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sp.1989.36.4.03a00030(1995). Must identity movements self-destruct? A queer dilemma. Social Problems, 42, 390–406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sp.1995.42.3.03x0104z(1997). Messages of exclusion: Gender, movements, and symbolic boundaries. Gender & Society, 11, 178–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089124397011002003(1998). Freaks talk back: Tabloid talk shows and sexual nonconformity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1992a). The social psychology of collective action. In A. D.Morris & C. M.Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 53–76). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.(1992b). Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.(1996). Framing political opportunity. In D.McAdam, J. D.McCarthy, & M. N.Zald (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movement: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings (pp. 275–290). New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803987.014, & (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/229213, & (1992). Postmodernism, reason and religion. New York: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203410431(1998, September 1). Truth in advertising. Advocate, pp. 25–29.([Page 212]1981). Conceptions of homosexuality and sodomy in western history. In S. J.Licata & R. P.Peterson (Eds.), Historical perspectives on homosexuality (pp. 57–68). New York: Haworth Press.(1996). Introduction: The politics of passing. In E. K.Ginsberg (Ed.), Passing and the fictions of identity (pp. 1–18). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.(1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making & unmaking of the new leftBerkeley, CA: University of California Press.(1995). The twilight of common dreams: Why America is wracked by culture wars. New York: Metropolitan Books.(1991). Rights talk: The impoverishment of political discourse. New York: Free Press.(1997). The rhetoric of western thought (, , & (6th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.1996). The good book: Reading the Bible with mind and heart. New York: Morrow.(1983). No turning back: Lesbian and gay liberation for the ‘80s. Philadelphia: New Society., , , & (1993). Jesus acted up: A gay and lesbian manifesto. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.(1988). The construction of homosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1996). The essentialist roots of the public sphere: A feminist critique. Western Journal of Communication, 60, 21–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570319609374531(1952). The rhetoric of historical movements. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 38, 184–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335635209381762(1993). Contested closets: The politics and ethics of outing. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.(1989a). The bridge over separated lands: Kenneth Burke's significance for the study of social action. In H. W.Simons & T.Melia (Eds.), The legacy of Kenneth Burke (pp. 28–54). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.(1989b). Introduction. In J. R.Gusfield (Ed.), On symbols and society (pp. 1–49). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1996). The politics of the Christian Right. In J. C.Green, J. L.Guth, C. E.Smidt, & L. A.Kellstedt (Eds.), Religion and the culture wars: Dispatches from the front (pp. 7–30). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.(1999). Are you a social constructionist. Linguafranca: The Review of Academic Life, 9(4), 65–72.(1993). Deviance, politics, and the media. In H.Abelove, M. A.Barale, & D. M.Halperin (Eds.), The lesbian and gay studies reader (pp. 62–90). New York: Routledge.(1994). Reasoning about sodomy: Act and identity in and after Bowers v. Hardwick. Virginia Law Review, 79, 1721–1780. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1073385(1990). One hundred years of homosexuality: And other essays on Greek love. New York: Routledge.([Page 213]1995). Saint Foucault: Towards a gay hagiography. New York: Oxford University Press.(1991). Social movement theory and the sociology of religion: Toward a new synthesis. Sociological Analysis, 52, 311–331. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3710849(1993). The impact of fundamentalism on women, the family, and interpersonal relations. In M. E.Marty & R. S.Appleby (Eds.), Fundamentalisms and society: Reclaiming the sciences, the family and education (pp. 129–150). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1993, March). Constructing homophobia: Colorado's right-wing attack on homosexuals. Public Eye, pp. 1–10.(1997). Adam and Eve, not Adam and Henry. In R. M.Baird & S. E.Rosenbaum (Eds.), Same-sex marriage: The moral and legal debate (pp. 30–31). New York: Prometheus.(1994). Introduction. In J. S.Hawley (Ed.), Fundamentalism and gender (pp. 3–44). New York: Oxford University Press., & (1983). The struggle to define America. In R. C.Liebman & R.Wuthnow (Eds.), The new Christian Right: Mobilization and legitimation (pp. 133–148). New York: Aldine.(1995). Young man from the provinces: A gay life before Stonewall. New York: Faber & Faber.(1995). Queer visibility in commodity culture. In L.Nicholson & S.Seidman (Eds.), Social postmodernism (pp. 142–183). New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511520792.008(1992). Introduction: Culture, history, and life course of gay men. In G.Herdt (Ed.), Gay culture in America: Essays from the field (pp. 1–28). Boston: Beacon Press., & (1984). Beyond “homophobia:” A social psychological perspective on attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 10(1–2), 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v10n01_01(1994). Rights of passage: Struggles for lesbian and gay legal equality. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.(1997). The antigay agenda: Orthodox vision and the Christian right. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1993). The symbolic strategies of Chicago's gay and lesbian pride day parade. In G.Herdt (Ed.), Gay culture in America: Essays from the field (pp. 225–252). Boston: Beacon Press.(1997). The mythology of transgression: Homosexuality as metaphor. New York: Oxford University Press.(1983). The new right. In R. C.Liebman & R.Wuthnow (Ed.), The new Christian Right: Mobilization and legitimation (pp. 13–30). New York: Aldine.(1990). To the right: The transformation of American conservatism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.(1993). Language as ideology (, & ([Page 214]2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.1984). Vices, gods, and virtues: Cosmology as a mediating factor in attitudes toward male homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 9(2–3), 27–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v09n02_02(1957). The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. Journal of Projective Techniques, 21, 18–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08853126.1957.10380742(1994). A conflict of laws and morals: The choice of law implications of Hawaii's recognition of same-sex marriage. Maryland Law Review, 53, 450–493.(1994). Identity fields: Framing processes and the social construction of movement identities. In E.Larana, H.Johnston, & J. R.Gusfield (Eds.), New social movements: From ideology to identity (pp. 185–208). Philadelphia: Temple University Press., , & (1983a). American evangelicalism: Conservative religion and the quandry of modernity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.(1983b). The liberal reaction. In R. C.Liebman & R.Wuthnow (Eds.), The new Christian Right: Mobilization and legitimation (pp. 149–163). New York: Aldine.(1987). Evangelicalism: The coming generation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1991). Culture wars: The struggle to define America. New York: Basic Books.(1994). Before the shooting begins: Searching for democracy in America's culture war. New York: Free Press.(1990). Tradition and resurgence in American public address studies. In G. M.Phillips & J. T.Wood (Eds.), Speech communication: Essays to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Speech Communication Association (pp. 81–93). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press., & (Introduction. (1993). Radical America, 24(4), 1–13.1993). Introduction—feminist social theory. In S.Jackson, K.Atkinson, D.Beddoe, & T.Brewer (Eds.), Women's studies: Essential readings (pp. 3–7). New York: New York University Press.(1993). The rhetorical construction of rights: The case of the gay rights movement, 1969–1991. Nebraska Law Review, 72, 723–759.(Jeremiah Films. (1993). Gay rights, special rights: Inside the homosexual agenda. [Videocassette].1994). Identities, grievances, and new social movements. In E.Larana, H.Johnston, & J. R.Gusfield (Eds.), New social movements: From ideology to identity (pp. 3–35). Philadelphia: Temple University Press., , & (1993, July 19). The loving opposition: Speaking the truth in a climate of hate. Christianity Today, pp. 18–25.(1988). The abuse of casuistry: A history of moral reasoning. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press., & (1995). Cultural politics: Class, gender, race and the postmodern world. Cambridge: Blackwell., & (1994, September 12). Crosses to bear. New Republic, pp. 21–25.([Page 215]1997). The gay metropolis: 1940–1996. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.(1997). Gay is good. In M.Blasius & S.Phelan (Eds.), We are everywhere: Historical sourcebook of gay and lesbian politics (pp. 367–376). New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1969).(1997). Letter to the queer generation. In M.Blasius & S.Phelan (Eds.), We are everywhere: Historical sourcebook of gay and lesbian politics (pp. 812–817). New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1992).(1997). Sexual justice: Democratic citizenship and the politics of desire. New York: Routledge.(1990). The anti-politics of identity. Socialist Review, 20, 67–80.(1995). The populist persuasion: An American history. New York: Basic Books.(1995). Aloha, Marriage? Constitutional and choice of law arguments for recognition of same-sex marriages. Stanford Law Review, 47, 499–532. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1229088(1998). Strangers to the law: Gay people on trial. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press., & (1996). Religious voting blocs in the 1992 election: The year of the evangelical. In J. C.Green, J. L.Guth, C. E.Smidt, & L. A.Kellstedt (Eds.), Religion and the culture wars: Dispatches from the front (pp. 267–290). New York: Rowman & Littlefield., , , & (1995). The political struggle of active homosexuals to gain social acceptance. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press.(1993). Boots of leather, slippers of gold: The history of a lesbian community. New York: Routledge., & (1993). Sexual balkanization: Gender and sexuality as the new ethnicities. Social Research, 60, 571–587.