Religion and Public Opinion toward Same-Sex Relations, Marriage, and Adoption: Does the Type of Practice Matter?

JOURNAL for the SCIENTIFIC STUDY of RELIGION Religion and Public Opinion Toward Same-Sex Relations, Marriage, and Adoption: Does the Type of Practice Matter? SAMUEL L. PERRY ANDREW L. WHITEHEAD Department of Sociology University of Oklahoma Department of Sociology and Anthropology Clemson University This study examines how religion’s impact on Americans’ attitudes toward same-sex practices varies by the type of practice being considered. We theorize that same-sex romantic and family practices such as sexual relations, marriage, and adoption represent distinct practice types, differing in degrees of legality, cultural legitimacy, and in their internal power dynamics. Consequently, we expect that Americans view each practice type somewhat differently and their opinions on each may be influenced by religion in distinctive ways. Drawing upon nationallevel data, we estimate and compare the relative net effects of a comprehensive battery of religious measures on support for gay sex, marriage, and adoption, both for the full sample and across religious traditions. Analyses demonstrate that public opinion toward gay sexual relations is more strongly related to religious practice and theological conservatism compared to attitudes regarding same-sex marriage or adoption. Moreover, frequent religious practice and conservative theological beliefs about the Bible tend to be more strongly associated with attitudes toward same-sex relationships for evangelicals, compared to mainline Protestants and, to a lesser extent, Catholics. Findings ultimately affirm that the type of same-sex practice being considered (sex, marriage, or adoption) serves to moderate religions’ impact on Americans’ support for such practices. Keywords: public opinion, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption, religion, biblical literalism, evangelicals. INTRODUCTION Religious factors are among the strongest predictors of public opinion toward same-sex romantic and family relationships. In general, evangelical Protestants, persons who are more religiously devout, and those more theologically conservative or fundamentalist tend to be the most ardent opponents of homosexual practice (Adamczyk and Pitt 2009; Jonathan 2008; Perry 2013a; Schulte and Battle 2004), same-sex marriage and civil unions (Baunach 2012; Becker 2012; Burdette, Ellison, and Hill 2005; Haider-Markel and Joslyn 2008; Merino 2013; Perry 2013a, 2013b; Olson, Cadge, and Harrison 2006; Sherkat, de Vries, and Creek 2010; Sherkat et al. 2011; Whitehead 2010, 2014a, 2014b), and the adoption of children by gay and lesbian couples (Averett et al. 2011; Besen and Zicklin 2007; Lambert et al. 2006; McLeod, et al. 1999; Perry 2013a; Ryan, Bedard, and Gertz 2004, 2007; Whitehead and Perry 2014). Yet, same-sex sexual relations, marriage, and adoption are different types of practice1 implying varying degrees Note: Authors contributed equally and are listed alphabetically. All data for replication are available from the authors upon request. Acknowledgments: The authors thank the editor and three anonymous JSSR reviewers for their comments on previous versions of this article. Special thanks also go to Jill Perry and Kelly Whitehead. Correspondence should be addressed to Samuel L. Perry, Department of Sociology, University of Oklahoma, 780 Van Vleet Oval, Kaufman Hall, Norman, OK 73019; E-mail: samperry2011@gmail.com 1 We use the term “practice” to refer to “things that people do” when talking about same-sex relations, marriage, and adoption. While a case could be made for using the term “relationship” to describe them, one reviewer pointed out how Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (2016) 00(0):1–15  C 2016 The Society for the Scientific Study of Religion 2 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION of commitment and public legitimation, as well as different power dynamics. As such, these types of practice may be interpreted differently in the minds of Americans and, correspondingly, Americans’ opinions on each type of practice may be influenced by religious life in distinctive ways. Although this observation is intuitive, to our knowledge, no study to date has sought to examine whether the effects of religious factors on public opinion toward same-sex practices may differ somewhat by the type of practice considered—sexual relations, marriage, or adoption. This is important given the evidence that Americans exhibit vastly different reactions regarding the formal and informal rights afforded gays and lesbians (Doan, Loehr, and Miller 2014). In this study, we examine whether, and to what extent, religion’s impact on public opinion toward same-sex practices differs across practice type. Specifically, we draw upon national-level data to estimate the relative net effects of a comprehensive battery of religious factors on support for gay sex, marriage, and adoption; and we compare these effects to assess the extent to which they differ, both for the whole sample and across religious traditions. This research extends the literature on religion and public opinion toward same-sex romantic and family practices by introducing greater nuance and complexity, demonstrating how the same-sex practice type under consideration serves to moderate the impact of religious practices, theological beliefs, and group affiliations on Americans’ overall support for such relationships. To better frame this study, we first briefly survey what is known about the effects of religion on attitudes toward same-sex sexuality, marriage, and adoption. We then develop a series of expectations about why religion’s impact on support for same-sex practices may differ by the type of practice being considered. BACKGROUND Although gay and lesbian romantic and family relationships in the United States remain a perennial topic of debate, acceptance of such relationships has risen steadily over the past few decades (Baunach 2012; Doan et al. 2014; Rosenfeld 2007). Research on the social correlates of attitudes toward same-sex relationships consistently finds that people who are more opposed to such relationships tend to be older; male; politically conservative; southern; African American; more rural; less educated; less exposed to