Maurice's barbaric YAWP

Legalizing Same-sex Marriage in Chinese Societies:
A Question of Legal Pluralism, Social Norms or “Habitus”?

Maurice Hong-Cheng Chang*


I. Introduction: The “Passion” of the Cut Sleeve

The traditional Chinese lifestyle of male love can be traced back to four thousands years ago, the time of the “Yellow Emperor,” as Chi Uing (1724-1805 A.D.), a famous folk story author and politician in the Ching Dynasty, reported in his book.[1] Nevertheless, the earliest trustworthy surveys of poetic anthologies during the Chou dynasty (1122-256 B.C.), Shih-Gin (“The Classic of Odes”) present several poems which imply a kind of love, or at least a strong emotional bond, between two males. Official Chinese historical records also indicate that during the “Spring-Autumn, Warring States” eras and dynasties of Chin and Han (770 B.C.- 24 A.D.), “male love” was not considered either criminal or immoral by society even after the first law criminalizing sodomy was enacted in the Middle of Ching dynasty (1734 A.D.).[2] Actually, the attitude for homosexuals in the imperial China can be perfectly described as the story of Emperor Ai (6 B.C.-1 A.D.) of the Han dynasty and his male lover, Dong Shian.[3] The “Passion” of the Cut Sleeve documents that throughout later Chinese literature there are numerous references to the cut sleeve as a means of signifying a strong devotion to a male friend —a homosexual love with societal recognition and acceptance.[4]

In this essay, I argue that “homosexuality” in the contemporary Chinese socio-cultural environment does not completely indicate a catalog of sexual identity, rather a parallel lifestyle in imperial Chinese society. The relationship between male loves is tolerated in the family and society as if the basic obligations under renlun —the behavior norms based on kinship and geographical relationships— are fulfilled. By illustrating a cultural and historical context in which male love develops and family relationship constructs, I also argue that the proposal of legal recognition of same-sex partnership in Taiwan has to face the present challenges from Confucianism and Taoism, which play an indirect but decisively significant role in law-making and legal interpretation. By learning from the Taiwanese lesson, I will point out that legalizing same-sex marriage in Asian countries should pay more attention to legal pluralism[5] —the paradox between formal and informal law— and social norm discourses, or maybe more importantly, through the lenses of Bourdieu’s notion of symbolic capital and habitus.

II. Welcome to the Family: Legal Positivism of Internationalization of Same-Sex Marriage

In October 2003, it was reported that the Taiwanese Government was preparing legislation to legitimize gay unions. If the law was passed it would have made Taiwan the first country in Asia to recognize same-sex partnerships. However, the proposal was like a stone disappearing into the water. With the sharing of the Chinese culture, and the better reservation and protection of it than in Mainland China and Hong Kong, this Taiwanese proposal reflected few radical changes in the Chinese legal culture, social norms and family structures.

A. Towards A Strong “Legal Positivism”?

In the proposal for Basic Law on Protection of Human Rights, Article 24 reads:

“The State should respect rights and interests of the homosexuals. (I)
Lesbians and Gay Men may legally organize the family and adopt the children in accordance with law. (II)” (Emphasis added)

This draft Act, namely “Basic Law” on Protection of Human Rights that generally have embodied in the Constitution was just a proposal by the Ministry of Justice. It did not pass the scrutiny of the Executive Yuan (Taiwan’s Cabinet). That means that this proposal was not even a “bill” being submitted to the Legislative Yuan (Taiwan’s Parliament) to review. Therefore, it is impossible as the news reported, that the bill would be reviewed by the Parliament on December 2003. Moreover, the characteristic of the proposal is just a “solemn proclamation,” a political slogan. No doubt it expressed the Taiwanese government’s ambition to take the human rights of lesbians and gay men seriously. It could even be seen as a test of the public preferences.

The proposal was also a good point from which gay rights activists in Taiwan could claim the legality of same-sex marriage. The push for civil unions for gay couples -- a sensitive issue in the United States of America, where most states have enacted laws defining marriage as a union of a man and woman -- has stirred little political opposition in Taiwan. The lack of controversy is not surprising in a conservative Chinese society where most gay men and lesbians stay in the closet to avoid upsetting their parents and family networks. From the legal perspective, I have critiqued in my book[6] that the proposal was beautiful but meaningless, because there is no regulation at this moment which depicts these rights to be in accordance with “law.” In other words, the so-called “Basic Law” itself does not empower lesbians and gay men with substantial rights. Alas, it still needs to revise the relevant laws, such as Civil Code, or, as I supposed, to legalize same-sex partnerships through judicial interpretation. However, Confucianism and Taoism not only influence the conduct and behaviour in Chinese society, but also determine to what judges think about the law and other legal ideas. This conception of same-sex partnership with the approach of legal positivism is problematic because the role of legal norm is less influential in Chinese societies. The difference of normative structure can be easily found, for instance, in the judicial decision-making process.

