Media Coverage of California's AB 25: A Win for Gay Rights Activists, Papers of Theatre

Download Media Coverage of California's AB 25: A Win for Gay Rights Activists and more Papers Theatre in PDF only on Docsity! Bichngoc Cao Jour 468(m) Castañeda Dec. 12, 2001 Media Coverage of California Domestic Partners’ Legislation AB 25 In a society deluged by media, California’s gay rights activists scored on domestic partners legislation this year by building a grassroots campaign marked by convincing rhetoric and unabashed enthusiasm for their cause. Indeed, their focused campaign for AB 25 barreled over inflammatory commentary from conservative groups to capture the attention of the media, who helped deliver the message to the masses. Mainstream and gay media, print and online, embraced AB 25, which may have played a key role in amassing the tremendous support shown in the public’s feedback to the state legislature and governor’s office. AB 25, a landmark bill that gives basic rights to California’s domestic partners, is one of the most progressive same-sex benefits laws in the United States. Sponsored by the California Alliance for Pride and Equality, a gay rights lobbying group, and backed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and People for the American Way, AB 25 was buoyed by the union of those non- profit groups with corporate sponsors, all working to mobilize substantial constituent support using traditional and modern marketing methods. Despite loud protests from conservative groups such as the Campaign for California Families, the bill’s proponents prevailed because of their zeal in promoting their message. Their victory does not only reflect constituents’ support; it strongly attests to the power of harnessing media voices to make a point. By solidly framing the issue in the media as the addition of basic, not special, rights and protections to protect Californians, activists were able to muster support from even the most reluctant constituents. Introduced to the legislature by Assemblymember Carole Migden of San Francisco, AB 25 passed through both houses on Sept. 10 and won Gov. Gray Davis’s signature on Oct. 14. It 2 goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2002. After undergoing months of debate and seven emendations, AB 25 is poised to give domestic partners about a dozen rights that include the right to sue for the wrongful death of a partner; the right to make medical decisions for a hospitalized partner; the right to adopt a partner’s child using the stepparent adoption process; the right to use sick leave to care for a partner; the right to act as a conservator; and the right to relocate with a partner without losing jobless benefits. In addition, opposite-sex couples can register as domestic partners if one or both of the individuals is over the age of 62. Although activists note that in the context of gay rights, AB 25 is progressive but not nearly as expansive as they would like, conservatives cried that the bill overruns the will of voters who put Proposition 22, the initiative that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, in effect. Certainly, the activists could not have been victorious if not for their grassroots campaign, which was based on gathering signatures and information for a petition sent to Gov. Davis and state legislators in the form of thousands of postcards. The effort, organized and implemented primarily by the ACLU and CAPE, included targeted contact with Californians as well as online outreach. Volunteers spread the word at gay film festivals, parades, shopping centers, and other lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) gathering places. Because of this “unprecedented campaign,” Christopher Calhoun of the ACLU said that “for the first time in California’s history, there were more letters, phone calls, e-mails, and faxes in support of an LGBT civil rights bill than in opposition.” Quite simply, conservatives could not even begin to compete, especially in the face of overwhelming pro-AB 25 opinion pieces and fairly balanced news coverage. Opponents of the bill could not get their message to the public effectively in the midst of such competition. 5 securing equality for same-sex couples if far from finished,” Calhoun said. “AB 25 is a big step forward on a long path, but it is not our final destination.” A press release from the Office of the Governor echoed those organizations’ thoughts, noting that the bill “provides fair treatment.” Even as he emphasized the status quo by telling the legislature that a “legal marriage is between a man and a woman,” Gov. Davis said in his statement, “This bill is about responsibility, respect, and most of all about family--and it’s about time,” a memorable quotation that journalists picked up as a catch phrase for AB 25 in their news coverage. Davis’s press release also noted that he signed the bill at a special signing ceremony, which shows how inclusionary he hopes to look. As a new bill is being pushed through the Assembly to legalize civil unions in California, conservatives charge that gays’ final destination is marriage: “Gray Davis has a new legacy,” the press release from the Campaign for California Families said. “He is paving the way for homosexual