Saturday, April 4, 2009

Mapping the Future of Gay Marriage

Yesterday, same-sex marriage in Iowa was rendered legal by that state's Supreme Court (two days after it was made legal in Sweden). The United States seems inexorably headed towards marriage rights for gay couples - but how long will it take to get there across the board? Nate Silver has an answer. Based entirely on his hard work at fivethirtyeight.com, here is the future of gay marriage in the US:



The years indicated are those by which a gay marriage ban would be defeated by voters in a given state, according to a regression model designed by Silver. (Again, all the math and hard work is Silver's; I just made the map.)

How did Silver come up with these results? Here's the explanation:
I looked at the 30 instances in which a state has attempted to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage by voter initiative. The list includes Arizona twice, which voted on different versions of such an amendment in 2006 and 2008, and excludes Hawaii, which voted to permit the legislature to ban gay marriage but did not actually alter the state's constitution. I then built a regression model that looked at a series of political and demographic variables in each of these states and attempted to predict the percentage of the vote that the marriage ban would receive.

It turns out that you can build a very effective model by including just three variables:

1. The year in which the amendment was voted upon;
2. The percentage of adults in 2008 Gallup tracking surveys who said that religion was an important part of their daily lives;
3. The percentage of white evangelicals in the state.

These variables collectively account for about three-quarters of the variance in the performance of marriage bans in different states. The model predicts, for example, that a marriage ban in California in 2008 would have passed with 52.1 percent of the vote, almost exactly the fraction actually received by Proposition 8.
The more religious a state is, and the more white evangelicals it has, the higher the percentage of voters who would be likely to support a gay marriage ban. However, according to Silver marriage bans "are losing ground at a rate of slightly less than 2 points per year. So, for example, we'd project that a state in which a marriage ban passed with 60 percent of the vote last year would only have 58 percent of its voters approve the ban this year." So it's possible to extrapolate, given the current religious demographics of a state and the trend of decreasing support for bans, when a gay marriage ban would fail.

There are 11 states where a marriage ban would already be expected to fail: all of New England and New York, plus several states in the West (all of which are among the least religious states in the country). California wouldn't be likely to reject a ban until next year. (Side note: despite California's status as a sort of poster boy for social liberalism, most of the Northeast tends to be more liberal on these kinds of social indicators.)

Over the next couple of years, majority opposition to gay marriage bans will spread quickly through the Northeastern and Western states, then through the Midwest - claiming a majority of all states by 2013 - and finally through the South, with Mississippi bringing up the rear in 2024.

Of course, history rarely moves in a straight line, and there's a big element of speculation in simply extrapolating from current trends. As Silver notes, a backlash against gay marriage might mount, delaying or reversing the trends that have been evident over the past few years; or by a sudden gestalt shift gay marriage might find broad acceptance. What seems much more likely than the precise dates given here, though, is the chronology of the geographical spread of acceptance. Same-sex marriages are already legal in the New England states of Massachusetts and Connecticut, with the Vermont legislature recently voting overwhelmingly to allow it (though the Governor may veto the bill [UPDATE: the legislature overrode the veto, so Vermont is the fourth state to make gay marriage legal, and the first to do so legislatively rather than judicially]). And even among states where gay marriage bans have passed, some of the most narrow margins were in Western states like Oregon, Colorado, Arizona and, of course, California. Meanwhile, it is certain that the South will be the last region in the country to become amenable to gay marriage.

As for Iowa? According to Silver, an amendment to the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage in that state would require passage in two consecutive sessions of the state legislature, and then would have to be ratified by the voters. So it couldn't come up for a vote at the ballot box until at least 2012. According to Silver's regression model, such a ban might pass in Iowa until 2013 - but who knows; maybe 3 years of being neighbors with happily married gay couples without having their social fabric torn asunder will cause Iowans' tolerance clock to speed up just a bit.

