Advertisement

Sexuality & Culture

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 512–524 | Cite as

From “Gay Marriage Controversy” (2004) to “Endorsement of Same-Sex Marriage” (2012): Framing Bisexuality in the Marriage Equality Discourse

  • Andrea M. Hackl
  • C. Reyn Boyer
  • M. Paz GalupoEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

The current study analyzes the evolution of language used to discuss marriage equality in The New York Times between February and May 2004 and February and May 2012. Specifically, the study examines how sexual orientation labels were used as modifiers for “marriage,” “couples,” and “individuals.” Results indicate that the language evolved from a focus on the sexual orientation label gay in 2004 to a more inclusive language, with same-sex as the predominant modifier for marriage and couples in 2012. Further, while the overall language in The New York Times became more inclusive of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender community at large, bisexual women and men are still largely absent within the marriage equality discourse.

Keywords

Same-sex marriage New York Times Bisexuality Gay marriage Marriage equality Sexual orientation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported, in part, by a grant from the American Institute of Bisexuality awarded to M. Paz Galupo.

References

  1. Adams, T. E. (2012). Frames of homosexuality: Comparing Los Angeles Times’ coverage of california’s proposition 6 (1978) and proposition 8 (2008). Sexuality & Culture. doi: 10.1007/s12119-012-9145-2.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychological Association. (1991). Avoiding heterosexual bias in language. American Psychologist 46(9), 973–974. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/language.aspx.Google Scholar
  3. Breno, A. L., & Galupo, M. (2007). Bias toward bisexual women and men in a marriage-matching task. Journal of Bisexuality, 7(3/4), 217–235. doi: 10.1080/15299710802171308.Google Scholar
  4. Buxton, A. P. (2006). Counseling heterosexual spouses of bisexual men and women and bisexual heterosexual couples: Affirmative approaches. Journal of Bisexuality, 6(1/2), 105–135. doi: 10.1300/J159v06n01_07.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Capulet, I. (2010). With reps like these: Bisexuality and celebrity status. Journal of Bisexuality, 10(3), 294–308. doi: 10.1080/15299716.2010.500962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke, V., & Kitzinger, C. (2005). ‘We’re not living on planet lesbian’: Constructions of male role models in debates about lesbian families. Sexualities, 8, 137–152. doi: 10.1177/1363460705050851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Earp, B. D. (2012). The extinction of masculine generics. Journal for Communication and Culture, 2(1), 4–19. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=9d98c1de-0b90-4777-80ce0bb03a509314%40sessionmgr14&vid=3&hid=5.Google Scholar
  8. Edser, S. J., & Shea, J. D. (2002). An exploratory investigation of bisexual men in monogamous, heterosexual marriages. Journal of Bisexuality, 2(4), 5–43. doi: 10.1300/J159v02n04_02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frost, D. M., & Meyer, I. H. (2012). Measuring community connectedness among diverse sexual minority populations. Journal of Sex Research, 49(1), 36–49. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2011.565427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Galupo, M. P. (2009). Introduction. In M. P. Galupo (Ed.), Bisexuality and same-sex marriage (pp. 1–6). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Galupo, M. P., & Pearl, M. L. (2007). Bisexual attitudes toward same-sex marriage. Journal of Bisexuality, 7(3/4), 287–301. doi: 10.1080/15299710802171357.Google Scholar
  12. Gastil, J. (1990). Generic pronouns and sexist language: The oxymoronic character of masculine generics. Sex Roles, 23(11/12), 629–643. doi: 10.1007/BF00289252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Herek, G. M., Kimmel, D. C., Amaro, H., & Melton, G. B. (1991). Avoiding heterosexist bias in psychological research. American Psychologist, 46(9), 957–963. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.46.9.957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hidalgo, D., Barber, K., & Hunter, E. (2007). The dyadic imaginary: Troubling the perception of love as dyadic. Journal of Bisexuality, 7(3/4), 171–189. doi: 10.1080/15299710802170797.Google Scholar
  15. Israel, T., & Mohr, J. J. (2004). Attitudes toward bisexual women and men: Current research, future directions. Journal of Bisexuality, 4(1/2), 117–134. doi: 10.1300/J159v04n01_09.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Landau, J. (2009). Straightening out (the politics of) same-sex parenting: Representing gay families in us print news stories and photographs. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 26(1), 80–100. doi: 10.1080/15295030802684018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lannutti, P. J. (2007). “This is not a lesbian wedding”: Examining same-sex marriage and bisexual-lesbian couples. Journal of Bisexuality, 7(3/4), 237–260. doi: 10.1080/15299710802171316.Google Scholar
  18. Lee, T., & Hicks, G. R. (2011). An analysis of factors affecting attitudes toward same-sex marriage: Do the media matter? Journal of Homosexuality, 58(10), 1391–1408. doi: 10.1080/00918369.2011.614906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moscowitz, L. M. (2010). Gay marriage in television news: Voice and visual representation in the same-sex marriage debate. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54(1), 24–39. doi: 10.1080/08838150903550360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ochs, R., & Rowley, S. E. (Eds.) (2005). Getting bi: Voices of bisexuals around the world. Boston, MA: Bisexual Resource Center. Retrieved from http://www.robynochs.com/writing/essays/biphobia_short.html.
  21. Pan, P., Meng, J., & Zhou, S. (2010). Morality or equality? Ideological framing in news coverage of gay marriage legitimization. Social Science Journal, 47(3), 630–645. doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2010.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pitt Jr., R. N. (2006). Downlow mountain? De/stigmatizing bisexuality through pitying and pejorative discourses in media. Journal of Men’s Studies, 14(2), 254–258. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy-tu.researchport.umd.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=a05ceed1-af90-4ad1-8f0b-60ae3cd151eb%40sessionmgr15&vid=5&hid=10.
  23. Reinhardt, R. U. (2011). Bisexual women in heterosexual relationships: A study of psychological and sociological patterns: A reflective paper. Journal of Bisexuality, 11(4), 439–447. doi: 10.1080/15299716.2011.620472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rust, P. (1995). Bisexuality and the challenge to lesbian politics: Sex, loyalty, and revolution. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  25. Saad, L. (2012). U.S. acceptance of gay/lesbian relations is the new normal. Gallup Politics. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/154634/Acceptance-Gay-Lesbian-Relations-New-Normal.aspx.
  26. Wolf, T. (1985). Marriages of bisexual men. Journal of Bisexuality, 11(1–2), 135–148. doi: 10.1300/J082v11n01_11.Google Scholar
  27. Xigen, L., & Xudong, L. (2010). Framing and coverage of same-sex marriage in U.S. newspapers. Howard Journal of Communications, 21(1), 72–91. doi: 10.1080/10646170903501161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yost, M., & Thomas, G. (2012). Gender and binegativity: Men’s and women’s attitudes toward male and female bisexuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(3), 691–702. doi: 10.1007/s10508-011-9767-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea M. Hackl
    • 1
  • C. Reyn Boyer
    • 1
  • M. Paz Galupo
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Towson UniversityTowsonUSA

Personalised recommendations