Direct Democracy and LGBT Politics

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel C. Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Direct Democracy ◽  
Policy Outcomes ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Lgbt Rights ◽  
Direct Role ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
The Public ◽  
Ballot Measures ◽  
Lgbt Politics ◽  
Lgbt Community

While many landmark policies affecting LGBT rights have been determined by legislatures and courts, voters have also often played a more direct role in LGBT politics through direct democracy institutions, such as the initiative and referendum. For example, in 2008 California voters approved Proposition 8, barring same-sex marriage in the state and setting the stage for a key federal court decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013). This followed on the heels of 31 ballot measures to ban same-sex marriage in the previous decade. Direct democracy has also been employed frequently to consider a range of other important issues relevant to the LGBT community, including bans on same-sex couple adoptions, nondiscrimination policies, education policies, and employment benefits. Further, as issues addressing transgender right have emerged on the political landscape, local referendums have addressed public accommodation discrimination, including so-called “bathroom bills,” like the high-profile Houston referendum in 2014. Most of these prominent direct democracy contests have resulted in negative outcomes for the LGBT community, spurring concerns about subjecting the rights of marginalized groups to a popular vote. However, some ballot measures, such as Washington’s 2012 vote to legalize same-sex marriage, have expanded or protected LGBT rights. Yet the effects of direct democracy institutions extend beyond the direct policy outcomes of elections and have been shown to shape the decision-making of elected officials as well. Still, studies of both the direct and indirect effects of direct democracy on LGBT rights reveal mixed results that are contingent upon public attitudes and how the issues are framed. When the public is supportive of LGBT rights and views them through a civil right frame, direct democracy has been used to expand and protect these rights. However, when the public views the LGBT community more negatively and views the issues through a morality or safety lens, LGBT rights are put at risk by direct democracy. As such, direct democracy institutions function as a double-edged sword for the LGBT community, simultaneously offering an opportunity to elevate LGBT rights issues onto the public agenda with a civil rights frame and posing a threat to the community when these issues are viewed in a more hostile manner.

Theoretical Perspectives on Subnational Public Policy and LGBT Law

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Pierceson
Keyword(s):  
Direct Democracy ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Policy Outcomes ◽  
Lgbt Rights ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
Lgbt Politics ◽  
Lgbt Policy ◽  
State Policymaking ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Politics And Law

Subnational policymaking is central to LGBT politics and law, in contrast to other arenas of policymaking for marginalized groups. With barriers to national policymaking in Congress and in the federal courts, LGBT rights activists have leveraged opportunities at the state and local levels to create LGBT-supportive policies. Opponents have also used subnational politics to further their agenda, particularly direct democracy, while LGBT rights activists have used elite politics, such as state courts, effectively. Subnational LGBT politics is also marked by a significant variety in policy outcomes, with a notable urban and suburban versus rural divide in policymaking and in the presence of openly LGBT elected officials. The case of LGBT policy and law has caused scholars to rethink questions such as the role of public opinion in state policymaking, morality politics, and courts and social change.

Elections and the Role of LGBT Issues in the United States and Abroad

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriele Magni
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Direct Democracy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Lgbt Rights ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Lgbt Issues ◽  
Over Time

LGBT issues have played an important role in elections. They have been the focus of direct democracy, that is referenda and ballot initiatives in which citizens voted on LGBT rights. The issues considered evolved over time from nondiscrimination ordinances in the 1970s to same-sex marriage bans in the 2000s and transgender rights in the 2010s. Religiosity, partisanship, and ideology generally predicted electoral outcomes. While supporters of LGBT rights have often been defeated at the ballot box, the tide started to change in the 2010s. Beyond direct democracy, LGBT issues have played a role in general elections. The religious right exploited them to mobilize the conservative electorate or to persuade voters to reconsider their party loyalties. The 2004 US presidential election, when same-sex marriage bans were on the ballot in several states, offers an important case study. LGBT actors are also important in elections. LGB voters have generally been more progressive and more supportive of the Democratic Party than the general population. Additionally, the number of openly LGBT candidates has significantly grown over time. In the early years, gays and lesbians running for office faced an electoral penalty but made up for their disadvantage by strategically competing in more favorable districts. By the late 2010s, however, large subsets of the electorate, including Democrats, progressives, nonreligious voters, and people with LGBT friends no longer penalized gay and lesbian candidates. The penalty remained stronger for transgender candidates. LGBT issues have also been important outside the United States, as shown by same-sex marriage referenda in Europe and beyond and by the increasing success of lesbian and gay candidates in the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Future research should explore issues concerning minorities in the LGBT community, the shifting position of right-wing parties on LGBT rights, and the role of LGBT issues and candidates in elections outside the Western world.

