The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent application of employment protections to gays and lesbians in Bostock v. Clayton County highlights the striking absence of policy produced by the U.S. Congress despite two decades of increased public support for gay rights. With the notable exceptions of allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military, and passing hate crimes legislation, every other federal policy advancing gay rights over the last three decades has been the product of a Supreme Court ruling or Executive Order. To better understand the reasons for this inaction, we examine the changing preferences of members of Congress on LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) issues. Examining scores from the Human Rights Campaign from 1989 to 2019, we find a striking polarization by the parties on LGBTQ issues, as Democrats have become much more supportive and Republicans even more opposed to gay rights. This change has been driven not by gerrymandering, mass opinion polarization, or elite backlash, but among Republicans by a mix of both conversion and replacement, and among Democrats primarily of replacement of more moderate members. The result is a striking lack of collective representation that leaves members of the LGBTQ community at risk to the whims of presidents and jurists.
AyoubPhillip. 2016. When States Come Out: Europe’s Sexual Minorities and the Politics of Visibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BaerJudith A.1999. Our Lives before the Law: Constructing a Feminist Jurisprudence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
3.
BarclayScottFloresAndrew R.2015. “Backlash, Consensus, Legitimacy or Polarization: The Impact of Same Sex Marriage Policy on Mass Attitudes.” Political Research Quarterly69:43–56.
4.
BarthJayOverbyL. MarvinHuffmonScott H.2009. “Community Context, Personal Contact, and Support for an Anti-gay Rights Referendum.” Political Research Quarterly62 (2): 355–65.
5.
BarthJayParryJanine. 2009. “2 > 1 + 1? The Impact of Contact with Gay and Lesbian Couples on Attitudes about Gays/Lesbians and Gay-Related Policies.” Politics & Policy31 (1): 31–35.
6.
BishinBenjamin G.2000. “Constituency Influence in Congress: Does Subconstituency Matter?” Legislative Studies Quarterly25:389–415.
7.
BishinBenjamin G.2003. “Independently Validating Ideology Measures: A Look at NOMINATE and Adjusted ADA Scores.” American Politics Research31:404–25.
8.
BishinBenjamin G.2009. Tyranny of the Minority: The Subconstituency Politics Theory of Representation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
9.
BishinBenjamin G.HayesThomas J.IncantalupoMatthew B.SmithCharles Anthony. 2020. “Elite Mobilization: A Theory Explaining Opposition to Gay Rights.” Law & Society Review54 (1): 233–64.
10.
BishinBenjamin G.SmithCharles Anthony. 2013. “When Do Legislators Defy Popular Sovereignty? Testing Theories of Minority Representation Using DOMA.” Political Research Quarterly66 (4): 794–803.
11.
BullChrisGallagherJohn. 1996. Perfect Enemies: The Battle between the Religious Right and the Gay Movement. Seattle: Madison Books.
12.
CarminesEdward G.StimsonJames A.1981. “Issue Evolution, Population Replacement, and Normal Partisan Change.” American Political Science Review75 (1): 107–18.
13.
ClendinenDudleyNagourneyAdam. 1999. Out for Good: The Struggle to Build a Gay Rights Movement in America. New York: Simon & Schuster.
14.
CoxGary W.McCubbinsMathew D. (1993) 2004. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.
FloresAndrew R.2015. “Examining Variation in Surveying Attitudes on Same-Sex Marriage: A Meta-analysis.” Public Opinion Quarterly79 (2): 580–93. doi:10.1093/poq/nfv017.
GarretsonJeremiah J.2014. “Changing with the Times: The Spillover Effects of Same-Sex Marriage Ballot Measures on Presidential Elections.” Political Research Quarterly67 (2): 280–92.
22.
GarretsonJeremiah J.2015. “Exposure to the Lives of Lesbians and Gays and the Origin of Young People’s Greater Support for Gay Rights.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research27 (2): 277–88.
23.
GarretsonJeremiah J.2018. The Path to Gay Rights: How Activism and Coming out Changed Public Opinion. New York: New York University Press.
24.
GentryCynthia S.1987. “Social Distance Regarding Male and Female Homosexuals.” Journal of Social Psychology127 (2): 199–208.
