Running head: MARRIAGE EQUALITY 1

Applying Marriage Equality Practices at Institutions

Alexandria Hernandez

University of Texas at El Paso

MARRIAGE EQUALITY 2

Abstract

There has been a notable trend within discourse and environment since the introduction of

marriage equality. Multiple scholars have not only noticed this trend, but researched the causes

and practices taken since they have noticed it. It is found there are many moral factors in which

effect the attitudes and acceptance of the concept of marriage equality. Many articles included

found that society has found themselves in multiple instances where they must question their

beliefs and actions taken. Other factors noted being religion, ridicule and fear, which also tie into

self-questioning. Questioning ones self has then been found to cause physical changes in the

way students in this society act towards marriage equality in the cases it occurs.

Keywords: LGBT, homosexual, institutions, marriage equality

MARRIAGE EQUALITY 3

Applying Marriage Equality Practices at Institutions

Introduction

Marriage equality has revolutionized in many aspects since the concept has been

introduced. Following the acknowledgement of marriage equality came practices and opinions

which effect the futures attitudes towards it. In order to evaluate the state of the nation regarding

marriage equality, it is necessary to be aware of current environments. This paper will gather

numerous studies regarding marriage equality, which will help conclude how this concept has

affected college campuses, in specific how it may affect those in El Paso. Campuses within El

Paso county rarely have discriminatory issues against homosexuals, however there could still be

improvement on the inclusiveness within everyday discourse. As the concept of marriage

equality has been introduced, it has influenced attitudes and practices towards it.

Attitudes Toward Marriage Equality

Attitudes towards marriage equality continues to greatly vary today. Samek (2016) argues,

that the constant political debate towards acceptance of the LGBT movement has caused various

measures to be taken towards it. She reflects on the instance of a California state senator taking

measures to root out and fire teachers who openly identify as homosexuals or openly promote

the homosexual life-style (p. 361). Depending on the audience, could seem to be an effective or

extreme measure. Cases such as the one mentioned by Samek, could be explained by

Mucciaronis (2016) claim. In his article, Mucciaroni argues that any LGBT movement will

consist of a multiplicity of diverse interests and opinions divided along demographic, political,

and geographic lines (p. 29). Although there are cases and environments which refuse

acceptance, constraints such as gerrymandering have been overlooked and begin to allow

rebellious views and acceptance.

MARRIAGE EQUALITY 4

Attitudes have become more open and excepting with the concept of marriage equality. Prior

to the introduction and practice of marriage equality, choosing to be close-minded toward the

concept had been extremely common. According to Morden (2016), the desirability of reducing

socio-economic inequality lead to the practices and yearning for diversity (p. 43). Along with

this yearning, comes the understanding of diversity which is recognizing that everyone is

different in a variety of visible and non-visible ways, the non-visible including sexuality (p. 44).

This attitude towards being open and accepting has been amplified through social influencers,

claims Teal and Williams (2016). Celebrities believing in and supporting the concept of open and

diverse sexuality has caused the evolution of the public coming out process (p. 13). The

ability to acknowledge and accept marriage equality has been revolutionizing through many

factors, which will continue to influence attitudes towards the concept.

Attitudes on marriage equality begin to reflect the practices taken. This refers back to the

reference Samek (2016) makes towards the senator of California rooting out and firing, those

who practice and support homosexual lifestyle (p. 361). This, being on the negative spectrum,

does reflect the attitude of the party and beliefs of the specific person. NeJaime (2012), has an

argument similar to that of Samek. He, however, approaches it through a religious perspective, in

which religious views obscures a core element of how sexual orientation discrimination

operates (p. 1196). Both authors argue towards the actions against the marriage equality

movement, however, they also address factors that a have major influence towards the future of

the movement, which is important to acknowledge in wanting to move forward.

Becoming Inclusive.

The introduction of marriage equality has allowed institutions to become more inclusive.

According to Mucciaroni, the United States has a reputation of being a socially diverse nation
MARRIAGE EQUALITY 5

(p. 29). So, with the trend and or promise of being diverse, comes the LGBT movement.

However, he does state that this inclusiveness and diversity varies geographically. This is

because LGBT practices and movements mirror the fragmentation and diversity of U.S.

political institutions, which could either help or stunt the growth of diversity (p. 29). The

introduction of marriage equality may also be a climb up the ladder for institutions, which is

argued by Joshi. Becoming inclusive may put the institution at an advantage by showing that

the actions of an institution are desirable (p.226). This then, puts them of the radar and shows

others that they are a non-problematic environment. Although it may be a constraint, the

continuous growth of diverse environments allows its surroundings to be influenced by their

practices.

