1. CADR 600: Group Processes and Complex Conflicts
Making Gay Okay in America: Examining the Drivers of LGBTQ-related Conflict
Amanda Gilmore
Fall 2014/ December 2, 2014
The intellectual knowledge, ideas and opinions found in this assignment are mine and
mine alone. Any additional knowledge, ideas, thoughts, words, or phrases belonging to
others have been properly attributed using standard and approved citations.
– Amanda Gilmore (Date: 12/2/14)

2. Gilmore 1
Abstract
Over the last few decades, there has been an increasingly active conversation in
the United States concerning gay rights, particularly regarding the legality and
morality of same-sex marriage. Although steady progress has been made for same-sex
couples, there is still very positional conflict surrounding these issues. This conflict
stems from a variety of factors that are still interacting, despite recent progress. This
research seeks to identify and explain the complex drivers of this social and political
conflict in order to move toward inclusivity and equality for all people who identify as
LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning). Although same-sex
marriage is moving towards greater legal and social acceptance now, the forces driving
the adversarial nature of this dispute have further implications for the broader
spectrum of LGBTQ issues.
Same-Sex Marriage in the United States: Background
Over the last 40 years in the United States, the topic of same-sex marriage has
gone from unacceptably taboo to an active, open dialogue with more favorable
reception. Progress has been slow, yet largely in favor of same-sex marriage and other
LGBTQ-supportive efforts. It is now legal in 35 states for same-sex couples to get
married (Freedom to Marry 2014). However, it was not until 2003 that male to male
gay sex was decriminalized (Chamie and Mirkin 2011). This shows that much of this
progress was made in recent years. Legally, these steps are significant milestones. This

3. Gilmore 2
also is a fair reflection of where public opinion has landed on this issue, progressively
becoming less stigmatized and more socially acceptable. However, as the research will
demonstrate, this varies by a multiplicity of demographics and significant portions of
the population in the United States that still reflect heteronormativity in both the social
and legal realms.
How Far We Have Come
In 1990, The American Bar Association printed an article in the ABA Journal that
argued both sides of the same-sex marriage debate from two legal professionals with
contradictory opinions. In this piece, which was originally printed in the New York
Times, one of the writers purports that, “Crowning homosexual relationships with the
solemnity of legal marriage would wrongly send social cues that male-female
marriages are not preferable. And there is no constitutional right to homosexual
marriage since homosexual sodomy can be criminalized” (Stoddard and Fein 1990,
43). Since this piece was published over two decades ago, this author’s argument is no
longer credible as that ban has been lifted. Reading that quotation in today’s climate
for LGBTQ rights is, thankfully, out of date. However, it is helpful to reflect on the
changing level of acceptance in order to gauge the progress of these issues. Many of the
same factors and drivers perpetuating the disagreements over LGBTQ rights, although
to a lessened degree, are the same. For this reason, this research will focus on

4. Gilmore 3
identifying the consistent drivers of this social and political impasse. Once identified,
these drivers can be openly addressed to move the disputing parties (government
officials, activists, legal professionals, and citizens alike) away from their positional
stances into more open dialogue to reach a stable, peaceful agreement on these issues.
The goal is to move from a stale debate to creating a norm or standard for our country
that all parties can abide by.
Why LGBTQ Rights Matter
Although this has traditionally been a positional conflict with two polarized
opinions, it is important to remember that this is an issue that determines the human
rights and personal livelihood for a portion of the American population. The
commonality of present day discussion regarding LGBTQ issues in the news cycle does
not make it any less life changing for those who identify as LGBTQ Americans. This is
not a stale, over-publicized agenda for those who are awaiting the determination of
their fate. Living without the basic fundamentals of companionship and security that
marriage rights encompass violates LGBTQ citizens’ basic human needs (Maslow
1943).
Instead of allowing historical oppression and the precedent set by power
imbalances to determine what drives this conflict, the stories of real people who are
experiencing the injustice of same-sex marriage setbacks should inspire the United
States to take action to implement widespread equality. As Kathleen King, an education