diversity; hold to the belief that homosexuality is a choice, not innate; gender traditionalists; and, most consistently, tend to be more religiously devout and/or conservative by a variety of measures (Adamczyk and Pitt 2009; Baunach 2012; Becker 2012; Burdette et al. 2005; Doan et al. 2014; Haider-Markel and Joslyn 2008; Merino 2013; Olson et al. 2006; Perry 2013a, 2013b, 2015; Sherkat et al. 2010, 2011; Whitehead 2010, 2014b; Whitehead and Baker 2012). Moreover, recent research suggests that traditionally strong predictors of opposition to same-sex intimacy—e.g., being African American, attributing homosexuality to choice, political conservatism—are greatly moderated by religious factors as well (Baunach 2012; Perry 2015; Sherkat et al. 2010, 2011; Whitehead 2010, 2014a, 2014b). Although some researchers have studied religion’s impact on public opinion toward same-sex sexuality, marriage, or adoption by combining these practices together (e.g., Schulte and Battle 2004) or by including different practice types in analyses without comparing religion’s effect across those types (e.g., Becker 2012; Besen and Zicklin 2007; Perry 2013a), most researchers tend to study how religion shapes support for one type of practice or another, with the vast majority of studies focusing on same-sex marriage. Although an exhaustive review of these same-sex relations and same-sex marriage are not conceptually distinct (the latter presumably includes the former), and so “relationship” is not sufficiently descriptive. Same-sex relations, marriage, and adoption are distinct “practices,” however, and so we use this vernacular throughout. RELIGION AND SAME-SEX PRACTICES 3 findings is beyond the scope of this article, the majority of research has found that evangelical Protestants (but also Muslims; see Adamczyk and Pitt 2009) compared to other religious or nonreligious groups, persons who are more religious (typically in terms of church attendance or some composite measure of religiosity) and more theologically conservative or fundamentalist (as often measured by biblical literalism or being “born again”) tend to oppose homosexual orientation or sexuality (Adamczyk and Pitt 2009; Jonathan 2008; Perry 2013a; Schulte and Battle 2004), gay marriage and civil unions (Baunach 2012; Becker 2012; Burdette et al. 2005; Doan et al. 2014; Haider-Markel and Joslyn 2008; Merino 2013; Perry 2013a, 2015; Olson et al. 2006; Sherkat et al. 2010, 2011; Whitehead 2010, 2014a, 2014b; Whitehead and Perry 2015), and adoption by gays and lesbians (Averett et al. 2011; Besen and Zicklin 2007; McLeod et al. 1999; Lambert et al. 2006; Perry 2013a; Ryan et al. 2004, 2007; Whitehead and Perry 2014). Although these general findings about religion’s impact on support for same-sex orientation and practices are consistent, there are reasons to expect that the effect of religion may vary by the type of same-sex intimate practice under consideration. For instance, the effects of religious tradition on views toward same-sex sexuality, marriage, and adoption will likely evidence much continuity, but also some important variation. On the one hand, certain religious traditions (e.g., evangelicals, black Protestants) tend to be unequivocally opposed to homosexual practices (Baunach 2012; Sherkat et al. 2010), and thus would likely not differ greatly in their support for gay sex, marriage, or adoption. Other religious or nonreligious groups (e.g., Jews, non-Christian religions, the unaffiliated), however, tend to be relatively and generally supportive of homosexual practices (Baunach 2012; Schulte and Battle 2004; Whitehead 2010) and thus would likely express similar levels of support for gay sex, marriage, or adoption. Thus, within our analyses, we expect a continuity of support levels across same-sex practice types for the groups who are more theologically-socially conservative (evangelicals and black Protestants) and the theologically-socially progressive (Jews, religious others, and the unaffiliated). Using evangelicals (traditionally, the most opposed to same-sex practices) as the reference group, we predict that: H1a: Evangelicals and black Protestants will be no different in their support for gay sex, marriage, or adoption. H1b: Compared to evangelicals, Jews, religious others, and the unaffiliated will be more supportive of gay sex, marriage, and adoption. On the other hand, we expect greater variation in support for same-sex practices across evangelicals, mainline Protestants, and Catholics. Mainline Protestants and Catholics are relatively more likely than evangelicals to support same-sex romantic and family practices (Perry 2013a; Schulte and Battle 2004; Whitehead 2010). However, because of historical proscriptions against homosexual behavior within the broader Christian tradition, it is likely that mainline Protestants and Catholics would not differ significantly from evangelicals on this issue. By contrast, we expect that because evangelicals have been particularly opposed to the legal recognition and public legitimation of same-sex families (Baunach 2012; Becker 2012; Sherkat et al. 2011; Whitehead 2010; Whitehead and Perry 2014), mainline Protestants and Catholics would be significantly more supportive of same-sex marriage and adoption than evangelicals. Thus, we anticipate that: H1c: Compared to evangelicals, mainline Protestants and Catholics will be more supportive of same-sex marriage and adoption, but not homosexuality. Although religion engages all same-sex practices to some degree as issues of morality, the relative effects of religious practice and theological beliefs may differ by type of practice due to the degree of commitment and public legitimation associated with each practice type. For example, same-sex marital unions and adoption are considered long-term, state-recognized relationships that gay or lesbian couples may enter into. Gay sexual relations, in contrast, need 4 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION not involve any long-term commitment or public recognition, but only an act of romantic and/or erotic relations between people of the same sex. And although gay marriage certainly implies gay sex (and gay adoption implies that the two people adopting are having gay sex), specifying that the issue at hand is “marriage” or “adoption” rather than “sexual relations” signals