B. What Judges Think about Law with their “Chinese Mind”?

Unlike the United States and a few European Countries, Taiwan has no legislation criminalizing homosexual sex activity or homosexuals themselves. There is also no tradition of legal discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (there is a different situation in Hong Kong). Also, the Civil Code regarding marriage law in Taiwan does not embody a strict definition of “marriage” and “spouse” like that found within the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) of the United States in 1996. Without these legal restrictions, the judicial and administrative authorities in Taiwan can exercise discretion that is without mention in legislation. Indeed, there are positive interpretations from administrative authorities on issues of family violence and the labor rights of gay men. But in several cases which challenged the constitutionality of prohibition of same-sex marriage before the court, the judges surprisingly cited the non-legal idea from I-Gin (“The Book of Changes”) and overruled the claim. The court held that “[t]here are heaven and earth, yin and yang, men and women, husband and wife, and all of these constitute the world. Therefore, as to marriage, it should combine a husband and a wife, a man and a woman.”[7] This is just a example to show how the Chinese, including ordinary citizens and professionals, think and act in the society. There are other values and preferences outside the scope of legal norms, which affect their behaviors and decision making.

III. Love between Males: Sexual Identity and Social Norm

The noun of “Homosexualtät” was created by an Austrian doctor, Karl Maria Kertbeny/Benkert in 1869.[8] The noun “homosexual” is denoted a male who have sex with males, and “homosexuality” is denoted such activity and erotic attraction for members of the same sex generally. The idea of “lesbian” was not indicated under this definition. In the eighteenth century the sexual behavior between two persons of the same sex was solely a problem of “law.” The same-sex behavior could be just a problem of “morality” and be practiced silently in the society, but it would be never to indicate the “identity” of the specific social group. This was a religious intolerance that was expanded to secular society and medical scientific research with the raising of the Indusial Revolution.[9] After Benkert’s creation of the word to distinguish social identities, Michel Foucault indicated that homosexuals became a new “creature/mankind.”[10] In other words, what homosexuals feel and learn is actually constructed by the “western” society. People are now even welcome to use this concept, no matter “homosexual,” “gay,” “lesbian,” or “queer” to identify themselves by their sexualities or sexual orientation. Such usage automatically assumes that a fundamental social identity based on the sex of a person’s object of desire has always and everywhere existed and been experienced in the same way. However, there is a very distinctive view of social identity in ancient and imperial Chinese society where the social behavior is based on Confucian idea of renlun and Taoism’s distinguishing of yin-yang.

A. Social Identity Based on “Renlun” and “Yin-Yang,” not Sexuality

The Chinese deal with their social relationships and evaluate the behaviors of others in accordance with renlun, which is based on kinship and geographical relationships. There are family rules, village rules, customs rules and other unwritten rules based on relationships or connections, such as same origins or classmates, which may constitute renlun as well. In short, there are five basic relationships in Chinese society under Confucianism: between ruler and subject, father and son, husband and wife, elder brother and younger brother, and that between friends. The social identity comes from which relationship one person stays with and, in turn, constructs his obligations under that specific identity.

If the idea of renlun under Confucianism is the conduct code or guidelines for social behaviours, the concept of Yin-Yang under Taoism constructs the worldview and lifestyle of people in imperial China. Taoism emphasizes distinguishing and maintaining the balances between yin and yang. Everything in the world is characterized of yin and yang. Women are regarded as yin and men as yang. The “combination” of women and men is the balance of yin and yang and seemed as the harmony of Tai-Chi. Under this ideal model, the point is the combination between yin and yang, not necessary to be a man and a woman. Although each man is regarded as yang (men, masculine), every man somehow has some “spirits” of yin (women, feminine) in him too. This is also true for a woman. This is because the balance of yin and yang and the harmony of tai-chi not only exist separately in men and women, but should also be balanced and harmonized in the same person. The idea is just like the spectrum of yin and yang. Some men can have much yin in them. So, the presence of some feminine behavior is not viewed as unnatural for men. The point is the natural balance of yin and yang, and therefore it can be regarded as something very natural in the case of a man with much yang and a man with much yin. It explains why in imperial Chinese society, legal and literary tests strongly suggests that desire for another male in and of itself seems to have carried little significance for popular attitude and none at all in law -- as showed in Picture 1 --, if this desire is fulfilled of the obligations of the renlun. This can explain why gay marriage generates far less political heat in Taiwan than it does in the United States. And there is little or no “gay-bashing” in Taiwan, where overtly violent crimes of any type based on stereotypes to homosexuals (so-called “hate crimes”) are less common than in the United States.

Picture 1: This desire between men within marriage is truly indicated in the left picture: young men sipping tea, reading poetry, and making love. It often happened to the situation between masters and servants on the way to Beijing for the examination of selecting officials. The servants are usually male teenagers who functionalize as the carriers and “substitute way of sex” for masters, because they had to obey the loyalty to renlun with their wives. Another similar situation also happened in Taiwan in seventeenth century, while the Chinese from Mainland immigrated into Taiwan, the Ching dynasty government had a strict limit that relatively few females may tide over the Taiwan Strait to the Taiwan Island. This limitation resulted in the sexual imbalance in the society of Taiwan then. It was reported then that men were commonly engaged in same-sex relationships.

B. Social tolerance in Public Sphere, not in Private Arena

The tolerance of male love in Chinese society can be described as “tolerance from a distance under renlun.” For the classic Chinese social and legal system, the boundary of the private arena constituted by Confucian’s “Li” (ritual relationship according to renlun, the norm of FAMILY) is bigger than that of the public sphere established by Legalist School’s “Fa” (law, or the norm of family).[11] The relationship or love between males only become a social problem if it enters to the private arena. In other words, even with the enactment of laws the criminalizing sodomy in the middle of the Ching dynasty, the imperial Chinese society still sees the male love relationships with a very tolerant attitude, sometimes even celebrating this kind of relationship. However, in the process of modernization on the basis of the values and norms of “Westernization,” identity politics, which is used as a powerful argument in the international gay rights movements, is also essentially important to the debate in Chinese society.

In the present heterosexual-centered patriarchal society of Taiwan, the term “homosexual” itself, which conceals a negative concept and a taboo, is rarely spoken. In order to avoid this distance and taboo, lesbians and gay men in Chinese society trickily use the word “tongzhi” -- literally, “comrade” -- as the slang term for homosexuals. It can also be seen that lesbians and gay men in Taiwan try to get rid of this “western identity” based on sexual orientation. Despite the obvious irony of using a communist form of address in staunchly capitalist Taiwan, “tongzhi” quickly took root. People feel that it is comfortable and symbolic to say tongzhi; the idea of being together and following the same direction -- as with Bourdieu’s notion of symbolic capital, the power to define. Lesbians and gay men in Taiwan now are willing to identify themselves by using the term tongzhi, rather than homosexuals, a word associated with stereotype and discrimination.

The paradox is that the society of Taiwan is generally tolerant, or at least indifferent, to homosexuality in public; but when it comes to individual cases and family members, parents of homosexuals are afraid of losing face with their neighbors. Although there is a tradition of homo-eroticism in Chinese art and literatures, the vast majority of gays and lesbians in Taiwan remain in the closet for fear of scandalizing co-workers or rupturing relationships with their parents. At twice gay pride parades held in Taipei on November 2003 and 2004, hundreds of participants still wore masks to conceal their identities. Wearing masks is a very clear sign that lesbians and gay men in Taiwan are still influenced by Chinese culture and under its binding. Coming out of the closet can be costly in terms of personal and professional ties under the Chinese thought of renlun. The family, kinship community and society ignore lesbian and gay men; they do not admit that there are lesbians and gay men existing in society.

