Marrying Citizens! Raced Subjects? Re-thinking the Terrain of Equal Marriage Discourse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le present article vise a analyser de maniere critique la campagne actuelle pour l'egalite en matiere de mariage au Canada a partir du memoire du groupe Egale devant le Comite permanent de la Chambre des Communes sur la Justice et les Droits de la personne. L'auteure soutient que le discours de l'egalite des droits qui sous-tend ce memoire se fonde sur une hierarchie raciale qui privilegie la « blancheur » et l'identite des gais et des lesbiennes comme Blancs. L'article retrace les fondements raciaux des revendications d'une identite universelle gaie et lesbienne et soutient que l'utilisation d'analogies entre la race et la preference sexuelle exacerbe cette hierarchie raciale. L'article soutient aussi que la construction d'un sujet universel et respectable qui est a la fois bourgeois et gai ou lesbienne sert a maintenir une nation blanche heterosexuelle. Une telle analyse critique met en relief le cote souvent partial et partiel des recits d'emancipation et remet en cause les facons par lesquelles le militantisme des gais et des lesbiennes fonde sur l'egalite des droits reproduit la hierarchie dominante aux endroits memes ou il cherche la liberation. This article examines the racial construction of a gay/lesbian subject worthy of marriage through a critical analysis of legal submissions from the successful British Columbia and Ontario equal marriage cases as well as a submission made by Egale to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It explores the ways that appeals to a universal gay/lesbian identity and to the notion of the freedom to marry produce a white racial legal subject and rely on an unmarked whiteness for their success. By stepping outside the pro/con binary informing so much of the discourse on same-sex marriage, this article points to the ways in which this gay rights political issue is also a politics of race.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".