In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

207 11 It Takes (at Least) Two to Tango Fighting With Words in the Conflict Over Same-Sex Marriage Shauna Fisher If it takes two to tango it takes at least two to“contend.” That is, contentious politics always involves the mobilization of at least two groups of actors. We should be equally concerned with the processes and settings within which both sets of actors mobilize and especially interested in the unfolding patterns of interaction between the various parties to contention. —McAdam 1999, xiv immEdiatEly FolloWing thE California Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, on May 15, 2008, the Family Research Council issued a press release with the following statement: “The California Supreme Court has taken a jackhammer to the democratic process, and the right of the people to affect change in public policy.”1 On the same day, the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund issued a press release applauding the decision. “We’re tremendously gratified that the Court today has fulfilled its traditional duty,” said Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal.2 Two weeks before Massachusetts began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in 2004, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, was quoted as saying,“If the court’s shotgun wedding takes place on that day, the rest of America will see that they had better speak up now. . . . This takes it from a Massachusetts problem to an American problem.”3 Two years later, following a Supreme Court ruling in New Jersey, David Beckel, a lawyer for Lambda Legal, reflected on the marriages that had been taking place in Massachusetts for more than two years:“The sky didn’t fall. People see that some families are helped and nobody else’s families are hurt.”4 In the first set of arguments, the focus is on the democratic process and the appropriate role of courts and judges. The Family Research Council suggests that, in supporting same-sex marriage, the California Supreme Court has behaved antidemocratically, while Lambda Legal argues that the court is simply fulfilling its proper role in a democratic society. In the second set of arguments, Tony Perkins and David Beckel disagree about the extent to which issuing same- 208 shauna fisher sex couples marriage licenses is a problem or is harmful to members of American society. These and similar arguments are interesting precisely because they are not specifically about the details of same-sex-marriage policy or policymaking. Instead, they represent moments in the same-sex-marriage debate when discourse was shifted to issues like democracy and social order. Why would a group pursuing or opposing a particular policy that is important to them shift away from direct discussion of that issue? The way social movement groups talk about, or frame, an issue is an important technique for drawing attention to perceived injustices and shaping public agendas. Whether a proponent of same-sex marriage talks about the issue as one of discrimination and equal rights or as one that illustrates the proper role of courts in a democracy matters. As a result, the processes that shape social movement agendas are important to understand.A cause broadly defined by the pursuit of equality and the empowerment of a traditionally marginalized social group can target a number of different possible laws and practices (Shamir and Chinski 1998). Furthermore, any specific policy issue can be framed and defined in a variety of ways (Jones and Baumgartner 2005; Stone 1989). Research that studies social movement framing tends to focus on identifying frames at a particular point in time or on the endogenous processes and internal dynamics that result in group agendas and strategic framing (Meyer and Staggenborg 1996). Provoked by the assertion of legal rights that challenge the status quo, opposition groups often mobilize in response to progressive rights claims.Competing for the same agenda space and public attention within a policy sphere, these groups also engage in strategic framing and issue definition. Too often, studies of social movement group discourse tend to focus either on the mobilization of progressive rights claims by (or on behalf of) marginalized groups or on the backlash and countermobilization. This chapter shifts away from movement-centric analysis to examine movement-countermovement interactions, with particular focus on interactive framing dynamics and how they shape social movement issue agendas. In this chapter, I use the case of mobilization and countermobilization around the issue of same-sex marriage to highlight the dynamic, interactive character of social movement issue framing...

Share