Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Gay rights movements in the us
An essay on the 14th amendment
Gay rights movements in the us
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Gay rights movements in the us
If These Walls Could Talk 2 focuses on lesbian lives over a forty year period, framed within a single house. This movie is an issue-driven and thoughtful drama about some of the challenges lesbians face, and the change in cultural attitudes over time towards women who love women. Women having to play a traditional role in life and not able to be themselves violate the Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The debate over same-sex marriage is not only a moral debate but a legal debate over whether same-sex married couples should have the same legal status as opposite-sex married couples.
The first piece is set in 1961 and it opens at a theatre which is showing a screening of a movie that was extremely provocative and controversial at that time because of the suggestion of lesbianism as the theme. The scene shows two older women, watching the movie together holding hands and tears running down their faces. Listening to the group of young people behind them laughing and joking shows the viewers the discomfort this couple faces in the public’s eye. It wasn’t about just two friends seeing a movie together. It was the fact that two women were holding hands and crying. The viewer has to make the leap that if these women are at least in their sixties; they were born around the turn of the century, possibly coming out to themselves and maybe a few other women, in the twenties. These women have probably been ridicule and exposed to social scorn their entire lives. This segment sets up that the feeling of uneasiness between the couple and the society around them, but doesn’t fill in much of the history for the women. This scene shows that women can’t be women. Women were held to a certain standard and tha...
... middle of paper ...
...oral behavior, but there is a great difference between permitting states to express their moral disapproval of certain practices and permitting a state to. This would allow states to express the sentiment “we don’t like your kind.” Allowing the option of marriage for same-sex couples will encourage people to give up high-risk sexual lifestyles and have strong family values.
Aside from the technicalities of the laws in which each state has set, same sex marriage has been in debate for many years. Not allowing same sex rights as heterosexuals have is absolutely a violation of the fourteenth amendment and probably a few more down the line definitely violate The Defense of Marriage Act. Furthermore it is a bigger violation on the moral side. Since it has taken this many years to enact some laws, the years prior were denied because of morality not legality.
These movies allowed female characters to embody all the contradictions that could make them a woman. They were portrayed as the “femme fatale” and also “mother,” the “seductress” and at the same time the “saint,” (Newsom, 2011). Female characters were multi-faceted during this time and had much more complexity and interesting qualities than in the movies we watch today. Today, only 16% of protagonists in movies are female, and the portrayal of these women is one of sexualization and dependence rather than complexity (Newsom, 2011).
Both stories show the characters inequality with their lives as women bound to a society that discriminates women. The two stories were composed in different time frames of the women’s rights movement; it reveals to the readers, that society was not quite there in the fair treatment towards the mothers, daughters, and wives of United States in either era. Inequality is the antagonist that both authors created for the characters. Those experiences might have helped that change in mankind to carve a path for true equality among men and women.
Today, contemporary audiences and critics have become preoccupied with the role the cinema plays in shaping social values, institutions, and attitudes. American cinema has become narrowly focused on images of violent women, female sexuality, the portrayal of the “weaker sex” and subversively portraying women negatively in film. The “Double Indemnity” can be read in two ways. It is either a misogynist film about a terrifying, destroying woman, or it is a film that liberates the female character from the restrictive and oppressed melodramatic situation that render her helpless” (Kolker 124). There are arguably two extreme portrayals of the character of Phyllis Dietrichson in Double Indemnity.
Society is created with both homosexual and heterosexual individuals. Previously when certain laws discriminated against others, such as law for women's rights to vote, these laws were changed. Changing the traditions of the country does not mean that it will lead to the legalization of other extreme issues. Each ...
For some background, this case escalated to the Supreme Court since several groups of same-sex couples from different states, sued state agencies when their marriage was refused to be recognized. As it escalated through appeals, the plaintiffs argued that the states were violating the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Equal Protection, according to the Constitution refers to the fact that, “any State [shall not] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” (23). The opposition of this case was that, 1) The Constitution does not address same-sex marriage as a policy, and 2) The sovereignty of states regarding the decision. Ultimately, and according to the Oyez project, the Court held that “[the Amendment] guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples,” and therefore, same-sex marriage is a fundamental liberty.
