THE MARKETISATION OF EQUALITY:

A CORPUS-BASED CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS

CAMPAIGNS ARGUMENT FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 2014

MARK JOSEPH WILKINSON

MASTERS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS
KINGS COLLEGE LONDON

SEPTEMBER 2015

SUPERVISOR: DR. CHRIS TRIBBLE

1360613

There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle

because we do not live single-issue lives.
-Audre Lorde, Sister Outsider, 1984

1360613

Acknowledgements
This thesis is dedicated to my father, Dr.Michael Wilkinson, without whose support,
insight, wisdom, guidance and editing expertise I could not have made it through this
masters.
Thank you.
I would like to thank Joo for his unconditional support and tremendous patience while I
recounted every moment of my creative process. You also deserve a masters in applied
linguistics.
I would like to thank my mom, Diane, for always thinking that everything I write is
brilliant and interesting.
I would like to thank Rachel for sharing all of her wisdom, experience and feedback.
Wyman and Wilkinson 2016!
And I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr.Chris Tribble, for his feedback, advice and
for opening up the wonderful world of corpus linguistics.

1360613

ABSTRACT
This study is a corpus-based critical discourse analysis of how The Human Rights
Campaign (HRC) represents the goals, values and aspirations of Americas lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, gender non-conforming and queer (LGBTIQ*) population. As the
largest and most influential LGBTIQ* advocacy and lobbying organisation in the United
States, HRC occupies a unique position to influence government policy as well as media
representations of the LGBTIQ* campaign for social justice. Nevertheless, critics argue
that HRC pursue a single-issue politics that privileges the interests of the gay and lesbian
elite while neglecting crucial social issues that affect the most marginal and vulnerable
LGBTIQ* Americans.
A corpus analysis of HRCs 2014 press releases revealed that critics accusations are
largely correct and that HRC primarily advocate for same-sex marriage at the expense of
all other issues. My conclusions are based on an analysis of keywords, collocations and a
corpora comparison using press release corpora from other LGBTIQ* organisations
during the same time period.
HRC make practical arguments for what actions should be taken to achieve equality for
LGBTIQ* Americans. A practical argumentation analysis was therefore conducted on a
typical HRC press release to identify how HRC represent the premises for action. This
analysis affirmed that HRC deliberately omit some major concerns of LGBTIQ*
Americans, such as racial and economic inequality, in favour of the premise that only
marriage equality can bring social justice to LGBTIQ* Americans.
Finally, an explanatory critique argues that marriage equality serves only to bring
economic benefits to HRC, its corporate sponsors, and the LGBTIQ* elite, and not to a
sizeable population of LGBTIQ* Americans. HRC successfully market marriage
equality because it is good for the bottom line.

1360613

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ABSTRACT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF APPENDICES

LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES

1.0. INTRODUCTION

10

1.1 Economic Inequality

11

1.2 Healthcare and Support for people living with HIV/AIDS

12

1.3 Immigration

12

1.4 Homelessness

12

1.5 Criminalization

13

1.6 Racial Injustice

13

2.0. LITERATURE REVIEW

15

2.1. CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

15

2.1.1. Discourse

15

2.1.2. Power

17

2.1.3. Ideology

18

2.2. DIALECTICAL-RELATIONAL APPROACH

20

2.2.1. Social events

2.2.2. Social practices
2.2.3. Social structures
2.2.4. Mediation

21
22
23
23

2.3. PRACTICAL ARGUMENTATION ANALYSIS

24

2.4. CRITIQUES OF CDA

28

1360613

3.0. CORPUS ANALYSIS

30

3.1. Overview
3.1.1. Research questions
3.1.2. Data
3.1.2. Corpus linguistics
3.1.3. Corpus tools

30
30
30
31
32

3.2. Corpus analysis

3.2.1. Keyness analysis
3.2.2. Collocation analysis
3.2.3. Corpora comparison
3.2.5. Corpus analysis summary

32
32
33
39
45

4.0. CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS: PRACTICAL ARGUMENTATION

ANALYSIS
48
4.1. Text:

48

4.2. Outline of HRC argument

49

4.2.1. Circumstances

50

4.2.2. Values

53

4.2.3. Alternative

55

4.2.4 Means-goal

55

4.2.5 Summary

56

4.3. Explanatory Critique

58

5.0

62

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

64

APPENDIX A

73

APPENDIX B

75

APPENDIX C

78

APPENDIX D

82

APPENDIX E

84

1360613

APPENDIX F

86

APPENDIX G

98

APPENDIX H

103

APPENDIX I

110

1360613

LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A

HRC Corpus: Keyness Analysis

70

APPENDIX B

HRC Corpus: Collocations

72

APPENDIX C

HRC Corpus: COUPLES + CAN MARRY concordance

75

APPENDIX D

Lambda Legal Corpus: Keyness Analysis

79

APPENDIX E

Williams Institute Corpus: Keyness Analysis

81

APPENDIX F

HRC Corpus: MARRIAGE + EQUALITY concordance

83

APPENDIX G

Williams Institute Corpus: EXTEND + MARRIAGE concordance

95

APPENDIX H

HRC Corpus: INEQUALITY

APPENDIX I

HRC Press Release #LoveCantWait: Why America Needs

Marriage Equality Now

1360613

100

109

LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Structure of practical argument (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012)

19

Figure 2.2 Deliberation: argument and counter-argument (Fairclough and Fairclough

2012)

20

Figure 4.1 HRC argument: Why America needs marriage equality now

43

Figure 3.1 MARRIAGE collocation

70

Figure 3.2 EQUALITY collocation

70

Figure 3.3 COUPLES collocation

71

Figure 3.4 GAY collocation

71

Figure 3.5 TRANSGENDER collocation

72

Table 3.1 Keyword comparison between HRC, Lambda Legal and The Williams Institute
corpora using AmE06 as reference corpus.

36

Table 3.2 HRC keyword comparison using Lambda Legal and The Williams
Institute as reference corpora

1360613

37

1.0. INTRODUCTION
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) claims to be Americas largest civil rights
(HRC 2014). Founded in 1980, as the first gay and lesbian political action committee
(PAC) in the United States (Cornell University 2006), the organisation now boasts 1.5
million members and its activities include lobbying, research and public policy as well as
running education and outreach programmes across the US (Cornell University 2006). In
the 2012 presidential campaign HRCs political spending reached $4.2 million on
lobbying and campaign contributions. (opensecrets.org). In addition, HRC have also
pursued an aggressive strategy of branding, marketing and public relations activities that
have raised the profile of the organisation (Cornell University 2006). One notable
achievement in this campaign has been the HRC logo that is now claimed to be as
visible at pride celebrations as the iconic rainbow flag (HRC 2015a). The logo now
appears on countless bumper stickers and t-shirts, and is used by the media, politicians
and corporations to show support for HRCs brand of LGBT equality (HRC 2015a).
HRCs resources, membership, and media presence make it the most influential LGBT
advocacy group in the US a unique position that allows them to speak, in Washington
and in the mainstream media, on behalf of LGBT people (Cornell University 2006;
Meronek 2015). But does HRC adequately represent the interests of lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer (LGBTIQ*)1 Americans?
As the media presence and political profile of HRC has grown, so too have those
critical voices that dispute HRCs claim to represent the political, social and economic
interests of the LGBTIQ* community (Warner 2000; Duggan 2003; Bassichis et al 2011;
Nair 2010; Chvez et al 2014). Critics maintain that LGBTIQ* people are women, men,
transgender and gender non-conforming individuals from multiple ethnic, religious,

The use of LGBTIQ* is a political choice by the author in an attempt to illustrate the diversity
of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer and gender non-conforming people. The
latter group is represented by the asterisk and includes those who do not identify themselves
through binary gender categories (gender expansive), two-spirited native North Americans who
do not identify with the identity categories given by colonial Americans, asexuals, those living
with HIV, those who are questioning their sexual identity and those who reject any reductive
identities ascribed by labels.

1360613

10

regional, socioeconomic, and political backgrounds (Bassichis et al 2011; Nair 2010;

DEmilio 1993, 2006). Thus, any civil rights agenda representing this community would
need to be as diverse as the constituents it claims to represent (Warner 2000; Duggan
2003; Bassichis et al 2011; Nair 2010; Chvez et al 2014; DEmilio 2006). Instead, HRC
are accused of employing a corporate-style decision making model that only serves the
interests of its largely white, upper-middle-class, cis-gender2, gay and lesbian board of
directors (Duggan 2003). HRC, by ignoring people within the community who do not
have the resources and media-access to represent themselves, thereby obfuscates the
issues that affect most LGBTIQ* Americans (Warner 2000; Duggan 2003; Bassichis et al
2011; Nair 2010; Chvez et al 2014; DEmilio 2006). Central to this critique is that HRC
are also pursuing a single issue (Duggan 2003:47) political strategy that frames samesex marriage as the ultimate measure of equality and the primary goal of the movement
(Sullivan 1995; Warner 2000; Duggan 2001, 2003; Bassichis et al 2011; Nair 2010;
Chvez et al 2014; DEmilio 2006). Conrad argues that HRCs gay marriage campaign
hinges upon the gay subject as a racialized figure embedded in a comfortable
upper-middle-class environment untroubled by any inequality other than
marriage rights (2013:394). This essentially diverts attention away from the social
injustices actually affecting the LGBTIQ* population. Discussed below are six critical
issues affecting LGBTIQ* Americans, most of which cannot be solved with an extension
of marriage rights (Bassichis et al 2011; Nair 2010; Chvez et al 2014; DEmilio 2006).
1.1 Economic Inequality
The LGBTIQ* community is disproportionately affected by economic inequality
(Albelda et al 2009). More lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) households live in poverty
than heterosexual households (Albelda et al 2009); children of same-sex couples are
twice as likely to live in poverty as children of different-sex couples (Albelda et al 2009);
and lesbians and LGB people of colour are most affected. The statistics for transgender
and gender non-conforming people are worse, being four times more likely to have a

A person whose gender identity corresponds with assigned sex at birth, ie. not transgender,
gender non-conforming or gender expansive.

1360613

11

household income of < $10,000/ year compared to the general population (Grant et al
2011). The unemployment rate is also double, while the Black and Latino transgender
populations have an unemployment rate nearly four times that of the general population
(Grant et al 2011).
1.2 Healthcare and Support for people living with HIV/AIDS
Inadequate healthcare produces inferior health outcomes in the LGBTIQ*
population (Krehely 2009). 82% of the heterosexual population have health insurance,
compared to 77% for the LGB population, and 57% for the transgender and gender nonconforming population (Krehely 2009). The LGBTIQ* community also has higher rates
of obesity, alcoholism, drug addiction, and cancer (Krehely 2009). The Center for
Disease Control (CDC 2015) also reports that 56% of patients contract HIV through
same-sex activity (CDC 2015) and gay men have the fastest growing rate of infection
(CDC 2015).
1.3 Immigration
Of the nearly 1 million LGBTIQ* immigrants living in the US (Center for
American Progress 2014), 267,000 are undocumented (Burns et al 2013). Those held in
US immigration detention centres are often subjected to solitary confinement, torture,
and ill-treatment, including sexual assault. (Gruberg 2013). A UN Special Report
(Gruberg 2013) concluded that the placement of LGBTIQ* detainees within the
Department of Homeland Security was in violation of the Convention Against Torture.
1.4 Homelessness
LGBTIQ* teenagers comprise 40% of homeless youth in the US (Durso and
Gates 2012:3). The reasons are complex, though family rejection (68% of cases),
physical or sexual abuse (at over 54%), being aged out of the foster-care system, and
financial and emotional family neglect are major causes (Durso and Gates 2012:9).

1360613

12

1.5 Criminalization
LGBTIQ* teens represent only 5-7% of the US youth population but constitute
15% of those in the juvenile justice system (Hunt and Moodie-Mills 2012 2012:1).
Homelessness forces them into drug sales, theft and prostitution (Hunt and Moodie-Mills
2012:3). LGBTIQ* youth of colour are disproportionately targeted by law enforcement;
ie. of the 300,000 LGBTIQ* youth arrested each year, 60% of them are Black or Latino
(Hunt and Moodie-Mills 2012: 1). Often detained according to their registered sex at
birth, they are exposed to the danger of sexual assault and violence (Hunt and MoodieMills 2012:6). Though many remain unconvicted of crimes, detention centres place
transgender youth in solitary confinement (Hunt and Moodie-Mills 2012:6), a practice the
American Psychiatric Association maintains is a form of punishment likely to
produce lasting psychiatric symptoms (Hunt and Moodie-Mills 2012:6).
1.6 Racial Injustice
African-American same-sex couples are twice as likely to be poor as AfricanAmerican different sex couples (Badget et al 2013). Compared to white gay male
couples, however, African-American gay men were six times more likely to be poor
(Badget et al 2013). African-American lesbians were also three times more likely to be
poor than were white lesbians (Badget et al 2013). LGBTIQ* people of colour also
experienced higher rates of youth homelessness (Durso and Gates 2012), incarceration
(Hunt and Moodie-Mills 2012; Durso and Gates 2012; Grant et al 2011) and HIV
infection (CDC 2015). Transgender and gender non-conforming people of colour are
also primary victims of an increase in hate crimes and murders (Grant et al 2011;). Of
the 12 transgender women murdered in 2015, 9 were black or Hispanic (Kellaway and
Brydum 2015).
Critics claim that HRC have remained largely silent on these issues (Bassichis et
al 2011; Nair 2010; Chvez et al 2014; DEmilio 2006). As these dissenting voices have
organized both independently and against HRC (Bassichis et al 2011; Nair 2010; Chvez
et al 2014), so the HRC has adopted rhetoric that addresses its critics (Becker 2014). In

1360613

13

2014 the HRC President addressed Transgender critics and claimed that he was sorry for
the times [they had] been underrepresented or unrepresented and that HRC has a
responsibility to do the struggle justice, or else we are failing (Becker 2014).

This thesis will address the critiques made against HRC through a critical
investigation of how they represent both the issues affecting LGBTIQ* Americans and
the goals of their campaign for equality. HRC have established a strong media presence
to represent their values, goals and achievements. The study will therefore begin with a
corpus analysis of their press releases. A text chosen as representative of the corpus
findings will then be used for a critical discourse analysis (CDA) using Fairclough and
Faircloughs (2012) framework for analysing practical argumentation. As an advocacy
organisation, HRC make arguments to the government and the public that certain actions
should be taken in order to reach full equality for LGBTIQ* Americans. The main
research questions are:

To what extent does HRC represent the interests of a diverse LGBTIQ*

community in the US?

To what extent does HRC advocate on behalf of marginalised groups

within the LGBTIQ* community who do not have the resources to
represent themselves in the media and in Washington?

To what extent does linguistic evidence support or challenge the

accusations made against HRC?

1360613

14

2.0. LITERATURE REVIEW

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS & PRACTICAL ARGUMENTATION ANALYSIS
2.1. Critical Discourse Analysis
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a trans-disciplinary approach (Fairclough
2015: 45) to the study of discourse, power, and ideology incorporating methods from
the critical social sciences and linguistics (Fairclough 1992, 2003, 2010, 2015; Van Dijk
1993, 2001, 2008; Wodak and Van Leeuwen 1999; Wodak and Meyer 2009; Wodak
2011). CDA seeks to understand how discourse contributes to social, political and
economic inequality (Fairclough 1992, 2003, 2010, 2015; Van Dijk 1993, 2001, 2008;
Wodak and Van Leeuwen 1999; Wodak and Meyer 2009; Wodak 2011). Its goal is not
simply to describe this relationship, but to provide a critique of discourse and
explanation of how it figures within and contributes to the existing social reality, as a
basis for action (Fairclough 2015:5). CDAs primary motivation is therefore
transformative action to change existing social reality for the better (Fairclough
2015:12; Fairclough 1992, 2003, 2010, 2015; Van Dijk 1993, 2001, 2008; Wodak and
Van Leeuwen 1999; Wodak and Meyer 2009; Wodak 2011).
This chapter presents an overview of how discourse, power, and ideology are
conceptualised within the present study. Subsequent sections provide an overview of the
CDA theories adopted in this investigation: Section 2.2 outlines the basic theoretical
framework of the Dialectical-Relational Approach (Fairclough and Chouliaraki 1999;
Fairclough 2003, 2010); Section 2.3 provides a framework for analysing practical
argumentation (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012) and Section 2.4 concludes with a
critique of CDAs methods and a brief discussion of how corpus linguistics can be used
to strengthen analysis.
2.1.1. Discourse
Defining discourse is problematic as it is used in both social and linguistic
research in inter-related yet different ways (Baker 2006:3). Within CDA there is a
distinction between two separate but complimentary meanings (Fairclough 2015; Van
1360613

15

Dijk 2001, 2008; Wodak and Meyer 2009). The first refers to naturally occurring
instances of language in use (Stubbs 1996:158). Traditional discourse analysts therefore
study the function of language above the sentence or clause level (Brown and Yule 1983;
Stubbs 1983) and how a stretch of language achieves meaning and coherence
(Cook 2011:431). When unequal power relations are exercised at this level, it is
referred to as power in discourse (PID) (Fairclough 2015:73). While PID can manifest
itself in face-to-face interaction, the concern in this thesis is with media texts. Thus when
discourse is produced and disseminated through the mass media, HRC control the
interaction by determin[ing] what is included and excluded, how events are represented,
and even the subject position of the audience (Fairclough 2015:79). HRCs
significant media presence enables them to exercise their powerful position and represent
the LGBTIQ* equality movement according to their interests.
PID is related to Power behind discourse (PBD) the idea that the whole social
order of discourse is put together as a hidden effect of power (Fairclough 2015:83).
This second concept derives primarily from Foucault (1972; 1982) who proposed that
social reality arises from a network of discursive practices that determine our speech,
behaviour and relationships. Discourse is therefore not just how we represent our world
through language, but actually constitutes how we perceive social reality, our identity,
and the power relations to which we are all subject (Foucault 1972). For example, the
LGBTIQ* rights movement is founded on discourses of shared identity and collective
history framed by a metaphor of coming-out (DEmilio 1993); ie. LGBTIQ* individuals
always existed, but suffered in isolation until they publicly asserted their sexual identity
and demanded equality. Foucault (1976) however, proposed that homosexual identity, as
understood today, is merely the product of discursive practices that emerged in a specific
historical era. While prior to the 19th century, same-sex sex was a forbidden act, the
perpetrator had no particular characteristics or identity traits associated with his
perversion (Foucault 1976:43). Westphals publication of Contrary Sexual Sensations
(1870) changed this, identifying homosexuality as a diagnosable condition (Foucault
1976). Thereafter, clinicians pathologised sexual behaviour by diagnosing mental
conditions based on sexual practice, and endowed the sexual act with mental and moral

1360613

16

characteristics (Foucault 1976, 1982). Thus homosexual identity did not exist outside of
discourse, but was born through discourse. As Foucault stated: The sodomite had been a
temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species (Foucault, 1984:323).
The discursive construction of LGBTIQ* identity is but one example of how
discourse constructs our social reality. Identity however, is not a benign category. It has
profound effects on our life and freedom of movement. While psychiatric discourses
influence how we think and speak about mental illness, they are also connected to mental
health facilities and the law, both of which have power over human subjects and their
bodies (Foucault 1972). Thus, these dividing practices (Foucault 1982) sane/insane,
legal/illegal, homosexual/heterosexual actually function as a form of social control.
Inasmuch as prisons separate the law-abiding from the criminals, so the creation of a
homosexual identity separates the pure from the now recognizable deviant (McIntosh
1968:183). That is, a discrete identity associated with a deviant behaviour demarcated a
threshold that, if crossed, marked a transition into criminality (Ibid).

2.1.2. Power
Power only exists when it is put into action (Foucault (1982) and is rooted in the
system of social networks that constitute society (Foucault 1982:224). Through physical
force, coercion or consent (Fairclough 2015), one group comes to dominate another.
However, domination is not won and maintained indefinitely and the possibility of
resistance is ever-present as power relationships continually shift over time (Van Dijk
2001). For one group to maintain dominance over another, their claims to power must be
legitimizedin discourses (Wodak and Meyer 2009:89). Legitimation is contingent on
access to discourse that the more discourse genres, contexts, participants, audience,
scope and text characteristics they actively control or influence, the more powerful social
groupsand elites are (Van Dijk 1993:256, 2008). These include governments, the
media and those who influence these institutions through their economic, social and
cultural capital (Bourdieu 1986). Discourse is then controlled using discursive
strategies that represent social actors, events, or objects in a way that is beneficial to
those in power (Wodak and Meyer 2009:93).