marriage in California and America.” The statement challenged Davis’s words: “In one fell swoop, Gray Davis has cheapened every marriage in the state, undermined the vote of the people, pandered to special interests, frivolously spent taxpayer money, and broken his written promise to the citizens of California.” The Campaign also called Davis the “biggest hypocrite in the state of California.” Such loaded diction may be memorable, but its blatant bias may be the reason why the Campaign did not receive as much attention from journalists as it could have. The Campaign for California Families also emphasized that taxpayers would have to pay for implementation of the bill, since its moral defense did not hold up in the polls. In addition, the Campaign said that “it’s shameful for the Governor to use the terrorist assault on Americans to somehow justify his own assault upon marriage and family” when noting that Davis “showcased” the gay partner of one of the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks. They failed to disclose that the bill had been introduced to the legislature months before the attack. By framing 6 the issue around morality and taxes, the Campaign hoped for news coverage that would make readers angry about the bill. Mainstream news coverage showed that the Campaign for California Families failed to instill their bias into the stories, even if their viewpoint was present. In general, the coverage was fairly balanced between both sides, though it was framed around the legislation and its details, without delving too much into controversy. Much of the coverage was from California outlets, although there were a few out-of-state stories as well. The New York Times buried an article about the legislation Davis signed last minute, starting off with AB 25 because of its controversial nature. Instead of framing the story around the issue, the writer simply used it as a starting point to show how hurriedly Davis signed legislation to make a midnight deadline. An Associated Press story about the signing was brief and offered only the details available in the press releases from the governor and from the Campaign for California Families. Although the AP writer, Jim Wasserman, also covered other AB 25 stories, such as one about conservatives’ protests of the bill, he did not offer anything beyond the routine story. The Grand Rapids Press, affiliated with the Los Angeles Times, also offered a short story about the signing, offering only statements from Davis and scant details. The Los Angeles Times story from that same timeframe, however, provided much more insight into the bill and its journey through the Capitol. While writer Jenifer Warren used many of the ready-made quotes from the aforementioned press releases, she also showed how controversial the bill was by pointing out that the legislature split along party lines during votes. In addition, Warren touched upon every single point that the press releases mentioned, which made the story informative and balanced, covering both the frames of the proponents and opponents. The Los Angeles Times also featured another article that focused on the number of 7 bills that Davis signed, noting both sides’ arguments and observing that he “leans left on the last day of signing,” but it does not delve anything exclusive, instead sticking within the bounds of the views offered by the press releases. A front page San Diego Union-Tribune story was written exclusively about AB 25, offering more information about California’s gay rights movement with respect to other states. It features the principal organizations involved such as CAPE and the Campaign for California Families, as well as input from outsiders such as Judith Stacey, a sociologist at USC who studies families. Stacey said that gays have endured “struggles” that have made the gay rights movement more mature; instead of shunning mainstream institutions such as marriage, gays now embrace the idea, she said. Stacey hinted that marriage may be forthcoming in the gay rights battle: “Marriage is an ever-changing institution, even though most people don’t realize it.” Her words makes it appear as though gay marriage can be a simple next step, instead of a controversial fight. The Union-Tribune also goes into more detail than other stories about Proposition 22, which allowed the Campaign for California Families to assert that AB 25 trumps voters’ will. The San Francisco Chronicle, which covered AB 25 extensively throughout its legislative process, also ran a front page article that began by localizing its story by telling about how the partner of San Franciscan Mark Bingham, a victim of the terrorist attacks, attended the signing. Because AB 25 hits close to home in San Francisco, with its own Assemblywoman Migden as its author, the Chronicle went into great detail about the rights being afford to gay couples under the new law. While other newspapers dispersed opposing viewpoints throughout their stories, the Chronicle placed the opponents of the bill at the end, giving them one quotation and allowing Migden a final rebuttal: “Migden called the argument ‘irrational and not nice,’” which somewhat trivializes the point given by the Campaign for California Families about morality and taxes.