Outlawing Gay Marriage

January 10, 2010
By

(This article was first published on John Myles White: Die Sudelbücher » Statistics, and kindly contributed to R-bloggers)

Given the recent votes on same-sex marriage in New Jersey and Portugal, I wanted to test a seemingly innocuous claim that touches upon very broad issues in political theory: does the degree of directness of a “democratic” vote predict whether the vote will promote or prohibit same-sex marriage? Naively, it seemed clear to me that this was true: every single direct vote in my memory has outlawed same-sex marriage, while the only decisions that have allowed same-sex marriage have originated among elected representatives or unelected judges.

I decided to compile some rough data to test this idea using Wikipedia’s articles on the topic. I took what seemed to be the non-redundant decisions since the 1990′s from the following three articles:

  1. Same-Sex Marriage in the Netherlands
  2. Same-Sex Marriage in Spain
  3. Same-Sex Marriage in the United States

And I arrived at this table:

Region Date Type of Decision Promoted
Hawaii 1993-05-05 Court Ruling 1
U.S.A. 1996-09-21 Congressional Decision 0
Hawaii 1998-11-03 Direct Vote 0
Vermont 1999-12-20 Court Ruling 1
Holland 2000-12-19 Congressional Decision 1
Massachusetts 2003-11-18 Court Ruling 1
Spain 2005-06-30 Congressional Decision 1
California 2008-05-15 Court Ruling 1
Connecticut 2008-10-10 Court Ruling 1
California 2008-11-04 Direct Vote 0
New Hampshire 2009-03-26 Congressional Decision 1
Iowa 2009-04-03 Court Ruling 1
Vermont 2009-04-07 Congressional Decision 1
Connecticut 2009-04-23 Congressional Decision 1
Maine 2009-05-06 Congressional Decision 1
New York 2009-05-12 Congressional Decision 1
Texas 2009-10-02 Court Ruling 1
Maine 2009-11-03 Direct Vote 0
Washington, D.C. 2009-12-01 Court Ruling 1
New York 2009-12-02 Congressional Decision 1
New Jersey 2010-01-07 Congressional Decision 0

You can find a CSV file with this data at the GitHub repository where I’ve stored all of the analyses I’ve completed so far. I’d love for people to add more data or contribute some visualizations of the patterns I’m pointing out. And, as always, I’d love to hear criticisms or suggestions about my approach.

The summary statistics provide pretty clear support for my intuition, though they’re rarely statistically significant, given the small sample sizes:

  • 100% of court rulings promoted same-sex marriage.
  • 80% of congressional decisions promoted same-sex marriage.
  • 0% of direct votes promoted same-sex marriage.

For me the conclusion to be drawn from all of this is not that our respect for the will of the majority should compel us to prohibit same-sex marriage, but rather that we should be more hostile to direct democracy, because it is a powerful force for promoting intolerance in American society. I imagine this will sound un-American to many readers, but I think it’s quite clear that this sentiment was foundational for the American experiment in government. You see this distrust of direct democracy repeatedly reiterated in the Federalist Papers, especially in Federalist Number 10. Indeed, one can argue that the major purpose of our Constitution is to limit the ability of direct democracy to harm minorities within our society.

To leave a comment for the author, please follow the link and comment on their blog: John Myles White: Die Sudelbücher » Statistics.

R-bloggers.com offers daily e-mail updates about R news and tutorials on topics such as: Data science, Big Data, R jobs, visualization (ggplot2, Boxplots, maps, animation), programming (RStudio, Sweave, LaTeX, SQL, Eclipse, git, hadoop, Web Scraping) statistics (regression, PCA, time series, trading) and more...



If you got this far, why not subscribe for updates from the site? Choose your flavor: e-mail, twitter, RSS, or facebook...

Tags:

Comments are closed.

Search R-bloggers


Sponsors

Never miss an update!
Subscribe to R-bloggers to receive
e-mails with the latest R posts.
(You will not see this message again.)

Click here to close (This popup will not appear again)