State By State Probability of Enacting Marriage Equality
As discussed previously, a four-variable model was constructed to estimate probability of passage of marriage equality on a state by state basis. by James Oaksun
(libertarian)
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
As mentioned in my previous article, "Marriage Equality: Lessons Learned 2008-2009," I constructed a four-variable predictive model to estimate the probability of marriage equality being enacted in a popular vote. Each state was given a score on a 0-100 scale.
Analysis of the results from elections in California (Prop 8), Maine (Question 1) and Washington state (R-71) strongly suggest the importance of certain demographic factors in the fate of marriage equality measures at the polls. Perhaps surprisingly to some, these demographic factors were not race based or age based. Rather, they dealt with levels of income, wealth and education among the voting population.
The four variables used in the model were:
Wealth level (as measured by median home value);
Proportion of upper income households;
Proportion of adults with a four-year college degree, or a graduate, professional or doctoral degree; and
Proportion of adults who are high school dropouts.
The source for the information was the 2000 U.S. Census. The data is publicly available, and free of charge. No other private datasets were used.
A commenter on the main article asked that I produce the state by state list, with the scores for each state. Below are those scores, and some comments will follow.
State Score
Hawaii 100
Massachusetts 99
Connecticut 95
Colorado 93
New Jersey 92
Maryland 90
Alaska 86
Washington 84
New Hampshire 83
District of Columbia 80
Minnesota 79
Utah 78
California 74
Virginia 70
Vermont 68
Oregon 67
Delaware 66
Illinois 66
New York 66
Michigan 59
Wisconsin 58
Kansas 57
Nebraska 54
Wyoming 53
Rhode Island 53
Montana 51
Arizona 51
Maine 50
Nevada 49
Ohio 49
Idaho 48
Georgia 48
Pennsylvania 48
Iowa 47
Indiana 43
Florida 42
Missouri 41
South Dakota 39
North Carolina 38
New Mexico 36
North Dakota 36
Texas 34
Oklahoma 29
South Carolina 26
Tennessee 25
Alabama 19
Louisiana 17
Kentucky 14
Arkansas 10
West Virginia 5
Mississippi 5
The states in bold and italic already have marriage equality. Massachusetts -- where marriage equality was enacted first, albeit by court decision -- has the second highest score. Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont all rate relatively high. Iowa -- where equality was enacted through the courts -- gets a relatively low score. As mentioned in the previous article, this suggests that if equality were put to a statewide popular vote in Iowa, it would not have an easy time passing.
Additional interesting observations concern states where votes are imminent or have recently been completed. New Jersey -- where legislative action is now underway (as of early December 2009) -- is the third highest rated state among those that have yet to enact equality. Washington state -- where R-71 passed last month -- is in sixth place. Washington DC is seventh.
California ranks tenth of states yet to enact equality. Its score is 74, meaning I assess that there is a 74 percent chance of the state enacting equality in the next 5-10 years. However, it suggests that defeat of Prop 8, at least by purely looking at the demographics, was not a foregone conclusion. There are many states other than California that are more demographically favorable for an equality fight.
Many were disappointed at the New York state senate's rather lopsided defeat of equality in early December 2009. New York, however, is just in 15th place in this model. Many other states in America would be more favorable ground demographically for an equality push.
Finally, Maine was in 24th place, with a score of 50. This makes Maine not only the least likely New England state to pass equality, but puts it squarely in the middle of the pack as far as places in America likely to enact equality in the near term. (It must be noted, however, that the equality forces did, despite the unfavorable demographics, win 47 percent of the vote in Maine. Thus it can be argued that Maine's No on 1 campaign played a weak hand reasonably -- if not very -- well.)
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 2
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of James Oaksun only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
James Oaksun is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Utah voters more likely than California to approve so-called homosexual "marriage"? That pretty much blows away this ranking's credibility right there.
As you may have noticed Gary, CA has yet to approve marriage equality. Salt Lake CIty has a very large gay population, one of the largest (proportionately) of any major city. The LDS church leadership signed off on nondiscrimination already. The former governor (Huntsman, now ambassador to China) favors civil unions. A lot can happen in 10 years.Â
All I'm saying is that there are certain demographic markers that strongly correlate with support of marriage equality. Perfectly correlate? No. But strongly. And I think reasonable treatment of the LGBT community is more likely at the state level in Utah than in a lot of other places.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-12-08 18:01:28
Hi James,
 I wonder if states that have equality have experienced an influx of gays? (or an out-pouring of homophobes?)
I wouldn't be surprised to see the first few states that adopt marriage equality become far more gay and far more liberal in the first 10 years. The places that marriage equality could never happen would be glad to see them go. It sounds like a win/win. That's the beauty of a republic; states can have different laws for different reasons and individuals are free to choose any state that suits their priorities.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-12-08 18:13:57
Personally I oppose the state having any say in or licensing of unions between individuals. I also think businesses should be able to define the terms of their contracts without the government assigning meanings to words that the business owner disagrees with. The government shouldn't be involved in marriage and it shouldn't be involved in business and it shouldn't be writing dictionaries.
I don't know if there is a legal name for it but when governments assign definitions to words I think every contract containing those words should be rendered broken pending re-wording to restore original intent.
It makes no sense to me that some gays are so enthusiastic about having the government more involved in their lives.
"Marriage equality".  I thought this title might have something to do with male spouses getting equal treatment to females within or getting out of a marriage.
This arguement used to be presented as.....We in the homosexual community do not have equal rights.    ie: hospital visitation, financial planning, etc.
That was determined to be a real problem, therefore states started offering "unions" with all the benefits that a married couple might get.  As that was getting accomplished, the goalpost starts getting pushed back to "marriage".  Contractual unions, equal rights, NO. "marriage".  It's a word. Probably from religious origins. Governments jumped in, they always do.
I'll venture to say, if all 50 states ratified your "marriage equality" it wouldn't be long before there would be a demand for some sort of "affirmative action" for these particular unions, as they are a minority, and at some percieved or real disadvantage.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
