Résumés
Abstract
This paper explores the role of parties, interest groups and public opinion in the enactment of ‘controversial’ social policy particularly when the issue is salient with political elites, but not salient with the public. The author analyses party documents, interest group testimony, media statements and public opinion data. He finds that political elites in Canada facilitated the legalisation of gay marriage while anti-gay marriage politicians and interest groups were unable to reframe gay marriage so as to benefit their cause. While political elites engaged in an ongoing discourse, Canadians remained divided on same-sex marriage but also uninterested in the issue. This paper also discusses the key differences surrounding the legalization of same-sex marriage between the United States and Canada.
Résumé
Dans cet article, l’auteur examine le rôle que jouent les partis politiques, les groupes d’intérêt et l’opinion publique dans la promulgation d’une politique sociale « controversée », en particulier lorsque le sujet est important pour les élites politiques, mais ne l’est pas pour le public. Il analyse des documents de différents partis, des témoignages de groupes d’intérêts, des déclarations aux médias et des données sur l’opinion publique. Il constate que les élites politiques du Canada ont facilité la légalisation du mariage entre personnes du même sexe, tandis que les politiciens et les groupes d’intérêts opposés au mariage gay ont été incapables de replacer ce type de mariage dans une nouvelle perspective, de façon à faire avancer leur cause. Les élites politiques sont engagées dans un discours continu; toutefois, la population canadienne non seulement demeure divisée sur la question du mariage gay, mais ne s’y intéresse pas vraiment. Le présent article contient également une analyse des principales différences entre les mesures législatives adoptées par les États-Unis et par le Canada sur le mariage entre personnes du même sexe.
Parties annexes
Bibliographie
- Bara, J. (2001) ‘Tracking estimates of public opinion and party policy intentions in Britain and the USA’ in Michael Laver (ed.) Estimating the Policy Positions of Political Actors, London: Routledge.
- Bauer, R. A., de Sola Pool, I., & Dexter L. A. (1963) American Business and Public
- Policy: The Politics of Foreign Trade, New York: Aldine-Atherton.
- Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. D. (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics,Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Bélanger, É., & Pétry, F. (2005) ‘The Rational Public? A Canadian Test of the Page and Shapiro Argument’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research 17:190-212.
- Blais, A, Blake, D., & Dion S. (1993) ‘Do Parties Make a Difference? Parties and the Size of Government in Liberal Democracies’, American Journal of Political Science 37:40-62.
- Brettschneider, F. (1996) ‘Public Opinion and Parliamentary Action: Responsiveness of the German Bundestag in Comparative Perspective’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research 9:292-311.
- Broad, K. L., Crawley S. L., & Foley, L. (2004) ‘Doing “Real Family Values”: The Interpretive Practice of Families in the GLBT Movement’, Sociological Quarterly 45: 509-27.
- Brooks, J. E. (1985) ‘Democratic Frustration in the Anglo-American Polities: A Quantification of Inconsistencies between Mass Public Opinion and Public Policy’, Western Political Quarterly 38:250-61.
- Budge, I., & Hofferbert, R. I. (1990) ‘Mandates and Policy Outputs: US Party Platforms and Federal Expenditures’,The American Political Science Review 84:111-31.
- Burstein, P. (1979) ‘Public Opinion, Demonstrations, and the Passage of Antidiscrimination Legislation,’ Public Opinion Quarterly 43:157-72.
- Burstein, P., Bricher, R. M., & Einwohner, R. L. (1995) ‘Policy Alternatives and Political Change: Work, Family, and Gender on the Congressional Agenda, 1945-1990’, American Sociological Review 60:67-83.
- Burstein, P., & Linton, A. (2002) ‘The Impact of Political Parties, Interest Groups, and Social Movement
- Organizations on Public Policy: Some Recent Evidence and Theoretical Concerns’, Social Forces 81:381-408.
- Burstein, P. (2003) ‘The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and an Agenda’, Political ResearchQuarterly 56:29-40.
- Burstein, P. (2006) ‘Why Estimates of the Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy are Too High: Empirical and Theoretical Implications’, Social Forces 84:2273-89.
- Cahill, S. (2007). ‘The Anti-Gay Marriage Movement’, in Craig A. Rimmerman and Clyde Wilcox (eds) The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage (155-191), London: University of Chicago Press.
- Canadian Newswire Group. Available through http://www.newswire.ca/en/. Canadian Opinion Research Archive. Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Available through http://www.queensu.ca/cora/.
- Cobb, R., Ross, J-K., & Ross, M. H. (1976) ‘Agenda Building as a Comparative Political Process’, American Political Science Review 70:310-15.
- Collins, P. A., Abelson, J., Pyman, H., & Lavis, J. N. (2006) ‘Are we expecting too much from print media? An analysis of newspaper coverage of the 2002 Canadian healthcare reform debate’, Social Studies and Medicine 63:89-102.
- Committees of the House of Commons, Parliament of Canada. Available through http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteeHome.aspx?Lang=1&PARLSES=381&JNT=0&SELID=e1.
- Conservative Party Platform. (2004) Demanding Better.
- Dugan, K. B. (2004) ‘Strategy and “Spin”: Opposing Movement Frames in an Anti-Gay Voter Initiative’, Sociological Focus 37:213-33.
- Evans, D. (1996) ‘Before the Roll Call: Interest Group Lobbying and Public Policy Outcomes in House Committees’, Political Research Quarterly 49:287-304.
- Fetner, T. (2001) ‘Working Anita Bryant: The Impact of Christian Anti-Gay Activism on Lesbian and Gay Movement Claims’, Social Problems 48:411-28.
- Goot, M. (1999) ‘Whose mandate? Policy promises, strong bicameralism and polled Opinion,’ Australian Journal of Political Science 34:327-52.
- Haider-Markel, D. P. (1998) ‘The Politics of Social Regulatory Policy: State and Federal Hate Crime Policy and Implementation Effort’, Political Research Quarterly 51:69-88.
- Hansen, J. M. (1991) Gaining Access: Congress and the Farm Lobby, 1919-1981, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Heitshusen, V. (2000) ‘Interest Group Lobbying and US House Decentralization: Linking Informational Focus to Committee Hearing Appearances’, Political Research Quarterly 53:151-76.
- Hill, K. Q., & Hinton-Anderson, A. (1995) ‘Pathways of Representation: A Causal Analysis of Public Opinion-Policy Linkages’, American Journal of Political Science 39:924-35.
- Hobolt, S. B. & Klemmemsem, R. (2005) ‘Responsive Government? Public Opinion and Government Policy Preferences in Britain and Denmark’, Political Studies 53: 379-402.
- Jacobs, L.R., & Shapiro R.Y. (2000) Politicians Don’t Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of DemocraticResponsiveness, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
- King, G., Laver, M., Hofferbert, R., Budge, I., & McDonald, M. D. (1993) ‘Party Platforms, Mandates, and Government Spending’, The American Political Science Review 87:744-50.
- Laghi, B. (2005, July 18) ‘Same-sex marriage bill must stand, majority says. Globe and Mail’, retrieved 20 July 2005,from www.theglobeandmail.com.
- Larocque, S. (2006). Gay Marriage: The Story of a Canadian Social Revolution. Toronto: James Lorimer & Co.
- Leyden, K. M. (1995) ‘Interest Group Resources and Testimony at Congressional Hearings’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 20:431-39.
- Liberal Party Platform. (2004) Moving Canada Forward: The Paul Martin Plan for Getting Things Done.
- Lohmann, S. (1993) ‘A Signaling Model of Informative and Manipulative Political Action’, American Political ScienceReview 87:319-33.
- Marleau, R., & Montpetit, C. (2000) House of Commons Procedure and Practice.Table Research Branch, House of Commons of Canada.
- Matthews, J. S. (2005) ‘The Political Foundations of Support for Same-Sex Marriage in Canada’, Canadian Journal of Political Science 38:841-66.
- Mayhew, D. R. (1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection, New Haven: Yale University Press.
- McCarthy, J. D., McPhail, C., & Smith, J. (1996) ‘Images of Protest: Dimensions of Selection Bias in Media Coverage of Washington Demonstrations, 1982 and 1991’, American Sociological Review 61:478-99.
- McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972) ‘The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media’, The Public Opinion Quarterly 36:176-87.
- McDonald, M., Budge, I., & Hofferbert, R. (1999) ‘Party Mandate Theory and Time Series Analysis’, Electoral Studies 18:587–96.
- McDonald, M. D., Budge, I., & Pennings, P. (2004) ‘Choice versus sensitivity: Party reactions to public concerns’, European Journal of Political Research 43:845-68.
