Gay Marriage and religiosity

Gay Marriage and Religiosity

Samuel Fowler

Dukhong Kim

POS3936

11/19/2013

Table of Contents

Gay Marriage:..................................................1Denying Equality to American Citizens.........................1Introduction............................................................1

Literature Review.......................................................2

Data analysis...........................................................6

Conclusion..............................................................7

Bibliography...................................................9Appendex...............................................................10

Gay Marriage and Religiosity ii

Samuel Fowler

Research Methods, Fall 2013D. Kim

11/19/2013

Gay Marriage and Religiosity

Introduction

The battle for equal rights in the United States is not new

to the American society {Abrams, 2004 #39}{Fuchs, 1990 #53}

{Fuchs, 1990 #53}{Fuchs, 1990 #53}{Fuchs, 1990 #53@@author-year}

{Fuchs, 1990 #53}(Fuchs 1990). Currently, the battle is not over

racial equality or desegregation, but over the right to marry the

person one chooses. Same-sex couples and the fight for equality

is not new to the polity, however, over recent years the

arguments both for and against have become stronger as more and

more citizens mobilize to fight for equal rights under the law.

Marriage was officially defined as a union between a man and

woman with the passage of H.R. 3396, The Defense of Marriage Act,

Gay Marriage and Religiosity 1

or DOM (United States. 1996). In June of 2013, however, the

Supreme Court overturned Section 3 of the Law. The decision was a

win for the Gay and Lesbian community in that the Federal

Government would now recognize same-sex couples that were legally

married under federal law and provide the legal rights and

benefits that opposite sex couples receive. Even though there

are currently 16 States that have passed laws legalizing same-sex

marriage and now treat all marriages equally, there are currently

35 States with constitutional bans that define marriage as

between a man and a woman.

The purpose of this paper is to explore some of the arguments

for and against same-sex marriage and how strongly religion

influences the voter’s decision on the issue of marriage

equality. I will then analyze data from the 2012 American

National Election Survey to determine how strongly the issues

presented in the literature review hold up to empirical evidence.

Literature Review


Christians have attempted to use scripture and their

interpretations of the Bible as the argument against same-sex

unions. Protestants typically hold on to the idea that the family

structure places the man at the head of house and all others

subordinate to him.

In Ludger Viehfues-Bailey’s book Between a Man and a Woman

(2010) he points out the argument Christians cite is Ephesians

5:21 “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should

submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your

wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for

her.” (Viefhues-Bailey 2010, 34). This argument that many

Christians, especially evangelical and Protestants use, is that

the woman in the relationship should submit to her husband. In a

e same-sex relationship the couples are unable to conform to this

“essential feature of marriage…allowing same sex marriage would

undermine this very institution” (Viefhues-Bailey 2010, 64), as

there would be no male-female hierarchy that would fit into the

patriarchal stereotype that has been interpreted from biblical

teachings.


The arguments from conservatives takes the right from the

individual to choose whom they will marry is all but taken away

from the individual. The idea that marriage is an institution

designed by an omnipotent being for the purpose of securing a

family is also an argument that is widely used among the

Christian right (Stanton and Maier 2004, 23). The idea of what

constitutes a family and what God’s design is becomes the

question. God’s design, according to Stanton and Maier (2004) is

such that the male and female were created to complement each

other in a relationship and while this happens outside of

marriage, “marriage is the primary place” this complementary

relationship occurs, and it secures the “need that men and women

have for each other”(2004), and by allowing same-sex couples to

marry the entire institution of marriage would be undermined

(Viefhues-Bailey 2010).

Viefhues-Bailey (2010) quotes Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council as saying,

“Society affirms and rewards desired sexual and health-related behavior through admission to the coveted statues of marriage.

Moreover, admitting same sex couples to the desired status of marriage will dissolve this very institution because homosexuals


believe in indiscriminate and immediate sexual gratification and do not value commitment and fidelity, says Sprigg.” (2010, 64-

65).

This point of view not only reiterates the view on marriage as

being a sanctified institution, but also paints concept of

homosexuals as being sexual deviants, “homosexual behavior is

directly associated with higher rates of promiscuity, physical

disease, mental illness, substance abuse, child sexual abuse and

domestic violence” (Viefhues-Bailey 2010).

Stanton and Maier (2004) further argue their belief that

homosexuality is not a genetic trait, but that gays themselves

are being “kept in the dark”(2004) about the truth of

homosexuality. They claim that “…fraudulent facts coming from

the main-stream media, the corporate world, halls of academia-

even the church,” are simply myths that have been created in

order to allow homosexuals and heterosexuals alike to becoming

more willing to accept the homosexuals into society. They argue

that homosexuality is caused by “triangulation” in the

environment of a person’s childhood by which the father is

emotionally detached and the mother “emasculates” (2004) her


husband, while at the same time having a close relationship with

the child. They also claim that sexual abuse during adolescence

increase the likelihood of a male being gay or bisexual by 58%,

citing a study by Shrier and Johnson (2004, 136-137). Though

Stanton and Maier (2004) cite 3 separate studies in their work in

which a correlation between genetic markers were linked to

homosexuality in males, they argue that the methodology of the

studies invalidate the results (2004, 136).

Additional concerns around same-sex marriage revolve around

the makeup of the family (Stanton and Maier 2004; Viefhues-Bailey

2010) and the impact that children not growing up in what

conservaties refer to as the “traditional family”(Viefhues-Bailey

2010) which is composed of opposite-sex parents. Stanton and

Maier (2004) attempt to argue that children are more succesful in

families in which they have opposite-sex parent. The studies only

state, however, that “children from married two-parent families,

on average, have test scores higher,…and they have greater

expectations of attending college than children living with one


parent” (2004, 112). While Stanton and Maier can not offer a

study with clear evidence that same-sex couples would not provide

children with a home that would not provide the same test-scores

and opportunity for college, they speculate and argue that it is

the difference in communication and parenting styles that only

opposite sex couples provide that is the cause of the results.