Campuses have had more inclusive environments since learning to practice marriage

equality. Kearl (2015), believes that this comes from lived rhetorical situations, (para. 15). In

which those who experienced discrimination and hatred openly speak of their experience. Kearl

does not believe organizations form simply by placing various races and sexes together, but

rather they create identification around shared interaction, (para. 15) which comes from the

shared rhetoric of experience and knowledge. Morden (2016) assists Kearls claim by arguing

that within an institution, in order to be comfortably diverse, one must know the situation and

experience of the various groups around them. Morden notes that in working in an institution a

mindset should be acknowledging that they work within a complex society that has some

inherent inequalities and disadvantages for people. (p. 44) Both authors acknowledge that

institutions are becoming diverse, and that the cause of it is awareness and understanding.
MARRIAGE EQUALITY 6

Discourse.

Discourse among students has evolved since the practice of marriage equality has been

introduced. The topic of marriage equality may be taboo, especially prior to people openly taking

part in its practices. However, March (2012) finds that it is due to those who fall within the idea

of a normal marriage are afraid of finding themselves in a battle to keep their comfort and

security. However, he encourages the audience to ask themselves who are we to say that some

other groups way of living is wrong? (p. 252) He claims that this question is derived from the

moral commitment students have to celebrate diversity, and that is this that has allowed people

to put themselves in a mindset to analyze their discourse (p. 251). Whereas Teal and Williams

(2016), note a mindset within institutions may be influenced by a concept called paternalistic

heterosexualism. (p. 15) This concept is defined as showing an expression of concern for the

well-being of gays and lesbians, which comes from putting themselves in the position of the

victim (p. 15). Regardless of the approach and belief of the authors, they believe students have

altered their perspectives which then influences verbal changes.

Students have become more aware on how to speak sensitively since the introduction of

marriage equality ideology. Reflecting on the authors mentioned in the previous paragraph,

perspectives of students has begun involving. The claims made by March (2012), Teal and

Williams (2016) are then proved by the argument made by Morden (2016). Morden finds that

students have all worked so efficiently and far into diversity, that when one student fails to

recognize diversity it will then be interpreted as immediate discrimination (p. 45). Meaning, the

environment students have created for themselves has become diverse and comfortable to the

point where foul discourse is the new sensitive and taboo.

MARRIAGE EQUALITY 7

Conclusion.

The introduction of marriage equality and its practices has altered the ways it is viewed

and acted towards on campus. Going forward with the concept and the practices of marriage

equality has affected attitudes towards it, campus discourse and the inclusiveness. This then

allows the campus, as a whole or student as an individual, to evolve and be aware of marriage

equality. Taking this into consideration, campuses throughout El Paso could be a place in which

fear of insensitivity or discrimination does not exist.

Figure 1: Students equal marriage movement in the 1960s (Huff, 2007)

MARRIAGE EQUALITY 8

References

Huff, C. A. (2007). Student movements of the 1960s. New Georgia encyclopedia.

Joshi, Y. (2014). The trouble with inclusion. Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, 21(2),

207-265.

Kearl, M. K. (2015). Is gay the new black?: An intersectional perspective on social movement

rhetoric in California's proposition 8 debate. Communication & Critical/Cultural Studies,

12(1), 63-82. doi:10.1080/14791420.2014.995684

Morden, T. (2016). In Morden T. (Ed.), Equality, diversity and opportunity management, costs,

strategies and leadership. London; New York: Routledge. doi:978-1-4094-3278-4 .

March, A. F. (2011). Is There a Right to Polygamy? Marriage, Equality and Subsidizing Families

in Liberal Public Justification. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 8(2), 246-272.

NeJaime, D. (2012). Marriage inequality: Same-sex relationships, religious exemptions, and the

production of sexual orientation discrimination. California Law Review, 100(5), 1169-

1238.

Teal, J., & Meredith Conover-Williams. (2016). Homophobia without homophobes:

Deconstructing the public discourses of 21st century queer sexualities in the united states.

Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 38, 12-27.

Ball, C. A., & Mucciaroni, G. (2016). Will victory bring change? A mature social movement

faces the future. In A. Ball Carlos (Ed.), After marriage equality: The future of LGBT

rights (pp. 25-50) New York University Press.