MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251984746 · doi:10.1353/hyp.2006.0066

The Long Arc of Justice: Lesbian and Gay Marriage, Equality, and Rights (review)

2007· article· en· W4251984746 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patrick D. Hopkins

Bibliographic record

VenueHypatia · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLesbianTabooEconomic JusticeWonderGay rightsSociologyLawMainstreamGender studiesPoliticsPolitical sciencePsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Book Review Patrick D. Hopkins The Long Arc of Justice: Lesbian and Gay Marriage, Equality, and Rights. By Richard D. Mohr. Until 1987, the New York Times wouldn't even print the word gay. By 2003, the Times was running gay wedding announcements, complete with photographs, including the announcement of the Canadian-licensed marriage of the author of The Long Arc of Justice. Richard Mohr's newest book is a revised and updated version of his 1994 A More Perfect Union and, in the decade that has passed since that work, he has seen such enormous progress for the cause of lesbian and gay rights that his book practically shines with optimism. The backdrop idea of Long Arc is essentially that American culture has passed a turning point in the gay rights debate. While there is much yet to be accomplished and there is still a culture war going on, the taboo about discussing gay issues has all but collapsed, the cultural presence of gays and lesbians is so strong that gay kids will never again have to wonder if they are the only one, homophobic attitudes are no longer de rigueur, and phrases like "gay marriage" are no longer oxymorons but instead obviously meaningful, even if contested. With all these changes, gays have become less monstrous to the cultural mainstream and instead have become cultural curiosities, like "hippies and Mormons." Mohr's explanation for how this progress was made essentially points to culture. While acknowledging and analyzing important legal victories, such as the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling eliminating sodomy laws, Mohr argues that even these successes are the result of cultural changes and not the producers of them. What has been most important for gay rights issues, it seems, is the presence of lesbian and gay television characters, increased personal openness of gay and lesbian people (which has bumped the percentage of those who say they know a gay person from one-fifth in the 1980s to one-half in the 2000s), sympathetic media portrayal of victims of antigay violence, and unsympathetic media portrayal of antigay rhetoric. This doesn't mean that harmful gay stereotypes and antigay discrimination are gone, but it does mean that the fundamental force in gay rights, both positive and negative, has been cultural visibility and this has radically changed for the better. As Mohr sees it, then, antigay forces can no longer rely on silence or the reaction of disgust in pursuing antigay aims. Instead, they must rely on argumentation and cultural moves of their own. In a bit of tension with his own position on the importance of culture, Mohr argues that the job for gay rights activists now is to make good arguments and he does this through analyzing the most important issues for [End Page 243] gay rights. He asks, Now that the taboo about discussing lesbians and gays has fallen, what should we be saying? It is these arguments that form the center of the book and it is these arguments that are important and useful for both classroom and public political airing. In the opening chapter, "Lesbian and Gay Basics," Mohr summarizes and criticizes the basic arguments against gay rights, including Biblical authority, natural law, psychopathology, and social harm arguments. Perhaps a measure of the progress that has been made on gay issues is that much of the rhetoric about gays as child molesters and how homosexuality will destroy civilization now seem so ridiculous that we can easily imagine the 2015 update of this book relegating such "arguments" to curious historical footnotes. In the chapter on sexual privacy, Mohr lays out his argument for why sexual privacy is so important and merits the status of a protected right. He invokes the Body Argument (the body is that through which we act, so if we are to be free in anything, we must have control of our bodies), the Sex is Special Argument (during sex, perception is inherently private and the world recedes), and the Sex is Personal Argument (sex is a unique experience that provides the only access to ecstasy for most people and so is crucial for our pursuit of...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHypatiaSame topicLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesFrench-language works237,207