Psychological and demographic predictors of support for same-sex marriage: an Australian survey

ABSTRACT

Marriage equality has been a topic of political debate worldwide, with several countries legalising marriage between two consenting adults regardless of sex or gender since the early 2000s. In 2017, Australia legalised marriage equality through the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017. This decision followed a voluntary postal survey open to adult citizens to gauge public support for marriage equality. Although marriage equality was legislated, there is a need to understand community attitudes in order to promote safe environments for all citizens. Our study investigated demographic, personality characteristics, and social factors predictive of both attitudes towards marriage equality and response to the postal survey. Data were obtained from 250 Australian respondents through an anonymous online survey. Participants held positive attitudes towards marriage equality and 82% had returned a survey in favour of marriage equality. Attitudes towards LGBTQ+ people, sex, sexuality, geographic location, religious fundamentalism, social political conservatism, degree of comfort with gay and lesbian people, attitudes to marriage and marriage gender roles, gender role beliefs, general empathy, empathy towards same sex attracted people, and right-wing authoritarianism predicted attitudes to marriage equality and/or survey response. Findings suggest that increasing empathy towards and contact with LGBTQ+ people may increase more positive attitudes towards LGBTQ+ people and marriage equality.

KEYWORDS:

• Australian marriage law postal survey
• empathy
• marriage equality
• openness to experience
• religiosity
• right-wing authoritarianism
• same-sex marriage
• social dominance orientation

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

As per the Ethics approval, mediated access is provided to the data whereby author, title and relevant details of the dataset are available via CQUniversity’s Institutional Repository, ACQUIRE. Request to access the dataset may be made by contacting the corresponding author or the University’s Ethics Committee through the following link: https://doi.org/10.25946/21699704.v1

Open scholarship

This article has earned the Center for Open Science badges for Open Data and Open Materials through Open Practices Disclosure. The data and materials are openly accessible at https://doi.org/10.25946/21699704.v1.

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.