The "M" Word: An Analysis of Gay Marriage in the United States Author: Corinne James Madigan Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/698 This work is posted on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries. Boston College Electronic Thesis or Dissertation, 2009 Copyright is held by the author, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted. BOSTON COLLEGE THE “M” WORD: AN ANALYSIS OF GAY MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES A SENIOR HONORS THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE HONORS PROGRAM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE BY CORINNE J. MADIGAN APRIL 14, 2009 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS At the start of this project, it was difficult to imagine its completion. Now that it is done, there are several people to whom I owe sincere debts of gratitude for help along the way. To my steadfast thesis advisor, Professor Don Hafner, whose hand steered this work from start to finish. For someone so busy with making Boston College tick, Professor Hafner never failed to give this project his undivided attention. With constant advice, subtle direction, and unceasing encouragement, you helped me to be my most creative and dedicated self. This paper owes everything to your guidance. To Professor Jennie Purnell, my academic advisor, teacher, and friend. There is no person who has shaped my college experience as much as she has. She is the one responsible for giving me all the tools I would need to undertake a yearlong project like this one: research skills, patience, an ability to think critically, and confidence. This project simply marks the culmination of four years of learning, and I give full credit you for making me the student I have turned out to be. To Nia Jacobs, for teaching me how to footnote all those years ago. It was in your classroom that my passion for this stuff was ignited and because of you that it still burns today. All of my citations are in your honor, not to mention the essence of this project. To Cullen Nutt and Dodie Rimmelin, the better parts of a stellar thesis team. Thanks to both of you for making this process so tolerable; dare I say, enjoyable. Fridays were a pleasure and I appreciate your critical voices and insight in helping to improve my project. I could not have done this without you. To my dear friends, who put up with me and took an interest in what I was doing all along. Thanks to all of you for being such a tremendous part of my life. To Caitlyn Jones, my sanity and my rock throughout. I cannot imagine getting through this project without you to lean on, vent to, and complain with. No one understands me, or thesis-writing, like you do. Thanks for being such an important part of this project, my Political Science partner-in-crime, and a wonderful friend. To Andrew, for allowing me to bury myself in this project for hours on end without complaint, making me better, and always believing in me. To Mom, because it is to you that I owe my being, it is to you that I owe any and all accomplishments, including this one. You are the inspiration and reason behind all that I am, and words could not possibly encompass the amount and depth of my thanks. I love you very, much. ABSTRACT There is perhaps no issue more controversial in the so-called American culture war than that of gay marriage. In the last five years, four states have legalized same-sex marriages and several more appear poised to follow suit. This paper creates an analytical framework with which to evaluate the chances of successful gay marriage initiatives in any given state. Demographics, political institutions, and state-specific variables make up the three parts of the framework, which is then applied to three case studies in which gay marriage has already been addressed: Massachusetts, Vermont, and California. A fourth case, Maine, serves as a prediction state to test the validity of the framework. The paper’s conclusions indicate that, in the current political and cultural domain, there is a set of factors that tend to promote the legalization of gay marriage. The demographics of a population need to be such that they qualify as a “tolerant citizenry,” people who are hesitatingly accepting of gay marriage and can be persuaded to support that legalization. On the political side, a positive evaluation of gay marriage by the state supreme court that then passes on responsibility to the state legislature is the most conducive to legalization. The court provides the constitutional and legal grounds for gay marriage, while the legislature acts as an intermediary between the justices and the wider population. Finally, states in which the constitutions are difficult to amend, and which amendment procedures are controlled by the legislature, are the most likely to legalize gay marriage. The application of the framework to the three case studies illustrates this complex process. Contents Acknowledgements Abstract Chapter I: Introduction ............................................................................................. 1 Chapter II: The Gay Rights Movement ................................................................... 14 Chapter III: Framework of Analysis ......................................................................... 25 Chapter IV: Massachusetts ........................................................................................ 44 Chapter V: Vermont ................................................................................................ 66 Chapter VI: California .............................................................................................. 95 Chapter VII: Maine .................................................................................................. 121 Chapter VIII: Conclusion .......................................................................................... 140 Bibliography .............................................................................................................. 150 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION “Culture war (n.) – a conflict between societies with different ideas, philosophies, beliefs, and behaviors.” -Webster’s New Millennium Dictionary of English “…The word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.1 -Defense of Marriage Act, 1996 The United States seems to forever be in a state of conflict about who is entitled to what rights and legal protections under the law and this fight is frequently dubbed the American culture war. Political scientist Alan Wolfe sees the separation as one between “traditionalists, who want to get back to the old-time religion and old moral values, and more modern people, who are much more individualistic and kind of libertarian in their social views.”1 Since the mid-1990s, gay marriage has stepped into the fray as a defining part of the American culture war, and the divide Wolfe identifies is the underlying separation between supporters and opponents of gay marriage. Fervent argument has resulted ever since Hawaii’s Supreme Court ruled in 1993 that same-sex couples were equally entitled to the 1 C. Madigan rights provided to couples of the opposite sex, thus marking the start of what would turn into an ardent fight about morality, traditions, and equality. The gay rights movement has evolved dramatically in the last few decades, from a public need to address the HIV stigma in the 1980s to the current effort to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. The jump from acceptance to marriage is one that has come quickly and as a surprise to many, resulting in a substantial wave of backlash in a country that is more conservative about this sort of “moral issue” than many others. The language used by Anita Bryant and other anti-gay activists in the 1970s is echoed in many circles today, particularly those using a religious vocabulary to describe and justify their opposition. In fact, religion provides some of the most potent ammunition for opponents of gay marriage and other gay rights initiatives. Despite public opinion being solidly opposed to gay marriage and not particularly supportive of alternatives such as civil unions and domestic partnerships, gay advocacy groups have charged ahead, resulting in some clear successes and other obvious disappointments. For instance, Massachusetts represents possibility for advocates of gay marriage, while the passage of California’s Proposition 8 undermined the argument that gay marriage was not limited to the liberal Northeast. On all of the battlefields of gay marriage-related initiatives, people have come together to oppose or support their sides of the issue and the results have been mixed across the country. At the heart of this issue is the question, what factors make a given state more or less conducive to achieving gay marriage? How have those factors come into play in states that have already, at least for now, addressed this issue? What states are likely to be in play in the near future and what are the expected outcomes? In essence, what does the future 2 C. Madigan of gay marriage in the United States really look like, and what does that say about this country? These are the questions that this paper addresses, analyzing the direction, goals, and outcomes of the movement to achieve equal access to marriage for same-sex couples. The country has by and large clung to the traditional understanding of marriage as a union between a man and a woman only, as social conservatives have managed to dominate the discourse of this issue. The legal rationales for banning or