Morality, Equality, or Locality: Analyzing the Determinants of Support for Same-sex Marriage

• Published date: 01 September 2010
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912909333132
• Date: 01 September 2010
• Author: N. Susan Gaines,James C. Garand
• Subject Matter: Articles

Political Research Quarterly
63(3) 553 –567
Morality, Equality, or Locality:
© 2010 University of Utah
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Analyzing the Determinants of
DOI: 10.1177/1065912909333132
http://prq.sagepub.com
Support for Same-sex Marriage
N. Susan Gaines1 and James C. Garand1
Abstract
In this article, the authors develop a model in which they depict individuals’ support for same-sex marriage as a
function of several clusters of independent variables, including symbolic politics, moral and religious attitudes and
attachments, feelings toward gays and lesbians, women’s rights and gender roles, concern for minority and civil rights,
demographic attributes, and the local context. Using data from the 2004 American National Election Studies survey
and the U.S. Census, the authors find that attitudes toward same-sex marriage are a function of moral and religious
considerations, attitudes toward gays and lesbians, and gender roles. They find little evidence that attitudes toward
women’s rights and civil rights for African Americans affect attitudes toward same-sex marriage. Finally, they find that
contextual effects are limited only to those respondents who reside in counties with a very high percentage of same-
sex partnered couples.
Keywords
American politics, public opinion, political participation
The development of significant moral and cultural cleav-
During the 2004 presidential election, the issue of
ages in the United States has drawn the rapt attention of
same-sex marriage took on considerable importance, par-
political observers in recent decades. One cultural issue—
ticularly when Missouri and Louisiana voters approved
the legal status of same-sex relationships, including same-
bans on same-sex marriage in their primary elections and
sex marriage—has taken center stage in the American
eleven other states placed amendments on the ballot for
culture wars in the past dozen years, starting in particular
the general election that year. Scholars have debated the
with debates about the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
political implications of the same-sex marriage issue dur-
passed by Congress and signed by Presidential Clinton in
ing the 2004 presidential election, particularly the ques-
1996. In the years following passage of DOMA, the issue
tion of whether President George W. Bush and other
of same-sex marriage moved a bit toward the periphery of
Republican candidates benefited from an upsurge of vot-
the policy agenda in the minds of the American public
ers motivated to preserve “traditional family values”
until May 2004, when a decision by the Supreme Judicial
by supporting conservative candidates (Brewer 2005;
Court of Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in
Campbell and Monson 2005; Hillygus and Shields 2005;
that state. What had been a rather localized judicial deci-
Lewis 2005; Tolbert, Donovan, and Smith 2005).
sion in Massachusetts generated considerable debate
While the movement for same-sex marriage began
throughout the United States, and the issue became nation-
sporadically in the 1970s, it was only in the 1990s that the
alized over the question of whether the Full Faith and
wider gay community began the push for recognition of
Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution would require other
states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in
1Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge
Massachusetts or in other states that might adopt a change
in their marriage laws in the future. The decisions by the
Corresponding Authors:
N. Susan Gaines, PhD candidate in political science, Louisiana State
California and Connecticut supreme courts in 2008 to
University
legalize same-sex marriage, along with the November
Email: ngaine3@lsu.edu.
2008 ballot initiative on same-sex marriage in California,
James C. Garand, Emogine Pliner Distinguished Professor of Political
promise to keep the issue of same-sex marriage on the
Science, Louisiana State University
public agenda for the foreseeable future.
Email: pogara@lsu.edu.