5/19/09 UPDATE: This map was never intended as a prediction of when gay marriage would actually become legal. But it is interesting that, as of a month and a half later, gay marriage is now legal in 4 states (MA, CT, VT, ME), will soon be legal in a 5th (NH; just waiting for a technicality in the bill to be worked out), and is making progress in a 6th state (NY) which, according to Nate S., would vote against a hypothetical gay marriage ban as of this year. In other words, gay marriage may actually be legal in at least half of these 11 states by the time the year is out, and will definitely be legal in at least 5 - plus Iowa, of course. Again, the point was never that these would be the dates by which gay marriage would actually be legal - but it almost seems to be turning out that way, to some extent.

29 comments:

Sandegren said...

The Swedish Riksdag (our parliament) actually passed the bill on April 1. Otherwise, great post!

Chachy said...

Fixed it, S. Thanks!

Anonymous said...

This is so cool. Thank you for this - putting it in a visual format really makes it easier for me to comprehend.

Anonymous said...

Excellent article. it is high time that gay marriage be addressed in a real way. All Hail the decision of the Iowa Legislature! Bravo!

Mad Professah said...

Let's hope that Nate releases more data on his correlation between religiosity and electoral turnout on marriage amendments

K H D and sometimes T said...

I wouldn't worry to much about a rollback in Iowa. They're kind of the social leader of the mid-west (and have often led the nation). Interracial marriage, property for women, female lawyers - Iowa legalized it first. And they were right there at the front on school desegregation too. Now admittedly they haven't shown themselves too progressive in the recent past, but they may well be reclaiming their crown.

Chachy said...

Anon: thanks. Visual formats that make stuff comprehensible is what the whole map fetish here is all about, when it comes right down to it.

Anon II: It was actually the Iowa Supreme Court, not the legislature; but undoubtedly a significant moment, regardless.

MP: I'm curious: what do you mean, exactly? I assume turnout considerations would be subsumed by the data of actual electoral outcomes, at least as far as Nate's model is concerned.

Many consonants: there's definitely a legacy of a certain prairie progressivism there, isn't there? As there has been at various times in Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Another point: Iowa is the place where the Obama rocket really took off in last year's primaries. And another interesting thing about this map is that it looks quite similar in a lot of ways to what a map would look like that showed Obama's over/underperformance compared to other recent Democratic presidential candidates. E.g., Obama didn't win some of those Western states, like Idaho and Montana, that are shaded a deeper red on this map. But he did do better in those places than other Democrats have done. And Obama's troubles in the light pink portions of the Upland South have been well-documented.

E. Ross said...

Cool map - except that he thinks a gay marriage ban would be defeated by voters in Alaska this year! LOL! Ain't gonna happen . . .

Esther said...

Yeah, I agree with everyone else. Nice map! It makes everything much clearer.

At first Iowa did surprise me but thinking about Obama's victory in the caucus, and then reading the court's ruling, it's not so surprising after all. The judges were saying it's a matter of common sense, decency and fairness. There's no legitimate governmental purpose served by barring same-sex couples from getting married. Gay and lesbian Iowans deserve the same protection as everyone else. Let's hope the tolerance clock speeds up!

Anonymous said...

I used to live in NY and I know there is no initiative and referendum there so citizens cannot put anything on the ballot as they do in California. I live in NJ now and I've never seen one on my ballot here. Both states are controlled by Democratic legislatures and governors who are unlikely to put a referendum for or against gay marriage on the ballot. I also think they are unlikely to pass a bill for gay marriage in the legislatures. Jersey passed a civil union bill and it was totally uncontroversial. But even if the legislatures felt sure of their majorities, both governors are precarious and they're not going to want to hand them a gay marriage bill.

Mark said...

I understand the correlation between evangelicals and marriage bans, but what about a correlation for the number of Mormons? I think this might be a flaw in the model - probably because Mormons weren't a statistically significant portion of the population in most of the states voting for bans. My guess is that a state with few evangelicals, but many Mormons - such as Idaho, Utah or Wyoming - would pass a marriage ban well after the dates predicted on this map.

peterparker said...

