The Political Foundations of Support for Same-Sex Marriage in Canada

2005 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 841-866 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Scott Matthews

Abstract.Public support for legal recognition of same-sex marriage increased markedly in Canada over the course of the 1990s. The argument of this paper is that a sequence of Supreme Court decisions in the realm of same-sex relationship recognition—and the legislative activity that followed as a result—played a pivotal role in shaping public opinion on this issue. It is argued that the impact of these institutions was twofold. First, by framing the issue as one of equal rights, the courts and legislatures induced many Canadians to weigh equality-related considerations more heavily in the formation of opinions on same-sex marriage. Second, legal recognition of same-sex relationships directly persuaded many Canadians that such recognition was legitimate. The paper uses data from the Canadian Election Studies for 1993, 1997 and 2000.Résumé.Durant les années 1990 le soutien populaire aux mariages entre conjoints de même sexe s'est clairement renforcé. La thèse principale de cet article avance qu'une série de décisions de la Cour suprême portant sur les relations entre conjoints de même sexe, de même que les décisions adoptées par les pouvoirs législatifs en réponse à ces jugements, jouèrent un rôle crucial dans la formation de l'opinion publique sur ces questions. D'abord, en formulant le débat en termes d'égalité devant la loi, les appareils judiciaire et législatif ont amené les Canadiens à accorder plus de poids aux arguments liés à l'égalité dans leurs réflexions sur le sujet. En second lieu, la reconnaissance légale des unions entre conjoints de même sexe a persuadé les Canadiens de la légitimité de cette reconnaissance. Les conclusions de ce texte s'appuient sur les données des éditions d'Étude électorale canadienne de 1993, 1997 et 2000.

Author(s):  
Laurie A. Drabble ◽  
Amy A. Mericle ◽  
Angie R. Wootton ◽  
Cat Munroe ◽  
Libo Li ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
pp. 110-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elżbieta Kużelewska

This article analyses the impact of constitutional referendums on the political system in Italy. There were three constitutional referendums conducted in 2001, 2006 and 2016. All of them have been organised by the ruling parties, however, only the first one was successful. In the subsequent referendums, the proposals for amending the constitution have been rejected by voters. The article finds that lack of public support for the government resulted in voting „no” in the referendum.


2017 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 237802311772765 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Rosenfeld

Most public opinion attitudes in the United States are reasonably stable over time. Using data from the General Social Survey and the American National Election Studies, I quantify typical change rates across all attitudes. I quantify the extent to which change in same-sex marriage approval (and liberalization in attitudes toward gay rights in general) are among a small set of rapid changing outliers in surveyed public opinions. No measured public opinion attitude in the United States has changed more and more quickly than same-sex marriage. I use survey data from Newsweek to illustrate the rapid increase in the 1980s and 1990s in Americans who had friends or family who they knew to be gay or lesbian and demonstrate how contact with out-of-the-closet gays and lesbians was influential. I discuss several potential historical and social movement theory explanations for the rapid liberalization of attitudes toward gay rights in the United States, including the surprising influence of Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign.


Author(s):  
Xudong FANG

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.本文由兩個部分構成,第一部分闡述了不反對同性婚姻合法化的理由,逐一討論了對同性婚姻合法化的五種反對意見,認為它們都不成立。第二部分論述了儒家推崇異性婚姻的原因,其主要考慮是同性婚姻不能像異性婚姻那樣可以提供倫理的完整性。作者強調,作為公民權利,同性婚姻可以被自由追求,但作為儒家則以異性婚姻為婚姻的理想模式。前者事關權利,後者事關“善”,有各自的界限,不得逾越。This paper consists of two parts. In the first part, the author refutes, one by one, five objections to the legalization of same-sex marriage, including arguments grounded in naturalness, origin, reductio ad absurdum, compromising traditional marriage, and Jiang Qing’s doctrine of particular human rights. The strongest reason for advocating the legalization of same-sex marriage is the doctrine of equal rights. As contemporary people, we have no reason to deny that all individuals have equal rights. The second part discusses why Confucianism prefers heterosexual marriage. The main consideration is that same-sex marriages cannot provide ethical integrity, as heterosexual marriages do. The author emphasizes that, as a civil right, same-sex marriage can be pursued freely, but for a Confucian, heterosexual marriage is the ideal mode of marriage. The former concerns what is “right,” whereas the latter relates to what is “good.” There is an insurmountable boundary between right and good.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 423 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.