This investigation will examine a few key works by the anonymous female artist group know in popular culture as the Guerrilla Girls. In this essay it will reveal several prominent themes within the groups works that uncover the racial and gender inequalities in politics, art and pop culture with the use of humor. These collaborating artists work and operate with a variety of mediums, their works display a strong message concerned with activism connected by humor allowing the Guerrilla Girls to communicate and resonate a more powerful message to the viewer. The ways in which this collaborating group has employed many questions and facts against the hierarchy and historical ideologies which have exploited women and their roles in art. This investigation will allow the reader to identify three areas in which the Guerrilla Girls apply a certain forms of humor to transform society’s view on the prominent issue of gender in the art world. These specific ploys that are performed by the Guerrilla Girls are in the way they dress, the masks they wear, pseudonymous names of dead women artists and the witty factual evidence in their works. These are all examples to evoke audiences in challenging not only the art society which dictates the value and worth of women in art but also to confront yourself and your own beliefs in a way that makes audiences rethink these growing issues.
Gender and the portrayal of gender roles in a film is an intriguing topic. It is interesting to uncover the way women have been idealized in our films, which mirrors the sentiments of the society of that period in time. Consequently, the thesis of this essay is a feminist approach that seeks to compare and contrast the gender roles of two films. The selected films are A few Good Men and Some Like it Hot.
By dissecting the film, the director, Jennie Livingston's methodology and the audience's perceived response I believe we can easily ignore a different and more positive way of understanding the film despite the many flaws easy for feminist minds to criticize. This is in no way saying that these critiques are not valid, or that it is not beneficial to look at works of any form through the many and various feminist lenses.
...cause there is no law stating it is illegal, but 48 states, all but Vermont and Hawaii, will not acknowledge a gay marriage. If a homosexual is United States citizen, they should receive the same rights as all other citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation. Gay men and lesbians deserve the right to marry, to not be discriminated against, and to be in the military. Does it seem fair to keep all homosexuals from what they justly deserve?
Both stories show feminism of the woman trying to become free of the male dominance. Unfortunately, the woman are not successful at becoming free. In the end, the two women’s lives are drastically
Imagine someone telling you that you were not allowed to marry the person you are in love with just because they are the same sex as is. Imagine being harassed and treated completely different just because you are in a relationship with someone of the same gender as you. Now more than ever, same-sex marriage is a topic that is often discussed. In 2010, there were approximately 646,000 same-sex couples in the United States according to the 2010 decennial census, (Lofquist, 2010). As of Jan. 6, 2014, gay marriage has been legalized in 17 of the 50 states, (procon.org, 2014). For a very brief amount of time, Michigan was the 18th state that allowed gay couples to marry, but now it joins Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, and Texas. These states have had courts overturn gay marriage bans, but they still have pending appeals.
Marriage should always be between man and women like I mentioned. However the united states supreme court has ruled that all fifty states issue marriage licenses to same sex coupe and marriages. Only the constitution of the states have the right to allow or disallow same sex marriage not the government.
In conclusion I argue that banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory. It is discriminatory because it denies homosexuals the many benefits received by heterosexual couples. The right to marriage in the United States has little to do with the religious and spiritual meaning of marriage. It has a lot to do with social justice, extending a civil right to a minority group. This is why I argue for same-sex marriage. The freedom to marry regardless of gender preference should be allowed.
... men in the story are portrayed, exhibits the degradation of the value of the self-expression of a woman.
Prohibiting same sex marriage is unconstitutional. "The act discriminates on the basis of the sex by making the ability to marry depend on one's gender" (American Civil Liberties Union, p 12). It also disregards the Faith Full and Credit Clause of the constitution. If a gay or lesbian couple gets married in a state where same sex marriage is legal, but then for some reasons decides to move to another state where same sex marriage is prohibited, it would mean that their union would not be recognized.