C. The Chinese Style “Gordian Knot”: Reproduction Obligation on “Men” to their Families under Shiao

Most pressure on lesbians and gay men in Taiwan comes from their families. They are afraid of coming out to their parents because they will cut the blood-tie relationship. Parents want their children to marry and generate offspring. Some are just uncomfortable with homosexuality, viewing it as abnormal. The stereotypes of homosexuality come from the western knowledge of medical science.[12] People in Taiwan, no matter what their sexual orientation, think homosexuality is a mental disorder and illness. When homosexuals come out to their parents and friends, they are either suggested or forced to see psychologists. Homosexuals are prohibited to donate blood[13] and are sometimes forced to undertake blood testing[14] for AIDS and HIV because they are seen as high risk targets for AIDS.[15] Some lesbians and gay men and their parents play a game of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the family. Parents are also afraid of finding out the “truth,” because they still hope that their children will turn to heterosexuality, get married and have children. For lesbians and gay men in the Chinese society, it is also the duty of shiao to their parents and families. For Chinese society it is like a family tree. People have to carry on the “family tree,” because the duty of shiao to parents continues even when they are dead. If children are lesbians and gay men, the tree will die. It cannot be overcome or justified by the development on new technology such as artificial insemination or adoption. In Chinese culture, kinship, the blood-tie from both of parent, is more important than having offspring. As Confucius said,

“Lead the people with governmental measures and regulate them with laws and punishment, and they will avoid wrongdoing but will have no sense of honor and shame. Lead them with virtue and regulate them by the rules of propriety, and they will have a sense of shame and, moreover, set themselves right.”

It is only if Chin (“human relations”) and Li (“reasons”) accept the same-sex partnerships that Fa (“law”) could be changed, implemented, and legitimately accepted. Simply changing the law or creating a new legislation without addressing the importance of chin and li are futile. Even if law recognizes the legality of same-sex marriage, few same-sex couples would get married under the legal protection because they would be condemned and isolated by their families, or at worst they would completely lose their family network. Thus their renlun would be completely destroyed. As we have seen, the behavior norms in the Chinese society are not only based on legal norms, but also the natural norms, moral norms and social norms. When we discuss how to legalize same-sex marriage in the Chinese society, it is very important to consider how these different norms react and interact regarding to the issues. The ”norm” system of the Chinese society can be described graphically as follows:

Figure 1: The field of norms in the Chinese society



D. From the Recursivity of Norms to Habitus

In the normative structures, I see another dynamic relationship between norms, the recursivity of norms. In this field, even norms have their own ”norms” which compete with each other. In the recursivity of norms in Chinese society, the role of self is very important. That means there is little space for collective norms in the individual’s behaviour. The Chinese emphasize the process of self-reflection; the outside norms are a substitute for inside consciousness. With the Bourdieuian term, this is a habitus that is the internalized guiding for an individual’s behaviour, a practical sense of the game which is ”constructed throughout the agent’s particular and individual trajectory.”[16] If we agree that a norm is based on three premises of will, knowledge and possibilities,[17] how can we explain the situation in which the individual behaves with this practical sense? As I have mentioned above, the concepts of renlun or shiao could be defined as social norm in the perspective of society; however, from the individual’s point of view, the model of behaviours according to renlun or shiao are internalized within the sense of the person, a son, a father, the family or the marriage. As a son, you offer necessary support for your parents’ needs when they retire, which is without motives or other driving forces. The one who does not have any basic education knows how to treat with one’s parents. Even when there does not ”exist physical possibilities to undertake the intended action,” the Chinese son will still behave the same way. In this case, I could not see that the individual acts according to a norm, either moral or social.

Same-sex marriage is another example to explain this difference between norm and habitus. The habitus of lifestyle between same-sex couples can be referred to the preference for insertive anal intercourse and preference for receptive anal intercourse respectively. Psychologists usually dichotomize this division of sex roles as Top and Bottom -- between gay men, and Tomboy and Dyke -- between lesbians. Will Damon found trends that power motivations correlated with sex role preference: men who prefer insertive anal intercourse like to exert power over their sexual partners during sexual intercourse, while men who prefer receptive anal intercourse like to be overpowered.[18] In Bourdieusian terms, it reproduces the masculine domination in the relationship of gay men. There is a clear distinction between masculine “active” inserter and the feminine “passive” insertee, who regard their sexual and gender identity as a heterosexual man and woman respectively. This socially recognized separation between active and passive roles in sexual behaviors of gay men enables them to engage in the homosexual relation which satisfies a masculine “heterosexual” self-recognition. This cultural capital of the active inserter also leads some gay men to prefer insertive, rather than receptive, anal intercourse.

Further question may address the degree to which lesbians and gay men should or should not be like heterosexuals’ lifestyle and what that means about the relative social, political and cultural values and legitimacy of sexual difference. If lesbians and gay men obtain access to heterosexuals’ most cherished symbols, i.e. marriage and family, what will be changed? If lesbians and gay men finally live together like married heterosexuals, do they live according to the way that heterosexuals do, or will heterosexuals begin to live according to their own version of marriage? If we agree that love and intimacy, as cultural/social/sexual capital, are expressions of taste which reflect cultural values in our society, what kind of good taste lesbians and gay men have nowadays and in the Chinese society? Bourdieu’s theories may allow those of us who believe in romantic love between lesbians and gay men to cast new light on the debate of legalizing same-sex marriage.

V. Conclusion: Habitus beyond Norms

Global legal recognition of same-sex marriage nowadays in Asian countries is like the trend of legal pluralism noted in the conflict and integration between Western positive law and Asian indigenous law.[19] For the so-called “Great China,” on the one hand, the Chinese style of male loves in Confucianism and Taoism has developed a Chinese habitus for “homosexuals.” In the other hand, the concepts of human rights, constitutionalism and democracy are also rooted deeply in this area because of “modernization” and its dominant influence in law-making processes, e.g. Taiwan, Japan, Korea and so on. Also, Confucianism still plays an important role in these Asian societies. As Werner F. Menski concluded his analysis in Chinese legal system “any attempts by the state…[t]o determine people’s conduct through imposing codes from above …will only remain one of several influences on the consciences of individual Chinese people…[I]t is people in their specific socio-cultural environment that determine, in the first place, what kind of conduct they wish to pursue.”(Emphasis added)[20] Although the Taiwanese Government proposed to legalize the partnership between couples of same sex, the real challenge is to re-traditionalize the social attitude of loves between same sex, or at least reduce the western influence of sexual identity of “homosexuality.” Lesbians and gay men would not dare to tell their families about their sexual orientation, but rather spend all days worrying that they may accidentally be forced to “come out.” This is perhaps the last and biggest obstacle for legal recognition of same-sex marriage in Taiwan and other Chinese societies. If one cannot maintain a harmonic personal and social relationship within his/her FAMILY, i.e. renlun, and for the family to accept his/her same-sex partner before the couple get married, the legislation of same-sex marriage in Chinese context will always be “law on the books.” If so, this Western, legal-positivism based way of battling for gay rights and same-sex marriage will never win hearts in the Chinese societies.

References

Bell, Daniel A.. East Meets West: Human Rights and Democracy in East Asia. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.
Botha, Kevan & Cameron, Edwin. “Chapter One: South Africa,” in Sociolegal Control of Homosexuality: A Multi-Nation Comparison 5-42. Donald J. West & Richard Green eds.. New York: Plenum Press, 1997.
Chang, Hong-Cheng (Maurice). On Equal Protection for Lesbians and Gay Men. Sharing Culture Enterprise: Taipei, 2002. (In Chinese)
Ching, Julia. “Human Rights: A Valid Chinese Concept?,” in Confucianism and Human Rights 67-82. Theodore de Bary, Wm. & Tu, Weiming eds.. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998.
Chiu, Man-Chung. “‘Censorship = mission impossible?’: a postcolonial same sex erotic discourse on Hong Kong porn law,” 32(1) International Journal of Sociology of Law 39 (2004)
Chiu, Man-Chung (Andy). “Contextualising the Same-Sex Erotic Relationship: Post Colonial Tongzhi and Political Discourse on Marriage Law in Hong Kong and Mainland China,” in Robert Wintemute and Mads Andenæs eds, Legal Recognition of Same-sex Partnerships: A Study of Nationals, European and International Law 357-390. Hart Publishing: Portland, Oregon, 2001.
Hinsch, Bret. Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990.
Hydén, Håkan. Even a Stepchild Eventually Grows Up: On the Identity of Sociology of Law, 85 (2) Retfærd: Nordisk Juridisk Tidsskrift 71-80 (1999).
Madsen, Mikael R. & Dezalay, Yves. “The Power of the Legal field: Pierre Bourdieu and the Law”, in, An Introduction to Law and Social Theory 189-204. Reza Banakar & Max Travers eds.. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2002.
Ruan, Fang-Fu. “Chapter Three: China,” in Sociolegal Control of Homosexuality: A Multi-Nation Comparison 57-66. Donald J. West & Richard Green eds.. New York: Plenum Press, 1997.
Sommer, Matthew H.. Sex, Law, and Society in Late Imperial China. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000.
Twiss, Sumner B.. “A Constructive Framework for Discussing Confucianism and Human Rights,” in Confucianism and Human Rights 27-53. Theodore de Bary, Wm. & Tu, Weiming eds.. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998.

