IN DEFENSE OF LOVE AND SAME-SEX PARENTING: RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE APOLOGIA FROM CHILDREN OF SAME-SEX COUPLES Thesis Submitted to The College of Arts and Sciences of the UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of Master of Arts in Communication By Ashley Nicole Jefferson UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON Dayton, Ohio May, 2014 IN DEFENSE OF LOVE AND SAME-SEX PARENTING: RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE APOLOGIA FROM CHILDREN OF SAME-SEX COUPLES Name: Jefferson, Ashley Nicole APPROVED BY: ______________________________________________ Joseph M. Valenzano III, Ph. D Faculty Advisor ______________________________________________ Jonathan Hess, Ph. D Committee Member ______________________________________________ Jonathan Peters, Ph. D Committee Member ii © Copyright by Ashley Nicole Jefferson All rights reserved 2014 iii ABSTRACT IN DEFENSE OF LOVE AND SAME-SEX PARENTING: RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE APOLOGIA FROM CHILDREN OF SAME-SEX COUPLES Name: Jefferson, Ashley Nicole University of Dayton Advisor: Dr. Joseph Valenzano With the acceptance of same-sex marriage on the rise in American society and an increasing number of homosexual couples raising children, concerns regarding the effect these couples have on their children are also escalating. This study looks at a unique defense of same- sex couples as parents, from the children currently being raised by them. Including three prominent texts and seventeen different voices, an analysis was completed to understand what defense strategies children use as advocates for their parents’ right to marriage and to be a family. The method of study included completing a genre criticism through close textual analysis of the texts. In particular, the genre of apologia was studied. The analysis was framed by queer theory in effort to detect how, if at all, the defenses of children from same-sex parented homes rejected heteronormativity and the binary of sexuality. The findings of this study included the use of three different strategies of apologia, which allowed the children to defend their parents in three ways: by normalizing their family life and showing their parents do positive things; by depicting their lives as different, but not abnormal; and by redefining family to be constructed by love, instead of the biological components of the people within. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I extend endless gratitude to Dr. Valenzano for guiding me through this process, correcting my oversights and encouraging me to keep going when I finally ran out of words. I offer thanks to my thesis committee as well for the various insights and thoughtful comments they brought to our meetings. Finally, I think my husband for everything, but mostly for never letting me give up. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………………iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………..………………….…………………………………..v INTRODUCTION………………………………..………………………………………………..1 CONTEXT………………………………………………………………………………………..15 METHOD…………………………………...……………………………………………………40 ANALYSIS……………………………………………………………………………………….59 CONCLUSION…………………………….…………………………………………………….78 BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………….………..84 APPENDIX….…………………………….………………………………………….…………..96 vi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In 2013 a majority of citizens supported equal rights for same-sex couples for the first time in American history. A 2013 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 53 percent of Americans were in favor of same-sex marriage.1 A New York Times article quoted scholar Jonathan Rauch as saying, “We’re seeing a shift in public morality.”2 This changing mindset of America, as well as the increasing number of court rulings and state legalizations of same-sex marriage, characterized gay rights as the “civil rights issue of our time.”3 The 2013 overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) further emphasized the importance of same-sex marriage within society. DOMA, established in 1996, was the first federal law concerning the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and 1 Mark Murray, “NBC/WSJ Poll: 53 Percent Support Gay Marriage,” NBC News, April 11, 2013, http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/11/17708688-nbcwsj-poll-53-percent-support-gay- marriage?lite 2 Peter Baker, “Same-Sex Marriage Support Shows Pace of Social Change Accelerating,” The New York Times, May 11, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/us/same-sex-marriage- support-shows-pace-of-social-change-accelerating.html 3 Mike Bloomberg, “Remarks by Mayor Mike Bloomberg at Stanford University’s 122nd Annual Commencement,” Stanford, CA, June 16, 2013, http://www.mikebloomberg.com/index.cfm?objectid=4E22E5B7-C29C-7CA2- F4548DEF072EFA62 1 transgender (LGBT) community.4 Section three of the bill stated: “The word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”5 Thus, DOMA prevented the federal government from recognizing marriages or providing benefits to two people of the same sex. Even President Bill Clinton showed