You are on page 1of 115

THE MARKETISATION OF ‘EQUALITY’

:
A CORPUS-BASED CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS
CAMPAIGN’S ARGUMENT FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 2014

MARK JOSEPH WILKINSON
MASTER’S IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS
KING’S COLLEGE LONDON

SEPTEMBER 2015

SUPERVISOR: DR. CHRIS TRIBBLE

1360613

1

There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle
because we do not live single-issue lives.
-Audre Lorde, Sister Outsider, 1984

1360613

2

I would like to thank my mom.Michael Wilkinson. advice and for opening up the wonderful world of corpus linguistics. for his feedback. You also deserve a master’s in applied linguistics. Dr. I would like to thank João for his unconditional support and tremendous patience while I recounted every moment of my creative process. Dr. guidance and editing expertise I could not have made it through this master’s. 1360613 3 . insight.Chris Tribble. I would like to thank Rachel for sharing all of her wisdom. wisdom. without whose support.Acknowledgements This thesis is dedicated to my father. Thank you. Wyman and Wilkinson 2016! And I would like to thank my supervisor. experience and feedback. for always thinking that everything I write is brilliant and interesting. Diane.

gender non-conforming and queer (LGBTIQ*) population. Finally. This analysis affirmed that HRC deliberately omit some major concerns of LGBTIQ* Americans. As the largest and most influential LGBTIQ* advocacy and lobbying organisation in the United States. such as racial and economic inequality. transgender. A corpus analysis of HRC’s 2014 press releases revealed that critics’ accusations are largely correct and that HRC primarily advocate for same-sex marriage at the expense of all other issues. Nevertheless. critics argue that HRC pursue a single-issue politics that privileges the interests of the gay and lesbian elite while neglecting crucial social issues that affect the most marginal and vulnerable LGBTIQ* Americans. an explanatory critique argues that ‘marriage equality’ serves only to bring economic benefits to HRC. values and aspirations of America’s lesbian. and not to a sizeable population of LGBTIQ* Americans. HRC occupies a unique position to influence government policy as well as media representations of the LGBTIQ* campaign for social justice. in favour of the premise that only ‘marriage equality’ can bring social justice to LGBTIQ* Americans. A practical argumentation analysis was therefore conducted on a typical HRC press release to identify how HRC represent the premises for action. collocations and a corpora comparison using press release corpora from other LGBTIQ* organisations during the same time period.ABSTRACT This study is a corpus-based critical discourse analysis of how The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) represents the goals. HRC successfully market ‘marriage equality’ because it is good for the bottom line. its corporate sponsors. gay. bisexual. 1360613 4 . HRC make practical arguments for what actions should be taken to achieve equality for LGBTIQ* Americans. My conclusions are based on an analysis of keywords. and the LGBTIQ* elite.

Social structures 2.TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3 ABSTRACT 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 5 LIST OF APPENDICES 8 LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES 9 1.2. Mediation 21 22 23 23 2.1. LITERATURE REVIEW 15 2.3.5 Criminalization 13 1.0. INTRODUCTION 10 1.2.2.2.4.3.4. Social practices 2. Ideology 18 2.1. PRACTICAL ARGUMENTATION ANALYSIS 24 2.1.2.3 Immigration 12 1.1 Economic Inequality 11 1.3.0.4 Homelessness 12 1. CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 15 2.1.1. DIALECTICAL-RELATIONAL APPROACH 20 2. Power 17 2. Discourse 15 2. CRITIQUES OF CDA 28 1360613 5 .6 Racial Injustice 13 2.1.2 Healthcare and Support for people living with HIV/AIDS 12 1. Social events 2.2.2.

3.3. Corpus linguistics 3. Text: 48 4. Circumstances 50 4.3.2. Outline of HRC argument 49 4.2.3.5.2.2. Data 3. Overview 3.1.1. Research questions 3.0 62 CONCLUSION REFERENCES 64 APPENDIX A 73 APPENDIX B 75 APPENDIX C 78 APPENDIX D 82 APPENDIX E 84 1360613 6 .2.3.2.1.2.4 Means-goal 55 4. CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS: PRACTICAL ARGUMENTATION ANALYSIS 48 4. Values 53 4. Alternative 55 4. Keyness analysis 3. Corpus analysis 3.0. Corpus analysis summary 32 32 33 39 45 4.0.2.1.2.1.1.2.1. Explanatory Critique 58 5. Collocation analysis 3.2. Corpora comparison 3.2.2.2. CORPUS ANALYSIS 30 3.1.5 Summary 56 4.1. Corpus tools 30 30 30 31 32 3.2.

APPENDIX F 86 APPENDIX G 98 APPENDIX H 103 APPENDIX I 110 1360613 7 .

LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A HRC Corpus: Keyness Analysis 70 APPENDIX B HRC Corpus: Collocations 72 APPENDIX C HRC Corpus: COUPLES + CAN MARRY concordance 75 APPENDIX D Lambda Legal Corpus: Keyness Analysis 79 APPENDIX E Williams Institute Corpus: Keyness Analysis 81 APPENDIX F HRC Corpus: MARRIAGE + EQUALITY concordance 83 APPENDIX G Williams Institute Corpus: EXTEND + MARRIAGE concordance 95 APPENDIX H HRC Corpus: INEQUALITY APPENDIX I HRC Press Release #LoveCantWait: Why America Needs Marriage Equality Now 1360613 100 109 8 .

5 TRANSGENDER collocation 72 Table 3.1 MARRIAGE collocation 70 Figure 3. 36 Table 3.LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES Figure 2.3 COUPLES collocation 71 Figure 3. Lambda Legal and The Williams Institute corpora using AmE06 as reference corpus.2 EQUALITY collocation 70 Figure 3.1 Structure of practical argument (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012) 19 Figure 2.2 Deliberation: argument and counter-argument (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012) 20 Figure 4.2 HRC keyword comparison using Lambda Legal and The Williams Institute as reference corpora 1360613 37 9 .1 Keyword comparison between HRC.4 GAY collocation 71 Figure 3.1 HRC argument: Why America needs ‘marriage equality’ now 43 Figure 3.

gay. Chávez et al 2014). queer and gender non-conforming people. transgender and gender non-conforming individuals from multiple ethnic. and media presence make it the most influential LGBT advocacy group in the US – a unique position that allows them to speak. transgender. (opensecrets. HRC’s resources. the organisation now boasts 1. intersex. as ‘the first gay and lesbian political action committee (PAC) in the United States’ (Cornell University 2006). INTRODUCTION The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) claims to be ‘America’s largest civil rights (HRC 2014). men.org). Critics maintain that LGBTIQ* people are women. intersex. bisexual. membership.2 million on lobbying and campaign contributions. In addition. in Washington and in the mainstream media.5 million members and its activities include lobbying. Bassichis et al 2011. HRC have also pursued an aggressive strategy of branding. religious. two-spirited native North Americans who do not identify with the identity categories given by colonial Americans. bisexual. But does HRC adequately represent the interests of lesbian. Duggan 2003. those living with HIV. and is used by the media. research and public policy as well as running education and outreach programmes across the US (Cornell University 2006). In the 2012 presidential campaign HRC’s political spending reached $4. Founded in 1980. social and economic interests of the LGBTIQ* community (Warner 2000.0. One notable achievement in this campaign has been the HRC logo that is now claimed to be ‘as visible at pride celebrations … as the iconic rainbow flag’ (HRC 2015a). so too have those critical voices that dispute HRC’s claim to represent the political. marketing and public relations activities that have raised the profile of the organisation (Cornell University 2006). transgender. gay. The logo now appears on countless bumper stickers and t-shirts. 1360613 10 . asexuals. and queer (LGBTIQ*)1 Americans? As the media presence and political profile of HRC has grown.1. Nair 2010. on behalf of LGBT people (Cornell University 2006. 1 The use of LGBTIQ* is a political choice by the author in an attempt to illustrate the diversity of lesbian. those who are questioning their sexual identity and those who reject any reductive identities ascribed by labels. Meronek 2015). politicians and corporations to show support for HRC’s brand of LGBT equality (HRC 2015a). The latter group is represented by the asterisk and includes those who do not identify themselves through binary gender categories (gender expansive).

Chávez et al 2014. The statistics for transgender and gender non-conforming people are worse. More lesbian. Thus. Instead. D’Emilio 2006). cis-gender2. socioeconomic. 1. gender non-conforming or gender expansive. most of which cannot be solved with an extension of marriage rights (Bassichis et al 2011. Nair 2010. and lesbians and LGB people of colour are most affected. Discussed below are six critical issues affecting LGBTIQ* Americans. gay and lesbian board of directors (Duggan 2003). Central to this critique is that HRC are also pursuing a ‘single issue’ (Duggan 2003:47) political strategy that frames samesex marriage as the ultimate measure of equality and the primary goal of the movement (Sullivan 1995. and political backgrounds (Bassichis et al 2011. Duggan 2003. Nair 2010. Bassichis et al 2011. Nair 2010. upper-middle-class. any civil rights agenda representing this community would need to be as diverse as the constituents it claims to represent (Warner 2000. gay and bisexual (LGB) households live in poverty than heterosexual households (Albelda et al 2009). D’Emilio 2006).regional. Warner 2000. 2003. D’Emilio 2006). This essentially diverts attention away from the social injustices actually affecting the LGBTIQ* population. D’Emilio 1993. Nair 2010. D’Emilio 2006). Chávez et al 2014. 2006). Chávez et al 2014. 1360613 11 . Conrad argues that HRC’s gay marriage campaign hinges ‘upon … the gay subject as a … racialized figure embedded in a comfortable upper-middle-class environment … untroubled by any … inequality other than … “marriage rights”’ (2013:394). Nair 2010. Chávez et al 2014. ie. children of same-sex couples are twice as likely to live in poverty as children of different-sex couples (Albelda et al 2009). Bassichis et al 2011. thereby obfuscates the issues that affect most LGBTIQ* Americans (Warner 2000. HRC. Duggan 2001. by ignoring people within the community who do not have the resources and media-access to represent themselves. not transgender. Bassichis et al 2011.1 Economic Inequality The LGBTIQ* community is disproportionately affected by economic inequality (Albelda et al 2009). being four times more likely to have a 2 A person whose gender identity corresponds with assigned sex at birth. HRC are accused of employing a corporate-style decision making model that only serves the interests of its largely white. Duggan 2003.

including sexual assault…. 1. 1. drug addiction.2 Healthcare and Support for people living with HIV/AIDS Inadequate healthcare produces inferior health outcomes in the LGBTIQ* population (Krehely 2009). and cancer (Krehely 2009).4 Homelessness LGBTIQ* teenagers comprise 40% of homeless youth in the US (Durso and Gates 2012:3).household income of < $10. The unemployment rate is also double. The LGBTIQ* community also has higher rates of obesity. being aged out of the foster-care system. Those held in US immigration detention centres are often ‘subjected to solitary confinement. The Center for Disease Control (CDC 2015) also reports that 56% of patients contract HIV through same-sex activity (CDC 2015) and gay men have the fastest growing rate of infection (CDC 2015).000 are undocumented (Burns et al 2013). though family rejection (68% of cases). alcoholism. 1. The reasons are complex. while the Black and Latino transgender populations have an unemployment rate nearly four times that of the general population (Grant et al 2011). 82% of the heterosexual population have health insurance. ‘ (Gruberg 2013). 267. and 57% for the transgender and gender nonconforming population (Krehely 2009). and ill-treatment.3 Immigration Of the nearly 1 million LGBTIQ* immigrants living in the US (Center for American Progress 2014). 1360613 12 . physical or sexual abuse (at over 54%). A UN Special Report (Gruberg 2013) concluded that the placement of LGBTIQ* detainees within the Department of Homeland Security was in violation of the Convention Against Torture. compared to 77% for the LGB population.000/ year compared to the general population (Grant et al 2011). and financial and emotional family neglect are major causes (Durso and Gates 2012:9). torture.

ie. As these dissenting voices have organized both independently and against HRC (Bassichis et al 2011. detention centres place transgender youth in solitary confinement (Hunt and Moodie-Mills 2012:6). Homelessness forces them into drug sales. Of the 12 transgender women murdered in 2015. African-American gay men were six times more likely to be poor (Badget et al 2013). Often detained according to their registered sex at birth. theft and prostitution (Hunt and Moodie-Mills 2012:3). they are exposed to the danger of sexual assault and violence (Hunt and MoodieMills 2012:6).6 Racial Injustice African-American same-sex couples are twice as likely to be poor as AfricanAmerican different sex couples (Badget et al 2013). so the HRC has adopted rhetoric that addresses its critics (Becker 2014). a practice the American Psychiatric Association maintains ‘is … a form of punishment … likely to produce lasting psychiatric symptoms’ (Hunt and Moodie-Mills 2012:6).000 LGBTIQ* youth arrested each year. of the 300. Durso and Gates 2012. African-American lesbians were also three times more likely to be poor than were white lesbians (Badget et al 2013). Nair 2010. incarceration (Hunt and Moodie-Mills 2012. however.). Grant et al 2011) and HIV infection (CDC 2015).1. 9 were black or Hispanic (Kellaway and Brydum 2015). Compared to white gay male couples. Critics claim that HRC have remained largely silent on these issues (Bassichis et al 2011. In 1360613 13 . LGBTIQ* youth of colour are disproportionately targeted by law enforcement. LGBTIQ* people of colour also experienced higher rates of youth homelessness (Durso and Gates 2012). Chávez et al 2014). 1. Though many remain unconvicted of crimes.5 Criminalization LGBTIQ* teens represent only 5-7% of the US youth population but constitute 15% of those in the juvenile justice system (Hunt and Moodie-Mills 2012 2012:1). Nair 2010. Transgender and gender non-conforming people of colour are also primary victims of an increase in hate crimes and murders (Grant et al 2011. Chávez et al 2014. 60% of them are Black or Latino (Hunt and Moodie-Mills 2012: 1). D’Emilio 2006).

HRC have established a strong media presence to represent their values. A text chosen as representative of the corpus findings will then be used for a critical discourse analysis (CDA) using Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2012) framework for analysing practical argumentation. The main research questions are:  To what extent does HRC represent the interests of a diverse LGBTIQ* community in the US?  To what extent does HRC advocate on behalf of marginalised groups within the LGBTIQ* community who do not have the resources to represent themselves in the media and in Washington?  To what extent does linguistic evidence support or challenge the accusations made against HRC? 1360613 14 . or else we are failing’ (Becker 2014). goals and achievements. The study will therefore begin with a corpus analysis of their press releases. As an advocacy organisation.2014 the HRC President addressed Transgender critics and claimed that he was ‘sorry for the times [they had] been underrepresented or unrepresented’ and that ‘HRC has a responsibility to do the struggle justice. This thesis will address the critiques made against HRC through a critical investigation of how they represent both the issues affecting LGBTIQ* Americans and the goals of their campaign for ‘equality’. HRC make arguments to the government and the public that certain actions should be taken in order to reach ‘full equality’ for LGBTIQ* Americans.

1. Wodak and Van Leeuwen 1999. Wodak and Meyer 2009. CDA’s primary motivation is therefore ‘transformative action to change existing social reality for the better’ (Fairclough 2015:12. 2010. Wodak 2011). and ideology – incorporating methods from the critical social sciences and linguistics (Fairclough 1992. but to provide a ‘critique of discourse and explanation of how it figures within and contributes to the existing social reality. Critical Discourse Analysis Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a ‘trans-disciplinary’ approach (Fairclough 2015: 45) to the study of discourse. 2010). 2001.2 outlines the basic theoretical framework of the Dialectical-Relational Approach (Fairclough and Chouliaraki 1999. Wodak and Meyer 2009. LITERATURE REVIEW CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS & PRACTICAL ARGUMENTATION ANALYSIS 2. Its goal is not simply to describe this relationship. as a basis for action’ (Fairclough 2015:5). Wodak 2011). Van Dijk 1993.4 concludes with a critique of CDA’s methods and a brief discussion of how corpus linguistics can be used to strengthen analysis. Discourse Defining discourse is problematic as it is used in both ‘social and linguistic research in …inter-related yet different ways’ (Baker 2006:3). 2015. Within CDA there is a distinction between two separate but complimentary meanings (Fairclough 2015. power. Van 1360613 15 . This chapter presents an overview of how discourse. 2008. and ideology are conceptualised within the present study. 2003. 2015. 2003. Wodak 2011). 2001. Wodak and Van Leeuwen 1999. Section 2. CDA seeks to understand how discourse contributes to social. 2008. Fairclough 2003. Van Dijk 1993.1. power. 2008. 2015. 2010. political and economic inequality (Fairclough 1992. Wodak and Meyer 2009. 2. Fairclough 1992. 2010. Van Dijk 1993. Wodak and Van Leeuwen 1999.1.2. 2003.0. Subsequent sections provide an overview of the CDA theories adopted in this investigation: Section 2. 2001.3 provides a framework for analysing practical argumentation (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012) and Section 2.

While PID can manifest itself in face-to-face interaction. our identity. the LGBTIQ* rights movement is founded on discourses of shared identity and collective history framed by a metaphor of ‘coming-out’ (D’Emilio 1993). the concern in this thesis is with media texts. Stubbs 1983) and how a ‘stretch of language … achieves meaning and coherence …’(Cook 2011:431). but actually constitutes how we perceive social reality. identifying homosexuality as a diagnosable condition (Foucault 1976). PID is related to Power behind discourse (PBD) – the idea that ‘the whole social order of discourse is put together … as a hidden effect of power’ (Fairclough 2015:83). The first refers to ‘naturally occurring instances of language in use’ (Stubbs 1996:158). is merely the product of discursive practices that emerged in a specific historical era. HRC’s significant media presence enables them to exercise their powerful position and represent the LGBTIQ* equality movement according to their interests. Thereafter. behaviour and relationships. 1982) who proposed that social reality arises from a network of discursive practices that determine our speech. and … even the subject position of the audience’ (Fairclough 2015:79). and the power relations to which we are all subject (Foucault 1972). ie. clinicians pathologised sexual behaviour by diagnosing mental conditions based on sexual practice. Wodak and Meyer 2009). Discourse is therefore not just how we represent our world through language. same-sex sex was a forbidden act. 2008. but suffered in isolation until they publicly asserted their sexual identity and demanded equality. it is referred to as power in discourse (PID) (Fairclough 2015:73).Dijk 2001. LGBTIQ* individuals always existed. as understood today. While prior to the 19th century. For example. When unequal power relations are exercised at this level. and endowed the sexual act with mental and moral 1360613 16 . HRC control the interaction by ‘determin[ing] what is included and excluded. how events are represented. This second concept derives primarily from Foucault (1972. the ‘perpetrator’ had no particular characteristics or identity traits associated with his ‘perversion’ (Foucault 1976:43). Foucault (1976) however. Thus when discourse is produced and disseminated through the mass media. Westphal’s publication of ‘Contrary Sexual Sensations’ (1870) changed this. Traditional discourse analysts therefore study the function of language above the sentence or clause level (Brown and Yule 1983. proposed that homosexual identity.

these dividing practices (Foucault 1982) – sane/insane. the more powerful social groups…and elites are’ (Van Dijk 1993:256. events. 1360613 17 . scope and text characteristics they actively control or influence. Inasmuch as prisons separate the law-abiding from the criminals.1. It has profound effects on our life and freedom of movement. 1984:323). Power Power only exists when it is put into action (Foucault (1982) and is ‘rooted in the system of social networks’ that constitute society (Foucault 1982:224). Discourse is then controlled using ‘discursive strategies’ that represent social actors. Identity however. audience. social and cultural capital (Bourdieu 1986). their claims to power must be ‘legitimized…in discourses’ (Wodak and Meyer 2009:89). These include governments. coercion or consent (Fairclough 2015). That is. so the creation of a homosexual identity separates the ‘pure’ from the now recognizable ‘deviant’ (McIntosh 1968:183). 2. domination is not won and maintained indefinitely and the possibility of resistance is ever-present as power relationships continually shift over time (Van Dijk 2001). 2008). is not a benign category. one group comes to dominate another. contexts. but was born through discourse. if crossed.2. Thus.characteristics (Foucault 1976. However. the media and those who influence these institutions through their economic. As Foucault stated: ‘The sodomite had been a temporary aberration. marked a transition into criminality (Ibid). the homosexual was now a species’ (Foucault. Legitimation is contingent on access to discourse – that ‘the more discourse genres. legal/illegal. or objects in a way that is beneficial to those in power (Wodak and Meyer 2009:93). homosexual/heterosexual – actually function as a form of social control. Thus homosexual identity did not exist outside of discourse. a discrete identity associated with a deviant behaviour demarcated a threshold that. 1982). participants. they are also connected to mental health facilities and the law. Through physical force. For one group to maintain dominance over another. The discursive construction of LGBTIQ* identity is but one example of how discourse constructs our social reality. both of which have power over human subjects and their bodies (Foucault 1972). While psychiatric discourses influence how we think and speak about mental illness.

and ideology are deeply imbricated. criminalization of homosexuality was often achieved through raids of LGBTIQ* social spaces. the desire for wealth and power is actually rooted in beliefs and ideas that view them as desirable in the first place. These ended in arrests. a specific discussion of the ideological shift that has occurred in the LGBTIQ* movement will provide context for the current study and indicate how ideology can have profound effects on people’s lives. to read contemporary media surrounding LGBTIQ* people ‘is to receive the impression that gay people hardly care about anything else’ (Warner 2000:84). hegemony. Gramsci (1971) labelled this process hegemony. Fairclough 2015).HRC’s powerful media presence provides them with control of discourses surrounding the LGBTIQ* community (Cornell 2006. Many (if not most) LGBTIQ* Americans favour inclusion in existing institutions like same-sex marriage because it has been represented as the only way to achieve full equality. their interests and goals have begun to appear routine appear as the accepted values of all LGBTIQ* Americans. The hegemony of HRC’s values allow it to shape the scope of an LGBTIQ* equality movement. incarceration and police violence (D’Emilio 1992. proposing that to maintain power. The fight for LGBTIQ* equality effectively began with the Stonewall Uprising of 1969. On the night of June 27th 1360613 18 . Though these interests yield material wealth. the ruling classes must win the hegemonic struggle for the hearts and minds of the people.3. Indeed. Meronek 2015). Such power established their ‘marriage equality’ agenda as the social issue most frequently represented in the media. While discourse. Ideology Discourse and power function together to serve the interests of the elite. This system of beliefs and ideas is referred to as ideology (Althusser [1971] 2006. 2. power. As HRC’s values have become embedded across many genres and many locations. unrepresented as part of the LGBTIQ* rights campaign in the mass media or in Washington. Carter 2004.1. At that time. Armstrong and Crage 2006). other crucial issues affecting the community are then ignored and the people who are affected by them effectively disappear. As noted. Van Dijk 2008. This is an incredibly powerful position.

They did not seek to assimilate into the mainstream. poverty. and local residents that frequented the Stonewall Inn bar resisted arrest. however. Armstrong and Crage 2006) that demonstrated for an end to discrimination against LGBTIQ* people. In 1969 the civil rights movement and the mass demonstrations against America’s war in Vietnam had created a political climate of radicalization.1969. Unlike the ‘liberationists’ who challenged hierarchical gender roles and the neoliberal capitalist state. this new ‘gay politics’ espouses conservative ideologies like traditional family values. Duggan 2003). serving openly in the military and the right to marry (Warner 2000. constituency mobilisation. The ideological force of neoliberalism has resulted in HRC adopting ‘neoliberal rhetoric and corporate decision-making models’ (Duggan 2003:45). Equality is contingent on the 1360613 19 . gender inequality. eg. but rather to radically transform it and create a society based on economic equality and inclusiveness (Warner 2000. barricaded the street and trapped police inside the bar (ibid). Lee and Spade 2011). housing discrimination and the military industrial complex (Warner 2000. Armstrong and Crage 2006). this new direction opposes ‘a radical gay rights movement aligned with workers and…victim groups against the capitalist oppressor’ (Bawer 1996:21). Bassichis. Carter 2004. Puar 2007). police violence. Lee and Spade 2011). Bassichis. limited government and the free market (Sullivan 1995. Carter 2004. Forty years later. individual liberty. Warner 2000). 2002). the patrons. staff. According to champions of this ideological shift. Duggan 2003. The Stonewall Uprising coincided with this ideological shift (D’Emilio 1992. the uprising galvanized popular support for a ‘gay liberation movement’ (D’Emilio 1992. Modeling itself on the civil rights movement (D’Emilio 1992. Duggan (2003) argues that the ideological shift in LGBTIQ* advocacy reflects the broader sociocultural and political turn towards a neoliberal political economy. and grassroots activism. the radical politics of the post-Stonewall era have been abandoned and the LGBTIQ* movement is focused on an agenda of acceptance into existing institutions. Puar 2007. but also against institutional and cultural racism. By abandoning the transformational politics of the past. HRC have gained greater acceptance into corporate America and the political mainstream (Duggan 2003.

It urges ‘thousands of LGBT consumers . Explanatory critique. Fairclough and Fairclough 2012). Chávez et al 2014). Normative critique compares certain behaviours. ie. DRA possesses three stages: Normative critique. HRC even surveys corporations for ‘any consumer … products to include in HRC’s … Guide’ (HRC 2015d). To ensure that LGBTIQ* voices are heard and represented. structures and how these are mediated throughout society through orders of discourse. HRC publish a ‘Buying for Workplace Equality’ guide (HRC 2015b) at the ‘start of the winter holiday and shopping season’ (HRC2015c:1). 2015. By virtue of this ideological paradigm. Duggan 2003. one that is unrecognisable compared with the post-Stonewall era of grassroots activism (Warner 2000.2. The following section provides a framework for how discourse. HRC’s strategy reflects the ideological shift that has occurred in the LGBTIQ* movement. 2010.to ‘send a … message that LGBT inclusion is good for the bottom line’ (ibid:1). Dialectical-relational approach This study will adopt the Dialectical-Relational Approach (DRA) as the primary CDA framework (Fairclough 1992. and Action. thereby marketizing equality in the name of corporate profit. power and ideology can be analysed in the social world through linguistic analysis.estimated to have spending power of $830 billion’ (ibid: 1) . equality is attainable through consumer practices (Duggan 2003). Normative critique of discourse therefore examines whether texts are true or false. By looking at social events. Corporations can then brand themselves as ‘LGBT friendly’. manipulative. 2. Bassichis et al 2011. Nair 2010. 2003. HRC assumes that equality is achieved merely by inclusion in the market and representation in the boardroom.opposite of a ‘working-class revolt … a trickling down of gay-positive sentiments from elite corporate boardrooms into shops…and factories’ (Bawer 1996:21). or deliberately omit critical information in efforts to maintain 1360613 20 . actions and social practices against a moral standard of what constitutes a good society (Fairclough 2003. practices. Fairclough and Fairclough 2012). we can begin to examine the analysis of individual HRC texts.

unequal power relationships in the social world. In the case of HRC’s press releases, I
will investigate how the HRC represent their claims for action and their goals against the
reality of social issues facing LGBTIQ* Americans. Explanatory critique asks why
unequal power relationships exist, and for whose benefit. It seeks to understand how
inequality is held together by discourse. In the case of the HRC, I will assess why the
goals of the LGBTIQ* social justice movement are represented in a certain way and for
whose benefit. The first two stages allow for transformative action to be planned and
then undertaken in order to address these issues and effect social justice for LGBTIQ*
Americans.
DRA also emphasises the dialectical relationships existing between social events,
structures, and practices as well as between their semiotic aspects (texts, discourses,
genres, and styles; Barthes 1967). By including semiotic aspects, Fairclough (1992,
2003, 2006, 2010) extended the study beyond spoken and written language to examine
how any system of signification (images, gestures, objects, music, etc) contributes to the
construction of discourse. Relationships between semiotic elements and social reality are
dialectical because they are separate, but not discrete (Fairclough 2003, 2010). For
example, while discursive strategies can legitimate dominance of one group over another,
the ability to exercise discursive strategies is a result of existing dominance in the first
place (Fairclough, 2010:4). Similarly, while social events are a product of established
social practices, individual agency can shape social events and transform social practice.
The following section will explore these concepts in more detail.
2.2.1. Social events
Social events, in their semiotic dimension, are enacted through written, spoken,
visual or multimodal texts (Fairclough 2003, 2010). Their purpose is to simultaneously
‘represent aspects of the world…enact social relations…in social events…and coherently
and cohesively connect texts with their situational contexts’ (Fairclough 2003:27). They
consist of social actors whose agency is neither completely unregulated nor ‘totally
socially determined’ (Fairclough 2003:23). For example, HRC’s press team must abide
by grammatical conventions and by the style and genre of a press release. But they may
1360613

21

also ‘texture the text’ to convey the values and goals of their organisation (Fairclough
2003:22). The text is therefore a product of the dialectical relationship between social
events and structures as mediated by social practice. Much CDA analysis begins with
texts as an entry level for normative critique.
2.2.2. Social practices
Social practices ‘mediate the relationship between social structures at the most
general and abstract level and … concrete social events’ (Fairclough 2010:232).
Marriage, for example, is an ancient social structure that has endured as a fundamental
component of the social world. In order for this institution to have survived, it required a
network of repeated social practices that maintained the social structure. The semiotic
dimensions of these social practices are enacted through orders of discourse, constituted
by genre, discourses, and style (Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999; Fairclough 1992, 2003,
2010).
Genres are ‘semiotic ways of acting and interacting’ (Fairclough 2010: 232 ) and
include the wedding ceremony, the vows spoken between two people, and the legal
marriage contract. Genres thus shape specific social events and how the social structure
of marriage is enacted in reality.
Discourses are ‘semiotic ways of construing [or representing] aspects of the world
(physical, social or mental) which can … be identified with ... different groups of social
actors’ (Fairclough 2003:232). For instance, same-sex marriage is represented through
discourses associated with the politics or moral stance of specific groups. Right-wing
Christian groups in the US construe same-sex marriage as an attack on tradition or a
perversion of a union ordained by god (Allon 2015). These discourses contrast with
those of HRC who construe same-sex marriage as an issue of inclusion or freedom (HRC
2014a).
Style refers to ‘identities – or “ways of being” – in their semiotic aspect’
(Fairclough 2003:232); ie. how we construct our identities through the texts we create.
For instance, HRC and many advocates for same-sex marriage emphasize the traditional
1360613

22

values inherent in marriage and the dignity it bestows couples. In so doing, they position
themselves and their social justice campaign as deeply moral and inline with traditional
family values.
Genres, discourse and styles combine to create orders of discourse and social
practices associated with certain institutions or social structures. Nonetheless, ‘social
practice does not merely “reflect” a reality that is independent of it; social practice is in
an active relationship to reality and it changes reality’ (Fairclough 2015:68). Over time,
social agents alter social practices, thereby altering the nature of both the social structure
and the social events. So, while marriage has survived for centuries, the social practices
that define how it is performed have changed and will continue to change.
2.2.3. Social structures
Social structures define ‘a potential, a set of possibilities’ (Fairclough 2003:23).
Marriage is such a social structure and serves different functions for various groups
across time and history; however, the structure has traditionally involved the union of two
persons, their family ties and has included economic benefits. It is upheld by the social
practices and events.
2.2.4. Mediation
The relationship between texts and the social world must be understood through
the concept of mediation (Fairclough 2003) – the “movement of meaning’ – from one
social practice to another, from one event to another, and from one text type to another’
(Fairclough 2003:30). The modern era has seen a proliferation of mass media through
radio, television and the Internet. The ability to connect many people across space and
time permitted an acceleration in the movement of text. The result is a networking of
texts, or genre chains (Fairclough 2003:31), which allow information to be
recontextualized from one genre to another. For example, an HRC press release is
recontextualized into print and visual media, and then shared through social media or
verbal communication. In our world, ‘the capacity to control processes of mediation is
an important aspect of power’ (Fairclough 2003:31).
1360613

23

This omission of argumentation analysis is problematic for CDA. Practical argumentation involves advocating for what should or ought to be done regarding a particular problem or situation (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012). Fairclough and Fairclough (2012) argue. and not just at isolated representations. These goals and 1360613 24 . Unless we look at arguments. inasmuch as CDA is a critique of political discourse that. their framework is an appropriate model for analysing HRC’s claims about what actions are required to achieve the goal of full equality for the LGBTIQ* community. As HRC are an advocacy and political lobbying organisation. Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2012) framework for practical argumentation will be discussed. there is no way of understanding how our beliefs feed into what we do’ (2012: 87). practical argumentation analysis is an ideal framework for analysing specific texts (events). however. Since political lobbying and advocacy fall within the genre of political discourse. Practical argumentation analysis DRA provides a framework for analysing the dialectical relationships between social events. An analysis of how arguments are constructed can therefore make a ‘major contribution to strengthening textual analysis in CDA’ (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012:86). While the overall method and theoretical framework of DRA is effective for this study. The structure of the argument begins with a claim for action based on a particular set of goals and circumstantial premises (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012). the following section provides a brief overview of Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2012) framework for practical argumentation analysis. by its very nature. practices and their semiotic elements (texts and orders of discourse). 2. is primarily ‘about making choices about how to act in response to circumstances and goals’ (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012:1). the nature of their work is concerned with making arguments for certain actions to be taken over others. structures. They argue that ‘ways of representing the world enter as premises into reasoning about what we should do.In the next section. that DRA’s textual analysis is incomplete as it is limited to representation and does not extend the analysis to how representations function as a premise for action.3. With that in mind.

generosity)…simply in view of what your actual desires and preferences are’ (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012).circumstances are determined against a normative background of values usually informed by ‘a moral order (informed by shared moral values or by universalizable rules of conduct). A means-goal is then proposed as the best possible way of achieving the goal proposed. an institutional order (generated by laws or rules).1 shows the structure of a practical argument. Figure 2.1 Structure of practical argument (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012). Figure 2. 1360613 25 . against a background of various other values (kindness.

0. however. These ‘alternative arguments and counter arguments [are] formulated in terms that advance the rhetorical goals of the participants that advocate them’ (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012:92). ‘considering what reasons would support not doing the action (i. deliberation occurs when multiple agents arrive ‘at a common course of action by examining various proposals…in light of reasons for and against each proposal’ (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012). 1360613 26 . not just refraining from action)’ (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012:89).e. if it does not involve deliberation over other possible courses of action (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012). Wyman 2012). eg. monological or false deliberation is often used as a rhetorical device to give the illusion that other options are being considered or that no other option is available. where a claim for action is being advocated. In much political discourse this is often not the case (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012. Alternative options ‘are formulated in ways which favour his own conclusion’ and ‘actual deliberation is avoided by representing alternatives in rhetorically convenient ways’ (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012:92).Practical reasoning is incomplete. a counter-claim). In a political speech. Ideally. This process is illustrated in figure 2. but may also involve alternatives (doing something else.

as uncontroversial truth’ (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012:93).2 Deliberation: argument and counter-argument (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012).Figure 2. though when persuasion takes the form of ‘re-describing or re-framing reality in rhetorically convenient ways’ (Fairclough and Fairlcough 2012). A critical analysis of representation then becomes paramount as it is only through value-laden representations of the world that actions can 1360613 27 . it becomes manipulation. Deliberation (and false deliberation) can be persuasion towards one action in light of alternative actions being available. Persuasion is a legitimate form of argumentation. This occurs when representations ‘are put forward or accepted as the one and only possible way of understanding the matters in question.

Unless a critical understanding of how their arguments are constructed is gained.4. Stubbs (1997) 1360613 28 . an argument should provide for genuine deliberation and that. Critiques of CDA A principal tenet of CDA is the adoption of an explicit political stance on social injustice. as if no other possible viewpoint is possible. as if they were neutral fact-stating propositions beyond any conceivable doubt’ (2012:93). Widdowson 2004). this political commitment is also the starting point of much criticism. In other words. Through the analysis of discourse. Critics argue that this is not so much rigorous linguistic analysis as it is a way of selecting ‘those features of the text which support its preferred interpretation’ (Widdowson 2004:142). The credibility of argumentation is established by holding up the claim. Successful political lobbying leads to changes in policy. However. and both are open to critical questioning. an understanding of how inequality is reproduced can be gained as a starting point to effect positive social change in solidarity with those most affected. if this is not the case. then genuine social justice cannot be achieved. CDA is accused of circularity in that it identifies social injustice and then goes looking for it in text (Stubbs 1997. against a measure of validity and truth in accordance with the norms of rational action (Habermas. Changes in policy have effects on people’s lived experiences. Fairclough and Fairclough (2012) distinguish ‘between those cases in which loaded terms are used legitimately to defend a particular standpoint. quoted in Fairclough and Fairclough 2012). Manipulation of premises also occurs when emotive language or loaded terms are used.become a reality. The HRC are a financially powerful and influential political lobbying and advocacy group that makes claims about how the federal government should address inequality in the LGBTIQ* community. and the proposed course of action. This thesis will use practical argumentation to establish if HRC’s arguments are credible when measured against validity and truth. 2. when it is clear that there is also a contrary standpoint in play. This is true also of presenting the means-goal as the only possible solution. intentional manipulation is occurring. and those cases in which loaded terms and definitions are used deceptively.

2014. O’Halloran 2009. Baker et al 2009. Large corpora can also direct analysis towards patterns of language use not evident in smaller samples of data (Mautner 2009). Specifically. 1360613 29 . Baker 2012). the use of reference corpora can guard against the ‘over. This method grounds the analysis in quantitative data while strengthening a traditional CDA approach with argument deconstruction. The current study adopts a method used by Wyman (2012) who combined corpusanalysis with Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2012) framework for analysing practical arguments. In recent years.proposed that applying quantitative methods could address the criticisms that CDA’s ‘methods of data collection and text analysis are inexplicit [and] that the data are often restricted to text fragments’ (Stubbs 1997:102). 2013. O’Halloran and Coffin 2004.and underinterpretation’ of findings or conclusions when working with single texts (O’Halloran and Coffin 2004). the integration of corpuslinguistic methods into CDA has begun to bridge the gap between overly subjective interpretations of text and the quantitative turn advocated for by Stubbs (Stubbs 1997.

2. Data To answer these questions. As the most influential LGBTIQ* advocacy group in the US. CORPUS ANALYSIS 3.1. to represent itself in a calculated. cis-gender gays and lesbians. PRs are a public relations tool used by an organization’s media team to convey specific information to the press. does the HRC:  Represent the interests of a diverse LGBTIQ* community in the US?  Advocate on behalf of marginalised groups within the LGBTIQ* community who do not have the resources to represent themselves in the media and in Washington? Because many critics have argued that HRC focuses exclusively on issues that benefit white. like HRC. Overview 3. A corpus analysis of PRs should therefore provide an overview of how HRC represents itself and the LGBTIQ* movement in the media. This genre allows organizations. the repercussions of their advocacy and campaigns are twofold. then. To what extent.1. this study also asks:  To what extent does linguistic evidence support or challenge the accusations made against HRC? 3. Beginning my research with a corpus analysis also addresses potential researcher bias within CDA by providing ‘a quantitative.3. HRC also impacts how the media represent the goals and values of the LGBTIQ* movement. It investigates how this organisation represents its goals and values as well as those of the overall LGBTIQ* social justice movement. and 1360613 30 .1. upper-middle-class. Research questions This study is a corpus-based critical discourse analysis of the HRC. I performed a corpus analysis of HRC’s press releases (PR) from 2014.0. HRC influences legislation passed in Washington that affects the lives of LGBTIQ* Americans.1. premeditated way (Belch and Belch 2012).

Using computational methods to uncover linguistic patterns. corpus analysis ‘means that exhaustive and objective searches may be possible for all examples of a feature’ (Stubbs 1996:131). 3. HIV/AIDS. I then compared the HRC corpus against PR corpora from other LGBTIQ* organizations to determine if HRC’s media strategy was unique. or ‘large bodies of naturally occurring language stored in computers’ (Baker 2006:1). Nevertheless.0 (economic inequality. The PR corpus was created using the HRC.1. marriage. Though subjective choices about which features to study are still involved. basis for confirming or falsifying intuitions about language use’ (O’Halloran 2013:140). Corpus linguistics Corpus linguistics analyses corpora. or State. the HRC corpus was searched for key terms related to the social issues discussed in Section 1. A specific PR was therefore chosen that reflected the data from the corpus analysis as well as the discourse style of political lobbying.240 words. advocating for political action. selecting for an issue or state would likely limit the data. I began the analysis by looking at KEYWORDS and COLLOCATIONS. racial injustice.g. etc) to establish whether the HRC discussed these issues in a significant way.thus robust.org ‘Press Room’ feature that provides a database of PRs (HRC 2015e). ie. Stubbs claims that ‘the most powerful interpretation emerges if comparisons of texts across corpora are combined with analysis of the organization of individual texts’ (Stubbs 1996:34). ‘corpus linguists … discover things about language use which may otherwise remain invisible’ (O’Halloran 2013:139). Finally. a sizeable corpus that provided insight into how HRC portrays their organization and the movement. immigration). producing a corpus of 396 PRs and 184. It is equipped with a search option for sorting by Issue (e.2. However. Based on these data. I elected instead to use all press releases from 2014. Year. 1360613 31 . An analysis of the argument presented in this PR was then conducted using the framework for analysing practical arguments designed by Fairclough and Fairclough (2012).