5. Gilmore 4
professor from Fordham University, succinctly states, “Sometimes, through the
journeys of others we can step back, reflect, and reconsider our perspectives. From
medical care confrontations, to humiliation, medical benefits to excessive tax demands
and fear of violence, you will realize afresh that the fight for equal rights is not over”
(King 2010, 71). As this dialogue continues, first-hand accounts will be useful to help
educate others, subsequently breaking down the drivers of this conflict. Humanizing
the issue is a potential solution.
Proposition 8 and Intrastate Geographic Demographics
Using the instance of Proposition 8 marginally passing in California, which
placed a state ban on gay marriage, there is a great deal of insight into how states
become positioned on the legality of same-sex marriage (Salka and Burnett 2012). At
the state level, research shows that opinions on LGBTQ issues are not simple,
overarching consistencies. There are regional pockets and intrastate geographic
variances, often leaving other demographics or monetary support to sway the stance in
one direction or another (Salka and Burnett 2012). For this reason, it is hard to make
social climate generalizations about any state in regard to the question of same-sex
marriage. This is explained by a study from Sexuality & Culture that reports, “Each state
is best viewed not as a homogeneous group for residents adhering to a single, unified
state political culture… These groups, then, hold varying attitudes on a host of issues

6. Gilmore 5
that can be explained, at least in part, by their differing demographic, political and
religious characteristics” (Salka and Burnett 2012, 60-61). Nonetheless, state laws
exist on this practice, making those borders legally meaningful. This brings to focus the
idea of legality driving this conflict rather than societal culture.
For example, when Proposition 8 passed in California, which is typically seen as
a liberal state, there was confusion over how this anti-gay amendment passed.
Although many cities in California are progressive on these issues, there is also a high
African-American population that was mobilized in the final weeks before the election.
By no coincidence, African-Americans typically are less supportive of LGBTQ causes. It
was largely their unprecedented levels of voter turnout, and more funding from
traditionalist advocacy groups, that tipped the 52 percent to 48 percent passage of the
amendment to ban same-sex marriage (Salka and Burnett 2012). For this research and
telling example, it is clear that political and interest group strategy is a driver of
LGBTQ-related conflict. Often a driver of resource-based conflicts, Martin Nie identifies
“political and interest group strategy” as a problematic driver that uses controversy for
organizational gain, needlessly perpetuating the conflict cycle (Nie 2003). This driver
also seems to be at play in the issue of LGBTQ rights.
In fact, the conflict-laden initiatives and political mobilization of this conflict
serve as a spoiler to resolution efforts. As we know from a broad, fully encompassing
definition, spoiling can occur simultaneously alongside productive resolution methods

7. Gilmore 6
(Keethaponcalan 2010). That is the case with this issue, as spoiling stems from interest
groups with unwavering positions. Although there is a steady, parallel process of
progress and inclusion, this spoiling is contributing to the protracted nature of LGBTQ-
related conflict.
Demographics as a Driver
Largely based on the landscape of research regarding the climate of LGBTQ
acceptance, demographics seem to be consistently revealing a pattern of perpetuating
the historical stigma of same-sex marriage rights. Demographics such as age, race,
religion, political party, location, and socioeconomic status all play a role in
determining the likelihood of same-sex marriage support (Salka and Burnett 2012).
Although there will always be exceptions to trends in these categories, the data is
indicative of what populations are resisting LGBTQ inclusivity. Overall, the research
reflects that African-Americans, older generations, Republicans, Southerners, less
socioeconomically advantaged individuals, and people with a strong religious identity
are the least supportive of LGBTQ rights, including the right to marry (Salka and
Burnett 2012).
As the generational cohort changes to a population of more accepting youth
who are not primarily taught that gay relationships are inherently deviant, there is a
slight increase in favor of same-sex marriage. Although this information is promising,

8. Gilmore 7
LGBTQ-rights advocates rightly point out that we cannot just sit back and wait for non-
supportive generations to disappear (Salka and Burnett 2012). For today’s LGBTQ
couples who experience inequality on a daily basis, this issue is urgent and efforts can
be made to address the drivers of this deeply rooted conflict. Understanding and
communicating effectively with these various resistant and difficult demographics can
help undermine this particular driver.
Adversarial Governance as a Driver
Referring to the aforementioned research by Nie in his 2003 Policy Sciences
article, the driver he refers to as “Adversarial Governance” is visible in this conflict (Nie
2003). According to Nie, “The American Constitution and its philosophy of a
‘compound republic’ set up a system of vertical (federalism) and horizontal (separation
of powers) division that essentially promises perpetual conflict” (Nie 2003, 326).
Basically, the division of our government is conflicted from the start, even without the
involvement of these inherently polarized issues. Taking a complex, adversarial
conflict such as same-sex marriage into this even more complex political realm
promises an array of challenges. We have seen this as some states are passing marriage
equality laws, while other states are resisting this progress in the courts. Legal
arguments are being made on Constitutional grounds, but individual states currently
have control over same-sex marriage rights. This relationship is quite obviously
adversarial.