that the first two practices involve long-term stability, legality, and family formation rather than mere sexuality, monogamous, or otherwise. Major religions, and Americans on the whole, tend to encourage the development of long-term, monogamous romantic, and family relationships over arrangements they define as promiscuous. Indeed, there is evidence that religious individuals exhibit greater antipathy toward sexual promiscuity writ large, be it heterosexual or homosexual, rather than toward homosexuality itself (Mak and Tsang 2008). It is likely, then, that traditional religious practice and belief will engender a relative preference for publicly legitimated, committed samesex family forms (marriage or adoption) over homosexual practice outside of the boundaries of publicly legitimated unions. Stated more formally, we expect: H2: Religious practice and theological conservatism2 will evidence a stronger negative effect on views toward homosexuality than same-sex marriage or adoption. Relatedly, it is possible that religious practices and theological beliefs may impact support for gay sex, marriage, and adoption differently across religious traditions. Because evangelicals as a group have mobilized politically against homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and (to a lesser extent) adoption it is likely that increased religious practice and greater theological conservatism will influence evangelicals to be even less supportive of any same-sex relationship (Brooks and Manza 2004; Fetner 2008; Hill et al. 2004; Sherkat et al. 2011). By contrast, because Catholics and mainline Protestants have not rallied against the legal recognition of same-sex relationships to the extent that evangelicals have, it is less likely that religious devoutness and conservatism have the same, strong effect on Catholic and mainline Protestant views toward gay sex, marriage, or adoption. Thus, we hypothesize that: H3a: For evangelicals, greater religious practice and theological conservatism will be associated with lower levels of support for gay sex, marriage, and adoption. H3b: For mainline Protestants and Catholics, religious practice and theological conservatism will not be associated with lower levels of support for gay sex, marriage, or adoption. METHODS Data We test the above hypotheses using data from Wave 1 of the Baylor Religion Survey (BRS), which was fielded in 2005. The BRS was designed with a goal to comprehensively assess the religious attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of American adults. The 2005 BRS is ideal for our research questions because it contains questions on each of the three same-sex practice types as well as a depth of religion measures. Also, the response categories for the questions on each practice type are identical, making the interpretation of findings more straightforward.3 2 The most consistent measure of theological conservatism in studies of public opinion toward homosexuality is adherence to biblical literalism (Perry 2015; Perry and Whitehead 2015), and we follow this precedent in our study. 3A drawback of using the 2005 BRS is that same-sex marriages gained legal recognition in June 2015, and that attitudes toward homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and adoption have changed since 2005, and thus, it is possible that the association between religion and attitudes toward the various same-sex relationship types may have changed since then. Despite this weakness, the 2005 BRS is the most recent and at this time only national, random survey with the necessary measures with identical response categories and the essential range of religion measures. An additional advantage of using RELIGION AND SAME-SEX PRACTICES 5 The BRS data were collected by the Gallup Organization, using a mixed-mode method (telephone and mailed surveys). Gallup contacted 7,041 potential respondents by phone and mailed out 2,603 questionnaires. Of the 2,603 questionnaires distributed, 1,721 completed surveys were returned for a response rate of 66.1 percent. The response rate for the entire sampling frame was 24.4 percent (1,721/7,041). Although this response rate is not ideal, both demographic and religious results from the BRS compare favorably to results from nationally representative surveys like the General Social Survey (see Bader, Mencken, and Froese 2007). Measures The outcome variables for this study consist of three questions from the BRS designed to tap respondents’ feelings toward same-sex sexual relations, marriage, and adoption. These feelings were measured with the following questions: [Gay Sex] “How do you feel about sexual relations in the following circumstances . . . between two adults of the same sex,” [Gay Marriage] “How do you feel about the following marriage and family related issue . . . gay marriage,” and [Gay Adoption] “How do you feel about the following marriage and family related issue . . . the adoption of a child by a gay couple.” For each question, respondents could choose: (1) always wrong, (2) almost always wrong, (3) only wrong sometimes, or (4) not wrong at all. The near-identical wording of each question and identical responses allows us to compare the effects of various dimensions of religious life across each same-sex practice. In order to predict which respondents report unequivocal support for each same-sex relationship, responses were recoded into a binary variable (“not wrong at all” = 1, “wrong or sometimes wrong” = 0). Thus, throughout the analyses, respondents with a 1 for each question are understood to support homosexuality, samesex marriage, and same-sex adoption without reservation. We use binary logistic regression to estimate the multivariate models. Scholars have repeatedly emphasized the complexity of religion, and thus, understanding religion’s relationship to social attitudes requires that different aspects of religious life be considered. Religious measures for this study include religious tradition, religious practice, and theological conservatism. Religious tradition is measured with seven broad categories following Steensland et al. (2000): evangelical, mainline Protestant, Catholic, black Protestant, Jewish, other, and unaffiliated. The “other” category includes Mormons, Muslims, and other religious traditions with too few cases to analyze individually. Evangelicals serve as the reference category. In order to gauge various dimensions of religious behavior, we constructed a religious practice scale using three BRS questions concerning respondents’ frequency of religious service attendance, sacred text reading, and prayer. For frequency of religious service attendance and sacred text reading, respondents could indicate (1) never to (9) several times a week. For prayer frequency, respondents chose options from (1) never to (6) several times a day. These measures were standardized into Z scores and summed in order to create the religious practice scale (α = .83). This multidimensional religious practice measure is an improvement over using religious attendance alone because it also includes private behaviors to better capture activities across a variety of traditions. We also control for whether respondents are biblical literalists, indicating theological conservatism. The BRS asked respondents about their view of the Bible. Responses included: (1) It means exactly what it says/should be taken literally; (2) It is perfectly true, should not be taken literally; (3) The Bible contains some human error; (4) The Bible is an ancient book data from 2005 is that it provides an important snapshot of Americans’ attitudes at a time when they were undergoing dramatic change over a short period of time, something highly unusual. Therefore, data from 2005 may be more important than might otherwise be expected. Future studies that measure attitudes toward multiple practices and gather their data after the Supreme Court ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges will be especially important. 6 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION of history and legends; and (5) I don’t know. Responses were recoded into a series of dummy variables with the most literal position (1) serving as the reference category. All multivariate models include a number of controls used in previous research on attitudes toward same-sex relationships. Dummy variables are included for gender (female = 1), race (nonwhite = 1), marital status (married = 1), children (have at least one child = 1), region (South = 0, West = 1, East = 1, Midwest = 1), and political affiliation (Republican = 0, independent/other = 1, Democrat = 1). Age is measured in years from 18 to 93. Education is measured in attainment categories ranging from (1) no high school diploma to (7) postgraduate work/graduate degree. Income is measured from 1 = $10,000 or less to 7 = $150,000 or more. Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for all variables in multivariate models. Unfortunately, due to data limitations, we were unable to control for respondents’ self-identified sexuality, which has been found to influence attitudes toward same-sex relationship types (Doan et al. 2014). With this in mind, results should be interpreted with caution. Because listwise deletion can lead to biased estimates, we used multiple imputation (MI) techniques to account for missing data, allowing us to take full advantage of the data available (Rubin 1987, 1996).4 RESULTS Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations for all three same-sex practices and all religious and sociodemographic variables. Although the associations between religious practice and support for each same-sex practice are in the same direction, the negative correlation is slightly stronger regarding same-sex sexuality than for marriage or adoption. The links between support for each same-sex practice and theological conservatism or religious tradition, however, are basically the same. Turning to the multivariate analyses, Table 2 presents results from binary logistic regression models predicting support for gay sex, marriage, and adoption for the whole sample. We display odds ratios as well as standardized logistic regression coefficients in order to assess the relative magnitude of the religious measures across each of the same-sex practices.5 Greater frequency of religious practice has a similar and significant effect across each of the same-sex practices considered, namely, as religious practices such as church attendance, prayer, and sacred text reading are engaged in more frequently, the likelihood that a person supports same-sex sexuality, marriage, or adoption declines. There are differences, however, when we compare the substantive significance (standardized coefficients = β) of religious practices with other significant predictors across same-sex practices. For same-sex marriage or adoption, being a Democrat (marriage: β = .50; adoption: β = .41) is a stronger predictor of support than religious practice (marriage: β = −.24; adoption: β = −.23). However, regarding support for homosexuality, religious practice (β = −.36) is actually a stronger predictor than being a Democrat (β = .33). This may suggest that although same-sex marriage and adoption involve political and legal conflicts, and thus, are issues around which being affiliated with the Democratic Party is more important, homosexual practice may be viewed as more of a moral-ideology issue and is therefore something to which religious practice is more strongly related. Our second hypothesis (H2) thus receives some support in that 4 The MI procedure generates five imputations using multiple Markov Chains based on all variables included in each model, resulting in an overall N of 8,605 (1,721 X 5). All results use the MI dataset. The correlations reported in Table 1 and all of the results reported in Tables 2 and 3 are from the MIANALYZE procedure in SAS. This procedure combines all of the results from each of the five imputations, resulting in overall estimates, standard errors, and significance levels. The standardized coefficients and odds ratios for each model were calculated using these overall estimates. The proportional reduction in error (PRE) reported in Tables 2 and 3 for each model are the average of the PRE for each individual iteration. 