TITLE

Constitutionally Defining Marriage in a Non-Presidential Election Year: A Study of the Vote in Two States

AUTHOR(S)
Rausch, Jr., John David
PUB. DATE
April 2010
SOURCE
Politics, Bureaucracy & Justice;2010, Vol. 2 Issue 1, p38
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
In 2004, voters in thirteen states approved amendments to their state constitutions defining marriage as involving one man and one woman. The process of states adding marriage definition amendments to their constitutions continued with voters in two states considering the issue in 2005. This paper examines the political context of the voting outcomes in those two states, Kansas and Texas. It analyzes the influence of religion on the county-level votes for the marriage definition amendments, controlling for various political, demographic, and socioeconomic variables. The analysis reveals that while religious affiliation was an important fact in the political environment, the relationship between support for marriage definition and the 2004 Republican presidential vote was more important. The analysis also exhibits evidence that counties with large African-American populations strongly supported marriage definition amendments.
ACCESSION #
74184932

 

Related Articles

  • Marriage referendum could affect all couples. Carson, Stephanie Carroll // Charlotte Post;12/22/2011, Vol. 37 Issue 15, p1A 

    The article reports on the Marriage Amendment, passed by the North Carolina General Assembly and will be included in the primary-election ballot in May 2012, which according to law professors at the University of North Carolina, could affect health benefits and legal protection of all couples.

  • As this editorial is being written.  // Gay & Lesbian Times;7/15/2004, Issue 864, p12 

    Editorial. Focuses on the failure of the Federal Marriage Amendment to pass in the U.S. Senate. Reasons for the defeat of the measure; Future plans of Republicans to put the amendment before Congress; Handling of social issues that are bigger in magnitude than the proposed amendment.

  • OUTRAGE OF THE WEEK!  // Gay & Lesbian Times;7/15/2004, Issue 864, p28 

    Reports on the debate over the Federal Marriage Amendment in the U.S. Senate in July 2004.

  • Push the marriage amendment at the economy's peril. PELATH, Scott // Indianapolis Business Journal;11/4/2013, Vol. 34 Issue 36, p6B 

    The article presents the author's views on the proposal to amend the marriage law in Indiana to permanently ban same-sex marriage in 2014, which he believes is a destructive economic policy.

  • Does marriage amendment need amended? Odendahl, Marilyn // Indiana Lawyer;1/15/2014, Vol. 24 Issue 23, p1 

    The article focuses on the companion bill offered by legislators which would explain the purpose of the constitutional provision regarding the controversial marriage amendment in Indiana. It states that the process for amending the Indiana Constitution needs a proposal to be approved by two...

  • Following FMA victory, local activists continue fight. Ralston, Rachel // Gay & Lesbian Times;7/22/2004, Issue 865, p14 

    Reports that civil rights activists have called for heightened vigilance despite the defeat of the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) in the U.S. Senate. Concerns of activists on plans by marriage equality opponents to reintroduce the FMA; States planning to put FMA measures in the November 2004...

  • Businesses tend to reflect social values. BOHANON, Cecil // Indianapolis Business Journal;11/4/2013, Vol. 34 Issue 36, p5B 

    The article presents the author's views on the move of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce which is opposing the proposal to amend the state's marriage law to permanently ban gay marriage and civil unions and on the possible impact of the amendment's approval to local businesses.

  • A HOUSE DIVIDED. Roehr, Bob // Just Out;Oct2004, Vol. 21 Issue 24, p19 

    Reports that the Federal Marriage Amendment failed to obtain the required number of votes for passage in the U.S. House on September 30, 2004. Claims of supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage during a debate that preceded the vote.

  • Amendment banning same-sex marriage is unveiled in D.C. Kiritsy, Laura // Bay Windows;5/23/2002, pN.PAG 

    Discusses issues on the Federal Marriage Amendment, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage and other legal protection for gay couples, introduced by a bipartisan coalition of six U.S. congress members into the U.S. House of Representatives, on May 16, 2002. Views...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics