You are here
The rhetoric of law and love: legally (re)defining marriage
- Date Issued:
- 2015
- Summary:
- In just over one year since United States v. Windsor— the case invalidating sections of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defined marriage, for purposes of federal statutes, as the “union of man and woman”— more than a dozen states have had their same-sex marriage bans ruled unconstitutional. This suggests a shift in legal meaning; previously successful arguments against same-sex “marriage” now seem irrational as argumentative ground has shifted. Since favorable rulings redefine “marriage” to include same-sex unions, this thesis analyzes Kitchen v. Herbert, a 2014 legal opinion from the United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit, to understand the rhetorical processes underpinning its redefinitional act. That analysis draws on Kenneth Burke’s theories of entitling and constitutions and discusses the rhetorical concepts of terministic screens, casuistic screens, scope and circumference as key features of the rhetoric of the legal opinions. The findings call for a balancing of deconstructive and conventional approaches to legal discourse.
Title: | The rhetoric of law and love: legally (re)defining marriage. |
153 views
53 downloads |
---|---|---|
Name(s): |
Higgs, Volrick Wallace, author Mulvaney, Becky, Thesis advisor Florida Atlantic University, Degree grantor Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts and Letters School of Communication and Multimedia Studies |
|
Type of Resource: | text | |
Genre: | Electronic Thesis Or Dissertation | |
Date Created: | 2015 | |
Date Issued: | 2015 | |
Publisher: | Florida Atlantic University | |
Place of Publication: | Boca Raton, Fla. | |
Physical Form: | application/pdf | |
Extent: | 109 p. | |
Language(s): | English | |
Summary: | In just over one year since United States v. Windsor— the case invalidating sections of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defined marriage, for purposes of federal statutes, as the “union of man and woman”— more than a dozen states have had their same-sex marriage bans ruled unconstitutional. This suggests a shift in legal meaning; previously successful arguments against same-sex “marriage” now seem irrational as argumentative ground has shifted. Since favorable rulings redefine “marriage” to include same-sex unions, this thesis analyzes Kitchen v. Herbert, a 2014 legal opinion from the United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit, to understand the rhetorical processes underpinning its redefinitional act. That analysis draws on Kenneth Burke’s theories of entitling and constitutions and discusses the rhetorical concepts of terministic screens, casuistic screens, scope and circumference as key features of the rhetoric of the legal opinions. The findings call for a balancing of deconstructive and conventional approaches to legal discourse. | |
Identifier: | FA00004378 (IID) | |
Degree granted: | Thesis (M.A.)--Florida Atlantic University, 2015. | |
Collection: | FAU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Collection | |
Note(s): | Includes bibliography. | |
Subject(s): |
Constitutional law -- United States Identity (Psychology) Marriage -- United States -- Government policy Same sex marriage -- Law and legislation -- United States United States -- Defense of Marriage Act |
|
Held by: | Florida Atlantic University Libraries | |
Sublocation: | Digital Library | |
Links: | http://purl.flvc.org/fau/fd/FA00004378 | |
Persistent Link to This Record: | http://purl.flvc.org/fau/fd/FA00004378 | |
Use and Reproduction: | Copyright © is held by the author, with permission granted to Florida Atlantic University to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. | |
Use and Reproduction: | http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ | |
Host Institution: | FAU | |
Is Part of Series: | Florida Atlantic University Digital Library Collections. |