9. Gilmore 8
Additionally, the fluctuating political leadership is often equally adversarial.
Republicans and Democrats are constantly at odds, fumbling over their inability to
reach bipartisan resolutions on pressing issues. The issue of same-sex marriage is no
exception (Salka and Burnett 2012). With these two dominant parties at odds, both in
voters and our government representation, making strides towards progress is slow
due to deeply divided differences. This adversarial governance of our political parties
is even obviously reflected in presidencies. While the democratic Obama
administration has been largely supportive of LGBTQ equality, the previous president,
republican George Bush, was not in favor of same-sex marriage (Baunach 2011). In
fact, back in 2004, George Bush supported a constitutional amendment that would ban
same-sex marriage, saying, “The union of a man and woman is the most enduring
human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious
faith… Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots
without weakening the good influence of society” (Bush, as qtd. by Baunach 2011,
346). This changing tide of leadership provides inconsistent direction in regards to
LGBTQ rights.
Media Framing as a Driver
Another driver of conflict stems from the way media frames issues (Nie 2003).
Popular media is often biased and polarized to please readers of certain ideologies.

10. Gilmore 9
True objectivity is a lofty goal for most media sources, if even a goal at all. In Nie’s
description of this problem with media framing, he states, “Conflict is then dramatized
by emphasizing extreme and confrontational statements and actions… the media
essentially require conflict and extremism for an issue to be newsworthy” (Nie 2003,
326). This conflict-laden, entertainment angle is seen in the way media presents
LGBTQ rights, including marriage rights, as blatantly biased in either a supportive or
disapproving lens. Instead of educating readers to bridge a gap in the dialogue, the
media is perpetuating the same racy, interesting debate about LGBTQ issues that has
been on repeat for years.
Furthermore, media outlets are driving this conflict in a secondary, less direct
way. This secondary media-related driver addresses the problem of LGBTQ
representation on television. Media representation of LGBTQ people, although
improving over time, is skewed and limited. According to a recent study in the Journal
of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, “While gays and lesbians—almost always shown as
couples—visually resonate in news stories, they were rarely given the opportunity to
offer their own perspectives on an issue important to their community” (Moscowitz
2010, 36).
There are three problems identified by these findings. Firstly, the
overwhelming portrayal of LGBTQ people purely in the context of being part of a
romantic couple is unrealistic and misleading to viewers. This portrayal dehumanizes

11. Gilmore 10
LGBTQ people by only including their representation when it is related to their
romantic lives (Moscowitz 2010). Where are the single LGBTQ people, or the LGBTQ
people pursuing a career or other personal interests? Portraying LGBTQ individuals as
people with everyday activities, hobbies, ambitions, and talents is lacking in the media.
Romantic and sexualized portrayals, however, are rampant on televisions. This drives
LGBTQ-related conflicts by perpetuating the over-sexualizing stereotypes of the gay
community.
Secondly, although it is promising to see televised representation of any kind
for LGBTQ people, it is disheartening and problematic that this representation is
mostly just visual (Moscowitz 2010). Media consumers are seeing gay people, but not
hearing them. In order to break down stereotypes and work toward normalcy and
integration, LGBTQ individuals should have more opportunities to speak freely and tell
their stories to media outlets. It is this first-hand dialogue that will change opinions by
means of familiarity and empathy, not the flashy, commercialized images of
popularized gay stereotypes.
This summation of media representation as a driver of LGBTQ conflict raises
another good question— when these visuals of LGBTQ people are shown, if they are
not talking, who is talking? If media commonly covers LGBTQ topics, but LGBTQ voices
are largely absent from media representation, what voices are covering LGBTQ issues?
Put simply, straight people are. Politicians, advocacy groups, and other heterosexual

