Editing Stoddard 1997

== "Bleeding Heart: Reflections On Using the Law to Make Social Change" pp.967-982==
Thesis: understanding the interrelationship between law and culture, and the use of law for social change
*Goals of legal advocates for gay rights:
# Protection from discrimination
# Freedom from intrusion and harassment
# Some degree of recognition of queer relationships
*New York is culturally more tolerant of queerness, but legally offers no protections/recognition
*New Zealand is culturally intolerant of queerness, but legally offers protections/recognition
*Assumptions:
#Society needs change, and there are people committed to that change
#Employing the law to make change is appropriate

=== i. The New Zealand Conundrum ===
*The 'conundrum': New Zealand is legally progressive with respect to queer protections, but is culturally conservative in this respect 
*social change and legal change do not always walk hand-in-hand
**"one does not stimulate the other"

=== ii. A Paradigm of Reform ===
*Goals of lawmaking
#To create new rights and remedies for victims
#To alter the conduct of the government
#To alter the conduct of citizens/private entities 
#To express a new moral/standard
#To change cultural attitudes/patterns 
**"rule-shifting": the traditional role of the law in expressing the formal rulemaking/enforcement function for society
***the first three goals comprise this role
**"culture-shifting": advancing the rights and interests of people who have been treated poorly by the law and by the culture, promoting values that should be rights
*** the fourth and fifth goals comprise this role
*The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("The Act")
**it had both "rule" and "cultural-shifting" power and met all five goals of lawmaking 
**the Act was the result of "passionate and informal national debate" among Americans that lasted a decade, and this debate is what gave the Act its "culture-shifting" power
**because the Act was passed by Congress it was received as more legitimate, giving it "rule-shifting" power

=== iii. When "Rule-Shifting" Becomes "Culture-Shifting" ===
*Factors that determine when "rule-shifting" becomes "culture-shifting":
#A change that is broad or profound
#Public awareness of that change
#A general sense of the legitimacy (or validity) of the change
#continuous enforcement of the change
**"culture-shifting" requires all four
==== a. The Breath of Change ====
*Some forms of "rule-shifting" are "so grand or so pervasive" that they inevitably become "culture-shifting"
**ex: The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Anti-smoking laws
**these "pervasive" "rule-shifting" laws must be "known, accepted, and enforced" in order to have "culture-shifting" power 
==== b. Public Awareness of Change ====
*ordinary citizens must be aware that a "rule-shift" has taken place in order for "culture-shifting" to occur
*changes that happen at the legislative level typically gain more public awareness than those that happen at the judicial or administrative levels
**legislative lawmaking processes are typically more public, leading to more debate among constituents, allowing for a more significant "rule"/"culture-shifting" effect