5 These are calculated as [B ∗ yx = 1.8138. = b yx (sx /s y )] following Pampel’s (2000) assumption that the standard deviation of logit(y) Variable Support Same-Sex Relationships Support Same-Sex Marriage Support Same-Sex Adoption Religious Practice Index (ɑ = .83) Biblical Literalist Biblical Interpretation Bible Contains Errors Bible Ancient Book Bible Undecided Evangelical Protestant Black Protestant Mainline Protestant Description 1 = Sex between adults of same-sex not wrong at all 1 = Same-sex marriage not wrong at all 1 = Adoption by same-sex couples not wrong at all Standardized and summed index −4.18 = least involved to 4.14 = most involved 1 = Biblical literalist 1 = Interpret Bible 1 = Bible contains errors 1 = Bible full of legends 1 = Do not know 1 = Evangelical Protestant 1 = Black Protestant 1 = Mainline Protestant Corr. w/ support for gay sex Corr. w/ support for gay marriage Corr. w/ support for gay adoption 2.56 −.50*** −.45*** −.41*** — — — — — — — — −.31*** −.24*** .11*** .48*** .04 −.28*** −.05* −.03 −.30*** −.25*** .12*** .47*** .05* −.30*** −.06* .01 −.30*** −.20*** .12*** .41*** .03 −.29*** −.01 −.00 Mean or % SD 30.9% — 30.9% — 34.7% — .00 19.5% 38.6% 12.2% 23.4% 6.1% 30.3% 2.3% 26.0% RELIGION AND SAME-SEX PRACTICES Table 1: Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations (MI data) (Continued) 7 8 Table 1 (Continued) Variable Education Republican Independent Democrat South East Midwest West Source: BRS 2005. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. N = 1,721. 1 = Catholic 1 = Jewish 1 = Other 1 = No religion Age in years, 18 to 93 1 = Female 1 = Married 1 = Has at least one child 1 = Non-white 1 = $10,000 or less to 7 = $150,000 or more 1 = 8th grade or less, 7 = postgraduate work/degree 1 = Republican 1 = Independent 1 = Democrat 1 = South 1 = East 1 = Midwest 1 = West Mean or % SD 22.5% 2.7% 5.1% 11.1% 53.7 56.7% 61.7% 79.0% 9.9% 4.38 — — — — 15.7 — — — — 1.52 −.02 .15*** .08** .38*** −.17*** −.01 −.04 −.19*** .02 .15*** −.04 .12*** .10*** .36*** −.16*** .03 −.08*** −.22*** .03 .16*** −.01 .14*** .07** .33*** −.16*** .07** −.11*** −.21*** .04 .14*** 5.05 1.57 .18*** .22*** .20*** 42.3% 21.0% 36.8% 26.6% 19.0% 29.7% 24.7% — — −.32*** .04 .29*** −.12*** .10*** −.07** .11*** −.39*** .03 .37*** −.12*** .11*** −.08** .11*** −.36*** .02 .35*** −.12*** .09*** −.05* .09*** — — — — Corr. w/ support for gay marriage Corr. w/ support for gay adoption JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION Catholic Jewish Other No Religion Age Female Married Children Nonwhite Income Description Corr. w/ support for gay sex 9 RELIGION AND SAME-SEX PRACTICES Table 2: Logistic regression predicting support for various same-sex relationships (MI data) Gay sex Religion measures Religious practice index Biblical literalist (reference) Biblical interpretation Bible contains errors Bible ancient book Bible undecided Evangelical (reference) Black Protestant Mainline Protestant Catholic Jewish Other No religion Sociodemographic controls Age Female Married Children Nonwhite Income Education Independent Democrat South (reference) East Midwest West Intercept N PRE Gay marriage Gay adoption β OR β OR β OR −.36*** .78 −.24*** .84 −.23*** .85 .33*** .38*** .57*** .21*** 3.41 8.27 11.37 4.79 .22* .34*** .51*** .20*** 2.26 6.54 8.90 4.69 .22** .30*** .42*** .14** 2.24 5.19 5.98 2.95 −.01 .08 .08 .12** .09* .17*** — — — 3.76 2.08 2.65 −.05 .16** .07 .08* .12** .19*** — 1.93 — 2.39 2.69 2.94 .02 .12** .11* .12** .08* .19*** — 1.66 1.62 3.84 1.89 2.97 −.57*** .12** .05 −.06 .03 .05 .09 .15*** .33*** .98 1.54 — — — — — 1.95 3.41 -.52*** .17*** -.05 −.08* .04 .14** .13** .23*** .50*** .98 1.85 — .69 — 1.19 1.16 2.75 6.52 −.48*** .21*** −.09* −.07 .03 .12* .11** .16*** .41*** .98 2.18 .73 — — 1.16 1.14 2.06 4.67 .06 −.03 .02 −3.601*** 1,721 .350 — — — .08 −.04 .01 −4.388*** 1,721 .382 — — — .04 −.01 .01 — — — −3.603*** 1,721 .319 Source: BRS 2005. β, standardized coefficient; OR, odds ratio; PRE, proportional reduction in error (likelihood ratio/−2 log likelihood). *p< .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. religious practice appears to have a stronger relative impact on support for homosexuality than for same-sex marriage or adoption. Beliefs about how to interpret the Bible also appear to shape support for same-sex practices in slightly different ways. Compared to biblical literalists, persons who believe the Bible requires interpretation, contains human error, is a book of history/legends, or are undecided on the issue are all significantly more likely to support all three same-sex practices, net of other factors. However, both the standardized coefficients and odds ratios for the Bible beliefs measures are larger regarding gay sex compared to gay adoption or marriage. This suggests a larger contrast between biblical literalists and those with other interpretive stances on the issue of same-sex 10 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION sexuality over and above same-sex marriage or adoption. Our second hypothesis (H2) thus receives modest support in this regard. The effects of religious tradition on support for same-sex sexuality, marriage, and adoption signal differences across each practice. As predicted (H1a), black Protestants are not significantly different from evangelicals in their support for any same-sex practices. Also as predicted (H1b), persons who are Jewish, other, or unaffiliated are all significantly more likely than evangelicals to support each of the same-sex practices considered. Mainline Protestants and Catholics, however, are less consistent in their support for gay sex, marriage, and adoption, relative to evangelicals. As anticipated (H1c), neither mainline Protestants nor Catholics are significantly different from evangelicals in their support for gay sexual relations. Mainline Protestants, however, are more likely than evangelicals to support gay marriage and adoption, and Catholics are more likely than evangelicals to support same-sex adoption. Catholics, however, are not significantly different from evangelicals in their support for gay marriage. Thus, our third set of hypotheses (H3a–b) is partially supported that mainline Protestants and Catholics would not differ from evangelicals in their support of gay sex, but only for gay marriage and (for mainliners only) adoption by same-sex couples. To further unpack these differences in support for same-sex relationships types, we pull out evangelicals, mainline Protestants, and Catholics and analyze the ways religious practices and theological beliefs influence support for same-sex practices across these three religious traditions. It may be that Bible views and religious practice mean something different