Naming,blaming, and claiming in public disputes: the 1998 Maine referendum on civil rights protection for gay men and lesbians

On February 10, 1998, voters in Maine repealed a law providing civil rights protection for gay men and lesbians. This article provides an analysis of the argument strategies used by both parties to the dispute, shedding light on the particular tactics that contributed to the repeal. Felstiner, Abel, and Sarat's (1981) sociolegal theory of naming, blaming, and claiming is offered as a lens to examine conservatives' anti-gay rights arguments in the campaign. The theory helps demonstrate how conservatives' argument patterns created narratives that successfully appealed to disparate audiences in Maine, thus garnering sufficient voter support to pass the appeal referendum. I also define weaknesses in GLBT supporters' counter-arguments using this theoretical perspective. Finally, I offer suggestions for argument strategies in future campaigns that could strengthen uncommitted voters' support for gay civil rights initiatives.