Gay Parenthood and the Revolution of the Modern Family: An Examination of the Unique Barriers Confronting Gay Adoptive Parents

Abstract: In recent decades, the structure of the American family has been revolutionized to incorporate families of diverse and unconventional compositions. Gay and lesbian couples have undoubtedly played a crucial role in this revolution by establishing families through the tool of adoption. Eleven adoptive parents from the state of Connecticut were interviewed to better conceptualize the unique barriers gay couples encounter in the process adoption. Both the scholarly research and the interview data illustrate that although gay couples face enormous legal barriers, the majority of their hardship comes through social interactions. As a result, the cultural myths and legal restrictions that create social hardships for gay adoptive parents forge a vicious and discriminatory cycle of marginalization that American legal history illustrates is best remedied through judicial intervention at the Supreme Court level. While judicial intervention, alone, cannot change the reality of gay parenthood, I argue that past judicial precedent illustrates that such change can serve as a tool of individual, political, and legal validation for the gay community for obtaining equal rights.

Building Steprelationships: Emerging Adult Stepchildrens' Perceptions and Experiences of their Stepparents

A grounded theory study was conducted with ten (7 female, 3 male) emerging-adults in stepfamilies to examine their perceptions and experiences of their stepparents, and what factors influence the development and maintenance of these steprelationships. Three primary categories emerged from the data: (1) Stepchildrens' perceptions of their stepparents presence in their lives, including both physical closeness and physical and emotional involvement (2) The perceived level of authenticity within the steprelationship, and (3) The level of clout stepchildren afforded to their stepparents' position within their lives and families. Additional factors found to influence the levels of presence, authenticity, and clout were stepchildrens' emotional maturity, cultural background, relationships with their biological parents, and feelings regarding the use and acquisition of money.

Beyond Racial Precedents: Loving v. Virginia as an Appropriate Legal Model and Strategy for Same-Sex Marriage Litigation

This thesis explores how LGBT marriage activists and lawyers have employed a racial interpretation of due process and equal protection in recent same-sex marriage litigation. Special attention is paid to the Supreme Court's opinion in Loving v. Virginia, the landmark case that declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. By exploring the use of racial precedent in same-sex marriage litigation and its treatment in state court cases, this thesis critiques the racial interpretation of due process and equal protection that became the basis for LGBT marriage briefs and litigation, and attempts to answer the question of whether a racial interpretation of due process and equal protection is an appropriate model for same-sex marriage litigation both constitutionally and strategically. The existing scholarly literature fails to explore how this issue has been treated in case briefs, which are very important elements in any legal proceeding. I will argue that through an analysis of recent state court briefs in Massachusetts and Connecticut, Loving acts as logical precedent for the legalization of same-sex marriage. I also find, more significantly, that although this racial interpretation of due process and equal protection represented by Loving can be seen as an appropriate model for same-sex marriage litigation constitutionally, questions remain about its strategic effectiveness, as LGBT lawyers have moved away from race in some arguments in these briefs. Indeed, a racial interpretation of Due Process and Equal Protection doctrine imposes certain limits on same-sex marriage litigation, of which we are warned by some Critical Race theorists, Latino Critical Legal theorists, and other scholars. In order to fully incorporate a discussion of race into the argument for legalizing same-sex marriage, the dangers posed by the black/white binary of race relations must first be overcome.

The Right to Die Debate: The Demonization of Dr. Kevorkian and the Creation of a Moral Panic Surrounding Physician-Assisted Suicide in the United States

The Right to Die Debate is a recent but highly controversial moral matter. In particular, physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is an issue that has been evaded by the medical community for years. As of 1990, most states had never encountered the issue before and therefore did not have any laws in place to prohibit PAS (Strate et. al, 2005). Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a retired pathologist from Royal Oak Michigan was the first to publicly address PAS. He brought the issue into the limelight through a bizarre and crude series of assisted deaths that had a lasting impact on not only the Right to Die Debate as whole, but on public policy and both federal and state governmental agendas. This study focuses on the way in which the media, in particular the New York Times (NYT) has portrayed Dr. Jack Kevorkian as incompetent, morally culpable and in an overall negative light in the past twenty years. Applying Stanley Cohen’s 1972 theory of moral panic, a content analysis of NYT media publications between 1990 and 1999 supports Cohen’s theory and reveals that the media has created a moral panic surrounding Kevorkian. This has in turn led to public policy that prevents both terminally ill individuals and their doctors from having a desirable choice; that of voluntary euthanasia and PAS.

Children's Perceptions of Male and Female Athletes as Presented in Sports Illustrated for Kids

Despite gains made by Title IX in the past 36 years, including increased female participation in high school and collegiate sport, there is evidence that gender equity in sport is not fully achieved. Researchers target the media because they tend to shape social values and disseminate information to the masses (Kane, 1978, in Fink & Kensicki, 2002). As sports become more pervasive, framing theory has become particularly relevant. The purpose of this study is to build on the Hardin et al. (2002) study by examining the relationship among media sports coverage, gender equity in sport and the perceptions young sports fans begin to form about gender and sport based on media consumption. The researcher hypothesized that since women face discrimination in sport starting from the time that they choose to participate, children will perceive male athletes and their sports as more legitimate. Additionally, the media play a major role in shaping the views of audiences, so the way that they represent male and female athletes, including juxtaposing them, may have an impact on children. The researcher conducted a content analysis of 24 Sports Illustrated for Kids issues from 1996 to 1999 and 24 issues from 2006 to 2007. The researcher analyzed the content of photographs (N=3219) and of headlines (N=762) by using the definitions determined by Hardin et al. (2002). We found that there is a disproportionate amount of coverage devoted to male athletes and that the discrepancy between media representation between men and women in sport has grown since the mid-1990s. This study also includes a focus group conducted with three children from a community swimming program in a northeastern town and found that those children were acutely aware of the differences between men and women in sport based on the discussion. The researcher does not attempt to find a causal relationship between these children’s perceptions and the way media represents them, but rather uses the focus group to complement the content analysis. As children become sports consumers in later life, future research exploring the relationship between children’s perceptions and the media’s representations need to be done before causality and the significance of media effects are determined.