to each religious group. Estimating these measures on each tradition separately allows us to examine this possibility. Table 3 presents both odds ratios and standardized regression coefficients from logistic regression models predicting support for gay sex, marriage, and adoption across the three largest religious traditions. To conserve space, the table only presents the results for the religious measures under consideration, religious practices, and views about the Bible.6 It is clear that both religious practices and views about the Bible have different effects on support for same-sex practices for evangelicals, mainline Protestants, and Catholics. Although greater frequency of church attendance, sacred text reading, and prayer are associated with lower likelihood of support for gay sex for each of the three religious traditions, this is not the case for gay marriage or adoption. Partially supporting our third set of hypotheses, higher levels of religious practice are associated with lower likelihood of support for all same-sex practices for evangelicals (H3a), whereas greater religious practice is not a significant predictor of support for gay marriage and adoption for either mainline Protestants or Catholics (H3b). This suggests that although homosexual practice has a religious-moral dimension that influences more religiously devout evangelicals, mainline Protestants, and Catholics to oppose it (see also H2), same-sex marriage and adoption do not carry the same religious-moral dimension for Catholics and mainliners who have more traditional Bible views or who are more religiously active. Beliefs about interpreting the Bible also evidence different effects on support for same-sex practices across religious traditions. For evangelicals, all groups besides strict biblical literalists (excluding the undecided) are more likely to support homosexuality. However, evangelicals who believe the Bible requires interpretation are not different from the biblical-literalist evangelicals regarding support for gay marriage or adoption. And evangelicals who believe the Bible contains some human errors are not significantly different from the biblical literalists on support for gay marriage. This may suggest that, for evangelicals who are biblical literalists, opposition to gay sexual relations is so unequivocal that evangelicals who are not literalists tend to be more supportive by comparison, while regarding issues like gay marriage and adoption, the views of biblical-literalist evangelicals are not more severe than those who believe the Bible requires interpretation or those who acknowledge human errors in the Bible. 6 Results for the full models with controls are available upon request. Evangelical Protestant Religious practice index Biblical literalist (reference) Biblical interpretation Bible contains errors Bible ancient book Bible undecided Intercept N PRE Catholic Mainline Protestant Gay sex β (OR) Gay marriage β (OR) Gay adoption β (OR) Gay sex β (OR) Gay marriage β (OR) Gay adoption β (OR) Gay sex β (OR) Gay marriage β (OR) Gay adoption β (OR) −.51*** (.68) −.58*** (.64) −.49*** (.68) −.25** (.81) −.11 (—) −.10 (—) −.23** (.83) −.09 (—) −.11 (—) .67** (11.90) .49*** (40.83) .51*** (39.63) .18 (—) −6.19*** 521 .373 .11 (—) .17 (—) .29** (8.10) .12 (—) −5.54*** 521 .414 .13 (—) .20** (4.53) .23** (5.35) .05 (—) −3.03** 521 .286 .08 (—) .20 (—) .32* (4.41) .05 (—) −.80 387 .260 .08 (—) .27 (—) .41* (6.92) .07 (—) −1.07 387 .309 .14 (—) .24* (3.35) .33* (4.62) .01 (—) −2.88** 387 .222 .21 (—) .44* (8.55) .51** (9.70) .17 (—) −3.51** 446 .287 .43 (—) .66** (25.36) .62* (16.06) .29* (11.26) −5.09** 446 .302 .46* (5.41) .57*** (16.38) .58** (13.41) .22 (—) −4.77*** 446 .260 RELIGION AND SAME-SEX PRACTICES Table 3: Logistic regression analysis predicting support for various same-sex relationships across religious traditions (MI data) Note: Models include all controls from Table 2. Source: BRS 2005. β, standardized coefficient; OR, odds ratio; PRE, proportional reduction in error (likelihood ratio/−2 log likelihood). *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. 11 12 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION In contrast with evangelicals, mainline Protestants and Catholics who believe the Bible requires interpretation are not significantly different from biblical literalists on gay sex or marriage, although Catholics who believe the Bible requires interpretation are more likely than biblicalliteralist Catholics to support same-sex adoption. Moreover, for mainline Protestants, those who believe the Bible contains human errors are not significantly different from biblical literalists in their support for gay sex or marriage, but they are significantly more likely to support same-sex adoption. Also partially supporting our third set of hypotheses (H3a), these findings suggest that, for mainline Protestants specifically, theological conservatism with regard to how one interprets the Bible is not a particularly strong predictor of whether mainline Protestants support gay sex, marriage, or adoption. For Catholics, however, biblical literalism does seem to be a stronger predictor of opposition to same-sex relationships, similar to evangelicals. In this case, biblical literalism may be an indication of theologically and socially conservative Catholics who subscribe to the Catholic Church’s historical proscriptions against same-sex practices, whereas more theologically liberal Catholics do not (see Perry 2013a). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS This study is the first to examine the extent to which religious factors shape attitudes toward same-sex practices differently depending on the type of practice in question. Prior research on religion and attitudes toward homosexuality generally focused on one relationship type or another, ignoring the variation that we find exists in the way religious factors are associated with various types of practice. Our findings generally suggest that public opinion toward gay sexual relations appears to be more strongly related to religious devoutness and theological conservatism compared to support for same-sex marriage or adoption. Moreover, frequent religious practice and conservative theological beliefs about the Bible tend to be more strongly associated with attitudes toward same-sex practices for evangelicals, compared to mainline Protestants and, to a lesser extent, Catholics. The stronger association between religious commitment/conservative belief and homosexual practice compared to same-sex adoption and marriage suggests several things about how religious life relates to same-sex practices in the United States. Religious devoutness and theological conservatism incline Americans to favor long-term commitments and monogamous romantic relationships over romantic relationships that do not necessarily imply commitment (Mak and Tsang 2008). Moreover, although highly religious, Bible believing persons may bracket homosexual practice in their minds as “sinful” and wrong, these same groups may express greater ambivalence regarding same-sex marriage (Bean and Martinez 2014), which involves imparting civil rights to committed same-sex couples, or same-sex adoption, which would involve the committed guardianship and care of a vulnerable child. Unfortunately, the BRS measures only allow us to examine respondents’ opinions toward same-sex practices with no information about why respondents feel the way they do. Future research on this topic should employ qualitative interviews in order to flesh out more fully the explanations provided by men and women for their opinions toward various same-sex practices. It is important to point out, however, that although political affiliations exhibit a stronger association with same-sex marriage and adoption attitudes, this does not mean that respondents’ opposition toward those family forms is not also legitimated by their religious beliefs, affiliations, and practices. Indeed, the religiosity measures are still significantly related with attitudes toward those family forms net of the effects of the political measure. It very well may be that religion has a strong and significant indirect effect on Americans’ attitudes toward same-sex marriage and adoption through political affiliations. Although it is beyond the purview of this article to estimate such models, prior research supports this possibility (Sherkat et al. 2011). 13 RELIGION AND SAME-SEX PRACTICES The findings of this study also suggest that religious identity and subculture likely play a role in how religious factors relate to public opinion toward different same-sex practices. First, there is greater unanimity for the effects of religious practice and theological conservatism on evangelicals’ attitudes than for mainline Protestants or Catholics. For evangelicals, frequent religious practice was a strong predictor of opposition toward gay sex, marriage, and adoption, whereas for mainline Protestants and Catholics, religious practice was unrelated to support for same-sex marriage or adoption. And for mainline Protestants, the differences between biblical literalism and the other views of the Bible appeared to be a weaker predictor of opposition to same-sex practices than for either evangelicals or Catholics. These trends suggest that, for evangelicals, greater religious commitment and theological conservatism imply solidarity with the evangelical community and, consequently, opposition to the practice and public recognition of practices that evangelicals tend to collectively oppose. By contrast, mainline Protestants, and to some degree Catholics, are reputed to be more supportive of the legal recognition of same-sex families, and therefore, greater religious devoutness does not incline Catholics and mainliners to oppose same-sex marriage or adoption. Again, future research on religious life and support for same-sex relationships would ideally employ qualitative interviews to more fully develop the subcultural mechanisms at work in the relationship between religious tradition, practices, and views toward gay sex, marriage, and adoption. The findings of this study extend our understanding of the ways in which various dimensions of religious life shape attitudes toward same-sex practices. Although prior work finds a consistent effect for religious service attendance on attitudes toward formal and informal rights for gays and lesbians (Doan et al. 2014), we find that the relationship is more complex and researchers should not conclude that greater levels of religious devotion or theological conservatism incline persons to oppose any and all same-sex practices. Indeed, for Catholics and mainline Protestants, this is not the case at all. Future studies should acknowledge the complexity of this relationship between religious life and public opinion toward same-sex practices by taking into consideration other factors at play—for example, implied commitment and public legitimation, perceived power differentials—in shaping the different ways religious factors may relate to attitudes toward gay sex, marriage, and adoption. It is especially important to continue this work in light of the countrywide legal recognition of same-sex marriage in June 2015. Although the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges could continue to swell the ranks of Americans who support samesex marriage, it has also served to activate the opposition, who by and large are structuring their resistance primarily using religious explanations (Eckholm 2015). This highlights the contribution of the current study into the diverse influence of religion on attitudes toward various same-sex practices. We suspect that the battle over the legality of same-sex practices is nowhere near its conclusion in the United States and it is up to future researchers to continue to examine the influence of religion with all its inherent complexity. REFERENCES Adamczyk, Amy and Cassady Pitt. 2009. Shaping attitudes about homosexuality: The role of religion and cultural context. Social Science Research 38(2):338–51. Averett, Paige, Amy Strong-Blakeney, Blace Nalavany, and Scott Ryan. 2011. Adoptive parents’ attitudes towards gay and lesbian adoption. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 7(1–2):30–48. Bader, Christopher D., F. Carson Mencken, and Paul Froese. 2007. American piety 2005: Content, methods and selected results from the Baylor Religion Survey. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 46(4):447–63. Baunach, Dawn M. 2012. Changing same-sex marriage attitudes in America from 1988 through 2010. Public Opinion Quarterly 76(2):364–78. Bean, Lydia and Brandon C. Martinez. 