Showing 1 – 5 of 5 results.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
CBS News/New York Times National Poll, February #1, 2012 (ICPSR 34576)
Released/updated on: 2013-04-12
Geographic coverage: United States
This poll, fielded February, 2012, and the first of two, is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicits public opinion on a range of political and social issues. Respondents were asked whether they approved of the way Barack Obama was handling his job as president, foreign policy, the economy, the situation in Afghanistan, job creation, and the federal budget deficit. Respondents were also asked whether they approved of Congress, about the condition of the economy, and whether things in the country were on the right track. Multiple questions addressed the 2012 Republican presidential candidates, including respondents' overall opinions of several of the candidates and their policies. Respondents were asked what issues and qualities were most important in deciding who to support for the Republican nomination, what topics they would like to hear them discuss, as well as the Tea Party movement and the amount of influence they have in the Republican Party. Additionally, respondents were questioned whether they voted in the 2008 presidential election and who they voted for, whether they voted or plan to vote in a Democratic or Republican 2012 primary or caucus, their first and second choice for the 2012 Republican nomination for president, which candidate would have the best chance of winning against Barack Obama, and who they would vote for in the 2012 presidential election. Other topics include the housing market, the federal budget deficit, birth control, same-sex marriage, and illegal immigrants. Demographic variables include sex, age, race, education level, household income, religious preference, type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural), whether respondents thought of themselves as born-again Christians, marital status, number of people in the household between the ages of 18 and 29, political party affiliation, political philosophy, and voter registration status.
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
Eurobarometer 47.2OVR: Young Europeans, April-June 1997 (ICPSR 2091)
Released/updated on: 2004-11-24
Geographic coverage: Europe, United Kingdom, Portugal, Spain, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland, Finland, Denmark, Italy, France, Germany
Time period: 1997-04-20--1997-06-07
This round of Eurobarometer surveys queried respondents on standard Eurobarometer measures, such as whether they attempted to persuade others close to them to share their views on subjects they held strong opinions about and whether they discussed political matters. Additional questions focused on the respondents' knowledge of and opinions on the European Union (EU), including what sources of information about the EU they used and whether their country had benefited from being an EU member. This collection, which focuses on the attitudes of young Europeans, merges replies from respondents aged 15-24 years in EUROBAROMETER 47.2: WOMEN AND CANCER, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, AND EXPECTATIONS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, APRIL-JUNE 1997 (ICPSR 2090) with an oversample of persons in the same age group. Respondents were asked questions on a variety of topics, including the impact of the European Union (EU) on their lives, areas in which the EU could be more active, responsibility to the elderly, reasons for living longer at home, when to have children, leisure activities, organizational memberships, religious beliefs, immigrants, foreign travel and work experiences abroad, languages spoken, and source of income. Opinions were also elicited on euthanasia, capital punishment, rights of homosexuals, compulsory AIDS testing, premarital and extramarital sex, and cloning. Demographic and other background information provided includes respondent's age, sex, religious preference, and income as well as the occupation of both respondent and head of household, the number of people residing in the home, the size of locality, and the region of residence.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Mapping LGBTQ Equality: 2010 to 2020, United States (ICPSR 37877)
Released/updated on: 2021-07-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2010-01-01--2020-01-01
Mapping LGBTQ Equality: 2010 to 2020 presented the status of LGBTQ equality at the U.S. state level by examining a policy tally by the Movement Advancement Project (MAP), and encompassed nearly 40 LGBTQ-related laws and policies across all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the five U.S. territories as of January 1, 2020. The report also compared the January 1, 2020 status of LGBTQ policy landscape to the status of those same laws as of January 1, 2010.
MAP's policy tally aggregated these laws and policies to gauge the LGBTQ-related policy landscape across the country. What emerged in 2020 was a patchwork of positive LGBTQ laws and policies, with variations both by region and area of law, as well as growth in both the policy accomplishments and challenges facing LGBTQ people over the decade of observation.
Areas of law and policy included: relationship and parental recognition, nondiscrimination, religious exemptions, LGBTQ youth-related laws, health care, criminal justice, and identity documents.
Curated
Urban Morality Issues Incidents in Ten Cities, 1990-2000: [United States] (ICPSR 3735)
Released/updated on: 2005-12-15
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1990-01-01--2000-01-01
This collection consists of data that tracked how ten city governments in the United States responded to morality issues in the last decade of the 20th century. The ten cities varied in their geographic properties and were characterized by their locations, e.g., South City, Metro City, and Coast City. Morality issues were defined as issues concerning actions or behaviors that were regulated by a deeply held belief and/or a religious value. The issues falling within this categorization were gay rights, abortion rights, abortion clinic protests, needle exchange programs for drug users, hate speech, hate groups, gambling policies and regulations, animal rights, and regulations pertaining to the sex industry, which included pornography, prostitution, and adult entertainment. Incidents or events in the ten cities related to these moral issues were identified. The data were generated by scanning local newspapers to isolate and gather relevant information about the selected cities, interviewing political elites (e.g., mayor, city manager, and council person), and reviewing public government records for the selected cities. Part 1, Ten City Data, contains data on 451 incidents related to morality issues in the ten cities. Part 2, Subset of Ten City Data With City-Specific Variables, is a subset of the cases included in Part 1 and also includes a broader array of city-specific contextual variables. The variables shared by Part 1 and Part 2 are whether a city had a mayor or a city manager, whether city council elections were at-large or by district, the percentage or share of the city council elected by a particular district, the strength and prevalence of the city's homosexual community, the percentage of residents in the county who attended religious services, the percentage of residents in the county who identified themselves as Catholic or as religious fundamentalists, and whether activists involved with this issue were more likely to be from the left or right, politically. Additional shared variables are city population in 1990 and 1998 (in thousands), the percentage of population change between 1980-1990 and 1990-1998, the metro area population in 1990 (in thousands), the percentage of population change in the metro area from 1980-1990 and from 1990-1996, the percentage of female, Asian, White, Black, and Hispanic residents, the median household income, the percentage of married residents, the percentage of female-headed households, the 1997 unemployment rate, the percentage of same gender partnerships, the total number of churches, the number of churches per capita, the percentage of households with children under the age of 19, the percentage of the population aged 18-34, the percentage of residents that were college educated, income per capita, the percentage of foreign-born residents, the percentage of residents living in poverty, and the acceptability and prevalence of the city's "unconventional" or "counter" culture. The variables contained only in Part 2, Subset of Ten City Data With City-Specific Variables, are the type of community education present, the type of social culture in the community, the percentage of the work force employed in education or technology related jobs, the percentage of women in the work force, and the total number of churches in the county.