Notes

* Ph.D. cand. (Milano), M.A. cand. (Oñati); LL.M. (Leiden, 2004 & Taipei, 1999). Email: changhongcheng@gmail.com.
[1] The Yellow Emperor, “Huang Di” (2697?-2597?), was a legendary leader and founder of the Chinese culture who had male lovers. This is naturally not very trustworthy because whether there was really a person called Huang Di is not very clear.
[2] For the details of the legislation and its socio-cultural background, see Matthew H. Sommer, Sex, Law, and Society in Late Imperial China 118-132 (2000).
[3] The story is that Emperor Ai was sleeping in the daytime with Dong Shian stretched out across his sleeve. When the emperor wanted to get up, Dong Shian was still sleeping. Because he did not want to disturb him, the emperor cut off his own sleeve and got up. His love and thoughtfulness went this far. See Ban Gu (32-92 A.D.), Chian Han Shou (The Book of the Former Han) Volume 93.
[4] See generally Bret Hinsch, Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China (1990).
[5] American law professor Lynn D. Wardel argued that the global legalization of same-sex marriage can not rely on the argument of legal pluralism. Wardel ignored the egalitarian values of cultural diversities and “informal law,” e.g. his African example, which are niot just “within the system of state law.” He also overemphasized the formation of legal positivism. Although marriage is a “legally preferred status” as he said, Wardel dismantled the preference which is also a fundamental right for lesbians and gay men. Cf. Lynn D. Wardle, Same-Sex Marriage and the Limits of Legal Pluralism, in The Changing Family: Family Forms and Family Law 381-396 (J. Eekelaar and T. Nhalpo eds., 1998).
[6] See Maurice Hong-Cheng Chang, On Equal Protection for Lesbians and Gay Men 420 (2002) (in Chinese) [hereinafter On Equal Protection].
[7] See Chang, On Equal Protection, supra note 6, at 405.
[8] Benkert’s biography and the history of his creation of the definition of homosexuality are available at (as of 10 April 2005).
[9] See generally John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century 334 (1980).
[10] See Michel Foucault, Sexual Choice, Sexual Act: Foucault and Homosexuality, in Politics, Philosophy, Culture: Interviews and Other Writings 1977-1984 286-303, at 289 (Lawrence D. Kritzman ed., 1988)
[11] As regards to the content of the Legalist School in Traditional Chinese Law, see e.g. Geoffery MacCormack, The Legalist School and its Influence upon Traditional Chinese Law, 92(1) Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy 59 (2006).
[12] See e.g. David F. Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality 397 (1988); Michael Ruse, Homosexuality (1988).
[13] See Ronald Bayer, Gay and the Stigma of Bad Blood, reprinted in AIDS: An Epidemic of Ethical Puzzles 1 (The Hasting Center ed., 1991).
[14] See Michael L. Schwalbe & Clifford L. Staples, Forced Blood Testing: Role Taking, Identity, and Discrimination, in The Social Context of AIDS 145 (Joan Huber & beth E. Schneider eds., 1992).
[15] See generally Udo Schüklenk ed., AIDS: Society, Ethics and Law (2001).
[16] See Mikael R. Madsen & Yves Dezalay, The Power of the Legal Field, in An Introduction to Law and Social Theory 189 (2002).
[17] See Håkan Hydén, Even a Stepchild Eventually Grows Up: On the Identity of Sociology of Law, 85 (2) Retfærd: Nordisk Juridisk Tidsskrift 71, at 78 (1999).
[18] Will Damon, The relations of power and intimacy motives to genitoerotic role preferences in gay men: A pilot study, 9 Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 15-30 (2000).
[19] In discussion of the amendment of the South Africa’s Constitution for equal protection from discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation, the ACDP leader Rev. Kenneth Meshoe invoked the traditional biblical arguments together with the controversial averment that homosexuality is “unAfrican,” i.e. homosexuality was an essentially “white phenomenon, foreign to the experiences and oppression of black people.” See Kevan Botha, & Edwin Cameron, Chapter One: South Africa, in Sociolegal Control of Homosexuality: A Multi-Nation Comparison 5-42. (Donald J. West & Richard Green eds., 1997).
[20] See Werner F. Menski, Comparative Law in a Global Context: The Legal System of Asia and Africa 531-532 (2000).