c Copyright 2012 Shauna Foley Fisher The Dance of Policy Argumentation: Recasting the Same-Sex Marriage Debate Shauna Foley Fisher A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2012 Michael McCann, Chair George Lovell Peter May Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Political Science University of Washington Abstract The Dance of Policy Argumentation: Recasting the Same-Sex Marriage Debate Shauna Foley Fisher Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Michael McCann Department of Political Science This project is motivated by a desire to examine the patterns that evolve as activists and their opponents struggle to control how the public and policymakers understand a particu- lar issue at the center of contention. Competing activist groups fight in a context shaped by two important dynamics. As advocacy groups pursue change, or attempt to block change, they must confront the mobilizing activities of their opponents. The first question addressed by this project comes out of this dynamic. Do activists engage, anticipate, or ignore their opponents’ messages? The second dynamic is the characteristics of particular institutional venues. Activist groups encounter different sets of institutional processes while fighting for their side through litigation than through ballot measure campaigns, for example. This raises a second question. Do activists change their messages for different institutional are- nas and venues? Finally, the media are central to contentious politics, but are not directly responsible for policymaking. They are, however, partially responsible for making the pub- lic and policymakers aware of the messages and activities of activists on either side. Thus the third and final question motivating this project is: what is the role of the media in contentious politics? I address these questions through an analysis of press release, newspaper, and cam- paign materials from same-sex marriage activists and their opponents in California. My findings challenge common assumptions about the dance of contentious politics and have implications for concerns about deliberative democracy. I find that groups talk past each other more than they respond, engaging in largely separate rhetorical dances. Competing groups also pay more attention to those policy venues that appeal to their favored argu- ments, leading competing groups to devote attention to different institutions. Furthermore, these largely separate framing activities are done consistently regardless of policymaking venue. However, scholars and general audiences may be ignorant to this reality because the media construct, or “choreograph,” dialogue. While activists engage in an agenda set- ting game, talking about what they want, rather than engaging their opponents, newspapers construct a debate out of the largely separate framing strategies. In other words, the media choreograph a dance out of what are primarily separate routines. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Figures . ii List of Tables . iv Chapter 1: Introduction . 1 Chapter 2: Talking Past Each Other: Press Release Framing of Same-Sex Marriage 29 Chapter 3: A Tale of Two Campaigns: Framing Same-Sex Marriage for Califor- nia’s Fourth Branch . 75 Chapter 4: Choreographing the Marriage Dance: Media Coverage of Same-Sex Marriage in California . 125 Chapter 5: Conclusion . 169 Bibliography . 177 i LIST OF FIGURES Figure Number Page 2.1 Time series graph of the counts of press releases collected per month across the time period 2004-2009 . 36 2.2 Time series graph of rights and rights related argument frames, 2004-2009 . 48 2.3 Time series graph of argument frames related to the separation of powers in a federalist government, 2004-2009 . 52 2.4 Time series graph of argument frames highlighting the potential impacts of same-sex marriage, 2004-2009 . 61 2.5 Time series graph of argument frames related to the legality or constitution- ality of same-sex marriage 2004-2009 . 67 2.6 Time series graph of argument frames related to family and children, 2004- 2009 . 68 3.1 Times series graph of rights and rights related argument frames during the Proposition 22 and Proposition 8 campaigns . 95 3.2 Time series graph of argument frames related to the separation of powers in a federalist government during the Proposition 22 and Proposition 8 cam- paigns . 103 3.3 Times series graph of argument frames related to family and children dur- ing the Proposition 22 and Proposition 8 campaigns . 109 3.4 Times series graph of argument frames highlighting the potential impacts of same-sex marriage during the Proposition 22 and Proposition 8 campaigns118 3.5 Times series graph of argument frames highlighting the legality and consti- tutional of same-sex marriage policy and Proposition 8 during and after the initiative campaign . 