1360613

17

HRCs powerful media presence provides them with control of discourses

surrounding the LGBTIQ* community (Cornell 2006; Meronek 2015). Such power
established their marriage equality agenda as the social issue most frequently
represented in the media. Indeed, to read contemporary media surrounding LGBTIQ*
people is to receive the impression that gay people hardly care about anything else
(Warner 2000:84). This is an incredibly powerful position. As noted, other crucial issues
affecting the community are then ignored and the people who are affected by them
effectively disappear, unrepresented as part of the LGBTIQ* rights campaign in the mass
media or in Washington. As HRCs values have become embedded across many genres
and many locations, their interests and goals have begun to appear routine appear as the
accepted values of all LGBTIQ* Americans. Gramsci (1971) labelled this process
hegemony, proposing that to maintain power, the ruling classes must win the hegemonic
struggle for the hearts and minds of the people. The hegemony of HRCs values allow it
to shape the scope of an LGBTIQ* equality movement. Many (if not most) LGBTIQ*
Americans favour inclusion in existing institutions like same-sex marriage because it has
been represented as the only way to achieve full equality.
2.1.3. Ideology
Discourse and power function together to serve the interests of the elite. Though
these interests yield material wealth, the desire for wealth and power is actually rooted in
beliefs and ideas that view them as desirable in the first place. This system of beliefs and
ideas is referred to as ideology (Althusser [1971] 2006; Van Dijk 2008; Fairclough 2015).
While discourse, power, hegemony, and ideology are deeply imbricated, a specific
discussion of the ideological shift that has occurred in the LGBTIQ* movement will
provide context for the current study and indicate how ideology can have profound
effects on peoples lives.
The fight for LGBTIQ* equality effectively began with the Stonewall Uprising of
1969. At that time, criminalization of homosexuality was often achieved through raids of
LGBTIQ* social spaces. These ended in arrests, incarceration and police violence
(DEmilio 1992, Carter 2004, Armstrong and Crage 2006). On the night of June 27th
1360613

18

1969, however, the patrons, staff, and local residents that frequented the Stonewall Inn
bar resisted arrest, barricaded the street and trapped police inside the bar (ibid). In 1969
the civil rights movement and the mass demonstrations against Americas war in Vietnam
had created a political climate of radicalization, constituency mobilisation, and grassroots
activism. The Stonewall Uprising coincided with this ideological shift (DEmilio 1992,
Carter 2004, Armstrong and Crage 2006). Modeling itself on the civil rights movement
(DEmilio 1992, 2002), the uprising galvanized popular support for a gay liberation
movement (DEmilio 1992, Carter 2004, Armstrong and Crage 2006) that demonstrated
for an end to discrimination against LGBTIQ* people, but also against institutional and
cultural racism, gender inequality, police violence, poverty, housing discrimination and
the military industrial complex (Warner 2000; Bassichis, Lee and Spade 2011). They did
not seek to assimilate into the mainstream, but rather to radically transform it and create a
society based on economic equality and inclusiveness (Warner 2000; Bassichis, Lee and
Spade 2011).
Forty years later, the radical politics of the post-Stonewall era have been
abandoned and the LGBTIQ* movement is focused on an agenda of acceptance into
existing institutions; eg. serving openly in the military and the right to marry (Warner
2000; Duggan 2003; Puar 2007). Duggan (2003) argues that the ideological shift in
LGBTIQ* advocacy reflects the broader sociocultural and political turn towards a
neoliberal political economy. The ideological force of neoliberalism has resulted in HRC
adopting neoliberal rhetoric and corporate decision-making models (Duggan 2003:45).
By abandoning the transformational politics of the past, HRC have gained greater
acceptance into corporate America and the political mainstream (Duggan 2003; Puar
2007; Warner 2000).
Unlike the liberationists who challenged hierarchical gender roles and the
neoliberal capitalist state, this new gay politics espouses conservative ideologies like
traditional family values, individual liberty, limited government and the free market
(Sullivan 1995; Duggan 2003). According to champions of this ideological shift, this new
direction opposes a radical gay rights movement aligned with workers andvictim
groups against the capitalist oppressor (Bawer 1996:21). Equality is contingent on the
1360613

19

opposite of a working-class revolt a trickling down of gay-positive sentiments from

elite corporate boardrooms into shopsand factories (Bawer 1996:21).
By virtue of this ideological paradigm, HRC assumes that equality is achieved
merely by inclusion in the market and representation in the boardroom, ie. equality is
attainable through consumer practices (Duggan 2003). To ensure that LGBTIQ* voices
are heard and represented, HRC publish a Buying for Workplace Equality guide (HRC
2015b) at the start of the winter holiday and shopping season (HRC2015c:1). It urges
thousands of LGBT consumers - estimated to have spending power of $830 billion
(ibid: 1) - to send a message that LGBT inclusion is good for the bottom line
(ibid:1). HRC even surveys corporations for any consumer products to include in
HRCs Guide (HRC 2015d). Corporations can then brand themselves as LGBT
friendly, thereby marketizing equality in the name of corporate profit. HRCs strategy
reflects the ideological shift that has occurred in the LGBTIQ* movement, one that is
unrecognisable compared with the post-Stonewall era of grassroots activism (Warner
2000; Duggan 2003; Bassichis et al 2011; Nair 2010; Chvez et al 2014).
The following section provides a framework for how discourse, power and
ideology can be analysed in the social world through linguistic analysis. By looking at
social events, practices, structures and how these are mediated throughout society
through orders of discourse, we can begin to examine the analysis of individual HRC
texts.

2.2. Dialectical-relational approach

This study will adopt the Dialectical-Relational Approach (DRA) as the primary
CDA framework (Fairclough 1992, 2003, 2010, 2015; Fairclough and Fairclough 2012).
DRA possesses three stages: Normative critique, Explanatory critique, and Action.
Normative critique compares certain behaviours, actions and social practices against a
moral standard of what constitutes a good society (Fairclough 2003; Fairclough and
Fairclough 2012). Normative critique of discourse therefore examines whether texts are
true or false, manipulative, or deliberately omit critical information in efforts to maintain
1360613

20

unequal power relationships in the social world. In the case of HRCs press releases, I
will investigate how the HRC represent their claims for action and their goals against the
reality of social issues facing LGBTIQ* Americans. Explanatory critique asks why
unequal power relationships exist, and for whose benefit. It seeks to understand how
inequality is held together by discourse. In the case of the HRC, I will assess why the
goals of the LGBTIQ* social justice movement are represented in a certain way and for
whose benefit. The first two stages allow for transformative action to be planned and
then undertaken in order to address these issues and effect social justice for LGBTIQ*
Americans.
DRA also emphasises the dialectical relationships existing between social events,
structures, and practices as well as between their semiotic aspects (texts, discourses,
genres, and styles; Barthes 1967). By including semiotic aspects, Fairclough (1992,
2003, 2006, 2010) extended the study beyond spoken and written language to examine
how any system of signification (images, gestures, objects, music, etc) contributes to the
construction of discourse. Relationships between semiotic elements and social reality are
dialectical because they are separate, but not discrete (Fairclough 2003, 2010). For
example, while discursive strategies can legitimate dominance of one group over another,
the ability to exercise discursive strategies is a result of existing dominance in the first
place (Fairclough, 2010:4). Similarly, while social events are a product of established
social practices, individual agency can shape social events and transform social practice.
The following section will explore these concepts in more detail.
2.2.1. Social events
Social events, in their semiotic dimension, are enacted through written, spoken,
visual or multimodal texts (Fairclough 2003, 2010). Their purpose is to simultaneously
represent aspects of the worldenact social relationsin social eventsand coherently
and cohesively connect texts with their situational contexts (Fairclough 2003:27). They
consist of social actors whose agency is neither completely unregulated nor totally
socially determined (Fairclough 2003:23). For example, HRCs press team must abide
by grammatical conventions and by the style and genre of a press release. But they may
1360613

21

also texture the text to convey the values and goals of their organisation (Fairclough
2003:22). The text is therefore a product of the dialectical relationship between social
events and structures as mediated by social practice. Much CDA analysis begins with
texts as an entry level for normative critique.
2.2.2. Social practices
Social practices mediate the relationship between social structures at the most
general and abstract level and concrete social events (Fairclough 2010:232).
Marriage, for example, is an ancient social structure that has endured as a fundamental
component of the social world. In order for this institution to have survived, it required a
network of repeated social practices that maintained the social structure. The semiotic
dimensions of these social practices are enacted through orders of discourse, constituted
by genre, discourses, and style (Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999; Fairclough 1992, 2003,
2010).
Genres are semiotic ways of acting and interacting (Fairclough 2010: 232 ) and
include the wedding ceremony, the vows spoken between two people, and the legal
marriage contract. Genres thus shape specific social events and how the social structure
of marriage is enacted in reality.
Discourses are semiotic ways of construing [or representing] aspects of the world
(physical, social or mental) which can be identified with ... different groups of social
actors (Fairclough 2003:232). For instance, same-sex marriage is represented through
discourses associated with the politics or moral stance of specific groups. Right-wing
Christian groups in the US construe same-sex marriage as an attack on tradition or a
perversion of a union ordained by god (Allon 2015). These discourses contrast with
those of HRC who construe same-sex marriage as an issue of inclusion or freedom (HRC
2014a).
Style refers to identities or ways of being in their semiotic aspect
(Fairclough 2003:232); ie. how we construct our identities through the texts we create.
For instance, HRC and many advocates for same-sex marriage emphasize the traditional
1360613

22

values inherent in marriage and the dignity it bestows couples. In so doing, they position
themselves and their social justice campaign as deeply moral and inline with traditional
family values.
Genres, discourse and styles combine to create orders of discourse and social
practices associated with certain institutions or social structures. Nonetheless, social
practice does not merely reflect a reality that is independent of it; social practice is in
an active relationship to reality and it changes reality (Fairclough 2015:68). Over time,
social agents alter social practices, thereby altering the nature of both the social structure
and the social events. So, while marriage has survived for centuries, the social practices
that define how it is performed have changed and will continue to change.
2.2.3. Social structures
Social structures define a potential, a set of possibilities (Fairclough 2003:23).
Marriage is such a social structure and serves different functions for various groups
across time and history; however, the structure has traditionally involved the union of two
persons, their family ties and has included economic benefits. It is upheld by the social
practices and events.
2.2.4. Mediation
The relationship between texts and the social world must be understood through
the concept of mediation (Fairclough 2003) the movement of meaning from one
social practice to another, from one event to another, and from one text type to another
(Fairclough 2003:30). The modern era has seen a proliferation of mass media through
radio, television and the Internet. The ability to connect many people across space and
time permitted an acceleration in the movement of text. The result is a networking of
texts, or genre chains (Fairclough 2003:31), which allow information to be
recontextualized from one genre to another. For example, an HRC press release is
recontextualized into print and visual media, and then shared through social media or
verbal communication. In our world, the capacity to control processes of mediation is
an important aspect of power (Fairclough 2003:31).
1360613

23

In the next section, Fairclough and Faircloughs (2012) framework for practical
argumentation will be discussed. As HRC are an advocacy and political lobbying
organisation, the nature of their work is concerned with making arguments for certain
actions to be taken over others. While the overall method and theoretical framework of
DRA is effective for this study, practical argumentation analysis is an ideal framework
for analysing specific texts (events).

2.3. Practical argumentation analysis

DRA provides a framework for analysing the dialectical relationships between
social events, structures, practices and their semiotic elements (texts and orders of
discourse). Fairclough and Fairclough (2012) argue, however, that DRAs textual
analysis is incomplete as it is limited to representation and does not extend the analysis
to how representations function as a premise for action. They argue that ways of
representing the world enter as premises into reasoning about what we should do. Unless
we look at arguments, and not just at isolated representations, there is no way of
understanding how our beliefs feed into what we do (2012: 87). This omission of
argumentation analysis is problematic for CDA, inasmuch as CDA is a critique of
political discourse that, by its very nature, is primarily about making choices about how
to act in response to circumstances and goals (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012:1). An
analysis of how arguments are constructed can therefore make a major contribution to
strengthening textual analysis in CDA (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012:86). Since
political lobbying and advocacy fall within the genre of political discourse, their
framework is an appropriate model for analysing HRCs claims about what actions are
required to achieve the goal of full equality for the LGBTIQ* community. With that in
mind, the following section provides a brief overview of Fairclough and Faircloughs
(2012) framework for practical argumentation analysis.
Practical argumentation involves advocating for what should or ought to be done
regarding a particular problem or situation (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012). The
structure of the argument begins with a claim for action based on a particular set of goals
and circumstantial premises (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012). These goals and
1360613

24

circumstances are determined against a normative background of values usually informed

by a moral order (informed by shared moral values or by universalizable rules of
conduct), an institutional order (generated by laws or rules), against a background of
various other values (kindness, generosity)simply in view of what your actual desires
and preferences are (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012). A means-goal is then proposed
as the best possible way of achieving the goal proposed. Figure 2.1 shows the structure
of a practical argument.

Figure 2.1 Structure of practical argument (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012).

1360613

25

Practical reasoning is incomplete, however, if it does not involve deliberation

over other possible courses of action (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012); eg. considering
what reasons would support not doing the action (i.e. a counter-claim), but may also
involve alternatives (doing something else, not just refraining from action) (Fairclough
and Fairclough 2012:89). This process is illustrated in figure 2.0. Ideally, deliberation
occurs when multiple agents arrive at a common course of action by examining various
proposalsin light of reasons for and against each proposal (Fairclough and Fairclough
2012). These alternative arguments and counter arguments [are] formulated in terms that
advance the rhetorical goals of the participants that advocate them (Fairclough and
Fairclough 2012:92). In much political discourse this is often not the case (Fairclough
and Fairclough 2012; Wyman 2012). In a political speech, where a claim for action is
being advocated, monological or false deliberation is often used as a rhetorical device to
give the illusion that other options are being considered or that no other option is
available. Alternative options are formulated in ways which favour his own conclusion
and actual deliberation is avoided by representing alternatives in rhetorically convenient
ways (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012:92).

1360613

26

Figure 2.2 Deliberation: argument and counter-argument (Fairclough and Fairclough

2012).
Deliberation (and false deliberation) can be persuasion towards one action in light
of alternative actions being available. Persuasion is a legitimate form of argumentation,
though when persuasion takes the form of re-describing or re-framing reality in
rhetorically convenient ways (Fairclough and Fairlcough 2012), it becomes
manipulation. This occurs when representations are put forward or accepted as the one
and only possible way of understanding the matters in question, as uncontroversial truth
(Fairclough and Fairclough 2012:93). A critical analysis of representation then becomes
paramount as it is only through value-laden representations of the world that actions can
1360613

27

become a reality. Manipulation of premises also occurs when emotive language or loaded
terms are used. Fairclough and Fairclough (2012) distinguish between those cases in
which loaded terms are used legitimately to defend a particular standpoint, when it is
clear that there is also a contrary standpoint in play, and both are open to critical
questioning, and those cases in which loaded terms and definitions are used deceptively,
as if no other possible viewpoint is possible, as if they were neutral fact-stating
propositions beyond any conceivable doubt (2012:93). This is true also of presenting the
means-goal as the only possible solution.
The credibility of argumentation is established by holding up the claim, and the
proposed course of action, against a measure of validity and truth in accordance with the
norms of rational action (Habermas, quoted in Fairclough and Fairclough 2012). In other
words, an argument should provide for genuine deliberation and that, if this is not the
case, intentional manipulation is occurring. The HRC are a financially powerful and
influential political lobbying and advocacy group that makes claims about how the
federal government should address inequality in the LGBTIQ* community. Successful
political lobbying leads to changes in policy. Changes in policy have effects on peoples
lived experiences. Unless a critical understanding of how their arguments are constructed
is gained, then genuine social justice cannot be achieved. This thesis will use practical
argumentation to establish if HRCs arguments are credible when measured against
validity and truth.

2.4. Critiques of CDA

A principal tenet of CDA is the adoption of an explicit political stance on social
injustice. Through the analysis of discourse, an understanding of how inequality is
reproduced can be gained as a starting point to effect positive social change in solidarity
with those most affected. However, this political commitment is also the starting point of
much criticism. CDA is accused of circularity in that it identifies social injustice and
then goes looking for it in text (Stubbs 1997; Widdowson 2004). Critics argue that this is
not so much rigorous linguistic analysis as it is a way of selecting those features of the
text which support its preferred interpretation (Widdowson 2004:142). Stubbs (1997)
1360613

28

proposed that applying quantitative methods could address the criticisms that CDAs
methods of data collection and text analysis are inexplicit [and] that the data are often
restricted to text fragments (Stubbs 1997:102). In recent years, the integration of corpuslinguistic methods into CDA has begun to bridge the gap between overly subjective
interpretations of text and the quantitative turn advocated for by Stubbs (Stubbs 1997;
OHalloran and Coffin 2004; OHalloran 2009, 2013, 2014; Baker et al 2009; Baker
2012). Specifically, the use of reference corpora can guard against the over- and underinterpretation of findings or conclusions when working with single texts (OHalloran
and Coffin 2004). Large corpora can also direct analysis towards patterns of language
use not evident in smaller samples of data (Mautner 2009).
The current study adopts a method used by Wyman (2012) who combined corpusanalysis with Fairclough and Faircloughs (2012) framework for analysing practical
arguments. This method grounds the analysis in quantitative data while strengthening a
traditional CDA approach with argument deconstruction.

1360613

29

3.0. CORPUS ANALYSIS

3.1. Overview
3.1.1. Research questions
This study is a corpus-based critical discourse analysis of the HRC. It investigates
how this organisation represents its goals and values as well as those of the overall
LGBTIQ* social justice movement. As the most influential LGBTIQ* advocacy group in
the US, the repercussions of their advocacy and campaigns are twofold. HRC influences
legislation passed in Washington that affects the lives of LGBTIQ* Americans. HRC also
impacts how the media represent the goals and values of the LGBTIQ* movement. To
what extent, then, does the HRC:

Represent the interests of a diverse LGBTIQ* community in the US?

Advocate on behalf of marginalised groups within the LGBTIQ* community who

do not have the resources to represent themselves in the media and in
Washington?

Because many critics have argued that HRC focuses exclusively on issues that benefit
white, upper-middle-class, cis-gender gays and lesbians, this study also asks:

To what extent does linguistic evidence support or challenge the accusations

made against HRC?

3.1.2. Data
To answer these questions, I performed a corpus analysis of HRCs press releases
(PR) from 2014. PRs are a public relations tool used by an organizations media team to
convey specific information to the press. This genre allows organizations, like HRC, to
represent itself in a calculated, premeditated way (Belch and Belch 2012). A corpus
analysis of PRs should therefore provide an overview of how HRC represents itself and
the LGBTIQ* movement in the media. Beginning my research with a corpus analysis
also addresses potential researcher bias within CDA by providing a quantitative, and
1360613

30

thus robust, basis for confirming or falsifying intuitions about language use (OHalloran
2013:140).
The PR corpus was created using the HRC.org Press Room feature that provides
a database of PRs (HRC 2015e). It is equipped with a search option for sorting by Issue
(e.g. marriage, HIV/AIDS, immigration), Year, or State. However, selecting for an issue
or state would likely limit the data. I elected instead to use all press releases from 2014,
producing a corpus of 396 PRs and 184,240 words; a sizeable corpus that provided
insight into how HRC portrays their organization and the movement.
Nevertheless, Stubbs claims that the most powerful interpretation emerges if
comparisons of texts across corpora are combined with analysis of the organization of
individual texts (Stubbs 1996:34). A specific PR was therefore chosen that reflected the
data from the corpus analysis as well as the discourse style of political lobbying, ie.
advocating for political action. An analysis of the argument presented in this PR was then
conducted using the framework for analysing practical arguments designed by Fairclough
and Fairclough (2012).
3.1.2. Corpus linguistics
Corpus linguistics analyses corpora, or large bodies of naturally occurring
language stored in computers (Baker 2006:1). Using computational methods to uncover
linguistic patterns, corpus linguists discover things about language use which may
otherwise remain invisible (OHalloran 2013:139). Though subjective choices about
which features to study are still involved, corpus analysis means that exhaustive and
objective searches may be possible for all examples of a feature (Stubbs 1996:131). I
began the analysis by looking at KEYWORDS and COLLOCATIONS. Based on these
data, I then compared the HRC corpus against PR corpora from other LGBTIQ*
organizations to determine if HRCs media strategy was unique. Finally, the HRC corpus
was searched for key terms related to the social issues discussed in Section 1.0
(economic inequality, racial injustice, etc) to establish whether the HRC discussed these
issues in a significant way.

