Running head ANNOTATED BIBLIPOGRAPHY1ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY.docx
- 1. Running head: ANNOTATED BIBLIPOGRAPHY 1 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 6 Annotated bibliography Fai Alshammari Joanne greenbaum Read290 4/10/2015 Name Fai Source 1 “A Contentious Debate: Same-Sex Marriage in the U.S.” is a research paper submitted by the PEW research center on July 9, 2009.( Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project, 2009) Authors credentials purpose and audience The author, David Masci, is a senior research fellow at Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. The purpose of his paper is to give an overview of the current state of gay marriage in the U.S. the paper’s target audience is the general American population. Content summary The report seeks to address current and past efforts by members on both sides of the divide- those for and against same-sex marriage. As of 2009 10 states had legislation legalizing same- sex marriage while 29 states had legislation prohibiting the same. The big win for the proponents came as President’s Barack Obama grant of family medical leave and other benefits to the same-sex partners of federal workers. (Goldberg, 2008) The author deems the battle to have been won by the supporters of same-sex marriage. This is supported by California Supreme Court’s decision on May 2009 to uphold Proposition 8
- 2. constitutionality. (Masci, 2009) Article evaluation States passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defined marriage as union between one man and one woman. This was asserted in 1996 when Congress passed a federal DOMA that stated that no state should be compelled to recognize a same-sex union performed in another state. Same-sex marriage supporters argue on the basis of non-discrimination and equality while those who oppose cite the social impact of legalization (Masci, 2009). Article reflection As a reflection, public polls and surveys conducted in the past few years indicate that the majority of Americans oppose the legalization of gay marriage. The biggest opposing faction is religious groups. The ratios, however, have been shifting in favor of the supporters. This may represent an ideological change amongst Americans and a turning point for the nation. discussion The road ahead seems that the debate on same-sex marriage will remain a hotly contested issue. The best course of action is to have a committee review the stand on same-sex marriage objectively and inclusively to come up with a position that will be the position of the American people. Name Fai Source 2 “Gay marriage showdown” is a scholarly article by Kenneth Jost published on the CQ Researcher on September 26, 2008. Authors credentials purpose and audience The author Kenneth Jost is an adjunct professor at Harvard College and Georgetown University Law Center. He has authored The Supreme Court Yearbook and is the editor of The Supreme Court from A to Z. the author wishes to discuss same- sex marriage legalization in different states with the residents
- 3. and legislators in these states. Content summary The paper addresses the looming showdown between proponents and opposes same-sex marriage. It recounts the victory of those pushing for equal rights for same-sex marriage as those of opposite-sex couples. The summary expresses the proponents as the winners but emphasizes the resolve of the opposing council to not rest till the current laws has been repealed. The summary is brief but precise, offering a clear insight as to the subject matter. Article evaluation The author’s evaluation of the issues raised is critical. To support his claims is the current legislation in 10 states where same-sex marriage has been legalized. However as of the 2010 census, the U.S Census Bureau did not recognize same-sex couples (Murray, 2008). The chronology of events that led up to the current standoff are outlined. Principal among them is the fallacy that associated AIDS with same-sex marriage leading to legislation that illegalized it in 1970(Jost, 2008). Article reflection It is important to note that the continuous upheaval regarding the matter is detrimental to the nation. Tyler Clementi’s suicide is but an example. The prolonged court cases such as that of DOMA that was before the Boston appeal court need to be resolved. discussion the debate on same-sex marriage just heated up some more with the input of the presidency and the hardline stand of most of the religious groups. The appropriate course of action is to have a committee review the stand on same-sex marriage objectively and inclusively to come up with a position that will be the position of the American people thus putting the whole issue to rest. References
- 4. Jost, kenneth,. (2008). CQ Press: CQ Researcher Gay Marriage Showdown v.18-33, Kenneth Jost. Retrieved 9 April 2015, from http://www.cqpress.com/product/Researcher-Gay-Marriage- Showdown-v18.html murray, m. (2008). PSLweb.org: U.S. Census Bureau refuses to recognize same-sex marriages. Www2.pslweb.org. Retrieved 10 April 2015, from http://www2.pslweb.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr009=w28k y7c1f4.app1b&page=NewsArticle&id=9588&news_iv_ctrl=1261 Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project,. (2009). A Contentious Debate: Same-Sex Marriage in the U.S.. Retrieved 10 April 2015, from http://www.pewforum.org/2009/07/09/a-contentious-debate- same-sex-marriage-in-the-us/ Masci, D. (2009). A Contentious Debate: Same-Sex Marriage in the U.S.. Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project. Retrieved 10 April 2015, from http://www.pewforum.org/2009/07/09/a-contentious-debate- same-sex-marriage-in-the-us/ Goldberg, N. G., Ramos, C., Badgett, M. V. L., & Williams Institute (University of California, Los Angeles. School of Law). (2008). The fiscal impact of extending federal benefits to same-sex domestic partners. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute, University of California, UCLA, School of Law. One Source -Source: Case, K. c., & Stewart, B. (2010). Heterosexual Privilege Awareness, Prejudice, and Support of Gay Marriage Among Diversity Course Students. College Teaching, 58(1), 3- 7. The basis of this article is that their needs to be more diversity when it comes to courses such as race and gender classes and schools need to implement courses on support for same sex
