Suchergebnisse

Prior public opinion research has identified a wide range of circumstances in which polling results may be tainted by social desirability bias. In races pitting a Black candidate against White opponents, this has often been referred to as the "Bradley effect" (aka "Wilder effect" or "Dinkins effect"), by which survey respondents overstate their preference for Black candidates running against White opponents. This study examines the accuracy of polling on same-sex marriage ballot measures relative to polling on other statewide ballot issues in all states voting on the issue from 1998 to 2012, controlling for a range of theoretically relevant contextual factors. There has been a great deal of speculation, though little empirical evidence, that polling systematically understates opposition to same-sex marriage. Consistent with social desirability bias, this study finds that opposition to same-sex marriage is about 5% to 7% greater on election day than in preelection polls.

What explains Taiwan's vacillating support for same-sex marriage? Despite earlier favourable public opinion and a Constitutional Court decision in 2017 in favour of legalisation, anti-lgbt referendums in 2018 found overwhelming support. We argue that the framing of same-sex marriage as undermining traditional family structures allowed opponents to shift the national discussion on legalisation. Our results suggest that supporters and the Tsai administration may have overestimated the extent to which opinions on legalisation were firm.

While activists have the public in mind when engaging in framing activity throughout a long policy struggle, ballot measure campaigns create a context in which the public and policymakers are closely related audiences. Lacking the formal deliberative mechanisms present in other institutional venues, voters as policymakers rely almost entirely on information, framing, and cues from groups involved in direct legislation. California is the only state where voters approved two different measures prohibiting same-sex marriage: Proposition 22 in 2000 and Proposition 8 in 2008. Thus, it offers a useful case study for studying activist groups' messaging and framing in the context of policymaking via ballot measures. This paper relies on campaign materials from Proposition 22 and Proposition 8 to examine whether or not activists learn from and alter their messaging strategies based on prior campaigns and changed legal and political contexts.

Foreword / Elisabeth Sheff -- Introduction / Ronald C. Den Otter -- Obergefell and the liberal case against civil marriage / Sonu Bedi -- Progressive polygamy in the western United States / Janet Bennion -- Plural marriage, exemptions, and the redundancy of the free exercise clause / Ronald C. Den Otter -- Robotic marriage and the law / Mark Goldfeder and Yosef Razin -- A friendship model of sex, polyamory, and plural marriage / Diane Klein -- Public reason, liberal neutrality, and marriage / Andrew Lister -- Polygamy in Islam : origins and challenges / Ameneh Maghzi and Mark Gruchy -- The need for a sociological perspective on polyamory / Kristin McCarty -- Scrutinizing polygamy : Utah's Brown V. Buhman and British Columbia's reference re: Section 293 / Maura Strassberg -- The paradox of big love in the liberal state : treating adults like children and children like adults / Olivia Newman -- About the contributors

We examine whether voters rewarded conservative politicians who were voting in favor of same-sex marriage. Data is based on a roll-call vote in the German national parliament (Bundestag) in June 2017. This roll-call vote drastically influenced the public discourse about the social political platform of the conservative party. National elections took place in September 2017. The results show that the vote share of conservative politicians who voted in favor of same-sex marriage was around 1.29 percentage points (around 0.33 standard deviations of the change in the first vote share) higher than the vote share of conservative politicians who did not vote in favor of same-sex marriage. Voters were seeking for outcomes other than economic outcomes to evaluate politicians' performance in office.

Abstract
This article examines the case of Taiwan's anti-same-sex marriage referendum of 2018. This case shows that a referendum can severely affect the model of constitutional sovereignty which has guided Taiwan since its democratisation. The fact that populists were able to use the referendum as a tool to delegitimise the state organs, we argue, throws light on the relationship between populism and direct democracy.

Did ballot measures banning same-sex marriage help swing the 2004 general election to George W. Bush? This article examines possible electoral effects of gay marriage ballot measures in two key neighboring presidential battleground states, Michigan and Ohio. Weighted least-squares multivariate regression is used to examine county-level voting patterns on the gay marriage bans, turnout in 2004, and support for Bush in 2004. Results show that counties with higher percentages of Republicans and evangelicals in both states supported the gay marriage bans, as did counties in Michigan with higher densities of Catholics. Although support for the anti-gay measures did not help increase turnout across counties in either state, support for the measures did positively impact the county-level vote for Bush in 2004. Adapted from the source document.

1. Marriage, love and law -- 2. Doing the rite thing: cultural practices of commitment -- 3. How do I love thee? Questioning the marriage model -- 4. Making it legal: marriage, law and legality -- 5. Sin or civil right? Debating marriage in the states -- 6. Conclusion: marriage and beyond.

Since the 1990s, gay and lesbian civil rights organizations have increasingly focused on the right of same-sex couples to marry, which represents a major change from earlier activists' rejection of the institution. Centering on the everyday struggles, feelings, and thought of marriage equality activists, The Nuptial Deal explores this shift and its connections to the transformation of the United States from a welfare state to a neo-liberal one in which families carry the burden of facing social problems. Governance and marriage are now firmly entwined. Fighting for access to marriage means fig

Before there was a culture war in the United States over same-sex marriage, there was a battle between opponents and proponents of same-sex marriage within the LGBTQ+ community. Some within the LGBTQ+ community opposed same-sex marriage because of the long patriarchal history of marriage and the more consequential need to bridge the economic and privilege gap between the married and the unmarried. On the other hand, LGBTQ+ proponents of same-sex marriage saw marriage as a civil rights issue because of the central importance of marriage in American society. They sensed a profound wrong in the denial of the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples when those couples carried on lives no different from their heterosexual counterparts, save for the legal recognition of their relationships as a "marriage." Proponents also lauded the transformative potential of same-sex marriage, contending that it could upset the patriarchal nature of marriage and help to refashion marriage into something new and better. Opponents, of course, feared the hegemony of heterosexual marriage in the United States and argued that same-sex marriage would not transform American society at all. This essay looks back at that debate through the lens of the federal tax definition of "marriage" before and after the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges. These two decisions brought legal recognition of same-sex marriage to the federal and state realms, respectively. The question in these early years following the advent of same-sex marriage across the United States is whether the promised transformative potential of same-sex marriage has begun to be realized. In the realm of federal tax law—which is the situs of perhaps the most intimate and sustained connection that citizens have with the federal government—the answer is at this point, unfortunately, no. After opening the door to a broader array of legally recognized relationships before Windsor, the Internal Revenue Service reversed course and firmly shut the door on recognizing any relationship not denominated "marriage" in the wake of that decision. At first, it was thought that the IRS reversed its position in order to prod states that had adopted second-class civil union or domestic partnership regimes to recognize same-sex marriage—and this did, indeed, happen in the two years that separated the Windsor and Obergefell decisions. But after Obergefell, when same-sex marriage began to be recognized across the United States, the IRS even more firmly closed the door to recognizing alternative relationship statuses, showing that its original move was reactionary in character and stymieing the transformative potential of same-sex marriage in this influential area of the law. In conclusion, the essay will explore the lessons to be learned from the collision between faith in the ability to disrupt and overturn hierarchies and the reality of the power of entrenched societal institutions such as marriage.

Faith on a landslide -- Outward and visible sign -- Escape from wilderness -- Something borrowed, something new: what is queer theology? -- Enduring love: is this marriage or not? -- Pause for thought: conflicting views and opposing arguments -- A space for the heart.