Why do municipal governments adopt lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) inclusive policies? The preponderance of literature suggests urbanism and social diversity are the most likely explanations for LGBT municipal policies. This research tests these assumptions using the morality politics model. Using rare-events logistic regression, municipalities in the state of Florida with LGBT antidiscrimination ordinances are compared with municipalities that do not have such policies. The results contradict theories of urbanism and highlight the shortcomings of the morality politics model. Specifically, the results indicate that even under highly salient conditions, LGBT advocacy resources play an important role in the policy adoption process.
Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies (ASARB). 2010. Religious census: Religious congregations and membership study. Kansas City, MO: Nazarene Publishing House, 2012.
2.
BarthJayMarvin OverbyL.HuffmonScott H.. 2009. Community context, personal contact, and support for an anti-gay rights referendum. Political Research Quarterly62:355–65.
3.
BonillaLouisPorterJudith. 1992. A comparison of latino, black, and non-hispanic white attitudes toward homosexuality. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences12:437–52.
4.
ColvinRoddrick A.2007. The rise of transgender-inclusive laws: How well are municipalities implementing supportive nondiscrimination public employment policies?Review of Public Personnel Administration27:336–60.
5.
GreenFrancis. 2013. The gayellow pages. New York: Renaissance House.
6.
HaeberleSteven H.1996. Gay men and lesbians at city hall. Social Science Quarterly77:190–97.
7.
Haider-MarkelDonald P.2000. Lesbian and gay politics in the states: Interest groups, electoral politics, and public policy. In The politics of gay rights, eds. WaldK.RimmermanC.WilcoxC.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8.
Haider-MarkelDonald P.MeierKenneth J.. 1996. The politics of gay and lesbian rights: Expanding the scope of the conflict. The Journal of Politics58:332–49.
9.
HerekGregory M.Gonzalez-RiveraMilagritos. 2006. Attitudes toward homosexuality among U.S. residents of Mexican descent. The Journal of Sex Research43:122–35.
10.
HofferbertRichard I.UriceJohn K.1985. Small scale policy. American Journal of Political Science29:308–29.
11.
HolbrookThomas M.DunkEmily Van. 1993. Electoral competition in the American states. American Political Science Review87:955–62.
KaneMelinda D.2013. Finding ‘safe’ campuses: Predicting the presence of LGBT student groups at North Carolina colleges and universities. Journal of Homosexuality60:828–52.
14.
KeyV. O.1964. Politics, parties, and pressure groups. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
15.
KingGaryTomzMichaelWittenbergJason. 1998. Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meetings of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA, August.
16.
KingGaryZengLangche. 2001. Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis9:137–63.
17.
LaxJeffrey R.PhillipsJustin H.. 2009. Gay rights in the states: Public opinion and policy responsiveness. The American Political Science Review103:367–86.
18.
LoftusJeni. 2001. America’s liberalization in attitudes toward homosexuality, 1973 to 1998. American Sociological Review66:762–82.
19.
MeltonJ. Gordoncompiler. 1991. The churches speak on homosexuality. Detroit, MI: Gale Research.
20.
MeierKenneth J.1994. The politics of sin drugs, alcohol, and public policy. New York: ME Sharpe.
21.
MeierKenneth J.JohnsonCathy M.. 1990. The politics of demon rum: Regulating alcohol and its deleterious consequences. American Politics Research18:404–29.
22.
MeierKenneth J.McFarlaneDeborah R.. 1992. State policies on funding abortions: A pooled time series analysis. Social Science Quarterly73:690–98.
23.
MooneyChristopher Z.LeeMei-Hsien. 1995. Legislative morality in the American states: The case of pre-roe abortion regulation reform. American Journal of Political Science39:559–627.
24.
MorganDavid R.MeierKenneth J.. 1980. Politics and morality: The effects of religion on referenda voting.”Social Science Quarterly61:144–48.
25.
McVeighRoryDiazMaria-Elena D.. 2009. Voting to ban same-sex marriage: Interests, values, and communities. American Sociological Review74:891–915.
OverbyMartin LBarthJay. 2002. Contact, community context, and public attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Polity34:433–56.
28.
TaylorJami K.LewisDaniel C.JacobsmeierMatthew L.DisarroBrian. 2012. Content and complexity in policy reinvention and diffusion: Gay and transgender-inclusive laws against discrimination. State Politics & Policy Quarterly12:75–98.
29.
United States Census Bureau. 2010. Decennial census. 2010 demographic profile data. Accessed August 6, 2013. http://www.census.gov/popfinder/.
United States Census Bureau. Local governments and public school systems by type and state. 2007 census of governments. Accessed October 26, 2012. http://www.census.gov/govs/cog/GovOrgTab03ss.html.
32.
WaldKenneth D.ButtonJames W.RienzoBarbara A.. 1996. The politics of gay rights in American communities: Explaining antidiscrimination ordinances and policies. American Journal of Political Science40:1152–78.
33.
WerumReginaWindersBill. 2001. Who’s ‘in’ and who’s ‘out’: State fragmentation and the struggle over gay rights, 1974-1999. Social Problems48:386–410.
34.
WilsonThomas C.1995. Urbanism and unconventionality: The case of sexual behavior. Social Science Quarterly76:346–63.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