1360613

31

3.1.3. Corpus tools

WMATRIX3 (Rayson 2008) was the primary corpus analysis tool. The main
reasons for this choice are:

WMATRIX employs the American English 2006 (AmE06) reference corpus.

Because I used a corpus of American written English, AmE06 was likely to
improve the keyness analysis and control for any variation between American and
British written English

WMATRIX3 is a web-based platform that made it easier to access from multiple

locations.

Antconc (Anthony 2014) was also used to cross-check results.

3.2. Corpus analysis

3.2.1. Keyness analysis
I began the analysis by looking at Keyness (Baker 2006:121), a method that
compares wordlist from the corpus in question against the wordlist frequency of a
reference corpus. I compared the 2014 HRC PR corpus against the AmE06 reference
corpus and recorded the top 50 keywords in the HRC corpus (Appendix A). The top 10
keywords are shown:

1360613

Frequency
Rank
1

Keyword
LGBT

MARRIAGE

EQUALITY

4
5

HRC
RIGHTS

SAME-SEX

7
8
9

COUPLES
GAY
CAMPAIGN

10

TRANSGENDER
32

Keywords were then sorted by relevance. LGBT, HRC, RIGHTS, and

CAMPAIGN were considered irrelevant because LGBT would have a high frequency in
any LGBT rights campaign and HRC, RIGHTS, and CAMPAIGN were most likely only
representative of the phrase:
The Human Rights Campaign, the nations largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
(LGBT) civil rights organization.
This phrase occurs 396 times in every press release in 2014. The keywords relevant to an
analysis of how HRC represent their values and goals were therefore: MARRIAGE,
EQUALITY, SAME-SEX, COUPLES, GAY and TRANSGENDER. To gain a better
idea of how they are used across the corpus, the next step in the analysis examined
frequent collocations.
3.2.2. Collocation analysis
Collocation occurs when a word frequently appears near another word, and the
relationship is statistically significant in some way (Baker 2006:95-96). Stubbs (1996)
claims that by looking at the frequency of certain collocations, we acquire a sense of the
encoded cultural concepts in the text. The following section looks at the 10 most
frequent collocations and what this might suggest about the goals and values of HRCs
campaign for social justice. Lists were generated using the WMATRIX3 collocation tool.
Results were then sorted according to Log-Likelihood and T-Score (Appendix B).
3.2.2.1. Marriage
Collocations

1360613

marriage

equality

Marriage

Equality

state
marriage

marriage
bans

marriage
support

cases
marriage
33

constitutional

marriage

marriage

unconstitutional

challenging

marriage

marriage

ban

MARRIAGE is a frequently discussed social justice issue.

MARRIAGE mostly collocates with EQUALITY, suggesting that HRC

represents EQUALITY as primarily constituted by the right to marry or that
EQUALITY is measured against this right.

MARRIAGE is discussed in terms of law and government (BANS, BAN, CASES

and UNCONSTITUTIONAL)

1360613

3.2.2.2. Equality
Collocations
marriage

equality

Marriage

Equality

Equality

Index

support

equality

equality

cases

LGBT

equality

Corporate

Equality

ban

equality

full

equality

bans

equality

34

EQUALITY most strongly collocates with MARRIAGE. This reinforces the idea
suggested above that that EQUALITY is overwhelmingly measured against the
right to marry.

EQUALITY is discussed in terms of law (CASES, BAN, BANS). These are the
same frequent collocates for MARRIAGE which suggests that CASES, BAN, and
BANS are collocating with MARRIAGE EQUALITY.
3.2.2.3. Couples
Collocations

sex

couples

lesbian

couples

couples

marry

gay

couples

couples

legally

couples

can

loving

couples

committed

couples

couples

states

couples

nineteen

SEX is part of SAME-SEX suggesting that the most frequent collocate is

actually SAME-SEX COUPLES

Couples are discussed as LOVING and COMMITTED. Such language suggests

that LGBTIQ* couples are being positioned within discourses of domesticity.
Discourses of domesticity are primarily used within same-sex marriage
campaigns in an attempt to bring LGBTIQ* couples within the fold of
heteronormative kinship systems (Chvez et al 2014).

1360613

35

Couples are discussed in terms of ability: COUPLES CAN Referring to a

concordance list shows that this is primarily the start of the phrase, COUPLES
CAN MARRY:

American society.

Yet today, as same-sex

, the number of states where same-sex

up the issue of marriage. Same-sex
that support will slow down.
the U.S. Supreme Court.

couples can legally marry in 32 states an

couples can legally marry has

jumped fro

couples can legally marry in thirty-four

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in 35 states an

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in thirty-five

(Appendix C)

Couples are also discussed in terms of the geography of same-sex marriage.

NINETEEN and STATES both refer to the number of states in which gay and
lesbian couples could legally marry in 2014:

that support will slow down.

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states

down marriage ban June 25] Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states

to support marriage equality.

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states

that support will slow down.

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states

down marriage ban July 28]

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in 19 states and the

(Appendix C)

1360613

3.2.2.4. Gay
Collocations
gay

lesbian

gay

couples

loving

gay

committed

gay

gays

lesbians

openly

gay

marriage

gay

now

gay

years

gay

support

gay

gay

men

36

GAY (S) most frequently collocates with LESBIAN (S) as in gay and lesbian or
gays and lesbians when referring to issues like gay and lesbian couples or
discrimination against gays and lesbians

As part of the phrase Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender

GAY collocates with COUPLES, COMMITTED, MARRIAGE and LOVING.

Again, gay people are primarily being discussed through discourses of
heteronormative domesticity.
3.2.2.5. Transgender
Collocations

bisexual

transgender

transgender
transgender
Transgender
transgender
transgender
transgender
transgender
Center
Transgender

people
women
Remembrance
employees
color
community
woman
Transgender
Day

TRANSGENDER collocates with WOMAN and WOMEN which suggests that

HRC primarily discuss transwomen as opposed to transmen or gender nonconforming people.

TRANSGENDER collocates with REMEMBRANCE and DAY as per HRCs

promotion of the Transgender Day of Remembrance for those killed as a result of
transphobia and the resulting violence against trans people.

COLOR refers to trans people of color

Concordance lines show that COMMUNITY largely refers to HRCs discourses

surrounding the TRANSGENDER community.

1360613

37

goes

for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and

identity. absolutely refuse to leave the

Guard Reggie Bullock.

transgender community as well,said

transgender community behind in non-

"Even as the

transgender community experiences historic

In addition to these victories, the

transgender community has also become more

constant threat of brutality faced by the

transgender community. HRC Steering

3.2.2.6. Same-sex
Collocations
At this point, WMATRIX3 was unable to search SAME-SEX in the collocation
function most likely because of the hyphen. My solution was to use Antconc for the
collocation analysis. The following collocates were sorted by frequency (including both
left and right sorts).

same-sex

sex

same-sex
same-sex
same-sex
same-sex
same-sex
same-sex
same-sex
same-sex

couples
marriage
to
the
of
for
in
On

SAME-SEX collocated most significantly with COUPLES, MARRIAGE and

LEGALLY
COUPLES collocated most significantly with MARRIAGE
LEGALLY collocated most significantly with MARRY and MARRIED
3.2.2.7. Summary of collocation analysis:
Analysis of the frequently occurring keyword collocations suggested that HRC

discuss MARRIAGE more than any other social issue affecting LGBTIQ* Americans.
With the exception of TRANSGENDER, all other high frequency words were often used
to discuss marriage. The use of phrases like LOVING COUPLES and COMMITTED
COUPLES also implied that HRC promotes a vision of LGBTIQ* relationships as

1360613

38

heteronormative and domestic; a rhetorical strategy that serves the argument for inclusion
within the institution of marriage.
Another significant finding was that EQUALITY collocated closely with words to
do with marriage or the campaign for federally recognized same-sex marriage.
EQUALITY was not discussed in relation to any other social issue. This suggests that
the campaign for marriage equality has come to overshadow all other issues pertaining to
inequality. By measuring EQUALITY solely against the right to marry, any and all other
issues disappear from the discussion, indicating that accusations over HRCs alleged
privileging of same-sex marriage is founded in the corpus data.
The only exception was the significant discussion of transgender issues. This
suggests that HRC are at least discussing one other critical issue outside of same-sex
marriage.
In order to ascertain if HRCs primary focus on marriage equality is unique to
their organization, I compared corpora from other major LGBTIQ* advocacy groups.
3.2.3. Corpora comparison
To establish whether the HRCs focus is unique within the mainstream LGBTIQ*
social justice movement, I compiled two separate corpora from other major LGBTIQ*
organisations: Lambda Legal and The Williams Institute. Lambda Legal is an advocacy
group providing legal council for the LGBTIQ* community as well as people living
with HIV/AIDS. They focus on impact litigation, societal education, and public
policy work. They are recognised for their work on Lawrence v. Texas that made the
criminalisation of consensual same-sex intercourse illegal and unconstitutional (Lambda
Legal 2015). The Williams Institute is a think-tank at UCLA Law that conducts
independent research on sexual orientation and gender identity law as well as public
policy. They are highly cited within discussions of LGBTIQ* issues (The Williams
Institute 2015). The corpora consisted of PRs from 2014. The Lambda Legal corpus
contained 147 PRs, with a total of 77,397 words. The Williams Institute corpus contained
76 PRs, with a total of 36,364 words.
1360613

39

In order to establish how LGBTIQ* social issues are represented between

organisations, I conducted a keyness analysis of Lambda Legal and The Williams
Institute using AmE06 as a reference corpus the same method used for establishing
keyness in the HRC corpus. I recorded the top 50 keywords in the Lambda Legal and
The Williams Institute corpora (Appendices D and E) and have presented the top 10
keywords below.
3.2.3.1. Corpora comparison (A):
Lambda Legal

The Williams Institute

HRC

LAMBDA

COUPLES

LGBT

LEGAL

SAME-SEX

MARRIAGE

MARRIAGE

MARRIAGE

EQUALITY

COUPLES

LGBT

HRC

SAME-SEX

DE

RIGHTS

COURT

STUDY

SAME-SEX

2014

COUPLES

TRANSGENDER

WILLIAMS
INSTITUTE
STATE

V.

EXTENDING

CAMPAIGN

LGBT

TRANSGENDER

TRANSGENDER

GAY

Table 3.1: Keyword comparison between HRC, Lambda Legal and The Williams Institute
corpora using AmE06 as reference corpus.
The corpora comparison demonstrated that HRC are not unique in focussing on
same-sex marriage. The most common keywords across HRC, Lambda Legal and The
Williams Institute were:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

LGBT
MARRIAGE
COUPLES
SAME-SEX
TRANSGENDER

1360613

40

The only notable differences between the corpora were attributable to organisational title
(e.g. LAMBDA, LEGAL, WILLIAMS INSTITUTE) and their functional remits. For
instance, the Lambda Legal corpus featured keywords like COURT and V. (e.g.
Lawrence v. Texas). This was attributable to their legal advocacy work. In The Williams
Institute corpus, keywords like STUDY were likely due to the academic nature of their
work.
To determine if there was a difference in the way these issues were discussed, I
conducted a keyness analysis of HRC PRs using Lambda Legal PRs and The Williams
Institute PRs as reference corpora. The top 50 keywords in the HRC corpus were
recorded (Appendices E and F) and the top 10 keywords presented below.
3.2.3.2. Corpora comparison (B):
HRC Keywords
(Lambda Legal Reference
Corpus)
HRC

HRC Keywords
(The Williams Institute
Reference Corpus)
EQUALITY

LGBT

HRC

EQUALITY

CAMPAIGN

SAME-SEX

SAME-SEX

TRANSGENDER

COURT

CAMPAIGN

PRESIDENT

HUMAN

RIGHTS

PRESIDENT

HUMAN

SUPPORT

ORGANIZATION

AMERICANS

WASHINGTON

Table 3.2: HRC keyword comparison using Lambda Legal and The Williams
Institute as reference corpora
A keyness analysis of the HRC corpus using Lambda Legal and The Williams
Institute as reference corpora revealed that the three organisations speak about marriage
and transgender rights in different ways. After removing keywords that only referenced

1360613

41

the title and slogan (i.e. HRC, LGBT, HUMAN, RIGHTS, CAMPAIGN, and
ORGANIZATION), the data revealed the following.
The most notable result when compared to Lambda Legal was the keyword
TRANSGENDER. This suggests that transgender issues factor more prominently in the
HRC corpus. Both corpora however revealed that HRC uses the keywords EQUALITY
and SAME-SEX significantly more. As demonstrated in 3.2.1., SAME-SEX collocated
most frequently with COUPLES and MARRIAGE. The most compelling data, however,
came from the use of the keyword EQUALITY. In the HRC corpus, EQUALITY
primarily collocates with MARRIAGE making it a noun phrase:
state, and national

efforts for marriage

equality; serve as a national platform for

challenging Oregons ban on marriage

equality, known as

Republicans 41 and older support

equality, an astonishing 59 percent of tho

marriage

Measure 36.

Judge McS

the U.S. Constitution to block marriage

equality. HRC believes this should be a wa

kickoff event for Americans for Marriage

Equality, a bipartisan coalition

formed

(Appendix F)
This was unique when compared against The Williams Institute corpus. When
sorted right, MARRIAGE collocated primarily with TO SAME-SEX COUPLES. When
sorted left, MARRIAGE collocated primarily with EXTENDING. In The Williams
Institute corpus, MARRIAGE was discussed primarily as part of a process as the
subject in a verb phrase.
seen in states that already extend
states that have not yet extended
mar-2014Colorado: Extending
first three years LOS ANGELES, Extending
the first three years of extending

marriage to same-sex couples, this

marriage to same-sex couples. The online
Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Should Add
marriage to same-sex couples in Colorado
marriage to same-sex couples, the study

(Appendix 95)
The nominalisation of MARRIAGE EQUALITY is not unique to HRC, but its
frequency is. In the HRC corpus, EQUALITY collocates almost entirely with
MARRIAGE. This suggests that EQUALITY is now synonymous with same-sex
MARRIAGE, as opposed to same-sex MARRIAGE being one step on the path towards
true EQUALITY. This raises the following questions:
1360613

42

Has HRC co-opted the phrase EQUALITY for the sole purposes of its
campaign for same-sex marriage?
Is HRC implying that, with the legalization of same-sex marriage, EQUALITY
has been achieved?
Does this use of EQUALITY limit the discussion of other forms of equality, ie.
economic equality, equal access to quality health care, equal access to
housing, and so on?
In order to begin answering these questions, I returned to the HRC corpus to

investigate if HRC significantly discussed any other issues pertaining to equality or

inequality.

3.2.4. Key terms search: IN/EQUALITY KEY

In order to establish if HRC discussed any other issues pertaining to in/equality, I
generated a wordlist that showed both the frequency and the relative frequency of each
word in the HRC corpus. While the frequency showed the actual number of times a word
was used, the relative frequency tool normalised the results with respect to the corpus
size and converted the frequency to a more representative percentage value (Rayson
2008:530). I then conducted a search of key terms using the socioeconomic issues
discussed in Section 1.0 as a guide:

Economic inequality
Healthcare and support for people living with HIV
Immigration
LGBTIQ* youth homelessness
Criminalisation and mass incarceration of LGBTIQ* youth
Racial injustice

My question was:
Does HRC discuss, in a significant way, any socioeconomic issues facing the
LGBTIQ* community?
The full results of this analysis are shown in Appendix H. What I have provided
in the next section is a list of the key terms searched and a summary of any significant
findings.
1360613

43

3.2.4.1. Economic inequality:

Key terms: Job, Income, Employment, Work, Wealth, Poverty, Welfare
The lemma, WORK, had the highest relative frequency of the key terms searched.
However, WORK and WORKING were primarily used in verb phrases unrelated to
employment. WORKPLACE collocated primarily with words like DISCRIMINATION,
NON-DISCRIMINATION and PROTECTIONS. WORKERS collocated primarily with
LGBT and referred to protections and discrimination. The only other word with a relative
frequency over 0.05 was EMPLOYMENT which, like WORKPLACE, collocated
primarily with DISCRIMINATION and PROTECTION
These findings suggest that HRC focuses primarily on employment and the
workplace, but does not frequently address the ramifications of unemployment like
poverty, welfare, and protections for low-income people.
3.2.4.2. Healthcare and support for people living with HIV/AIDS
Key terms: Healthcare, Care, Treatment, HIV, AIDS, Access, Disability, Medical,
Mental, Insurance
None of the terms associated with HEALTHCARE had a relative frequency
above 0.03. CARE, HEALTHCARE, TREATMENT, HIV and ACCESS had the highest
relative frequencies ranging between relative frequencies of 0.02 and 0.03. This
demonstrates that, while discourses concerning HEALTH and HEALTH CARE are
present in the HRC corpus, their relative frequency suggests a significant lack of
consideration. The issue of HIV/AIDS is neglected altogether.
3.2.4.3. Immigration
Key terms: Immigration, Migrant, Deportation, Asylum, Refugee
None of the terms associated with immigration had a relative frequency above
0.01. The highest frequency terms were IMMIGRANTS, occurring 13 times, and
DEPORTATION occurring 10 times. This demonstrates that HRC are almost entirely
overlooking the issue of immigration and asylum seekers.
1360613

44

3.2.4.4. LGBTIQ* youth homelessness

Key Terms: Homelessness, Shelter
HOMELESSNESS and SHELTER have relative frequencies of 0.00 indicating
that the issue of LGBTIQ* Youth Homelessness is effectively absent in the HRC corpus.
Their silence on the issue is conspicuous as 40% of all homeless youth identify as
LGBTIQ* (Durso and Gates 2012:3).
3.2.4.5. Criminalization and mass incarceration of LGBTIQ* youth
Key Terms: Prison, Imprisonment, Incarceration
The highest relative frequency was for PRISON at 0.01. Concordances showed,
however, that more than half of the time PRISON was used (nine times out of 16), it was
in relation to the incarceration of LGBTIQ* individuals in countries other than the US,
e.g. Uganda and The Gambia.
3.2.4.6. Racial injustice
Key Terms: Race, Ethnicity, Color, Racism, Racial, Profiling, Black, AfricanAmerican, Hispanic, Latino/a, Asian, White
While RACE and COLOR were the most frequent terms, neither of the terms had
a relative frequency above 0.02. BLACK and HISPANIC both had a relative frequency
of 0.01 while the remaining terms associated with racial injustice all factored at 0.00. By
omitting issues of race and ethnicity from their platform for equality, HRC demonstrate
that they do not view the LGBTIQ* social justice as imbricated with the rights of ethnic
and racial minorities.
3.2.5. Corpus analysis summary
In Section 3.2.1, the keyness analysis demonstrated that the most frequent
keywords were MARRIAGE, EQUALITY, SAME-SEX, COUPLES, GAY and
TRANSGENDER. In 3.2.2, a collocation analysis of each keyword revealed that
MARRIAGE was the most frequently discussed social justice issue. EQUALITY,
SAME-SEX, COUPLES, and GAY all collocated with MARRIAGE in some way.
1360613

45

TRANSGENDER was the only keyword that did not connect to the campaign for samesex marriage.
A compelling finding was the collocational frequency between MARRIAGE and
EQUALITY. This revealed the extent to which MARRIAGE EQUALITY (Appendix F)
has become a fixed noun phrase. This has significant repercussions. First, using
EQUALITY almost exclusively with MARRIAGE suggests that EQUALITY is
synonymous with MARRIAGE. Same-sex marriage is no longer represented as one step
on the road to LGBTIQ* equality, but as the sole measure by which LGBTIQ* equality is
achieved. The second implication has to do with the construction of social reality
through discourse. Stubbs claims that if particular lexical and grammatical choices are
regularly made, and if people and things are repeatedly talked about in certain ways, then
it is plausible that this will affect how they are thought about (Stubbs 1996:92). If the
most influential LGBTIQ* advocacy group frames EQUALITY as synonymous with
MARRIAGE, then we can expect that the media will follow suit and the public will begin
to believe this is the case.
In Section 3.2.3, I compared the PR corpora from two other LGBTIQ* non-profit
organizations (Lambda Legal and The Williams Institute) against HRC. This comparison
demonstrated that, while the privileging of same-sex marriage over other issues was not
unique, the use of the phrase MARRIAGE EQUALITY was. This suggested that HRCs
critics are justified in accusing HRC of framing same-sex marriage as the only path to
equality. In 3.2.4, I investigated the accusation that HRC do not discuss any other social
issues in a significant way. I searched key terms relating to economic inequality, racial
injustice, immigration, healthcare, HIV/AIDS, LGBTIQ* youth homelessness as well as
LGBTIQ* criminalisation and incarceration. Results showed that HRC are effectively
silent on all of these social issues. For example, while the relative frequency of
MARRIAGE and EQUALITY were 1.0 and 0.86 respectively, the highest frequency key
term from the list above was EMPLOYMENT at 0.07.
The HRC is uniquely positioned to influence the shape and scope of the campaign
for LGBTIQ* social justice. They have the media presence and resources to shape public
1360613

46

perceptions about what LGBTIQ* Americans hope for and what they wish to achieve in
the fight for equality. In fact, the corpus data reveal that HRC is an organisation that has
limited the scope of equality to a single-issue. The data also show that HRC wilfully
neglects issues that affect marginalised and vulnerable populations within the
community. PRs are not a reflection of how HRC is covered in the media. PRs reveal a
calculated media strategy to advance the interests of the organisation. The data suggest
that people of colour, the poor, the sick, the homeless, and the incarcerated are not
included in the HRCs interests. Many people, however, still actively support HRC. An
important question is:

How do HRC represent the argument for marriage equality in the media?

