Same-Sex Marriage Policy
In the USA, marriage offers important benefits and rights in areas such as healthcare, adoption, parenting, taxation, and finances (Woodford et al.
2011; Herdt and Kretzner
2006). Same-sex marriage policies provide gay and lesbian couples with the same rights, benefits, and obligations available to married opposite-sex partners. The current legal situation in the USA concerning recognition of same-sex relationships is complicated. The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prohibits same-sex marriage and automatic or forced interstate recognition of legally recognized same-sex relationships treated as marriage (The Defense of Marriage Act
1996). However, at the time of writing, same-sex marriages are legally performed and recognized in Connecticut, District of Columbia, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont, and Maryland recognizes same-sex marriages legally performed elsewhere (Human Rights Campaign
2011a).
Alongside federal legislation prohibiting same-sex marriage, 41 states have passed state-level versions of DOMA. Specifically, in 29 of these states, ballot initiatives codified constitutional prohibitions against same-sex marriage, whereas the legislatures in the remaining 12 states passed statutes defining marriage as between a man and a woman (Human Rights Campaign
2011b; National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
2010).
As history shows, at the state level, citizens have frequently determined gay and lesbian couples’ relationship rights through direct democracy. Additionally, elected officials pay attention to, and act on, citizens’ opinions as they create legislation (Burstein
1998). In both these circumstances, attitudes affect public policy. Therefore, understanding citizens’ views about marriage equality is important and can inform efforts to build support for same-sex marriage.
Opinions about Same-Sex Marriage
Very few studies have exclusively examined college students’ opinions about legally recognizing same-sex marriage. Survey items concerning same-sex marriage are sometimes used as part of studies exploring students’ perceptions of gay men and lesbian women (Cluse-Tolar et al.
2005; Jenkins et al.
2007), gay rights (Raiz
2006), or general relationship rights for same-sex couples (Swank and Raiz
2010). Further, existing studies are limited as they engage only undergraduate students (Pryor et al.
2010) or survey only students within particular fields, such as social work (Raiz
2006; Swank and Raiz
2010) or communications (Lannutti and Lachlan
2008; Moskowitz et al.
2010). Thus, findings may have limited generalizability. In terms of predictors of student support for inclusive relationship policies, investigations have focused on same-sex marriage (Case and Stewart
2010; Knox and Zusman
2009; Lannutti and Lachlan
2008; Moskowitz et al.
2010) or general relationship rights for same-sex couples (Swank and Raiz
2010); however, very few employ multivariate analysis to identify covariates of support for inclusive policies.
A considerable gap exists in the current literature about the covariates of being part of the “persuadable middle” concerning same-sex marriage. Some studies do not include an undecided or neutral response option (e.g., Pryor et al.
2010; Olson et al.
2006), while others include such options but purposefully exclude respondents who selected these responses and examine endorsement as a dichotomous variable (endorsement versus opposition; e.g., Whitehead
2010). Other studies include a neutral response option, but examine endorsement as a continuous outcome (e.g., Knox and Zusman
2009; Sherkat et al.
2010). These methodological decisions mean that the factors associated with the “persuadable middle” are unknown.
Existing public opinion research indicates that women, White respondents, and younger persons tend to have more supportive views of same-sex marriage than men, people of color, and middle aged or older adults (Brumbaugh et al.
2008; Haider-Markel and Joslyn
2005; Lewis and Gossett
2008; Olson et al.
2006; Pearl and Galupo
2007). Among college students, results concerning race and gender have been inconsistent (Knox and Zusman
2009; Moskowitz et al.
2010; Swank and Raiz
2010). Studies conducted with members of the general public have also found religion to be influential. For example, studies have found that Christian respondents, specifically evangelical and conservative Protestant Christians tend to have significantly lower levels of support for same-sex marriage than non-Christians (Haider-Markel and Joslyn
2008; Olson et al.
2006; Rowatt et al.
2009; Sherkat et al.