Corpus analysis 3. AmE06 was likely to improve the keyness analysis and control for any variation between American and British written English  WMATRIX3 is a web-based platform that made it easier to access from multiple locations.  Antconc (Anthony 2014) was also used to cross-check results. The top 10 keywords are shown: 1360613 Frequency Rank 1 Keyword LGBT 2 MARRIAGE 3 EQUALITY 4 5 HRC RIGHTS 6 SAME-SEX 7 8 9 COUPLES GAY CAMPAIGN 10 TRANSGENDER 32 . Because I used a corpus of American written English. Corpus tools WMATRIX3 (Rayson 2008) was the primary corpus analysis tool. The main reasons for this choice are:  WMATRIX employs the American English 2006 (AmE06) reference corpus.2.3. I compared the 2014 HRC PR corpus against the AmE06 reference corpus and recorded the top 50 keywords in the HRC corpus (Appendix A). 3. a method that compares wordlist from the corpus in question against the wordlist frequency of a reference corpus.3.2.1. Keyness analysis I began the analysis by looking at ‘Keyness’ (Baker 2006:121).1.

and CAMPAIGN were most likely only representative of the phrase: The Human Rights Campaign. RIGHTS. This phrase occurs 396 times in every press release in 2014. EQUALITY.2. Marriage Collocations 1360613 marriage equality Marriage Equality state marriage marriage bans marriage support cases marriage 33 . To gain a better idea of how they are used across the corpus. HRC.2.Keywords were then sorted by relevance. Lists were generated using the WMATRIX3 collocation tool.2. the nation’s largest lesbian. COUPLES.2. 3. 3. gay. we acquire a sense of the encoded cultural concepts in the text. the next step in the analysis examined frequent collocations. LGBT. The keywords relevant to an analysis of how HRC represent their values and goals were therefore: MARRIAGE. The following section looks at the 10 most frequent collocations and what this might suggest about the goals and values of HRC’s campaign for social justice. GAY and TRANSGENDER. Stubbs (1996) claims that by looking at the frequency of certain collocations.1. RIGHTS. and CAMPAIGN were considered irrelevant because LGBT would have a high frequency in any LGBT rights campaign and HRC. and the relationship is statistically significant in some way’ (Baker 2006:95-96). SAME-SEX. Results were then sorted according to Log-Likelihood and T-Score (Appendix B). Collocation analysis Collocation occurs when ‘a word frequently appears near another word. bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization.

2.constitutional marriage marriage unconstitutional challenging marriage marriage ban  MARRIAGE is a frequently discussed social justice issue. Equality Collocations marriage equality Marriage Equality Equality Index support equality equality cases LGBT equality Corporate Equality ban equality full equality bans equality 34 . CASES and UNCONSTITUTIONAL) 1360613 3.  MARRIAGE mostly collocates with EQUALITY.2.  MARRIAGE is discussed in terms of law and government (BANS.2. BAN. suggesting that HRC represents EQUALITY as primarily constituted by the right to marry or that EQUALITY is measured against this right.

EQUALITY most strongly collocates with MARRIAGE. This reinforces the idea
suggested above that that EQUALITY is overwhelmingly measured against the
right to marry.

EQUALITY is discussed in terms of law (CASES, BAN, BANS). These are the
same frequent collocates for MARRIAGE which suggests that CASES, BAN, and
BANS are collocating with MARRIAGE EQUALITY.
3.2.2.3. Couples
Collocations

sex

couples

lesbian

couples

couples

marry

gay

couples

couples

legally

couples

can

loving

couples

committed

couples

couples

states

couples

nineteen

SEX is part of ‘SAME-SEX’ suggesting that the most frequent collocate is
actually SAME-SEX COUPLES

Couples are discussed as LOVING and COMMITTED. Such language suggests
that LGBTIQ* couples are being positioned within discourses of domesticity.
Discourses of domesticity are primarily used within same-sex marriage
campaigns in an attempt to bring LGBTIQ* couples within the fold of
heteronormative kinship systems (Chávez et al 2014).

1360613

35

Couples are discussed in terms of ability: ‘COUPLES CAN…’ Referring to a
concordance list shows that this is primarily the start of the phrase, ‘COUPLES
CAN MARRY’:

American society.

Yet today, as same-sex

, the number of states where same-sex
up the issue of marriage. Same-sex
that support will slow down.
the U.S. Supreme Court.

couples can legally marry in 32 states an
couples can legally marry has

jumped fro

couples can legally marry in thirty-four

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in 35 states an

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in thirty-five

(Appendix C)

Couples are also discussed in terms of the geography of same-sex marriage.
‘NINETEEN’ and ‘STATES’ both refer to the number of states in which gay and
lesbian couples could legally marry in 2014:

that support will slow down.

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states

down marriage ban June 25] Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states

to support marriage equality.

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states

that support will slow down.

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states

down marriage ban July 28]

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in 19 states and the

(Appendix C)

1360613

3.2.2.4. Gay
Collocations
gay

lesbian

gay

couples

loving

gay

committed

gay

gays

lesbians

openly

gay

marriage

gay

now

gay

years

gay

support

gay

gay

men

36

GAY (S) most frequently collocates with LESBIAN (S) as in ‘gay and lesbian’ or
‘gays and lesbians’ when referring to issues like ‘gay and lesbian couples’ or
‘discrimination against gays and lesbians’

As part of the phrase ‘Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender’

GAY collocates with COUPLES, COMMITTED, MARRIAGE and LOVING.
Again, gay people are primarily being discussed through discourses of
heteronormative domesticity.
3.2.2.5. Transgender
Collocations

bisexual

transgender

transgender
transgender
Transgender
transgender
transgender
transgender
transgender
Center
Transgender

people
women
Remembrance
employees
color
community
woman
Transgender
Day

TRANSGENDER collocates with WOMAN and WOMEN which suggests that
HRC primarily discuss transwomen as opposed to transmen or gender nonconforming people.

TRANSGENDER collocates with REMEMBRANCE and DAY as per HRC’s
promotion of the Transgender Day of Remembrance for those killed as a result of
transphobia and the resulting violence against trans people.

COLOR refers to ‘trans people of color’

Concordance lines show that COMMUNITY largely refers to HRC’s discourses
surrounding the TRANSGENDER community.

1360613

37

said transgender community behind in non- "Even as the transgender community experiences historic In addition to these victories. Summary of collocation analysis: Analysis of the frequently occurring keyword collocations suggested that HRC discuss MARRIAGE more than any other social issue affecting LGBTIQ* Americans. bisexual and identity. My solution was to use Antconc for the collocation analysis. MARRIAGE and LEGALLY COUPLES collocated most significantly with MARRIAGE LEGALLY collocated most significantly with MARRY and MARRIED 3. gay. Same-sex Collocations At this point.2. WMATRIX3 was unable to search SAME-SEX in the collocation function most likely because of the hyphen.goes for the lesbian. HRC Steering 3.6.7.2. all other high frequency words were often used to discuss marriage. The following collocates were sorted by frequency (including both left and right sorts). the transgender community has also become more constant threat of brutality faced by the transgender community. absolutely refuse to leave the Guard Reggie Bullock. The use of phrases like LOVING COUPLES and COMMITTED COUPLES also implied that HRC promotes a vision of LGBTIQ* relationships as 1360613 38 .2.2. transgender community as well.    same-sex sex same-sex same-sex same-sex same-sex same-sex same-sex same-sex same-sex couples marriage to the of for in On SAME-SEX collocated most significantly with COUPLES. With the exception of TRANSGENDER.

societal education. Texas that made the criminalisation of consensual same-sex intercourse illegal and unconstitutional (Lambda Legal 2015).397 words.2.heteronormative and domestic. I compiled two separate corpora from other major LGBTIQ* organisations: Lambda Legal and The Williams Institute. In order to ascertain if HRC’s primary focus on marriage equality is unique to their organization. The Williams Institute corpus contained 76 PRs. This suggests that the campaign for marriage equality has come to overshadow all other issues pertaining to inequality. By measuring EQUALITY solely against the right to marry. I compared corpora from other major LGBTIQ* advocacy groups. They are highly cited within discussions of LGBTIQ* issues (The Williams Institute 2015). The only exception was the significant discussion of transgender issues. a rhetorical strategy that serves the argument for inclusion within the institution of marriage. The Williams Institute is a think-tank at UCLA Law that conducts independent research on sexual orientation and gender identity law as well as public policy. Another significant finding was that EQUALITY collocated closely with words to do with marriage or the campaign for federally recognized same-sex marriage. and public policy work. This suggests that HRC are at least discussing one other critical issue outside of same-sex marriage. They are recognised for their work on Lawrence v. indicating that accusations over HRC’s alleged privileging of same-sex marriage is founded in the corpus data. They focus on impact litigation. with a total of 36. 3. EQUALITY was not discussed in relation to any other social issue. Lambda Legal is an advocacy group providing legal council for the LGBTIQ* community as well as people living with HIV/AIDS. Corpora comparison To establish whether the HRC’s focus is unique within the mainstream LGBTIQ* social justice movement. 1360613 39 . with a total of 77. The corpora consisted of PRs from 2014. The Lambda Legal corpus contained 147 PRs.364 words. any and all other issues disappear from the discussion.3.

EXTENDING CAMPAIGN LGBT TRANSGENDER TRANSGENDER GAY Table 3. LGBT MARRIAGE COUPLES SAME-SEX TRANSGENDER 1360613 40 .In order to establish how LGBTIQ* social issues are represented between organisations. 3. I recorded the top 50 keywords in the Lambda Legal and The Williams Institute corpora (Appendices D and E) and have presented the top 10 keywords below. The most common keywords across HRC. 4.3. 5.1: Keyword comparison between HRC. I conducted a keyness analysis of Lambda Legal and The Williams Institute using AmE06 as a reference corpus – the same method used for establishing keyness in the HRC corpus. Lambda Legal and The Williams Institute corpora using AmE06 as reference corpus. Corpora comparison (A): Lambda Legal The Williams Institute HRC LAMBDA COUPLES LGBT LEGAL SAME-SEX MARRIAGE MARRIAGE MARRIAGE EQUALITY COUPLES LGBT HRC SAME-SEX DE RIGHTS COURT STUDY SAME-SEX 2014 COUPLES TRANSGENDER WILLIAMS INSTITUTE STATE V.2. 2. The corpora comparison demonstrated that HRC are not unique in focussing on same-sex marriage. Lambda Legal and The Williams Institute were: 1. 3.1.

2: HRC keyword comparison using Lambda Legal and The Williams Institute as reference corpora A keyness analysis of the HRC corpus using Lambda Legal and The Williams Institute as reference corpora revealed that the three organisations speak about marriage and transgender rights in different ways. Lawrence v.The only notable differences between the corpora were attributable to organisational title (e. In The Williams Institute corpus. (e. 3.3. For instance. WILLIAMS INSTITUTE) and their functional remits. LAMBDA.g.2. The top 50 keywords in the HRC corpus were recorded (Appendices E and F) and the top 10 keywords presented below. To determine if there was a difference in the way these issues were discussed.g. After removing keywords that only referenced 1360613 41 . I conducted a keyness analysis of HRC PRs using Lambda Legal PRs and The Williams Institute PRs as reference corpora. the Lambda Legal corpus featured keywords like COURT and V. keywords like STUDY were likely due to the academic nature of their work. This was attributable to their legal advocacy work.2. Texas). LEGAL. Corpora comparison (B): HRC Keywords (Lambda Legal Reference Corpus) HRC HRC Keywords (The Williams Institute Reference Corpus) EQUALITY LGBT HRC EQUALITY CAMPAIGN SAME-SEX SAME-SEX TRANSGENDER COURT CAMPAIGN PRESIDENT HUMAN RIGHTS PRESIDENT HUMAN SUPPORT ORGANIZATION AMERICANS WASHINGTON Table 3.

HUMAN. HRC believes this should be a wa kickoff event for Americans for Marriage Equality. as opposed to same-sex MARRIAGE being one step on the path towards true EQUALITY. MARRIAGE collocated primarily with TO SAME-SEX COUPLES. This suggests that EQUALITY is now synonymous with same-sex MARRIAGE. In The Williams Institute corpus. The online Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Should Add marriage to same-sex couples in Colorado marriage to same-sex couples.e. SAME-SEX collocated most frequently with COUPLES and MARRIAGE. The most compelling data. The most notable result when compared to Lambda Legal was the keyword TRANSGENDER.the title and slogan (i.1. Both corpora however revealed that HRC uses the keywords EQUALITY and SAME-SEX significantly more. As demonstrated in 3. and ORGANIZATION). known as Republicans 41 and older support equality. the study (Appendix 95) The nominalisation of MARRIAGE EQUALITY is not unique to HRC. an astonishing 59 percent of tho marriage Measure 36. EQUALITY collocates almost entirely with MARRIAGE. HRC. this marriage to same-sex couples. MARRIAGE collocated primarily with EXTENDING.2. This raises the following questions: 1360613 42 . the data revealed the following.. a bipartisan coalition formed (Appendix F) This was unique when compared against The Williams Institute corpus. however. serve as a national platform for challenging Oregon’s ban on marriage equality. This suggests that transgender issues factor more prominently in the HRC corpus. Constitution to block marriage equality. In the HRC corpus. Extending the first three years of extending marriage to same-sex couples. In the HRC corpus. LGBT. seen in states that already extend states that have not yet extended mar-2014Colorado: Extending first three years LOS ANGELES.S. CAMPAIGN. but its frequency is. came from the use of the keyword EQUALITY. and national efforts for marriage equality. When sorted right. EQUALITY primarily collocates with MARRIAGE making it a noun phrase: state. MARRIAGE was discussed primarily as part of a process Рas the subject in a verb phrase. RIGHTS. Judge McS the U. When sorted left.

0 as a guide:       Economic inequality Healthcare and support for people living with HIV Immigration LGBTIQ* youth homelessness Criminalisation and mass incarceration of LGBTIQ* youth Racial injustice My question was:  Does HRC discuss. in a significant way. 1360613 43 . I then conducted a search of key terms using the socioeconomic issues discussed in Section 1. What I have provided in the next section is a list of the key terms searched and a summary of any significant findings. I generated a wordlist that showed both the frequency and the relative frequency of each word in the HRC corpus. I returned to the HRC corpus to investigate if HRC significantly discussed any other issues pertaining to equality or inequality. with the legalization of same-sex marriage. economic equality.2. Key terms search: IN/EQUALITY KEY In order to establish if HRC discussed any other issues pertaining to in/equality. While the frequency showed the actual number of times a word was used. the relative frequency tool normalised the results with respect to the corpus size and converted the frequency to a more representative percentage value (Rayson 2008:530). any socioeconomic issues facing the LGBTIQ* community? The full results of this analysis are shown in Appendix H. EQUALITY has been achieved? Does this use of EQUALITY limit the discussion of other forms of equality. equal access to quality health care. equal access to housing. 3.4.   Has HRC co-opted the phrase EQUALITY for the sole purposes of its campaign for same-sex marriage? Is HRC implying that. ie. and so on? In order to begin answering these questions.

2.2.2. Asylum. NON-DISCRIMINATION and PROTECTIONS.05 was EMPLOYMENT which. Care. HEALTHCARE. CARE. The only other word with a relative frequency over 0.3.4. This demonstrates that. The issue of HIV/AIDS is neglected altogether. Healthcare and support for people living with HIV/AIDS Key terms: Healthcare.2. Deportation. had the highest relative frequency of the key terms searched. Medical. Refugee None of the terms associated with immigration had a relative frequency above 0. Insurance None of the terms associated with HEALTHCARE had a relative frequency above 0. Income. their relative frequency suggests a significant lack of consideration. Employment.3. However. WORK and WORKING were primarily used in verb phrases unrelated to employment.03. HIV and ACCESS had the highest relative frequencies ranging between relative frequencies of 0. and protections for low-income people. This demonstrates that HRC are almost entirely overlooking the issue of immigration and asylum seekers. WORKERS collocated primarily with LGBT and referred to protections and discrimination. Mental. 3. WORKPLACE collocated primarily with words like DISCRIMINATION. 3. Disability. collocated primarily with DISCRIMINATION and PROTECTION These findings suggest that HRC focuses primarily on employment and the workplace. TREATMENT. 1360613 44 . while discourses concerning HEALTH and HEALTH CARE are present in the HRC corpus. Economic inequality: Key terms: Job.01. Wealth. HIV. The highest frequency terms were IMMIGRANTS. but does not frequently address the ramifications of unemployment like poverty. Immigration Key terms: Immigration. Migrant. AIDS.4. WORK. like WORKPLACE.4. Welfare The lemma. Access.03. welfare.02 and 0. Poverty. Work.1. and DEPORTATION occurring 10 times. occurring 13 times. Treatment.

1360613 45 . LGBTIQ* youth homelessness Key Terms: Homelessness.00 indicating that the issue of LGBTIQ* Youth Homelessness is effectively absent in the HRC corpus. GAY and TRANSGENDER.1. SAME-SEX. AfricanAmerican.2. Uganda and The Gambia. Latino/a.02. Racial. EQUALITY. a collocation analysis of each keyword revealed that MARRIAGE was the most frequently discussed social justice issue. the keyness analysis demonstrated that the most frequent keywords were MARRIAGE. Color. By omitting issues of race and ethnicity from their platform for equality.01 while the remaining terms associated with racial injustice all factored at 0. COUPLES.6. that more than half of the time PRISON was used (nine times out of 16). Shelter HOMELESSNESS and SHELTER have relative frequencies of 0. Black.5. In 3.5. Profiling. Ethnicity.g. Racial injustice Key Terms: Race.4. 3.3. Racism. COUPLES. Incarceration The highest relative frequency was for PRISON at 0.00. it was in relation to the incarceration of LGBTIQ* individuals in countries other than the US. BLACK and HISPANIC both had a relative frequency of 0. Their silence on the issue is conspicuous as 40% of all homeless youth identify as LGBTIQ* (Durso and Gates 2012:3).2.2.4. Corpus analysis summary In Section 3. 3.2.4. 3.01. Imprisonment. Criminalization and mass incarceration of LGBTIQ* youth Key Terms: Prison. e.4. and GAY all collocated with MARRIAGE in some way. Asian. Concordances showed. White While RACE and COLOR were the most frequent terms.2. HRC demonstrate that they do not view the LGBTIQ* social justice as imbricated with the rights of ethnic and racial minorities.2. neither of the terms had a relative frequency above 0.2. SAME-SEX. however. EQUALITY. Hispanic.

while the relative frequency of MARRIAGE and EQUALITY were 1. For example. This suggested that HRC’s critics are justified in accusing HRC of framing same-sex marriage as the only path to equality. In 3. In Section 3. If the most influential LGBTIQ* advocacy group frames EQUALITY as synonymous with MARRIAGE. This has significant repercussions. I compared the PR corpora from two other LGBTIQ* non-profit organizations (Lambda Legal and The Williams Institute) against HRC. racial injustice. healthcare. LGBTIQ* youth homelessness as well as LGBTIQ* criminalisation and incarceration. This comparison demonstrated that. and if people and things are repeatedly talked about in certain ways. HIV/AIDS. A compelling finding was the collocational frequency between MARRIAGE and EQUALITY. then it is plausible that this will affect how they are thought about’ (Stubbs 1996:92). but as the sole measure by which LGBTIQ* equality is achieved. then we can expect that the media will follow suit and the public will begin to believe this is the case. I investigated the accusation that HRC do not discuss any other social issues in a significant way.2. using EQUALITY almost exclusively with MARRIAGE suggests that EQUALITY is synonymous with MARRIAGE.86 respectively. I searched key terms relating to economic inequality. The HRC is uniquely positioned to influence the shape and scope of the campaign for LGBTIQ* social justice. Same-sex marriage is no longer represented as one step on the road to LGBTIQ* equality.0 and 0.07. while the privileging of same-sex marriage over other issues was not unique. immigration. Stubbs claims that ‘if particular lexical and grammatical choices are regularly made.TRANSGENDER was the only keyword that did not connect to the campaign for samesex marriage. First.2.4. Results showed that HRC are effectively silent on all of these social issues. They have the media presence and resources to shape public 1360613 46 .3. the highest frequency key term from the list above was EMPLOYMENT at 0. the use of the phrase MARRIAGE EQUALITY was. The second implication has to do with the construction of social reality through discourse. This revealed the extent to which MARRIAGE EQUALITY (Appendix F) has become a fixed noun phrase.

