Who's "in" and who's "out": State fragmentation and the struggle over gay rights, 1974-1999

Regina Werum, Bill Winders

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

37 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We examine how state fragmentation has shaped tactical choices of gay rights adversaries between 1974 and 1999. Which political channels have both sides used to advance their goals? Have their tactics changed over time? Specifically, we analyze how they have used three dimensions of the state: (1) judiciary, getting courts to extend or repeal existing legislation; (2) legislative, passing ordinances, laws, executive orders; and (3) popular support, using ballot initiatives and referenda. These dimensions are further fragmented by level of government: federal, state, and local. We find that, despite crucial tactical innovations compared to the 1960s, both adversaries continue to focus on classic civil rights issues. Our analyses suggest that gay rights opponents increasingly find success through ballot initiatives, a venue based on popular support rather than access to central government arenas. In contrast, gay rights proponents increasingly succeed when using central governmental channels (legislatures, courts), which remain contested. These findings highlight the limits of central concepts rooted in the resource mobilization and state literatures, i.e., the distinction between insiders and outsiders to the polity and the social movement/countermovement debate.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)386-410
Number of pages25
JournalSocial Problems
Volume48
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2001

Fingerprint

fragmentation
referendum
federal state
judiciary
civil rights
social movement
tactics
mobilization
legislation
innovation
Law
resources
time
literature

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

Who's "in" and who's "out" : State fragmentation and the struggle over gay rights, 1974-1999. / Werum, Regina; Winders, Bill.

In: Social Problems, Vol. 48, No. 3, 08.2001, p. 386-410.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9c0609e0d11d4b8e97235bb055c84c7c,
title = "Who's {"}in{"} and who's {"}out{"}: State fragmentation and the struggle over gay rights, 1974-1999",
abstract = "We examine how state fragmentation has shaped tactical choices of gay rights adversaries between 1974 and 1999. Which political channels have both sides used to advance their goals? Have their tactics changed over time? Specifically, we analyze how they have used three dimensions of the state: (1) judiciary, getting courts to extend or repeal existing legislation; (2) legislative, passing ordinances, laws, executive orders; and (3) popular support, using ballot initiatives and referenda. These dimensions are further fragmented by level of government: federal, state, and local. We find that, despite crucial tactical innovations compared to the 1960s, both adversaries continue to focus on classic civil rights issues. Our analyses suggest that gay rights opponents increasingly find success through ballot initiatives, a venue based on popular support rather than access to central government arenas. In contrast, gay rights proponents increasingly succeed when using central governmental channels (legislatures, courts), which remain contested. These findings highlight the limits of central concepts rooted in the resource mobilization and state literatures, i.e., the distinction between insiders and outsiders to the polity and the social movement/countermovement debate.",
author = "Regina Werum and Bill Winders",
year = "2001",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1525/sp.2001.48.3.386",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "48",
pages = "386--410",
journal = "Social Problems",
issn = "0037-7791",
publisher = "University of California Press",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Who's "in" and who's "out"

T2 - State fragmentation and the struggle over gay rights, 1974-1999

AU - Werum, Regina

AU - Winders, Bill

PY - 2001/8

Y1 - 2001/8

N2 - We examine how state fragmentation has shaped tactical choices of gay rights adversaries between 1974 and 1999. Which political channels have both sides used to advance their goals? Have their tactics changed over time? Specifically, we analyze how they have used three dimensions of the state: (1) judiciary, getting courts to extend or repeal existing legislation; (2) legislative, passing ordinances, laws, executive orders; and (3) popular support, using ballot initiatives and referenda. These dimensions are further fragmented by level of government: federal, state, and local. We find that, despite crucial tactical innovations compared to the 1960s, both adversaries continue to focus on classic civil rights issues. Our analyses suggest that gay rights opponents increasingly find success through ballot initiatives, a venue based on popular support rather than access to central government arenas. In contrast, gay rights proponents increasingly succeed when using central governmental channels (legislatures, courts), which remain contested. These findings highlight the limits of central concepts rooted in the resource mobilization and state literatures, i.e., the distinction between insiders and outsiders to the polity and the social movement/countermovement debate.

AB - We examine how state fragmentation has shaped tactical choices of gay rights adversaries between 1974 and 1999. Which political channels have both sides used to advance their goals? Have their tactics changed over time? Specifically, we analyze how they have used three dimensions of the state: (1) judiciary, getting courts to extend or repeal existing legislation; (2) legislative, passing ordinances, laws, executive orders; and (3) popular support, using ballot initiatives and referenda. These dimensions are further fragmented by level of government: federal, state, and local. We find that, despite crucial tactical innovations compared to the 1960s, both adversaries continue to focus on classic civil rights issues. Our analyses suggest that gay rights opponents increasingly find success through ballot initiatives, a venue based on popular support rather than access to central government arenas. In contrast, gay rights proponents increasingly succeed when using central governmental channels (legislatures, courts), which remain contested. These findings highlight the limits of central concepts rooted in the resource mobilization and state literatures, i.e., the distinction between insiders and outsiders to the polity and the social movement/countermovement debate.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035638941&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035638941&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1525/sp.2001.48.3.386

DO - 10.1525/sp.2001.48.3.386

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0035638941

VL - 48

SP - 386

EP - 410

JO - Social Problems

JF - Social Problems

SN - 0037-7791

IS - 3

ER -