9 Things You Should Read about the Politics of Same-Sex Marriage

As oral arguments get underway at the Supreme Court, here are a bunch of links to what we and other political scientists have written about gay marriage of late:

  1. An amicus curaie brief by 12 political scientists regarding Hollingsworth v. Perry.  They argue that gays and lesbians lack political power and this bears on the question of laws that disadvantage them.

  2. Ben Lauderdale and Tom Clark argue that if Kennedy is the swing justice, arguments in favor of same-sex marriage should center on due process (where Kennedy is on the left) than civil rights or federalism (where he is on the right).

  3. William Blake notes that Catholics on the Court tend to vote in favor of Catholic teachings, even once their political ideology is taken into account.

  4. Keith Poole maps the House and Senate votes on DOMA in 1995.

  5. Do conservatives’ arguments in favor of gay marriage work?  A cautionary tale.

  6. Does Congress have a conservative bias on gay rights?  Do state legislative candidates?  The answer in both cases seems to be: yes.

  7. Why same-sex marriage so often loses at the ballot box.

  8. David Karol on the myth of “social issues,” or why the politics of gay rights and abortion are so different.

  9. Erik compares support for same-sex marriage in the U.S. and Europe.

Apologies for getting all Buzz-feedy with the title of the post.

UPDATE: And now with a bonus tenth thing!  Here is David Fontana on why a Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage might not produce a backlash.

5 Responses to 9 Things You Should Read about the Politics of Same-Sex Marriage

  1. William Blake March 26, 2013 at 11:01 am #

    Thanks for thinking of me, John!

  2. no. 9, no. 9, no. 9, no. 9 March 26, 2013 at 11:02 am #

    Erik, when you’re done comparing support for same-sex marriage in the U.S. and Europe, can you or someone from the blog tell us what you discover?

    • John Sides March 26, 2013 at 12:09 pm #

      Is it so hard just to say, “you forgot the link”?

  3. Sol March 28, 2013 at 7:05 pm #

    Would anyone take that amicus brief seriously if, rather than focusing on homosexuals, you replaced the politically powerless groups as childless (barren) couples or infertile women challenging federal legislation permitting a child tax credit? Clearly much public policy disadvantages single Americans who cannot have children and miss out on tax credits as a result. Or take Satan Worshippers. They are another unpopular group if you look at feeling thermometers. I doubt they have much representation in Congress. The amicus brief makes little sense once you substitute any aggrieved group of your choice, any group of Americans that subscribes to an unpopular lifestyle would fit the bill.

  4. Sol March 28, 2013 at 7:08 pm #

    Just to follow up on my last post. Do these political scientists realize that if we applied strict or heightened scrutiny to every powerless/unpopular political constituency in America we’d have hundreds of classifications that the Court would have to recognize as suspect classes of citizens. The last sentence of the amicus brief literally calls for using heightened scrutiny anytime a group lacks political power. That’s not even close to how the federal courts have approached suspect classifications and scrutiny over the years.