In the next section, I will conduct a practical argument analysis of an HRC PR that
explains why marriage equality is the primary goal for HRC.

1360613

47

4.0. CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS: PRACTICAL ARGUMENTATION

ANALYSIS

Based on the corpus analysis, I selected a text on which to conduct a CDA using
Fairclough and Faircloughs (2012) framework for analysing practical arguments. This
exercise aimed to determine how HRC represents the Marriage Equality campaign and
what practical arguments they use to justify their claims. In the DRA framework, this
stage of analysis constitutes the normative critique of discourse. The press release chosen
is titled #LoveCantWait: Why America Needs Marriage Equality Now (Appendix J) and
was selected for the following reasons:
1. It focuses on HRCs marriage equality (L1) campaign and is therefore
representative of the corpus findings.
2. It provides a practical argument for why marriage equality is a critical issue
facing LGBTIQ* Americans. It is therefore a rationale for HRCs preoccupation
with marriage equality (L1) and could reveal why HRC privileges this one issue
at the expense of others.
3. The text is structured as a practical argument for why marriage equality (L1) is
the best solution for many social injustices an argument best analysed using
Fairclough and Faircloughs (2012) framework for analysing political discourse.
4.1. Text:

The #LoveCantWait: Why America Needs Marriage Equality Now PR was

distributed on September 30th, 2014. In it, HRC argues that the time has come for the
Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to begin hearing cases on the
constitutional right of same-sex couples to wed. The PR was also written to generate
publicity for their hashtag #LoveCantWait a social media campaign that encourages
Americans to share their stories about same-sex marriage under the HRC banner and at
HRC.org/LoveCantWait. The following practical argumentation analysis addresses the
claim that America needs marriage equality now (L1).

1360613

48

4.2. Outline of HRC argument

Figure 4.1 HRC argument: Why America needs marriage equality now
In the #LoveCantWait PR, HRC claims that America needs marriage equality
immediately in order to achieve the goal of ending the legal, financial and emotional
hardships (L2) of same-sex couples. According to HRC, the means-goal for achieving
this requires SCOTUS begin hearing pending marriage cases. The alternative option, that
SCOTUS does not hear these cases immediately, would result in real families suffer[ing]
the often tragic consequences (L12-13) of being unable to legally wed. The
circumstances that HRC provide for this claim are based on the broad and systematic
suffering of same-sex couples solely because they cant get married (L3). The values
for such a claim are represented as a belief in equality and fairness for all Americans and
a belief that legal marriage is the fundamental vehicle for equality.
1360613

49

4.2.1. Circumstances
In 2004, a ruling in the Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health case resulted in
Massachusetts becoming the first state to recognise same-sex marriage (Goodridge v.
Department of Public Health 2003). While SCOTUS initially declined to hear appeals
against this ruling (Kirkpatrick and Zizima 2004), a series of state marriage-bans, made
it inevitable that SCOTUS should make a decision on the constitutional protection of
same-sex marriages. At the time #LoveCantWait was published, same-sex couples could
marry in 19 states as well as Washington, DC (L23-24). Nonetheless, without
constitutional protection, independent states could deny recognition of same-sex
marriages performed in other jurisdictions (L24-26). The HRC PR advocates that
SCOTUS, as the final arbiter of the law and constitution, should make decisions to
protect real Americans (L55) suffering the consequences of marriage-bans. The HRC
president emphasizes the necessity of legal action: by stating that while we usually think
of love and celebration when talking about weddings, the truth is there are essential legal
protections and safeguards that come with marriage (L16). The PR text then draws on
two strategies to outline how banning same-sex marriage affects real people and real
families (L15).
The text begins its exposition on the devastating hardships (L18) faced by
unwed same-sex couples (L18 emphasis added) by claiming that, without legal
marriage recognition, same-sex couples face issues in (L22):Out-of-state recognition
(L23), property rights (L27), healthcare decisions (L30), parenting (L34), adoption
and custody (L37), Taxes (L41), employer benefits (L44), social security (L47),
veterans benefits (L49), and emergency services (L52). Each issue is written in bold
capitals followed by a colon and a brief explanation (2-3 sentences) that details how
same-sex marriage bans have legal ramifications on peoples lives. Between lines 22-54,
the text reads like a legal report. Sentence subjects are collective groups like same-sex
partners (L31), same-sex couples (L34) and same-sex spouses (L45). Human
subjects become someone (L28) and a person (L28). The high lexical density indexes
a formal register that is then contrasted with a section using emotional language to
recount stories from real Americans that detail why the Supreme Court shouldnt delay
1360613

50

in taking up a marriage equality case (L55-56). Divided into three accounts, the titles
are: If shed lived six days longer (L59), A mans final moments with his husband,
stolen (L76), and Service members stationed in unfriendly territory (L94). Unlike the
first set of section headings, these are written in sentence case and read like titles for a
narrative. The stories also reveal full names, personal histories and descriptions of the
relationships to one another. The first story features a loving, committed
relationshipof 30 years (L62) between two Californian women. When one dies, the
other is denied her benefits. In the second, two men who had been together for seven
years decide[] to get married (L77-78). When one dies, a homophobic mother
interferes, fighting tooth and nail to deny her deceased sons husband the dignity of
being listed as what he his Davids spouse (L90-91). The title of the final story
suggests being stationed in a foreign combat zone; the phrase unfriendly territory
indexing discourses around Americas foreign policy and conflicts waged by the US in
the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Instead, the story actually
features marine Cpl. Nivia Huskey and her wife Jessica (who) are expecting a child
(L99-100) in North Carolina, a state that doesnt recognize same-sex marriage (L103).
The text concludes with the statement: These women didnt choose to live in a state that
denies them marriage rights; they are required to live there by the military (L108-109).
By indexing the sacrifices of the American military, HRC is drawing on discourses of
patriotism and asking the question: If our servicewomen can sacrifice their lives for us,
then how is it that the nation denies them their right to enjoy a heteronormative union?
But by suggesting that these women are victims of a system that denies them the choice
of where to live, HRC is suggesting that they also had no choice but to join the military
industrial complex and fight Americas wars. These two strategies within the text depict
a set of circumstances where real Americans (L55) suffer legal injustice that results in
extreme emotional suffering. If the couples described were able to legally wed, it is
implied they would have carried on receiving pension (L75); a grieving widower
(L92) would have been able to mourn; and Cpl. Huskey would continue fighting in
Americas wars while raising her children on a military base of the armys choosing.
While the prejudicial effects of heterosexism are complex and imbricated with

1360613

51

multiple, intersecting struggles against multiple, intersecting injustices (Fraser

1995:92), HRC reduces these issues to a single circumstance: ie. LGBTIQ* people suffer
injustice because they cannot get married. They cannot get married because SCOTUS
has yet to hear the cases that would will lead to a final constitutional amendment. But
such a gross simplification of the multiple injustices faced by LGBTIQ* people. This is a
deliberate over-simplification that privileges the struggles of those middle and upperclass gays and lesbians who face few other social barriers. In the first section of
#LoveCantWait, HRC presents a series of legal challenges that, while important to
address for some within the LGBTIQ* community, deal primarily with those who have
an income and own property. For instance, HRC reminds us that, without legal
marriage, theres no guarantee of an automatic property transfer to a surviving spouse
when someone dies (L27-28). However, as outlined in Chapter 1, research shows that
LGB people of colour in same-sex relationships, have significantly higher rates of
poverty than do white LGB same-sex couples (CAP 2015; Badgett et al 2013): AfricanAmerican male couples were found to have poverty rates six times that of white male
couples (Badgett et al 2013); African-American female couples, had a poverty rate of
nearly 20%; and 55% of and Native American same-sex couples were suffering from
food shortages (CAP 2015). It is safe to assume that the majority of people in these
demographics do not own property making the the guarantee of an automatic property
transfer to a surviving spouse (L28) an ancillary concern to simply having shelter. In a
similar vein, HRC presents employer benefits and access to a partners health insurance
as serious issues for same-sex couples (L44-46). While this is indeed an example of
discriminatory treatment, HRC does not mention that LGB adults are unemployed at a
rate 40% higher than the overall average (McBride and Miller 2014). A statistic that is
even worse for transgender and gender non-conforming adults who experienced
unemployment at twice the rate of the general populationwith rates for [transgender]
people of color up to four times the national unemployment rate (Grant et al 2011). As
shown in the corpus analysis, unemployment does not factor as a measure of inequality in
the HRC text. Rather, HRC argue that same-sex couples experience legal, financial and
emotional hardships solely because they cant get married (L2-3)

1360613

52

4.2.2. Values
The values that HRC claim to espouse generally and which they represent as
central to the #LoveCantWait text are fundamental fairness and equality for all (L113),
equality being a term that is used 11 times in the text. This statement is incongruous,
however, when compared with the argument presented in the #LoveCantWait PR and
especially with the corpus data. They do not address critical issues for LGBTIQ*
Americans that include: income inequality, racial inequality, the militarisation of the
police and mass-incarceration of people of colour, unequal access to healthcare, lack of
housing, unequal access to citizenship, and an epidemic of violence and murder
perpetrated against transwomen. Although these issues have profound consequences on
the lives of LGBTIQ* people in America, HRC chooses to ignore them, and effectively
reserves equality for those in loving (L62) and committed (L62) relationships that do
not face any other injustices.
The pre-eminence of marriage in the HRC agenda demonstrates a conservative
value system that excludes many LGBTIQ* people whose households and relationships
are beyond the scope of HRCs vision of normative family values. Evidence for this is
seen in labels such as: real people (L15), real families (L13,15), and real Americans
(L55). What does it mean to be a real American or a real family? It is clear from the text
that HRC regard a real American family as one that owns property and is constituted by
couples who have jobs with benefits and health insurance and who file tax returns for
themselves and their would-be spouses. RealAmerican families are also represented by
the couples chosen in the latter half of the text. By presenting a loving, committed
relationshipof nearly thirty years (L62), a man who pray(s) for his husband (L80)
and military service members (L98-99), HRC depict a socially conservative community
as the real families that are suffering from social injustice, all the while ignoring other
critical issues.
The corpus data reveal that EQUALITY collocates primarily with MARRIAGE,
but also with CASES and BAN/S, and these findings are reflected in the text. In addition
to marriage, equality collocates with case twice (L6, 56) and bans another two

1360613

53

times (L25, 91). The remaining occurrences within the main text collocate with legal
(L17, 20, 58), states (L50), and now (L1) and in the text, HRCs fundamental value of
equality is discussed primarily within legal discourse. This is unsurprising considering
that the text is concerned with SCOTUS. However, discussing equality through legal
discourses, is indicative of an implicit value present in the argument; ie. HRC value the
legitimacy of existing institutions and are invested in their continued power to control
social relations. When the HRC president reminds us that there are essential legal
protections and safeguards that come with marriage (L17), he is reinforcing a communal
acceptance of marriage as an extension of the states capacity to claim authority over
sexual and intimate relationships. Thus, although HRC should question why marriage
dictates visitation policies in hospitals over and above legal next-of-kin (HRC 2015f;
Warner 2000), they do not. Nor does HRC contest those tax breaks for married couples
that marginalise single people and victimise single mothers (HRC 2015f; Warner 2000).
They argue instead that real [LGBTIQ*] families should be included in a system
predicated on inequality to begin with. Similarly, by leading the audience to believe that
equality can be gained through a constitutional amendment, HRC index a belief that the
legal system can administer social justice. This is illogical since this system has, up until
this point, protected police from shooting and killing unarmed black civilians (Chan and
Juzwiak 2014; Coates 2013, 2015; Holt 2002); criminalised and abused the transgender*
and gender non-conforming both on the streets and within the prison system (Grant, J. et
al . 2011; Kellaway and Brydum 2015); and perpetuated a racially divided justice system
that protects some while brutalising and terrorising the rest (Coates 2013, 2015; Holt
2002). These injustices are not separate from LGBTIQ* social justice. They are a part of
it. By placing too much value on the American legal system, HRC ignore the lessons of
history and seek to (correct) inequitable outcomes of social arrangements without
disturbing the underlying framework that generates them (Fraser 1995:82).

1360613

54

4.2.3. Alternative
Figure 2.0 presents a model in which deliberation involves a counter-claim or
alternative to the claim for action (A). The counter-claim is supported by possible
negative consequences that could result by acting on the main claim; i.e. If I do A, I will
not achieve my goal. HRCs argument fails to present any negative consequences in
achieving marriage equality. In fact, there is no explicit alternative claim presented.
Rather, it is implied that the alternative to marriage equality right now (L1) would be a
delay by SCOTUS to hear same-sex marriage cases, i.e. maintaining the status quo. The
negative consequences of a delay by SCOTUS amount to same-sex couples suffering the
often tragic consequences (L13) discussed in circumstances (4.2.1).
Legal same-sex marriage does, however, have negative consequences for
LGBTIQ* couples. Duggan (2008) points out that the advent of gay marriage has led
many private and public institutionsto eliminate domestic partnership recognition and
require marriage for recognition and benefits (2008:156); i.e.by extending marriage
rights to same-sex couples, benefits currently afforded to non-traditional households may
decline. Similarly, non-traditional households anyone who doesnt wish to get married
could become even more marginalized than they are currently. Warner warns that the
pursuit of same-sex marriage frames the end goal of liberation as the ultimate
conformity of gay people to [straight] norms (Warner 2000:82). The institutionalisation
of same-sex marriage would leave unmarried queers looking more deviant before a legal
system that could claim broader legitimacy (Warner 2000:121).
4.2.4 Means-goal
HRC claims that the means-goal for ending the legal, financial and emotional
hardships (L2) of same-sex couples is for SCOTUS to begin hearing pending cases that
would lead to a constitutional amendment legalising same-sex marriage. But are we to
believe that all legal, financial, and emotional hardships would simply vanish with a
constitutional amendment? Did gender inequality disappear with womens suffrage? Did
the legal, financial and emotional hardships of African-Americans end with the
Emancipation Proclamation or Desegregation? The point is not to compare social
1360613

55

struggles, but to recognise that legislation does not always translate into lived experience.
This is especially true of a private institution like marriage that is fundamentally about
bestowing legitimacy on sexual and intimate relationships. While there are legal and
financial benefits to being married, a marriage contract has not prevented different-sex
couples from suffering legal, financial and emotional hardships (L2). By presenting
same-sex marriage as the only way to overcome these hardships, HRC suggest that the
socioeconomic and political system of America is not the cause of suffering and that
through full LGBTIQ* inclusion, the suffering of LGBTIQ* Americans will disappear.
4.2.5 Summary
The argument presented in the HRC PR is problematic because it provides false
premises for action. First, HRC presents a circumstantial premise in which LGBTIQ*
couples suffer terrible consequences solely from bans on same-sex marriage. This is
untrue. A denial of the right to marry is certainly discriminatory, but it is not the sole
form of discrimination faced by LGBTIQ* Americans. LGBTIQ* couples come from
every regional, cultural, ethnic, and socioeconomic background in America and thus face
different struggles against many forms of injustice. To reduce this complexity to a
single-issue is to falsely represent the LGBTIQ* community. It effectively privileges the
circumstances of the elite who face few injustices outside of marriage rights and neglects
the struggles of the marginalised. Second, although HRC claims to represent the values
of fairness and equality for all, upholding marriage as the path to equality condones a
conservative value system that has little to do with these alleged values. Rather, marriage
is by its very nature about inequality and privilege. In its capacity to bestow dignity on
sexuality, and legitimacy on children, marriage functions as a way of dividing the
sanctioned from the deviant. Legal marriage also sees the state bestowing benefits and
entitlements. By advocating for inclusion within a system that disenfranchises some for
the benefit of others, HRC is effectively advocating for inequality. HRC therefore do not
value fairness and equality for all. Rather they value a system predicated on inequality
that they seek to uphold through inclusion.
Weighed against the measures of validity and truth (section 2.4), HRCs PR
consists of false representations, and no actual deliberation. It can be argued therefore
1360613

56

that HRC are framing the premises in rhetorically convenient ways to advance their own
interests represented in the means-goal and goal, i.e. ending the suffering of LGBTIQ*
couples requires the legalisation of same-sex marriage . But why is HRC advocating for
inclusion into institutions rooted in an unequal system? Why does HRC neglect the
critical social and economic issues that are actually affecting the community?

1360613

57

4.3. Explanatory Critique

Social agents, such as HRC, inevitably make choices on how to represent the
world which, when embedded in discourses, actively reproduce[] and transform[]
society (Stubbs 1996:90). Such choices are not always intentional but, in the case of
HRC, they are deliberate. The function of a PR is to control how your organisation is
represented in the media and perceived by the public. Using corpus data and a practical
argumentation analysis of the #LoveCantWait PR, this thesis shows how these texts
represent a premeditated campaign to erase the issues of marginal LGBTIQ* Americans
in order to achieve the goal of same-sex marriage recognition. The cumulative power of
these textual events is a social movement that is now defined by its pursuit of marriage
equality; i.e., HRC have textured social events so as to shape social practices and
structures. Their ability to shape the orders of discourse is rooted in their ability to
control mediation. Their extensive resources allow them to operate through numerous
genres such as lobbying, campaign donations, public relations, research, and building
alliances with influential social actors. Their capacity to control these genres profoundly
influences discourses surrounding the movement. These discourses are disseminated
through the media using a style that is both authoritative and marketable. From HRCs
logo to the hashtag campaigns and slogans that inevitably include the word Love (e.g.
#LoveCantWait, #LoveConquersAll, #LoveWins) HRC have marketed a brand of
equality that appeals to both mainstream America and many within the LGBTIQ*
community. Similarly, a style that indexes American family values and discourses of
freedom and patriotism aligns the push for marriage equality with an American
tradition of progress.
This raises an important question: why is HRC willing to pursue such a strategy at
the expense of so many within the LGBTIQ* community? If the attainment of legal
same-sex marriage neglects the needs of so many LGBTIQ* Americans, what purpose
does it serve? In the following explanatory critique, I submit that HRCs same-sex
marriage campaign is primarily about corporate profit, ie. that marriage equality is good
for the bottom line.

1360613

58

HRC is funded by corporations who stand to increase their profit if they appear
philanthropic and sympathetic to the goals and values of LGBTIQ* Americans. It is
therefore in the interests of HRC and their sponsors to promote a campaign that
encourages LGBTIQ* Americans to spend their money with the sponsors in question. It
follows then that campaigns benefiting poor and vulnerable LGBTIQ* Americans are
rendered unimportant to HRC and their corporate sponsors (HRC 2015h). Indeed, issues
like homelessness and economic inequality are missing from both the corpus and the
#LoveCantWait PR; i.e., LGBTIQ* Americans who would benefit from reforms in these
areas do not have the spending power that HRC and their corporate sponsors are
interested in. Instead, their focus is on the LGBTIQ* elite - a largely white, upper-middle
class cisgender, gay, and lesbian demographic that has the most to gain from marriage
rights. For example, the tax breaks, spousal benefits, and automatic property transfers
outlined in #LoveCantWait are improvements that would allow the LGBTIQ* elite to
secure and grow their capital. Helping them achieve this is good for the economy and is
especially good for those HRC sponsors who appear to have contributed to this social
change. In turn, to please sponsors and maintain their funding, HRC orchestrates a
campaign for marriage equality that serves the interests of the wealthy LGBTIQ* elite,
and promotes these corporate sponsors as progressive and benevolent. HRC also publish
their Buying for Workplace Equality Guide, marketing the idea that by spending their
money with progressive corporations, LGBTIQ* Americans are actively contributing to
social justice and an improved lifestyle. In this way, the moneyed LGBTIQ* elite are
encouraged to believe that buying power is the new vehicle for social justice.
HRC cannot however explicitly cater to affluent gays and lesbians without losing
popular support from the broader LGBTIQ* community. Instead, they must claim that
they represent all LGBTIQ* Americans and that same-sex marriage is in the interests of
everyone. Their ability to control discourses through powerful media strategies and
successful marketing has allowed them to establish the ideological hegemony required to
represent their interests as the inevitable and moral direction of the LGBTIQ* rights
movement. Thus the medias pervasive representation of marriage as the measure of
equality, and its omission of other issues, has garnered widespread support from

1360613

59

LGBTIQ* Americans. Searle claims that when the agent of power gets the subjects to
perceive only certain courses of action as openthe subjects come to want what the
agent wants them to want (Searle 2010:147).
HRC also benefits from presenting LGBTIQ* Americans as a homogenous
community, in a way that the mainstream media embraces and supports. Popular support
for LGBTIQ* Americans therefore provides popular support for same-sex marriage. The
HRC PR characterises the LGBTIQ* community as real Americans and real families;
in other words, as affluent, white and unthreatening. Such an LGBTIQ* community is
familiar to mainstream America and makes their social justice easy to embrace. Such a
community buys houses, cars, and their inclusion into the fold represents American
values like progress and equality. Mainstream America can therefore feel good about
extending marriage rights because marriage rights are an inclusive step that demands
little of the existing social order. Duggan calls this:
The new homonormativity: a politics that does not contend dominant heteronormative
assumptions and institutions, but upholds and sustains them, while promising the
possibility of a demobilized gay constituency and a privatized, depoliticized gay culture
anchored in domesticity and consumption (Duggan 2003:50).
HRC have effectively erased LGBTIQ* homeless youth from the discussion.
They have hidden the murders of transwomen and the hate-crimes perpetrated against
LGBTIQ* people on the streets of America. They have helped America forget AIDS and
the death of thousands of LGTIQ* people. They have hidden the crimes of solitary
confinement in American prisons. They have abandoned families living in poverty and
their children to whom it will be passed. They have overlooked all of the ways that
systemic racial injustice, police brutality and mass incarceration directly impact
LGBTIQ* Americans. By omitting these LGBTIQ* Americans from the discussion of
LGBTIQ* equality, they have created a movement that displaces socioeconomic
redistribution as the remedy for injustice and the goal of political struggle (Fraser
1995:60) a goal that would actually address the reality of LGBTIQ* social injustice. I
believe they have done this because solving these issues would require that America
reckons with a culture that makes certain bodies worth less than others. Addressing these

1360613

60

problems would require that Americans acknowledge how their comfort is imbricated
with the suffering of others. A social movement that demands genuine equality is not
good for business.
The marriage equality campaign is therefore not representative of real social
justice or change. On the contrary, by including LGBTIQ* couples into the fold of
weddings, tax breaks, and automatic property transfers, the entire structure of American
society stays exactly the same. The breadth of HRCs media presence has transformed a
social justice movement into nothing more than a public relations campaign for the
LGBTIQ* elite. In the end, same-sex marriage functions like a distraction. America can
believe itself progressive and believe it is upholding fairness and equality without
actually having to look at real inequality and the suffering that it causes. HRC and its
supporters would never want real social justice because that would mean a redistribution
of wealth and a loss of their socioeconomic and political power.

1360613

61

5.0

CONCLUSION
To place the conclusion of this study into context, on June 26th 2015, SCOTUS

ruled that state-level bans on same-sex marriages were unconstitutional (Obergefell v.

Hodges 2015; HRC 2015g). As information spread that same-sex marriage was now legal
in all 50 states, Internet users immediately adopted the HRC hashtag #LoveWins. Within
6 hours of the ruling, over 6.2 million Twitter users had shared #LoveWins, including
President Barack Obama (Flynn 2015). Thus, HRCs successful marketing of the samesex marriage campaign had also become synonymous with the SCOTUS decision and the
movements victory (HRC 2015g); i.e., the discourse generated by HRCs media
campaign was transformed into an integral part the LGBTIQ* social justice movement.
This study sought to establish to what extent HRC represents the interests of a
diverse LGBTIQ* community in the US. More specifically, the study aimed to uncover
the degree to which HRC failed to advocate on behalf of marginalised LGBTIQ*
Americans who lack the resources to represent themselves. A corpus analysis of HRCs
2014 press releases revealed that this accusation was largely correct and that HRC
primarily advocated for same-sex marriage at the expense of all other issues. As far as
the HRC is concerned, the word equality is indistinguishable from the right to marry,
effectively erasing economic equality, racial equality, and gender equality (among others)
from the HRC agenda. A subsequent practical argumentation analysis affirmed that the
omission of other issues such as gender, economic and racial inequality - sanctioned the
HRCs premise that only marriage equality could bring social justice to LGBTIQ*
Americans. HRCs effectiveness in controlling discourse surrounding the LGBTIQ*
movement generated the false perception that all LGBTIQ* Americans speak with one
voice and that this voice is represented by HRC. Finally, it is the authors opinion that
the HRC agenda, and especially its corporate sponsors, is informed primarily by the
dictates of the market. This agenda serves to uphold, rather than to question, the
underlying structures that generate inequality. The HRC, their corporate sponsors, and
the moneyed LGBTIQ* elite have much to gain from marriage rights, but little to gain
from transformational justice that would improve the lives of millions of LGBTIQ*
Americans.
1360613

62

Of the desire to adequately address the unique struggles found at the intersection
of race, gender, and sexuality, Audre Lorde wrote: There is no such thing as a single
issue struggle because we do not live single-issue lives (Lorde 1984:138). 30 years later,
those words resound and illuminate HRCs neglect of the complex struggles of LGBTIQ*
people in favour of a single-issue and marketable politics. With Lordes voice in mind,
this study was conducted in solidarity with those whose issues remain absent from the
mainstream LGBTQ* movement. Using Faircloughs DRA framework (Fairclough and
Chouliaraki 1999; Fairclough 2003, 2010), I began with a normative critique of
discourse, followed by an explanatory critique of how HRCs discourse contributes to
and maintains a social order predicated on inequality. Ultimately though, the goal of such
normative and explanatory critique is to generate a practical argument for transformative
social justice that includes, in this case, the complex struggles of all LGBTIQ* people.
While such a project is beyond the scope of this thesis, the reality is that there is also a
disjuncture between CDA and actual transformative action (Fairclough 2015; Van Dijk
1993). While arguments for transformative action are necessary, especially when
pursued in solidarity with the social agents they seek to represent, their success can only
be measured by [their] effectiveness and relevanceby [their] contribution to change
(Van Dijk 1993:253). It is my hope then, that this particular CDA is a gesture in the
direction of genuine social justice that, through the study of language, might make its
own contribution to the struggle.

1360613

63

REFERENCES
Albelda, R. et al. 2009. Poverty in the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Community. [Online].
UCLA: The Williams Institute. [Accessed on 01.08.2015]. Available from:
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Albelda-Badgett-SchneebaumGates-LGB-Poverty-Report-March-2009.pdf
Althusser, L. 2006. Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes towards an
investigation). In: The anthropology of the state: A reader, 86-111.
Allon, J. 2015. The 6 most hysterical right-wing responses to SCOTUS same-sex
marriage ruling. [Online] [Accessed on: 01.09.15] Available from:
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/29/the_6_most_hysterical_right_wing_responses_to_s
cotus_same_sex_marriage_ruling_partner/
Anthony, L. 2014. AntConc Version 3.4.3 [Computer Software] Tokyo, Japan: Waseda
University. Available from: http://www.laurenceanthony.net/
Armstrong, E. and Crage, S. 2006. Movements and Memory: The Making of the
Stonewall Myth. American Sociological Review. 71. Pp. 724751
Badgett, M et al. 2013. New Patterns of Poverty in the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual
Community. [Online] The Williams Institute. [Accessed on 03.08.15] Available from:
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGB-Poverty-Update-Jun2013.pdf
Baker, P. 2006. Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum
Baker, P. et al 2008. A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse
analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in
the UK press. Discourse & Society 19(3). Pp. 273-306.
Baker, P. 2012. Acceptable bias? Using corpus linguistics methods with critical
discourse analysis'. Critical Discourse Studies. 9(3). Pp. 247-256
Barthes, Roland ([1964] 1967). Elements of Semiology (trans. Annette Lavers & Colin
Smith). London: Jonathan Cape
Bassichis, M., Lee, A. and Spade, D. 2011. Building an Abolitionist Trans and Queer
Movement with Everything Weve Got. In Stanley, E. and Smith, N. (eds) Captive

1360613

64

Genders: Trans Embodiment and the Prison Industrial Complex. Edinburgh: AK Press.
Pp.15 40
Bawer, B. 1996. Beyond Queer: Challenging Gay Left Orthodoxy. New York: The Free
Press
Becker, J. 2014. Chad Griffin Apologies to Trans Community on Behalf of HRC. The
Bilerico Project. [Online] [Accessed on 01.09.15] Available from:
http://www.bilerico.com/2014/09/chad_griffin_apologies_to_trans_community_on_behal
.php
Belch G. and Belch M. 2012. Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing
Communications Perspective. New York: McGraw Hill
Bourdieu, P. 1986. The forms of capital. In: Richardson, J. (ed). Handbook of Theory and
Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood. Pp. 241-258.
Brown, G. and Yule, G. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Burns et al. 2013. Living in Dual Shadows: LGBT Undocumented Immigrants. [Online]
Center for American Progress. [Accessed on 01.08.15] Available from:
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2013/03/08/55674/livingin-dual-shadows/
Carter, D. 2004. Stonewall: The Riots that Sparked the Gay Revolution. New York:
St.Martins
Center for Disease Control. 2015. HIV/AIDS Statistics Overview. [Online][Accessed on
03.08.15] Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/
Center for American Progress. 2014. The Facts on Immigration Today. [Online]
[Accessed on 01.08.15] Available from: https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/04/ImmigrationFacts-brief-10.23.pdf
Center for American Progress. 2015. Paying an Unfair Price: The Financial Penalty for
People of Color in America. [Online] [Accessed on 15.08.15] Available from:
http://www.lgbtmap.org/file/paying-an-unfair-price-lgbt-people-of-color.pdf

1360613

65

Chan, A. and Juzwiak, R. 2014. Unarmed People of Color Killed by Police, 1999-2014.
Gawker. [Online] December 8th [Accessed online: 02/05/15] Available from:
http://gawker.com/unarmed-people-of-color-killed-by-police-1999-2014-1666672349
Coates, T. 2014. The Case for Reparations. The Atlantic. [Online] June [Accessed on
10/04/15] Available from: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-casefor-reparations/361631/
Coates, T. 2015. Between the World and Me. New York: Penguin
Chvez, K., Conrad, R., and Nair, Y. 2014. Against Equality, Against Capitalism:
Towards an economic critique of gay marriage In: DCruz, C. and Pendleton, M. (eds).
After Homosexual: The Legacies of Gay Liberation. Perth: University of Western
Australia Press
Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity (Vol. 2).
Edinburgh: Edinburgh university press.
Cook, G. 2011. Discourse Analysis in: Simpson, J. (ed). The Routledge Handbook of
Applied Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge
Cornell University. 2006. 25 Years of Political Influence: The Records of the Human
Rights Campaign. [Online] [Accessed on 31.08.15] Available from:
http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/HRC/exhibition/whatishrc/index.html
DEmilio, J. 1992. Making Trouble: Essays on Gay History, Politics, and the University.
New York: Routledge
DEmilio, J. 1993. Capitalism and Gay Identity in Abelove, H., Barale, M. and
Halperin, D. (eds). The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. New York: Routledge. Pp. 476
476
DEmilio, J. 2002. The World Turned: Essays on Gay History, Politics, and Culture.
Durham: Duke University Press
DEmilio, J. 2006. The Marriage Fight is Setting Us Back. In: The Gay and Lesbian
Review. [Online][Accessed on 01.08.15.] Available from:
http://www.glreview.org/article/the-marriage-fight-is-setting-us-back/
Duggan, L. 2003. The Twilight of Equality. Boston: Beacon Press

1360613

66

Duggan, L. 2008. Beyond same-sex marriage. Studies in Gender and Sexuality. 9(2).
Pp.155-157.
Durso, L and Gates, G. 2012. Serving Our Youth: Findings from a National Survey of
Service Providers Working with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth who are
Homeless or At Risk of Becoming Homeless. [Online] The Williams Institute [Accessed
on 31.07.15] Available from: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wpcontent/uploads/Durso-Gates-LGBT-Homeless-Youth-Survey-July-2012.pdf
Fairclough I. and Fairclough N. 2012. Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for
Advanced Students. Abingdon: Routledge
Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press
Fairclough, N. 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research.
London: Routledge
Fairclough, N. 2010. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language 2nd
Edition. Abingdon: Routledge
Fairclough, N. 2015. Language and Power 3rd Edition. Abingdon: Routledge
Foucault, M. 1982. The Subject and Power. In Dreyfus, H. and Rabinow, P. Michel
Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Brighton: The Harvester Press
Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge: Translated from the French by AM
Sheridan Smith. Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. 1976. The Will to Knowledge: The History of Sexuality Part I. London:
Penguin
Flynn, K. How #LoveWins on twitter became the most viral hashtag of the same-sex
marriage ruling. [Online] [Accessed on 05.09.15] Accessed on:
http://www.ibtimes.com/how-lovewins-twitter-became-most-viral-hashtag-same-sexmarriage-ruling-1986279
Fraser, N. 1995. From Redistribution to Recognition? Dilemmas of Justice in A 'PostSocialist' Age New Left Review. Pp.68-92.

1360613

67

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. 2003. 440 Mass. 309 - Mass: Supreme
Judicial Court. [Online][Accessed on 15.08.15] Available from:
https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_case?case=16499869016395834644&q=Goodridge+
v.+Dept.+of+Public+Health&hl=en&as_sdt=2006

Gramsci, A. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. NowellSmith, G and Hoare, Q. (Eds.). New York: International Publishers
Grant, J. et al . 2011. Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender
Discrimination Survey. [Online] [Accessed on 01.08.2015]. Available from:
http://endtransdiscrimination.org/PDFs/NTDS_Report.pdf
Gruberg, S. 2013. Dignity Denied: LGBT Immigrants in US Immigration Detention.
[Online] Center for American Progress. [Accessed on 03.08.2015] Available from:
https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/11/ImmigrationEnforcement.pdf
Holt, T. 2002. The Problem of Race in the 21st Century. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press
Human Rights Campaign. 2014. #LoveCantWait: Why America Needs Marriage Equality
Now[Online][Accessed on 11.07.15] Available from: http://www.hrc.org/pressreleases/entry/lovecantwait-why-america-needs-marriage-equality-now
Human Rights Campaign. 2015a. The HRC Story: About Our Logo. [Online][Accessed
on 15.08.15] Available from: http://www.hrc.org/the-hrc-story/about-our-logo
Human Rights Campaign. 2015b. Buying for Workplace Equality. [Online][Accessed on
15.08.15] Available from: http://www.hrc.org/apps/buyersguide/#.Ve2eNBFVhBd
Human Rights Campaign. 2015c. Buyers Guide. [Online][Accessed on 15.08.15]
Available from: http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east1.amazonaws.com//files/assets/resources/2015BuyersGuide.pdf
Human Rights Campaign. 2015d. Corporate Equality Index 2015 Survey.
[Online][Accessed on 04.08.15] Available from:
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/corporate-equality-index-about-the-survey

1360613

68

Human Rights Campaign. 2015e. [Online][Accessed on 15.08.15] Available from:

http://www.hrc.org/press-releases
Human Rights Campaign. 2015f. Overview of Federal Benefits Granted to Married
Couples. [Online][Accessed on 15.08.15] Available from:
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protectionsgranted-to-married-couples
Human Rights Campaign. 2015g. With Sweeping New Ruling, Marriage Equality Must
Begin in All 50 States [Online] [Accessed on 06.09.15] Available from:
http://www.hrc.org/press-releases/entry/with-sweeping-new-ruling-marriage-equalitymust-begin-in-all-50-states
Human Rights Campaign. 2015h. National Corporate Partners. [Online][Accessed on
04.08.15] Available from: http://www.hrc.org/the-hrc-story/corporate-partners
Hunt, J. and Moodie-Mills, A. 2012. The Unfair Criminalization of Gay and Transgender
Youth: An Overview of the Experiences of LGBT Youth in the Juvenile Justice System.
[Online] Center for American Progress [Accessed on 31.07.15] Available from:
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/report/2012/06/29/11730/the-unfaircriminalization-of-gay-and-transgender-youth/
Kellaway, M. and Brydum, S. 2015. These are the US Trans Women killed in 2015.
[Online] The Advocate. [Accessed on 03.08.15] Available from:
http://www.advocate.com/transgender/2015/07/27/these-are-trans-women-killed-so-farus-2015?page=full
Kirkpatrick, D. and Zezima, K. 2004. Supreme Court Turns Down A Same-Sex Marriage
Case. [Online] New York Times [Accessed on 15.08.15] Available from:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E1DE113EF933A05752C1A9629C
8B63&
Krehely, J. 2009. How to Close the LGBT Health Disparities Gap. [Online] Center for
American Progress [Accessed on 03.08.15] Available from:
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/report/2009/12/21/7048/how-to-close-thelgbt-health-disparities-gap/
Lambda Legal. 2015. About Us. [Online] [Accessed on 01.09.15] Available from:
http://www.lambdalegal.org/
Lorde, A. 2007. Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. Berkeley: Crossing Press

1360613

69

Mautner, G. 2009. Checks and Balances: how corpus linguistics can contribute to CDA
In: Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. ed. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London:
SAGE pp. 122-143
McIntosh, M. 1968. The Homosexual Role. In Social Problems. 16(2). Pp. 182 192
Meronek, T. 2015. Human Rights Campaign Under Fire in the LGBT Community.
[Online] TruthOut [Accessed on 04.08.15] Available from: http://www.truthout.org/news/item/28430-human-rights-campaign-under-fire-in-lgbt-community
Nair, Y. 2010. Against equality, Against Marriage in Conrad, R. (ed). Against Equality:
Queer Critiques of Gay Marriage. [No place]:Against Equality Publication Collective
Puar, J. 2007. Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Durham: Duke
University Press
Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015 W.L. 213646 (U.S. 2015). [Online][Accessed on 05.09.15]
Available from:
https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_case?case=497090211360466192&q=Obergefell+v.
+Hodges,+2015+W.L.+213646+(U.S.+2015)&hl=en&as_sdt=2006
O'Halloran, K., & Coffin, C. 2004. Checking over-interpretation and under-interpretation:
Help from corpora in critical linguistics. In: Banks, D. (ed.)Text and texture: systemic
functional viewpoints on the nature and structure of text. Paris: Editions LHarmattan.
Pp.275-297.
OHalloran, K. 2009. Inferencing and cultural reproduction: a corpus-based critical
discourse analysis. Text & Talk. 29 (1). Pp.21-51
OHalloran, K. 2013. A Corpus-based deconstructive strategy for critically engaging
with arguments. In: Argument and Computation. DOI:10.1080/19462166.2012.729861
OHalloran, K. 2014. Counter-discourse corpora, ethical subjectivity and critique of
argument: an alternative critical discourse analysis pedagogy. Journal of Language and
Politics. 13(4). Pp. 781-813
Open Secrets.org. 2015. Human Rights Campaign: Profile for 2012 Election Cycle.
[Online] [Accessed on: 31.08.15] Available from:
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000158&cycle=2012

1360613

70

Rabinow, P. 1984. The Foucault Reader: An Introduction to Foucaults Thought.