- 5. marriages. Race and gender course students experienced a shift to less prejudice against lesbians and gay men, but a comparison group is needed to determine if this result is unique to students ex- posed to LGBT content. Further examination of students’ heterosexual privilege awareness, prejudice against lesbians and gay men, and support for same-sex marriage rights is needed to clarify the roles of diversity courses in student learning. The article has a lot of quantitative and qualitative data when it comes toHeterosexual Privilege Awareness, Prejudice, and Support of Gay Marriage Among Diversity Course Students. She seems very credible and she cites many experts in the queer field. She does omit the impact that parents would have if these classes were to be implemented in schools across America. This article is very relevant since gay marriage is becoming more widely accepted in society today. The article flowed and was very easy to understand and read. The bias of implementing these classes into today’s education was very prominent. I enjoyed reading the perspective of this article. I found it very useful to apply to this project and just daily life in general. It opened my eyes to the fact that we as college students should have the option to take these classes and become more educated on gay marriage. Possibly then it could open close-minded people’s idea on gay marriage and help us all end the prejudice against them. I agree with Case’s conclusion that we should have these certain classes because I think it will create a better school environment. I would help try and get these classes into our education. Possibly taking polls for those who support it and sending it into schools that accept these kinds of programs. First starting out small maybe in cities but then trying to reach people on a national level.
- 6. Crystal Hoang Reading 290 April 17, 2015 STODDARD, T. (1990). Gay marriage - yes - marriage is a fundamental right. Aba Journal, 76, 42. There are two authors: Thomas Stoddard and Bruce Fein. Stoddard is the executive director of a gay rights organization called Lambda Legal Defense Education Fund and Fein is a lawyer in constitutional and international law. Stoddard’s purpose is to explain to the reader that gay marriage should be allowed. His audience is supporters of gay rights and people who do not agree with gay marriage. On the other hand, Fein’s purpose is to show how gay marriage is more threatening than it is helpful. His audience is lawmakers and supporters of gay rights. In this article, the debate over the legalization of gay marriage is discussed. The side supporting gay marriage states that it should be an individual right, not government right. The government should extend the rights for gay marriage. The opposing side states that marriage should only be allowed for heterosexual couples. The reason is that a child benefits more from heterosexual marriages where he/she can learn different things from each gender and be a balanced member of society. Both sides agree that legal issues regarding homosexuality should be examined in order to balance individual freedoms with general interest. There are indeed fallacies in this article, such as wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is the assumption that if x is true, then y is true. In the article, Stoddard states that if gays are not given the right to marry than it can directly lead to the suffering of others. He is very vague on his meaning of suffering. There
- 7. could have been more evidence in this article. However, the author brought up a story that helped his support in favor of gay marriage and gave good factual evidence by bringing up the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia. This evidence is reliable because it is historical evidence. However, the writer also brings up how not giving people the right to marry who they want can be detrimental which is unreliable evidence because it is biased and does not include any factual evidence. The strengths of the article were how they gave two sides to the debate and the pros and cons for each. Another strength was how the writers both brought up different court cases to explain the legal issue of homosexuals. Some weaknesses in the article were instances where the writers brought up very biased opinions about the effects of allowing gay marriage. There was no factual back up to explain. I did come to the same conclusion as the author because I agree that we should examine each side and balance it with a solution to benefit individual right and help with society’s interests. This would be a fair way to come up with As a whole, this article inspired me to take a look at past court cases and how they were dealt with in order to understand the thought process during this time. As an advocate for change I would like to actively discuss the issues with other activists and peers to see other opinions to this issue, and develop some solutions. Source: Clarke, V. (2003). Lesbian and Gay Marriage: Transformation or Normalization? Feminism & Psychology 13(4), 519-529. doi: 10.1177/09593535030134016 Annotation:
- 8. Victoria Clarke is an associate professor of sexuality studies and teaches about LGBTQ psychology, human sexuality, and gender at the University of the West of England. The purpose of this publication is to analyze various arguments facing the lesbian and gay community for the academic world of professors, college students, etc. Throughout her essay, Clarke challenged different arguments raised by various authors of several publications. For example in the argument of domestic partnerships acting as an alternative to marriage, Eskridge outlines a ‘menu’ of different partnership recognition options available in the US and in Europe and how it can pave the way for same-sex marriage in the future. Clarke deconstructed Eskridge’s argument but ultimately agreeing that his perspective could possibility benefit social injustices towards the LGBTQ community.The author concluded in favor of same-sex marriage because countries such as the Netherlands and Belgium recognize same-sex marriage and provide the same benefits and responsibilities as heterosexual marriages. From this reasoning, the author supported her conclusion with the assumption that because other countries agree with her viewpoint, other western countries such as England and the United States should do the same. One of the only fallacies used in the essay involves ambiguous language during the last paragraph where Clarke writes, “Given this rapidly shifting legal terrain, I am disappointed that the marriage debate appears only to be populated by a liberal orthodoxy.” Here, Clarke fails to define what this ‘liberal orthodoxy’ actually is. The entire text uses a wide variety of reliable evidence covering different perspectives in order to ultimately support the author’s conclusion. The information is neither overstated nor simplified, while also not have a bias for the topic. The source is slightly dated, but the information presented is still relevant regardless.
