The Evolution of Attitudes on Same-Sex Marriage in California (original) (raw)
The Evolution of Attitudes on Same-Sex Marriage in California and the U.S
California Journal of Politics and Policy, 2015
On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that existing statutory and initiative measures that limited civil marriage to heterosexual couples violated the California Constitution's guarantee of equal protection (In Re Marriage Cases 2008). On November 4, 2008, California voters passed Proposition 8, a constitutional initiative invalidating In re Marriage Cases and stopping same-sex marriage in the state.
Why Did Californians Pass Proposition 8?
In one of the most disappointing electoral blows in the struggle for gay and lesbian rights, California voters passed Proposition 8 by a 52-48 margin in November 2008, overturning a state supreme court decision that had legalized same-sex marriage earlier in the year. Although popular votes have almost uniformly rejected same-sex marriage rights, usually by large margins, the polls had indicated that a majority of Californians would vote against the proposition and retain marriage equality. Using data from 24 polls of Californians since 1985, we consider four hypotheses to explain why the polls got it wrong: (1) many respondents misled pollsters, perhaps worried that they would appear to be bigots if they expressed their real beliefs; (2) more effective efforts by the Yes on 8 campaign lowered support for same-sex marriage; (3) a principled opposition by some same-sex marriage opponents to writing discrimination into the constitution declined over the year; and (4) survey respondent...
Despite numerous public opinion polls indicating that California voters would defeat Proposition 8, a proposed constitutional amendment to limit marriage to one man and one woman, Election Day 2008 brought an end to six months of marriage equality for same-sex couples. This paper explores four possible explanations for why Californians passed Proposition 8 despite the polls: (1) poll respondents did not respond honestly to pollsters; (2) some respondents who opposed same-sex marriage were initially reluctant to amend the constitution for this purpose; (3) the campaign over the amendment changed people’s opinions about same-sex marriage; and (4) poll respondents did not initially understand how to accurately connect their position on same-sex marriage with the “right” position on Proposition 8, but that they gained such knowledge over time. This study finds minimal support for the first three explanations and weak support for the final explanation.
Changing Public Opinion on Same Sex Marriage: The Case of California
Though public opposition to same-sex marriage seems reasonably stable nationally, support in California has grown substantially in the past two decades. Using data from six Field Polls of Californians since 1985, we explore the roots of that growth in individual attitude change and population changes. Cohort replacement can explain half the growth. Although all groups of Californians say that they have become more accepting of homosexual relations since they turned 18, the pattern is strongest for liberals, Democrats, and the less religious. These groups have also become much more supportive of same-sex marriage, while conservatives, Republicans, Protestants, and African Americans appear at least as opposed today as they were two decades ago.
Intersectionality in California's Same-Sex Marriage Battles: A Complex Proposition"
Political Research Quarterly
This article employs what the author calls "foundational" intersectional analysis to investigate the coalitional and rhetorical strategies mobilized by Proposition 8, a 2008 ballot initiative in California designed to eliminate the right of same-sex marriage. The author argues that foundational intersectionality is the only method that sufficiently contextualizes the historical legacies constructing the political institution of marriage and that this method must incorporate the factor of religion, because religion is central to the politics of "moral values." The first part of the article differentiates foundational intersectionality from identity intersectionality as a framework. The author then sketches how marriage is a political institution constructed in the United States through the simultaneous interactions of gender, sexuality, race, and religion. The second part of the article applies the framework to an empirical analysis of four discursive strategies employed by pro-and anti-same-sex marriage forces in California in order to "link their fate," or sense of political alliance, to other groups.
Abstract FROM REYNOLDS TO LAWRENCE TO BROWN V. BUHMAN: ANTIPOLYGAMY STATUTES SLIDING ON THE SLIPPERY SLOPE OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Stephen Baskind, M.A. The University of Texas at Arlington, 2015 Supervising Professor: Oliver L. Bateman In 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas (striking Texas’ sodomy law), Justice Scalia predicted in his dissent the end of all morals legislation. If Justice Scalia is correct most, if not all, morals-based legislation may fall. For example, in recent years state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage have fallen to constitutional challenges. Ten years after Lawrence in 2013, a Utah Federal District Court in Brown v. Buhman, though feeling constrained by the 1878 Reynolds case (which rejected a First Amendment challenge to an antipolygamy law), nevertheless at the request of a polygamous family concluded that the cohabitation prong of Utah’s anti-bigamy statute was unconstitutional. To reach its conclusion, Brown v. Buhman believed it necessary to undertake a detailed review of the history of U.S. antipolygamy efforts. Like Brown v. Buhman this paper reviews the history of those antipolygamy efforts and current legal trends to conclude that Justice Scalia’s prediction, at least as regarding marriage, is accurate. An analysis of the legal and historical underpinnings of antipolygamy laws suggest that those footings have weakened. If Justice Scalia and Brown v. Buhman were correct, they will soon fall. When they fall, polygamy will be constitutional.
A Marriage is a Marriage is a Marriage: The Limits of \u3ci\u3ePerry v. Brown\u3c/i\u3e
2010
The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Perry v. Brown, authored by Judge Reinhardt, has been widely lauded by marriage equality proponents for its creative minimalism. In keeping with commentators’ expectations, the court found a way to determine that California’s Proposition 8 violated the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, namely that the provision took away an entitlement that had previously been enjoyed by same-sex couples—the right to the appellation of one’s partnership as a “marriage”—for no rational reason. The people of California’s categorization and differential treatment of same-sex couples as compared with opposite-sex couples, the court held, failed the test of minimal rationality required for upholding state action. The two types of couples were simply too indistinguishable to carry the weight of the difference between them that the people of California had tried to codify. Thus, the court struck down the state constitutional amendment. The court did so, however, b...