scholarly journals Rhetorical Strategies in Legal Argumentation. Some remarks on the recent decisions of the Portuguese Tribunal Constitucional and the Italian Corte Costituzionale on same-sex marriage

2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni Damele

Legal argumentation is usually considered the more formal (or, at least, formalistic) kind of practical argumentation, thanks to the long tradition of “legal syllogism” as its formal instrument, but also to its legal restraint (the formalistic aspect). Yet, in arguments such as those used, for example, by high courts in their justifications, we may find not only strict formalism and adherence to the letter of the law, but also the attempt to resolve differences of opinion and conflicts of interest, and perhaps also the rhetorical attempt to persuade the legal community, the legislator or even public opinion of the soundness of the court’s decision. But there could be more than that.

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 237802311772765 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Rosenfeld

Most public opinion attitudes in the United States are reasonably stable over time. Using data from the General Social Survey and the American National Election Studies, I quantify typical change rates across all attitudes. I quantify the extent to which change in same-sex marriage approval (and liberalization in attitudes toward gay rights in general) are among a small set of rapid changing outliers in surveyed public opinions. No measured public opinion attitude in the United States has changed more and more quickly than same-sex marriage. I use survey data from Newsweek to illustrate the rapid increase in the 1980s and 1990s in Americans who had friends or family who they knew to be gay or lesbian and demonstrate how contact with out-of-the-closet gays and lesbians was influential. I discuss several potential historical and social movement theory explanations for the rapid liberalization of attitudes toward gay rights in the United States, including the surprising influence of Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign.


Author(s):  
Stephen Macedo

This chapter considers the main arguments raised by conservatives against same-sex marriage and gay rights more generally. Defenders of same-sex marriage acknowledge the fact that marriage is in many ways a conservative institution. Libertarians, liberationists, and some liberals doubt that marriage is fair given the diversity of people's conceptions of meaning and value in life. Many adopt an unnecessarily critical posture toward civil marriage. This chapter offers a sympathetic account of marriage that recognizes the importance for many people of marital commitment while also honoring, and indeed helping to secure, the equal liberty and fairness prized by liberals. It shows that the debate over gay rights has been shaped by the repeated articulation of a demand for public reasons and evidence to justify the shape of the law touching on gay rights and marriage. The demand for reasons was laid down by the dissenters in Bowers v. Hardwick (1987).


The differences between states and within states are profound, and while that has long been true, it is much more consequential to LGBT individuals since the legalization of same-sex marriage. Social change relating to LGBT issues were originally addressed in a 1997 article written by Thomas Stoddard titled “Bleeding Heart: Reflections on Using the Law to Make Social Change.” This chapter uses his framework and examines legislative responses to the legalization of same-sex marriage focusing on place.


Culture shifts relating to LGBT rights were originally addressed in a 1997 article written by Thomas Stoddard titled “Bleeding Heart: Reflections on Using the Law to Make Social Change.” This chapter uses his framework for social change and examines how rule shifting and cultural shifts interact with the legalization of same-sex marriage.


2006 ◽  
Vol 87 (2) ◽  
pp. 340-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura R. Olson ◽  
Wendy Cadge ◽  
James T. Harrison

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 421-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stella C Chia

Abstract Incorporating the spiral of silence theory and the model of corrective behavior, this study utilized a national survey (N = 373) to investigate the questions of who chooses to speak out on social networking sites (SNSs) and for what reasons in the context of same-sex marriage in Taiwan. Strong partisans were found the most outspoken; they spoke out to prevent media influence that might sway public opinion to the disagreeable side. Only respondents of low attitude extremity would refrain themselves from speaking out on SNSs when perceiving opinion incongruence. Nonpartisans who held a neutral stand could be motivated to speak out when perceiving majority’s support for same-sex marriage. The roles that opinion stances or attitude extremity each play in public opinion process online are discussed.


2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 620
Author(s):  
Timbo Mangaranap Sirait

Diskursus hubungan antara hukum dengan “moral” dan “fakta” selalu saja menarik untuk dibahas di kalangan sarjana hukum. Hukum kodrat irrasional adalah teori hukum besar yang pertama yang cara pandangnya theocentris mengakui bahwa hukum bersumber dari “moralitas” Tuhan YME. Derivasi nilai moral universal ternyata semakin bermetamorfosa dalam berbagai fenomena kehidupan kemudian dituntut agar diperlakukan setara di hadapan hukum. Di berbagai belahan dunia, Gerakan LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Biseksual, dan Transgender) dengan perjuangan perkawinan sesama jenis berkembang semakin luas dan telah memfalsifikasi dominasi perkawinan kodrati heteroseksual. Untuk itu, perlu ditilik secara reflektif filosofis akseptabilitas Konstitusi Indonesia atas perkawinan sesama jenis ini. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan metode pendekatan yuridis normatif melalui cara berpikir deduktif dengan kriterium kebenaran koheren. Sehingga disimpulkan: pertama, kritikan hukum kodrat irrasional yang teosentris terhadap perkawinan sesama jenis, menganggap bahwa sumber hukum adalah “moral” bukan “fakta”, oleh karenanya aturan perundang-undangan dipositifkan dari/dan tidak boleh bertentangan dengan moral Ketuhanan. Oleh karena itu, menurut hukum kodrat irrasional perkawinan sesama jenis tidak mungkin dapat diterima dalam hukum karena bertentangan dengan moralitas Ketuhanan Y.M.E. Kedua, bahwa Konstitusi Indonesia menempatkan Pancasila sebagai grundnorm dengan sila Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa menjadi fondasi dan bintang pemandu pada Undang-undang Perkawinan Indonesia, yang intinya perkawinan harus antara pria dan wanita (heteroseksual) dengan tujuan membentuk keluarga (rumah tangga). Perkawinan sesama jenis juga tidak dapat diterima karena ketidakmampuan bentuk perkawinan ini untuk memenuhi unsur-unsur utama perkawinan, untuk terjaminnya keberlangsungan kemanusiaan secara berkelanjutan (sustainable).The discourse of relationships between law, moral and facts are always interesting to be discussed among legal scholars. Irrational natural law is the first major legal theory that which theocentris worldview admit that the law derived from the “morality” of the God. The derivation of universal moral values appear increasingly metamorphosed into various life phenomena then are required to be treated equally before the law. In different parts of the world the movement LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) struggle for same-sex marriage has grown falsified domination of heterosexual marriage. Therefore it is necessary be a reflective philosophical divine the acceptability of the Constitution of Indonesia on same-sex marriage. This research was conducted by the method of normative juridical approach, in the frame of a coherent deductive acknowledgement. Concluded, Firstly, criticism Irrational natural law against same-sex marriage, assume that the source of the law is a “moral” rather than “facts”, therefore the rules of law are made of / and should not contradict with the morals of God. Therefore, according to irrational natural law that same-sex marriage may not be accepted in law as contrary to morality God. Secondly, That the Constitution of Indonesia puts Pancasila as the basic norms to please Almighty God be the foundation and a guiding star in the Indonesian Marriage Law, which is essentially a marriage should be between a man and a woman (heterosexual) with purpose of forming a family. Same-sex marriage is not acceptable also because of the inability to fulfill marriage form of the major elements of marriage, ensuring the sustainability of humanity in a sustainable manner.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document