R. Claire Snyder argues in Paradox or Contradiction (2007)

that the conservative party is simply using same-sex marriage as

a tool to “conolodate the newconservative alliance with the

Christian Right, which explicitly espouses male dominance and

female submission…”(Snyder 2007). Viefhues-Bailey (2010) argues

that the religious language used in the political world today is

not to promote the religious concerns, however, it is a ploy to

mobilize individuals in order to pass “legislative and economic

agendas” (2010, 43). According to his argument, the rhetoric that

is used by the conservative party in day-to-day arguments about

same-sex marriage is simply a means to reach a much larger

political goal.


The literature review indicates that it is the more

conservative Christian’s that oppose gay marriage the strongest.

The belief that a supreme being intended for a man and woman to

be the only marriage that is suitable, not only for adults, but

for the children that may be involved. While the evidence

presented in the literature provided no conclusive results for

the arguments that same-sex marriage will weaken traditional

marriage, especially since the Center for Disease Control

estimates that nearly 50% of all traditional marriages will

eventually end in divorce, making this argument negligible.

Data analysis

The literature argues that religiosity appears to be the

major motivator for the decision to vote for or against marriage

equality for same-sex couples. Using the 2012 American National

Election Time Series study I will look how strongly religiosity

effects the decision for voting against marriage equality. By

comparing the independent variables for how strongly respondents


believe the bible is the literal word of God, Frequency of church

attendance, as well as political ideology and party affiliation,

I expect to find that among the respondents who belong to the

republican party and consider themselves to be conservative and

have stronger beliefs in the bible, pray more often, and attend

church more frequently, will have a stronger opposition to

marriage equality than those who also consider themselves

conservative and members of the Republican party.

Since the focus in this analysis is on whether or not gays

should be allowed to marry, I have recoded the dependent variable

from the original data to reflect two answers. 1. Gays should be

allowed to marry, and 2 is the combination of responses for gays

should be allowed civil unions but not marriage and the third

response for gays should not be allowed to marry or have civil

unions. The data shows that 48.1% of Democrats feel that same-sex

marriage should not be allowed compared to 81.0% of Republicans,

a difference of 42.4% between the two parties.


The percentage of Democrats disapproving of same-sex

marriage who also felt that religion was an important part of

their lives grew to 58.8% and to 86.7% for Republicans. (27.9%

difference) Factoring in church attendance, the results for

disapproving of same sex marriage grew to 63.2% for Democrats and

94.2% for Republicans for weekly church attendance.

(31%)Respondents who attended church more frequently disapproved

at a rate of 85.7% for Democrats and 95.7% for Republicans a

difference of only 10% between the two parties.

Democrats who said religion was not an important factor in

their lives disapproved of same-sex marriage 42.9% of the time,

while Republicans responded at 50% that they do not think it

should be allowed, a difference of 7.1%. If the respondent did

not feel that religion was important but still attended church

more than once a week, there was no difference in the Democrats

or Republicans, both responded that they did not think same-sex

couples should be allowed to marry 100% of the time. It is

important to note that the number of respondents was extremely


low, for this category, 2 Democrats and 1 Republican, so the

validity of this result is questionable.

Conclusion

While there were a stronger percentage of respondents

against marriage equality among the Republicans, it is clear from

the data analysis that there is a very strong correlation between

both party affiliation, the importance of religion, church

attendance, and how an individual feels about same-sex marriage.

The more important religion is and the more involved in church

services the respondent is, the more likely it is that they will

disapprove of allowing same-sex couples equality of marriage.

Religion will remain a part of the fabric of America and so

will the gay and lesbian community. It is clear, however, that

religion plays an important part in an individual’s decision to

support oppose marriage equality. Opposition remains greatest

from members of the Republican Party and political elites will

most likely continue to mobilize support from conservative


Christians by using marriage equality as a tool to garner their

votes. While there have been states move to grant equal marriage

rights to same-sex couples, the battle in the conservative states

has only just begun.


BibliographyANES. 2012. The American National Election Studies (ANES; www.electionstudies.org). The ANES 2012 Time Series Study[dataset]. Stanford University and the University of Michigan [producers].

Fuchs, Lawrence H. 1990. The American kaleidoscope : race, ethnicity, and the civic culture. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press.

Stanton, Glenn T., and Bill Maier. 2004. Marriage on trial : the case against same-sex marriage and parenting. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

United States. 1996. An Act to Define and Protect the Institution of Marriage. Washington, D.C.?: U.S. G.P.O. : Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O., distributor.

Viefhues-Bailey, Ludger H. 2010. Between a man and a woman? : why conservatives oppose same-sex marriage, Gender, theory, and religion. New York: Columbia University Press.


http://www.electionstudies.org/

Appendex

1. Cross-tabulation of Ideology and opinion on gay marriage:Since the focus in this analysis is on whether or not gays should be allowed to marry, I have recoded the dependent variable from the original data to reflect two answer, 1. Gays should be allowed to marry, and 2 is the combination ofresponses for gays should be allowed civil unions but not

marriage and the third response for gays should not be allowed to marry or have civil unions.

2. Cross tabulation: Should same sex couples be allowed to marry compared to the importance of religion in the respondent’s life.



3.Multivariate analysis.


4. Correlations


Documents

Gay Marriage and religiosity