Now that California's Proposition 8 is cooling down (for now), I'll make some analytic comments. This is a hot issue on which Pendulum Politics has purposely avoided opining. The analysis here is not meant to be normative conclusions about homosexuality, legislation of morality, or anything related.
Both groups - for and against - could probably benefit from a more data-driven approach. According to Wikipedia, the winning coalition spent $35.8 million; the losing coalition spent more, at $37.6 million. While anger on both sides is understandable - and you know what I'm talking about - obviously money was not the key factor. It was the voter who decided this issue. Both sides should recognize that.
The best data we have (though it's not ideal) is exit poll data (I'll go with CNN). Since I don't have raw data, I can't use econometrics to tease out results (but I can do so with some other data - below). From the polls, we learn that African-Americans, Latinos, and "other races" voted for Prop 8 more than whites by margins of 19%, 4%, and 2%. Compare these values to the Obama support margins: African-Americans supported Obama more than whites by a margin of 42%, Latinos by 22%, and "other races" by 3%.
What does this tell us? When broken down by race, the same people who voted for Obama voted for Prop 8. Considering the massive Obama efforts to get out the vote, the notion that Obama's candidacy is more responsible than interest groups for Prop 8's passage is not improbable (see data below; also see discussion of Nate Silver below). This means that the pro-8 coalition has less to be proud of, and the anti-8 coalition needs to think about the target of their anger. For both groups, recognizing what drove the vote will be crucial to victory in future tests of this issue.
Data and Analysis
If this stuff bores you, scroll down to the Conclusion.
I've obtained survey data from the General Social Survey (hat tip Jeff D. for the idea, early figures, and the data for this project). The set has 25,000 respondents spanning from 1971 to the present. Below are the results of a probit regression. If you're new to regression interpretation, I'll try to explain what's going on. I've examined the data based on gender, religion, race, region, and age. The base model is for a white, nonreligious, female, under age 60 from the Pacific region, which the data shows is the most tolerant demographic for homosexuality. These are raw probit coefficients - which means you shouldn't interpret their direct effect on attitudes towards homosexualty; instead, they are meant to be compared to each other. The larger the number, the more a person disapproves of homosexuals.
For people familiar with this stuff: standard errors are in parentheses; the Chi sq. likelihood ratio was significant; and all coefficients are significant at the 0.001 level (actually they were all 0.000). I also ran a model with year dummies, but the results were basically the same.
male: 0.156
(0.017)
protestant: 0.999
(0.028)
catholic: 0.723
(0.030)
other religion: 0.230
(0.042)
black: 0.273
(0.026)
other race: 0.232
(0.042)
midwest: 0.255
(0.027)
south : 0.607
(0.032)
mountain : 0.140
(0.040)
east coast: 0.175
(0.0254)
over 60: 0.559
(0.022)
What do we learn from the data? It confirms our conclusions about the influence of race on Prop 8's passage. It also confirms the Nate Silver explanation for the passage of 8: older voters. He doesn't want to blame Obama for the passage of Prop 8 (he's a big Obama fan), so he rejects the racial demographics explanation. The data also confirms his claim, with over-60 voters being about twice as disapproving as blacks. Ultimately, the data supports Silver's claim but also supports mine.
Conclusion
What does this mean? Aside from making political statements, pro-gay marriage groups targeting churches is probably ineffective. It does nothing to help their problem with racial and age demographics, and it exacerbates their problems with religious demographics (and could lead to stronger opposing coalitions in the future - see Lybbert's take). In other words, the net effect of such protests is probably to decrease the likelihood of pro-gay legislation in the near future. A big effort to improve the image of the gay community among religious people and non-whites is probably the best way to further the cause of pro-gay rights groups - better than protesting at places of worship, which makes a bad impression on many religious people.
As for the winning coalition: this analysis attributes a huge part of the passage of Prop 8 to racial and age demographics. If the Obama turnout effect among non-whites does not come back, passage of pro-gay legislation is likely to increase. The generational issue will strengthen this trend substantially. Additionally, the previous referendum to ban gay marriage passed by a margin of more than 20%, while Prop 8 passed by a margin of only 4.2%. The implications of this trend continuing are obvious. Opponents of Prop 8 are on the losing side in the long term. At this point, pro-8 types are better off seeking political compromises, like some form of civil unions (supported by some key backers of Prop 8) that would limit the possibility of further liberalization. In other words, conservatives will probably have to be politically flexible or nothing will go their way in the future.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Analysis of Proposition 8
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Civil unions of some degree are already in place in California are they not?
Domestic Partnerships are in place in CA which are only marginally different than civil unions. Thus, prop8 advocates have less to offer Californian pro-gay marriage advocates. Thanks for pointing that out.
The necessity for opponents of gay marriage to offer a compromise involving civil unions remains, however. It merely won't be nearly as easy to accomplish in states such as California where Domestic Partnerships offer already robust rights.
At any rate, proposition8 will be challenged in 2010. And as RD points out, the trends are not in its favor. Its doubtful there will be another Obama Effect in 2010, and the younger, more accepting demographic will represent a larger percentage of total voters in 2010 than they did in 2008. Thus, prop8 proponents need to broker an acceptable deal while they still have chips with which to bargain.
As for gay-marriage proponents, I think their opposition to the LDS community is sensible (although certain instances have been grossly intolerant and distasteful) given the LDS financial backing of prop8. While money may not have been sufficient to win prop8, I believe it was necessary. Just because both causes accumulated approximately the same amount of funds it does not mean that those funds were not essential or key.
You are right in your prescription, however, for gay-marriage proponents. They need to work on changing how they're perceived among older folks, Black, and Latinos more so than they do among religious groups.
Great analysis by the way! I'll post something on a sensible--albeit politically infeasible--compromise tomorrow.
T Biddy's comment is a good one (thanks for mentioning it), but I think it deserves some context.
In California, gay couples can indeed have a Domestic Partnership with a lot of the same rights as married people. So, yes, the compromised has been reached. But this only reinforces my point.
Domestic partnerships were working (mostly) fine, until William Knight, a state representative, sponsored Proposition 22 in 2000. This proposition was meant to define marriage as between a man and a woman, thus preventing gays from ever being able to be married. The important point to keep in mind is that gays did not propose this idea (obviously) - they were not substantively pushing for marriage rights; but conservatives in California wanted to make sure they were restricted.
We know that Proposition 22 passed, leading to the court's decision to overturn it, which led to Prop 8, which led to this whole problem. The whole problem is only over a WORD - "marriage" - which is now seen by gay rights activists as a civil rights issue. I don't think it would have really become a major issue were it not for Prop 22.
In other words, by putting so much emphasis on the word marriage, conservatives may have unwittingly given gay rights people ammo for a civil rights campaign, justified or not.
Post a Comment