Timing Matters: Shifts in the Causal Determinants of Sodomy Law Decriminalization, 1961–1998

Kane, Melinda D.

doi:10.1525/sp.2007.54.2.211

Cited by 46 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Or in a richer interpretation, perhaps the general public can be simply more easily motivated to attend to morality policy than nonmorality policy by these elites when public action is needed in the policymaking process. Further research is needed to assess this interesting hypothesis about elites and social movements on morality policy (Kane, 2007).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Morality Policy Exist? Testing a Basic Assumption

Mooney

Schuldt

2008

Policy Studies Journal

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does morality policy exist? A growing body of scholarship has examined the ways that the politics of so‐called “morality policy” (e.g., abortion regulation, same‐sex marriage policy, and capital punishment) differ from the politics of other types of policy. In this literature, morality policies are assumed to be distinctive in that they generate conflicts of basic moral values, do not lend themselves to compromise, and are widely salient and technically simple. Using an email survey of morality policy scholars and a telephone survey of just over seven hundred Illinois residents in 2005, we test this assumption. We find that citizen responses about these policies vary along three of these four characteristics, just as morality policy scholars predicted. Thus, morality policies do exist, as assumed by these scholars. Our analysis also suggests some potentially fruitful avenues for future research on morality policy and other policy typologies.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Morality Policy Exist? Testing a Basic Assumption

Mooney

Schuldt

2008

Policy Studies Journal

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By closely examining a region that advocates an LGBT norm, while also exhibiting variation of its implementation across states, this article has contributed to understanding diffusion patterns using methodologically and theoretically driven conditions. Future research would benefit from more careful consideration of the role of the issue's salience according to historical time (Kane, 2007) and on a global scale. Furthermore, the relationship between international norms and the domestic resistances that moderate their reception (Ayoub, 2014), as well as global processes of norm polarization (Symons and Altman, forthcoming), need to be explored carefully and can offer important insights into studies on LGBT rights, since these rights remain hotly contested in multiple contexts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the transnational and international channels, only the Political and Combined channels are significant, at the .05 and .1 level, respectively, and positively correlated with LGBT policy adoption, but only in Models 7 and 8. The later timing of LGBT visibility (Kane, 2007) may also explain why EU-12 states are more susceptible to international channels. EU-15 states began responding to the issue in a less connected world, with fewer outside pressures, but the game changed as such pressures intensified and such state decisions could no longer be made in a vacuum.…”

Section: Domestic Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contested norms in new-adopter states: International determinants of LGBT rights legislation

Ayoub

2014

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article is concerned with the question of why lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans (LGBT) rights legislation is introduced at higher levels in some cases and less so in others. To address this puzzle, the article analyzes changes in LGBT rights legislation across European Union (EU) member states between 1970 and 2009. It focuses on the diffusion of five different categories of such legislation (anti-discrimination, criminal law, partnership, parenting rights, and equal sexual offenses provisions) to new EU member states in Central and Eastern Europe, compared with diffusion patterns in older EU member states. I argue that new-adopter states are more dependent on international resources for making new issues visible and are more inclined to see policy adoption as a means to gain external legitimacy and improve reputation. The analysis reveals that the transnational embeddedness of a state's LGBT advocacy organizations is a powerful statistical explanation for successful policy diffusion to new EU member states, alongside international channels that lead to LGBT visibility among society and state authorities. In addition to lending cross-national, empirical reinforcement to some of the theoretical expectations regarding the international sources of diffusion, the results suggest variability in the determinants of LGBT policy adoption between the 15 old and 12 new EU states. Domestic factors, particularly economic modernization, are more relevant for policy adoption in the older member states, whereas the newer member states display greater dependence on transnational actors and are more influenced by international channels.

show abstract

“…When addressing attitudes toward traditional gender roles and negativity toward heterosexuals, some studies have explored the possibility of gender and sexuality attitudes being spatialized (Baunach, Burgess, and Muse 2010;Carter and Borch 2005;Eldridge, Mack, and Swank 2006;Moore and Vanneman 2003). Several space-based studies note that traditional gender and sexuality scripts are expressed more frequently by people who resided in small town or rural communities (Andersen and Fetner 2008;Bolzendahl and Myers 2004;Loftus 2001;Rice and Coates 1995;Rosenfeld and Kim 2006), and southern or more rural states are more likely to have laws that ban same-sex marriages (Kane 2007;McVeigh and Maria-Elena 2009;Soule 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Region, Social Identities, and Disclosure Practices as Predictors of Heterosexist Discrimination Against Sexual Minorities in the United States

Swank

Fahs

Frost

2013

Sociological Inquiry

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Exposure to heterosexist discrimination may vary by a person's place of residency. Utilizing a minority stress perspective, an online survey of self-identified lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals (n = 285) examined whether rural and small town inhabitants experienced greater exposure to six types of enacted stigma. After comparing the frequency of enacted stigma by community type, findings demonstrated that ruralLGBs reported experiencing more homophobic statements, property damage, and employment discrimination than urban LGBs. Small town LGBs also encountered additional amounts of housing discrimination and were more often chased by strangers compared with urban sexual minorities. Finally, disclosure practices and hierarchies based on race and social class also influenced exposure to discrimination. The importance of spatial factors often intensified when respondents disclosed their sexual identity more publicly. When exploring racial and class differences, affluent sexual minorities experienced less employment discrimination and white sexual minorities were less likely to experience several forms of heterosexist events (especially being punched and kicked).Discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals is common and multidimensional. In its most explicit forms, heterosexist behavior manifests itself through physical violence and language that chastises and demeans homosexuality and non-normative gender behavior. In slightly subtler forms, heterosexism and heteronormativity inform many insidious practices that privilege heterosexuality while denigrating sexual minorities. Through these practices, LGBs often endure hostile environments that monitor and penalize homosexual behavior in the United States.LGB individuals' experiences of stigma, prejudice, and discrimination, which result from heteronormativity and heterosexism, 1 have been usefully conceptualized as constituting minority stress (Meyer 2003). Minority stress theory is based in social stress theory, which posits that stressors constitute any factors or conditions that require individuals to adapt to changes intrapersonally, interpersonally, or in their environments. Meyer (2003) posited that minority stressors can be usefully conceptualized along a continuum of proximity to the

show abstract

Timing Matters: Shifts in the Causal Determinants of Sodomy Law Decriminalization, 1961–1998

Cited by 46 publications

References 44 publications

Does Morality Policy Exist? Testing a Basic Assumption

Does Morality Policy Exist? Testing a Basic Assumption

Contested norms in new-adopter states: International determinants of LGBT rights legislation

Region, Social Identities, and Disclosure Practices as Predictors of Heterosexist Discrimination Against Sexual Minorities in the United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About