Search results

Showing 1 – 5 of 5 results.
Curated

CBS News/New York Times Monthly Poll #2, December 2003 (ICPSR 3984)

Released/updated on: 2009-04-29
Geographic coverage: United States
This poll, conducted December 10-14 and 16, 2003, is part of a continuing series of monthly polls that solicit opinions on political and social issues. Views were sought on the 2004 presidential campaign and the war with Iraq, as well as President George W. Bush and his handling of the presidency, foreign policy, and the economy. Respondents were asked whether the country was going in the right or wrong direction, whether President Bush legitimately won the 2000 presidential election, whether it was acceptable to publicly criticize him on terrorism issues, whether his tax cuts were good or bad for the economy, and the condition of the national economy. A series of questions asked whether the result of the war with Iraq and the removal of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was worth the human and economic costs, whether Iraq was an immediate threat to the United States, how well the United States was doing to bring stability and order to Iraq, how long troops should remain there, and whether the United States won the war with Iraq. Several questions asked about the effects of Saddam Hussein's capture on attacks against United States troops in Iraq and threats of terrorism against the United States, whether the United States could win the war in Afghanistan without the capture or death of Osama bin Laden, and who was winning the war on terrorism. Questions were posed regarding the progress made by the Bush administration in reducing the cost of prescription drugs for the elderly, whether it had a clear plan for rebuilding Iraq and the campaign against terrorism, whether it was too quick or too slow in getting the United States involved in a war with Iraq, and whether the administration told everything it knew about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the war. Respondents were also polled on how much attention they paid to the 2004 presidential campaign, whether they would vote for President George W. Bush or a Democratic candidate for president, how certain they were about their choice, which one issue candidates should discuss, whether candidates should support or oppose the war in Iraq and gay marriage, and whether candidates should have political experience inside or outside of Washington. Opinions were solicited on former Vice-President Al Gore, the Democratic presidential nominees (Carol Moseley-Braun, Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Lieberman, Al Sharpton), and the effect of Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean for president. Respondents were polled on whether the Democratic or Republican party would do a better job of ensuring a strong economy, dealing with terrorism, creating new jobs, and rebuilding Iraq, and whether political leaders from middle class backgrounds did a better job representing the middle class than those from wealthy backgrounds. Views were sought on whether homosexuality was immoral, whether it was a choice, whether homosexual couples should be able to form legal civil unions and marry, and whether marriage was mostly a legal or religious matter. Additional topics addressed the use of steroids in professional sports, the recently passed Medicare bill, whether the government should promote traditional values, the public viewing of caskets of soldiers killed in Iraq, and whether President Bush should have attended the funerals of military personnel. Background variables include sex, age, ethnicity, income, marital status, education, religion, religiosity, number of phone lines in household, date of interview, political orientation, political party affiliation, and voter registration and participation history.
Curated
Partially restricted
Simple Crosstabs

Civil Union Study 2000-2002, United States (ICPSR 31241)

Released/updated on: 2014-09-26
Geographic coverage: Vermont, United States
Time period: 2000-01-01--2002-01-01
Vermont was the first state in the United States to legalize same-sex relationships in mid-2000, so that same-sex couples could have the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples at the state level. Same-sex couples came to Vermont from all over the country to legalize their relationships. During the first year that this legislation was enacted, 80 percent of civil unions were acquired by out-of-state residents. In 2002, a project was conducted that compared couples who had civil unions in Vermont during the first year of that new legislation (July 2000-June 2001) with same-sex couples in their friendship circles who had not had civil unions, and with heterosexual married siblings (Solomon, Rothblum, and Balsam, 2004; 2005). The focus was on demographic factors, length of relationship, social support from family and friends, contact with families of origin, social and political activities, degree of "outness," and division of housework, child care, and finances. This was the first study to focus on same-sex couples in legalized relationships in the United States. It was also the first study to examine same-sex couples recruited from a population instead of a convenience sample, because civil unions are a matter of public record. Results indicated very few differences between same-sex couples in civil unions and those not in civil unions, particularly for women. Women in civil unions were more "out" about their sexual orientation, and more likely to consider themselves married than were women not in civil unions. Men in civil unions were more likely to have children, joint bank accounts with their partner, mutual friends with their partner, more connection with their family of origin, and to consider themselves married. They were less likely to have seriously discussed ending their relationship than men not in civil unions (Solomon et al., 2004). In contrast, both types of same-sex couples differed from heterosexual married couples in numerous ways. Same-sex couples were in their current relationship for a shorter duration, less religious, less likely to have children, more likely to share housework and finances, and less close to their family of origin than heterosexual couples. Women in same-sex relationships were more highly educated and perceived less social support from their family of origin than heterosexual married women. Men in same-sex relationships lived in larger cities, were less monogamous and more likely to agree that non-monogamy was acceptable, and perceived more social support from their friends than heterosexual married men. It is not surprising that same-sex couples differed from heterosexual couples. Prior research on lesbians and gay men from convenience samples that compared them to (a) United States census data (e.g., Bradford and Ryan, 1988), (b) their heterosexual siblings (e.g., Rothblum, et al., 2004; Rothblum and Factor, 2001), and (c) representative national samples (e.g., Laumann, Gagnon, Michael and Michaels, 1994) have consistently indicated demographic differences. It was also not surprising that same-sex couples in civil unions were quite similar to same-sex couples not in civil unions given that the first study was conducted after the first year of the new legislation. Consequently, that study was more about who chooses to have a civil union versus those who do not. It was less about how being in a civil union changes a relationship -- for that, follow-up research is needed. Demographic variables include age, race, education, religion, sexual orientation, income, and occupation.
Curated
Partially restricted
Simple Crosstabs

