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

本研究探讨了为什么基于性取向的法律保护在某些法律领域得到认可，而在其他法律领域却没有，对性取向少数公民的不平等待遇如何在法律上被定义为歧视，以及问题双方如何为自己的立场辩护。例如，法国允许民事结合，禁止工作场所歧视，但严格禁止向同性恋伴侣提供生育援助。相比之下，美国禁止联邦承认同性伴侣，但大多数州允许收养和人工授精。比较法国和美国…它们在政治和法律结构、社会运动组织在公共政策中所扮演的角色以及一般道德问题产生的争议程度上有哪些不同？提供对这些因素如何重要的分析杠杆。具体来说，研究者提出了以下问题：1)政治行为者如何构建不同的法律问题（如婚姻和婚姻、仇恨犯罪、工作场所歧视）；2)各国案例中哪些法律、制度和文化因素导致了这些问题的异同；3)他们如何为自己国家内部对权利的不平等承认辩护？为了回答这些问题，他分析了观察、采访和档案数据，包括法律法规、司法和立法辩论、媒体报道以及性取向法律专家（包括活动家、公众人物、知识分子和科学家）的观点。研究者将这些辩论概念化为决策过程，要求政治参与者判断性取向的道德地位和起源，并将其与他们的共同利益概念进行权衡。本研究为分析当代民主国家面临的问题提供了一个视角，例如权利主张的不变性论证的局限性、包容的生物伦理理由日益扩大的影响，以及科学与政治之间的关系。

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.