1. “Same Sex Marriage and the 2004 Presidential Election”
Gregory Lewis
PS: Political Science and Politics April 2005; 38, 2.

2. 2004 Election and Same Sex Marriage
13 States Banned same sex marriage, and exit polls found voters referring to “moral values.”
Question: Did Gay Marriage and moral issues bring Bush’s base out?
Question: What role did incumbency, terrorism and “character” have in the election outcome. …

3. Findings: Effect of Gay Marriage
Evangelicals and voters in states with a Gay Marriage ban did not disproportionately increase their numbers or their preference for Bush. …

4. Findings: Effect of Gay Marriage
To analyze effect of Gay Marriage at state and individual level, Lewis controlled for other issues likely to have effected voters since 2000 (911,
terrorism, Iraq, changes in the economy).
At the individual level, he also controlled for party affiliation, ideology (his data source was a March 2004 LA Times Poll).
Findings:
Other issues matter more, but attitudes toward same sex marriage had a statistically significant and meaningful impact on both individual voters
and state vote totals.

5. Individual Level Analysis
In 2004, the issue of Gay Marriage mattered less than some issues but more than most.
The election largely replayed an election where gay rights, especially same-sex marriage played little role.”
The War (Iraq), the economy and terrorism all had larger impacts on voter choices.
Finding:
Civil Union supporters voted more like Civil Union Opponents than Marriage supporters, once these other variables are accounted for.
Hence, support for Gay Marriage was not a deciding factor in voter behavior.

6. Correlational Models Hypothetical 1:
Rep, White women, middle-income, supports SSM, lives in the north → % supported Bush?
Rep, White women, middle-income, opposes SSM, lives in the north → % supported Bush?

7. Correlational Models Hypothetical 2:
Rep, White women, middle-income, opposes Iraq war, lives in the north → % supported Bush?
Rep, White women, middle-income, supports Iraq war, lives in the north → % supported Bush?

8. Correlational Models Hypothetical 3:
Rep, White women, middle-income, supports SSM, lives in the south → % supported Bush?
Dem, White women, middle-income, supports SSM, lives in the south → % supported Bush?
>>>