Men, Women, and Same-Sex Marriage:

I was under the impression that women tended to oppose same-sex marriage less than men did; consider, for instance, the July 13-27, 2003 poll noted here, in which oppose exceeded favor among women by 12%, and among men by 17%. This ABC News poll reflects the same gender gap.

It was striking, then, to see the opposite breakdown in the L.A. Times California poll. The question,

A proposed amendment to the state's Constitution that may appear on the November ballot would reverse the court's decision and state that marriage is only between a man and a woman. If the election were held today, would you vote for or against the amendment?

Men would vote for by a 43%-41% margin; women would vote for by a 58%-31% margin. As to "Do you agree or disagree with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's decision to respect the court's ruling and not support a ballot initiative to define marriage as only between a man and a woman?," the disagree-agree margin for women is 7% higher than for men. As to "Do you believe that same-sex relationships between consenting adults are morally wrong, or do you believe that it is not a moral issue?," the wrong-not wrong margin for women is 13% higher than for men (though both sexes are more likely to say "not wrong" than wrong). As to "As long as two people are in love and are committed to each other, it doesn't matter if they are a same-sex couple or a heterosexual couple?," the disagree-agree margin for women is 5% higher than for men (though again both sexes are more likely to say "agree"); this last difference is likely statistically insignificant.

Oddly, as to "approve or disapprove of the California Supreme Court's decision last week to allow same-sex marriage in California," the margin is the same, 53%-42% among women and 51%-40% among men.

So some possibilities: (1) California women and men are quite different in this respect from women and men nationwide. (2) The poll was badly conducted. (3) People's views are so soft on the subject that the results aren't terribly reliable (though why would that affect the gender gap?). (4) Two or more of the above.

FantasiaWHT:
Maybe more women than men were confused by the convoluted language (agree/disagree, governor's decision, courts ruling, not support, defining as only)
5.23.2008 5:09pm
Adam Sofen:
Another odd feature of the poll: It shows softer support for same-sex marriage among 18-to-34-year-olds than among 35-to-44-year-olds. Most other polling data shows that support for gay rights measures is always higher among younger blocs than older blocs (see, e.g., this 2006 Pew study: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=273). I would say this argues in favor of explanation (2), that the poll was badly conducted or is at least unrepresentative.
5.23.2008 5:14pm
GMUSL '07 Alum (mail):
1) Evolutionarily, women benefit more from the bundle that is marriage than do men -- keeping dad involved with the kids, having dad and kids know each other, financial support not divided (or rarely divided, and even then not in too many pieces unless you're Shawn Kemp), among multiple mothers and their children. Thus, anything that can be seen as weakening traditional notions of marriage, whether or not it actually does, whether polygynous marriages or gay marriage, will be opposed by greater numbers of women than men.

2) IIRC, men are homosexual by about 4x as often as women are (though I don't know what, if any, population difference exists in california). Women, though bisexual more than men, still are non-heterosexual less than men (i.e., bi women + gay women < bi men + straight men). So, because the linked portion of the poll doesn't disaggregate straight from gay, men will be getting a statistical bump from that as well.
5.23.2008 5:17pm
Ilya Somin:
Lots of studies show that women are, on average, more religious than men, and religiosity is highly correlated with opposition to gay marriage. This could explain men's higher rate of support for same-sex marriage.
5.23.2008 5:24pm
Duncan Frissell (mail):
I noticed the 18-34 variation as well. Is it possible that the 18-34 category in California is weighted towards blacks, latinos, and asians who may be less accepting of homosexuality.
5.23.2008 5:35pm
Adam Sofen:
Prof. Somin, that explanation is plausible in the abstract, but Prof. Volokh's point is that it's not borne out by other polling data. For instance, the same Pew study I cite above showed that women in 2006 were 9 points likelier than men to favor adoption by gay couples, and 11 points likelier to oppose restrictions on gays' serving in the military. (The Pew website doesn't break down views on gay marriage by sex, at least not that I could locate.)
5.23.2008 5:44pm
nutbump (mail):
When women of California realize that they are going to lose government support for conception in the family they will vote 90% against Same sex marriage.
5.23.2008 5:47pm
Randy R. (mail):
What an interesting poll! What I found striking is that a clear majority believe that gay couples are *not* immoral.
5.23.2008 6:34pm
Raghav (mail) (www):
Sorry, let me repost my comment from the other thread, since it seems more apropos to this:

A lot of strange stuff in this poll. For instance: "Democrats and independents narrowly backed the amendment despite their support for the court action. [...] Democratic women, meanwhile, approved of both the court decision and the amendment."

I can understand opposing the amendment while opposing the court decision, based on views about the proper role of the judiciary. But why would people support the court decision but also support the amendment?

The poll also found that 18-34 year olds are the most likely to find same-sex relationships morally wrong. And it found respondents evenly split as to whether they agreed with Schwarzenegger's decision to support the ballot initiative.

