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.

Highlights

  • The legalisation of gay marriage2 in Canada provides an opportunity to examine, in some detail, the effects of both elite and public preferences on policy outcomes

  • Canadians were more against than they were in favour of gay marriage, overall, they remained divided even when the act was passed in June 2005

  • The public was largely uninterested in the issue; a point that is often ignored in studies explaining Canadian public opinion about same-sex marriage (SSM)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The legalisation of gay marriage in Canada provides an opportunity to examine, in some detail, the effects of both elite and public preferences on policy outcomes. Gay marriage in Canada sheds light on democratic theory and on the ways in which parties and politicians, public opinion, issue salience and interest organisations affect the enactment of controversial social policy. The federal Liberal government could have appealed that decision but it did not Their position most likely changed as a result of several factors: the majority of the Liberal cabinet was in favour of SSM; they anticipated future court rulings in favour of SSM; and they anticipated growing public support for SSM

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.