---

554
Political Research Quarterly 63(3)
same-sex marriages (Eskridge 2002). Josephson (2005)
context. We merge the ANES survey data with contextual
identifies a set of 1989 essays by Paula Ettelbrick (1997)
data on the number of same-sex partnered households in
and Tom Stoddard (1997) as the catalysts that initially
individuals’ local communities, obtained from the
sparked enthusiasm for securing marriage rights for
U.S. Census, to estimate explicitly the possible effects of
same-sex couples. Other researchers have directed their
context on support for same-sex marriage (ANES 2004).
studies to the development of gay and lesbian rights and
political power more generally (Egan and Sherrill 2005;
Modeling Determinants
Eskridge 2002; Gerstmann 1999, 2004; Haider-Markel
and Meier 1996; Kaplan 1997; Sherrill 1996). Addition-
of Support for Same-sex Marriage
ally, the body of literature regarding the issue of same-
We begin with a discussion of the variables used in our
sex marriage has examined its legal underpinnings and
model of mass support for same-sex marriage. A brief
the proposed amendments banning it (Gerstmann 2005;
summary of the variables used in this analysis and their
Kersch 1997; Liu and Macedo 2005).
coding can be found in Appendix 1 in the online supple-
One important research question involves the factors
mental materials. Our dependent variable, support for
that contribute to variation in support for same-sex mar-
same-sex marriage, is based on responses to the follow-
riage among the mass public. There have been a handful
ing question asked in the 2004 ANES preelection survey:
of studies that have examined support for same-sex mar-
“Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry, or do you
riage (Bergeron 2005; Brewer 2005; Craig et al. 2005;
think they should not be allowed to marry?” Most indi-
Haider-Markel and Joslyn 2005; Wilcox et al. 2007;
viduals respond that same-sex couples should or should
Barth, Overby, and Huffman, forthcoming). Scholars
not be allowed to marry, but a small minority of respon-
have generally found that women, liberals, Democrats,
dents volunteer that same-sex couples should not be
urban dwellers, whites, and the highly educated are more
allowed to marry but should be allowed to legally form a
likely to support same-sex marriage. In addition, scholars
civil union. Based on this set of responses, our dependent
(Josephson 2005; Gerstmann 2004), the news media
variable is measured using a 3-point scale ranging from
(e.g., Osunsami 2004), and interest groups (cf. Tadlock,
–1 (respondent opposes same-sex marriage) to 0 (respon-
Gordon, and Popp, 2007) have drawn parallels between
dent opposes same-sex marriage but supports civil unions)
the struggle for gay rights, the black civil rights move-
to +1 (respondent supports same-sex marriage).
ment of the 1960s, and the women’s movement by equat-
ing the gay rights movement with other minority
Moral and Religious
movements and the quest for full citizenship. While
political observers make convincing theoretical, legal,
Attitudes and Traditions
and political arguments about why the struggle for equal-
An obvious set of factors influencing public opinion on
ity for gays and lesbians is similar to the struggle of
same-sex marriage is moral and religious attitudes and
blacks and of women for equal treatment, little is known
traditions. Scholars have found that various aspects of
about whether this view translates into the views of the
religious beliefs depress support for same-sex marriage
mass public. Finally, there has been little research on how
(and gay rights more generally), including religiosity
individuals’ contexts might affect their views on same-
(Haider-Markel and Joslyn 2005; Wilcox et al. 2007),
sex marriage. Features of individuals’ contexts (e.g., the
evangelical religious beliefs (Brewer 2003, 2005), and
number of gays and lesbians in their communities) might
church attendance (Brewer 2005; Bergeron 2005). Schol-
have an effect on individuals’ contact with or exposure to
ars have also found that support for gay rights and same-
gays and lesbians and, subsequently, on their support for
sex marriage is lower among those who support traditional
or opposition to same-sex marriage (Barth, Overby, and
moral values and higher among those whose value system
Huffman forthcoming).
deviates from traditional values (Brewer 2003; Campbell
In this article, we develop and test a general model of
and Larson 2007; Wilcox et al., 2007). Individuals vary
individuals’ attitudes toward same-sex marriage. We use
considerably in their moral and religious values, and we
data from the 2004 American National Election Studies
speculate that individuals who hold traditional and/or con-
(ANES) survey to estimate the effects of several theoreti-
servative views toward morality, are active members of
cally relevant clusters of independent variables on sup-
traditional Christian churches, and are adherents to more
port for same sex marriage: (1) moral and religious
conservative religious faiths will tend to resist changes in
attitudes and traditions, (2) attitudes toward gays and
traditional moral values and will hence be opposed to
lesbians, (3) gender roles and women’s rights, (4) sup-
departures from the traditional heterosexual marital form.
port for minority civil rights, (5) symbolic politics,
...