All of which seems anomalous.
5.23.2008 6:38pm
Ilya Somin:
Prof. Somin, that explanation is plausible in the abstract, but Prof. Volokh's point is that it's not borne out by other polling data. For instance, the same Pew study I cite above showed that women in 2006 were 9 points likelier than men to favor adoption by gay couples, and 11 points likelier to oppose restrictions on gays' serving in the military. (The Pew website doesn't break down views on gay marriage by sex, at least not that I could locate.)

Maybe, but adoption and military service are much less closely connected to religious precepts than mariage. It could well be the case that women are on average more tolerant of gays than men are except in those areas where doing so clashes most directly with religious beliefs.
5.23.2008 6:48pm
Randy R. (mail):
Another interesting thing about this poll: The last two questions are essentially the same, just phrased differently. It got widely different responses.

I think what this shows is that the issue of SSM is very much in flux, and people don't really know how to formulate an opinion (there is a high percentage of "I don't knows" to some questions). They probably are conflicted, and that evidence of their conflicting answers.
5.23.2008 6:54pm
E:
Ilya, I believe I've seen data suggesting that the gender figures are usually switched for questions directly pertaining to marriage; I'm almost certain that most prior polls have borne this out, but I don't have any actual data on hand.

That being said, it's possible that if California is less religious than the rest of the country as a whole, women's religiosity becomes more important in California.
5.23.2008 8:52pm
PLR:
No speculation on how many lesbians live in California and respond to these polls?
5.23.2008 8:56pm
Roger Schlafly (www):
I think that the poll questions are bad. Each has defects. The last one says "it doesn't matter" without saying what "it" refers to.
5.23.2008 10:21pm
theobromophile (www):
My vote: the polling questions were so badly worded (double negatives) that a sufficient number of people were confused by them to throw off the entire data set.

Interestingly, men benefit more from modern marriage than do women - men live longer, healthier, and happier lives, while women don't necessarily get even one of those three. Generally, the benefit is the greatest for women with the lowest earning potential, who benefit the most from the second income.
5.23.2008 11:02pm
calmom:
I haven't trusted an L. A. Times poll since the weekend before the recall election it predicted that we'd have Governor Cruz Bustamante.
5.24.2008 10:08am
Josh Barro (www):
<b>Raghav,</b>

<blockquote>
I can understand opposing the amendment while opposing the court decision, based on views about the proper role of the judiciary. But why would people support the court decision but also support the amendment?
</blockquote>

One plausible reason would be if you thought that the language of the California constitution did create a right to same-sex marriage, but as a policy matter you didn't believe that it should. This is akin to taking the view that Roe v. Wade was bad constitutional law, but that a constitutional amendment protecting the right to abortion would be a good idea.

That said, I agree with you that few actual voters think about constitutions in this way, and so I agree that the effect you cite is another sign that the poll is screwy.
5.25.2008 5:06am
Ethan5006:
There is an interesting article in the economist that points out that each race has markedly different support levels for gay marriage.

"Whites are evenly divided on the subject, whereas Latinos are opposed and blacks are fiercely opposed."

Perhaps the polling results in California are a result of the larger Hispanic population in California. This would also require that Hispanic women are opposed to gay marriage more strongly than White women relative to men.
5.25.2008 12:17pm
Parenthetical:
Ethan5006:
Perhaps the polling results in California are a result of the larger Hispanic population in California. This would also require that Hispanic women are opposed to gay marriage more strongly than White women relative to men.

Certainly, California polls somewhat differently than the nation on this question. In general terms, the state is more supportive of same-sex marriage than the nation. California’s demographics (more Latinos, as you note) and politics (an uncomfortable “U” shaped distribution that skews toward Democrats, but not necessarily the liberal) is one reason why California looks different. The concentrations of (out) gays and lesbian and general cultural distinctions likely contribute the differences too.

What confounds me (and perhaps Prof. Volokh too) is that this poll is strikingly at odds with other polls taken this decade in California.

Like the nation, women in California have consistently been more supportive of same-sex marriage than men. Throughout the decade the spread has been quite pronounced: 8 to 10 percent between the sexes. While California’s Latino population continues to grow (more rapidly than non-Hispanic whites), nothing has happened in the past few years to suggest that ethnicity would perturb the result.

Nor do I see any reason to think this is a reaction to the recent Calif. Supreme Court opinion. It’s common to see some retreat from support for same-sex marriage when there’s some news that might stir the electorate’s passion. We saw something of that sort in wake of S.F. Mayor Newsom’s gay marriage stunt in 2004. While the overall level of support may diminish (presumably because respondents react negatively to what the mayor or Supreme Court did, rather than the substance of the question), the differences between men and women, young and old, Hispanics and non-Hispanics remained quite constant.

The variations in support among gender and age described in this L.A. Times survey stand out as anomalies. I’m increasingly convinced that’s exactly what they are.
5.25.2008 1:37pm
Splunge:
Er...you know, if it was possible to logically deduce from generally available data why the poll numbers came out the way they did, then it would be equally possible to deduce the polling numbers in the first place -- and there'd be no need for the poll.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled fact-free speculation frenzy. Carry on, gents.
5.25.2008 9:11pm