- Merolla, J., Stephenson L., & Zechmeister, E. (2005) ‘Have Cue, Will Travel? Political Parties as Heuristics in Three Countries’, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.
- Monroe, A. (1979) ‘Consistency between Constituency Preferences and National Policy Decisions’, American Politics Quarterly 7:3–19.
- Monroe, A. (1998) ‘Public Opinion and Public Policy 1980–1993’, Public Opinion Quarterly 62:6–28.
- Mutz, D. C., & Soss J. (1997) ‘Reading Public Opinion: The Influence of News Coverage on Perceptions of Public Sentiment’, Political Research Quarterly 61:431-51.
- Oldendick, R. W., & Bardes, B.A. (1982) ‘Mass and Elite Foreign Policy Preferences. Public Opinion Quarterly 46:368-82.
- Oliver, P., & Maney, G. M. (1999) ‘Political Processes and Local Newspaper Coverage of Protest Events: From Selection Bias to Triadic Interactions’, American Journal of Sociology 106:463-505.
- Pétry, F., & Mendelsohn, M. (2004) ‘Public Opinion and Policy Making in Canada, 1994–2001’, Canadian Journal of Political Science 37:505–29.
- Rallings, C. (1987) ‘The Influence of Election Programmes: Britain and Canada 1945-1979’, in Ian Budge, David Robertson, and Derek Hearl (eds) Ideology, Strategy, and Party Change (1-15), London: Cambridge University Press.
- Rayside, David. (2007). ‘The United States in Comparative Context’, in Craig A. Rimmerman and Clyde Wilcox (eds) The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage (341-364), London: University of Chicago Press.
- Rayside, David. (2008). Queer Inclusions, Continental Divisions: Public Recognition of Sexual Diversity in Canada and the United States. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
- Reference re Same-Sex Marriage, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 698, 2004 SCC 79.
- Schwartz, M.A. and R. Tatalovich. (2009). ‘Cultural and Institutional Factors Affecting Political Contention over Moral Issues’, Comparative Sociology 8:76-104.
- Segura, G. M. (2005, June) ‘A Symposium on the Politics of Same-Sex Marriage: An Introduction and Commentary’, PSOnline. www.apsanet.org.
- Smith, M. (1999) Lesbian and Gay Rights in Canada: Social Movements and Equality-Seeking, 1971-1995, Toronto:University of Toronto Press.
- Smith, M. (2005a), April ‘The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage in Canada and the United States’, PSOnline. www.apsanet.org.
- Smith, M. (2005b). ‘Social Movements and Judicial Empowerment: Courts, Public Policy, and Lesbian and Gay Organizing in Canada’, Politics and Society 33:327-353.
- Smith. M. (2008). Political Institutions and Lesbian and Gay Rights in the United States and Canada. New York: Routledge.
- Snyder, D., & Kelly, W. R.. (1977) ‘Conflict Intensity and the Validity of Newspaper Data’, American Sociological Review 42:105-23.
- Soroka, S., & Wlezien, C. (2004) ‘Opinion Representation and Policy Feedback: Canada in Comparative Perspective’,Canadian Journal of Political Science 37:531-59.
- Spanish Parliament legalises gay marriage. (30 June 2005), USA Today. Retrieved 30 June 2005, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/world.
- Speech from the Throne, to open the third session of the thirty-seventh Parliament of Canada. 2 February 2004.
- Speech from the Throne, to open the first session of the thirty-eighth Parliament of Canada. 5 October 2004.
- Stimson, J. A., Mackuen, M. B., & Erikson, R. S. (1994) ‘Opinion and Policy: A Global View’, Political Science and Politics 27:29-35.
- Stimson, J. A., Mackuen, Michael B., & Erikson, Robert S. (1995) ‘Dynamic Representation’, American Political Science Review 89:543-65.
- Tadlock, Barry L., C. Ann Gordon, and Elizabeth Popp. (2007). ‘Framing the Issue of Same-Sex Marriage: Traditional Values versus Equal Rights’, in in Craig A. Rimmerman and Clyde Wilcox (eds) The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage (193-214), London: University of Chicago Press.
- Wright, J. R. (1990) ‘Contributions, Lobbying, and Committee Voting in the US House of Representatives’, American Political Science Review 84:417-38.