122 4.1 Time series graph of the count of newspaper articles on same-sex marriage in California from January 1996 through December 2009 . 134 4.2 Comparison of levels of argumentation regarding same-sex marriage in press releases and newspaper articles . 148 ii 4.3 Time series graph comparing arguments in same-sex marriage opponents” press releases and arguments attributed to opponents in newspaper articles, 2004-2009 . 153 4.4 Time series graph comparing arguments in same-sex marriage activists’ press releases to arguments attributed to marriage activists in newspaper articles, 2004-2009 . 156 4.5 Time series graph of argument frames highlighting the potential impacts of same-sex marriage attributed to activists in the media . 157 iii LIST OF TABLES Table Number Page 2.1 Count of Press Releases by Venue and Year . 35 2.2 Percentage of Press Releases by Venue, 2003-2009 . 43 2.3 Argument Frame Codebook . 47 2.4 Ranking of Frames by Venue Category - SSM proponents . 64 2.5 Ranking of Frames by Venue Category - SSM opponents . 64 3.1 Counts of Press Releases Focusing on the Ballot . 85 3.2 Argument Frame Counts in Ballot Related Press Releases . 88 3.3 Argument Frame Counts in Campaign Commercials . 91 4.1 Newspaper Article Sampling Scheme . 131 4.2 Newspaper Articles that Do/Do Not Explicitly Reference Arguments At- tributed to Pro and Anti SSM Groups by Category, 1985-2009 . 143 4.3 Argument Frame Counts in Newspaper Articles . 146 4.4 Proportions of Attention to Arguments in Press Releases and Newspaper Articles . 151 4.5 Ranking of Frames Attributed to SSM Proponents in Media by Venue Cat- egory . 160 4.6 Ranking of Frames Attributed to SSM Opponents in Media by Venue Cat- egory . 160 4.7 Sample of groups recorded as having at least one argument attributed to them168 iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There is that saying about how it takes a village to raise a child. While I can not speak to child rearing, I can say that completing a dissertation and receiving a PhD can often feel similarly. I owe gratitude to so many, and fear I could never satisfactorily express my thanks in a way that does not rival the length of a chapter. But, I must try. This dissertation, like so many others, is the result of many years of work. I would be doing them a disservice if I did not start by thanking my committee members, The Gentlemen, who so generously devoted pieces of themselves to me during that time. He is now in Austin, and did not stick around to see this project through to the end, but I have Bryan Jones to thank for being in the original version of my committee and introducing me to a new body of scholarship that would remain important through the dissertation. Peter May is everything his former graduate students praise him to be: an incredible advisor and mentor. He willingly joined my committee in my last two years and supported me as if he had been around all along. George Lovell has been around from the beginning and is such pleasure to work with. He has been an enormous help transforming my project into something we all found more exciting. I look so forward to remaining a colleague of his as my career progresses. And then there is Michael McCann. It is truly a remarkable thing, getting to work with a person–an intellect–that one respects as much as I do him. I will never forget the first time I read Rights at Work as an undergraduate. I am not sure he fully appreciates the influence his ideas had on me so many years ago, before we ever met. Even at my most frustrating, Michael encouraged me, supported me, and promoted me. I owe it to him, if I owe it to anyone along with myself, to work on battling those demons. I did not always make his job as my Chair easy (in fact, I rarely did), and I only hope that I have made him proud. I can not do justice to the people and forces that helped get me here without going back to my years in Albany. It was there that I met Scott Barclay. I will never fully understand how he saw something in me so quickly, but Scott took me under his wing and introduced me to the world of academics. He became and remains an important mentor, friend, co- author, and colleague. Scott also introduced me to my intellectual family, the people I look forward to seeing every year at the Law & Society Meetings. There are so many incredible, smart people that I could in no way name them all, but I must at least recognize Anna-Maria Marshall. Even while still an undergraduate, Anna made me feel welcome. Throughout my graduate career she has been one of my best cheerleaders. I was lucky enough to be surrounded by an incredible group of fellow graduate students, who often became good friends, during my time at the University of Washington.