London: Penguin
Rayson, P. 2008. From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of
Corpus Linguistics. 13(4). pp. 519-549.
Searle, J. 2010. Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford:
Oxford University Press
Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language.
Oxford: Blackwell
Stubbs, M. 1996. Text and Corpus Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers
Stubbs, M. 1997. Whorf's children: Critical comments on critical discourse analysis
(CDA). British studies in applied linguistics. 12. pp.100-116
Sullivan, A. 1995. Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality. London: Pan
MacMillian
Van Dijk, T. 1993. Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society. 4 (2)
pp.249-283
Van Dijk, T. 2001. Critical discourse analysis. In: Schiffrin, D. Tannen, D. & Hamilton,
H. (eds). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell: 352 371.
Van Dijk, T. 2008. Discourse and Power. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Van Leeuwen, T., & Wodak, R. 1999. Legitimizing immigration control: A discoursehistorical analysis. Discourse Studies, 1(1), 83-118
Warner, M. 2000. The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics and the Ethics of Queer Life.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Widdowson, H.G., 2004. Text, Context and Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse
Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. 2009. Critical Discourse Analysis: history, agenda, theory, and
methodology. In: Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. ed. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis.
London: SAGE pp. 1-33

1360613

71

Wodak, R. 2011. Suppression of the Nazi Past, Coded Languages, and Discourses of
Silence: Applying the Discourse-Historical Approach to Post-War Anti-Semitism in
Austria. In: Steinmetz, W. (ed). Political Languages in the Age of Extremes. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. Pp. 351-379.
The Williams Institute. 2015. Mission. [Online] [Accessed on: 01.09.15] Available from:
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/mission/
Wyman, R. 2012. The Wall Street Premise: A corpus-based critical discourse analysis
of President Obamas Narrative of Blame for the Financial Crisis, 2009-2012. Masters
thesis. Kings College London.

1360613

72

APPENDIX A
HRC PRESS RELEASES CORPUS
Wmatrix 3 Keyness Analysis (compared against American English 2006 [AmE06])
ITEM

01

%1

02

%2

LL

LogRatio

LGBT

1663

0.96

0.00

6271.31

Marriage

1725

1.00

161

0.02

5457.88

Equality

1436

0.83

33

0.00

5110.36

HRC

992

0.57

0.00

3740.91

Rights

725

0.42

94

0.01

2181.22

Same-Sex

565

0.33

0.00

2130.66

Couples

678

0.39

71

0.01

2110.56

Gay

648

0.37

71

0.01

2003.53

Campaign

630

0.36

118

0.01

1762.48

Transgender

464

0.27

0.00

1749.78

Court

739

0.43

286

0.03

1667.31

Lesbian

485

0.28

28

0.00

1620.90

States

508

0.29

152

0.02

1253.41

State

750

0.43

560

0.06

1224.25

Federal

548

0.32

240

0.02

1176.81

Discrimination

328

0.19

13

0.00

1130.76

Washington

299

0.17

0.00

1127.55

Bisexual

291

0.17

0.00

1084.36

Circuit

361

0.21

48

0.00

1081.35

Human

516

0.30

324

0.03

932.31

Ban

310

0.18

45

0.00

913.92

Law

435

0.25

210

0.02

895.55

Bans

251

0.15

0.00

884.54

Support

473

0.27

283

0.03

877.10

V.

287

0.17

39

0.00

856.38

Protections

238

0.14

0.00

850.43

Supreme

310

0.18

70

0.01

829.01

Anti-lgbt

217

0.13

0.00

818.32

Youth

258

0.15

51

0.01

712.89

Civil_rights

214

0.12

14

0.00

706.37

Ruling

223

0.13

22

0.00

700.18

People

741

0.43

1083

0.11

686.75

1360613

73

Organization

299

0.17

114

0.01

678.43

Cases

321

0.19

146

0.02

678.38

HRCs

163

0.09

0.00

614.69

Chad_Griffin

162

0.09

0.00

610.92

Largest

235

0.14

70

0.01

580.65

Legal

262

0.15

122

0.01

548.08

145

0.08

0.00

546.81

Workplace

169

0.10

18

0.00

524.76

Americans

300

0.17

203

0.02

519.66

Marry

182

0.11

32

0.00

516.30

NOM

136

0.08

0.00

512.87

Appeals

179

0.10

32

0.00

509.96

President

407

0.24

441

0.05

505.77

Orientation

168

0.10

25

0.00

492.97

Rulings

140

0.08

0.00

492.71

Nt

132

0.08

0.00

477.65

144

0.08

13

0.00

457.65

211

0.12

93

0.01

451.90

Nondiscrimination

Legally
457.65
Laws

1360613

74

APPENDIX B
HRC CORPUS
Collocation

Figure 3.1: MARRIAGE collocation

Figure 3.2: EQUALITY collocation

1360613

75

Figure 3.3: COUPLES collocation

Figure 3.4: GAY collocation

1360613

76

Figure 3.5: TRANSGENDER collocation

1360613

77

Appendix C
HRC PRESS RELEASES CORPUS:
Antconc Concordance lines
COUPLES sorted right with CAN
churchs 172 presbyteries.
.

At that time, all

For the first time ever, same-sex

on January 5, 2015, at which point same-sex

couples

congregation

can have their love and commitment recogn

couples can legally

begin marrying in the Sunshin

one man and one

woman.

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in 17 states and Washing

one man and one

woman.

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in 17 states and Washing

of countries where committed gay and lesbian

couples can legally

marry.

According to news rep

taking on state marriage bans.

Same-sex

couples can

legally marry in seventeen states and

taking on state marriage bans.

Same-sex

couples can

legally marry in seventeen states and

-sex marriages in the state. Same-sex

, North Dakota and South Dakota. Same-sex
taking on state marriage bans.

Same-sex

, North Dakota and South Dakota. Same-sex

1360613

couples can be married in their home

couples can legally marry in Iowa

and Minnesota,

couples can legally marry in Iowa and Minnesota,

couples can

legally marry in seventeen states and

couples can legally marry in Iowa and Minnesota,

taking on state marriage bans.

Same-sex

couples can

legally marry in seventeen states and

taking on state marriage bans.

Same-sex

couples can

legally marry in seventeen states and

taking on state marriage bans.

Same-sex

couples can legally

taking on state marriage bans.

Same-sex

couples can

were filed in federal courts.

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in seventeen

marry in seventeen states and

legally marry in seventeen states and

states and

78

taking on state marriage bans.

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in

on marriage equality.

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in seventeen states and

taking on state marriage bans.

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in

s ban

where committed and loving gay and lesbian

live in states where gay and lesbian
the coming weeks and

couples can legally marry.

seventeen states and

seventeen states and
In response to today

couples can legally marry. To date there have

months.

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in eighteen states and

in 29 states plus Puerto Rico.

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in eighteen states and

living in a jurisdiction where same-sex

in a state where gay and lesbian
District of Columbia, where gay and lesbian

couples can legally marry.

According to a March 2

couples can legally marry WASHINGTON The day aft

couples

can legally marry. As of today, 44 percen

bans struck down as unconstitutional.

Same-sex

couples can legally

a jurisdiction with marriage equality.

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states and

has survived a court challenge.

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states and

survived a federal court challenge.

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states and

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states and

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states and

survived a federal court challenge. Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states and

survived a federal court challenge.

survived a federal court challenge.
survived a federal court challenge.

marry in nineteen states and

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states and

stance on positivity and love. Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states and

th Democrat and

Republican presidents.

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states and

that support will slow down.

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states and

struck down marriage ban June 25] Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states and

Americans to support marriage equality.

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states and

that support will slow down.

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states and

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in 19 states and the

struck down marriage ban July 28]

1360613

79

have it equally and unequivocally. Same-sex

great momentum toward marriage equality, same-sex
that support will slow down.

marry in only 19 states and

couples can legally marry in nineteen states and

Susan Sarandon and Demi Lovato. Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states and

Sarandon and Demi Lovato. Same-sex

that support will slow down.

couples can legally marry in nineteen states and

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states and

, Susan Sarandon and Demi Lovato. Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states and

that support will slow down.

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states and

that support will slow down.

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states and

that support will slow down.

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states and

s decision out of Louisiana. Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states and

that support will slow down.

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states and

that support will slow down.

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in nineteen states and

in: OUT-OF-STATE RECOGNITION: Same-sex

have joined the nineteen where same-sex
are today:

couples can legally marry in 19 states and

Washin

couples can legally marry (plus Washington, DC) WA

As of today, same-sex

couples can legally marry in 24 states, plus Washi

Of the 24 states where same-sex

couples can legally marry today, 13 came through c

before committed and loving gay and

American society.

lesbian

Yet today, as same-sex

, the number of states where same-sex

up the issue of marriage. Same-sex
that support will slow down.
the U.S. Supreme Court.

1360613

couples can legally

Same-sex

, Susan

term.

couples can legally marry in nineteen states and

couples can legally marry in every corner of

couples can legally marry in 32 states and
couples can legally marry has

Washin

jumped from fifteen

couples can legally marry in thirty-four states

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in 35 states and the

Same-sex

couples can legally marry in thirty-five states

against state marriage bans.

Today same-sex

couples can legally marry in 35

states and Washin

against state marriage bans.

Today same-sex

couples can legally marry in 35

states and Washin

80

more than a dozen states, same-sex

the new marriage equality states in which
new marriage

equality law, gay and lesbian

states with marriage

equality.

Today, same-sex

/or gender identity, click here.

s Broad

Same-Sex

Implementation of Windsor Same-sex

in England and Wales Gay and lesbian

rulings against state marriage bans;

1360613

same-sex

couples can marry but are at risk of

couples can marry immediately - Virginia,

Colorad

couples can marry in both civil and religious

couples can marry in 19 states and Washington, DC,
Couples Can Marry In Idaho 10/10/2014 WASHINGTON
couples can now be buried together in national
couples can now legally marry in 16 countries arou
couples can now legally marry in Utah, Oklahoma,

81

APPENDIX D
LAMBDA PRESS RELEASES CORPUS
Wmatrix3 Keyness Analysis (compared against American English 2006 [AmE06])
ITEM

01

%1

02

%2

LL

LogRatio

lambda

801

1.12

0.00

4258.06

legal

829

1.16

122

0.01

3724.30

marriage

592

0.83

161

0.02

2408.92

couples

489

0.68

71

0.01

2200.67

Same-sex

415

0.58

16

0.00

2085.95

court

528

0.74

286

0.03

1810.49

2014

312

0.44

0.00

1669.36

Transgender

195

0.27

0.00

1043.35

v.

202

0.28

39

0.00

872.99

LGTB

158

0.22

0.00

845.99

HIV

181

0.25

23

0.00

828.02

Indiana

160

0.22

11

0.00

776.01

discrimination

159

0.22

13

0.00

760.45

filed

164

0.23

27

0.00

725.70

circuit

172

0.24

48

0.00

696.32

ruling

154

0.22

22

0.00

694.49

ban

166

0.23

45

0.00

675.90

case

257

0.36

285

0.03

665.84

discriminatory

131

0.18

0.00

665.45

marry

150

0.21

32

0.00

637.88

http

129

0.18

0.00

630.38

federal

233

0.33

240

0.02

625.31

lawsuit

131

0.18

11

0.00

625.09

supreme

163

0.23

70

0.01

597.29

attorney

138

0.19

47

0.00

535.38

de

99

0.14

0.00

529.70

married

163

0.23

108

0.01

523.10

together

188

0.26

200

0.02

496.93

families

165

0.23

136

0.01

487.77

equality

119

0.17

33

0.00

482.36

protections

95

0.13

0.00

469.31

legals

86

0.12

0.00

460.14

Living with

93

0.13

0.00

447.87

state

260

0.36

560

0.06

446.66

Puerto_Rico

82

0.11

0.00

438.74

1360613

82

appeals

103

0.14

32

0.00

407.81

decision

134

0.19

108

0.01

399.70

director

142

0.20

142

0.01

386.33

LA

85

0.12

20

0.00

355.40

91

0.13

33

0.00

347.92

marriages

99

0.14

54

0.01

338.74

South_Carolina

73

0.10

10

0.00

330.95

On_behalf_of

82

0.11

24

0.00

328.77

courts

95

0.13

52

0.01

324.70

plaintiffs

66

0.09

0.00

323.04

bans

68

0.10

0.00

318.31

benefits

108

0.15

91

0.01

316.43

Louisiana

70

0.10

13

0.00

304.34

ninth

63

0.09

0.00

297.17

today

151

0.21

274

0.03

293.98

1360613

83

APPENDIX E
WILLIAMS INSTITUTE PRESS RELEASE CORPUS
Wmatrix3 Keyness Analysis (compared against American English 2006 [AmE06])

ITEM

01

%1

02

%2

LL

LogRatio

Couple

591

1.76

71

0.01

3565.82

Same-sex

512

1.53

16

0.00

3333.49

marriage

269

0.80

161

0.02

1268.45

LGBT

179

0.53

0.00

1215.17

de

175

0.52

0.00

1188.02

study

254

0.76

327

0.03

950.41

Williams institute

123

0.39

0.00

896.10

state

243

0.72

560

0.06

703.30

extending

111

0.33

10

0.00

685.21

transgender

98

0.29

0.00

665.29

data

181

0.54

264

0.03

645.44

en

97

0.29

0.00

639.07

los

99

0.29

0.00

638.52

marry

114

0.34

32

0.00

622.54

2014

82

0.24

0.00

556.67

estimated

106

0.32

49

0.01

529.53

revenue

96

0.29

26

0.00

527.08

states

134

0.40

152

0.02

524.71

add

106

0.32

59

0.01

508.46

310

76

0.23

0.00

505.33

LGB

74

0.22

0.00

502.36

spending

105

0.31

63

0.01

494.83

discrimination

82

0.24

13

0.00

481.71

http

77

0.23

0.00

470.24

Laura_Rodriguez

68

0.20

0.00

431.63

los_ANGELES

66

0.20

0.00

448.05

956-2425

66

0.20

0.00

448.05

youth

92

0.27

51

0.01

441.72

economic

132

0.39

229

0.02

437.67

sexual

114

0.34

137

0.01

437.41

2010

72

0.21

0.00

437.32

el

64

0.19

0.00

434.47

impact

114

0.34

156

0.02

416.82

estimates

80

0.24

30

0.00

416.23

del

61

0.18

0.00

414.11

que

62

0.18

0.00

410.69

1360613

84

survey

91

0.27

65

0.01

410.30

economy

110

0.33

144

0.01

409.03

LGBTQ

60

0.18

0.00

407.32

dgatlin@rabengroup.com

59

0.18

0.00

400.53

202

64

0.19

0.00

393.93

587-2871

55

0.16

0.00

373.38

first_year

68

0.20

19

0.00

371.60

census

74

0.22

34

0.00

370.14

gender

91

0.27

93

0.01

369.06

Donald_Gatlin

54

0.16

0.00

366.59

la

51

0.15

0.00

346.22

boost

62

0.18

16

0.00

342.83

orientation

65

0.19

25

0.00

336.62

scholar

68

0.20

33

0.00

336.25

1360613

85

APPENDIX F
HRC PRESS RELEASE CORPUS
Marriage Equality Concordance Lines
State of Utahs case against marriage
www.colbiecaillat.com
tates

Rand Paul on Marriage

equality. In a copy of

Schaerrs departure

Equality: \_()_/ A day after endorsing the con

constitution expressly prohibits marriage

equality. As a former openly gay legislator, I

riage equality nationwide. Opponents of marriage

equality, including a group known as the National

, nearly 60 percent of Americans support marriage

a majority of young conservat

because of Virginias ban on marriage

equality.

Soon after, the couple filed a lawsuit

because of Virginias ban on marriage

equality.

Soon after, the couple filed a lawsuit

A Majority of

Hispanics/Latinos Support Marriage

edite hearings challenging Texas ban on marriage

Equality 50% of all Hispanics and 62% of U.S.equality. I am opposed to same-sex marriage,

movement forward on the issue of marriage

equality

in America.

phase in the push to win marriage

equality

nationwide.

reaffirmed strong support nationwide for marriage

tates

equality, including

constitution expressly prohibits marriage

ath that inevitably leads to nationwide marriage

Over the last seven days,

Americans for Marriage Eq

equality, particularly among

young Americans: 55

equality. As an openly gay legislator, I have

equality. Gay and lesbian couples in Kentucky, Mic

riage Equality campaign seeks to advance marriage

equality

nationwide and provide up-to-the-minute

riage Equality campaign seeks to advance marriage

equality

nationwide and provide up-to-the-minute

riage Equality campaign seeks to advance marriage

equality

nationwide and provide up-to-the-minute

riage Equality campaign seeks to advance marriage

equality

nationwide and provide up-to-the-minute

riage Equality campaign seeks to advance marriage

equality

nationwide and provide up-to-the-minute

riage Equality campaign seeks to advance marriage

equality

nationwide and provide up-to-the-minute

1360613

86

riage Equality campaign seeks to advance marriage

within the Fourth Circuit that ban marriage
sissippians under the age of 30 support marriage
cross all demographic groups; shows that marriage
zonas

constitutional amendment banning marriage

local, state, and national

efforts for marriage

cases challenging Oregons ban on marriage

ent of Republicans 41 and older support

marriage

the U.S. Constitution to block marriage

a kickoff event for Americans for Marriage
and our nation. The report, Beyond Marriage
rados

equality

nationwide and provide up-to-the-minute

equality. Maryland
equality.
equality

and Washington, D.C. are the

The approved action is important for t

advocates are winning the fight overall;

equality, making Arizona the latest state to see

equality; serve as a national platform for sharing
equality, known as

Measure 36.

Judge McShanes i

equality, an astonishing 59 percent of those 40 ye

equality. HRC believes this should be a wakeup
Equality, a bipartisan coalition

formed with the

Equality: A Blueprint for Federal Non-Discriminati

constitutional amendment banning marriage

equality.

-launch of HRCs Americans for Marriage

Equality

video campaign.

-launch of HRCs Americans for Marriage

Equality

Video campaign. Last week, legendary ska

year, to her proud support for marriage

mmunications War Room
the state

for Americans for Marriage

prepared to vote on marriage

In Burns v. Hickenlooper, attorneys wit

equality, said

Last week, platinum-sel

Chad Griffin, president of the Hu

Equality a coalition to advance marriage equalit

equality. The colleges and universities will scree

standing with his son and supporting marriage

equality.

7.

of the state's ban on marriage

equality.

The couple sued the state in

-sex couples in states that have marriage

currently live in a state with marriage
ruled against Arizonas ban on marriage
1088); and

Public support for marriage

, and the many other states without marriage

LGBT-related terms like LGBT and marriage

1360613

Liberty Counsel thinks being LGB

federal

equality. This cuts off veterans and their

same-

equality, including DC 10/15/2014 WASHINGTON Wit

equality. These decisions brought the total

numbe

equality. Because Delegates in the House are unabl

equality, are denied any

federal recognition or b

equality. Famed designer and activist Kenneth Col

87

ve. Highlights of the report include:

ne 500 already enjoy.

Luxembourg Passes Marriage

aws and constitutional

reforms that ban marriage

Marriage
Equality

Legislation European nation will become

equality, and even a fingerprint database for trac

nd individuals living

in countries with marriage

equality. It even was used to support proposed

nd individuals living

in countries with marriage

equality. It even was used to support proposed

and individuals living in countries with marriage

take action on the issue of marriage
phase in the national push
supporting Indianas proposed

for marriage

equality. It even
equality.

was used to support proposed

This evening, reporting by NBC News Jus

equality. The event will feature a panel discussio

ban on marriage

equality. Regnerus faulty research has been most

supporting Indianas proposed ban on marriage

equality. Regnerus faulty research has been most

across the country

against bans on marriage

equality sixteen federal district court rulings

the House and Senate combined support marriage

equality. Key findings from the scorecard include:

sdictions within the Fourth Circuit with marriage

equality. Presently five federal appeals courts ar

over her own poor record on marriage

for speaking out in favor of marriage
states constitution expressly prohibits marriage

equality.

Unfortunately for her campaign, Haywort

equality, and for lending her powerful

voice to

equality. Equality for LGBT people is a fundament

lics (over 62% and growing) that support marriage

equality. With friends like these, no wonder NOM

h consecutive federal court victory for

equality. The full 4th Circuit can be asked

marriage

across the country

challenging bans on marriage

equality. Nationally, Gallup puts support for marr

across the country

challenging bans on marriage

equality. Nationally, Gallup puts support for marr

across the country

challenging bans on marriage

equality. Nationally, Gallup puts support for marr

across the country

challenging bans on marriage

equality. Nationally, Gallup puts support for marr

across the country

challenging bans on marriage

equality.

across the country

challenging bans on marriage

equality. Nationally, Gallup puts support for marr

those who say they strongly oppose marriage

1360613

Nationally, Gallup puts support for mar

equality, nearly half say its not even

88

to the

growing bipartisan consensus for marriage

see a map of states with marriage

equality, America has taken one more step toward

equality, click here. To see a map of

a drastic increase in support for marriage

equality

faced by these plaintiffs is full marriage

equality. We hope all parties act

Act to his strong support for marriage

extend all citizens the right to marriage

among Hispanics.

equality, said

Overall, Hispanic supp

swiftly and

HRC President Chad Griffin.

As

equality," said HRC President Chad Griffin. "Count

your Member of Congress stands on marriage

equality, check

after judge strikes down

equality, said Human Rights Campaign President Ch

bans on marriage

in the path towards full nationwide

marriage

move to a state that bans marriage

th consecutive federal court victory for marriage
and Lisa Murkowski have all endorsed
Texas from enforcing

marriage

its ban on marriage

. Presently there are at least seven marriage

video series for its

Americans for Marriage

HRCs Congressional Marriage Posi

equality, said Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Legal

equality, they

immediately become legal strangers

equality 7/28/2014

WASHINGTON In a historic fir

equality. And in February 2013, more than 150 Repu

equality. And in Robicheaux v. Caldwell a federal
equality

cases in states within the Tenth Circuit

Equality campaign.

In the video, Lovato makes th

Jennifer Hudson for its Americans for Marriage

Equality

campaign.

ral Mills after the companies endorsed marriage

equality

initiatives in Washington and Minnesota,

that

40 percent of Republicans support marriage

state from enforcing its ban on marriage

served as an

outspoken champion for marriage

in striking down Texas' ban on marriage

In the video, Hudson discusse

equality, further indication that Americans are

equality. That injunction was appealed, and will b

equality. He inspired participants at HRC's annual
equality. This is a

historic day in the

ng supporter of LGBT equality, including marriage

equality. He is a cosponsor of

a record 59% of all Americans supporting marriage

equality, it is clear

that the arc of

a record 59% of all Americans supporting marriage

equality, it is clear

that the arc of

defending Kentuckys archaic

1360613

ban on marriage

the Respect

equality. Once it is officially appealed, the Ken

89

America one step closer to

nationwide marriage

ng supporter of LGBT equality, including marriage

for speaking out in favor of marriage
video, Lovato makes the case for marriage
pportunity to announce their support for marriage
new communications operation to promote marriage
Non-Discrimination Act to support for marriage

equality. Murphy led the

House chambers passage

equality, and lending his voice to HRCs

equality, saying, Lets protect love and strength
equality

today.

LGBT equality still has a long

equality: to lift up every voice and every

Congressman Maloney is a stalwart advoc

marriage

equality.

A March 2014 Washington Post-ABC News p

the views of the opponents of marriage

equality.

No matter how many fake mustaches they

and argues that overturning laws banning marriage

-sex couples in states that have marriage
-untenable notions contained in his anti-marriage
and the District of Columbia have marriage
the dignity that comes with full marriage
only 34 percent of Americans supported marriage
s and Republican leaners under 30

favor marriage

Report for 2013 2013 was the year of marriage

ay 03/20/2014 Washington Americans for Marriage
and 59 percent of lay

Catholics support marriage

constitutional amendment banning marriage

ans and 85 percent of Democrats support

impacted by

marriage

todays ruling grant marriage

Pennsylvania now the 19th state with marriage

U.S. Supreme Court

took up marriage

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor

1360613

The judge did not immediately issue a

equality,

emaining state in the Northeast without

linas

equality.

marriage

equality would mean the end of

equality.
equality

representative go

That means that legally married service

brief, Melendez Rivera said. While Cat

equality. Growing momentum against license to

di

equality. Last month clerks in Boulder, Denver, a

equality.

Five months later, Massachusetts became

equality. Waveland, MS Approves Anti-Discriminatio

equality, yet much work remains to be done
Equality, a new bipartisan coalition formed with t
equality.

The new contract also prohibits member

equality, making North Carolina the latest state t

equality.

A number of prominent Republicans have

equality, that number will rise to 60 percent.

equality;

44 percent of Americans live in a state

equality. Hundreds of Regnerus fellow sociologist

equality.

40 percent of Republicans an all-time

90

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor

marriage

equality.

40 percent of Republicans an all-time

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor

marriage

equality.

40 percent of Republicans an all-time

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage

equality.

40

percent of Republicans an all-tim

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage

equality.

40

percent of Republicans an all-tim

marriage

equality.

40 percent of Republicans an all-time

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage

equality.

40

marriage

equality.

40 percent of Republicans an all-time

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage

equality.

40

equality.

40 percent of Republicans an all-time

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor
77 percent of adults under age 30 favor

marriage

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor

percent of Republicans an all-tim

percent of Republicans an all-tim

equality. 40 percent of Republicansan

all-time h

marriage

equality.

40 percent of Republicans an all-time

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage

equality.

40

marriage

equality.

40 percent of Republicans an all-time

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage

equality.

40

percent of Republicans an all-tim

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage

equality.

40

percent of Republicans an all-tim

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage

equality.

40

percent of Republicans an all-tim

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage

equality.

40

percent of Republicans an all-tim

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage

equality.

40

percent of Republicans an all-tim

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage

equality.

40

percent of Republicans an all-tim

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage

equality.

40

percent of Republicans an all-tim

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage

equality.

40

percent of Republicans an all-tim

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage

equality.

40

percent of Republicans an all-tim

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage

equality.

40

percent of Republicans an all-tim

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage

equality.

40

percent of Republicans an all-tim

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage

equality.

40

percent of Republicans an all-tim

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor

1360613

percent of Republicans an all-tim

91

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage

equality.

40

percent of Republicans an all-tim

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage

equality.

40

percent of Republicans an all-tim

equality.

40 percent of Republicans an all-time

77 percent of adults under age

30 favor marriage

within the Tenth Circuit that ban marriage

the United States, the issue of marriage
linas

constitutional amendment banning marriage

equality. Some of the cases were filed

equality

in

is on a rocket ship back to

equality, and on Sunday, October 12th, a federal

linas constitutional

amendment banning marriage

equality, and on Sunday, October 12th, a federal

linas constitutional

amendment banning marriage

equality, and on Sunday, October 12, a federal dis

have struck down state bans on marriage

ral appeals courts are presiding over 11 marriage
Baker struck down Arkansas ban on

marriage

equality,
equality

while only two federal courts have uphe

cases over the coming weeks and months.

equality, joining over three-dozen state and feder

of Americans live in states with marriage

equality.

If PA Gov. Corbett does

not appeal

the constitutionality of state bans on marriage

equality.

This paved the way for those

states

sissippians under the age of 30 support marriage

equality, while

64 percent of residents back work

sissippians under the age of 30 support marriage

equality, while

64 percent of residents back work

sissippians under the age of 30 support marriage

equality, while

64 percent of residents back work

Americans: 55 percent of voters support marriage

equality, including 75 percent of

sissippians under the age of 30 support marriage

equality, while 64 percent of residents back workp

sissippians under the age of 30 support marriage

equality, while 64 percent of residents back workp

77 percent of adults under age 30 favor marriage

equality. And 40 percent of

people imagine a future with national marriage

voice

Republicans an all-

equality, the picture is far from

calamitous: ove

her support for full, federal marriage

equality. That position fails to reflect the value

have spoken out in support of marriage

equality, including

the momentum is headed:

States with Marriage

m. Conversely, only 19 percent of strong marriage

1360613

millenials. For

2012 presidential hopeful Jon

Equality (30): 19 States: Prior to any decisions f

equality

supporters put such low priority on the

92

judicial and legislative victories

time ever, their

for marriage

equality.

In recent weeks both the New Mexico

public support for marriage

equality.

A record number of members earned a

down that states ban on marriage

mainline Protestants said they favor of marriage
Court to uphold the ban against marriage
U.S. Supreme Court took up marriage
can Mississippi State Representative on

equality. Judge Reeves ruling today affirms what

equality. DOJ Report Details Administrations Broa
equality. Human Rights Campaign President and Arka
equality. Thats a reference to a remark

Marriage

Equality: Its Coming 10-09-14 WashingtonToday, t

the Right Side of History on Marriage

Equality 10/10/2014 Browns newly revealed 2007 y

couples in other states that recognize marriage

proof that America is ready for marriage
of Americans lived in states with marriage
arriage. Until we

have nationwide legal marriage

cases challenging Oregons ban

equality. Its not invalidating it in the

equality
equality.

nationwide, said Human Rights Campaign

Today, same-sex couples can marry in 19

equality, unwed same-sex couples and their familie

on marriage

equality.

Same-sex couples can legally marry in

Americans live in a jurisdiction with marriage

equality.

Same-sex

, calling on all Americans to support marriage

equality.

Same-sex couples can legally marry in

there has been great momentum toward marriage

same-sex couples when denied legal marriage
to discuss the growing acceptance of marriage
s Stage

with Speakers Who Compare Marriage

s and Republican leaners under 30

favor marriage

couples can legally marry in

equality, same-sex couples can legally

marry in

equality. If shed lived six days longer

equality, there should be no confusion that its
Equality

to Slavery 6/11/2014 As Pope Francis tak

equality. HRC Statement on the Launch of CDC

Despite unprecedented public support for marriage

equality, only 19 states plus the District of

Col

Despite unprecedented public support for marriage

equality, only 19 states plus the District of

Col

public support as the issue of marriage

equality, with strong a majority of

Americans now

jority of Americans 56 percent favor

marriage

1360613

equality, with

support growing among virtually ev

93

ng supporter of LGBT equality, including marriage

equality. He supports the

rth sitting Senate Republican to support marriage

equality. Senator Susan Collins has played a pivo

hose states struck down prohibitions

equality.

on marriage

perilous position on the issue of marriage

as we continue to expand the marriage

Today Target joins a growing chorus of

equality. After telling a group of Republicans yes

equality

map. Thanks to the hundreds of plaintiff

ask the Supreme Court to uphold marriage

equality,

that the nation is ready for marriage

equality, and that

orados constitutional amendment banning marriage

continuing to build towards

nationwide marriage

Respect for Marriage Ac

indicating that Holder believes the cou

there are painful consequences

equality, making the Centennial State

equality.

the latest

Yet the countless thousands of American

that the Wisconsins ban on marriage

equality

violates the couples due process and eq

that the Wisconsins ban on marriage

equality

violates the couples due process and eq

nod to the latest state with marriage

ruled against Indianas

statute banning marriage

well as their public

support for marriage

cases challenging four states bans on marriage

equality. With the decision by the

federal appell

equality, making the Hoosier State the latest to

equality. In the House of Representatives, this in
equality.

Over the last

year, federal judges in

ensure that their personal views on marriage

equality

became the law of the land, the

would do nothing in response to marriage

equality

becoming the law of the land nationwide.

tates constitution expressly prohibits marriage

to remove the existing ban on marriage

equality. Despite the legal landscape, its long

equality, and the

legislature must pass the bill

judicial and legislative

victories for marriage

equality.

Recently the New Mexico Supreme Court a

judicial and legislative

victories for marriage

equality.

Recently the New Mexico Supreme Court a

ath that inevitably leads to nationwide marriage

equality.

Ultimately the nine justices of the Sup

equality.

During the 2012 presidential election,

between the ages of 40 and 64 support

1652); and
state

1360613

marriage

Public support for marriage

constitutional amendment banning marriage

equality. In the Senate, this includes:

equality, making the Show Me State the latest

94

state

constitutional amendment banning marriage

equality, making the Show Me State the latest

states constitutional amendment banning marriage

equality. Given the states decision not to

oridas constitutional amendment banning marriage

equality,

ridas

constitutional amendment banning marriage

equality, making the Sunshine State the latest to

ridas

constitutional amendment banning marriage

equality, making the Sunshine State the latest to

court ruling against state bans on marriage

of Americans live in states with
Daley.

marriage

Eleven States Fight to Deny Marriage

tanas constitutional

amendment banning marriage

equality
equality.
Equality

making the Sunshine State the latest to

since the Supreme Court of the United

And the Supreme Court of the United
at the 10th Circuit Ten states join

equality, making the Treasure State the latest to

arguing that Alaskas ban on marriage

equality

violates the U.S. Constitution. In his

arguing that Alaskas ban on marriage

equality

violates the U.S. Constitution. In his

zonas constitutional

amendment banning marriage

(R-FL) who came out for marriage

equality. With these decisions, same-sex couples a

equality

earlier this year spoke out in favor

lly inclusive non-discrimination laws or marriage

equality.

Progress this year, as documented by t

where there is majority support for marriage

equality.

Among those who say they strongly opp

, only 40 percent of Americans supported marriage

equality, according

to Gallup.

A year later in 2

, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee bans on marriage

equality.

Up to that point, no state marriage

, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee bans on marriage

equality.

Up to that point, no state marriage

, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee bans on marriage

equality.

Up to

marriage

equality.

Until today, no state marriage ban had

, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee bans on marriage

equality.

Until today, no state marriage ban had

states constitutional amendment banning marriage

equality.

Before today, North

to uphold Louisianas ban on

showed 59 percent of

Americans support marriage

federal court ruling in favor of marriage

zonas constitutional

1360613

amendment banning marriage

that point, no state marriage

Dakota was the las

equality. In todays ruling, Judge Jones wrote,

equality 7/18/2014
equality.

WASHINGTON Today the U.S. Co

Additionally, today the Supreme court d

95

ruling striking down state ban on

marriage

equality

WASHINGTON Today the U.S. Supreme Cou

of court rulings in favor of marriage

equality

WASHINGTON Today U.S. District Judge

struck down Pennsylvanias ban on marriage

reverse Alaskas constitutional ban on marriage

equality, Gov. Tom Corbett announced the state wou

equality. The U.S. Court of Appeals for

missed." Tenth Circuit Rules Bans on Marriage

Equality

Unconstitutional U.S. Court of Appeals f

state to have its ban on marriage

equality

ruled unconstitutional by a federal judg

ruled that Idahos ban on marriage

equality

is unconstitutional.

challenge to Utah's ban on marriage

rulings striking down state bans on

marriage

rulings striking down state bans on marriage

rulings striking down state bans on

marriage

Marriages were set

equality, Kitchen v. Herbert, will be heard by

equality Kitchen v. Herbert of Utah and Bishop
equality

Kitchen v. Herbert of Utah and Bishop

equality Kitchen v. Herbert of Utah and Bishop

rulings striking down state bans on marriage

equality Kitchen v. Herbert of Utah

and Bishop

rulings striking down state bans on marriage

equality Kitchen v. Herbert of Utah

and Bishop

rulings striking down state

bans on marriage

would become the nineteenth state with marriage

now live in a

state with marriage

Duty in Decision to Take Anti-Marriage

equality Kitchen v. Herbert of Utah and Bishop

equality, plus Washington, D.C.

With

Pennsylvani

equality, including Washington, DC. Laws prohibit

Equality

Case 01/22/2013 Washington Gene Schaerr

Kenneth Cole.

Many states have passed marriage

equality

laws, we hope our shirt will remind

Kenneth Cole.

Many states have passed marriage

equality

laws, we hope our shirt will remind

down the states ban on

marriage

equality.

One week later on Thursday, April 17, t

vote, in addition to support for marriage

equality,

they were scored based upon whether or

constitutional amendment banning marriage

equality, making Wisconsin the twelfth state to se

nsins

nsins constitutional amendment banning

marriage

equality, making Wisconsin the twelfth state to se

nsins

constitutional amendment banning marriage

equality.

In Wolf v. Walker, the American Civil

nsins

constitutional amendment banning marriage

equality.

In Wolf v. Walker, the American Civil

1360613

96

. He also said in reference to marriage

equality, the writing appears to be on

Americans live in a state with marriage

equality.

ruling striking

1360613

down state bans on marriage

One year ago only 30

the

percent could.

equality. 10 Facts You Should Know About the

Bele

97

APPENDIX G
THE WILIAMS INSTITUTE PRESS RELEASE CORPUS
MARRIAGE Concordance with lemma EXTEND
seen in states that already extend
states that have not yet extended
mar-2014/#sthash.PUxIU7EV.dpufColorado: Extending
first three years LOS ANGELES Extending
the first three years of extending

marriage to same-sex couples, this spending

marriage to same-sex couples. The online
Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Should Add $50
marriage to same-sex couples in Colorado
marriage to same-sex couples, the study

-2014/#sthash.PpA0hu3w.dpufOregon: Extending

Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add

group.com, (310) 956-2425 LOS ANGELES Extending

marriage to same-sex couples in Oregon

estimate the economic impact of extending

apr-2014/#sthash.ad7OfPkq.dpufVirginia: Extending
p.com, (310) 956-2425 LOS ANGELES, CA Extending
estimate the economic impact of extending
/22-apr-2014/#sthash.XnhLBnOr.dpufUtah: Extending
p.com, (310) 956-2425 LOS ANGELES, CA Extending
estimate the economic impact of extending
research has consistently shown that extending
-2014/#sthash.Au9cl8Ge.dpufIndiana: Extending
group.com, (202) 587-2871 LOS ANGELES Extending
estimate the economic impact of extending
-may-2014/#sthash.vpxq1OEm.dpufArizona: Extending

1360613

marriage to same-sex couples in Oregon.

Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add
marriage to same-sex couples in Virginia
marriage to same-sex couples in Virginia.
Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add $15.5
marriage to same-sex couples in Utah
marriage to same-sex couples in Utah.
marriage to same-sex couples creates new
Marriage to Same-sex Couples Could Add
marriage to same-sex couples in Indiana
marriage to same-sex couples in Indiana.
Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add

98

rabengroup.com, (202) 587-2871 Arizona: Extending

to state economy LOS ANGELES Extending
estimate the economic impact of extending

marriage to same-sex couples could add

marriage to same-sex couples in Arizona
marriage to same-sex couples in Arizona.

-2014-1/#sthash.K15ow8xJ.dpufNevada: Extending

marriage to same-sex couples could add

@rabengroup.com, (202) 587-2871 Nevada: Extending

marriage to same-sex couples could add

to state economy LOS ANGELES- Extending

marriage to same-sex couples in Nevada

estimate the economic impact of extending

group.com, (202) 587-2871 LOS ANGELES Extending
estimate the economic impact of extending
in@rabengroup.com, (202) 587-2871 Ohio: Extending
to state economy LOS ANGELES Extending
estimate the economic impact of extending
abengroup.com, (202) 587-2871 Michigan: Extending
to state economy LOS ANGELES Extending
estimate the economic impact of extending

marriage to same-sex couples in Nevada.

marriage to same-sex couples in Texas
marriage to same-sex couples in Texas.
marriage to same-sex couples could add $70.8
marriage to same-sex couples in Ohio
marriage to same-sex couples in Ohio.
marriage to same-sex couples could add $53.2
marriage to same-sex couples in Michigan
marriage to same-sex couples in Michigan.

g-2014-1/#sthash.pxXHnvzA.dpufKentucky: Extending

Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add

abengroup.com, (213) 236-3751 Kentucky: Extending

marriage to same-sex couples could add $23

to state economy LOS ANGELES Extending

estimate the economic impact of extending

marriage to same-sex couples in Kentucky

marriage to same-sex couples in Kentucky.

-2014-2/#sthash.vVeGj5DQ.dpufTennessee: Extending

Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add

bengroup.com, (202) 587-2871 Tennessee: Extending

marriage to same-sex couples could add $36

to state economy LOS ANGELES Extending

estimate the economic impact of extending

marriage to same-sex couples in Tennessee

marriage to same-sex couples in Tennessee.