25.
GilensMartinPageBenjamin I.2014. “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” Perspectives on Politics12 (3): 564–81.
26.
Haider-MarkelDonald P.2001. “Policy Diffusion as a Geographical Expansion of the Scope of Political Conflict: Same-Sex Marriage Bans in the 1990s.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly1 (1): 5–26.
27.
HarrisonBrian F.MichelsonMelissa R.2017. Listen, We Need to Talk: How to Change Attitudes about LGBT Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28.
HarrisonBrian F.MichelsonMelissa R.2019. Contact Theory and the Distinct Case of LGBT People and Rights. Oxford: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.
29.
HerekGregory M.GluntEric K.1993. “Interpersonal Contact and Heterosexuals’ Attitudes toward Gay Men: Results from a National Survey.” Journal of Sex Research30 (3): 239–44.
KarolDavid. 2009. Party Position Change in American Politics: Coalition Management. New York: Cambridge University Press.
32.
KarolDavid. 2012. “How Does Party Position Change Happen? The Case of Gay Rights in the U.S. Congress.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans, January 2012.
33.
KarolDavid. 2019. Red, Green, and Blue: The Partisan Divide on Environmental Issues. Elements in American Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108673266.
34.
KarolDavidThurstonChloe N.2020. “From Personal to Partisan: Abortion, Party, and Religion Among California State Legislators.” Studies in American Political Development34 (1): 91–109.
35.
KrehbielKeith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of US Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36.
KreitzerRebecca J.HamiltonAllison J.TolbertCaroline J.2014. “Does Policy Adoption Change Opinions on Minority Rights? The Effects of Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage.” Political Research Quarterly67 (4): 795–808.
37.
KrimmelKatherineLaxJeffrey R.PhillipsJustin H.2016. “Gay Rights in Congress Public Opinion and (Mis)representation.” Public Opinion Quarterly80 (4): 888–913. doi:10.1093/poq/nfw026.
38.
LanceLarry M.1987. “The Effect of Interaction with Gay Persons on Attitudes toward Homosexuality.” Human Relations6:329–36.
39.
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
40.
LaxJeffrey R.PhillipsJustin H.2009. “Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness.” American Political Science Review103 (3): 367–86.
41.
LaxJeffrey R.PhillipsJustin H.2012. “The Democratic Deficit in the States.” American Journal of Political Science56 (1): 148–66.
42.
LelkesYphtach. 2018. “Affective Polarization and Ideological Sorting: A Reciprocal, Albeit Weak, Relationship.” The Forum16 (1): 67–79. doi:10.1515/for-2018-0005.
43.
LewisDaniel C.FloresAndrew R.Haider-MarkelDonald P.MillerPatrick R.TadlockBarry L.TaylorJami K.2017. “Degrees of Acceptance: Variation in Public Attitudes toward Segments of the LGBT Community.” Political Research Quarterly70 (4): 861–75.
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018).
46.
Mayo-AdamErin. 2017. “Intersectional Coalitions: The Paradoxes of Rights-Based Movement Building in LGBTQ and Immigrant Communities.” Law & Society Review51 (1): 132–67.
47.
McCartyNolanPooleKeith T.RosenthalHoward. 2009. “Does Gerrymandering Cause Polarization?” American Journal of Political Science53 (3): 666–80.
ReynoldsAndrew. 2018. The Children of Harvey Milk: How LGBT Politicians Changed the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
55.
Riverstone-NewellLori. 2017. “The Rise of State Preemption Laws in Response to Local Policy Innovation.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism47 (3): 403–25.
SmithCharles Anthony. 2007. “The Electoral Capture of Gay and Lesbian Americans: Evidence and Implications from the 2004 Election.” Studies in Law, Politics, and Society40:103–21.
59.
SmithCharles Anthony. 2011. “Gay, Straight, or Questioning? Sexuality and Political Science.” PS: Political Science & Politics44 (1): 35–38.
60.
TaylorJamiHaider-MarkelDonaldLewisDaniel. 2018. “Tensions over Gay and Transgender Rights between Localities and States.” PS: Political Science & Politics51 (1): 35–37.
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.
