What Can We Learn from the California Gay Marriage Debates?

Session Submission Type: Paper Session

Abstract

This panel is the result of a research collaboration that took place in spring 2009 that compares and contrasts the legal and political arguments that took place in California in 2007/2008 that produced contrary decisions about how to define “marriage.” Two goals motivate the proposal: 1) To improve our scholarly understanding of how “reasonableness” was performed differently in the technical and public settings of the California debate; 2) To consider what role argumentation critics might play as the national debate over gay marriage continues.

Sub Unit

• Communication and the Law Division

Chair

• Edward Schiappa, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

Individual Presentations

• Public Arguments Supporting Proposition 8 - Justin Killian, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

• How to Secularize a Religious Argument: An Examination of Selected Amici Briefs Filed in In re Marriage Cases - Emily Berg, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

• Public Arguments Opposing Proposition 8 - Jon Hoffman, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

• Lost in Translation: Considering the Role of Argument Critics in the Gay Marriage Debate - Edward Schiappa, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

Session Organizer

• Katherine Karsnak, National Communication Association