Appendix: Examples of Newspaper Articles Coded for Tone

Appendix: Examples of Newspaper Articles Coded for Tone

(for: Allen, Mahalley D., and Donald P. Haider-Markel. 2007. “Connecting Supreme Court Decisions, Media Coverage, and Public Opinion: The Case of Lawrence v. Texas.” The American Review of Politics (Forthcoming))

Example 1: Article Coded as Positive

June 27, 2003, Friday

SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A14
HEADLINE: Supreme Court affirms right to privacy for all Americans
BODY:
The U.S. Supreme Court did the right thing Thursday in overturning the Texas law that made it a misdemeanor crime for anyone to have sex with a person of the same gender. Texas didn't think the law was important enough to enforce, yet the law branded as illegal private behavior between consensual adults.

There is simply no good reason for the government to make it a crime for consenting adults -- in any combination of sexes -- to have sex in private. Of course, it remains illegal for anyone, heterosexual or homosexual, to have sex in public.

The court, in a 6-3 ruling written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, said the Texas law that bans "deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex" violates a person's constitutional right to privacy. The case before the court, Lawrence v. Texas, involved two Houston men who were convicted in 1998 of having sex with each other in an apartment.

Even if most people disapprove of gay men and women, the court said, the state "cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."

The court overturned its 1986 decision that upheld a Georgia anti-sodomy law. Since then, the court noted, many states have repealed their anti-sodomy laws, and only 13 still have them. Of those 13, just four ban sodomy -- oral and anal sex in Texas -- only for gay people.

That shift in the laws reflects the determination of many gay people during the past three decades or so to refuse any longer to hide their sexual orientation and to assert their rights as citizens and human beings. As a result, Americans are generally more tolerant, if not more understanding. Many a heterosexual has been forced to deal with the fact that he or she, too, has a relative -- a son, perhaps, or a cousin, or a niece -- who is gay. And many Americans have come to accept that homosexual behavior is not a perverse refusal to follow a "normal" lifestyle, but -- for reasons we still are far from fully understanding -- appears to be an innate drive as powerful as that which propels most people to seek out the opposite sex.

Most Americans probably find it difficult to grasp why anyone would engage in sex with a person of the same gender, and many regard such behavior as repugnant. Certainly, many consider it deeply immoral; no court decision will change that.

In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity are "called into question" by the majority ruling. Some should be called into question; if we start prosecuting people for adultery, masturbation and fornication, we won't have room in prison for real criminals. We trust the animal rights lobby will do a terrific job of protecting the beasts from predatory humans.

Thursday's ruling did not clear the way for gay marriage. In the case decided by the court Thursday, two adults asserted their right to be left alone by the government in their own home. By definition, anyone applying for a marriage license is seeking government recognition.

Gay marriage may or may not be a good idea, but leaving consenting adults alone in private is a constitutional idea. Kennedy summed it up well in the opening of the court ruling:

"Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home."

Example 2: Article Coded as Negative

April 30, 2003, Wednesday, Late Edition - Final

SECTION: Section A; Page 22; Column 1; National Desk
LENGTH: 473 words
HEADLINE: Republican Lawmakers Back Senator in Gay Dispute
BYLINE: By CARL HULSE
Republican leaders in Congress gave strong backing to Senator Rick Santorum today, dismissing calls by gay rights groups and Democrats for him to be replaced as the third-ranking Republican in the Senate for remarks about homosexuality.

Senior officials in both houses swiftly rose to Mr. Santorum's defense as Congress returned from a two-week recess and the lawmakers faced questions about him from reporters.

"I think Senator Santorum took a very courageous and moral position based upon principles and his world view," said Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader from Texas.

Mr. DeLay said he was proud of Mr. Santorum for "standing on principle."

Mr. Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican who is the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference has been caught in a storm since he discussed a Texas antisodomy law under review by the Supreme Court during an interview with The Associated Press.

Referring to sodomy, he said, "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

The remarks sparked outrage from gay rights groups, Democrats and a few moderate Republicans who suggested he should apologize or be replaced in the upper echelon of the Senate hierarchy. They made comparisons to the way Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the former Republican leader, was pushed aside after comments seen as racially divisive.

But Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, said today that Mr. Santorum's support among his fellow Republicans in the Senate was solid.

"Absolutely, he will remain in leadership," Dr. Frist told reporters. "He has the full, 100 percent confidence of the Republican leadership in the United States Senate."

Dr. Frist went on to praise his colleague for his "inclusiveness, in terms of growing the Republican Party."

Officials said Mr. Santorum thanked his fellow Republican senators for their support in a closed strategy luncheon and received a round of applause.

People at the meeting said Mr. Santorum even received expressions of support from fellow Republicans who last week had expressed some misgivings about the comments.

Mr. Santorum, who did not speak in public today, has refused to apologize and said that his remarks were more directed at the right to privacy rather than homosexuality. He said his position was shared by a majority of the Supreme Court in upholding a Georgia antisodomy law in 1986.

Mr. DeLay repeated that point today, saying the court found "that it is very dangerous to say that whatever you do behind closed doors is your right to privacy."

"It undermines a lot of moral questions that we have in this country," he said.

Example 3: Article Coded as Neutral

Sodomy law goes before justices

The News and Observer Raleigh, NC

3/27/03

Supreme Court hears Texas Case

by Edward Walsh, The Washington Post

Washington – The Supreme Court engaged in a lively discussion of state sodomy laws Wednesday, hearing a challenge to a Texas statute that prohibits “deviate sexual intercourse” between people of the same sex but that does not apply to heterosexual activity.

Paul Smith, the lawyer for two Texas men whom police discovered having anal intercourse in a Houston apartment, told the court that the law was an unconstitutional invasion of privacy rights and violated the equal protection clause of the 14^th Amendment because “it is directed not just as conduct but at a particular group of people – same-sex couples.”

Harris County, Texas, District Attorney Charles Rosenthal said there is a long tradition in the country of regulating sexual activity outside of marriage and that Texas “has a right to set moral standards … for its people.”

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia expressed sympathy for the state’s position, while Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer peppered Rosenthal with skeptical questions.

The case began Sept. 17, 1998, when a false report of a disturbance involving a gun led police to enter the home of John Lawrence, where he was discovered having anal sex with Tyron Garner. The two men were convicted of violating the Texas Homosexual Conduct law and were fined $200 each. The convictions were reversed at one stage in the appeals process but were eventually reinstated and upheld by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state’s highest criminal court.

Texas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma have laws banning sodomy between people of the same sex. Nine other states, including North Carolina, have sodomy laws that apply both to same-sex couples and to heterosexuals.

Scalia challenged Smith’s assertion that the Texas law’s application to only same-sex couples violated equal protection provisions of the Constitution. He said many laws make such distinctions. “Aren’t these statues on adultery?” he said.

Rehnquist added that “almost all laws are based on approval of some people or conduct. That’s why people legislate.”

Asked by Justice John Paul Stevens about a Supreme Court ruling that overturned a Virginia law that banned interracial marriage, Rosenthal said that law “violated a fundamental rights.” Stevens said, “That’s the issue here.”

Breyer said the “hard question” was whether states can enact laws based on what lawmakers think is immoral. “You haven’t given us a rational basis except to say it’s immoral,” he said.

Rosenthal said states have changed sodomy laws “through the legislative process. That’s where we think this belongs, in the state house of Texas.”