Donald P. Haider-Markel

The Politics of Gay and Lesbian Rights: Expanding the Scope of the Conflict

Morality politics theory predicts that gay rights policy will reflect the influence of religious groups, party competition, and partisanship while interest group theory suggests that these policies will correspond with interest group resources, elite values, and past policy actions. Using multiple regression on a 50-state data set and a county-level data set for gay rights initiatives in Oregon and Colorado, we found gay and lesbian politics are no different from those for other policy issues. When gay and lesbian rights are not salient, the pattern of politics resembles that of interest group politics. If individuals opposed to gay and lesbian rights are able to expand the scope of the conflict, the pattern of politics conforms to morality politics.

Policy Diffusion as a Geographical Expansion of the Scope of Political Conflict: Same-Sex Marriage Bans in the 1990s

In 1996, more than half of the states considered legislation banning same-sex marriages. This article examines these events as a geographic expansion of the scope of the conflict rather than as traditional state-centered policy innovation. I argue that the diffusion of same-sex marriage bans was determined by the organized efforts of advocacy coalitions and internal state characteristics rather than by regional diffusion or communication among policy experts. I use state-level data collected from activists, media accounts, and official sources to establish the organized efforts to ban same-sex marriage. I then develop and empirically test a model of policy diffusion to predict both state consideration and adoption of policies banning same-sex marriage. The findings suggest that the diffusion of these policies is best explained by the presence of an organized national campaign by conservative religious groups, the local resources of interest groups, and other internal state characteristics rather than by regional diffusion patterns. I also find that the influence of state characteristics may vary during the policymaking process.

Making the National Local: Specifying the Conditions for National Government Influence on State Policymaking

The national government can force or entice state governments to act on policy through a variety of actions, including providing monetary incentives and sanctions. We examine how and under what conditions actions of the national government influence the diffusion of policy across the states. We test our hypotheses on the cases of the diffusion of partial birth abortion laws, truth-in-sentencing laws, and hate crime laws using event history analysis on pooled cross-sectional data from the 50 states. Our results suggest that, in addition to fiscal incentives, the national government can influence state policymaking when it sends strong, clear signals to the states concerning its preferences and the potential for future action. But even national-level signals that are weak and ambiguous may influence state policymaking indirectly.

Issue Evolution, Political Parties, and the Culture Wars

Using the issue evolution framework, our research examines partisan polarization on several culture war issues, including pornography, environment, gun control, and gay civil rights. We look for evidence of partisan polarization among political elites and citizens, as well as examine top-down versus bottom-up paths of influence among Republicans and Democrats. Data from the General Social Survey and congressional rollcall votes between 1970-1999 are analyzed. Our results suggest that although partisan elites have become increasingly polarized on culture war issues, mass partisans have not followed suit across all issues. Only on environmental and gun control issues do we find significant evidence of issue evolution, including a linkage between elite and mass opinion. We conclude that culture war issues may not be as prone to issue evolution as previous research has indicated, in part because these issues are not all equally salient to the mass public.

Lose, Win, or Draw? A Reexamination of Direct Democracy and Minority Rights

Researchers continue to disagree over how minority rights fare in direct democracy elections. The authors enter this debate by reviewing previous research and outlining more systematic criteria for assessing minority rights in the context of direct democracy. In applying these criteria, an analysis of direct democracy contests involving gay and lesbian civil rights suggests that minorities are more likely to lose in these contests. The authors suggest that the conclusions of previous researchers may have been premature and that their criteria should be applied to other minority groups.