In fact. and the incarcerated are not included in the HRC’s interests. 1360613 47 . the sick. the homeless. Many people. The data also show that HRC wilfully neglects issues that affect marginalised and vulnerable populations within the community. An important question is:  How do HRC represent the argument for marriage equality in the media? In the next section. PRs are not a reflection of how HRC is covered in the media. The data suggest that people of colour. however. still actively support HRC. the poor. PRs reveal a calculated media strategy to advance the interests of the organisation.perceptions about what LGBTIQ* Americans hope for and what they wish to achieve in the fight for equality. the corpus data reveal that HRC is an organisation that has limited the scope of equality to a single-issue. I will conduct a practical argument analysis of an HRC PR that explains why marriage equality is the primary goal for HRC.

2014. The press release chosen is titled #LoveCantWait: Why America Needs Marriage Equality Now (Appendix J) and was selected for the following reasons: 1. Text: The #LoveCantWait: Why America Needs Marriage Equality Now PR was distributed on September 30th. The PR was also written to generate publicity for their hashtag #LoveCantWait – a social media campaign that encourages Americans to share their stories about same-sex marriage under the HRC banner and at HRC. 4. The following practical argumentation analysis addresses the claim that ‘America needs marriage equality now’ (L1). 3. It provides a practical argument for why ‘marriage equality’ is a critical issue facing LGBTIQ* Americans. 2. In the DRA framework. 1360613 48 .1. this stage of analysis constitutes the normative critique of discourse. CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS: PRACTICAL ARGUMENTATION ANALYSIS Based on the corpus analysis. It focuses on HRC’s ‘marriage equality’ (L1) campaign and is therefore representative of the corpus findings. The text is structured as a practical argument for why ‘marriage equality’ (L1) is the best solution for many social injustices – an argument best analysed using Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2012) framework for analysing political discourse. HRC argues that the time has come for the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to begin hearing cases on the constitutional right of same-sex couples to wed. I selected a text on which to conduct a CDA using Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2012) framework for analysing practical arguments.4. This exercise aimed to determine how HRC represents the Marriage Equality campaign and what practical arguments they use to justify their claims.org/LoveCantWait.0. In it. It is therefore a rationale for HRC’s preoccupation with ‘marriage equality’ (L1) and could reveal why HRC privileges this one issue at the expense of others.

financial and emotional hardships’ (L2) of same-sex couples. the means-goal for achieving this requires SCOTUS begin hearing pending marriage cases. The values for such a claim are represented as a belief in equality and fairness for all Americans and a belief that legal marriage is the fundamental vehicle for equality.4. HRC claims that America needs marriage equality immediately in order to achieve the goal of ending ‘the legal. Outline of HRC argument Figure 4. would result in ‘real families suffer[ing] the often tragic consequences’ (L12-13) of being unable to legally wed. The alternative option.1 HRC argument: Why America needs ‘marriage equality’ now In the #LoveCantWait PR.2. According to HRC. that SCOTUS does not hear these cases immediately. The circumstances that HRC provide for this claim are based on the broad and systematic suffering of same-sex couples ‘solely because they can’t get married’ (L3). 1360613 49 .

Each issue is written in bold capitals followed by a colon and a brief explanation (2-3 sentences) that details how same-sex marriage bans have legal ramifications on people’s lives. without constitutional protection. Dept. the text reads like a legal report. The HRC PR advocates that SCOTUS. a ruling in the Goodridge v. the truth is there are essential legal protections and safeguards that come with marriage’ (L16). ‘parenting’ (L34). Between lines 22-54. ‘property rights’ (L27). Sentence subjects are collective groups like ‘same-sex partners’ (L31). The PR text then draws on two strategies to outline how banning same-sex marriage affects ‘real people and real families’ (L15). Department of Public Health 2003). made it inevitable that SCOTUS should make a decision on the constitutional protection of same-sex marriages. The high lexical density indexes a formal register that is then contrasted with a section using emotional language to recount ‘stories from real Americans that detail why the Supreme Court shouldn’t delay 1360613 50 . of Public Health case resulted in Massachusetts becoming the first state to recognise same-sex marriage (Goodridge v. While SCOTUS initially declined to hear appeals against this ruling (Kirkpatrick and Zizima 2004). should make decisions to protect ‘real Americans’ (L55) suffering the consequences of marriage-bans. and ‘emergency services’ (L52). DC (L23-24). Nonetheless. ‘adoption and custody’ (L37). ‘healthcare decisions’ (L30).1. Circumstances In 2004.2. The HRC president emphasizes the necessity of legal action: by stating that ‘while we usually think of love and celebration when talking about weddings. a series of state ‘marriage-bans’. ‘employer benefits’ (L44). ‘same-sex couples’ (L34) and ‘same-sex spouses’ (L45). ‘veterans benefits’ (L49). At the time #LoveCantWait was published.4. ‘Taxes’ (L41). same-sex couples face issues in’ (L22):‘Out-of-state recognition’ (L23). same-sex couples could marry in 19 states as well as Washington. independent states could deny recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions (L24-26). ‘without legal marriage recognition. Human subjects become ‘someone’ (L28) and ‘a person’ (L28). The text begins its exposition on the ‘devastating hardships’ (L18) faced by ‘unwed same-sex couples’ (L18 – emphasis added) by claiming that. as the final arbiter of the law and constitution. ‘social security’ (L47).

a ‘grieving widower’ (L92) would have been able to mourn. the phrase ‘unfriendly territory’ indexing discourses around America’s foreign policy and conflicts waged by the US in the Middle East. When one dies. personal histories and descriptions of the relationships to one another. ‘fighting tooth and nail to deny her deceased son’s husband the dignity of being listed as what he his – David’s spouse’ (L90-91). The title of the final story suggests being stationed in a foreign combat zone. Unlike the first set of section headings. In the second. a state that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage (L103). committed relationship…of … 30 years’ (L62) between two Californian women. Divided into three accounts. The first story features a ‘loving. the titles are: ‘If she’d lived six days longer…’ (L59). Huskey would continue fighting in America’s wars while raising her children on a military base of the army’s choosing. The stories also reveal full names. These two strategies within the text depict a set of circumstances where ‘real Americans’ (L55) suffer legal injustice that results in extreme emotional suffering. and Cpl. it is implied they would have carried on receiving ‘pension’ (L75). Afghanistan and Pakistan. By indexing the sacrifices of the American military. Nivia Huskey and her wife Jessica… (who) are expecting a child’ (L99-100) in North Carolina. When one dies. Instead. then how is it that the nation denies them their right to enjoy a heteronormative union? But by suggesting that these women are victims of a system that denies them the choice of where to live. stolen’ (L76). The text concludes with the statement: ‘These women didn’t choose to live in a state that denies them marriage rights. two men who ‘had been together for seven years … decide[] to get married’ (L77-78). If the couples described were able to legally wed. HRC is drawing on discourses of patriotism and asking the question: If our servicewomen can sacrifice their lives for us. and ‘Service members stationed in unfriendly territory’ (L94). HRC is suggesting that they also had no choice but to join the military industrial complex and fight America’s wars. ‘A man’s final moments with his husband. they are required to live there by the military’ (L108-109). North Africa. While the prejudicial effects of heterosexism are complex and imbricated with 1360613 51 . these are written in sentence case and read like titles for a narrative. a homophobic mother interferes. the other is denied her benefits.in taking up a marriage equality case’ (L55-56). the story actually features ‘marine Cpl.

‘multiple. ‘without legal marriage. But such a gross simplification of the multiple injustices faced by LGBTIQ* people. They cannot get married because SCOTUS has yet to hear the cases that would will lead to a final constitutional amendment. This is a deliberate over-simplification that privileges the struggles of those middle and upperclass gays and lesbians who face few other social barriers. In a similar vein. HRC presents a series of legal challenges that. have significantly higher rates of poverty than do white LGB same-sex couples (CAP 2015. HRC does not mention that LGB adults ‘are unemployed at a rate 40% higher than the overall average’ (McBride and Miller 2014). intersecting struggles against multiple. HRC reminds us that. Rather. However. unemployment does not factor as a measure of inequality in the HRC text. there’s no guarantee of an automatic property transfer to a surviving spouse when someone dies’ (L27-28). HRC reduces these issues to a single circumstance: ie. As shown in the corpus analysis. In the first section of #LoveCantWait. and 55% of and Native American same-sex couples were suffering from food shortages (CAP 2015). had a poverty rate of nearly 20%. It is safe to assume that the majority of people in these demographics do not own property making the ‘the guarantee of an automatic property transfer to a surviving spouse’ (L28) an ancillary concern to simply having shelter. intersecting injustices’ (Fraser 1995:92). HRC argue that ‘same-sex couples experience legal. HRC presents employer benefits and access to a partner’s health insurance as serious issues for same-sex couples (L44-46). For instance. While this is indeed an example of discriminatory treatment. A statistic that is even worse for transgender and gender non-conforming adults who ‘experienced unemployment at twice the rate of the general population…with rates for [transgender] people of color up to four times the national unemployment rate’ (Grant et al 2011). deal primarily with those who have an income and own property. research shows that LGB people of colour in same-sex relationships. LGBTIQ* people suffer injustice because they cannot get married. financial and emotional hardships solely because they can’t get married’ (L2-3) 1360613 52 . while important to address for some within the LGBTIQ* community. African-American female couples. as outlined in Chapter 1. Badgett et al 2013): AfricanAmerican male couples were found to have poverty rates six times that of white male couples (Badgett et al 2013).

The corpus data reveal that EQUALITY collocates primarily with MARRIAGE. They do not address critical issues for LGBTIQ* Americans that include: income inequality. and effectively reserves ‘equality’ for those in ‘loving’ (L62) and ‘committed’ (L62) relationships that do not face any other injustices. This statement is incongruous.2. unequal access to citizenship. when compared with the argument presented in the #LoveCantWait PR and especially with the corpus data. Evidence for this is seen in labels such as: ‘real people’ (L15). 56) and ‘bans’ another two 1360613 53 .4. and an epidemic of violence and murder perpetrated against transwomen. In addition to ‘marriage’. racial inequality. What does it mean to be a real American or a real family? It is clear from the text that HRC regard a ‘real’ American family as one that owns property and is constituted by couples who have jobs with benefits and health insurance and who file tax returns for themselves and their would-be spouses. and these findings are reflected in the text. By presenting a ‘loving. however. HRC depict a socially conservative community as the ‘real families’ that are suffering from social injustice. HRC chooses to ignore them. Although these issues have profound consequences on the lives of LGBTIQ* people in America. ‘equality’ collocates with ‘case’ twice (L6.2. ‘Real’American families are also represented by the couples chosen in the latter half of the text. The pre-eminence of marriage in the HRC agenda demonstrates a conservative value system that excludes many LGBTIQ* people whose households and relationships are beyond the scope of HRC’s vision of normative family values. and ‘real Americans’ (L55). but also with CASES and BAN/S. ‘equality’ being a term that is used 11 times in the text. ‘real families’ (L13. Values The values that HRC claim to espouse generally and which they represent as central to the #LoveCantWait text are ‘fundamental fairness and equality for all’ (L113). lack of housing. a man who ‘pray(s) for his husband’ (L80) and military ‘service members’ (L98-99). unequal access to healthcare. all the while ignoring other critical issues. the militarisation of the police and mass-incarceration of people of colour.15). committed relationship…of nearly thirty years’ (L62).

protected police from shooting and killing unarmed black civilians (Chan and Juzwiak 2014. 91). he is reinforcing a communal acceptance of marriage as an extension of the state’s capacity to claim authority over sexual and intimate relationships. Holt 2002). 20. although HRC should question why marriage dictates visitation policies in hospitals over and above legal next-of-kin (HRC 2015f. They are a part of it. This is unsurprising considering that the text is concerned with SCOTUS. However. 58). Coates 2013. is indicative of an implicit value present in the argument. Holt 2002). criminalised and abused the transgender* and gender non-conforming both on the streets and within the prison system (Grant. These injustices are not separate from LGBTIQ* social justice. 2011. Thus. They argue instead that ‘real [LGBTIQ*] families’ should be included in a system predicated on inequality to begin with. HRC ignore the lessons of history and seek to ‘(correct) inequitable outcomes of social arrangements without disturbing the underlying framework that generates them’ (Fraser 1995:82). they do not. and perpetuated a racially divided justice system that protects some while brutalising and terrorising the rest (Coates 2013.times (L25. Nor does HRC contest those tax breaks for married couples that marginalise single people and victimise single mothers (HRC 2015f. up until this point. HRC’s fundamental value of ‘equality’ is discussed primarily within legal discourse. Kellaway and Brydum 2015). Similarly. ie. 1360613 54 . When the HRC president reminds us that there are ‘essential legal protections and safeguards that come with marriage’ (L17). discussing equality through legal discourses. 2015. by leading the audience to believe that equality can be gained through a constitutional amendment. By placing too much value on the American legal system. et al . J. This is illogical since this system has. Warner 2000). 2015. ‘states’ (L50). The remaining occurrences within the main text collocate with ‘legal’ (L17. HRC value the legitimacy of existing institutions and are invested in their continued power to control social relations. HRC index a belief that the legal system can administer social justice. and ‘now’ (L1) and in the text. Warner 2000).

The counter-claim is supported by possible negative consequences that could result by acting on the main claim. however. Rather. Duggan (2008) points out that ‘the advent of gay marriage has led many private and public institutions…to eliminate domestic partnership recognition and require marriage for recognition and benefits’ (2008:156). Similarly. i. But are we to believe that all legal. maintaining the status quo. financial and emotional hardships of African-Americans end with the Emancipation Proclamation or Desegregation? The point is not to compare social 1360613 55 .4 Means-goal HRC claims that the means-goal for ending ‘the legal. I will not achieve my goal. Warner warns that the pursuit of same-sex marriage frames the end goal of liberation as the ‘ultimate conformity of gay people to [straight] norms’ (Warner 2000:82).2. The institutionalisation of same-sex marriage ‘would leave unmarried queers looking more deviant before a legal system that could claim broader legitimacy’ (Warner 2000:121).by extending marriage rights to same-sex couples.e. benefits currently afforded to non-traditional households may decline.2. If I do A. 4. i. HRC’s argument fails to present any negative consequences in achieving ‘marriage equality’. The negative consequences of a delay by SCOTUS amount to same-sex couples suffering the ‘often tragic consequences’ (L13) discussed in circumstances (4.e. it is implied that the alternative to ‘marriage equality right now’ (L1) would be a delay by SCOTUS to hear same-sex marriage cases. Legal same-sex marriage does. financial and emotional hardships’ (L2) of same-sex couples is for SCOTUS to begin hearing pending cases that would lead to a constitutional amendment legalising same-sex marriage. financial.4. non-traditional households – anyone who doesn’t wish to get married – could become even more marginalized than they are currently. Alternative Figure 2.1). there is no explicit alternative claim presented. have negative consequences for LGBTIQ* couples.3.e.2. i. In fact. and emotional hardships would simply vanish with a constitutional amendment? Did gender inequality disappear with women’s suffrage? Did the legal.0 presents a model in which deliberation involves a counter-claim or alternative to the claim for action (A).

5 Summary The argument presented in the HRC PR is problematic because it provides false premises for action. but to recognise that legislation does not always translate into lived experience.4). HRC is effectively advocating for inequality. To reduce this complexity to a single-issue is to falsely represent the LGBTIQ* community. 4. Rather they value a system predicated on inequality that they seek to uphold through inclusion. Second.struggles. and no actual deliberation. Legal marriage also sees the state bestowing benefits and entitlements. HRC presents a circumstantial premise in which LGBTIQ* couples suffer terrible consequences solely from bans on same-sex marriage. marriage functions as a way of dividing the sanctioned from the deviant. By advocating for inclusion within a system that disenfranchises some for the benefit of others. Rather. LGBTIQ* couples come from every regional. HRC’s PR consists of false representations. This is especially true of a private institution like marriage that is fundamentally about bestowing legitimacy on sexual and intimate relationships. marriage is by its very nature about inequality and privilege. ethnic. a marriage contract has not prevented different-sex couples from suffering ‘legal. the suffering of LGBTIQ* Americans will disappear. and socioeconomic background in America and thus face different struggles against many forms of injustice. HRC therefore do not value fairness and equality for all. financial and emotional hardships’ (L2). cultural.2. HRC suggest that the socioeconomic and political system of America is not the cause of suffering and that through full LGBTIQ* inclusion. upholding marriage as the path to equality condones a conservative value system that has little to do with these alleged values. and ‘legitimacy’ on children. It effectively privileges the circumstances of the elite who face few injustices outside of marriage rights and neglects the struggles of the marginalised. but it is not the sole form of discrimination faced by LGBTIQ* Americans. A denial of the right to marry is certainly discriminatory. Weighed against the measures of validity and truth (section 2. By presenting same-sex marriage as the only way to overcome these hardships. It can be argued therefore 1360613 56 . First. although HRC claims to represent the values of fairness and equality for all. This is untrue. While there are legal and financial benefits to being married. In its capacity to bestow dignity on sexuality.

e. i.that HRC are framing the premises in rhetorically convenient ways to advance their own interests represented in the means-goal and goal. ending the suffering of LGBTIQ* couples requires the legalisation of same-sex marriage . But why is HRC advocating for inclusion into institutions rooted in an unequal system? Why does HRC neglect the critical social and economic issues that are actually affecting the community? 1360613 57 .

HRC have textured social events so as to shape social practices and structures. 1360613 58 .. what purpose does it serve? In the following explanatory critique. ‘actively reproduce[] and transform[] society’ (Stubbs 1996:90). they are deliberate. this thesis shows how these texts represent a premeditated campaign to erase the issues of marginal LGBTIQ* Americans in order to achieve the goal of same-sex marriage recognition. ie.g. Similarly. when embedded in discourses. Using corpus data and a practical argumentation analysis of the #LoveCantWait PR.4. From HRC’s logo to the hashtag campaigns and slogans that inevitably include the word ‘Love’ (e. such as HRC. a style that indexes American family values and discourses of ‘freedom’ and ‘patriotism’ aligns the push for ‘marriage equality’ with an American tradition of ‘progress’. Their ability to shape the orders of discourse is rooted in their ability to control mediation. inevitably make choices on how to represent the world which. This raises an important question: why is HRC willing to pursue such a strategy at the expense of so many within the LGBTIQ* community? If the attainment of legal same-sex marriage neglects the needs of so many LGBTIQ* Americans. The function of a PR is to control how your organisation is represented in the media and perceived by the public. The cumulative power of these textual events is a social movement that is now defined by its pursuit of ‘marriage equality’. Their capacity to control these genres profoundly influences discourses surrounding the movement.3. research. that ‘marriage equality’ is good for the bottom line. #LoveCantWait. #LoveWins) HRC have marketed a brand of equality that appeals to both mainstream America and many within the LGBTIQ* community. Their extensive resources allow them to operate through numerous genres such as lobbying. Explanatory Critique Social agents. These discourses are disseminated through the media using a style that is both authoritative and marketable. public relations.e. I submit that HRC’s same-sex marriage campaign is primarily about corporate profit. i. in the case of HRC. campaign donations. Such choices are not always intentional but. #LoveConquersAll. and building alliances with influential social actors.

they must claim that they represent all LGBTIQ* Americans and that same-sex marriage is in the interests of everyone. upper-middle class cisgender. and lesbian demographic – that has the most to gain from marriage rights. issues like homelessness and economic inequality are missing from both the corpus and the #LoveCantWait PR.HRC is funded by corporations who stand to increase their profit if they appear philanthropic and sympathetic to the goals and values of LGBTIQ* Americans.a largely white. Thus the media’s pervasive representation of marriage as the measure of equality. Indeed. HRC cannot however explicitly cater to affluent gays and lesbians without losing popular support from the broader LGBTIQ* community. Instead. In this way. and automatic property transfers outlined in #LoveCantWait are improvements that would allow the LGBTIQ* elite to secure and grow their capital. their focus is on the LGBTIQ* elite . i. spousal benefits. LGBTIQ* Americans who would benefit from reforms in these areas do not have the spending power that HRC and their corporate sponsors are interested in. Their ability to control discourses through powerful media strategies and successful marketing has allowed them to establish the ideological hegemony required to represent their interests as the inevitable and moral direction of the LGBTIQ* rights movement. It follows then that campaigns benefiting poor and vulnerable LGBTIQ* Americans are rendered unimportant to HRC and their corporate sponsors (HRC 2015h). HRC orchestrates a campaign for marriage equality that serves the interests of the wealthy LGBTIQ* elite. the moneyed LGBTIQ* elite are encouraged to believe that buying power is the new vehicle for social justice. Instead. Helping them achieve this is good for the economy and is especially good for those HRC sponsors who appear to have contributed to this social change. and promotes these corporate sponsors as progressive and benevolent. It is therefore in the interests of HRC and their sponsors to promote a campaign that encourages LGBTIQ* Americans to spend their money with the sponsors in question. has garnered widespread support from 1360613 59 . to please sponsors and maintain their funding. and its omission of other issues. HRC also publish their ‘Buying for Workplace Equality Guide’. marketing the idea that by spending their money with progressive corporations. gay. LGBTIQ* Americans are actively contributing to social justice and an improved lifestyle..e. For example. In turn. the tax breaks.

