About APSA Core Objectives Leadership & Governance APSA Staff Directory Centennial Center for Political Science Assn & Discipline News What is Political Science? Awards Donate Advertising Employment at APSA

Membership Individual Members Departmental Members Organized Section Membership Institutions/Libraries Frequently Asked Questions Membership News

Conferences Annual Meeting and Exhibition Teaching and Learning Conference Africa Workshops Conference for Chairs Other Conferences in Political Science Conference Papers

Programs Congressional Fellowship Program Education and Professional Programs Departmental Services Ethics International Programs Minority and Diversity Programs Small Research Grant

Teaching Teaching and Learning Conference Civic Education Assessment Internationalizing the Undergraduate Curriculum in Political Science Service Learning Syllabi Resources Teaching Awards

Publications ** Order Form APSA Journals Career Publications Directories Publishing, Research, and the Discipline Teaching Publications Publications for Departments Permissions Requests Advertising Task Force Reports APSA Governance Reports

Jobs eJobs Online Job Lists Internship Resources Articles and Books Job Candidate Questions to Ask (JCQ) Program Careers In Political Science

Press Current Press Releases Press Release Archive American Politics Canadian Politics and Elections

Resources Departments Graduate Students Political Science Organizations Professional Journals and Publications Grants in the Discipline Research in Progress Discussion Lists Data on the Profession Key Issues Booklist: Upcoming Publications Conference Papers

