Podcast Summary:

Podcast: New Books Network
Host: Michael Johnston
Guest: Dr. Michael Stambolis-Ruhstorfer (Associate Professor, Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès)
Book Discussed: By the Power Vested in Me: How Experts Shape Same-Sex Marriage Debates (Columbia UP, 2025)
Date: January 30, 2026

Episode Overview

This episode explores Dr. Michael Stambolis-Ruhstorfer’s new book, which investigates the influential but often overlooked role of experts in shaping same-sex marriage debates in the United States and France. The conversation centers on how expert testimony, both scientific and non-scientific, affects legal, political, and cultural outcomes, and what it reveals about the social construction of expertise itself. Dr. Stambolis-Ruhstorfer discusses the cross-national dynamics of expertise, the sociopolitical consequences of expert intervention, and how the legitimization and contestation of expert knowledge impacts broader movements for LGBT rights.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Origins of the Research & The Role of Experts

• Motivation:
  Dr. Stambolis-Ruhstorfer was drawn to the topic after noting the pronounced but distinct roles of experts in the same-sex marriage debates in France and the US (02:13).

  “What drew me to the question of expertise was... the kinds of discourse that was being heard before decision makers... I was hearing a lot of psychoanalysis and philosophy before French lawmakers, but not hearing from those people in the United States. In the US... you heard economists talking about... the cost of same-sex marriage for a company, or the economic benefits...” (03:15, Dr. Stambolis-Ruhstorfer)

• Methodological Approach:
  By using an inductive definition of "expert," he gathered data from those who were actually heard by decision-making bodies, discovering a wide array of actors: scientists, ordinary citizens, religious figures, and think tank representatives (12:08).

2. The Social Construction and Power of Expertise

• Expert Influence:
  Experts both reflect and reinforce societal norms, receiving elevated platforms by virtue of lawmakers soliciting their opinions. This feedback loop shapes public understanding and media narratives (07:52).

  “Because they are asked by decision makers to provide some kind of opinion... they're legitimated just by virtue of being heard by decision makers. And that also means that they receive media attention.” (08:44, Dr. Stambolis-Ruhstorfer)

• Cultural Embeddedness:
  Expertise is neither neutral nor apolitical; it is deeply embedded in the moral and cultural struggles of its context. Experts compete to define what marriage "is and should be." (11:19)

3. Competition Among Experts – Scientific, Religious, and Otherwise

• Competing Knowledge Claims:
  Experts don’t simply present neutral facts; they sometimes directly oppose each other’s interpretations and are strategically recruited by advocacy groups (12:08).

  “Even if they don't want to... their voices are being used to support one side or the other. So they are competing. And that competition... gives us an idea of how they participate in... defining marriage or not.” (12:50)

• Case Example – Child Outcomes:
  The debate about the wellbeing of children raised by same-sex couples has been particularly contentious, with each side attempting to marshal scientific studies to their cause (14:20).

4. National Differences: US vs. France

• Types of Experts Deployed:

  • US: Economists, psychologists, demographers; focus on empirical data, e.g., divorce rates and child outcomes (03:44, 17:24).
  • France: Philosophers, psychoanalysts, anthropologists; focus on universal principles, structural theories, and philosophical arguments (04:07, 18:45).

  “In the French case, that evidence [like divorce rates] was less often used... the way the French parliament approached the question was more theoretical than empirical.” (17:59, Dr. Stambolis-Ruhstorfer)

• Marriage vs. Parenting:
  The two societies value the institution of marriage and parenting differently, which shapes the debates:

  “In France... people don't see marriage as really that important as an institution. They see parenting as the important institution. Whereas in the US, the value we put on marriage is much higher.” (21:31)
  French debates focused more on the legitimacy of parenting than marriage, with the US tending toward the reverse.

5. The Legitimizing and Constraining Effects of Expertise

• Expert Testimony as a Gatekeeper:
  Scientific data was crucial in US court arguments, sometimes to the point that "science" was asked to perform moral work (24:21).

  • Case Example:
    In Perry v. Schwarzenegger (which fed into Obergefell v. Hodges), judges demanded evidence that same-sex marriage would harm children. Opponents failed to present credible scientific evidence, with notable failed attempts (e.g., Mark Regnerus study labeled "junk science") (27:20).

• Moral vs Scientific Justifications:
  A tension exists: Should legal/moral rights depend on scientific studies? Some advocated justice-based arguments irrespective of empirical studies, while others were willing to reconsider their stance if the "science" had not aligned (29:45).

