Current Explanations for the Variation in Same-Sex Marriage Policies in Western Countries

Abstract

Over the last ten years, several western countries have recognized gay marriage either by providing gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, or by allowing civil unions. Other western countries have not. What accounts for this variation? This paper reviews and analyzes the key demographic, institutional and cultural arguments found in the literature on the legalization of gay marriageespecially as these pertain to cross-national comparison -and raises questions about assumptions regarding the extent to which there is variation on these variables across western countries. I argue that institutional and cultural explanations are only meaningful in explaining legalization when their combinations are specified in order to shed light on favorable (or unfavorable) circumstances for policy outcomes.

The Social, Political, and Judicial Contexts of Queer Marriage in the United States

“…As stated earlier, some scholars (e.g., Pettinicchio, 2012) suggest that variations in the pathway to SSM are accounted for by demographic, institutional, and cultural factors. We contend that greater distinction can come from using the categories of social, political, and judicial contexts.…”

“…Among Western countries, scholars contend that SSM typically follows a pathway from the decriminalization of homosexuality to a focus on expanding human rights policies followed by SSM legalization (Adam, 2003;Pettinicchio, 2012). However, this research largely excludes the United States because SSM is not legal nationwide.…”

“…The arguments for and against same-sex marriage (SSM) range from an enforcement of civil rights afforded under the U.S. Constitution to the invocation of religious doctrine (Pettinicchio, 2012). Clearly, the recent Supreme Court rulings that led to the re-legalization of SSM in California (Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013) and the ability of the federal government to recognize SSM (United States v. Windsor, 2013) represent a critical turning point in the queering of marriage.…”

“…Previous researchers have examined the legalization of SSM by focusing on institutional (e.g., social movements, public opinion), demographic (the changing importance of marriage as measured using marriage and fertility rates), or cultural factors (e.g., attitudes and beliefs that influence political content and foci; Pettinicchio, 2012). Importantly, actual policies and laws predating the legalization of SSM are not included in any of these factors, thereby leaving out the role of the political and judicial contexts.…”

“…For example, we would argue that public opinion (institutional factor) and attitudes and beliefs (cultural factor) are not conceptually distinct. In fact, Pettinicchio (2012) demonstrated the interaction between institutional and cultural factors, and suggested that these two factors alone cannot explain variations in SSM enactment across countries. Of note, the United States is excluded from analysis because SSM is not legal nationwide.…”