Skip to main content

Gay marriage: three key factors behind voting for bans


Interesting Guardian article here with research into why people vote against same sex marraige. It's not just about religion...

Gay marriage: three key factors behind voting for bans

With high levels of religious adherence, North Carolina voters followed a predictable pattern. But that's not the whole story
    People pray supporting a constitutional ban on gay marriage in Raleigh, North Carolina
    North Carolina voters passed a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions Tuesday night. The reaction in the Twitterverse can be described as anger and hurt. Many probably thought to themselves that such a decision by the voters was "backward".

    I have discussed how voter opinion on same-sex relationship issues is complex, but there isn't anything difficult to understand why Amendment 1 or any other constitutional ban on same-sex marriage pass.

    Support for bans between states is highly predictable simply by knowing the percentage of religious voters. Many times, however, what explains differences between states' support does not explain how votes differ within a state.

    Two years ago, I ran a simple regression on three recently voted-upon ballot bans on same-sex marriage in Arizona (2006), California (2008), and Maine (2009). I wanted to examine whether the percentage of religious adherents, taken from the Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA), within a state could explain county-to-county variance in support of marriage bans. I also added variables for partisanship (as measured by Obama's 2008 vote percentage) and for educational attainment (as measured by the percentage of voters within each county with at least a bachelor's degree, according to census figures).

    What I found many would call predictable: 89-93.5% of the variation in vote for same-sex marriage amendments could simply be accounted for these three variables.

    Counties were less likely to vote for a ban if their voters were better-educated, more Democratic, and less religious. Importantly, equations such as these control for the fact that some counties might be quite Democratic and less religious, but have a high percentage of less well educated folk. In that case, these counties are more likely to vote for the ban than those counties that are highly Democratic, less religious, but (on average) more highly educated.

    Continues here.

Comments

downtown dave said…
I don't think it is that absurd that those who are non-religious would not vote against gay marriage. http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/
forex robot said…
every one can vote against gay marriege, its not a good for this gay.

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o