(1998). Fractured dance: Steps and missteps in conversation and in application of Gadamer to a Mennonite debate on homosexuality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia.(1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders., , & (1998, November 24). From soft words to hard fists. Advocate, pp. 39–41.(1989). After the ball: How America will conquer its fear and hatred of gays in the ‘90s. New York: Doubleday., & (1987). The social construction of lesbianism. London: Sage.(1992). The social construction of protest and multiorganizational fields. In A. D.Morris & C. M.Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 77–103). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.(1987). Women of the new right. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.(1989). Rhetorical criticism as moral action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 75, 84–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335638909383863, & (1997a). How domestic partnerships and “gay marriage” threaten the family. In R. M.Baird & S. E.Rosenbaum (Eds.), Same-sex marriage: The moral and legal debate (pp. 108–121). New York: Prometheus.([Page 216]1997b). Mom-and-dad homes help mold healthy kids. In T. L.Roleff (Ed.), Gay rights (pp. 84–89). San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.(1997). Same-sex marriage, conflict of laws, and the unconstitutional policy exception. Yale Law Journal, 106, 1965–2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/797159(1998, October 26). The new gay struggle. Time, pp. 33–36.(1978). The unhappy gays: What everyone should know about homosexuality. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale.(1980). The battle for the mind. Old Tappan, NY: Revelle.(1982). The battle for the family. Old Tappan, NY: Revelle.(1994). A nation without a conscience. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House., & (1984). Order and disorder in anti-abortion rhetoric: A logological view. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 425–433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335638409383708(1997). I am glad I am a homosexual. In M.Blasius & S.Phelan (Eds.), We are everywhere: Historical sourcebook of gay and lesbian politics (pp. 323–326). New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1958).(Let them wed. (1996, January 6). The Economist, pp. 13–14.1996). Queer science: The use and abuse of research into homosexuality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(1995). City of friends: A portrait of the gay and lesbian community in America. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press., & (1997). The Constitution as rhetorical symbol in western anti-gay rights initiatives. In S. L.Witt and S.McCorkle (Eds.), Anti-gay rights: Assessing voter initiatives (pp. 33–49). Westport, CT: Praeger.(1992). The life and death of gay clones. In G.Herdt (Ed.), Gay culture in America: Essays from the field (pp. 68–86). Boston: Beacon Press.(1988). The psychoanalytic theory of male homosexuality. New York: New American Library.(1981). The homosexual rights movement in the United States: A traditionally overlooked area of American history. In S. J.Licata & R. P.Peterson (Eds.), Historical perspectives on homosexuality (pp. 161–189). New York: Haworth Press.(1993). Redeeming America: Piety and politics in the new Christian Right. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.(1970). The politics of unreason. New York: Harper & Row., & (1982). Counter-movements and conservative movements in the contemporary U.S. Annual Review of Sociology, 8, 107–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.08.080182.000543(1998). The other side of silence: Men's lives and gay identities: A twentieth-century history. New York: Henry Holt.(1989). Screens of power: Ideology, domination, and resistance in informational society. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.(1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.(1985). Are “gay rights” right? A report on homosexuality and the law. St. Paul, MN: Berean League Fund.([Page 217]1994). Informed answers to gay rights questions. Sisters, OR: Multnomah Press.(1993, April 18). The odd place of homosexuality in the military. New York Times, Section 4: pp. A1, A3.(1993). Coming of age. In E.Marcus (Ed.), Making history: The struggle for gay and lesbian rights, 1945–1990 (pp. 257–259). New York: Harper Perennial.(1988). The stigmatization of the gay and lesbian adolescent. Journal of Homosexuality, 15 (1–2), 163–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v15n01_12, & (1984). Fundamentalism as a social phenomenon. In G.Marsden (Ed.), Evangelicalism and modern America (pp. 56–68). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.(1993). Introduction: A sacred cosmos, scandalous code, defiant society. In M. E.Marty & R. S.Appleby (Eds.), Fundamentalism and society: Reclaiming the sciences, the family, and America (pp. 1–19). Chicago: University of Chicago Press., & (1990). Sex, gender, and the politics of ERA: A state and the nation. New York: Oxford University Press.& (1994). Culture and social movements. In E.Larana, H.Johnston, & J. R.Gusfield (Eds.), New social movements: From ideology to identity (pp. 36–57). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.(1996). Conceptual origins, current problems, future directions. In D.McAdam, J. D.McCarthy, & M. N.Zald (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings (pp. 23–40). New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803987.003(1997). Introduction—social movements: Conceptual and theoretical issues. In D.McAdam & D. A.Snow (Eds.), Social movements: Readings on their emergence, mobilization, and dynamics (pp. xviii–xxvi). Los Angeles: Roxbury Press., & (1987). The trend of social movements in America: Professionalization and resource mobilization. In M. N.Zald & J. D.McCarthy (Eds.), Social movements in an organizational society: Collected essays (pp. 337–391). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books., & (1997). Fear and loathing on the editorial page: An analysis of Idaho's anti-gay initiative. In S. L.Witt & S.McCorkle (Eds.), Anti-gay rights: Assessing voter initiatives (pp. 63–76). Westport, CT: Praeger., & (McDonald, H. (Producer). (1994). Ballot Measure 9. [Videocassette].1975). In search of “the people”: A rhetorical alternative. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61, 235–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335637509383289(1980a). “Social movement”: Phenomenon or meaning. Central States Speech Journal, 31, 233–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510978009368063(1980b). The “ideograph”: A link between rhetoric and ideology. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335638009383499(1990). The text, context, and the fragmentation of contemporary culture. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 274–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570319009374343([Page 218]1983). Public knowledge and ideological argumentation. Communication Monographs, 50, 47–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637758309390153, & (1990). The homosexual role. In E.Stein (Ed.), Forms of desire: Sexual orientation and the social constructionist controversy (pp. 25–42). New York: Routledge.(1981). Aftervirtue: A study in moral theory. London: Duckworth.(1989). Critical rhetoric: Theory and praxis. Speech Monographs, 56, 91–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637758909390253(1988). The church and the homosexual ((3rd ed.). Boston: Beacon Press.1982). The First Amendment vs. human rights: A case study in community sentiment and argument from definition. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46, 1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570318209374061(1985). The symbolic challenge of contemporary movements. Social Research, 52, 781–816.(1996). Movements, countermovements, and the structure of political opportunity. American Journal of Sociology, 101, 1628–1660. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/230869, & (1980). Homosexuality and liberation: Elements of a gay critique. London: Gay Men's Press. (Original work published 1970).(1998). Freedom to differ: The shaping of the gay and lesbian struggle for civil rights. New York: New York University Press.(1996). Gay white males: PC's unseen target. In B.Bawer (Ed.), Beyond queer: Challenging gay left orthodoxy (pp. 24–37). New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1994).(1998, June 16). Gay behavior is described as sin by Lott. New York Times, p. A24.(1992). The Christian Right in the United States. In M. C.Moen & L. S.Gustafson (Eds.), The religious challenge to the state (pp. 75–101). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.(1988). Gays/justice: A study of ethics, society, and law. New York: Columbia University Press.(1992). Gay ideas: Outing and other controversies. Boston: Beacon Press.(1994). A more perfect union: Why straight America must stand up for gay rights. Boston: Beacon Press.(1993). Constructing community: Moral pluralism and tragic conflicts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.(1995). Feminism, citizenship, and radical democratic politics. In L.Nicholson & S.Seidman (Eds.), Social postmodernism (pp. 315–331). New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511520792.013(1994). Constructing ethnicity: Creating and recreating ethnic identity and culture. Social Problems, 41, 152–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sp.1994.41.1.03x0430n(1994). Why gay rights matter to America. New York: St. Martin's Press., & ([Page 219]1984). The naked public square: Religion and democracy in America. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.(1995). Introduction. In L.Nicholson & S.Seidman (Eds.), Social postmodernism (pp. 1–35). New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511520792.002, & (1991). Reparative therapy of male homosexuality: A new clinical approach. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.(1994). Intolerance: A general survey. (A.Bennett, Trans). Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.(1992). Mother Clap's molly house: The gay subculture in England 1700–1830. London: GMP Publishers.(Notebook. (1994, November 14). New Republic, p. 8.1993). Social movements: Ideologies, interests, and identities. New Brunswick: Transaction.(1994). Entanglements of consumption, cruelty, privacy, and fashion: The social controversy over fur. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 80, 249–276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335639409384072, & (Orlando on God's hit list, Robertson says. (1998, June 10). Los Angeles Times, p. A15.1993). Creating controversy: Essentialism and constructivism and the politics of gay identity. Virginia Law Review, 79, 1833–1857. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1073388(1989). Gay villain, gay hero: Homosexuality and the social construction of AIDS. In K.Peiss & C.Simmons (Eds.), Passion and power: Sexuality in history (pp. 293–313). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.(1990). Sexual matters: On conceptualizing sexuality in history. In E.Stein (Ed.), Forms of desire: Sexual orientation and the social constructionist controversy (pp. 43–67). New York: Garland.(1993). Tremble, hetero swine. In M.Warner (Ed.), Fear of a queer planet: Queer politics and social theory (pp. 143–177). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.(1992, December). Straight talk about gays. Commentary, pp. 21–24.(1989). Communication and the human condition. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.(1997). Moral conflict: When social worlds collide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage., & (1987). The new Christian Right and the humanist response: Reciprocated diatribe. Communication Quarterly, 35, 171–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463378709369679, , & (1992. S(h)ifting the terms of hetero/sexism: Gender, power, homophobia. In W. J.Blumenfeld (Ed.), Homophobia: How we all pay the price (pp. 39–56). Boston: Beacon Press.People for the American Way (Producer). (1994). Religious right: Then and now [Videocassette].1996). Intolerance of, discrimination against, and the death penalty for homosexuals is prescribed in the Bible. [Online]. Retrieved March 1997 from http://www.kansas.net/7Esfa/files/homo.html.([Page 220]1989). Identity politics: Lesbian feminism and the limits of community. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.(1994). Getting specific: Postmodern lesbian politics. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.(1994b, January 26). The man behind the myths: A report on the chief anti-gay researcher of the religious right. LCR Briefing, pp. 1–13.(1994a, October 3). Queer science. New Republic, pp. 10–12.(1975). Sexual stigma: An interactionist account. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.(1977, October). The culture of appeasement. Harper's, pp. 25–32.(1996, November). How the gay-rights movement won. Commentary, pp. 32–41.(1993). We will get what we ask for: Why legalizing gay and lesbian marriage will not dismantle the legal structure of gender in every marriage. Virginia Law Review, 79, 1535–1550. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1073381(1992). Sex and reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1993, Summer). Homosexuality, the Bible, and us—a Jewish perspective. Public Interest, pp. 60–83.(Prejudice against homosexuals. (1997). In M.Blasius & S.Phelan (Eds.), We are everywhere: Historical sourcebook of gay and lesbian politics (pp. 229–330). New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1932).1993). Against nature?: Types of moral argumentation regarding homosexuality. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.(1996, September 22). Gay rights groups attack Clinton after midnight signing. New York Times, p. A22.(1996). Same-sex dynamics among nineteenth-century Americans: A Mormon example. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.(1984). The contemporary American abortion controversy: Stages in the argument. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 410–424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335638409383707(1995). Just framing: Ethnicities and racisms in a “postmodern” framework. In L.Nicholson & S.Seidman (Eds.), Social postmodernism (pp. 250–286). New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511520792.011(1996, May 6). For better or worse?New Republic, 18–23.(1993). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.(1994). Politically incorrect: The emerging faith factor in American politics. Dallas, TX: Word Publishing.(1996). Active faith: How Christians are changing the soul of American politics. New York: Free Press.(1992). Fifteen jugglers, five believers: Literary politics and the poetics of American social movements. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.(1992, January 8). Homocons: The march of the pink elephants. New Republic, pp. 30–31.(1996, May 25). I got you, babe. New York Times, p. 15.(1998, December 5). The family research charade. New York Times, p. A13.([Page 221]1998). Women, gays, and the constitution: The grounds for feminism and gay rights in culture and law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1994). Political tolerance of homosexuals: The role of group attitudes and legal principles. Journal of Homosexuality, 26, (4), 135–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v26n04_08, & (1996). Reviving the tribe: Regenerating gay men's sexuality and culture in the ongoing epidemic. New York: Harrington Park Press.(1996). Displacing desire: Passing, nostalgia, and Giovanni's Room. In E. K.Ginsberg (Ed.), Passing and the fictions of identity (pp. 218–233). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.(1995a). Introduction. In J.Roof & R.Wiegman (Eds.), Who can speak: Authority and critical identity (pp. ix–xi). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press., & (1995b). Partially speaking. In J.Roof & R.Wiegman (Eds.), Who can speak: Authority and critical identity (pp. 93–95). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press., & (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804397(1992). Post-modernism and the social sciences: Insights, inroads, and intrusions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.(1993). Thinking sex. Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In H.Abelove, M. A.Barale, & D. M.Halperin (Eds.), The lesbian and gay studies reader (pp. 3–44). New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1982).(1982). The homosexual network: Private lives and public policy. Old Greenwich, CT: Devin Adair.(1988). Homosexuality: A philosophical inquiry. London: Blackwell.(1987). The celluloid closet: Homosexuality in the movies ((Rev. ed.). New York: Harper & Row.1996). Dissent. Supreme Court Register, 116, 1629–1637.(1994). The gay civil rights debate in the states: Decoding the discourse of equivalents. Harvard Civil Rights—Civil Liberties Law Review, 29, 283–317.(1982). A Christian manifesto. ((Rev. ed.). Westchester, IL: Crossways Books.1993, January 27). Military cites wide range of reasons for its gay ban. New York Times, pp. A1, A8.(1994). My American history: Lesbian and gay life during the Reagan/Bush years. New York: Routledge.(1990). Ideology and the new social movements. London: Unwin Hyman.(1993). How to bring your kids up gay. In M.Warner (Ed.), Fear of a queer planet: Queer politics and social theory (pp. 69–81). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.(1993). Identity and politics in a “postmodern” gay culture: Some historical and conceptual notes. In M.Warner (Ed.), Fear of a queer planet: Queer politics and social theory (pp. 105–142). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.([Page 222]1995). Deconstructing queer theory or the under-theorization of the social and the ethical. In L.Nicholson & S.Seidman (Eds.), Social postmodernism (pp. 116–141). New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511520792.007(1996). Introduction. In S.Seidman (Ed.), Queer theory/sociology (pp. 1–29). Cambridge: Blackwell.(Sexual orientation and the law. (1990). (Eds.), Harvard Law Review. Cambridge: Havard University Press.1997). No longer a sleeping giant: The re-awakening of religious conservatives in American politics. In S. L.Witt & S.McCorkle (Eds.), Anti-gay rights: Assessing voter initiatives (pp. 7–16). Westport, CT: Praeger.(1989). Introduction. In S.Shepherd & M.Wallis (Eds.), Coming on strong: Gay politics and culture (pp. 1–21). London: Unwin Hyman., & (1993). Conduct unbecoming: Gays & lesbians in the U.S. military. New York: St. Martin's Press.(1991). Earth First! and the rhetoric of moral confrontation. Communication Studies, 42, 172–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510979109368331(1991). Lesbian and gay rights as a free speech issue: A review of relevant caselaw. Journal of Homosexuality, 21(1–2), 203–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v21n01_14(1993). Queer in America: Sex, sin, the media and the closets of power. New York: Random House.(1991). Psychotherapy and psychotherapists: A history. In C.Silverstein (Ed.), Gays, lesbians, and their therapists: Studies in psychotherapy (pp. 1–15). New York: Norton.(1998, April). Do you take this person? The Constitution and same-sex marriage. Paper presented at the Western Political Science Association Conference, Denver, CO.(1970). Requirements, problems, and strategies: A theory of persuasion for social movements. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 56, 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335637009382977(1994). “Going meta”: Definition and political applications. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 80, 468–481. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335639409384088(1983). Moral issues and status politics. In R. C.Liebman & R.Wuthnow (Eds.), The new Christian Right: Mobilization and legitimation (pp. 187–205). New York: Aldine.(1992). Fundamentalism in America revisited: The fading of modernity as a source of symbolic capital. In B.Misztal & A.Shupe (Eds.), Religion and politics in comparative perspective: Revival of religious fundamentalism in East and West (pp. 10–27). Westport, CT: Praeger.(1994). Cultural politics—Queer reading. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.(1995). In defense of Queer Nation: From identity politics to a politics of difference. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 85–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570319509374510(1994). New right discourse on race & sexuality: Britain, 1968–1990. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511518676([Page 223]1997). Belief and resistance: Dynamics of contemporary intellectual controversy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1997). Secular anti-gay advocacy in the Springfield, Missouri, bias crime ordinance debate. In S. L.Witt & S.McCorkle (Eds.), Anti-gay rights: Assessing voter initiatives (pp. 95–106). Westport, CT: Praeger.(1975). The innovational movement: A rhetorical theory. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61, 140–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335637509383280, & (1993). Symbolic convergence and abolitionism: A terministic reinterpretation. Southern Communication Quarterly, 59, 45–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10417949309372921, & (1997). The progay and antigay issue culture: Interpretation, influence and dissent. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 63, 28–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335639709384170, & (1999). Identity in political context: Lesbian/gay representation in the public sphere. Journal of Homosexuality, 37(2), 25–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v37n02_02, & (1987). Identity work among the homeless: The verbal construction and avowal of personal identities. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1336–1371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/228668, & (1992). Master frames and cycles of protest. In A. D.Morris & C.McClurg Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 133–155). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press., & (1986). Frame alignment processes, micro-mobilization and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51, 464–481. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095581, , , & (1968). The overt homosexual. New York: Greene & Stratton.(1978). Homosexuality. New York: Jason Aronson.(1995). Homosexuality: A freedom too far. Phoenix, AZ: Adam Margrave.(1993). The things we study: Texts and their interaction. Communication Monographs, 60, 62–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637759309376295(1994). Reclaiming the epistemological “other”: Narrative and the social constitution of identity. In C.Calhoun (Ed.), Social theory and the politics of identity (pp. 37–99). Oxford: Blackwell., & (1993). Outside the teaching machine. New York: Routledge.(1996). “I can't even think straight:” “Queer” theory and the missing sexual revolution in sociology. In S.Seidman (Ed.), Queer theory/sociology (pp. 129–144). Cambridge: Blackwell., & (1990). Conclusion. In E.Stein (Ed.), Forms of desire: Sexual orientation and the social constructionist controversy (pp. 325–353). New York: Garland.(1991). The internal rhetoric of the Knights of Labor. Communication Studies, 42, 67–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510979109368321(1994). Persuasion and social movements (, & (3rd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.1997, November 23). Gay culture weighs sense and sexuality. New York Times, Section 4, pp. 1, 8.(1993). Unspeakable: The rise of the gay and lesbian press in America. Boston: Faber & Faber.([Page 224]1994). Apocalypse: On the psychology of fundamentalism in America. Boston: Beacon Press.(1998). A nation by rights: National identities, sexual identity politics, and the discourse of rights. New York: Temple University Press.(Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives. (1990, May 15). Defense of Marriage Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.1995). Virtually normal: An argument about homosexuality. New York: Knopf.(1997). Foreword. In W.Swan (Ed.), Gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender public policy issues: A citizen's and administrator's guide to the new cultural struggle (pp. xvii–xxii). New York: Harrington Park Press.(1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1994). Power in movement: Social movements, collective action and politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.(1992). Of audience, expertise and authority: The evolving creationism debate. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 78, 277–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335639209383997(1992). Collective identity in social movement communities: Lesbian feminist mobilization. In A. D.Morris & C. M.Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers of social movement theory (pp. 104–130). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press., & (The other minority. (1992, March 30). New Republic, p. 7.1980). The ideology of power and the power of ideology. London: Verso.(1999). Blinded by might: Can the religious right save America. Grand Rapids: Zondervan., & (1984). Studies in the theory of ideologies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.(1991). Editor's introduction. In J. B.Thompson (Ed.), Language and symbolic power (pp. 1–31). Oxford: Polity Press.(1991). Negotiating a religious identity: The case of the gay evangelical. Sociological Analysis, 52, 333–347. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3710850(1978). From mobilization to revolution. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.(1996). Left for dead: The life, death and possible resurrection of progressive politics in America. New York: Free Press.(1985). The symbolic challenge to the study of social movements. Social Research, 52, 781–787.(1998, July 12). Hate the sinner. Frontiers, p. 12.(1993). American wedding: Same-sex marriage and the miscegenation analogy. Boston University Law Review, 73, 93–120.(1995). Virtual equality: The mainstreaming of gay & lesbian liberation. New York: Anchor Books.(1993). Review of J. Weeks, Against Nature. Journal of Homosexuality, 25(4), 131–135.([Page 225]1989). Vilification and social movements: A case study of pro-life and pro-choice rhetoric. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 75, 166–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335638909383870(1993, August 21). Gay groups denounce the Pentagon's new policy. New York Times, p. A16.(1992). Religion and politics in the United States ((2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.1996). From here to queer: Radical feminism, postmodernism, and the lesbian menace (or why can't a woman be more like a fag?). Signs, 21, 830–868. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/495123(1993). Introduction. In M.Warner (Ed.), Fear of a queer planet: Queer politics and social theory (pp. i–xxviii). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.(1999). Normal and normaller: Beyond gay marriage. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 5, 119–171.(1977). The rhetoric of conservative resistance. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 42, 256–273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10417947709372353(1997). The Christian Coalition: Dreams of restoration, demands for recognition. New York: St. Martin's Press.(1977). Coming out: Homosexual politics in Britain, from the nineteenth century to the present. London: Quartet Books.(1980). Capitalism and the organisation of sex. In Gay Left Collective (Eds.), Homosexuality: Power and politics (pp. 11–12). London: Allison & Busby.(1981). Sex, politics and society: The regulation of sexuality since 1800New York: Longman.(1997). Conclusion. In D. J.West & R.Green (Eds.), Sociological control of homosexuality (pp. 329–336). New York: Plenum Press., & (1991). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, and kinship. New York: Columbia University Press.(1996). Render me, gender me: Lesbians talk sex, class, color, nation, studmuffins. New York: Columbia University Press.(1996). Queer by choice: Lesbians, gay men, and the politics of identity. New York: Routledge.(1992). Identity and control: A structural theory of social action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.(1994). Stranger at the gate: To be gay and Christian in America. New York: Simon & Schuster.(1999, June 10). An open letter to Jerry Falwell. San Francisco Bay Times, p. 26.(1990). Religion and American politics. New York: Simon & Schuster.(1995). Identity and identities. In H.Harris (Eds), Identity: Essays based on Herbert Spencer lectures given in the University of Oxford (pp. 1–11). Oxford: Clarendon Press.(1995). Constructing the public good: Social movements and cultural resources. Social Problems, 42, 124–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sp.1995.42.1.03x0458p(1996, March). Against homosexual marriage. Commentary, 34–39.([Page 226]1997). A frank look at the Mattachine: Can homosexuals organize. In M.Blasius & S.Phelan (Eds.), We are everywhere: A historical sourcebook of gay and lesbian politics (pp. 316–319). New York: Routledge Press. (Original work published 1954).(1997). Introduction. In S. L.Witt & S.McCorkle (Eds.), Anti-gay rights: Assessing voter initiatives (pp. 1–6). Westport, CT: Praeger., & (1992). The straight mind and other essays. Boston: Beacon Press.(1992). Democracy versus sociology: Boundaries and their political consequences. In M.Lamont & M.Fournier (Eds.), Cultivating symbolic boundaries: Differences and the making of inequality (pp. 309–325). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1994). Producing the sacred: An essay on public religion. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.(1997). The polls-trends: Attitudes toward homosexuality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 477–507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/297810(1972). Out of the closets, into the streets. In K.Jay & A.Young (Eds.), Out of the closets: Voices of gay liberation (pp. 6–31). New York: Douglas.(1996). The anatomy of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1996). Culture, ideology, and strategic framing. In D.McAdam, J. D.McCarthy, & M. N.Mayer (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings (pp. 262–74). New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803987(1987). Movement and countermovement interaction: Mobilization, tactics, and state involvement. In M. N.Zald & J. D.McCarthy (Eds.), Social movements in an organizational society: Collected essays (pp. 247–272). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books., & (1997). Stopping the gay family: Now or never. In T. L.Roleff (Ed.), Gay rights (pp. 35–38). San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.(1989). The sublime object of ideology. London: Verso.(
About the Authors[Page 239]
Ralph R. Smith is Professor of Communication and Mass Media at South-west Missouri State University. He received his doctorate from the University of Southern California and also holds degrees from the University of California, Los Angeles and Columbia University. He teaches courses in social movement communication, public relations, and rhetorical criticism. He has taught at The City University of New York and Dartmouth College. He has coauthored texts in nonverbal communication and in organizational communication. His scholarly works have appeared in the Quarterly Journal of Speech, the Southern Communication Journal, the Central States Speech Journal, and the Journal of Homosexuality. He is chair (1999–2000) of the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgendered Communication Studies Division of the National Communication Association.
Russel R. Windes is Emeritus Professor of Communications at The City University of New York. He holds his doctorate from Northwestern University. He teaches courses in argumentation, persuasion, political communication, and conflict management. He is the author of books in argumentation, persuasion, and debate, as well as numerous articles in the [Page 240]Quarterly Journal of Speech, Communication Monographs, the Western Journal of Communication, the Southern Communication Journal, and the Journal of Homosexuality. He has served as Chair of the Publications Board of the National Communication Association. As consulting editor for the Bobbs-Merrill Series, he edited 56 books in the field of communication. As consulting editor for Random House, he edited 14 books. He has also taught at Northwestern University and San Francisco State University. At Northwestern, he was Director of University Debating. His debaters twice won the National Championship.