Matching Items (2)
149811-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
California's Proposition 8 revoked the right to marriage for that state's gay and lesbian population. Proposition 8 was a devastating defeat for gay marriage movements across the nation. The primary rhetorical strategy of the No on 8 campaign was a reliance on a Civil Rights analogy that constructed the gay

California's Proposition 8 revoked the right to marriage for that state's gay and lesbian population. Proposition 8 was a devastating defeat for gay marriage movements across the nation. The primary rhetorical strategy of the No on 8 campaign was a reliance on a Civil Rights analogy that constructed the gay and lesbian movement for marriage as a civil right akin to those fought for by African Americans in the 1950s and 1960s. Analogizing the gay and lesbian struggle for gay marriage with the racial struggles of the Civil Rights Movement exposed a complicated relationship between communities of color and gay and lesbian communities. This project reads critical rhetoric and intersectionality together to craft a critical intersectional rhetoric to better understand the potentialities and pitfalls of analogizing the gay rights with Civil Rights. I analyze television ads, communiques of No on 8 leadership, as well as state level and national court decisions related to gay marriage to argue alternative frameworks that move away from analogizing and move towards coalition building.
ContributorsKelsey, Michelle L (Author) / Brouwer, Daniel C (Thesis advisor) / Carlson, A. Cheree (Committee member) / Milller, Keith (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2011
Description
Imagine, after enjoying 40 years with a person you love, and promise to live with ‘till death do us part,’ you are taxed over $360,000 upon the death of your spouse. Edith Windsor, who was legally married experienced discriminatory tax treatment simply because her spouse was a woman. On June

Imagine, after enjoying 40 years with a person you love, and promise to live with ‘till death do us part,’ you are taxed over $360,000 upon the death of your spouse. Edith Windsor, who was legally married experienced discriminatory tax treatment simply because her spouse was a woman. On June 26, 2013 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional violating the 5th and 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The ruling eliminated this discriminatory tax policy and the conflict of filing federal and state income taxes in states recognizing same-sex marriage. It did create a new conflict with the states that do not recognize these marriages. GayTaxGuide.com is an authoritative tool to verify the current legal standing for same-sex marriage in every state of the U.S. Visitors will find links to official state tax agencies, state income tax forms including official guidance for the public in completing state income tax returns for same-sex married taxpayers. Reading the paper component of this thesis will inform you of U.S. history of taxation and same-sex marriage dating back to the 1st century. Census data and Gallup® survey results pertaining to LGBT topics are presented along with an account of my research process. This project serves the public in untangling state income tax policy for same-sex married couples with up to date primary sources in an easy to navigate format.
ContributorsQuatrone, Jeffrey John (Author) / Goldman, Donald (Thesis director) / Aviles-Santiago, Manuel (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / W. P. Carey School of Business (Contributor)
Created2014-12