How Couples Meet and Stay Together (HCMST), Wave 1 2009, Wave 2 2010, Wave 3 2011, Wave 4 2013, Wave 5 2015, United States (ICPSR 30103)

Released/updated on: 2016-03-18
Geographic coverage: United States

How Couples Meet and Stay Together (HCMST) surveyed how Americans met their spouses and romantic partners, and compared traditional to non-traditional couples. This collection covers data that was gathered over five waves. During the first wave, respondents were asked about their relationship status, including the gender, ethnicity, and race of their current partner, as well as the level of education of their parents. They were also asked about their living arrangements with their partner, the country, state, and city the respondent and/or the respondent's partner resided in most from birth to age 16, and whether the couple attended the same high school/college/university, or grew up in the same town. Information was collected on the legal status of the relationship, the city/state where the partnership was legalized, and how many times the respondent had previously been married. Additionally, respondents were asked about how often they visited with relatives, which gender they were most attracted to, their earned income in 2008, and the length of their current relationship. Finally, respondents were asked to recall how, when, and where they met their partner, how their parents felt about their partner, and to describe the perceived quality of their relationship. The second wave followed up with respondents one year after Wave 1. Information was collected on respondents' changes, if any, in marital status, relationship status, living arrangements, and reasons for separation where applicable. The third wave followed up with respondents one year after the second wave, and collected information on respondents' relationships reported in the first two waves, again including any changes in the status of the relationship and reasons for separation. The fourth wave followed up with respondents two years after Wave 3. In addition to information on relationship status and reasons for separation, Wave 4 includes the subjective level of attractiveness for the respondent and their partner. Wave 5 collected updated data on respondents' changes, if any, in marital status, relationship status, and reasons for separation where applicable. Information about respondents' sexual orientations, sex frequencies, and attitudes towards sexual monogamy were also collected. Demographic information includes age, race/ethnicity, gender, level of education, household composition, religion, political party affiliation, and household income.

The data is being released in two parts: part one is available for public use and part two is available for restricted use. The public use data contains Waves 1-5, including the addition of nine variables collecting information such as race, household income, whether the respondent was born outside of the United States, zip code relative to rural area, and respondents' living arrangements between birth and 16 years of age. The restricted use data contains Waves 1-3, and differs from the public use data by including FIPS codes for state of marriage and state of residence, town or city where the respondent was raised, and qualitative variables revised by the Principal Investigator (Waves 1-5), consisting of respondent's answers to how they first met their partner, the quality of their relationship in their own words, why they broke up if applicable and if they have an open relationship.

Curated

IPUMS Contextual Determinants of Health (CDOH) Sexual and Gender Minority Measure: Same-Sex Households by County, United States, 2020 (ICPSR 39237)

Released/updated on: 2025-01-30
Geographic coverage: United States

The IPUMS Contextual Determinants of Health (CDOH) data series provides access to measures of disparities, policies, and counts, by state or county, for historically marginalized populations in the United States including Black, Asian, Hispanic/Latina/o/e/x, and LGBTQ+ persons, and women.

The IPUMS CDOH data are made available through ICPSR/DSDR for merging with the National Couples' Health and Time Study (NCHAT), United States, 2020-2021 (ICPSR 38417) by approved restricted data researchers. All other researchers can access the IPUMS CDOH data via the IPUMS CDOH website.

Unlike other IPUMS products, the CDOH data are organized into multiple categories related to Race and Ethnicity, Sexual and Gender Minority, Gender, and Politics. The measures were created from a wide variety of data sources (e.g., IPUMS NHGIS, the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Movement Advancement Project, and Myers Abortion Facility Database). Measures are currently available for states or counties from approximately 2015 to 2020.

Sexual and Gender Minority measures in this release include county-level summary data on the proportion of same-sex households in the United States, as reported in the 2020 Decennial Census. To work with the IPUMS CDOH data, researchers will need to use the variable MATCH_ID to merge the data in DS1 with NCHAT surveys within the virtual data enclave (VDE).

Curated
Partially restricted
Simple Crosstabs

Social Justice Sexuality Project: 2010 National Survey, including Puerto Rico (ICPSR 34363)

Released/updated on: 2013-08-09
Geographic coverage: Puerto Rico, United States
Time period: 2010-01-01--2010-12-01

The Social Justice Sexuality Project (SJS) is one of the largest national surveys of Black, Latina/o, Asian and Pacific Islander, and multiracial lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. With over 5,000 respondents, the final sample includes respondents from all 50 states; Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico; in rural and suburban areas, in addition to large urban areas; and from a variety of ages, racial/ethnic identities, sexual orientations, and gender identities. The purpose of the SJS Project is to document and celebrate the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people of color. All too often, when we think about LGBT people of color, it's from a perspective of pathology. In contrast, the SJS Project is designed and dedicated to describing a more dynamic experience. It's a knowledge-based study that investigates the sociopolitical experiences of this population around five themes: racial and sexual identity; spirituality and religion; mental and physical health; family formations and dynamics; civic and community engagement. Demographic variables include: race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, education, religion, household, income, height, weight, location, birthplace, and political affiliation.

Additional information about the SJS Project can be found on the Social Justice Sexuality Project Web site.

Back to top