They have overlooked all of the ways that systemic racial injustice. they have created a movement that ‘displaces socioeconomic redistribution as the remedy for injustice and the goal of political struggle’ (Fraser 1995:60) – a goal that would actually address the reality of LGBTIQ* social injustice. Searle claims that ‘when the agent of power gets the subjects to perceive only certain courses of action as open…the subjects come to want what the agent wants them to want’ (Searle 2010:147).LGBTIQ* Americans. Such an LGBTIQ* community is familiar to mainstream America and makes their social justice easy to embrace. but upholds and sustains them. Mainstream America can therefore feel good about extending marriage rights because marriage rights are an inclusive step that demands little of the existing social order. Addressing these 1360613 60 . They have abandoned families living in poverty and their children to whom it will be passed. in other words. By omitting these LGBTIQ* Americans from the discussion of LGBTIQ* equality. in a way that the mainstream media embraces and supports. Duggan calls this: The new homonormativity:… a politics that does not contend dominant heteronormative assumptions and institutions. depoliticized gay culture anchored in domesticity and consumption (Duggan 2003:50). They have helped America forget AIDS and the death of thousands of LGTIQ* people. HRC have effectively erased LGBTIQ* homeless youth from the discussion. HRC also benefits from presenting LGBTIQ* Americans as a homogenous community. Such a community buys houses. police brutality and mass incarceration directly impact LGBTIQ* Americans. cars. They have hidden the crimes of solitary confinement in American prisons. white and unthreatening. and their inclusion into the fold represents American values like progress and equality. while promising the possibility of a demobilized gay constituency and a privatized. The HRC PR characterises the LGBTIQ* community as ‘real Americans’ and ‘real families’. as affluent. Popular support for LGBTIQ* Americans therefore provides popular support for same-sex marriage. I believe they have done this because solving these issues would require that America reckons with a culture that makes certain bodies worth less than others. They have hidden the murders of transwomen and the hate-crimes perpetrated against LGBTIQ* people on the streets of America.

same-sex marriage functions like a distraction. HRC and its supporters would never want real social justice because that would mean a redistribution of wealth and a loss of their socioeconomic and political power. A social movement that demands genuine equality is not good for business. America can believe itself progressive and believe it is upholding fairness and equality without actually having to look at real inequality and the suffering that it causes. 1360613 61 . the entire structure of American society stays exactly the same. On the contrary. In the end.problems would require that Americans acknowledge how their comfort is imbricated with the suffering of others. and automatic property transfers. The breadth of HRC’s media presence has transformed a social justice movement into nothing more than a public relations campaign for the LGBTIQ* elite. tax breaks. The marriage equality campaign is therefore not representative of real social justice or change. by including LGBTIQ* couples into the fold of weddings.

This study sought to establish to what extent HRC represents the interests of a diverse LGBTIQ* community in the US. over 6. Hodges 2015. A subsequent practical argumentation analysis affirmed that the omission of other issues – such as gender. SCOTUS ruled that state-level bans on same-sex marriages were unconstitutional (Obergefell v. the study aimed to uncover the degree to which HRC failed to advocate on behalf of marginalised LGBTIQ* Americans who lack the resources to represent themselves. The HRC. A corpus analysis of HRC’s 2014 press releases revealed that this accusation was largely correct and that HRC primarily advocated for same-sex marriage at the expense of all other issues. Finally. and the moneyed LGBTIQ* elite have much to gain from marriage rights. including President Barack Obama (Flynn 2015). the discourse generated by HRC’s media campaign was transformed into an integral part the LGBTIQ* social justice movement.sanctioned the HRC’s premise that only ‘marriage equality’ could bring social justice to LGBTIQ* Americans. and gender equality (among others) from the HRC agenda. As information spread that same-sex marriage was now legal in all 50 states. but little to gain from transformational justice that would improve the lives of millions of LGBTIQ* Americans. i.2 million Twitter users had shared #LoveWins. effectively erasing economic equality.5. HRC 2015g). Thus.0 CONCLUSION To place the conclusion of this study into context. HRC’s successful marketing of the samesex marriage campaign had also become synonymous with the SCOTUS decision and the movement’s ‘victory’ (HRC 2015g).. More specifically. 1360613 62 . the underlying structures that generate inequality. is informed primarily by the dictates of the market. As far as the HRC is concerned. their corporate sponsors. economic and racial inequality .e. Within 6 hours of the ruling. on June 26th 2015. it is the author’s opinion that the HRC agenda. Internet users immediately adopted the HRC hashtag #LoveWins. This agenda serves to uphold. racial equality. rather than to question. and especially its corporate sponsors. the word ‘equality’ is indistinguishable from the right to marry. HRC’s effectiveness in controlling discourse surrounding the LGBTIQ* movement generated the false perception that all LGBTIQ* Americans speak with one voice and that this voice is represented by HRC.

the complex struggles of all LGBTIQ* people. With Lorde’s voice in mind. Van Dijk 1993). While arguments for transformative action are necessary. Ultimately though. 2010). Audre Lorde wrote: ‘There is no such thing as a single issue struggle because we do not live single-issue lives’ (Lorde 1984:138). the reality is that there is also a disjuncture between CDA and actual transformative action (Fairclough 2015. in this case. might make its own contribution to the struggle. I began with a normative critique of discourse. especially when pursued in solidarity with the social agents they seek to represent. through the study of language. that this particular CDA is a gesture in the direction of genuine social justice that.Of the desire to adequately address the unique struggles found at the intersection of race. followed by an explanatory critique of how HRC’s discourse contributes to and maintains a social order predicated on inequality. this study was conducted in solidarity with those whose issues remain absent from the mainstream LGBTQ* movement. and sexuality. the goal of such normative and explanatory critique is to generate a practical argument for transformative social justice that includes. Fairclough 2003. 30 years later. gender. 1360613 63 . While such a project is beyond the scope of this thesis. their success can only be ‘measured by [their] effectiveness and relevance…by [their] contribution to change’ (Van Dijk 1993:253). Using Fairclough’s DRA framework (Fairclough and Chouliaraki 1999. those words resound and illuminate HRC’s neglect of the complex struggles of LGBTIQ* people in favour of a single-issue and marketable politics. It is my hope then.

08. New Patterns of Poverty in the Lesbian.pdf Althusser. Lee. and Smith. London: Jonathan Cape Bassichis. P. R. Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes towards an investigation).net/ Armstrong. Pp.REFERENCES Albelda. P. L.ucla. Roland ([1964] 1967). Poverty in the Lesbian.edu/wp-content/uploads/Albelda-Badgett-SchneebaumGates-LGB-Poverty-Report-March-2009.3 [Computer Software] Tokyo. [Accessed on 01.15] Available from: http://www. A.law. London: Continuum Baker. D. Baker.15] Available from: http://williamsinstitute.laurenceanthony. 71. 86-111. Annette Lavers & Colin Smith). N. UCLA: The Williams Institute. Pp. 2006.salon. ‘Movements and Memory: The Making of the Stonewall Myth’. 2006. and Bisexual Community. [Online]. [Online] The Williams Institute. 2006. and Bisexual Community.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGB-Poverty-Update-Jun2013. 2013. and Crage.2015]. The 6 most hysterical right-wing responses to SCOTUS’ same-sex marriage ruling. (eds) Captive 1360613 64 . and Spade. Pp. Available from: http://www. 247-256 Barthes. Critical Discourse Studies. Japan: Waseda University. E.law. ‘Acceptable bias? Using corpus linguistics methods with critical discourse analysis'.ucla. J. AntConc Version 3. Elements of Semiology (trans. 2009. E.4. ‘A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press’. 2015.pdf Baker.com/2015/06/29/the_6_most_hysterical_right_wing_responses_to_s cotus_same_sex_marriage_ruling_partner/ Anthony. et al 2008. Gay. Discourse & Society 19(3). Allon. 2011. [Online] [Accessed on: 01. 9(3). 724–751 Badgett. ‘Building an Abolitionist Trans and Queer Movement with Everything We’ve Got’. [Accessed on 03. et al. S. 273-306. M. American Sociological Review. In: The anthropology of the state: A reader.. Gay. L. M et al. 2012.09.08. 2014. P. Available from: http://williamsinstitute. In Stanley. Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis.

Stonewall: The Riots that Sparked the Gay Revolution. Beyond Queer: Challenging Gay Left Orthodoxy. [Online] [Accessed on 01. Pp.Genders: Trans Embodiment and the Prison Industrial Complex. The forms of capital.08.pdf Center for American Progress. [Online] Center for American Progress. 2012.23.15] Available from: https://cdn.php Belch G. [Online][Accessed on 03. 2015. 241-258. P. 2015.08. 2014.cdc. 2004.pdf 1360613 65 . [Online] [Accessed on 01.com/2014/09/chad_griffin_apologies_to_trans_community_on_behal . Living in Dual Shadows: LGBT Undocumented Immigrants.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ Center for American Progress. 1986. and Belch M. G. The Facts on Immigration Today.lgbtmap. New York: McGraw Hill Bourdieu. J. In: Richardson. J.org/file/paying-an-unfair-price-lgbt-people-of-color. Discourse Analysis. 1996. Pp. 2014.08. Edinburgh: AK Press. D. [Accessed on 01.bilerico. (ed). and Yule. Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective. B.15] Available from: http://www. G. Paying an Unfair Price: The Financial Penalty for People of Color in America.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/04/ImmigrationFacts-brief-10.15] Available from: http://www.americanprogress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Burns et al. Brown.Martin’s Center for Disease Control.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/03/08/55674/livingin-dual-shadows/ Carter. The Bilerico Project.15] Available from: https://www. 1983.americanprogress. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood. HIV/AIDS Statistics Overview. Chad Griffin Apologies to Trans Community on Behalf of HRC.15] Available from: http://www.09.15 – 40 Bawer. [Online] [Accessed on 15. 2013. New York: The Free Press Becker. New York: St.08.

Durham: Duke University Press D’Emilio.edu/HRC/exhibition/whatishrc/index. A. T. 2). 2014.08. Unarmed People of Color Killed by Police.. ‘Discourse Analysis’ in: Simpson.library. Between the World and Me. ‘Capitalism and Gay Identity’ in Abelove. 2014. and Juzwiak. C. Conrad. & Fairclough. ‘The Marriage Fight is Setting Us Back’. Making Trouble: Essays on Gay History. M. R. Edinburgh: Edinburgh university press. Cook. (eds). 2014. Discourse in late modernity (Vol. The World Turned: Essays on Gay History. Perth: University of Western Australia Press Chouliaraki. The Twilight of Equality. K. J. The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader.. and Pendleton. New York: Routledge. N. Against Capitalism: Towards an economic critique of gay marriage’ In: D’Cruz. T. In: The Gay and Lesbian Review. The Case for Reparations. Gawker. After Homosexual: The Legacies of Gay Liberation. 2011. J. 2015. Barale.cornell. 25 Years of Political Influence: The Records of the Human Rights Campaign.theatlantic.Chan. 476 – 476 D’Emilio. J. L. 1999-2014. 1993.org/article/the-marriage-fight-is-setting-us-back/ Duggan.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-casefor-reparations/361631/ Coates. Politics. Abingdon: Routledge Cornell University. L. Boston: Beacon Press 1360613 66 . New York: Routledge D’Emilio. (1999). [Online][Accessed on 01. 1992. and the University.com/unarmed-people-of-color-killed-by-police-1999-2014-1666672349 Coates.. and Halperin. [Online] June [Accessed on 10/04/15] Available from: http://www. H. Y.15] Available from: http://rmc. M. 2006. and Nair. 2003. ‘Against Equality. J. G..] Available from: http://www. Pp. The Atlantic. R. New York: Penguin Chávez. 2002.15. J. 2006. [Online] December 8th [Accessed online: 02/05/15] Available from: http://gawker. Politics. (eds). The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics. [Online] [Accessed on 31. D.glreview. and Culture.08.html D’Emilio. (ed).

Cambridge: Polity Press Fairclough. 1995. The Will to Knowledge: The History of Sexuality Part I. Brighton: The Harvester Press Foucault.155-157. M. How #LoveWins on twitter became the most viral hashtag of the same-sex marriage ruling. N. 2003.09. G. (1972). L and Gates. 2012. 1976. Pp. Foucault.law.pdf Fairclough I.edu/wpcontent/uploads/Durso-Gates-LGBT-Homeless-Youth-Survey-July-2012. M. [Online] The Williams Institute [Accessed on 31. 1982. Pantheon Books. Discourse and Social Change. and Rabinow.ibtimes. ‘The Subject and Power’. London: Penguin Flynn. Bisexual. [Online] [Accessed on 05.com/how-lovewins-twitter-became-most-viral-hashtag-same-sexmarriage-ruling-1986279 Fraser.15] Available from: http://williamsinstitute. N. The Archaeology of Knowledge: Translated from the French by AM Sheridan Smith.68-92. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. Pp. L. Durso. N.Duggan. Abingdon: Routledge Fairclough. Abingdon: Routledge Fairclough. ‘From Redistribution to Recognition? Dilemmas of Justice in A 'PostSocialist' Age’ New Left Review. Gay. 2012. 2008. Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students.15] Accessed on: http://www. Serving Our Youth: Findings from a National Survey of Service Providers Working with Lesbian. Abingdon: Routledge Foucault. In Dreyfus. Beyond same-sex marriage. 1360613 67 . London: Routledge Fairclough. 2010. and Fairclough N. N.07.ucla. P. N. Language and Power 3rd Edition. K. Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. 1992. M. H. 9(2). and Transgender Youth who are Homeless or At Risk of Becoming Homeless. 2015. Studies in Gender and Sexuality. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language 2nd Edition.

americanprogress.pdf Human Rights Campaign. G and Hoare.pdf Gruberg.08. (Eds.Mass: Supreme Judicial Court. Cambridge: Harvard University Press Human Rights Campaign. The Problem of Race in the 21st Century.08. 440 Mass.Goodridge v. New York: International Publishers Grant. Corporate Equality Index 2015 Survey. 2013. 2015c.org/the-hrc-story/about-our-logo Human Rights Campaign.07.15] Available from: http://hrc-assets.2015] Available from: https://cdn. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci.15] Available from: https://scholar. Department of Public Health. [Online][Accessed on 15.org/apps/buyersguide/#.org/PDFs/NTDS_Report. J.15] Available from: http://www. The HRC Story: About Our Logo. Available from: http://endtransdiscrimination. 2002.08. T. 2014.co.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/11/ImmigrationEnforcement. 2011. [Accessed on 03.15] Available from: http://www.+of+Public+Health&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 Gramsci. 2015a.org/resources/entry/corporate-equality-index-about-the-survey 1360613 68 .+Dept.hrc.08. 2015d.hrc. 1971.hrc. #LoveCantWait: Why America Needs Marriage Equality Now[Online][Accessed on 11.google. et al .08. [Online][Accessed on 15. Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. [Online] [Accessed on 01. Q.Ve2eNBFVhBd Human Rights Campaign. Buyer’s Guide.amazonaws.). Buying for Workplace Equality.15] Available from: http://www. A. Dignity Denied: LGBT Immigrants in US Immigration Detention.15] Available from: http://www. 2015b.s3-website-us-east1.hrc.08. [Online][Accessed on 15. 2003. [Online][Accessed on 04. [Online][Accessed on 15.08.uk/scholar_case?case=16499869016395834644&q=Goodridge+ v.pdf Holt. S.org/pressreleases/entry/lovecantwait-why-america-needs-marriage-equality-now Human Rights Campaign.com//files/assets/resources/2015BuyersGuide. NowellSmith. 309 . [Online] Center for American Progress.2015].

J.15] Available from: http://www.com/gst/fullpage.08. The Unfair Criminalization of Gay and Transgender Youth: An Overview of the Experiences of LGBT Youth in the Juvenile Justice System.org/press-releases Human Rights Campaign. [Online] Center for American Progress [Accessed on 03.08. and Brydum.09. D.15] Available from: https://www.org/issues/lgbt/report/2009/12/21/7048/how-to-close-thelgbt-health-disparities-gap/ Lambda Legal. National Corporate Partners. 2007.com/transgender/2015/07/27/these-are-trans-women-killed-so-farus-2015?page=full Kirkpatrick. How to Close the LGBT Health Disparities Gap. 2012.08. 2009. With Sweeping New Ruling.hrc.nytimes.html?res=9D00E1DE113EF933A05752C1A9629C 8B63& Krehely. K.08.15] Available from: http://query. Marriage Equality Must Begin in All 50 States [Online] [Accessed on 06. A. [Online] [Accessed on 01. About Us. [Online] New York Times [Accessed on 15.org/ Lorde.15] Available from: http://www. Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. Supreme Court Turns Down A Same-Sex Marriage Case.09. These are the US Trans Women killed in 2015. J. Overview of Federal Benefits Granted to Married Couples. 2004. 2015g.15] Available from: http://www.org/the-hrc-story/corporate-partners Hunt.lambdalegal. [Online][Accessed on 04.org/press-releases/entry/with-sweeping-new-ruling-marriage-equalitymust-begin-in-all-50-states Human Rights Campaign.org/issues/lgbt/report/2012/06/29/11730/the-unfaircriminalization-of-gay-and-transgender-youth/ Kellaway. 2015. [Online][Accessed on 15. A.Human Rights Campaign.americanprogress.15] Available from: http://www. [Online] The Advocate. 2015h. and Moodie-Mills.advocate.hrc. Berkeley: Crossing Press 1360613 69 . 2015.15] Available from: http://www. [Online] Center for American Progress [Accessed on 31. [Online][Accessed on 15.15] Available from: https://www. 2015f.15] Available from: http://www.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protectionsgranted-to-married-couples Human Rights Campaign. 2015e.americanprogress.07.hrc.hrc.08.08. [Accessed on 03. S. and Zezima. M.

K. R. D.2012. [Online] [Accessed on: 31. 2014. Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Human Rights Campaign Under Fire in the LGBT Community. [Online] TruthOut [Accessed on 04.google. Pp. & Coffin. M.uk/scholar_case?case=497090211360466192&q=Obergefell+v. T.+2015+W. K. [No place]:Against Equality Publication Collective Puar.php?id=D000000158&cycle=2012 1360613 70 . 13(4). In: Argument and Computation. C. Pp. Counter-discourse corpora.Mautner. Y. Hodges.L.org/orgs/summary..+2015)&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 O'Halloran. 2010.09. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Inferencing and cultural reproduction: a corpus-based critical discourse analysis. ‘A Corpus-based deconstructive strategy for critically engaging with arguments’. 122-143 McIntosh. Against Equality: Queer Critiques of Gay Marriage. [Online][Accessed on 05.15] Available from: https://www.21-51 O’Halloran. 182 – 192 Meronek. K. Text & Talk. Against Marriage’ in Conrad. and Meyer. K.15] Available from: http://www. London: SAGE pp.1080/19462166. In Social Problems.opensecrets. 2009. 213646 (U. J. O’Halloran.)Text and texture: systemic functional viewpoints on the nature and structure of text.729861 O’Halloran. (ed. 2015). 29 (1).S. +Hodges. M.15] Available from: https://scholar. 16(2).L. R. Paris: Editions L’Harmattan. 2013. ‘Against equality.truthout. Checking over-interpretation and under-interpretation: Help from corpora in critical linguistics. In: Banks. 2004. ed.08. ‘The Homosexual Role’. 781-813 Open Secrets. Pp. DOI:10. 1968.S.co. G.org/news/item/28430-human-rights-campaign-under-fire-in-lgbt-community Nair. (ed). 2009.org. Pp. Human Rights Campaign: Profile for 2012 Election Cycle.275-297. Journal of Language and Politics. ethical subjectivity and critique of argument: an alternative critical discourse analysis pedagogy’.08. 2015. 2007. 2015.+213646+(U. Durham: Duke University Press Obergefell v. 2015 W. ‘Checks and Balances: how corpus linguistics can contribute to CDA’ In: Wodak.