-aug-2014/#sthash.lSlzCrgD.dpufFlorida: Extending

Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add

rabengroup.com, (202) 587-2871 Florida: Extending

marriage to same-sex couples could add $182

1360613

99

to state economy LOS ANGELES- Extending

estimate the economic impact of extending

marriage to same-sex couples in Florida

marriage to same-sex couples in Florida.

g-2014-1/#sthash.9NNbQxSZ.dpufOklahoma: Extending

Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add

abengroup.com, (202) 587-2871 Oklahoma: Extending

marriage to same-sex couples could add $20.5

to state economy LOS ANGELES Extending

estimate the economic impact of extending

marriage to same-sex couples in Oklahoma

marriage to same-sex couples in Oklahoma.

ug-2014-1/#sthash.OmoC1si2.dpufGeorgia: Extending

Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add

rabengroup.com, (213) 236-3753 Georiga: Extending

marriage to same-sex couples could add $78.8

to state economy LOS ANGELES Extending

estimate the economic impact of extending
sep-2014/#sthash.SS8FvpV8.dpufMissouri: Extending
group.com, (202) 587-4945 LOS ANGELES Extending
estimate the economic impact of extending
sept-2014/#sthash.nM7Tybb3.dpufWyoming: Extending
group.com, (202) 587-4945 LOS ANGELES Extending
estimate the economic impact of extending
2014/#sthash.NUZxhrC5.dpufWest Virgina: Extending

marriage to same-sex couples in Georgia

marriage to same-sex couples in Georgia.
Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add
marriage to same-sex couples in Missouri
marriage to same-sex couples in Missouri.
Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add
marriage to same-sex couples in Wyoming
marriage to same-sex couples in Wyoming.
Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add $9

group.com, (202) 587-2871 LOS ANGELES Extending

marriage to same-sex couples in West

estimate the economic impact of extending

marriage to same-sex couples in West

7-oct-2014/#sthash.NxBKIR4d.dpufAlaska: Extending
engroup.com, (202) 587-2871 LOS ANGELESExtending
estimate the economic impact of extending
-oct-2014/#sthash.dySYifra.dpufAlabama: Extending
oup.com, (202) 587-2871 LOS ANGELES Extending
estimate the economic impact of extending

1360613

Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add $8

marriage to same-sex couples in Alaska
marriage to same-sex couples in Alaska.
Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add
marriage to same-sex couples in Alabama
marriage to same-sex couples in Alabama.

100

-1/#sthash.X9gIRaT2.dpufNorth Carolina: Extending

Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add

oup.com, (202) 587-2871 LOS ANGELES Extending

marriage to same-sex couples in North

estimate the economic impact of extending

marriage to same-sex couples in North

14/#sthash.jjTjG2xt.dpufSouth Carolina: Extending

Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add

oup.com, (202) 587-2871 LOS ANGELES Extending

marriage to same-sex couples in South

estimate the economic impact of extending

marriage to same-sex couples in South

10-oct-2014/#sthash.vzMueqyl.dpufIdaho: Extending
oup.com, (202) 587-2871 LOS ANGELES Extending

Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add

marriage to same-sex couples in Idaho

estimate the economic impact of extending

marriage to same-sex couples in Idaho.

-201/#sthash.CO5JjV76.dpufSouth Dakota: Extending

Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add

oup.com, (202) 587-2871 LOS ANGELES Extending

marriage to same-sex couples in South

estimate the economic impact of extending

marriage to same-sex couples in South

-2014-sd/#sthash.wz4fxHsY.dpufMontana: Extending
oup.com, (202) 587-2871 LOS ANGELES Extending
estimate the economic impact of extending

Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add $4.5

marriage to same-sex couples in Montana
marriage to same-sex couples in Montana.

-2014-mt/#sthash.ixBF7Mft.dpufKansas: Extending

Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add

oup.com, (202) 587-2871 LOS ANGELES Extending

marriage to same-sex couples in Kansas

estimate the economic impact of extending

.rp6jqN4V.dpufNorth Dakota: Extending

marriage to same-sex couples in Kansas.

Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add

oup.com, (202) 587-2871 LOS ANGELES Extending

marriage to same-sex couples in North

estimate the economic impact of extending

marriage to same-sex couples in North

14-nd/#sthash.E1IuiOhh.dpufMississippi: Extending
oup.com, (202) 587-2871 LOS ANGELES Extending
estimate the economic impact of extending
2014-ms/#sthash.65bSfa4c.dpufLouisiana: Extending

1360613

Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add

marriage to same-sex couples in Mississippi
marriage to same-sex couples in Mississippi.
Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add

101

oup.com, (202) 587-2871 LOS ANGELES Extending

estimate the economic impact of extending
-2014-la/#sthash.7QwD3vCS.dpufArkansas: Extending
oup.com, (202) 587-2871 LOS ANGELES Extending
estimate the economic impact of extending
2014-ar/#sthash.GHrdIEaa.dpufWisconsin: Extending
oup.com, (202) 587-2871 LOS ANGELES Extending
estimate the economic impact of extending
-2014-wi/#sthash.Hv86NQPM.dpufNebraska: Extending
oup.com, (202) 587-2871 LOS ANGELES Extending
estimate the economic impact of extending

marriage to same-sex couples in Louisiana

marriage to same-sex couples in Louisiana.
Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add
marriage to same-sex couples in Arkansas
marriage to same-sex couples in Arkansas.
Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add
marriage to same-sex couples in Wisconsin
marriage to same-sex couples in Wisconsin.
Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add $8
marriage to same-sex couples in Nebraska
marriage to same-sex couples in Nebraska.

/#sthash.syvO5Oiz.dpufPuerto Rico: Extending

Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add

oup.com, (202) 587-2871 LOS ANGELES Extending

marriage to same-sex couples in Puerto

estimate the economic impact of extending

marriage to same-sex couples in Puerto

boost as a result of extending

estimating the economic benefits of extending

1360613

marriage to their own same-sex couples,

marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnership t

102

APPENDIX H
ECONOMIC INEQUALITY:
Job, Income, Employment, Work, Wealth, Poverty, Welfare
JOB:
WORD
job
jobs
on_the_job
job_seekers

FREQUENCY
24
12
10
2

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00

INCOME:
WORD
income
income_tax
income_taxes
low-income

FREQUENCY
7
4
3
2

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

FREQUENCY

RELATIVE

117
1
1
1

FREQUENCY
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00

EMPLOYMENT:
WORD
employment
employment_based
andemployment
unemployment

WORK:
WORD
work
workplace
working
workers

FREQUENCY
204
169
145
77

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.04

WEALTH:
WORD
wealthiest
wealthy
wealth

1360613

FREQUENCY
1
1
1

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.00
0.00
0.00

103

POVERTY:
WORD

FREQUENCY

poverty
anti-poverty

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.01
0.00

16
1

WELFARE:
WORD

FREQUENCY

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
14
0.01
2
0.00

welfare
welfare_professionals

HEALTHCARE AND SUPPORT FOR PEOPLE LIVING WITH HIV/AIDS

Key terms: Healthcare, Care, Treatment, HIV, AIDS, Access, Disability, Medical,
Mental, Insurance
HEALTHCARE
WORD
care
healthcare
career
health_care
caregivers

FREQUENCY
59
43
19
18
4

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00

TREATMENT
WORD
treatment

FREQUENCY
56

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.03

PATIENT
WORD
patient
patients

FREQUENCY
15
12

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.01
0.01

HIV
WORD
HIV
stop_HIV
hiv/aids
aids

1360613

FREQUENCY
48
2
35
25

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.03
0.00
0.02
0.01

104

ACCESS
WORD

FREQUENCY

access

52

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.03

DISABILITY
WORD

FREQUENCY

disability

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.00

MEDICAL
WORD

FREQUENCY

medical

41

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.02

INSURANCE
WORD

FREQUENCY

insurance
insurance_companies

16
5

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.01
0.00

MENTAL HEALTH
WORD
mental_health

FREQUENCY
27

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.02

MENTAL HEALTH

IMMIGRATION
Immigration, Migrant, Deportation, Asylum, Refugee
IMMIGRATION
WORD
immigration

FREQUENCY

RELATIVE

FREQUENCY
0.00

MIGRANT
WORD
immigrants

1360613

FREQUENCY
13

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.01

105

DEPORTATION
WORD
deportation

FREQUENCY

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.01

10

ASYLUM
WORD
asylum

FREQUENCY

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.00

REFUGEE
0

RACIAL INJUSTICE
Race, Ethnicity, Color, Racism, Racial, Profiling, Black, African-American, Hispanic,
Latino/a, Asian, White
RACE:
WORD

FREQUENCY

race

26

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.02

ETHNICITY:
WORD
ethnicity

FREQUENCY

RELATIVE FREQUENCY

0.00

COLOR:
WORD
color

FREQUENCY

RELATIVE

33

FREQUENCY
0.02

RACISM:
WORD
Frequency
racism

FREQUENCY

RELATIVE

0.00

RACIAL:
WORD
racial
interracial

1360613

FREQUENCY
3
2

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.00
0.00

106

it--racialized
racially

1
1

0.00
0.00

BLACK:
Word

Frequency

black

Relative Frequency

25

0.01

AFRICAN-AMERICAN:
WORD

FREQUENCY

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY

african-american

0.00

african-americans

0.00

FREQUENCY

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY

HISPANIC:
WORD
hispanic

10

0.01

hispanics

0.00

hispanics/latinos

0.00

latino/a

0.00

ASIAN:
WORD

FREQUENCY

asian

RELATIVE FREQUENCY

0.00

0.00

NATIVE AMERICAN
0
PACIFIC ISLANDER
0
WHITE
white

HEALTHCARE AND SUPPORT FOR PEOPLE LIVING WITH HIV/AIDS

Healthcare, Care, Treatment, HIV, AIDS, Access, Disability, Medical, Mental, Insurance
HEALTHCARE
WORD

1360613

FREQUENCY

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY

107

care
healthcare
career
health_care
caregivers

59
43
19
18
4

0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00

FREQUENCY

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.03

TREATMENT
WORD
treatment

56

PATIENT
WORD

FREQUENCY

patient
patients

15
12

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.01
0.01

HIV
WORD

FREQUENCY

HIV
stop_HIV
hiv/aids
aids

48
2
35
25

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.03
0.00
0.02
0.01

ACCESS
WORD

FREQUENCY

access

52

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.03

DISABILITY
WORD

FREQUENCY

disability

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.00

MEDICAL
WORD

FREQUENCY

medical

41

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.02

INSURANCE
WORD

FREQUENCY

insurance
insurance_companies

16
5

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.01
0.00

MENTAL HEALTH
WORD

1360613

FREQUENCY

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY

108

mental_health

27

0.02

CRIMINALISATION AND MASS INCARCERATION OF QUEER AND TRANS* YOUTH

Prison, Imprisonment, Incarceration
PRISON
WORD
prison
imprisonment
imprisoned

FREQUENCY
16
6
2

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.01
0.00
0.00

INCARCERATION
WORD
incarceration

FREQUENCY
1

estify in court or visit family in

penalties that can include life in
the transgender minor in an adult
of Jane Doe , whose father was in
ent in the mental ward of an adult
le , like " Jane Doe , " so that a
of Transgender Inmates in Federal
New Anti-LGBT Legislation Life in
slation that would lead to life in
nda that could send LGBT people to
very identities , often with harsh
slation that could lead to life in
slation that could lead to life in
-LGBT law , which promises life in
t could send some LGBT Gambians to
slation that could lead to life in

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.00
prison
prison
prison
prison
prison
prison
Prison
prison
prison
prison
prison
prison
prison
prison
prison
prison

. Human Rights Campaign President C

. Lively has also been a frequent v
has renewed calls by the Human Righ
and mother addicted to drugs . From
. The story of Jane Doe was previou
or the streets are not the only opt
Facilities o Ensure Treatments Rela
among new punishments , includes id
for some LGBT people in the country
for life . Thereport also profiles
sentences or worse . FRC thinks its
for some LGBT Gambians WASHINGTON T
for some LGBT people in The Gambia
for Ugandans convicted of being gay
for life . In a statement released
for some LGBT people in The Gambia

QUEER AND TRANS* YOUTH HOMELESSNESS

Homelessness, Shelter
HOMELESNESS
WORD
homelessness

FREQUENCY
5

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.00

SHELTER
WORD
shelter
shelter_MLK_Day

1360613

FREQUENCY
2
1

RELATIVE
FREQUENCY
0.00
0.00

109

shelters

0.00

APPENDIX I
HRC PR CORPUS
Wordlist Frequency Top 50
Word
the
and
of
to
in
a
for
that
marriage
LGTB
equality
is
on
are
HRC
by
this
with
have
will
their
state
from
As
People
Court
be
rights
has
couples
gay
campaign
or
at
an
Same-sex
federal
they
said
we
human
all
states
it
lesbian
who

1360613

Frequency
9226
5577
5196
4722
3608
2731
2327
1868
1725
1663
1436
1401
1262
1005
992
867
865
854
847
789
786
750
745
743
741
739
727
725
688
678
648
630
619
613
608
565
548
532
522
520
516
509
508
497
485
484

Relative
5.51
3.23
3.00
2.73
2.09
1.58
1.35
1.08
1.00
0.96
0.83
0.81
0.73
0.58
0.57
0.50
0.50
0.49
0.49
0.46
0.45
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.42
0.42
0.40
0.39
0.37
0.36
0.36
0.35
0.35
0.33
0.32
0.31
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.28
0.28

110

support
was
transgender
its
more

1360613

473
472
465
449
444

0.27
0.27
0.27
0.26
0.26

111

APPENDIX J HRC PRESS RELEASE

Data for Argument Analysis
1

#LoveCantWait: Why America Needs Marriage Equality Now

2
3
4

With every day that passes, same-sex couples experience legal, financial and emotional hardships solely
because they cant get married
9/30/2014

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Washington The question of when the Supreme Court of the United States will take up a marriage equality
case is now front and center, as cases from five states are currently pending before the justices and more than
70 cases challenging state marriage bans are working their way through the court system across the country.
Today was the first day the Supreme Court might have announced it would take up a marriage case, but none
of the appeals of federal circuit court rulings striking down state marriage bans have been granted certiorari,
according to the Supreme Courts order list. Some experts have interpreted recent comments from Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg as an indication the Court is in no rush to take up the issue anytime soon. But every
day that these discriminatory state marriage bans remain on the books, real families suffer the often tragic
consequences.
Its easy to forget that all of these cases challenging state marriage bans across the country are about real
people and real families, said Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Chad Griffin. And while we
usually think of love and celebration when talking about weddings, the truth is there are essential legal
protections and safeguards that come with marriage. Until we have nationwide legal marriage equality, unwed
same-sex couples and their families are at risk of devastating hardships that married couples dont face if the
unthinkable happens. Its difficult enough for families to deal with crisis without the added layer of hardship
from legal marriage inequality that gay and lesbian Americans face.

21

Without legal marriage recognition, same-sex couples face issues in:

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46

OUT-OF-STATE RECOGNITION: Same-sex couples can legally marry in 19 states and Washington, DC,
as well as a number of countries around the world. But if two women that marry in one of those jurisdictions
and then move to a state that bans marriage equality, they immediately become legal strangers in the eyes of
their new state.
PROPERTY RIGHTS: Without legal marriage, theres no guarantee of an automatic property transfer to a
surviving spouse when someone dies. So a person may not be able to stay in the family home after a spouse
passes away.
HEALTHCARE DECISIONS: Without legal relationship recognition, hospitals arent automatically
required to inform or consult same-sex partners in times of emergency. In some cases, people have been
denied the ability to say goodbye because they were unaware their partner or spouse was dying due to a lack
of notification.
PARENTING: Banning marriage to same-sex couples frequently interferes with the non-biological parent
being recognized as a parent. This harms children by denying them access to social security benefits,
insurance coverage, emergency decision making, medical care and so much more.
ADOPTION AND CUSTODY: Many states only allow one parent in a same-sex relationship to be the legal
parent to a child through adoption. Others dont allow the same-sex spouse to legally adopt the children of
their husband, wife or partner. So even though a person could have raised a child since birth, he or she could
be denied custody of that child if the legal parent dies or the couple separates.
TAXES: Legally married same-sex couples living in a state that doesnt recognize their marriage will
generally have to file separate state income taxes listing themselves as single even though they file federal
income taxes jointly.
EMPLOYER BENEFITS: Without legal marriage, employers arent required to allow their employees to
list same-sex spouses or partners as beneficiaries of employment benefits, including health insurance.
SOCIAL SECURITY: Even legally married same-sex couples arent able to access Social Security benefits
if they live in a state that doesnt recognize their marriage.

1360613

112

47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102

VETERANS BENEFITS: The Veterans Administration is only recognizing married same-sex couples who
currently live in marriage equality states. So the civil spouse of a military veteran of the same sex doesnt
have access to veterans benefits that every other spouse is eligible to receive.
EMERGENCY SERVICES: When disaster strikes families rely on each other. But without marriage,
emergency shelters can separate families even a parent from children if he or she has no legal claim to
them.
Over the coming weeks, HRC will be collecting stories from real Americans that detail why the Supreme
Court shouldnt delay in taking up a marriage equality case. They can be submitted and found online
at HRC.org/LoveCantWait. Here are three such stories detailing the devastating harm done to same-sex
couples when denied legal marriage equality.
If shed lived six days longer
Lesly was an employee of the same company for twenty-five years and was 100% vested in the companys
employee pension plan. But even longer than Leslys service to her employer was her loving, committed
relationship with Stacey her partner of nearly thirty years. A few years ago, Lesly was diagnosed with
cancer. When it became clear that Lesly was terminal and there was nothing more to be done, the family
started preparing for her death. As part of this process, they began to review Leslys benefits from her
employer. So it was a complete shock to the family when they were informed Stacey was not entitled to
Leslys pension because they were not legally married in their home state of California. They knew the
Supreme Court was set to rule at any moment in Hollingsworth v. Perry, a federal court case challenging
Californias Proposition 8 banning same-sex couples from marrying. But unfortunately, Leslys condition
took a turn for the worse and the family realized they didnt have much time left. A gathering was quickly
organized so that Stacey could stand next to Leslys deathbed and the two could have a wedding ceremony,
surrounded by family and friends. Lesly died the next day. Less than a week later, the Supreme Court
returned marriage to California and struck down key portions of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. If
Lesly had survived six more days, she and Stacey could have legally married and Stacey would have been
eligible for Leslys pension. For this family, there was a rush.
A mans final moments with his husband, stolen
Paul Hard and David Francher of Montgomery, Alabama had been together for seven years when they
decided to get married in Massachusetts in May of 2011. Three months later, David was in a car accident
less than twenty miles from their Montgomery home. Paul raced to the hospital to be by Davids side,
frantically texting friends and family to pray for his husband. When he arrived to the hospital, he was told
he couldnt see David and was given no information about his husbands condition. In the eyes of the State
of Alabama, the two men were legal strangers so Paul had no right to any information. Less than an hour
later, a hospital orderly told Paul, Well, hes dead. The death certificate listed David as single. In the
weeks and months following Davids death, Paul encountered a number of legal roadblocks in his quest for
justice. Most notably, Paul was told he would be denied any proceeds from a wrongful death case because
Alabama law forbids him from being listed the surviving spouse. Paul has enlisted the help of the Southern
Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which has filed a federal lawsuit challenging Alabamas discriminatory
marriage ban on his behalf. But to add insult to injury, Davids mother has successfully petitioned the court
to be added as a defendant in the case, fighting tooth and nail to deny her deceased sons husband the dignity
of being listed as what he his Davids spouse. If the state of Alabamas ban on marriage equality didnt
exist, a grieving widowers heartache and financial burdens would not be exacerbated by legal hurdles
targeting him for being gay.
Service members stationed in unfriendly territory
Active-duty military personnel are often moved from state to state throughout their careers when stationed at
different military bases across the country. This can be emotionally burdensome for the spouses and families
of service members. But for the spouses and families of gay and lesbian service members, there are legal
problems that can be potentially devastating. While the military and the federal government recognize the
legal marriages of same-sex couples, most states do not. Marine Cpl. Nivia Huskey and her wife Jessica
Painter Huskey are expecting a child. Cpl. Huskey hopes to return from her deployment in Kuwait in time
for the birth at the on-base hospital at Camp Lejeune where she is stationed. The only problem is, she will
have no legal recognition as the childs parent since North Carolina doesnt see the two women as
married. As the Navy Times puts it, In an emergency, Cpl. Huskey wont be able to make health care
decisions on behalf of their child without presenting a medical power of attorney signed by Jessica Huskey.
When it comes time to register for public school, the Marine once again wont be recognized as a parent. If
the unthinkable happens and Jessica dies, there is no guarantee a state judge allow the children to remain with

1360613

113

103
104
105
106
107
108

Cpl. Huskey especially if Jessica Huskeys blood relatives fight for custody. These women didnt
choose to live in a state that denies them marriage rights; they are required to live there by the military.
The Human Rights Campaign is Americas largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end
discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality
for all.

1360613

114