Doctoral Dissertation Research: Defining Discrimination in France and the United States

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

This study examines why legal protection on the basis of sexual orientation is recognized in some areas of law and not others, how some but not all unequal treatment of sexual orientation minority citizens becomes legally defined as discrimination, and how those on both sides of the issue justify their stances. For example, France permits civil unions and prohibits workplace discrimination but strictly prohibits procreative assistance to homosexual couples. In contrast, the U.S. prohibits federal recognition of same-sex couples, but most states permit adoption and artificial insemination. Comparing France and the U.S.. which differ in their political and legal structure, the role played by social movement organizations in public policy, and the degree of controversy generated by moral issues in general ? provides analytical leverage on how these factors may matter. Specifically, the investigator asks: 1) how do political actors frame different legal concerns (e.g. marriage and filiation, hate crimes, workplace discrimination); 2) what legal, institutional and cultural factors across national cases account for the differences and similarities in how they frame these issues; and 3) how do they justify the uneven recognition of rights within their own countries? To answer these questions, he analyzes observational, interview, and archival data, including legal code, judicial and legislative debates, media coverage, and arguments made by sexual orientation law experts, including activists, public figures, intellectuals, and scientists. The investigator conceptualizes these debates as decision making processes that require political actors to judge the moral status and origin of sexual orientation and weigh it against their conceptions of the common good. This study provides a lens through which to analyze issues facing contemporary democracies, such as the limits of immutability arguments for rights claims, the expanding influence of bioethical justifications for inclusion, and relationships between science and politics.