12. Gilmore 11
figures are relaying almost all of our verbal media information about gay issues. This is
problematic because it allows coverage to be biased by the lens of heteronormativity.
Summarizing this issue uncovered by her content analysis study, Moscowitz states,
“The debate was dominated by conventionally ‘straight’ perspectives, continuing to
grant power and prominence to traditionally authoritative (often oppositional)
sources… Gay and lesbian citizens were also given a shorter sound bite, speaking less
than most other sources speaking on their behalf” (Moscowitz 2010, 36). In order to
fully address the media framing and media representation drivers in this conflict, a
diverse and realistic population of LGBTQ citizens need to be heard first-hand in
popular media.
Historical Pattern of Stigmatization as a Driver
Trying to change attitudes, laws, and beliefs that have become normalized and
commonplace over time is difficult. After years of oppression, it is not surprising that
the movement for LGBTQ rights is one of slow and steady progress. As previously
mentioned, the United States was fairly late compared to similar nations in updating
laws regarding homosexual sex and other LGBTQ rights. According to Dawn Baunach, a
Georgia State University sociologist, this is part of a gradual shift. “For decades, the
dominant perspective for gays and gay rights was one of criminality and immorality,
but once the U.S. Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws in 2003, decades later than

13. Gilmore 12
many other advanced industrialized nations, that approach has weakened” (Baunach
2011, 359). Although the relationship between laws and public opinion is intended to
be reciprocal through fair political representation, laws go a long way toward
institutionalizing progressive social action. In regard to the institution of same-sex
marriage and other LGBTQ focused movements, continuing to update these laws for
equality will help address this particular driver of the conflict. Without the full support
of our nation’s most powerful legal institutions, change will be difficult for citizens to
fully digest.
Combatting these Drivers
When considering the aforementioned long-term drivers of LGBTQ conflict, a
two-pronged solution is likely the most effective plan to comprehensively address the
issue. The legal realm needs to keep pace with the advancement of same-sex marriage
rights, and people need to become aware of and familiar with real LGBTQ people and
their stories in order to understand the weight and the reality of these issues (Baunach
2011; King 2010; Moscowitz 2010). If these two strategies are effectively employed
and the media supports this fresh angle, many of these drivers will begin to dissipate.
Although this is a lofty plan, especially calling on the media to reshape its traditionally
polarized message, this is what will help expedite the fight for equality in the United
States.

14. Gilmore 13
Looking toward a less Heteronormative Future
In conclusion, although the drivers of LGBTQ-related conflict in the United
States are deeply rooted and complex, they can be identified and addressed with
intentional, persistent efforts. However, there are definite areas of improvement in
regard to demographic categories of public opinion and the inclusion of all types of
LGBTQ people. While working to secure these rights for non-conforming sexual
identities, the groups that receive less positive attention, such as bisexual and
transgender individuals, need to be further researched and advocated for. Througha
combination of these directives, there can be lasting social peace and legal equality for
LGBTQ Americans.

15. Gilmore 14
References
Baunach, Dawn Michelle. 2011. “Decomposing Trends in Attitudes Toward Gay
Marriage, 1988-2006.” Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell) 92, no. 2: 346
363. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, EBSCOhost.
Chamie, Joseph, and Barry Mirkin. 2011. “Same-Sex Marriage: A New Social
Phenomenon.” Population and Development Review 37, no. 3: 529-51. JSTOR.
Freedom to Marry. 2014. “History and Timeline of the Freedom to Marry in the United
States.” Last modified October 6.
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/history-and-timeline-of-marriage.
Keethaponcalan, S. I. 2010. “Non-Violent Spoiling: The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna and
the Peace Process in Sri Lanka.” Journal of History and Social Sciences 1, no. 1: 1
12.
King, Kathleen P. 2010. “A Personal Journey into Gay Marriage in a Heteronormative
Society: Or...How Many Times Do We Have to Get ‘Married’ in Order to Have Our
Rights in the USA?" New Horizons In Adult Education & Human Resource
Development 24, no. 1: 71-77. Education Source, EBSCOhost.
Maslow, A.H. 1943. A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review 50, no. 4:
370–96.
Moscowitz, Leigh M. 2010. “Gay Marriage in Television News: Voice and Visual
Representation in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate.” Journal Of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media 54, no. 1: 24-39. Communication & Mass Media Complete,
EBSCOhost.
Nie, Martin. 2003. “Drivers of Natural Resources-Based Political Conflict.” Policy
Science 36, no. 3/4: 307-341.
Salka, William, and Raymond Burnett. 2012. “Determinants of Electoral Support for
Anti-Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendments: An Examination of Ballot Issues
in California and Florida.” Sexuality & Culture 16, no. 1: 59-75. Academic Search
Premier, EBSCOhost.
Stoddard, Thomas, and Bruce Fein. 1990. “Gay Marriage.” ABA Journal 76, no. 1: 42.
Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost.