The Power of Equality? Polarization and Collective Mis-representation on Gay Rights in Congress, 1989–2019

Date01 December 2021
DOI10.1177/1065912920953498
Published date01 December 2021
Subject MatterArticles
2021, Vol. 74(4) 1009 –1023
https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920953498
Political Research Quarterly
© 2020 University of Utah
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1065912920953498
journals.sagepub.com/home/prq
Article
Introduction
The American public’s dramatic shift to support policies
advancing LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,
and queer) rights is remarkable.1 Many of the most histori-
cally controversial issues (e.g., gay marriage, allowing
gays and lesbians to serve in the military) today garner the
support of a supermajority. This increased public accep-
tance has occurred among virtually every subconstitu-
ency, including many of those who have traditionally
harbored the most conservative and hostile positions on
these issues (e.g., Flores 2014).
This opinion change has had important policy conse-
quences. Prior to 2012, gay rights advocates’ success at
the state and local levels was largely limited to opposing
state restrictions on gay rights. Since then, however,
LGBTQ rights have advanced through initiatives, state
legislatures, and state court rulings. These changes are
broadly consistent with research on state policymaking
that shows while state-level policy often lags opinion, it
is typically responsive to, if not always congruent with,
public opinion on LGBTQ issues (Lax and Phillips 2012).
Given this strong public support, it is surprising that
changes in public opinion have not generally been
reflected by changes in federal policy (Krimmel, Lax,
and Phillips 2016). This disjuncture between federal pol-
icy and public opinion reflects a significant breakdown in
collective representation—the extent to which the politi-
cal system as a whole produces policy consistent with the
people’s preferences (Pitkin 1967). While there are many
explanations for the lack of federal policy, in this paper
we seek to describe and examine a necessary condition
for the production of policy: support among members of
Congress on issues of LGBTQ (e.g., Smith 2007).2
The broad changes seen across issues and states stand
in stark relief to the striking absence of policy produced
by the U.S. Congress (but see Mayo-Adam 2017). They
also differ from other prominent social movements (e.g.,
the Civil Rights Movement) in which federal change fre-
quently preceded and helped force state change (Newman
2004). Indeed, with the notable exception of allowing
953498PRQXXX10.1177/1065912920953498Political Research QuarterlyBishin et al.
research-article2020
1University of California, Riverside, USA
Corresponding Author:
Paul Teten, Department of Political Science, University of California,
Riverside, 900 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92521, USA.
Email: ptete001@ucr.edu
The Power of Equality? Polarization
and Collective Mis-representation on
Gay Rights in Congress, 1989–2019
Benjamin G. Bishin1, Justin Freebourn1, and Paul Teten1
Abstract
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent application of employment protections to gays and lesbians in Bostock v. Clayton
County highlights the striking absence of policy produced by the U.S. Congress despite two decades of increased
public support for gay rights. With the notable exceptions of allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military, and
passing hate crimes legislation, every other federal policy advancing gay rights over the last three decades has been
the product of a Supreme Court ruling or Executive Order. To better understand the reasons for this inaction, we
examine the changing preferences of members of Congress on LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer)
issues. Examining scores from the Human Rights Campaign from 1989 to 2019, we find a striking polarization by the
parties on LGBTQ issues, as Democrats have become much more supportive and Republicans even more opposed
to gay rights. This change has been driven not by gerrymandering, mass opinion polarization, or elite backlash, but
among Republicans by a mix of both conversion and replacement, and among Democrats primarily of replacement of
more moderate members. The result is a striking lack of collective representation that leaves members of the LGBTQ
community at risk to the whims of presidents and jurists.
Keywords
LGBT politics, polarization, collective representation, conversion, replacement

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT