We have been conducting preliminary analyses using data from the online surveys we conducted in May/June 2006 and post-election November 2006. We appreciate the participation and interest in our study.

We summarize the findings of our initial analysis below and invite you to read the paper we have written, which includes more specific information and analyses. Please click here to access a pdf copy of the paper.

Marriage Ban Amendments and LGB Well-Being: The 2006 Election
(paper to be presented at the 2007 American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, August 2007)

Ellen D.B. Riggle, Department of Political Science, University of Kentucky

Sharon S. Rostosky, Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology, University of Kentucky

Jerry D. Thomas, Department of Government, Eastern Kentucky University

Sharon Horne, Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Research, University of Memphis

Discussion:

We think our findings SUGGEST the following:
A. Having a marriage ban amendment on the ballot increases political participation and voting by GLB citizens in a state.
B. Having a marriage ban amendment on the ballot increases exposure to both positive and negative messages about GLB issues in that state.
C. Having a marriage ban amendment on the ballot increases the level of active coping efforts by GLB individuals in that state.
D. Passing a marriage ban amendment is associated with less positive affect and increased negative affect for GLB individuals in that state.
E. Passing a marriage ban amendment in a state results in higher levels of stress and depression for GLB individuals in that state.
F. Passing a marriage ban amendment may suppress future voting by GLB citizens in that state in some circumstances.

We have reason to believe that these effects are temporary. Given the lack of significant differences on these measures between states with no marriage ban amendment and states that had an amendment passed prior to 2006, we would suggest that the effects noted above may be relatively short-term (although we cannot define the duration of that term). However, this does not negate the reality of the effects. Three-fourths of the sample (75%) believe that marriage ban amendments have “a major impact” on the lives of same-sex couples.

The findings of increased stress, depression, and negative affect indicates that LGB citizens most vulnerable to the effects of these negative mental health issues are at risk during marriage ban amendment campaigns. Our findings are limited by the self-selection of participants. In this regard, the participants in this sample can be considered to be higher functioning individuals. We suggest that if these higher functioning participants suffer negative mental health effects, then more vulnerable or less resilient individuals are at increased risk of negative mental health effects. For these more vulnerable individuals, negative mental health effects may have more severe and more long-lasting effects. These are important questions for future research.

That having an amendment on the ballot increases participation among the group to be affected is not surprising. However, it is the effect of "losing" an amendment vote that needs to be tested in longitudinal research. Respondents from Alabama showed lower voting rates than other states. The loss of the amendment vote during the primary may have caused an alienation from the political system that discouraged participation in that system in the general election.

We would also suggest that participants showed evidence of resilience and coping. Similar to Russell's (2000; 2003) findings concerning resilience of the GLB population in Colorado around Amendment 2, we find evidence of resilience and coping among the participants in this study. Participants from states with amendments on the ballot reported higher levels of active coping. Many people are finding positive, active ways to cope with these challenges. GLBTQ people engage in positive conversations about and become more active around GLBT rights issues. People find social support from friends, family and the community. And people recognize and talk about their feelings, which can help alleviate stress.

Responses to open-ended questions also suggested resilience and coping strategies. Psychological research suggests that as part of a gay or lesbian identity development, gay men and lesbians may learn the skill of "self-authoring" meanings of experiences that reflect the ability to understand and differentiate contextual influences thus enhancing the ability to cope with stressful situations (Abes and Jones 2004).

We conclude with a continued call for more research. The lack of data (and funding for research) on LGBT citizens represents a serious impediment to researchers. However, increased access to LGBT citizens through the internet and other media may help to facilitate future research. As scholars, we need to continue to develop and pursue important questions about the quality of life and well-being of ALL citizens (and non-citizens).

Note: We would like to thank Stu Reedy for his technical and other support for this project. We also acknowledge the American Psychological Foundation Wayne Placek award for support.

Please check back in the future for more findings from this and other studies.