Join/Renew Now! Contribute Contact APSA

Home  › Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and the Electorate Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and the Electorate NOTE: This resource has been developed by APSA to provide media with information from notable political scientists on issues in American politics, including introductory essays, contact information for dozens of scholars around the country, and citations for recent research. For more information, contact Bahram Rajaee (brajaee@apsanet.org)   Kenneth Sherrill, Hunter College, CUNY Patrick J. Egan, University of California-Berkeley  Experts Timothy E. Cook Louisana State University 225-578-2565 Politics of sexual diversity, media and American politics, American federal institutions, Congress Pamela Johnston Conover University of North Carolina 919-962-3041 Identity politics, political psychology, public opinion, same-sex marriage, citizenship Paul Drugan University of Illinois- Chicago 773-764-8443 Urban LGB voting behavior, urban politics, LGB politics, public policy Donald P. Haider-Markel University of Kansas 785-864-9034 Public policy, political institutions, interest groups, political behavior, gay related policy, hate crime Steven Haeberle University of Alabama- Birmingham 205-934-9680 Public policy Harry N. Hirsch Macalester College 651-696-6856 Civil liberties, gay and lesbian politics Gregory B. Lewis Georgia State University 404-651-4443 Sex and race differences in the federal civil service, state and local laws regarding sexual orientation, public opinion on gay rights issues Ellen Riggle University of Kentucky 606-257-7036 Political representation and public policy, legal status of same-sex couples, minority stress Joe Rollins Queens College, CUNY 917-930-6237 LGBT politics and surveys Gary Segura University of Iowa 319-335-2341 Political representation, congressional elections, public opinion, the capabilities of citizens, the mobilization of oppressed and/or minority groups within a society Kenneth Sherrill Hunter College, CUNY 212-772-5500 Public opinion, voting and elections, political parties, LGBT issues Raymond A. Smith Columbia University 212-854-3646 AIDS policy and politics, LGB and AIDS social movements and interest groups, politics of "pride marches," LGB voting Douglas A. Strand University of California-Berkeley 510-642-0508 Public attitudes on family values, homosexuality and gay rights, voting behavior, public opinion, survey research The debate over the rights of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered (LGBT)[1] people has come to occupy center stage in American politics.  As this has taken place, avowedly gay voters (who polling indicates make up between three to five percent of the electorate) have remained steadfastly Democratic. Exit polls from the 2004 presidential election indicated that between 77 and 81 percent of self-identified lesbian, gay and bisexual voters chose Democrat John Kerry over the Republican incumbent, George W. Bush.[2]  The support gay voters gave to Kerry in 2004 is similar to that offered by gay voters to Democratic candidates in presidential and Congressional races since the early 1990s, when exit polls first began asking respondents their sexual orientation.  But the difference in 2004 was that lesbians and gays were on the ballot themselves, as voters in 13 states overwhelmingly passed referenda limiting the right to marry to heterosexual couples.[3]  Three key victories for the gay-rights movement -- the Supreme Court's 2003 ruling striking down sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's 2003 decision requiring that state to allow same-sex couples to marry, and the wave of local officials across the country who decided to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004 -- fueled the drives to put gay marriage on the ballot in most of these states.  Most of the measures went beyond limiting the right to marry and also prohibited extending the right to "the incidents" of marriage. These "incidents" have typically been interpreted to include access to domestic partnerships and to civil unions for straights and gays alike. For example, Ohio courts have interpreted the amendment as a prohibition on enforcement of domestic violence laws in cases involving unmarried heterosexual couples. The presence of gay marriage initiatives on the ballots in so many states coupled with a successful drive by the Republican Party to increase turnout among socially conservative voters led many commentators to blame Kerry's defeat on gay marriage, and more generally on gay rights.  In an oft-cited statistic, when exit poll participants were asked to identify the most important issue affecting their vote in the presidential race, more voters (22 percent) chose "moral values" than any other issue -- and 80 percent of these respondents voted for Bush.  But political scientists examining survey data and election returns have found limited support for the impact of gay issues on presidential vote choice in 2004.[4]  A measure banning gay marriage will be on the ballot in Texas in November 2005, and more are slated to be voted on in a handful of states in 2006.  With national polls indicating that only a third of Americans favor granting gay couples the right to marry, supporters of these initiatives -- most of which will take place in socially conservative states -- have reason to be optimistic.  Two exceptions are Arizona and California, where petitions are currently circulating to place gay marriage constitutional amendments on the ballot in 2006.  Recent polling in both of these states indicate that voters are split evenly on these measures.  However, polls most likely understate the true level of support of bans on gay marriage in the electorate.  Because opponents of gay marriage tend to be more highly motivated than supporters, they are more likely to go to the polls in elections that are otherwise uncontested.  Further, as is often the case in elections involving minority candidates, survey respondents tend to overreport their support for minorities to avoid appearing prejudiced. Finally, recent survey data indicates that supporters of same-sex marriage rights have been unable to capitalize fully on their most likely group of supporters: people who say they know a lesbian, gay, or bisexual person.  Today, a majority of Americans say that they have a relative, friend or close acquaintance who is gay or lesbian.[5]  In the past, personal familiarity with LGBT people has proved one of the strongest predictors of support for gay rights.  