Challenging Heteronormativity? Reaction and Resistance to the Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Partnerships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter first briefly traces the events of the last decade that have challenged the legal definition of spouse. It then discusses concerns about marriage and familial ideology that have been raised, especially by feminists. Notably, feminists have asked whether allowing lesbians and gay men to marry actually challenges the hierarchical nature of marriage and whether extending spousal status to lesbians and gay men simply reinforces the neo-liberal privatization of economic responsibility by placing it on family members rather than on the state. In the heart of the chapter, the extent to which the recent struggles to expand the legal definition of spouse and family have embraced these questions or challenged heterosexism or liberal legalism at any fundamental level. Case studies are based on two pivotal moments: the hearings of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights: (1) on Bill C-23, Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, in 2000; and (2) on same-sex marriage, in 2003. The arguments made by those who resisted legal recognition of same-sex relationships (often on homophobic grounds) as well as those who supported legal recognition are reviewed. The authors conclude that critical analysis of marriage and familial ideology has been undermined in these recent debates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".