In this article, we use comparative historical analysis to explain agenda-setting and the timing of policy outcomes on same-sex marriage in the United States, Canada, and Australia. Unlike the United States and Canada, Australia does not have a bill of rights, making litigation to obtain rights not enumerated in existing legislation unavailable to activists. Extending the literatures on the development of public policy and on political and historical institutionalism, we argue that in the absence of domestic opportunities for legal change, international law becomes more important to activists in wealthy democracies, but it is contingent on states’ specific institutional and cultural features. Even when international law is “domesticated” into national political structures, it is still secondary to internal conditions in countries with extensive rights-based polities. International law may set a political agenda, but once introduced, policies move according to internal conditions related to party discipline, the centralization of courts, and policy legacies within those countries.
Hendricks et al. v. Québec (Procureur général) [2002] R.J.Q. 2506 (Sup. Crt).
9.
Joslin et al. v. New Zealand. Communication No. 902/1999, U.N.Doc. A/57/40 at 214 (2002).
10.
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
11.
M v. H [1999] S.C.J. no. 23.
12.
Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015 WL 213646 (2015).
13.
Rosenberg v. Canada (Attorney General) [1998] 38 O.R. (3d) 577.
14.
US v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675-2013.
15.
Vriend v. Alberta [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493.
16.
AdamsJuliaClemensElisabethOrloffAnn. 2005. Remaking Modernity: Politics, History, and Sociology. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
17.
Aldikacti MarshallGul. 2009. “Authenticating Gender Policies through Sustained-Pressure: The Strategy behind the Success of Turkish Feminists.” Social Politics16(3):358–78.
18.
AmentaEdwin. 2000. Bold Relief. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
19.
AmentaEdwin. 2005. “State-Centered and Political Institutional Theory.” Pp. 96–114 in The Handbook of Political Sociology, edited by JanoskiT.AlfordR.HicksA.SchwartzM.New York: Cambridge University Press.
20.
AmentaEdwin. 2010. “Institutional Theory.” Pp. 15–39 in Handbook of Politics: State and Society in Global Perspective, edited by LeichtK. T.JenkinsJ. C.New York: Springer Science.
21.
AndersenEllen Ann. 2005. Out of the Closets & Into the Courts: Legal Opportunity Structure and Gay Rights Legislation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
22.
AndersenEllen Ann. 2009. “The Gay Divorcée: The Case of the Missing Argument.” Pp. 281–302 in Queer Mobilizations: LGBT Activists Confront the Law, edited by BarclayS.BernsteinM.MarshallA.New York: NYU Press.
Australian Human Rights Law Resource Center. 2006. “The Human Right to Non-Discrimination in Same-Sex Relationships.” Submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission National Inquiry into Discrimination against People in Same-Sex Relationships: Financial and Work-Related Entitlements and Benefits (http://www.hrlrc.org.au/files/8T641VOV6F/HRLRC%20-%20Same-Sex%20Entitlements%20Submission.pdf Downloaded 9/12/2009).
BallPatrick. 2002. “State Terror, Constitutional Traditions, and National Human Rights Movements.” Pp. 54–75 in Globalization and Social Movements, edited by GuidryJ.KennedyM.ZaldM.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
27.
BernsteinMary. 2002. “Identities and Politics: Toward a Historical Understanding of the Lesbian and Gay Movement.” Social Science History26(3):531–81.
28.
BernsteinMary. 2005. “Identity Politics.” Annual Review of Sociology31:47–74.
29.
BernsteinMary. 2011. “United States: Multi-Institutional Politics, Social Movements and the State.” Pp. 197–211 in The Lesbian and Gay Movement and the State: Comparative Insights into a Transformed Relationship, edited by TremblayM.PaternotteD.JohnsonC.Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
30.
BernsteinMaryBurkeMary C.2013. “Normalization, Queer Discourse, and the Marriage Equality Movement in Vermont.” Pp. 319–44 in The Marrying Kind? Debating Same-Sex Marriage within the Lesbian and Gay Movement, edited by BernsteinM.TaylorV.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
31.
BernsteinMaryTaylorVerta. 2013. “The Debate over Marriage in the Lesbian and Gay Movement.” Pp. 1–35 in The Marrying Kind: Debating Same-Sex Marriage within the Lesbian and Gay Movement, edited by BernsteinM.TaylorV.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
32.
BussDorisHermanDidi. 2003. Globalizing Family Values: The Christian Right in International Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
dellaPorta, Donatella. 2002. “Comparative Politics and Social Movements.” Pp. 286–313 in Methods of Social Movement Research, edited by KlandermansB.StaggenborgS.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
36.
EconomyElizabeth C.2004. The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenge to China’s Future. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
37.
FetnerTina. 2008. How the Religious Right Shaped Lesbian and Gay Activism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
38.
GiugniMarco G.2002. “Explaining Cross-national Similarities among Social Movements.” Pp. 13–29 in Globalization and Resistance, edited by SmithJ.JohnstonH.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
39.
GossettCharles W.2009. “Pushing the Envelope: Dillon’s Rule and Local Domestic Partnership Ordinances.” Pp. 158–86 in Queer Mobilizations: LGBT Activists Confront the Law, edited by BarclayS.BernsteinM.MarshallA.New York: NYU Press.
40.
HalfmannDrew. 2011. Doctors and Demonstrators: How Political Institutions Shape Abortion Law in the United States, Britain, and Canada. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC). 2006. Same-Sex: Same Entitlements. National Inquiry into Discrimination against People in Same-Sex Relationships: Financial and Work-Related Entitlements and Benefits. Sydney, Australia: HREOC.
JacobsonDavidRufferGalya Benarieh. 2003. “Courts across Borders: The Implications of Judicial Agency for Human Rights and Democracy.” Human Rights Quarterly25(1):74–92.