scholarly journals Current Explanations for the Variation in Same-Sex Marriage Policies in Western Countries

2012 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 526-557 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Pettinicchio
Keyword(s):  
Gay Marriage ◽  
Policy Outcomes ◽  
Heterosexual Couples ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Gay Couples ◽  
Western Countries ◽  
National Comparison ◽  
Shed Light ◽  
Cross National

Abstract Over the last ten years, several western countries have recognized gay marriage either by providing gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, or by allowing civil unions. Other western countries have not. What accounts for this variation? This paper reviews and analyzes the key demographic, institutional and cultural arguments found in the literature on the legalization of gay marriage – especially as these pertain to cross-national comparison – and raises questions about assumptions regarding the extent to which there is variation on these variables across western countries. I argue that institutional and cultural explanations are only meaningful in explaining legalization when their combinations are specified in order to shed light on favorable (or unfavorable) circumstances for policy outcomes.

A Catholic Inclusive Approach to Homosexuality in Nigeria

2018 ◽  
Vol 74 (4) ◽  
pp. 396-408
Author(s):  
Daniel Ude Asue
Keyword(s):  
Catholic Church ◽  
Social Teaching ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Debates ◽  
Inclusive Approach ◽  
Inclusive Society ◽  
The Church ◽  
The Catholic Church

This essay discusses Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Bill in Nigeria, with a focus on the contribution of the Nigerian Catholic Church to the law. Though the Catholic Church in Nigeria did not actively contribute towards the public debates about homosexuality that resulted into the Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Bill it nevertheless welcomed the bill. However, the official teachings of the Catholic Church and elucidations from the Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria could potentially contribute to creating an inclusive society. In what way can we potentially utilize the principles of Catholic Social Teaching to make room for an inclusion of homosexual persons in the life of the church and in society?

Framework for Social Change

2019 ◽  
pp. 28-53
Keyword(s):  
Social Change ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Lgbt Rights ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
The Law ◽  
Cultural Shifts

Culture shifts relating to LGBT rights were originally addressed in a 1997 article written by Thomas Stoddard titled “Bleeding Heart: Reflections on Using the Law to Make Social Change.” This chapter uses his framework for social change and examines how rule shifting and cultural shifts interact with the legalization of same-sex marriage.

The Implications of Religious Liberty

2017 ◽  
pp. 143-162
Keyword(s):  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Religious Liberty ◽  
The Political ◽  
Marriage Equality ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Protection Measures ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Public Discussion ◽  
The Public ◽  
Faith Based

The political terrain surrounding the legalization of same-sex marriage and the need to accommodate individual's faith based objections have been part of the public discussion since the passage of initial marriage equality statutes. These exemptions played an important part in the bill's passage and have gone largely unquestioned from proponents of marriage equality. This chapter discusses the heightened lawmaking efforts by opponents insisting on broad protection measures for religious claims based on opposition directed towards homosexuality. This Chapter discusses the resulting tension between religious freedom and marriage equality.

The future is queer kids: Queering the homonormative temporalities of same-sex marriage

Politics ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 265-280
Author(s):  
Callum Stewart
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Relations ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Temporal Perspective ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Future ◽  
And Gender

Same-sex marriage is emblematic of a crisis of vision in lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and gender non-binary, intersex, and queer (LGBTIQ) politics, according to some queer theorists. Through the concept of homonormativity, Duggan insightfully criticizes same-sex marriage politics as spatially privatizing and depoliticizing queer difference. Brown argues, however, that Duggan herself reifies homonormativity. He calls for theorists to imagine the queer potential in non-fixed spatial relations. Given Duggan and Brown’s focus on spatiality, this article approaches queer imaginations beyond homonormativity from a temporal perspective: I ask what transformational potential same-sex marriage holds to queer heteronormative and homonormative temporalities. I argue that same-sex marriage may not only queer the public/private dichotomy, but also subvert the heteronormative temporality of straight time. Straight time produces identities, spaces, and times as fixed, pre-political, and timeless, and is constructed against queer time in which identities, spaces, and times are non-fixed, political, and sociohistorically constructed. By theorizing straight/queer time as politically produced through the reproductive relation between adulthood and Childhood, I repoliticize the temporalities of homonormative and queer imaginaries and recognize children as queer citizens of a queer future. Same-sex marriage may therefore produce two previously untheorized images of queer potential: the Child queered by their parents, and the Child queered by their sexuality.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document