@ Nate Silver: Language is important, so...is there anything I can say or do to convince you to stop using the phrase 'gay marriage'? 'Gay marriage' makes it sound as though GLBT people are trying to create some new kind of marriage. It plays into the right wing conservatives' view that the gay community wants to carve out 'special rights'. We don't want special rights; we just want to be equal under the laws of this country. And it isn't any new type of marriage; it is simply marriage...that happens to have same sex partners. The term 'marriage equality' is a more accurate term. And it is more helpful to those of us who are fighting for our right to be treated just like every other U.S. citizen. If I could get you, through this post, to replace 'gay marriage' with the term 'marriage equality', I would be stoked. Thanks!

peterparker said...

Argh. I just realized I'm not on Nate's site. Sigh. Carry on.

Anonymous said...

No possibility Idaho repeals the gay marriage prohibition in the next seven years. No idea WHO
made up this chart but it aint gonna happen. prohibition of gay marriage was passed here recently 70 to 30 percent. And unfortunately people here
are PROUD of that.

jeff said...

I like how the last states likely to oppose gay marriage are shown in the most delicate shade of pink! Fun irony :-)

ChipperX said...

Thanks so much for this well-written article. It is very informative, and the "gay marriage map" is great.

However, I really think (and hope) that the matter will find itself before the Supreme Court Of The United States before much longer, and I predict that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide that there is no compelling, legitimate state interest in forbidding marriage equality between members of the same sex. If this happens, then marriage equality will be federally recognized and not just a matter for the states. As a result, the states will not be allowed to make any law which contravenes federal policy.

Some previous examples of U.S. Supreme Court intervention which come to mind are those of public school segregation, interracial marriage bans, and minority voting bans. In each instance, a state or lower court case regarding discriminatory laws was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court. Although it took a bit of time, the Supreme Court struck down rulings which prevented equal treatment of marginalized people. Eventually, equality became the law. This is now woven into the fabric of our nation.

It may take a few years, but equality will triumph.

Chachy said...

CX: My guess is that something like that will play out, but it might take a little while; I don't think the Supreme Court would be prepared to do that for a few years yet.

Based on my sum total of zero expertise in the law, here's how I'd guess it might play out: a trickle of states continue to legalize gay marriage legislatively over the next few years, including the rest of New England, New York, a couple of Mid-Atlantic states, California, Oregon, Washington. And a couple more moderate states like Iowa legalize gay marriage judicially. And then progress sort of hits a wall with all the states that have amended their constitutions to disallow same-sex marriage, since those amendments can be hard to overturn. And some time after that, the Supreme Court legalizes it once and for all.

In List Form, Because I Have No Life said...

2021-2024:
Oklahoma
Alabama
South Carolina
Tennessee
Mississippi

2017-2020:
Texas
Georgia
North Carolina
Louisiana
Kentucky

2015-2016:
Kansas
Missouri
Indiana
Virginia
West Virginia

2013-2014:
Florida
New Mexico
Utah
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Minnesota
Michigan
Ohio

2012:
Pennsylvania
Delaware
Maryland (+Washington, D.C.)
Illinois
Wisconsin

2011:
Arizona
Idaho
Wyoming

2010:
California
Colorado
Montana
Hawaii

2009:
Washington
Oregon
Alaska
Nevada
New York
Rhode Island
New Jersey
New Hampshire
Maine

Legal:
Iowa
Vermont
Connecticut
Massachusetts

ChipperX said...

CHACHY: Thanks so much for your response to my comment.

Here is how the process works with regard to Supreme Court involvement: There must be a challenge to an existing law or ruling at the state supreme court level. Upon receiving a disfavorable ruling, either litigant may petition the United States Supreme Court for certiorari. In rare instances, the U.S. Supreme Court may choose an issue to address on its own.

Certiorari is simply the term by which the U.S. Supreme Court is officially requested to rule on a case. The U.S. Supreme Court may or may not decide to hear a case based upon various factors, including but not limited to timeliness (ripeness), national impact and controversey.

