The Politics of the Gay Marriage Prop 8 Decision

August 6, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (24)

Andrew Gelman has an interesting chart up at FiveThirtyEight showing the relative levels of support for gay marriage in the 50 states, and how they have shifted over the last decade-and-a-half or so. Looking at the numbers in the context of competitive races this cycle gives some insight into the extent to which this week's decision by a federal judge overturning California's ban on same sex marriage will play in the midterm elections.

I think it's safe to say that inasmuch as the ruling will provide a boost for either party, it will be for the Republicans, giving them another sharp stick with which to prod their angry base voters. (Keep in mind too that President Obama opposes gay marriage.) Nate Silver made this argument Wednesday at FiveThirtyEight, pointing out that while the Tea Party has avoided social issues, the establishment has every reason to focus on it.

My best guess is that the Tea Party will largely continue to shirk the issue, but that the Republican Establishment will be fairly happy to engage it. The real battle, however, may come in 2012, when the Supreme Court could be about ready to take up the case. The leading indicator may be the reactions of the major Presidential hopefuls.

Regarding the 2010 elections, the question is where this is a powerful issue. First a bit of context: the high water mark for support of gay marriage is in Massachusetts, where 55 percent approve. It's one of only six states with majority support for same sex marriage. So even support in the 40s is, in this spectrum, relatively favorable (or relatively not unfavorable). Or to put it another way, one would expect the GOP to be able to get greatest traction for the issue the farther a state moves from 50 percent support.

The Cook Political Report currently lists 13 Senate races (eight seats currently held by Democrats and five now in GOP hands) as being toss-ups. Of those, seven are in states with support for gay marriage that tops 40 percent: Democratic incumbents Barbara Boxer in California (right around 50 percent), Patty Murray of Washington (where support is a bit under 50 percent), Michael Bennet of Colorado (where support looks to be a bit under 50 percent), and Harry Reid of Nevada where support is a bit under 45 percent (up from about 25 percent in the mid-1990s), and the seats being vacated by retiring Sens. Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire (where support is just under 50 percent), Democrat Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania (around 45 percent support), and Democrat Roland Burris of Illinois (between 40 and 45 percent).

Note that virtually all of those seats are Democratically held. When you dip under 40 percent support, the states get a lot redder (no great surprise there), and a lot more open. The only incumbents are Democrats, suddenly endangered Russ Feingold of Wisconsin (under 40 percent support for gay marriage) and should-be-updating-her-resume Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas (under 25 percent support). The four other seats are all being vacated by GOPers: George Voinovich in Ohio, (under 40 percent), George LeMieux in Florida (over 35 percent), Kit Bond in Missouri (under 30 percent), and Jim Bunning of Kentucky (a bit over 25 percent).

(Kentucky is an interesting case, as GOP nominee Rand Paul is ostensibly a libertarian but hews to a social conservative, non-libertarian line when it comes to gay marriage.)

So the take-away here for Democrats is probably that the decision was not helpful for 2010 races, but given the number of states in play that are fairly moderate on gay marriage, it could have been worse.

Tags:
Michael Bennet,
Blanche Lincoln,
Arlen Specter,
Kit Bond,
Russ Feingold,
George Voinovich,
Roland Burris,
Judd Gregg,
Jim Bunning,
LGBT rights,
George LeMieux,
Barbara Boxer,
Congress,
2010 Congressional elections,
Patty Murray,
marriage,
Harry Reid,
Rand Paul

Reader Comments Read all comments (24)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

OMG -- No wonder I don't read the posts to articles like this very often. The displays of ignorance are amazing.

Peter of GA -- what difference does it make if Steve of IL is gay or not? And you obviously have no conception of what being gay is if you think that the act of "putting a penis anywhere you want" is your answer. I am sure gay women would disagree with that assessment. And you also obviously have no conception or an inkling of human knowledge that your own son could be gay. But with attitudes like you've written you would never know it anyway. He would never tell you.

And Bill Hedges of MO -- so, by calling Steve of IL a bigot for chastising the southern boys and their postings of less than intelligent muddle, are you defending that? Or are you just name calling? And the law of the land may not be unanimous concerning gay people marrying right now, but there are several states where it's legal and nothing of the sort that you are writing about has happened in those places.

And Peter, your slippery slope analogies are so much hot air. No one is advocating the things you suggest. And that goes for you, too, Steve of IA. And I, for one, don't spend any time thinking about the stuff that you guys keep writing about -- of course, I'm not from Georgia.

If you guys truly want to be enlightened about the things you obviously like to rant about, why don't you do it from a position of knowledge. Why don't you read the 136 page decision handed down in the prop 8 ruling this week and tell me where it's wrong? Why don't you actually get to know some gay people and get over your stereotypes? Why don't you read about the lives of some great historical figures that happened to be gay? I suppose it's easier to live with your ignorance about such things, but if you don't want to enlighten yourselves at least stop writing about things of which you are obviously not equipped to elaborate upon.

Martin Pal of CA 12:24AM August 11, 2010

Which begs the question: what is more animalistic, a male that is sexually attracted to another female or a male that will stick his thing in whatever makes him feel good....HMMMMMM

peter of GA 6:10PM August 09, 2010

Are you gay or am I just misinterpreting your posts.

peter of GA 6:06PM August 09, 2010

Robert Schlesinger

Robert Schlesinger

Robert Schlesinger is managing editor for opinion at U.S. News and World Report, overseeing all opinion editorial content. He is the author of "White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters." E-mail him at rschlesinger@usnews.com. Follow him on Twitter: @rschles.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

JFK's Virtuoso Turn at the Bully Pulpit

Kennedy presented a radical idea: Peaceful coexistence.

Mary Kate Cary

A Democracy in Crisis

Can the country long survive an ever-growing government?

Latest Videos

advertisement