The political terrain surrounding the legalization of same-sex marriage and the need to accommodate individual's faith based objections have been part of the public discussion since the passage of initial marriage equality statutes. These exemptions played an important part in the bill's passage and have gone largely unquestioned from proponents of marriage equality. This chapter discusses the heightened lawmaking efforts by opponents insisting on broad protection measures for religious claims based on opposition directed towards homosexuality. This Chapter discusses the resulting tension between religious freedom and marriage equality.


2010 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 1313-1333 ◽  
Author(s):  
TIMOTHY HILDEBRANDT

AbstractUsing the case of same-sex marriage in China, this article explores two fundamental questions: What motivates a non-democratic state to promulgate a progressive human rights policy? More importantly, when a non-democratic state adopts such policies, what is the impact on activism? I argue that same-sex marriage legislation could be used strategically to improve China's human rights reputation. While this would extend a pinnacle right to gays and lesbians, the benefits might not outweigh the costs: I show that when imposed from above, a same-sex marriage law would incur opportunity costs on activism; the passage of this progressive policy would eliminate an important issue around which the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans-gender/-sexual (LGBT) community might develop. Moreover, even if such policy is promulgated, the right to marry will do little to challenge the larger social pressures that make life difficult for LGBT Chinese.


2010 ◽  
Vol 22 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 191-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael R. Woodford ◽  
Peter A. Newman ◽  
Shari Brotman ◽  
Bill Ryan

eTopia ◽  
2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcos Moldes

On July 20th, 2005, the federal government of Canada passed Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act, which changed the legal definition of marriage as the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. This changed the federal legislation from defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman and broadened the legal definition to include same-sex couples. Canadians for Equal Marriage (CEM), one of the principal advocacy organizations, lauded the change in legislation as an important move towards equality for same-sex individuals. The organization’s advocacy work leading up to the vote in the House of Commons, along with their public media campaigns, reinforced the position that saw the inclusion of queer unions into federal definitions of marriage as an important moment for the queer rights movement. The discourse that surrounded this debate leading up to and after July 20th framed marriage as the cornerstone of queer rights and equality; yet, it lacked any sort of critique about the broader social and political implications for queer identity and the queer rights movement. Conflating marriage with equality, CEM’s discourse around gay marriage lacked any critique of how inclusion into state-legislated familial structures could impact broader discourses of queer identity. Instead, the majority of articles focused on how queer marriage was obligatory and called on all members of the queer community to embrace and organize politically around the issue of marriage. This discourse suggests the recognition of same sex unions is indicative of a broader social equality. However, it must be asked whether this assimilation into a heterosexual/heteronormative framework ensures real equality or merely the assimilation of queer identity through state-mediated kinship structures. Although gay marriage is a tool for enabling the inclusion of same-sex partners into benefits packages, tax breaks and other federally legislated benefits, the language used by gay marriage advocates problematically links concepts of equal rights to marriage without questioning or critiquing the concept of state-mediated kinship structures. Looking at the media campaign around this issue, and how it linked the attaining of rights to legalizing marriage it must be asked whether this would create real social acceptance, or whether the same-sex marriage debate is an in actuality just an attempt to normalize queer relationships into a larger heteronormative framework.


2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deva Woodly

There have been many retrospective analyses written about the marriage-equality movement since the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling that made marriages between people of the same sex legal in all 50 states. Most attribute that triumph to a stunningly swift turnaround in public comfort with and approval of same-sex relationships. However, public opinion data indicates that this narrative is inaccurate. In 2015, 51% of General Social Survey respondents declared that they found sexual relationships between people of the same sex to be “wrong” at least “some of the time.” Nevertheless, at the same time, 56% of respondents affirmed that people of the same sex ought to have the legal right to marry. This dissonance suggests that the most common narrative about the success of the movement misses something crucial about how political persuasion happened in this case, as well as the way that political persuasion happens in general. In this article, I show that the massive shift in support for same-sex marriage was likely not the result of large majorities changing their underlying attitudes regarding gay sexual relationships, but was instead the result of activists inserting new criteria for evaluating same-sex marriage into popular political discourse by consistently using resonant arguments. These arguments reframed the political stakes, changed the public meaning of the marriage debate, and altered the decisional context in which people determine their policy preferences.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document