2010; Whitehead
2010). Similarly, those who consider religion to be important in their lives tend to hold less affirming opinions of same-sex marriage (Haider-Markel and Joslyn
2005; Pearl and Galupo
2007). In terms of support for same-sex marriage, religious affiliation and the importance of religion in one’s life (i.e., religiosity) have not been examined among college students.
Studies have also explored the role of attitudinal factors, namely political ideology, beliefs about the etiology of same-sex sexuality, and views toward gay and lesbian people, in shaping opinions about same-sex marriage policies. Among college studies, only the etiology of same-sex sexuality has been explored (Raiz
2006; Swank and Raiz
2010). Results suggest that those with liberal political views tend to support same-sex marriage more so than their conservative counterparts (Barth et al.
2009; Haider-Markel and Joslyn
2008; Olson et al.
2006; Rowatt et al.
2009; Sherkat et al.
2010; Whitehead
2010).
In the social sciences, etiologists are concerned with how individuals understand or explain the causes of behavior. Traditionally, behaviors are ascribed to either external or internal causes (Heider
1958). Genetics and other factors beyond the individual’s control are examples of external causes; whereas, internal causes include personality and other variables within the individual’s control and responsibility (Raiz
2006; Tygart
2000). Individuals who endorse external etiology of same-sex sexuality tend to see it as immutable; in contrast, those who support internal attributions generally believe that same-sex sexuality is a choice, and thus is changeable (Hegarty
2002; Raiz
2006). Endorsement of same-sex marriage policies tends to be linked to beliefs that same-sex sexuality is innate or biological (external), whereas those who believe it is an individual’s choice (internal) tend to reject same-sex marriage policy (Haider-Markel and Joslyn
2008; Lewis
2009; Rowatt et al.
2009; Tygart
2000; Whitehead
2010). Similar results have been found among social work students in regard to endorsement for same-sex relationship rights (Swank and Raiz
2010) and gay rights (Raiz
2006).
Holding affirmative perceptions of gay and lesbian people has been found to be positively associated with endorsement for same-sex marriage (Lewis
2009; Rowatt et al.
2009). However, these studies have tended to examine only overt anti-gay biases, such as “homosexual conduct is morally wrong or sinful” (Lewis
2009), and have overlooked more subtle forms of prejudice, such as aversive heterosexism. Aversive heterosexism reflects beliefs such as gay and lesbian people are “too militant or receiving too much attention” (Walls
2008, p. 46). Given the often subtle and covert nature of homophobia today (Morrison and Morrison
2002; Nadal et al.
2010; Walls
2008), it is important to investigate the influence of subtle prejudices on support for same sex-marriage recognition laws.
Some researchers have examined the role of social context, such as an individual’s contact with gay and lesbian people. Contact hypothesis posits that negative beliefs about stigmatized groups often lessen after personal contact with members of the stigmatized group (Allport
1954). Research conducted with the general public supports this hypothesis in that interpersonal contact with gay and lesbian people, particularly relevant and voluntary contact, are strong indicators of support for same-sex marriage (Barth et al.
2009). Swank and Raiz (
2010) found that having gay and lesbian acquaintances increases the likelihood of students endorsing same-sex relationship rights.
Studies conducted with college students regarding their attitudes toward gay and lesbian people often investigate the role of exposure to educational content on sexual diversity (Finken
2002; Hinrichs and Rosenberg
2002; Rye and Meaney
2009). Research found that students taking part in diversity courses (women’s studies) tend to support same-sex marriage more than students who participated in nondiversity courses (Case and Stewart
2010).
To advance understanding of the “persuadable middle,” in this study we ask: what are the factors associated with differential views about same-sex marriage? Specifically, we sought to test the role of sociodemographics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, religious affiliation, and religiosity), political ideology, attitudes toward gay and lesbian people (malleability of same-sex sexuality, acceptability of same-sex relationships, and aversive heterosexism), social contact with sexual minorities, and exposure to educational content about sexual minorities to explore the nature of respondents who are “neutral” about same-sex marriage rather than endorsing or opposing this policy.