Evolving Argument Strategies in the Debate over Same-sex Marriage in the U.s

The debate over same-sex marriage in the U.S. is taking place in the legal sphere in the court system as well as in the public sphere leading up to various state ballot initiatives. In an earlier project, I analyzed the differences in argumentation in the technical and public spheres in 2008 concerning Proposition 8 in California (Schiappa 2012). My colleagues and I found that the norms and practices of constitutional argument in the technical sphere filter out specific arguments— particularly fear appeals and claims based on religious beliefs and values—that were prominent in the public sphere. This paper continues my analysis of the samesex marriage debate in two ways. First, I describe the four state Supreme Court decisions that have ruled a prohibition of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional to argue that the majority opinions should be thought of as engaging in argument evaluation. Second, I focus on two states that vote in 2012 on constitutional amendments that define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman. In North Carolina, voters went to the polls on May 8, 2012 following a public debate that illustrated a somewhat different argumentative exchange than has been seen in most states that have voted on the issue of same-sex marriage. In Minnesota, the state legislature voted in the spring of 2011 to put a constitutional amendment on the November 2012 ballot. The 18-month period between the legislature’s action and the vote in November allows for a very different sort of campaign strategy than is typical—one that I believe is best understood through the lens of the Elaboration Likelihood Model of argumentative persuasion.