The Politics of Social Regulatory Policy: State and Federal Hate Crime Policy and Implementation Effort

Research suggests there has been a rise in the number of hate crimes since 1985. At the same time, legislatures at the local, state, and national level have enacted policies that both track and regulate hate crime. This article is an effort to determine the factors influencing hate crime policy and implementation efforts. The project is divided into three sections: In the first section, the characteristics and extent of hate crime are discussed. Section two describes hate crime policy as social regulatory policy and uses this theoretical framework to explain state variation in laws con cerning hate crimes. In section three, I present a model of policy imple mentation to predict state implementation efforts of federal hate crime policy Based on the variables suggested by these theoretical frameworks, I present hypotheses and conduct a multiple regression analysis using a fifty-state data set. The results indicate hate crime policies and imple mentation efforts are largely attempts by politicians to satisfy organized interests in competitive political systems. I discuss the implications of these findings and suggest avenues for future research.

Attributions and the Regulation of Marriage: Considering the Parallels Between Race and Homosexuality

Few would dispute that religion has played a fundamental role in shaping our understanding of human relationships, including marriage, and what types of relationships are permitted. However, science, especially biology, has also played an important role in government regulation of marriage (Bittles and Neel 1994 ; Ottenheimer 1990 ; Dupuis 2002 ; Ellison 2004 ; Strasser 2002 ). A cursory overview of government regulations of marriage reveals laws that establish age requirements, necessitate testing for diseases, ban nuptials between individuals with biological relations, set limits on the number of spouses, and ban interracial marriage (miscegenation), among other things (Barlow and Probert 2004 ; Bratt 1984 ; Cott 2000 ; Micklos and Carlson 2000 ; Moran 2001 ; Ottenheimer 1990 ; Scott 2000 ). Certainly some of these policies reflect a religious based morality, but some, such as those that ban marriages between individuals within a family, also reflect a biological understanding of potential problems associated with the offspring of these couples (Bratt 1984 ; Ottenheimer 1990 ; Cott 2000 ; Micklos and Carlson 2000 ; St. Jean 1998 ; Scott 2000 ; Stoddard 2003 ).

Reassessing the Impact of Supreme Court Decisions on Public Opinion: Gay Civil Rights Cases

The theoretical and empirical debate over the ability of the U.S. Supreme Court to influence public opinion through its decisions is far from settled. Scholars have examined the question using a variety of theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence, but there is no theoretical consensus, nor are the empirical studies without methodological weaknesses. We enter this debate in an attempt to bring some clarity to the theoretical approaches, overcome some of the methodological shortcomings, and bring a yet unstudied issue area, Court decisions on gay civil rights, under scrutiny. We argue that the ability of Court decisions to influence public opinion is a function of the salience of the issue, the political context, and case specific factors at the aggregate level. At the individual level these factors are also relevant, but citizen characteristics must also be taken into consideration. Our analysis of aggregate level and individual level opinion does indeed suggest that Court decisions can influence public opinion. However, the ability of Court decisions to influence public opinion is conditional. Our findings lend support to the legitimation hypothesis and the structural effects model. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our findings and suggestions for future research.

Minority Group Interests and Political Representation: Gay Elected Officials in the Policy Process

Of key importance to groups in a democracy is the political representation of their interests in the policy process. The most obvious strategy of groups to achieve representation is to elect officials that identify with group interests. Our research examines the political representation of lesbian and gay interests, exploring the influence of openly gay elected officials on domestic partner policies. Based on the literature, we select and operationalize variables that may influence policy adoption. Analysis on a dataset of 270 localities suggests that elected gay officials are an important determinant for achieving substantive political representation. Our findings also suggest that supportive non-gay elected officials can effectively represent gays in the policy process.

The impact of state-level restrictions on abortion

This research examines 23 different laws passed by state governments in an effort to restrict the number of abortions. It assesses both laws passed and laws actually enforced after the Supreme Court permitted states to restrict access to abortion in 1989. None of the policy actions by state governments has had a significant impact on the incidence of abortion from 1982 to 1992. Abortion rates continue to reflect past abortion rates, the number of abortion providers, whether the state funds abortions for Medicaid-eligible women, urbanism, and racial composition of the population. Recent restrictive policies have not affected these trends.