& Wodak. M. 2009. 2010. The Trouble with Normal: Sex. A.. In: Schiffrin. 12. Principles of critical discourse analysis. Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press Stubbs. and Meyer. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Stubbs. 4 (2) pp. Widdowson. and Meyer. Legitimizing immigration control: A discoursehistorical analysis. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Wodak. D. 83-118 Warner. 1999. 1995. M.G. pp. ‘Critical discourse analysis’. T. T. 519-549. 1997. Discourse Studies. Critical Discourse Analysis: history. 1996. & Hamilton. P. theory.Rabinow. London: Pan MacMillian Van Dijk. T. Van Dijk. 2000. Oxford: Blackwell Stubbs. Van Leeuwen. Tannen. J. 13(4). R. London: SAGE pp. The Foucault Reader: An Introduction to Foucault’s Thought. Whorf's children: Critical comments on critical discourse analysis (CDA). H. 2008. P. 1984. 2008. 2001. 1-33 1360613 71 . Discourse and Society. Searle. From key words to key semantic domains. H. D. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Discourse and Power. and methodology. Oxford: Blackwell: 352 – 371. 2004. Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality. M. 1(1).249-283 Van Dijk. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. 1983. (eds). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. R. 1993. Text and Corpus Analysis.100-116 Sullivan. M. In: Wodak. M. R. Context and Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. M. ed. T. London: Penguin Rayson. pp.. British studies in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Politics and the Ethics of Queer Life. agenda. Text.

2011. In: Steinmetz. 2009-2012.edu/mission/ Wyman. R. ‘Suppression of the Nazi Past.law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. R. King’s College London. (ed). 1360613 72 . Pp.ucla. 2015.09.Wodak. Coded Languages.15] Available from: http://williamsinstitute. 351-379. W. Master’s thesis. Political Languages in the Age of Extremes. Mission. The ‘Wall Street’ Premise: A corpus-based critical discourse analysis of President Obama’s Narrative of Blame for the Financial Crisis. The Williams Institute. [Online] [Accessed on: 01. 2012. and Discourses of Silence: Applying the Discourse-Historical Approach to Post-War Anti-Semitism in Austria’.

81 Discrimination 328 0.03 + 877.55 Bans 251 0.22 Same-Sex 565 0.36 HRC 992 0.00 + 3740.02 + 895.25 Federal 548 0.56 Gay 648 0.75 1360613 73 .00 + 1749.91 Rights 725 0.00 + 2130.01 + 2003.38 Protections 238 0.76 Washington 299 0.37 Ruling 223 0.01 + 1762.13 22 0.11 + 686.27 0 0.00 + 5110.32 Youth 258 0.88 Equality 1436 0.02 + 5457.53 Campaign 630 0.14 5 0.00 + 818.57 0 0.96 0 0.31 Ban 310 0.18 45 0.15 7 0.03 + 1667.43 Supreme 310 0.48 Transgender 464 0.00 + 1081.01 + 712.15 51 0.00 + 706.06 + 1224.19 13 0.00 161 0.39 71 0.21 48 0.25 210 0.00 + 913.18 People 741 0.78 Court 739 0.28 28 0.18 70 0.92 Law 435 0.36 Circuit 361 0.43 560 0.36 118 0.00 + 856.00 + 850.55 Bisexual 291 0.41 State 750 0.00 + 1127.00 + 1620.89 Civil_rights 214 0.35 Human 516 0. 287 0.33 0 0.37 71 0.30 324 0.02 + 1176.00 + 1130.01 + 2181.90 States 508 0.10 V.29 152 0.00 + 6271.APPENDIX A HRC PRESS RELEASES CORPUS Wmatrix 3 Keyness Analysis (compared against ‘American English 2006 [AmE06]) ITEM 01 %1 02 %2 LL LogRatio LGBT 1663 0.83 33 0.00 + 700.43 1083 0.00 + 884.13 0 0.17 39 0.00 + 1084.01 Anti-lgbt 217 0.32 240 0.31 Marriage 1725 1.01 + 2110.17 0 0.31 Lesbian 485 0.27 283 0.66 Couples 678 0.01 + 829.54 Support 473 0.03 + 932.17 1 0.12 14 0.42 94 0.02 + 1253.43 286 0.

00 + 524.01 + 580.71 Nt 132 0.08 2 0.92 Largest 235 0.17 114 0.08 0 0.15 122 0.00 + 492.11 32 0.65 211 0.00 + 477.09 0 0.69 Chad_Griffin 162 0.65 Laws 1360613 74 .38 HRCs 163 0.00 + 509.00 + 614.09 0 0.00 + 457.12 93 0.77 Orientation 168 0.10 25 0.08 0 0.01 + 548.05 + 505.30 NOM 136 0.14 70 0.01 + 678.02 + 678.65 144 0.66 Marry 182 0.24 441 0.00 + 492.10 18 0.65 Legal 262 0.08 13 0.00 + 546.81 Workplace 169 0.00 + 516.90 Nondiscrimination Legally 457.43 Cases 321 0.19 146 0.17 203 0.10 32 0.87 Appeals 179 0.01 + 451.76 Americans 300 0.00 + 610.97 Rulings 140 0.02 + 519.96 President 407 0.00 + 512.08 4 0.Organization 299 0.08 145 0.

APPENDIX B HRC CORPUS Collocation Figure 3.2: EQUALITY collocation 1360613 75 .1: MARRIAGE collocation Figure 3.

Figure 3.3: COUPLES collocation Figure 3.4: GAY collocation 1360613 76 .

Figure 3.5: TRANSGENDER collocation 1360613 77 .

Same-sex couples can legally marry in 17 states and Washing of countries where committed gay and lesbian couples can legally marry. Same-sex . Same-sex taking on state marriage bans. all “For the first time ever. Same-sex couples can legally marry in seventeen states and taking on state marriage bans. . 2015. couples can legally marry in seventeen states and couples can legally marry in Iowa and Minnesota. According to news rep taking on state marriage bans. couples can legally marry in Iowa and Minnesota. Same-sex couples can legally marry in seventeen states and -sex marriages in the state. Same-sex couples can legally marry in 17 states and Washing one man and one woman. taking on state marriage bans. At that time. Same-sex . North Dakota and South Dakota. at which point same-sex couples congregation can have their love and commitment recogn couples can legally begin marrying in the Sunshin one man and one woman. Same-sex 1360613 couples can be married in their home couples can legally marry in Iowa and Minnesota.Appendix C HRC PRESS RELEASES CORPUS: Antconc Concordance lines COUPLES sorted right with CAN church’s 172 presbyteries. Same-sex couples can legally taking on state marriage bans. Same-sex couples can legally marry in seventeen states and taking on state marriage bans. Same-sex couples can were filed in federal courts. Same-sex couples can legally marry in seventeen states and taking on state marriage bans. same-sex on January 5. Same-sex couples can legally marry in seventeen marry in seventeen states and legally marry in seventeen states and states and 78 . North Dakota and South Dakota.

Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states and survived a federal court challenge. Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states and th Democrat and Republican presidents. Same-sex couples can legally marry in on marriage equality. 44 percen bans struck down as unconstitutional. Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states and that support will slow down. Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states and Same-sex couples can legally marry in 19 states and the struck down marriage ban July 28] 1360613 79 . survived a federal court challenge. Same-sex couples can legally marry in eighteen states and in 29 states plus Puerto Rico. Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states and Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states and Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states and survived a federal court challenge. According to a March 2 couples can legally marry WASHINGTON – The day aft couples can legally marry. Same-sex couples can legally a jurisdiction with marriage equality. Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states and that support will slow down. Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states and has survived a court challenge. marry in nineteen states and Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states and stance on positivity and love. To date there have months. Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states and survived a federal court challenge. Same-sex couples can legally marry in ’s ban where committed and loving gay and lesbian live in states where gay and lesbian the coming weeks and couples can legally marry. Same-sex couples can legally marry in seventeen states and taking on state marriage bans.taking on state marriage bans. seventeen states and seventeen states and In response to today’ couples can legally marry. survived a federal court challenge. where gay and lesbian couples can legally marry. As of today. Same-sex couples can legally marry in eighteen states and living in a jurisdiction where same-sex in a state where gay and lesbian District of Columbia. Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states and struck down marriage ban June 25] Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states and Americans to support marriage equality.

lesbian Yet today. plus Washi Of the 24 states where same-sex couples can legally marry today. as same-sex . Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states and that support will slow down. Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states and in: OUT-OF-STATE RECOGNITION: Same-sex – have joined the nineteen where same-sex are today: · · couples can legally marry in 19 states and Washin couples can legally marry (plus Washington. DC) WA As of today. Susan Sarandon and Demi Lovato. the U. Today same-sex couples can legally marry in 35 states and Washin 80 . Susan term.S. marry in only 19 states and couples can legally marry in nineteen states and Susan Sarandon and Demi Lovato. Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states and ’s decision out of Louisiana. Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states and that support will slow down. the number of states where same-sex up the issue of marriage. 13 came through c before committed and loving gay and American society.” Same-sex great momentum toward marriage equality. Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states and that support will slow down. Same-sex that support will slow down. 1360613 couples can legally Same-sex . couples can legally marry in nineteen states and couples can legally marry in every corner of couples can legally marry in 32 states and couples can legally marry has Washin jumped from fifteen couples can legally marry in thirty-four states Same-sex couples can legally marry in 35 states and the Same-sex couples can legally marry in thirty-five states against state marriage bans. same-sex couples can legally marry in 24 states. Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states and Sarandon and Demi Lovato. Same-sex that support will slow down. Today same-sex couples can legally marry in 35 states and Washin against state marriage bans. same-sex that support will slow down. Supreme Court.have it equally and unequivocally. Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states and that support will slow down. Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states and that support will slow down. couples can legally marry in nineteen states and Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states and .

Today. click here. 1360613 same-sex couples can marry but are at risk of couples can marry immediately . same-sex the new marriage equality states in which new marriage equality law. 81 . DC. ’s Broad Same-Sex Implementation of Windsor Same-sex in England and Wales Gay and lesbian rulings against state marriage bans. gay and lesbian states with marriage equality. Colorad couples can marry in both civil and religious couples can marry in 19 states and Washington. Oklahoma. Couples Can Marry In Idaho 10/10/2014 WASHINGTON – couples can now be buried together in national couples can now legally marry in 16 countries arou couples can now legally marry in Utah.more than a dozen states. same-sex /or gender identity.Virginia.

06 + 446.13 7 0.00 + 845.02 + 496.00 + 438.36 285 0.44 0 0.00 + 469.00 + 460.02 + 2408.99 LGTB 158 0.00 + 4258.14 0 0.18 4 0.21 32 0.23 136 0.23 70 0. 202 0.32 ruling 154 0.00 + 675.16 122 0.00 + 637.03 + 665.95 court 528 0.01 discrimination 159 0.00 + 725.77 equality 119 0.36 Transgender 195 0.31 lawsuit 131 0.02 Indiana 160 0.00 + 760.00 + 447.74 1360613 82 .01 + 597.00 + 482.09 supreme 163 0.87 state 260 0.93 families 165 0.70 circuit 172 0.23 27 0.12 2 0.83 161 0.11 0 0.02 + 625.00 + 828.49 ban 166 0.00 + 694.23 108 0.00 + 2085.12 0 0.38 federal 233 0.88 http 129 0.31 legals 86 0.00 + 625.29 attorney 138 0.67 Same-sex 415 0.45 marry 150 0.84 discriminatory 131 0.26 200 0.99 HIV 181 0.00 + 630.14 Living with 93 0.45 filed 164 0.36 protections 95 0.00 + 535.38 de 99 0.70 married 163 0.36 560 0.90 case 257 0.01 + 2200.00 + 872.01 + 3724.49 2014 312 0.01 + 523.35 v.25 23 0.28 39 0.92 couples 489 0.58 16 0.06 legal 829 1.00 + 696.13 5 0.01 + 487.18 8 0.27 0 0.00 + 1669.00 + 665.22 13 0.22 0 0.74 286 0.10 together 188 0.17 33 0.00 + 1043.00 + 776.22 11 0.APPENDIX D LAMBDA PRESS RELEASES CORPUS Wmatrix3 Keyness Analysis (compared against ‘American English 2006 [AmE06]) ITEM 01 %1 02 %2 LL LogRatio lambda 801 1.22 22 0.03 + 1810.23 45 0.68 71 0.00 + 529.18 11 0.24 48 0.30 marriage 592 0.19 47 0.33 240 0.66 Puerto_Rico 82 0.

81 decision 134 0.appeals 103 0.09 4 0.17 today 151 0.98 1360613 83 .15 91 0.04 bans 68 0.92 marriages 99 0.19 108 0.13 52 0.00 + 318.33 LA 85 0.14 32 0.09 6 0.01 + 316.40 y 91 0.77 courts 95 0.00 + 304.03 + 293.70 director 142 0.00 + 347.00 + 355.01 + 338.34 ninth 63 0.13 33 0.74 South_Carolina 73 0.01 + 324.00 + 330.21 274 0.95 On_behalf_of 82 0.10 10 0.10 13 0.00 + 407.70 plaintiffs 66 0.31 benefits 108 0.11 24 0.00 + 328.00 + 297.14 54 0.43 Louisiana 70 0.10 7 0.12 20 0.20 142 0.01 + 386.00 + 323.01 + 399.

08 states 134 0.18 1 0.49 marriage 269 0.02 + 1268.33 10 0.APPENDIX E WILLIAMS INSTITUTE PRESS RELEASE CORPUS Wmatrix3 Keyness Analysis (compared against ‘American English 2006 [AmE06]) ITEM 01 %1 02 %2 LL LogRatio Couple 591 1.53 16 0.05 956-2425 66 0.00 + 481.00 + 639.20 0 0.71 http 77 0.32 59 0.00 + 502.53 revenue 96 0.00 + 448.17 de 175 0.30 extending 111 0.00 + 638.41 2010 72 0.29 2 0.21 8 0.54 264 0.00 + 665.24 Laura_Rodriguez 68 0.00 + 527.40 152 0.47 impact 114 0.44 en 97 0.00 + 685.76 327 0.27 51 0.72 economic 132 0.82 Same-sex 512 1.19 0 0.67 estimated 106 0.39 0 0.24 13 0.03 + 645.36 spending 105 0.83 discrimination 82 0.33 LGB 74 0.29 data 181 0.76 71 0.02 study 254 0.01 + 441.00 + 1188.39 229 0.01 + 494.00 + 414.10 state 243 0.00 + 434.29 4 0.34 156 0.02 + 437.29 26 0.02 + 416.00 + 1215.52 0 0.52 marry 114 0.02 + 524.20 0 0.80 161 0.01 + 3565.00 + 3333.67 sexual 114 0.41 Williams institute 123 0.23 1 0.82 estimates 80 0.34 32 0.03 + 950.01 + 437.21 transgender 98 0.05 youth 92 0.07 los 99 0.29 0 0.00 + 556.22 0 0.63 los_ANGELES 66 0.54 2014 82 0.01 + 529.00 + 431.32 49 0.00 + 505.72 560 0.01 + 508.00 + 416.11 que 62 0.06 + 703.00 + 622.18 0 0.23 8 0.34 137 0.00 + 448.20 0 0.53 0 0.32 el 64 0.31 63 0.24 0 0.00 + 470.69 1360613 84 .00 + 896.23 del 61 0.00 + 410.00 + 437.24 30 0.71 add 106 0.46 310 76 0.45 LGBT 179 0.

16 0 0.00 + 366.32 dgatlin@rabengroup.25 1360613 85 .22 boost 62 0.83 orientation 65 0.93 587-2871 55 0.53 202 64 0.20 33 0.00 + 336.60 census 74 0.22 34 0.19 25 0.01 + 410.27 65 0.20 19 0.com 59 0.38 first_year 68 0.06 Donald_Gatlin 54 0.01 + 409.62 scholar 68 0.00 + 407.00 + 393.00 + 371.18 16 0.00 + 370.03 LGBTQ 60 0.survey 91 0.00 + 336.30 economy 110 0.00 + 346.18 0 0.00 + 342.27 93 0.16 0 0.33 144 0.00 + 373.15 0 0.01 + 369.14 gender 91 0.59 la 51 0.18 0 0.19 6 0.00 + 400.

“As a former openly gay legislator. including constitution expressly prohibits marriage ath that inevitably leads to nationwide marriage Over the last seven days. including a group known as the National . reaffirmed strong support nationwide for marriage tate’s equality.com tate’s Rand Paul on Marriage equality. nearly 60 percent of Americans support marriage a majority of young conservat because of Virginia’s ban on marriage equality. I riage equality nationwide. Soon after. particularly among young Americans: 55 equality. movement forward on the issue of marriage equality in America. the couple filed a lawsuit because of Virginia’s ban on marriage equality.equality. phase in the push to win marriage equality nationwide. Soon after.colbiecaillat.S.” Opponents of marriage equality.APPENDIX F HRC PRESS RELEASE CORPUS Marriage Equality Concordance Lines State of Utah’s case against marriage www. the couple filed a lawsuit A Majority of Hispanics/Latinos Support Marriage edite hearings challenging Texas’ ban on marriage Equality 50% of all Hispanics and 62% of U. “I am opposed to same-sex marriage. In a copy of Schaerr’s departure Equality: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ A day after endorsing the “con constitution expressly prohibits marriage equality. I have equality. Americans for Marriage Eq equality. “As an openly gay legislator. Gay and lesbian couples in Kentucky. Mic riage Equality campaign seeks to advance marriage equality nationwide and provide up-to-the-minute riage Equality campaign seeks to advance marriage equality nationwide and provide up-to-the-minute riage Equality campaign seeks to advance marriage equality nationwide and provide up-to-the-minute riage Equality campaign seeks to advance marriage equality nationwide and provide up-to-the-minute riage Equality campaign seeks to advance marriage equality nationwide and provide up-to-the-minute riage Equality campaign seeks to advance marriage equality nationwide and provide up-to-the-minute 1360613 86 .

riage Equality campaign seeks to advance marriage within the Fourth Circuit that ban marriage sissippians under the age of 30 support marriage cross all demographic groups. and the many other states without marriage LGBT-related terms like “LGBT” and “marriage 1360613 Liberty Counsel thinks being LGB federal equality. president of the Hu Equality – a coalition to advance marriage equalit equality. Hickenlooper.” Famed designer and activist Kenneth Col 87 .” The report. are denied any federal recognition or b equality. of the state's ban on marriage equality. Maryland equality. HRC believes this should be a wakeup Equality. including DC 10/15/2014 WASHINGTON – Wit equality. platinum-sel Chad Griffin. an astonishing 59 percent of those 40 ye equality. 7. D. -launch of HRC’s Americans for Marriage Equality Video campaign. The colleges and universities will scree standing with his son and supporting marriage equality. serve as a national platform for sharing equality. are the “The approved action is important for t advocates are winning the fight overall.S. equality.” said Last week. state. and national efforts for marriage cases challenging Oregon’s ban on marriage ent of Republicans 41 and older support marriage the U. a bipartisan coalition formed with the Equality: A Blueprint for Federal Non-Discriminati constitutional amendment banning marriage equality. “Beyond Marriage rado’s equality nationwide and provide up-to-the-minute equality. This cuts off veterans and their same- equality. to her proud support for marriage mmunications War Room the state for Americans for Marriage prepared to vote on marriage In Burns v. These decisions brought the total numbe equality. making Arizona the latest state to see equality. attorneys wit equality.C. shows that marriage zona’s constitutional amendment banning marriage local. equality and Washington. Because Delegates in the House are unabl equality. legendary ska year. Constitution to block marriage a kickoff event for Americans for Marriage and our nation. -launch of HRC’s Americans for Marriage Equality video campaign. Last week. and · Public support for marriage . The couple sued the state in -sex couples in states that have marriage currently live in a state with marriage ruled against Arizona’s ban on marriage 1088). known as Measure 36. Judge McShane’s i equality.