- 9. The main strength of the article was that it covered different viewpoints of the topic of same-sex marriage providing the reader a wide range of perspectives. For myself, I came to same conclusion as the author and found that her conclusion was justified and reasonable. The information presented in the topic did not change my initial viewpoint, but it simply added more evidence to validate that viewpoint, with an example being where Clarke describes Eskridge’s argument. Overall, the article was very useful as it helped me understand more about the issues facing same-sex marriage. As an advocate regarding this issue, I will try to inform people around me about the different issues that the LGBTQ community in hopes of having them better understand their struggles without seeing the community in a negative light. While doing so, I will try to be considerate of their viewpoints if they differ from my own in order to create a useful dialogue to discuss the issue. In addition, I could advocate for change regarding the issue by starting a dialogue with people with different viewpoints on the issue itself. Educating myself more about the issue can contribute to better conversations that could potentially lead to a better understanding about the different perspectives on the topic at hand. Step 4: Collaborative Modified Annotated Bibliography During Week 12, you will be collaborating with your group to combine your research. Your group product must include research that represents more than one perspective on the issue and at least one entry prepared by each group member. You may choose the strongest entry from each group members’ first
- 10. draft and revise it based on the feedback that was received from your critic. The number of entries in your final project should match the number of people in your group (if each member contributes at least one entry). Your final draft must also include at least 3 scholarly sources.Keep in mind, that in APA format, entries should be listed in alphabetical order based on the last name of the author. The MAB will be due on Friday and should be submitted on the Read 290 course site. The MAB will be evaluated using the following rubric. All members of the group will receive the same grade, so be sure that you truly collaborate, which includes proofreading each other’s’ contributions to the final product.
- 11. Rubric for Paper 2 – Modified Annotated Bibliography Above Standard (20 – 16) Meets Standard (15 – 10) Below Standard (9-0) Sources All sources used are credible and cited correctly using APA format. At least 3 scholarly sources are included. The name of the group member who contributed each entry is provided. Most sources used are credible and cited correctly. At least 2 scholarly sources are included. The name of the group member who contributed each entry is provided. Many sources are suspect and / or not cited correctly. One or no scholarly sources are included. The name of the group member who contributed each entry is not provided. Analysis Well –written summaries that include the author’s credentials, purpose and audience as well as the author’s conclusion, major reasons and assumptions regarding the topic. Adequately written summaries, or ones that include most of the following: author’s credentials, purpose and audience as well as the author’s conclusion, major reasons and assumptions regarding the topic. Poorly written summariesor ones that do not identify the author’s credentials, purpose or audience, and leave out significant parts of the author’s argument including conclusion, major reasons, and assumptions.
- 12. Evaluation Well-written evaluations of the articles that consider the reliability, bias, evidence and relevance to today’s society. Adequately written evaluations of the articles, or ones that consider some of the following criteria: reliability, bias, evidence and relevance to today’s society. Poorly written evaluations of the articles, or ones that do not consider most of the following criteria: reliability, bias, evidence and relevance to today’s society. Reflection Well-written and thoughtful reflections on the strengths, weaknesses, usefulness and effects of the articles. Adequately written l reflections on the strengths, weaknesses, usefulness and effects of the articles. Poorly written reflections that do not include all or most of the articles’ strengths, weaknesses, usefulness and effects. Action Well-written descriptions of appropriate actions that are inspired by the article. Explanations of how to be an advocate for change regarding the topic. Adequately written descriptions of some actionsregarding the topic that may affect change. Poorly written descriptions and explanations regarding actions related to the topic that may or may not affect change.