46.
JohnsonCarol. 2007. “John Howard’s ‘Values’ and Australian Identity.” Australian Journal of Political Science42(2):195–209.
47.
JohnsonCarolMaddisonSarahPartridgeEmma. 2011. “Australia: Parties, Federalism, and Rights Agendas.” Pp. 27–42 in The Lesbian and Gay Movement and the State, edited by TremblayM.PaternotteD.JohnsonC.Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
48.
KaldorMary. 2003. Global Civil Society: An Answer to War. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
KirbyMichael. 2001. “Law and Sexuality: The Contrasting Case of Australia.” Stanford Law and Policy Review12(1):103–116.
51.
KollmanKelly. 2009. “European Institutions, Transnational Networks and National Same-Sex Unions Policy: When Soft Law Hits Harder.” Contemporary Politics15(1):37–53.
52.
MaddisonSarahMartinGreg. 2010. “Introduction to ‘Surviving Neoliberalism: The Persistence of Australian Social Movements.’”Social Movement Studies9(2):101–120.
53.
MaddisonSarahPartridgeEmma. 2007. “How Well Does Australian Democracy Serve Sexual and Gender Minorities?” The Democratic Audit of Australia, The Australian National University, Report No. 9.
54.
MahoneyJames. 2003. “Strategies of Causal Assessment in Comparative and Historical Analysis.” Pp. 337–72 in Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by MahoneyJ.RueschemeyerD.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
55.
MerrySally Engle. 2006. Human Rights and Gender Violence: Translating International Law into Local Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
56.
MillbankJenni. 2006. “The Changing Meaning of ‘De Facto’ Relationships.” Current Family Law12(82):1–11.
57.
MillbankJenni. 2009. “De Facto Relationships, Same-Sex and Surrogate Parents.” Australian Journal of Family Law23(3):1–32.
58.
MillbankJenniSantKathy. 2000. “A Bride in Her Everyday Clothes: Same Sex Relationship Recognition in NSW.” Sydney Law Review22(2):181–219.
59.
NaplesNancy A.2002. “Transnational Feminist Praxis.” Pp. 267–81 in Women’s Activism and Globalization: Linking Local Struggles and Transnational Politics, edited by NaplesN.DesaiM.New York: Routledge.
NepstadSharon Erickson. 2002. “Creating Transnational Solidarity: The Use of Narrative in the U.S.-Central America Peace Movement.” Pp. 133–49 in Globalization and Resistance, edited by SmithJ.JohnstonH.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
PiercesonJason. 2005. Courts, Liberalism, and Rights. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
65.
PiercesonJason. 2013. The Road to the Supreme Court and Beyond: Same-Sex Marriage in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
66.
PiersonPaulSkocpolTheda. 2002. “Historical Institutionalism in Contemporary Political Science.” Pp. 693–721 in Political Science: The State of the Discipline, edited by KatznelsonI.MilnerH.New York: Norton.
67.
RaeburnNicole. 2004. Changing Corporate America from Inside Out: Lesbian and Gay Workplace Rights. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
68.
RajagopalBalakrishnan. 2005. “The Role of Law in Counter Hegemonic Globalization and Global Legal Pluralism.” Leiden Journal of International Law18(3):345–87.
69.
RaysideDavid. 2008. Queer Inclusions, Continental Divisions: Public Recognition of Sexual Diversity in Canada and the United States. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
70.
RaysideDavidWilcoxClyde, eds. 2011. Faith Politics and Sexual Diversity in Canada and the United States. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
71.
ReimannKim D.2002. “Building Networks from the Outside In: Japanese NGOs and the Kyoto Climate Change Conference.” Pp. 173–87 in Globalization and Resistance, edited by SmithJ.JohnstonH.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
72.
SheltonDinah. 2002. “Right to Environment–Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights–Implied Rights–State Responsibility for Conduct of Foreign Corporations–Exhaustion of Local Remedies.” American Journal of International Law96:937–42.
73.
ShoretteKristen. 2012. “Outcomes of Global Environmentalism: Longitudinal and Cross-National Trends in Chemical Fertilizer and Pesticide Use.” Social Forces91(1):299–325.
74.
SkocpolTheda. 1995. Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
75.
SmithJackie. 2007. Social Movements for Global Democracy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
76.
SmithMiriam. 2007. “Framing Same-Sex Marriage in Canada and the United States.” Social & Legal Studies16(1):5–26.
77.
SmithMiriam. 2008. Political Institutions and Lesbian and Gay Rights in the United States and Canada. New York: Routledge.
78.
SmithMiriam. 2011. “Canada: The Power of Institutions.” Pp. 75–87 in The Lesbian and Gay Movement and the State: Comparative Insights into a Transformed Relationship, edited by TremblayM.PaternotteD.JohnsonC.Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
79.
SteinmoSven. 1993. Taxation and Democracy. New Haven, CT: Duke University Press.
80.
SteinmoSvenThelenKathleenLongstrethFrank. 1992. Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
81.
StoneAmy. 2012. Gay Rights at the Ballot Box. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
82.
StrangDavidMeyerJohn W.1993. “Institutional Conditions for Diffusion.” Theory and Society22(4):487–511.
TaylorVertaKimportKatrinaVan DykeNellaAndersenEllen Ann. 2009. “Culture and Mobilization: Tactical Repertoires, Same-Sex Weddings, and the Impact on Gay Activism.” American Sociological Review78(6):865–90.
85.
WillettGraham. 2010. “Howard and the Homos.” Social Movement Studies9(2):187–99.
86.
YoungClaireBoydSusan. 2006. “Losing the Feminist Voice? Debates on the Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Partnerships in Canada.” Feminist Legal Studies14(2):213–40.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
