Gay marriage and sex education and creationism in public schools are issues all about rules. Laws are rules, and currently there are rules preventing to people of the same sex the right to marry one anther. The only way to really make the rules regarding gay people "good" is to allow them to marry each other, but I think a compromise, civil unions, which would stop the rules which restrict and harm the lives of gay people is the next best step.

Policy Outcomes

Policy outcomes for issues with religious interests don't vary too drastically. Gay marriage is the most obvious example of this, with elections being held in different states to pass gay marriage legislation. While some may put an unnecessary emphasis on these outcomes to sensationalize them. But those states, all of whom have opposed the legalization of gay marriage, are almost all very likely to pass civil unions that would allow gays to essentially be married in every sense other than title. While many people probably oppose these civil unions many would be hard pressed to justify their reasons. Not that gay people ruin marriage for straight couples is a logical argument. Anyway, a marriage equivalent civil union is an outcome that will become extremely common in the next couple years. I think it would be hard to use any sort of policy tool to change or reward any behavior since the benefits and negative consequences are solely related to the issues surrounding my different issues. Creationism being taught in public schools is practically an extinct practice, and it would be hard to change the outcome with inducements or sanctions. The only issue I could see sanctions being useful would be sex education, stopping funding for sex education to schools that use abstinence only education as their sole provider of sexual health related information. This could be mildly effective, but I think that would have to be the extent of it because I can't see rewarding schools for teaching kids how they should, not particularly well just how they should, is not a good political policy.

 How are the targets of your policy study constructed? How does this affect policy? What if the targets got to use their "local knolwedge" to make policy on their own?

The targets of my issue are people affected by the government policies that result from religious influences. The two largest targets are religious activists who are portrayed either as upholding what is morally correct or preventing equality. Some portray the religious activists in a postive light because they promote virtuous values or because they are spreading the word of God. They are also portrayed negatively because they are preventing proper education in schools. There are very few "attacks" on gays because that would be an unpopular message, so they are not as much a target, however maybe because people who are against gay marriage say marriage should be "protected".

Intrests

Those who interested in opposing gay marriage, evolution being taught in schools, and sex education that includes information about the importance of birth control are primarily religious groups. Not all people who oppose gay marriage oppose non-abstinence based sex education, and an even smaller part of that group oppose the teaching of evolution in schools. However, the people who support religion in government policy, logically, are primarily certain religious people. They have an interest in these issues because they believe these policies have the moral high ground according to their religious affiliation. Those who have interest in the opposing side are anyone who opposes the beliefs of some people imposed on a nation. This includes gay rights activists to people just interested in seeing the amount of teen pregnancies. This is a topic that is primarily focused on gay marriage right now, and I don't know if my classmates have an obligation to do anything about it besides vote. This may seem apathetic, but I don't think you have an obligation to change something that you're not passionate about or effects you personally.