But private polls conducted after the 2004 ballot measure campaigns indicate that while those who said they knew someone who was gay or lesbian tended to oppose these referenda, their opposition to these amendments was tepid compared to the strength of support among those who said they did not know any gay people.  For example, in Oregon, private polling by Peter Hart Research Associates that was commissioned and  made available to us by the Gill Foundation found that 53 percent of those who know or work with someone who is gay or lesbian opposed that state's ban on gay marriage.  But an overwhelming majority -- 78 percent -- of those who do not know any gays reported voting for the ban.  In fact, these surveys indicate an important new trend: party identification, rather than familiarity with gay people, may now be the strongest predictor of support for gay rights.  Multivariate analysis indicates that the effect of party identification on support for gay marriage in 2004 was between two to three times stronger than the effect of knowing a gay or lesbian person We can think of several reasons for this.  As protections against discrimination in the workplace and in housing have been extended, more people who are not tolerant of homosexuality probably have come into contact with gay people.  For this cohort, knowing a gay person may not transform social and political attitudes.  We note here that during the years when there has been the greatest increase in protections -- including  statewide laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in California, New York, and Illinois -- the percent of Americans who say they know a gay person has doubled. In addition, knowing a gay person -- and even knowing gay people who are in long and committed relationships -- may not communicate enough information about why the right to marry is so important to LGBT people.  Marriage is a symbolic concept, endowed with massive connotative meaning.[6]  Although heterosexuals generally support extending many of the tangible benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, it appears that they are more likely to perceive marriage in symbolic terms . It is thus clear that the battle over gay rights has joined abortion and gun control as another hotly contested social issue that sharply divides Republicans and Democrats in the polarized American political landscape.  Time will tell whether this development leads to additional victories for the gay rights movement -- or if gay rights supporters will continue to be blamed--no matter how inaccurately -- for the defeat of Democrats in national politics.  [1] We use "LGBT" and "gay" here interchangeably with the goal of being as inclusive as possible while striving for clarity and brevity. [2] These figures come from exit polling conducted by the National Election Pool and the Los Angeles Times, respectively. [3] Eleven of these referenda took place on November 2, 2004.  Louisiana and Missouri voters approved gay marriage measures earlier in 2004. [4] See, for example, Simon Jackman, "Same-Sex Ballot Initiatives and Conservative Mobilization in the 2004 Election," (unpublished presentation, Stanford University) and D. Sunshine Hillygus and Todd G. Shields, "Moral Issues and Voter Decision Making in the 2004 Presidential Election," PS: Political Science and Politics (April 2005) 38:201-209.  [5] See, for example, polling compiled in American Enterprise Institute, "Attitudes about Homosexuality and Gay Marriage," May 2005.  p. 16-18. [6] See, for example, Pamela Conover, "Storytelling and the Pursuit of Equality"   Paper presented at the 2004 meetings of American Political Science Association. Kenneth Sherrill is a professor of political science at Hunter College. He currenttly is collaborating with Patrick Egan on a project examining trends in Americans' attitudes toward LGBT people and  on the development of a research center and data archive at Hunter College dedicated to the study of these attitudes. He can be reached at kenneth.sherrill@hunter.cuny.edu and 212-772-5798. Patrick Egan is a Ph.D. student at the University of California-Berkeley and specializes in gay voters and gay issues in U.S. politics, public policy, state and local politics, and political regulation.  He can be reached at pjegan@socrates.berkeley.edu and 510-642-1474. Recent Publications on Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and the Electorate Egan, Patrick, and Ken Sherrill. 2006. Same-Sex Marriage Initiatives and Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Voters in the 2006 Elections.  Washington, DC: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Segura, Gary. 2005. "A Symposium on the Politics of Same-Sex Marriage." PS: Political Science and Politics. 38: 189-240. Egan, Patrick, and Sherrill, Ken. 2005. "Neither an In-Law Nor Outlaw Be: Trends in Americans' Attitudes Toward Gay People." Public Opinion Pros. February. Campbell, James. 2004. "The Presidential Election of 2004: The Fundamentals and the Campaign." The Forum. 2:4 Burden, Barry. 2004. "An Alternative Account of the 2004 Presidential Election." The Forum.  2:4. Drugan, Paul. 2004. "Wheat in a Cornfield: LGB Voting in the Nation's Heartland." American Sexuality Magazine 2:5. (July/August). Brewer, Paul R. 2003. "The Shifting Foundations of Public Opinion about Gay Rights." Journal of Politics 65:4 (November). Brewer, Paul R. 2003. "Values, Political Knowledge, and Public Opinion about Gay Rights: A Framing-Based Account." Public Opinion Quarterly 67:2 (June):173-201. Smith, Raymond A. and Donald P. Haider-Markel. 2002. Gay and Lesbian Americans and Political Participation Denver: ABC-CLIO Publishers. Yang, Alan S. 2001. The 2000 National Election Study and Gay and Lesbian Rights: Support for Equality Grows. Washington, DC: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute. Bailey, Robert W. 2000. Out and Voting II: The Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Vote in Congressional Elections, 1990-1998. Washington, DC: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute. Rimmerman, Craig A., Kenneth D. Wald, and Clyde M. Wilcox, eds. 2000. The Politics of Gay Rights Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cook, Timothy E. 1999. "The Empirical Study of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Politics:Assessing the First Wave of Research." American Political Science Review 93:3 (September9): 679-692. Riggle, Ellen and Barry L. Tadlock, eds. 1999. Gays and Lesbians in the Democratic Process: Public Policy, Political Representation, and Public Opinion New York: Columbia University Press. Bailey, Robert W. 1998. Gay Politics, Urban Politics: Identity and Economics in the Urban Setting. New York: Columbia University Press. Hertzog, Mark. 1996. The Lavender Vote: Lesbians, Gay Men and Bisexuals in American Electoral Politics. New York: NYU Press.