  “If we rely on science to do moral work, then we're forcing the science to do something it’s not meant to do... Activists... are undermining their capacity to make a claim that same-sex marriage should be legal just because it is a question of justice.” (31:55)

6. Implications for Social Movements and Radical Critiques

• Mainstreaming and Marginalizing:
  The legal strategy in both countries required sacrificing more radical critiques in favor of arguments that would appeal to existing institutions and the "mainstream."

  “The more radical arguments... needed to be, wouldn’t say silenced, but their voices became a liability for people trying to argue that same-sex marriage was necessary and important.” (33:41)

  Activists and scholars with critiques of marriage itself found their arguments co-opted by opponents, leading to public disavowals (34:06).

7. Authority and the Social Hierarchies of Expertise

• Who Gets Heard?
  Expertise is judged in part by social location: race, gender, sexuality, and institutional prestige matter. Even if someone’s empirical findings are strong, their personal identity may render their expertise less credible in the eyes of institutions (36:31).

  “A lot of the research... on queer people was done by queer people... But the people... wanted to have the ‘best experts’ – it turns out that the ‘best experts’ are the straight experts... reinforcing structures of inequality by seeking experts who were middle class, white, straight guys.” (38:42)

• Diversity & Representation:
  Structural racism and social inequalities in academia result in a narrow (white, middle-class) pool of expert voices, especially visible in who gets to testify before lawmakers (41:22).

8. The Learning Process and Institutional Constraints

• Becoming an Expert:
  There is an apprenticeship to “expertise in public,” where individuals learn how to present themselves, navigate institutions, and compete for legitimacy (42:52).

• Religious Expertise:
  In France, religious voices needed to translate their arguments into secular language to be taken seriously (45:22).

9. Personal Experience as Expertise

• US versus France:
  • US: Personal stories and experiences (e.g., families describing their lives) are considered legitimate forms of expertise in legislative debates (46:26).
  • France: Such particularism is devalued; lawmakers emphasize abstract, universal legal principles (47:38).

10. Implications Beyond Same-Sex Marriage

• Broader Application:
  The framework is applicable to contemporary debates on trans rights, vaccine policy, climate change, and abortion—issues where expertise, moral claims, and social identity are deeply entangled (48:42, 50:53).

  “Anywhere where there’s contentious claims... people want to be taken seriously, they will inevitably use some kind of expert to do that. And my concept... ‘Expert Capital’ tries to untangle that.” (52:33)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “If we rely on science to do moral work, then we're forcing the science to do something it's not meant to do, and that could be dangerous.”
  — Dr. Michael Stambolis-Ruhstorfer [31:55]

• “The more radical arguments... needed to be, wouldn’t say silenced, but their voices became a liability for people trying to argue that same-sex marriage was necessary and important.”
  — Dr. Michael Stambolis-Ruhstorfer [33:41]

• “The teams of attorneys putting... the work together were... really worried... that the other side... would use the personal lives of the experts to delegitimize them... So...[they] went out of their way to look for people who could fit what they assumed the judges would see as, like, a typical expert—excellently published, ideally be straight.”
  — Dr. Michael Stambolis-Ruhstorfer [39:04]

• “Personal experience is really important in the United States, even when it comes from scientific experts... In France...we are here to talk about the law. The law is not personal. The law is general and universal.“
  — Dr. Michael Stambolis-Ruhstorfer [46:26]

Important Timestamps

• [02:13] – Motivation for studying experts in same-sex marriage debates
• [07:52] – The power and media visibility of “expert” opinions
• [12:08] – Inductive approach to defining and identifying experts
• [17:24] – Differences in use of empirical data: US vs France
• [21:31] – Reversal of importance: marriage vs. parenting in France and US
• [24:21] – How expert testimony enabled/disrupted legal change
• [29:45] – Science vs. justice: Should rights depend on “data”?
• [33:41] – Constraints on radical LGBTQ critique in mainstream legal battles
• [36:31] – Whose expertise gets recognized and why; social hierarchies
• [45:22] – Religious expertise adapting to secular expectations in France
• [46:26] – Personal testimony as expertise: the US vs France divide
• [48:42] – Applying the book's framework to new culture war issues
• [52:33] – Introduction of the concept “Expert Capital” for broader debates

Conclusion

Dr. Stambolis-Ruhstorfer’s research sheds light on the decisive yet subtle power of expertise in moral and political struggles over same-sex marriage. He demonstrates that expertise is never neutral, is always shaped by cultural context, and that legal reforms in sexuality are deeply entwined with contested claims about knowledge, legitimacy, and social authority. The book’s findings point the way for analyzing how expertise functions far beyond LGBT rights—wherever culture wars invoke the authority of "experts."