2014. Evangelical ambivalence toward gays and lesbians. Sociology of Religion 75(3):395–417. Becker, Amy B. 2012. What’s marriage (and family) got to do with it? Support for same-sex marriage, legal unions, and gay and lesbian couples raising children. Social Science Quarterly 93(4):1007–29. 14 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION Besen, Yasemin and Gilbert Zicklin. 2007. Young men, religion, and attitudes towards homosexuality. Journal of Men, Masculinities, and Spirituality 1(3):250–66. Brooks, Clem and Jeff Manza. 2004. A great divide? Religion and political change in US national elections, 1972–2000. Sociological Quarterly 45(3):421–50. Burdette, Amy M. Christopher G. Ellison and Terrence D. Hill. 2005. Conservative Protestantism and tolerance toward homosexuals: An examination of potential mechanisms. Sociological Inquiry 75(2):177–96. Doan, Long Annalise Loehr and Lisa R. Miller. 2014. Formal rights and informal privileges for same-sex couples: Evidence from a national survey experiment. American Sociological Review 79(6):1172–95. Eckholm, Erik. 2015. Conservative lawmakers and faith groups seek exemptions after same-sex ruling. New York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/conservative-lawmakers-and-faith-groups-seek-exemptionsafter-same-sex-ruling.html. Accessed June 30, 2015. Fetner, Tina. 2008. How the religious right shaped lesbian and gay activism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Haider-Markel, Donald P. and Mark R. Joslyn. 2008. Beliefs about the origins of homosexuality and support for gay rights: An empirical test of attribution theory. Public Opinion Quarterly 72(2):291–310. Hill, Terrence D. Benjamin E. Moulton and Amy M. Burdette 2004. Conservative Protestantism and attitudes toward homosexuality: Does political orientation mediate this relationship? Sociological Focus 37(1):59–70. Jonathan, Eunike. 2008. The influence of religious fundamentalism, right-wing authoritarianism, and Christian orthodoxy on explicit and implicit measures of attitudes toward homosexuals. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 18(4):316–29. Lambert, Eric G. Lois A. Ventura Daniel E. Hall and Terry Cluse-Tolar. 2006. College students’ views on gay and lesbian issues: Does education make a difference? Journal of Homosexuality 50(4):1–30. Mak, Heather K. and Jo-Ann Tsang. 2008. Separating the “sinner” from the “sin”: Religious orientation and prejudiced behavior toward sexual orientation and promiscuous sex. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 47(3):379– 92. McLeod, Andrew C. Isiaah Crawford and Jeanne Zechmeister. 1999. Heterosexual undergraduates’ attitudes toward gay fathers and their children. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality 11(1):43–62. Merino, Stephen M. 2013. Contact with gays and lesbians and same-sex marriage support: The moderating role of social context. Social Science Research 42(4):1156–66. Olson, Laura R. Wendy Cadge and James T. Harrison. 2006. Religion and public opinion about same-sex marriage. Social Science Quarterly 87(2):340–60. Pampel, Fred C. 2000. Logistic regression: A primer. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Perry, Samuel L. 2013a. Multiracial church attendance and support for same-sex romantic and family relationships. Sociological Inquiry 83(2):259–85. ——— 2013b. Are interracial daters more supportive of same-sex unions? Social Science Journal 50(2):252–56. ——— 2015. Bible beliefs, conservative religious identity, and same-sex marriage support: Examining main and moderating effects. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 54(3) doi: 10.1111/jssr.12212. Perry, Samuel L. and Andrew L. Whitehead. 2015. Same-sex adoption as a welfare alternative? Conservatism, neoliberal values, and support for adoption by same-sex couples. Journal of Homosexuality 62(12):1722–45. Rosenfeld, Michael J. 2007. The age of independence: Interracial unions, same sex unions, and the changing American family. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Rubin, Donald B. 1987. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: Wiley. ——— 1996. Multiple imputation after 18+ years. Journal of the American Statistical Association 91(434):473– 89. Ryan, Scott D. Laura E. Bedard and Marc G. Gertz. 2004. Florida’s gay adoption ban: What do Floridians think? University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy 15(2):261–83. ——— 2007. The influence of gender on the placement of children with gay or lesbian adoptive parents. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 3(1):15–34. Schulte, Lisa and Juan Battle. 2004. The relative importance of ethnicity and religion in predicting attitudes towards gays and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality 47(2):127–42. Sherkat, Darren Kylan Mattias de Vries and Stacia Creek. 2010. Race, religion, and opposition to same-sex marriage. Social Science Quarterly 91(1):80–98. Sherkat, Darren Melissa Powell-Williams Gregory Maddox and Kylan Mattias de Vries. 2011. Religion, politics, and support for same-sex marriage in the United States, 1988–2008. Social Science Research 40(1):167–80. Steensland, Brian Jerry Z. Park Mark D. Regnerus Lynn D. Robinson W. Bradford Wilcox and Robert D. Woodberry. 2000. The measure of American religion: Toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces 79(1):291– 318. Whitehead, Andrew L. 2010. Sacred rites and civil rights: Religion’s effect on attitudes toward same-sex unions and the perceived cause of homosexuality. Social Science Quarterly 91(1):63–79. ———. 2014a. Male and female He created them: Gender traditionalism, masculine images of God, and attitudes toward same-sex unions. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 53(3):479–96. RELIGION AND SAME-SEX PRACTICES 15 ———. 2014b. Politics, religion, attribution theory, and attitudes toward same-sex unions. Social Science Quarterly 95(3):701–18. Whitehead, Andrew L. and Joseph O. Baker. 2012. Homosexuality, religion, and science: Moral authority and the persistence of negative attitudes. Sociological Inquiry 82(4):487–509. Whitehead, Andrew L. and Samuel L. Perry. 2014. Religion and support for adoption by same-sex couples: The relative effects of religious tradition, practices, and beliefs. Journal of Family Issues doi: 10.1177/0192513×14536564.