Haywort equality. Luxembourg Passes Marriage aws and constitutional reforms that ban marriage Marriage Equality Legislation European nation will become equality. The full 4th Circuit can be asked marriage across the country challenging bans on marriage equality. Key findings from the scorecard include: sdictions within the Fourth Circuit with marriage equality. and even a fingerprint database for trac nd individuals living in countries with marriage equality. Nationally. Gallup puts support for marr across the country challenging bans on marriage equality. Nationally. Gallup puts support for marr across the country challenging bans on marriage equality. reporting by NBC News Jus equality. Gallup puts support for marr across the country challenging bans on marriage equality. Nationally. nearly half say it’s not even “ 88 . was used to support proposed This evening. Regnerus’ faulty research has been most supporting Indiana’s proposed ban on marriage equality. Unfortunately for her campaign. It even was used to support proposed and individuals living in countries with marriage take action on the issue of marriage phase in the national push supporting Indiana’s proposed for marriage equality.ve. With friends like these. It even equality.” Highlights of the report include: • ne 500 already enjoy. It even was used to support proposed nd individuals living in countries with marriage equality. Gallup puts support for mar equality. Presently five federal appeals courts ar over her own poor record on marriage for speaking out in favor of marriage state’s constitution expressly prohibits marriage equality. Regnerus’ faulty research has been most across the country against bans on marriage equality – sixteen federal district court rulings the House and Senate combined support marriage equality. Nationally. Gallup puts support for marr across the country challenging bans on marriage equality. Gallup puts support for marr those who say they strongly oppose marriage 1360613 Nationally. and for lending her powerful voice to equality. The event will feature a panel discussio ban on marriage equality. Nationally. no wonder NOM h consecutive federal court victory for equality. across the country challenging bans on marriage equality. “Equality for LGBT people is a fundament lics (over 62% and growing) that support marriage equality.

"Count your Member of Congress stands on marriage equality. Hudson discusse equality.” Once it is officially appealed. it is clear that the arc of defending Kentucky’s archaic 1360613 ban on marriage m the Respect equality. including marriage equality." said HRC President Chad Griffin. Caldwell a federal equality cases in states within the Tenth Circuit Equality” campaign. To see a map of a drastic increase in support for marriage equality faced by these plaintiffs is full marriage equality. ral Mills – after the companies endorsed marriage equality initiatives in Washington and Minnesota. In the video. that 40 percent of Republicans support marriage state from enforcing its ban on marriage served as an outspoken champion for marriage in striking down Texas' ban on marriage In the video. We hope all parties act Act to his strong support for marriage extend all citizens the right to marriage among Hispanics. and will b equality. they immediately become legal strangers equality 7/28/2014 WASHINGTON – In a historic fir equality. He inspired participants at HRC's annual equality. the Ken 89 .” said Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Legal equality. Presently there are at least seven marriage video series for its “Americans for Marriage HRC’s Congressional Marriage Posi equality.” said Human Rights Campaign President Ch bans on marriage in the path towards full nationwide marriage move to a state that bans marriage th consecutive federal court victory for marriage and Lisa Murkowski have all endorsed Texas from enforcing marriage its ban on marriage . This is a historic day in the ng supporter of LGBT equality. “As equality. further indication that Americans are equality. He is a cosponsor of a record 59% of all Americans supporting marriage equality. it is clear that the arc of a record 59% of all Americans supporting marriage equality. America has taken one more step toward equality. click here. And in February 2013. more than 150 Repu equality. equality. That injunction was appealed. check after judge strikes down equality.to the growing bipartisan consensus for marriage see a map of states with marriage equality. Lovato makes th Jennifer Hudson for its Americans for Marriage Equality campaign. And in Robicheaux v. Hispanic supp swiftly and HRC President Chad Griffin.” said Overall.

40 percent of Republicans – an all-time 90 . emaining state in the Northeast without lina’s equality. The new contract also prohibits member equality. including marriage for speaking out in favor of marriage video. MS Approves Anti-Discriminatio equality. equality representative go That means that legally married service brief.” Last month clerks in Boulder. Supreme Court took up marriage 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor 1360613 The judge did not immediately issue a equality. Growing momentum against “license to di equality. Five months later. Denver. a equality. “Let’s protect love and strength equality today. Murphy led the House chamber’s passage equality. yet much work remains to be done Equality. making North Carolina the latest state t equality. marriage equality “would mean the end of equality. “While Cat equality. that number will rise to 60 percent. saying.America one step closer to nationwide marriage ng supporter of LGBT equality. and lending his voice to HRC’s equality. No matter how many fake mustaches they and argues that overturning laws banning marriage -sex couples in states that have marriage -untenable notions contained in his anti-marriage and the District of Columbia have marriage the dignity that comes with full marriage only 34 percent of Americans supported marriage s and Republican leaners under 30 favor marriage Report for 2013 2013 was the year of marriage ay 03/20/2014 Washington – Americans for Marriage and 59 percent of lay Catholics support marriage constitutional amendment banning marriage ans and 85 percent of Democrats support impacted by marriage today’s ruling grant marriage Pennsylvania now the 19th state with marriage U. Waveland. a new bipartisan coalition formed with t equality.S. · 44 percent of Americans live in a state equality. LGBT equality still has a long equality: to lift up every voice and every Congressman Maloney is a stalwart advoc marriage equality. equality.” Melendez Rivera said. Lovato makes the case for marriage pportunity to announce their support for marriage new communications operation to promote marriage Non-Discrimination Act to support for marriage equality. Massachusetts became equality. Hundreds of Regnerus’ fellow sociologist equality. A number of prominent Republicans have equality. A March 2014 Washington Post-ABC News p the views of the opponents of marriage equality.

40 percent of Republicans – an all-tim 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage equality. 40 percent of Republicans—an all-time h marriage equality. 40 percent of Republicans – an all-tim 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage equality. 40 percent of Republicans – an all-tim marriage equality. 40 percent of Republicans – an all-tim 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage equality. 40 percent of Republicans – an all-tim 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage equality. 40 percent of Republicans – an all-time 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage equality. 40 percent of Republicans – an all-tim 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor 1360613 percent of Republicans – an all-tim 91 . 40 percent of Republicans – an all-tim 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage equality. 40 percent of Republicans – an all-tim 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage equality. 40 equality. 40 percent of Republicans – an all-tim 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage equality. 40 percent of Republicans – an all-time 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage equality. 40 percent of Republicans – an all-time 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage equality. 40 percent of Republicans – an all-time 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage equality. 40 percent of Republicans – an all-time 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage equality. 40 percent of Republicans – an all-tim 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage equality. 40 percent of Republicans – an all-tim 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage equality. 40 percent of Republicans – an all-tim 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage equality. 40 marriage equality. 40 marriage equality. 40 percent of Republicans – an all-time 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor percent of Republicans – an all-tim percent of Republicans – an all-tim equality.77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage equality. 40 percent of Republicans – an all-time 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage equality. 40 percent of Republicans – an all-tim 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage equality. 40 percent of Republicans – an all-tim 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage equality.

including the momentum is headed: ● States with Marriage m. a federal lina’s constitutional amendment banning marriage equality. joining over three-dozen state and feder of Americans live in states with marriage equality. Corbett does not appeal the constitutionality of state bans on marriage equality.77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage equality. If PA Gov. while 64 percent of residents back work sissippians under the age of 30 support marriage equality. 40 percent of Republicans – an all-time 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage within the Tenth Circuit that ban marriage the United States. a federal lina’s constitutional amendment banning marriage equality. 40 percent of Republicans – an all-tim equality. Some of the cases were filed equality in is on a rocket ship back to equality. while 64 percent of residents back workp 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage equality. This paved the way for those states – sissippians under the age of 30 support marriage equality. October 12. while 64 percent of residents back workp sissippians under the age of 30 support marriage equality. equality. October 12th. and on Sunday. the issue of marriage lina’s constitutional amendment banning marriage equality. the picture is far from calamitous: ove her support for full. equality while only two federal courts have uphe cases over the coming weeks and months. 40 percent of Republicans – an all-tim 77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage equality. and on Sunday. while 64 percent of residents back work Americans: 55 percent of voters support marriage equality. a federal dis – have struck down state bans on marriage ral appeals courts are presiding over 11 marriage Baker struck down Arkansas’ ban on marriage equality. including 75 percent of sissippians under the age of 30 support marriage equality. while 64 percent of residents back work sissippians under the age of 30 support marriage equality. and on Sunday. Conversely. For 2012 presidential hopeful Jon Equality (30): 19 States: Prior to any decisions f equality supporters put such low priority on the 92 . federal marriage equality. And 40 percent of people imagine a future with national marriage voice Republicans – an all- equality. That position fails to reflect the value have spoken out in support of marriage equality. October 12th. only 19 percent of strong marriage 1360613 millenials.

Same-sex . “Judge Reeves’ ruling today affirms what equality. with support growing among virtually ev 93 . their for marriage equality. “It’s not invalidating it in the equality equality. Same-sex couples can legally marry in there has been great momentum toward marriage same-sex couples when denied legal marriage to discuss the growing acceptance of marriage ’s Stage with Speakers Who Compare Marriage s and Republican leaners under 30 favor marriage couples can legally marry in equality. HRC Statement on the Launch of CDC’ Despite unprecedented public support for marriage equality. unwed same-sex couples and their familie on marriage equality. A record number of members earned a down that state’s ban on marriage mainline Protestants said they favor of marriage Court to uphold the ban against marriage U. there should be no confusion that its Equality to Slavery 6/11/2014 As Pope Francis tak equality. t the Right Side of History on Marriage Equality 10/10/2014 Brown’s newly revealed 2007 “y couples in other states that recognize marriage proof that America is ready for marriage of Americans lived in states with marriage arriage. same-sex couples can marry in 19 equality. Human Rights Campaign President and Arka equality. That’s a reference to a remark Marriage Equality: It’s Coming 10-09-14 Washington—Today. same-sex couples can legally marry in equality.” said Human Rights Campaign Today. DOJ Report Details Administration’s Broa equality. In recent weeks both the New Mexico public support for marriage equality. calling on all Americans to support marriage equality. If she’d lived six days longer… equality. Supreme Court took up marriage can Mississippi State Representative on equality. with strong a majority of Americans now jority of Americans – 56 percent – favor marriage 1360613 equality. Until we have nationwide legal marriage cases challenging Oregon’s ban equality.judicial and legislative victories time ever. only 19 states plus the District of Col public support as the issue of marriage equality.S. only 19 states plus the District of Col Despite unprecedented public support for marriage equality. Same-sex couples can legally marry in Americans live in a jurisdiction with marriage equality. nationwide.

“Despite the legal landscape. and · state 1360613 marriage Public support for marriage constitutional amendment banning marriage equality. the latest Yet the countless thousands of American that the Wisconsin’s ban on marriage equality violates the couples’ due process and eq that the Wisconsin’s ban on marriage equality violates the couples’ due process and eq nod to the latest state with marriage ruled against Indiana’s statute banning marriage well as their public support for marriage cases challenging four states’ bans on marriage equality. He supports the rth sitting Senate Republican to support marriage equality. Recently the New Mexico Supreme Court a ath that inevitably leads to nationwide marriage equality. between the ages of 40 and 64 support 1652). making the Centennial State equality. tate’s constitution expressly prohibits marriage to remove the existing ban on marriage equality. federal judges in ensure that their personal views on marriage equality became the law of the land. and that orado’s constitutional amendment banning marriage continuing to build towards nationwide marriage Respect for Marriage Ac indicating that Holder believes the cou there are painful consequences equality. During the 2012 presidential election. including marriage equality. the would do nothing in response to marriage equality becoming the law of the land nationwide.ng supporter of LGBT equality. making the Show Me State the latest 94 . Over the last year. With the decision by the federal appell equality. “Senator Susan Collins has played a pivo hose states struck down prohibitions equality. making the Hoosier State the latest to equality. In the House of Representatives. Thanks to the hundreds of plaintiff ask the Supreme Court to uphold marriage equality. and the legislature must pass the bill judicial and legislative victories for marriage equality. on marriage perilous position on the issue of marriage as we continue to expand the marriage “Today Target joins a growing chorus of equality. In the Senate. —that the nation is ready for marriage equality. this includes: · equality. Ultimately the nine justices of the Sup equality. it’s long equality. After telling a group of Republicans yes equality map. Recently the New Mexico Supreme Court a judicial and legislative victories for marriage equality. this in equality.

Ohio and Tennessee bans on marriage equality. Up to marriage equality. “ equality 7/18/2014 equality. Until today. Among those who say they strongly opp . only 40 percent of Americans supported marriage equality. With these decisions. Given the state’s decision not to orida’s constitutional amendment banning marriage equality. Constitution.state constitutional amendment banning marriage equality. Progress this year. no state marriage . Constitution. today the Supreme court d 95 . In his arguing that Alaska’s ban on marriage equality violates the U. Before today. as documented by t where there is majority support for marriage equality. no state marriage ban had state’s constitutional amendment banning marriage equality. marriage Eleven States Fight to Deny Marriage tana’s constitutional amendment banning marriage equality equality. Equality making the Sunshine State the latest to since the Supreme Court of the United And the Supreme Court of the United at the 10th Circuit Ten states join equality. making the Sunshine State the latest to court ruling against state bans on marriage of Americans live in states with Daley. In today’s ruling. Ohio and Tennessee bans on marriage equality. making the Treasure State the latest to arguing that Alaska’s ban on marriage equality violates the U. according to Gallup. Michigan. Until today. Up to that point. Ohio and Tennessee bans on marriage equality. North to uphold Louisiana’s ban on showed 59 percent of Americans support marriage federal court ruling in favor of marriage zona’s constitutional 1360613 amendment banning marriage that point. rida’s constitutional amendment banning marriage equality. WASHINGTON – Today the U. Up to that point.S. no state marriage ban had . making the Sunshine State the latest to rida’s constitutional amendment banning marriage equality. Michigan. Michigan. Judge Jones wrote. Michigan.S. A year later in 2 . making the Show Me State the latest state’s constitutional amendment banning marriage equality. no state marriage Dakota was the las equality.S. In his zona’s constitutional amendment banning marriage (R-FL) – who came out for marriage equality. Ohio and Tennessee bans on marriage equality. Co Additionally. no state marriage . same-sex couples a equality earlier this year – spoke out in favor lly inclusive non-discrimination laws or marriage equality.

S. “Many states have passed marriage equality laws. Gov. the American Civil 1360613 96 . plus Washington. Herbert of Utah and Bishop rulings striking down state bans on marriage would become the nineteenth state with marriage now live in a state with marriage Duty” in Decision to Take Anti-Marriage equality – Kitchen v. Court of Appeals for missed.S. Court of Appeals f state to have its ban on marriage equality ruled unconstitutional by a federal judg ruled that Idaho’s ban on marriage equality is unconstitutional.C. making Wisconsin the twelfth state to se nsin’s constitutional amendment banning marriage equality. Herbert of Utah and Bishop equality. making Wisconsin the twelfth state to se nsin’s nsin’s constitutional amendment banning marriage equality. including Washington. Kitchen v. Walker. Supreme Cou of court rulings in favor of marriage equality WASHINGTON – Today U.S. With Pennsylvani equality. Herbert. we hope our shirt will remind Kenneth Cole. The U. the American Civil nsin’s constitutional amendment banning marriage equality. in addition to support for marriage equality. Herbert of Utah and Bishop rulings striking down state bans on marriage equality – Kitchen v. One week later on Thursday. we hope our shirt will remind down the state’s ban on marriage equality. “Many states have passed marriage equality laws." Tenth Circuit Rules Bans on Marriage Equality Unconstitutional U. will be heard by equality – Kitchen v. Herbert of Utah and Bishop equality – Kitchen v. Tom Corbett announced the state wou equality. District Judge struck down Pennsylvania’s ban on marriage reverse Alaska’s constitutional ban on marriage equality. challenge to Utah's ban on marriage rulings striking down state bans on marriage rulings striking down state bans on marriage rulings striking down state bans on marriage Marriages were set equality. “Laws prohibit Equality Case 01/22/2013 Washington –Gene Schaerr Kenneth Cole. Herbert of Utah and Bishop equality – Kitchen v.ruling striking down state ban on marriage equality WASHINGTON – Today the U.S. In Wolf v. Walker. DC. April 17. Herbert of Utah and Bishop rulings striking down state bans on marriage equality – Kitchen v. In Wolf v. D. they were scored based upon whether or constitutional amendment banning marriage equality. t vote.

“the writing appears to be on Americans live in a state with marriage equality. ruling striking 1360613 down state bans on marriage One year ago only 30 the percent could. He also said in reference to marriage equality. equality.. 10 Facts You Should Know About the I Bele 97 .

com. (310) 956-2425 LOS ANGELES — Extending marriage to same-sex couples in Oregon estimate the economic impact of extending apr-2014/#sthash. Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add $15.dpufIndiana: Extending group. (310) 956-2425 LOS ANGELES. The online Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Should Add $50 marriage to same-sex couples in Colorado marriage to same-sex couples. CA — Extending estimate the economic impact of extending /22-apr-2014/#sthash.5 marriage to same-sex couples in Utah marriage to same-sex couples in Utah. Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add 98 .dpufOregon: Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add group. (202) 587-2871 LOS ANGELES — Extending estimate the economic impact of extending -may-2014/#sthash.dpufColorado: Extending first three years LOS ANGELES — Extending the first three years of extending marriage to same-sex couples.com. CA — Extending estimate the economic impact of extending research has consistently shown that extending -2014/#sthash.com. the study -2014/#sthash.dpufUtah: Extending p.vpxq1OEm.dpufArizona: Extending 1360613 marriage to same-sex couples in Oregon. marriage to same-sex couples creates new Marriage to Same-sex Couples Could Add marriage to same-sex couples in Indiana marriage to same-sex couples in Indiana.ad7OfPkq.XnhLBnOr.Au9cl8Ge. Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add marriage to same-sex couples in Virginia marriage to same-sex couples in Virginia.dpufVirginia: Extending p.com.PUxIU7EV.APPENDIX G THE WILIAMS INSTITUTE PRESS RELEASE CORPUS MARRIAGE Concordance with lemma EXTEND seen in states that already extend states that have not yet extended mar-2014/#sthash. (310) 956-2425 LOS ANGELES. this spending marriage to same-sex couples.PpA0hu3w.

-2014-1/#sthash. (213) 236-3751 Kentucky: Extending marriage to same-sex couples could add $23 to state economy LOS ANGELES — Extending estimate the economic impact of extending marriage to same-sex couples in Kentucky marriage to same-sex couples in Kentucky.dpufFlorida: Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add rabengroup.8 marriage to same-sex couples in Ohio marriage to same-sex couples in Ohio.dpufNevada: Extending marriage to same-sex couples could add @rabengroup. (202) 587-2871 Michigan: Extending to state economy LOS ANGELES — Extending estimate the economic impact of extending marriage to same-sex couples in Nevada.com. (202) 587-2871 Ohio: Extending to state economy LOS ANGELES — Extending estimate the economic impact of extending abengroup.com.com.com.2 marriage to same-sex couples in Michigan marriage to same-sex couples in Michigan. marriage to same-sex couples could add $53.dpufTennessee: Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add bengroup.com.dpufKentucky: Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add abengroup.K15ow8xJ. (202) 587-2871 Nevada: Extending marriage to same-sex couples could add to state economy LOS ANGELES.rabengroup.pxXHnvzA.Extending marriage to same-sex couples in Nevada estimate the economic impact of extending group. -aug-2014/#sthash.com. (202) 587-2871 Tennessee: Extending marriage to same-sex couples could add $36 to state economy LOS ANGELES — Extending estimate the economic impact of extending marriage to same-sex couples in Tennessee marriage to same-sex couples in Tennessee.com. marriage to same-sex couples in Texas marriage to same-sex couples in Texas. (202) 587-2871 LOS ANGELES — Extending estimate the economic impact of extending in@rabengroup. marriage to same-sex couples could add $70.lSlzCrgD.vVeGj5DQ. g-2014-1/#sthash. (202) 587-2871 Florida: Extending marriage to same-sex couples could add $182 1360613 99 . (202) 587-2871 Arizona: Extending to state economy LOS ANGELES — Extending estimate the economic impact of extending marriage to same-sex couples could add marriage to same-sex couples in Arizona marriage to same-sex couples in Arizona.com. -2014-2/#sthash.