an apparent change of heart with regard to this issue. According to The New Yorker, prior to signing the bill Clinton was the first president to gain support from the gay community while campaigning for office.6 A 2013 New Yorker article stated that “he was then one of the national politicians most conversant on gay-equality issues.”7 Yet, these actions did not carry over when DOMA was introduced in 1996, when Clinton signed the bill alone in his office in September.8 However, though signing DOMA into place, Clinton also later led support for the bill’s invalidation in 2013. When the bill was struck down as unconstitutional, Clinton clarified the reasoning behind his new position. He explained that DOMA was signed during “a very different time,” when same-sex marriages were not a prominent issue for the public.9 In an editorial for The Washington Post he stated, “As the president who signed 4 H.R. 3396, 140th Cong. (1996). 5 H.R. 3396, 140th Cong. (1996). 6 Richard Socarides, “Why Bill Clinton Signed the Defense of Marriage Act,” The New Yorker, March 8, 2013, http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/03/why-clinton-signed- the-defense-of-marriage-act.html 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 2 the act into law, I have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and, in fact, incompatible with our Constitution.”10 The president’s claim that DOMA was passed during a different time is illustrated by the equal rights advancements made in the seventeen years since the bill’s signing. There were two advances of particular note. The first was that during the span of the bill’s enforcement, despite the lack of federal acknowledgement and support, thirteen states legalized same-sex marriage.11 The second was the growth of families headed by same-sex couples.12 Therefore, as the number of homosexual parents increased and the legalization of same-sex marriage spread, the issue for equal rights activists became advocating for marriage equality and the homosexual parents.13 Among those speaking out were the children of same-sex parents. These children had the unique experience of being raised at the forefront of the battle for marriage equality, by the people struggling to be seen as equal. They offered a unique perspective into the lives of same-sex couples by speaking in defense of their parents, against the claims that same-sex parents cannot properly raise a child and that families headed by homosexual couples is an abnormal family form. I examined a collection of these statements using the genre of apologia, and illustrate how they not only defend same-sex couples, but also debunk the binaries of sexuality and family. In this initial chapter, I 10 Bill Clinton, “It’s Time to Overturn DOMA,” The Washington Post, March 7, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bill-clinton-its-time-to-overturn- doma/2013/03/07/fc184408-8747-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html 11 “States,” Freedom to Marry, updated 2013, http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/ 12 Kristy M. Krivickas and Daphne Lofquist, “Demographics of Same-Sex Couple Households with Children,” (PowerPoint presentation, annual meeting of the Population Association of America, U.S. Census Bureau, Fertility & Family Statistics Branch, April 1, 2011). 13 Barbara Vobejda, “Same-Sex Marriage Becomes Political Issue: Gay-Rights Advocates Protest White House Backing of Federal Ban,” The Washington Post, May 1996. 3 provide a brief overview of the context in which this issue occurred. I then briefly outline the method of analysis, which consisted of studying the texts as a genre of apologia through the lens of queer theory. Finally, I provide details about the texts used. DOMA The seventeen-year span in which section three of DOMA was enforced underscored a changing era for equal rights. This section describes this period by first highlighting the year in which DOMA was instituted. Next, I show the changes that took place surrounding the overturning of the law, and how those changes spotlighted the prominence of homosexual parents. I then provide a description of the American family standard, the alternative family forms, and how the perceived differences between them are applicable and important to this study. Though gay rights could be seen as a significant societal issue throughout the 1960’s, 70’s, 80’s and early 90’s, it wasn’t until 1996 that the United States introduced the first federal bill concerning the gay community’s right to marriage. 14 This bill, the Defense of Marriage Act, barred recognition of same-sex marriage by the federal government. Proposed in response to the Hawaii state court case, Baehr v. Miik,15 where three same-sex couples sued for the right to marry and were denied on the basis of sexual orientation,16 DOMA was intended to “define and protect the institution of marriage”17 through providing a legal definition of marriage. A 1996 Washington Post article cites 14 H.R. 3396, 140th Cong. (1996). 15 “Hawaii,” Freedom to Marry, updated 2013, http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/entry/c/hawaii 16 Wendy Somera, “Baehr v.