Explaining the Australian marriage equality vote: An aggregate-level analysis

Gravelle, Timothy B.; Carson, Andrea

doi:10.1177/0263395718815786

Cited by 14 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…During mid-2017, a heated argument about marriage equality in Australia reached its peak and "elicited substantial debates dominated by religious voices", who claimed marriage was a sacred and heterosexual institution; this was despite the fact that in 2016 less than 25% of weddings in Australia were conducted by religious bodies (Perales et al, 2019, p. 107). The then Turnbull government, seemingly in an attempt to appease religious conservatives, and factional disputes within the Liberal/National Party, spent $122 million on a non-binding, marriage equality postal vote survey which was sent to all Australians listed on the electoral role, rather than allowing a conscience vote in Parliament (Gravelle & Carson, 2019). As Karlsen and Villadsen (2008, p. 347) state, "In liberal democracies, dialogue is always brought forward as a solution to problems of management, power, and cooperation, and when dialogue fails the suggested miracle cure is almost without exception more dialogue".…”

Section: Marriage Equality and The Non-binding Postal Votementioning

confidence: 99%

Gender and Sexuality Diversity in a Culture of Limitation

Ferfolja¹,

Ullman²

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gender and Sexuality Diversity in a Culture of Limitation provides an outstanding and insightful critique of the ways that contemporary education is impacted by a range of political, social and cultural influences that inform the approaches that schools take in relation to gender and sexuality diversity.By applying feminist poststructural and Foucauldian frameworks, the book examines the ongoing impact of broader socio-cultural discourse on the lives of gender and sexuality diverse students and teachers. Beginning with an overview of the impact of how a culture of limitation is realised in Australia, the focus moves beyond this context to examine state and federal policies from comparable societies in countries including the US and the UK and their effect on the production of knowledges and what's permissible to include in educational curriculum. This research-driven book thus provides a comparative, international overview of the current state of gender and sexuality diversity in schools, and convincingly demonstrates that despite some empowerment of gender and sexuality diverse individuals, silencing and marginalisation remain powerful forces. This book will be of great interest to graduate and postgraduate students, academics, professionals and policy makers interested in the field of gender and sexuality in education. It is essential reading for those involved in pre-service and in-service teacher education, diversity education, the sociology of education, as well as education more generally.

show abstract

Section: Marriage Equality and The Non-binding Postal Votementioning

confidence: 99%

Gender and Sexuality Diversity in a Culture of Limitation

Ferfolja¹,

Ullman²

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other important contextual factors that have been implicated in voting behavior on the topic of same-sex marriage include geographic and group membership variables. Research shows, for instance, that voting behavior on the issue of same-sex marriage can be modeled as a function of geographic region or electoral division (Gravelle & Carson, 2019; McAllister & Snagovsky, 2018; McVeigh & Maria-Elena, 2009; Wilson et al, 2019). These geographic differences in support for same-sex marriage can be explained by geographic variations in lower-level, sociodemographic factors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These geographic differences in support for same-sex marriage can be explained by geographic variations in lower-level, sociodemographic factors. Although some of these factors were included in the present investigation (e.g., political conservatism, religiosity), other potentially important factors, such as income (McAllister & Snagovsky, 2018), specific political or religious group memberships (Gravelle & Carson, 2019; Wilson et al, 2019), traditionalism (McVeigh & Maria-Elena, 2009), or immigrant status (McAllister & Snagovsky, 2018; Wilson et al, 2019) should be included in future analyses examining this issue.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By extension, research shows that greater religiosity also predicts greater opposition to same-sex marriage (Brumbaugh, Sanchez, Nock, & Wright, 2008; Olson et al, 2006; Pearl & Galupo, 2007; Sherkat, Powell-Williams, Maddox, & De Vries, 2011; van der Toorn, Jost, Packer, Noorbaloochi, & Van Bavel, 2017; Webb & Chonody, 2012), including that conducted in the Australian context (Anderson et al, 2017; Gravelle & Carson, 2019; Perales, Bouma, & Campbell, 2019; Perales & Campbell, 2018; Sloane & Robillard, 2018; Wilson, Shalley, & Perales, 2019). Given that sexual minority people can, of course, be religious (Rodriguez, 2010), it is possible that religiosity would also predict opposition to the legalization of same-sex marriage among sexual minority people.…”

Section: Predictors Of Support For Same-sex Marriagementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rejecting equality: Psychological differences between Australian sexual minority men voting “yes,” voting “no,” or abstaining from voting on the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Thai¹,

Dellers²

2020

Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2017, Australians voted on the legalization of same-sex marriage. Whereas most sexual minority individuals voted in support of same-sex marriage ("Yes"), some abstained from voting, and a small minority voted against same-sex marriage ("No"). The present study examined the psychological differences between these three groups in a sample of sexual minority men (N ϭ 1,005). Participants completed a survey assessing their vote in the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey along with their internalized homonegativity, religiosity, political orientation, gay identification, and perceived discrimination. Results indicated that, relative to "Yes" voters, those who abstained from voting or voted "No" were higher in internalized homonegativity, higher in religiosity, more politically conservative, lower in gay identification, and perceived less discrimination. Implications of these results are discussed. Public Significance StatementThe present study finds that sexual minority men who actively oppose or take no action on the issue of same-sex marriage legalization differ from those who actively support it on a number of dimensions, including internalized homonegativity, religiosity, political orientation, and gay identification. Practically, these findings suggest that efforts to promote support for equal rights should not only be targeted toward members of privileged groups, given that a subset of the supposed beneficiaries of equal rights may be driven to reject them.

show abstract

“…Gay marriage was subsequently legalised by Parliamentary decision: the government had previously said that there would be no vote on the issue in Parliament should the majority of respondents in the survey be opposed to gay marriage, but would allow a free vote for MPs if there was a majority in favour. Turnout was 79.5 per cent with 61.6 per cent in favour: only four MPs did not vote for the subsequent Act implementing the plebiscite decision, after the Senate had voted 43 -12 in favour (Gravelle and Carson, 2018;McAllister and Snagovsky, 2018). In Slovakia and Romania, although a large percentage of those who voted were against gay marriage, the referendums were invalidated due to the lack of a quorum, as turnout was less than a specified minimum.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When cultural strength means political weakness: Romania’s marriage referendum and the paradox of conservative mobilisation

Racu¹,

Giugăl

Johnston

et al. 2020

Moravian Geographical Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Held on 6–7 October 2018, the Romanian referendum on the topic of gay marriage was the fourth referendum of this kind organised in East Central Europe over a five-year period. Because turnout was low in all of them and demands explanation, this paper: i) discusses the common characteristics of these Eastern European marriage referendums, contextualising the Romanian referendum; ii) overviews the history of the Romanian referendum, emphasising the legal, political, ideological and societal aspects; iii) quantitatively examines the electoral geography of the voting patterns; and iv) interprets qualitative data seeking to understand the voters’ choices and why conservative mobilisation was so weak.

show abstract

Explaining the Australian marriage equality vote: An aggregate-level analysis

Cited by 14 publications

References 37 publications

Gender and Sexuality Diversity in a Culture of Limitation

Gender and Sexuality Diversity in a Culture of Limitation

Rejecting equality: Psychological differences between Australian sexual minority men voting “yes,” voting “no,” or abstaining from voting on the legalization of same-sex marriage.

When cultural strength means political weakness: Romania’s marriage referendum and the paradox of conservative mobilisation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About