100 .dpufMissouri: Extending group.nM7Tybb3. (202) 587-2871 Oklahoma: Extending marriage to same-sex couples could add $20. (202) 587-4945 LOS ANGELES — Extending estimate the economic impact of extending 2014/#sthash. g-2014-1/#sthash. Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add marriage to same-sex couples in Missouri marriage to same-sex couples in Missouri.com.NxBKIR4d.9NNbQxSZ. Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add marriage to same-sex couples in Alabama marriage to same-sex couples in Alabama.5 to state economy LOS ANGELES — Extending estimate the economic impact of extending marriage to same-sex couples in Oklahoma marriage to same-sex couples in Oklahoma. (202) 587-4945 LOS ANGELES — Extending estimate the economic impact of extending sept-2014/#sthash.8 to state economy LOS ANGELES — Extending estimate the economic impact of extending sep-2014/#sthash.Extending estimate the economic impact of extending marriage to same-sex couples in Florida marriage to same-sex couples in Florida. (202) 587-2871 LOS ANGELES — Extending marriage to same-sex couples in West estimate the economic impact of extending marriage to same-sex couples in West 7-oct-2014/#sthash.com.dpufGeorgia: Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add rabengroup.com.dpufWyoming: Extending group.dpufWest Virgina: Extending marriage to same-sex couples in Georgia marriage to same-sex couples in Georgia. ug-2014-1/#sthash.dpufOklahoma: Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add abengroup.SS8FvpV8. Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add $9 group.dySYifra.to state economy LOS ANGELES. (202) 587-2871   LOS ANGELES — Extending estimate the economic impact of extending 1360613 Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add $8 marriage to same-sex couples in Alaska marriage to same-sex couples in Alaska. (213) 236-3753 Georiga: Extending marriage to same-sex couples could add $78.dpufAlaska: Extending engroup.OmoC1si2.com.com.NUZxhrC5.dpufAlabama: Extending oup. (202) 587-2871 LOS ANGELES—Extending estimate the economic impact of extending -oct-2014/#sthash. Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add marriage to same-sex couples in Wyoming marriage to same-sex couples in Wyoming.com.com.

(202) 587-2871   LOS ANGELES — Extending estimate the economic impact of extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add $4. (202) 587-2871   LOS ANGELES — Extending marriage to same-sex couples in South estimate the economic impact of extending marriage to same-sex couples in South -2014-sd/#sthash.dpufNorth Dakota: Extending marriage to same-sex couples in Kansas. (202) 587-2871   LOS ANGELES — Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add marriage to same-sex couples in Idaho estimate the economic impact of extending marriage to same-sex couples in Idaho. Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add oup.com.jjTjG2xt.dpufMississippi: Extending oup.com.dpufIdaho: Extending oup.com.X9gIRaT2.com.-1/#sthash.dpufSouth Carolina: Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add oup.com. (202) 587-2871   LOS ANGELES — Extending marriage to same-sex couples in Kansas estimate the economic impact of extending . (202) 587-2871   LOS ANGELES — Extending estimate the economic impact of extending 2014-ms/#sthash.wz4fxHsY.E1IuiOhh.CO5JjV76.ixBF7Mft.com. Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add 101 .5 marriage to same-sex couples in Montana marriage to same-sex couples in Montana.dpufSouth Dakota: Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add oup.com. (202) 587-2871   LOS ANGELES — Extending marriage to same-sex couples in North estimate the economic impact of extending marriage to same-sex couples in North 14-nd/#sthash.dpufNorth Carolina: Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add oup.dpufMontana: Extending oup. (202) 587-2871   LOS ANGELES — Extending marriage to same-sex couples in South estimate the economic impact of extending marriage to same-sex couples in South 10-oct-2014/#sthash. -201/#sthash.dpufLouisiana: Extending 1360613 Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add marriage to same-sex couples in Mississippi marriage to same-sex couples in Mississippi.rp6jqN4V.65bSfa4c.dpufKansas: Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add oup.vzMueqyl. (202) 587-2871   LOS ANGELES — Extending marriage to same-sex couples in North estimate the economic impact of extending marriage to same-sex couples in North 14/#sthash. -2014-mt/#sthash.com.

(202) 587-2871   LOS ANGELES — Extending estimate the economic impact of extending 2014-ar/#sthash.7QwD3vCS.com. and domestic partnership t 102 .Hv86NQPM.oup.syvO5Oiz.dpufArkansas: Extending oup.com. Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add marriage to same-sex couples in Arkansas marriage to same-sex couples in Arkansas. civil unions.GHrdIEaa. (202) 587-2871   LOS ANGELES — Extending marriage to same-sex couples in Puerto estimate the economic impact of extending marriage to same-sex couples in Puerto boost as a result of extending estimating the economic benefits of extending 1360613 marriage to their own same-sex couples.com. Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add marriage to same-sex couples in Wisconsin marriage to same-sex couples in Wisconsin. (202) 587-2871   LOS ANGELES — Extending estimate the economic impact of extending marriage to same-sex couples in Louisiana marriage to same-sex couples in Louisiana. (202) 587-2871   LOS ANGELES — Extending estimate the economic impact of extending -2014-wi/#sthash.com. (202) 587-2871   LOS ANGELES — Extending estimate the economic impact of extending -2014-la/#sthash.dpufWisconsin: Extending oup.com. /#sthash. Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add $8 marriage to same-sex couples in Nebraska marriage to same-sex couples in Nebraska.” marriage.dpufNebraska: Extending oup.dpufPuerto Rico: Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add oup.

00 103 .00 0.04 WEALTH: WORD wealthiest wealthy wealth 1360613 FREQUENCY 1 1 1 RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0.01 0. Wealth.07 0.08 0.00 EMPLOYMENT: WORD employment employment_based andemployment unemployment WORK: WORD work workplace working workers FREQUENCY 204 169 145 77 RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0.00 0. Welfare JOB: WORD job jobs on_the_job job_seekers FREQUENCY 24 12 10 2 RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0.00 FREQUENCY RELATIVE 117 1 1 1 FREQUENCY 0. Income.00 0.10 0.00 0.01 0. Poverty.12 0.00 0.00 INCOME: WORD income income_tax income_taxes low-income FREQUENCY 7 4 3 2 RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0.01 0.00 0. Employment.00 0. Work.APPENDIX H ECONOMIC INEQUALITY: Job.

Disability. Mental.POVERTY: WORD FREQUENCY poverty anti-poverty RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0. Treatment.03 PATIENT WORD patient patients FREQUENCY 15 12 RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0.01 HIV WORD HIV stop_HIV hiv/aids aids 1360613 FREQUENCY 48 2 35 25 RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0.01 0.00 welfare welfare_professionals HEALTHCARE AND SUPPORT FOR PEOPLE LIVING WITH HIV/AIDS Key terms: Healthcare.00 TREATMENT WORD treatment FREQUENCY 56 RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0. HIV.03 0.02 0.01 104 . Access.01 0. Care.00 16 1 WELFARE: WORD FREQUENCY RELATIVE FREQUENCY 14 0. AIDS.01 0.01 2 0. Medical.03 0.00 0.01 0. Insurance HEALTHCARE WORD care healthcare career health_care caregivers FREQUENCY 59 43 19 18 4 RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0.02 0.

00 MEDICAL WORD FREQUENCY medical 41 RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0.ACCESS WORD FREQUENCY access 52 RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0.01 0.02 INSURANCE WORD FREQUENCY insurance insurance_companies 16 5 RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0.02 MENTAL HEALTH IMMIGRATION Immigration.03 DISABILITY WORD FREQUENCY disability 2 RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0. Asylum. Migrant.00 MIGRANT WORD immigrants 1360613 FREQUENCY 13 RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0.01 105 . Deportation.00 MENTAL HEALTH WORD mental_health FREQUENCY 27 RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0. Refugee IMMIGRATION WORD immigration FREQUENCY RELATIVE 4 FREQUENCY 0.

00 RACIAL: WORD racial interracial 1360613 FREQUENCY 3 2 RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0. Latino/a. White RACE: WORD FREQUENCY race 26 RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0. African-American. Hispanic.00 0. Profiling. Racism. Color.00 2 REFUGEE 0 RACIAL INJUSTICE Race. Black.02 ETHNICITY: WORD ethnicity FREQUENCY RELATIVE FREQUENCY 2 0.02 RACISM: WORD Frequency racism FREQUENCY RELATIVE 3 0. Asian.DEPORTATION WORD deportation FREQUENCY RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0.01 10 ASYLUM WORD asylum FREQUENCY RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0. Racial.00 106 . Ethnicity.00 COLOR: WORD color FREQUENCY RELATIVE 33 FREQUENCY 0.

00 latino/a 6 0.00 ASIAN: WORD FREQUENCY asian RELATIVE FREQUENCY 1 0.00 0.00 1 0. Mental. AIDS. Disability.00 NATIVE AMERICAN 0 PACIFIC ISLANDER 0 WHITE white HEALTHCARE AND SUPPORT FOR PEOPLE LIVING WITH HIV/AIDS Healthcare. Access.00 african-americans 2 0. Medical. Treatment.01 hispanics 7 0. Care. Insurance HEALTHCARE WORD 1360613 FREQUENCY RELATIVE FREQUENCY 107 . HIV.it--racialized racially 1 1 0.01 AFRICAN-AMERICAN: WORD FREQUENCY RELATIVE FREQUENCY african-american 7 0.00 hispanics/latinos 1 0.00 BLACK: Word Frequency black Relative Frequency 25 0.00 FREQUENCY RELATIVE FREQUENCY HISPANIC: WORD hispanic 10 0.

00 MENTAL HEALTH WORD 1360613 FREQUENCY RELATIVE FREQUENCY 108 .01 HIV WORD FREQUENCY HIV stop_HIV hiv/aids aids 48 2 35 25 RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0.03 0.03 TREATMENT WORD treatment 56 PATIENT WORD FREQUENCY patient patients 15 12 RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0.02 INSURANCE WORD FREQUENCY insurance insurance_companies 16 5 RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0.01 0.care healthcare career health_care caregivers 59 43 19 18 4 0.00 MEDICAL WORD FREQUENCY medical 41 RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0.02 0.03 DISABILITY WORD FREQUENCY disability 2 RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0.01 0.02 0.01 ACCESS WORD FREQUENCY access 52 RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0.01 0.00 FREQUENCY RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.

Incarceration PRISON WORD prison imprisonment imprisoned FREQUENCY 16 6 2 RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0. Human Rights Campaign President C . Lively has also been a frequent v has renewed calls by the Human Righ and mother addicted to drugs .02 CRIMINALISATION AND MASS INCARCERATION OF QUEER AND TRANS* YOUTH Prison.00 109 .mental_health 27 0. FRC thinks its for some LGBT Gambians WASHINGTON T for some LGBT people in The Gambia for Ugandans convicted of being gay for life .00 SHELTER WORD shelter shelter_MLK_Day 1360613 FREQUENCY 2 1 RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0.00 prison prison prison prison prison prison Prison prison prison prison prison prison prison prison prison prison . From .00 0. Shelter HOMELESNESS WORD homelessness FREQUENCY 5 RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0.00 INCARCERATION WORD incarceration FREQUENCY 1 estify in court or visit family in penalties that can include life in the transgender minor in an adult of Jane Doe . whose father was in ent in the mental ward of an adult le . often with harsh slation that could lead to life in slation that could lead to life in -LGBT law . Imprisonment.01 0. " so that a of Transgender Inmates in Federal New Anti-LGBT Legislation Life in slation that would lead to life in nda that could send LGBT people to very identities . Thereport also profiles sentences or worse . like " Jane Doe . which promises life in t could send some LGBT Gambians to slation that could lead to life in RELATIVE FREQUENCY 0. In a statement released for some LGBT people in The Gambia QUEER AND TRANS* YOUTH HOMELESSNESS Homelessness.00 0. includes id for some LGBT people in the country for life . The story of Jane Doe was previou or the streets are not the only opt Facilities o Ensure Treatments Rela among new punishments .

09 1.23 3.46 0.43 0.58 0.50 0.30 0.shelters 1 0.36 0.30 0.31 0.73 0.96 0.42 0.58 1.45 0.81 0.00 2.39 0.73 2.00 APPENDIX I HRC PR CORPUS Wordlist Frequency – Top 50 Word the and of to in a for that marriage LGTB equality is on are HRC by this with have will their state from As People Court be rights has couples gay campaign or at an Same-sex federal they said we human all states it lesbian who 1360613 Frequency 9226 5577 5196 4722 3608 2731 2327 1868 1725 1663 1436 1401 1262 1005 992 867 865 854 847 789 786 750 745 743 741 739 727 725 688 678 648 630 619 613 608 565 548 532 522 520 516 509 508 497 485 484 Relative 5.43 0.08 1.49 0.43 0.35 1.36 0.83 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.42 0.29 0.50 0.49 0.30 0.51 3.43 0.37 0.57 0.43 0.28 110 .28 0.33 0.29 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.

27 0.26 111 .27 0.27 0.26 0.support was transgender its more 1360613 473 472 465 449 444 0.

same-sex couples face issues in: 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 OUT-OF-STATE RECOGNITION: Same-sex couples can legally marry in 19 states and Washington. Today was the first day the Supreme Court might have announced it would take up a marriage case. 1360613 112 . Others don’t allow the same-sex spouse to legally adopt the children of their husband. according to the Supreme Court’s order list. real families suffer the often tragic consequences. emergency decision making. including health insurance. So even though a person could have raised a child since birth. as well as a number of countries around the world. they immediately become legal strangers in the eyes of their new state. EMPLOYER BENEFITS: Without legal marriage. It’s difficult enough for families to deal with crisis without the added layer of hardship from legal marriage inequality that gay and lesbian Americans face. financial and emotional hardships solely because they can’t get married 9/30/2014 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Washington – The question of when the Supreme Court of the United States will take up a marriage equality case is now front and center. hospitals aren’t automatically required to inform or consult same-sex partners in times of emergency. insurance coverage. but none of the appeals of federal circuit court rulings striking down state marriage bans have been granted certiorari. But every day that these discriminatory state marriage bans remain on the books. This harms children by denying them access to social security benefits. medical care and so much more. “It’s easy to forget that all of these cases challenging state marriage bans across the country are about real people and real families.” 21 Without legal marriage recognition. same-sex couples experience legal. PROPERTY RIGHTS: Without legal marriage. as cases from five states are currently pending before the justices and more than 70 cases challenging state marriage bans are working their way through the court system across the country.APPENDIX J – HRC PRESS RELEASE Data for Argument Analysis 1 #LoveCantWait: Why America Needs Marriage Equality Now 2 3 4 With every day that passes. ADOPTION AND CUSTODY: Many states only allow one parent in a same-sex relationship to be the legal parent to a child through adoption. SOCIAL SECURITY: Even legally married same-sex couples aren’t able to access Social Security benefits if they live in a state that doesn’t recognize their marriage. “And while we usually think of love and celebration when talking about weddings. there’s no guarantee of an automatic property transfer to a surviving spouse when someone dies. wife or partner. So a person may not be able to stay in the family home after a spouse passes away. unwed same-sex couples and their families are at risk of devastating hardships that married couples don’t face if the unthinkable happens. HEALTHCARE DECISIONS: Without legal relationship recognition. PARENTING: Banning marriage to same-sex couples frequently interferes with the non-biological parent being recognized as a parent. Until we have nationwide legal marriage equality. people have been denied the ability to say goodbye because they were unaware their partner or spouse was dying due to a lack of notification. Some experts have interpreted recent comments from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as an indication the Court is in “no rush” to take up the issue anytime soon. But if two women that marry in one of those jurisdictions and then move to a state that bans marriage equality. TAXES: Legally married same-sex couples living in a state that doesn’t recognize their marriage will generally have to file separate state income taxes – listing themselves as single – even though they file federal income taxes jointly. the truth is there are essential legal protections and safeguards that come with marriage.” said Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Chad Griffin. employers aren’t required to allow their employees to list same-sex spouses or partners as beneficiaries of employment benefits. he or she could be denied custody of that child if the legal parent dies or the couple separates. In some cases. DC.

If the state of Alabama’s ban on marriage equality didn’t exist. Service members stationed in unfriendly territory Active-duty military personnel are often moved from state to state throughout their careers when stationed at different military bases across the country. Three months later. Paul encountered a number of legal roadblocks in his quest for justice. most states do not. EMERGENCY SERVICES: When disaster strikes families rely on each other. there was a rush. They knew the Supreme Court was set to rule at any moment in Hollingsworth v.org/LoveCantWait. For this family. When he arrived to the hospital. If Lesly had survived six more days. Alabama had been together for seven years when they decided to get married in Massachusetts in May of 2011. But without marriage.47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 VETERANS BENEFITS: The Veterans Administration is only recognizing married same-sex couples who currently live in marriage equality states. the family started preparing for her death. David’s mother has successfully petitioned the court to be added as a defendant in the case. HRC will be collecting stories from real Americans that detail why the Supreme Court shouldn’t delay in taking up a marriage equality case. a hospital orderly told Paul. A gathering was quickly organized so that Stacey could stand next to Lesly’s deathbed and the two could have a wedding ceremony. In the weeks and months following David’s death. Cpl. Less than an hour later. the two men were legal strangers so Paul had no right to any information. the Supreme Court returned marriage to California and struck down key portions of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. If she’d lived six days longer… Lesly was an employee of the same company for twenty-five years and was 100% vested in the company’s employee pension plan. So the civil spouse of a military veteran of the same sex doesn’t have access to veterans benefits that every other spouse is eligible to receive. Less than a week later. When it became clear that Lesly was terminal and there was nothing more to be done. But to add insult to injury. there is no guarantee a state judge allow the children to remain with 1360613 113 . As the Navy Times puts it. he was told he couldn’t see David and was given no information about his husband’s condition. the Marine once again won’t be recognized as a parent. Huskey won’t be able to make health care decisions on behalf of their child without presenting a medical power of attorney signed by Jessica Huskey. Paul was told he would be denied any proceeds from a wrongful death case because Alabama law forbids him from being listed the surviving spouse. The only problem is. he’s dead. A man’s final moments with his husband. fighting tooth and nail to deny her deceased son’s husband the dignity of being listed as what he his – David’s spouse. In the eyes of the State of Alabama. Over the coming weeks. “In an emergency. a federal court case challenging California’s Proposition 8 banning same-sex couples from marrying. Marine Cpl. Here are three such stories detailing the devastating harm done to same-sex couples when denied legal marriage equality. Lesly died the next day. stolen Paul Hard and David Francher of Montgomery. Most notably. “Well. Lesly was diagnosed with cancer. Perry. While the military and the federal government recognize the legal marriages of same-sex couples. So it was a complete shock to the family when they were informed Stacey was not entitled to Lesly’s pension because they were not legally married in their home state of California. As part of this process. This can be emotionally burdensome for the spouses and families of service members. emergency shelters can separate families – even a parent from children if he or she has no legal claim to them. she and Stacey could have legally married and Stacey would have been eligible for Lesly’s pension. David was in a car accident less than twenty miles from their Montgomery home. But for the spouses and families of gay and lesbian service members. But even longer than Lesly’s service to her employer was her loving. they began to review Lesly’s benefits from her employer. Lesly’s condition took a turn for the worse and the family realized they didn’t have much time left. Paul has enlisted the help of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).” If the unthinkable happens and Jessica dies. But unfortunately. a grieving widower’s heartache – and financial burdens – would not be exacerbated by legal hurdles targeting him for being gay. Paul raced to the hospital to be by David’s side. A few years ago. When it comes time to register for public school. frantically texting friends and family to pray for his husband. Cpl. Nivia Huskey and her wife Jessica Painter Huskey are expecting a child.” The death certificate listed David as single. Huskey hopes to return from her deployment in Kuwait in time for the birth at the on-base hospital at Camp Lejeune where she is stationed. committed relationship with Stacey – her partner of nearly thirty years. They can be submitted and found online at HRC. surrounded by family and friends. there are legal problems that can be potentially devastating. she will have no legal recognition as the child’s parent since North Carolina doesn’t see the two women as married. which has filed a federal lawsuit challenging Alabama’s discriminatory marriage ban on his behalf.

Huskey — “especially if Jessica Huskey’s blood relatives fight for custody. By inspiring and engaging all Americans. The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian.103 104 105 106 107 108 Cpl. HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all. they are required to live there by the military. bisexual and transgender equality.” These women didn’t choose to live in a state that denies them marriage rights. 1360613 114 . gay.