Skip to main content

AP's Gay Agenda Drove Gay Marriage Policy

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/6/9/9/5/p169953_index.html

The Gay Marriage Debate: Did the Media Agenda Drive the Policy Agenda or Vice Versa?

Justice Antonin Scalia insisted in a strongly worded dissent to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas decision in 2003 that the ruling to decriminalize homosexuality would open the way for gay marriage.

Within months, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered its Legislature to permit same-sex unions. A continent away, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered his city to begin performing gay marriages.

This case study examines nearly 13 months of Associated Press coverage of the nationwide gay-marriage debate, culminating with the U.S. Senate’s defeat in 2004 of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions.

Using critical analysis, it explores how the media agenda influenced the policy agenda and vice versa. It finds that media-driven policy stories overwhelmed those driven by the policy agenda, since reporters have many more choices than do policymakers for keeping an issue alive.

Further, the U.S. presidential election campaigns of 2004 magnified the ways in which reporters could press for putting gay marriage on the policy agenda.

While the policy agenda on gay marriage certainly influenced the media agenda, the media agenda likely also propelled the policy agenda on both coasts, and in a dozen states in between, faster and further than it would have gone otherwise. This likely resulted because, in accord with the theorizing of Walgrave and Van Aelst (March 2006), gay marriage was an unobtrusive and new issue, political actors had clear responsibility over it, and the reporting was dramatic, unambiguous and pointed toward self-evident solutions.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Vox Cantoris vs. Aqua

The Catholic Monitor commenter Aqua had this to say to the Vox Cantoris website: Aqua said… Fred, your topic here reminds me of a dust-up, a few days ago, on Vox Cantoris. He asserted that it is our duty as Christians to wear masks to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass if the government tells us we must, or they will close our Churches. My response to him was that I find it inconceivable that an orthodox Catholic, such as himself, would ever submit to unjust dictates from secular government over how we approach Our Lord in Holy Mass. My response to him was that the Mass belongs to Catholics and we decide, within the bounds of Tradition, and in accord with the Word of Jesus, how we conduct ourselves in Holy Mass. Only one authority prevails over Mass and that is our God and the Sacred Tradition given by Him to guide us in all times and places. Understand, there is nothing inherently wrong with wearing a mask to Mass. But there is EVERYTHING wrong with wearing a symbol...

Might Biden be a Liar & Predator like McCarrick?

September 15, 2020   Everyone knows that sexual predator ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick is a liar. His whole life was a lie of betrayal of the most sacred vows he took and the violation of the moral tenets of the Catholic faith which he desecrated. Most people don't realize that part of this desecration of lies included lying for "gravely sinful" Democrats like Joe Biden. McCarrick protected Biden when then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later to be Pope Benedict XVI) wrote that bishops were not to admit to Communion politicians like "gravely sinful" Biden who supports the killing of unborn babies. McCarrick lied for politicians like Biden by ignoring the important parts of the Ratzinger letter and told bishops not to ignore the Catholic Church law.  Last year, Fr. Robert Morey denied Holy Communion to the “gravely sinful” Biden following a "2004 decree signed jointly by the bishops of ...