Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T15:44:40.253Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Strengthening of Party and Decline of Religion in Explaining Congressional Voting Behavior on Gay and Lesbian Issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2005

David Lublin
David Lublin
Affiliation:
American University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The battle over lesbian and gay rights has gained increased prominence in the political arena. Discrimination against homosexuals may have been widely accepted in the past, but today such discrimination is strongly debated. In 2004, the presidential candidates as well as members of Congress squared off on whether to enshrine a ban on gay marriage into the Constitution. Analyzing the 106th–108th Congresses reveals that member and district characteristics greatly influence the level of support for gay and lesbian rights. Democrats are far more supportive of pro-gay and -lesbian initiatives than Republicans. Region similarly plays a key role. Southerners are more tepid in their support for gay and lesbian rights than their northern colleagues. At the same time, New England representatives are even more liberal than other northerners. Despite strong opposition to gay marriage within the churches of their communities, African-American and Latino representatives are especially likely to support gay and lesbian rights. Church membership also guides representative behavior, though not always as conventional wisdom might indicate. Catholic representatives are not more hostile to gay and lesbian rights than other representatives. Moreover, the influence of religious affiliation on congressional voting behavior is declining. Constituency characteristics, such as urbanicity and education, also shape representative behavior but play a secondary role.

Type
Features
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , April 2005 , pp. 241 - 245
Copyright
© 2005 by the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bond Jon R., and Richard Fleisher, eds. 2000. Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Cohen Cathy J. 1999. The Boundaries of Blackness: AIDS and the Breakdown of Black Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson Gary C. 2001. The Politics of Congressional Elections, Fifth Edition. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
Lewis Gregory B., and Jonathan L. Edelson. 2000. “DOMA and ENDA: Congress Votes on Gay Rights.” In The Politics of Gay Rights, eds. Craig A. Rimmerman, Kenneth D. Wald, and Clyde Wilcox. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lublin David. 2004. The Republican South: Democratization and Partisan Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nicholson Stephen P., and Gary Segura. 2001. “Agenda Change and the Politics of Latino Partisan Identification.” Presented at the Claremont/Riverside Conference on Minority Representation: Institutions, Behavior and Identity, Claremont, CA.Google Scholar
Palmquist Bradley. 1998. “The Extended Beta Binomial Model in Political Analysis.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Norfolk, VA.Google Scholar
Rozell Mark J., and Clyde Wilcox. 1997. God at the Grass Roots, 1996: The Christian Right in the 1996 Elections. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Speel Robert W. 1999. Changing Patterns of Voting in the Northern United States: Electoral Realignment, 1952–1996. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Wilcox Clyde, and Robin Wolpert. 2000. “Gay Rights in the Public Arena.” In The Politics of Gay Rights, eds. Craig A. Rimmerman, Kenneth D. Wald, and Clyde Wilcox. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar