Collective article record

Evan Wolfson: LGB or T and Single? Drop Dead!

Collective Archive Number CAN-0000-1006-339E Permanent resolver

Source Summary

Mr. Gay-Marriage-And-Nothing-Else-But-Gay-Marriage doubtlessly try to spin away from that characterization of a HuffPo piece, but if you’re single and/or trans and/or LGB or T and currently living somewhere that doesn’t provide access to the legal system for LGBTs to combat employment discrimination, that’s what he’s telling you. Time for Government to Show All Families Deserve Protection Individuals? You’re on your own. “DOMA” harms married same-sex couples by withholding from them the more than one thousand federal responsibilities and protections of marriage accorded all other married couples — including Social Security survivor benefits, tax fairness, access to health coverage, and recognition of family ties for immigration purposes. Equally destructive, DOMA divides married Americans into two classes, those with marriages the federal government likes, and those who are married to someone of whom the federal government disapproves. And DOMA discriminates against states, telling them that even if they end marriage discrimination, the

The Source Summary reproduces the first 150 words of the source article unless a Collective editor has explicitly locked a replacement.

Read the original article View inbound sources

Interpretive context

Why this article may matter

Community significance

“Evan Wolfson: LGB or T and Single? Drop Dead!” may matter to community readers because it preserves a first-person or testimonial account connected to family and relationships, while also engaging law and civil rights. Such accounts can document how an issue was understood and experienced from within the period or community being discussed.

Historical significance

As a publication record from 2011 at Transadvocate.com, “Evan Wolfson: LGB or T and Single? Drop Dead!” provides dated evidence of how family and relationships was being argued in relation to law and civil rights. Comparing it with earlier and later records can reveal changes in vocabulary, evidence, and emphasis.

Policy significance

The article’s strongest policy connection is labor and employment policy. It links that institutional frame to family and relationships and law and civil rights, making it potentially useful for tracing how an argument moves from description or history into law, regulation, administration, or public practice.

Content analysis

Ranked themes and framings

Rank 1 is the dominant inferred theme or framing. Parent labels identify broader theme families; the relationship diagram distinguishes sub-themes, siblings, overlap, and separate-but-related themes.

Themes

1
Family and relationshipsTheme family: Identity, culture, and community
100%
2
Law and civil rightsTheme family: Institutions, law, and public life
75%
3
Public policy and governanceTheme family: Institutions, law, and public life
50%
4
Labor, economics, and institutionsTheme family: Institutions, law, and public life
25%
5
Culture, identity, and representationTheme family: Identity, culture, and community
17%
6
Transgender identity and historyTheme family: Identity, culture, and community
8%

Academic framing

1
Interpretive analysis
100%

Policy framing

1
Labor and employment policy
100%

Editorial function

Source topics

The diagram distinguishes hierarchy and overlap inferred within this article. It does not assert that all themes are mutually exclusive.

These classifications are inferred from article text and source metadata and remain directly editable. Relationship labels express corpus-analysis judgments, not immutable facts.

Granular comparative context

How “Family and relationships” appears across the Collective corpus

This article appeared 2 year(s) before the theme reached its highest annual presence in the registered corpus in 2013.

Relative presence by year

Peak year indexed to 100

1 1016

9 2005

6 2006

17 2007

18 2008

11 2009

58 2011

19 2012

65 2013

17 2014

4 2015

7 2017

5 2018

1 2019

1 2021

1 2022

1 2024

Presence by member publication

Frequently co-occurring concepts

Academic framings in this topic

Policy framings in this topic

Values measure relative presence in the registered Collective corpus, not public search interest or public opinion.

Inbound-link tracker

Sources that reference this article

0directly verified links

0provider-confirmed records stored

0best available scholarly cited-by count

0public-web candidates

No individual inbound sources have been stored yet. Counts can still appear when a scholarly index supplies aggregate citation metadata.

Coverage combines internal Collective links, verified Webmentions, curated evidence, supported scholarly indexes, and optional public-web discovery. Search-result candidates remain visibly distinct from directly verified links and provider-confirmed citations. This is not an exhaustive index of the public web or of Google Scholar.

Article authors

Author profiles and related researchers

Kat

59 publications · 0 inbound sources/citations