With regard to whether or not the Supreme Court is "prepared" to hear this argument: This is something only they can decide. Under the proper circumstances, this issue could come before them at any time in the near future - or not at all.

Since the Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches of our government are separate with distinct although overlapping powers, each is generally loathe to step on one another's toes - usually. It is possible that, unless asked, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide to "sit this one out", letting the Legislative branch handle the issue, until called upon to settle the dispute. Let us hope this is not the case.

History shows us that equal rights issues are best addressed by the Supreme Court. This branch of our government has the power to set the tone of our nation and ensure that marginalized peoples are treated as fairly as possible.

The track record of this Court suggests that marriage equality, should the issue come before them, is simply a matter of time.

Anonymous said...

I don't know I dissagree with a lot of them. The way the country's going I don't think there is going to be anymore same-sex marriage or civil unions. What we already have I think that will be it. Until the Federal Government steps up and does the right thing by saying it is TOTAL Discrimination there will not be anymore. Also they won't even let the people that are legally married file taxes returns together. That's sad.

Anonymous said...

For a selection of maps indicating the current status of same-sex marriage (various online sources), see this Flickr set: http://www.flickr.com/photos/39427150@N07/sets/72157619659329061/

vfdvgf said...

There are wow gold 3 men in a plane. wow gold A priest, a baseball player world of warcraft power leveling and a soldier. the pilot goes into dog clothes the cabin and 2moons gold tells them that there Atlantica gold is a weight overload 2moons power leveling on the plane and they would each have to throw world of warcraft gold one personalworld of warcraft power leveling belonging out aoc power leveling the window to safely land. Power Leveling the priest throws flyff money out a bible and says,"forgive me lord, i will last chaos gold get another one.archlord power leveling The baseball player world of warcraft gold throws a baseball out and says, aoc gold "i play professional baseball, i can get thesearchlord gold whenever i want." Now

2day42morrow said...

I find it so pathetic that some people are so afraid of change that they have to ban others' happiness. Change is inevitable and everyone should just embrace it, for change is progress for the human race.

I think like this and I'm still in high school.

morat said...

Thanks for sharing this great article! That is very interesting Smile I love reading and I am always searching for informative information like this.
Kenali dan Kunjungi Objek Wisata di Pandeglang | Blog SEO | cah bagoes | oes tsetnoc | blogger

crazyloko said...

cell phonesThis phenomenom is typified by mobile phonethe rise ofbusiness. Incredible range of products available with China Wholesale “Low Price and High Quality” not only reaches directly to their target clients worldwide but also ensures that cheap cell phones wholesale from China means margins you cannot find elsewhere and China Wholesale will skyroket your profits.

Anonymous said...

Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!

venn99 said...

Louie Lighting
Outdoor lighting
Chandeliers
Pendant lights

gento said...

Thanks for sharing this great article! That is very interesting Smile I love reading and I am always searching for informative information like this.
Business Blog SEO | Mbah Gendeng | Ovoway | Dagdigdug | Ngobrol Seputar Bisnis Online Bocah | Ngobrol Seputar Bisnis Online | Mbah Gendeng

chaoyang said...

Your blog is wonderful, I like it very much, thank you!
By the way, do you like polo shirts, which are very chic, especially the polo t shirts, I love them very much. I also like playing tennis rackets, it can keep healthy, what do you like to do?
We are the outlet of polo t shirts women, polo t shirts on sale, polo t shirts for women, polo shirts on sale, these products are best-seller in our store online.besides we also sell polo shirts men, men's polo shirt, men polo shirt, mens polo shirts, mens polo shirt and cheap polo shirts, discount polo shirts, men's polo shirts, women's polo shirts We are also the outlet of cheap tennis racket, discount tennis racket and the main product is prince tennis racquet, head tennis rackets, wilson tennis racket, babolat tennis racquet. So if you love sports, you should not miss our store, we can meet what you want, and you can find many surprise in our store