Conservative Protestantism and Tolerance toward CONSERVATIVE PROTESTANTISM AND TOLERANCE TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 177 Homosexuals: An Examination of Potential

Mechanisms*

Amy M. Burdette, University of Texas at Austin Christopher G. Ellison, University of Texas at Austin Terrence D. Hill, University of Texas at Austin

A number of studies over the years have reported that members of conservative Protestant churches tend to be less tolerantthat is, reluctant to extend civil liberties vis--vis homosexuals. This paper explores several possible explanations for this pattern. In particular, we identify key aspects of conservative Protestant religious values and worldviews that may contribute to this pattern, and relevant hypotheses are tested using data from the 1988 General Social Survey. Results highlight the role of biblical literalism, as well as specic beliefs about the public nature of morality and the implications of perceived immoral conduct for collective well-being. We discuss the implications of these ndings for the understanding of contemporary conservative Protestantism, as well as for future research on the nexus of religion, politics, and democratic citizenship.

Introduction Dating back to the work of Samuel Stouffer (1955), a long tradition of sociological research has examined patterns, trends, and predictors of tolerance (i.e., the willingness to extend civil liberties to deviant or unpopular groups). Religion variables have consistently emerged as signicant predictors in this literature, and many studies of tolerance have included gay men as a key target or focal group-one of the unpopular elements in society toward which tolerance is a persistent concern. Although studies have consistently shown that conservative Protestants are more reluctant to extend civil liberties to deviant or unpopular groups than other Americans, surprisingly few studies have attempted to explain this pattern empirically. This gap in the literature is especially glaring in the wake of recent debates concerning the civil rights of gays and lesbians in the United States. If conservative Protestants are less tolerant of gay men than other Americans, why are they? Does conservative Protestant intolerance reect higher levels of religious commitment and participation, which may in turn imply exposure to conventional or overtly antigay messages? Is this a straightforward indication of theology, especially the Bible-centered religion of many conservative Protestants? Or do these views stem from a more complex, nuanced moral worldview? Finally, to what extent do religious variations in tolerance of gay men simply reect disapproval of homosexual conduct?
Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 75, No. 2, May 2005, 177196
2005 Alpha Kappa Delta

178 AMY M. BURDETTE, CHRISTOPHER G. ELLISON, AND TERRENCE D. HILL

We begin by outlining a series of theoretical arguments linking specic aspects of conservative Protestant worldviews with (a) disapproval of homosexuality and (b) reluctance to extend civil liberties to gay men. We then test specic hypotheses distilled from these arguments using data from the 1988 General Social Survey. Although these data are not as recent as would be ideal, they contain a special module on religio-political attitudes, and thus offer a unique opportunity to address these specic issues. Previous Empirical Studies on Religion and Tolerance A number of studies have linked religious afliation, particularly conservative Protestantism, with lower levels of tolerance toward homosexuals and other controversial groups (see Table 1 for a summary of this research). While previous research has found that having any religious afliation leads to greater intolerance, there is considerable variation within religious groupings. Specically, Jews appear to be the most tolerant, followed by mainline Protestants and Catholics. Despite some evidence of increasing tolerance over time, conservative Protestants remain more reluctant to extend civil liberties to unpopular groups across the ideological spectrum, including homosexuals, than other religious groups (e.g., Beatty and Walter 1984; Loftus 2001; Peterson and Donnenwerth 1998; Roof and McKinney 1987; Wilcox and Jelen 1990). Although evidence from surveys of the general population suggests that conservative Protestants are less tolerant of gays than persons from other faiths, several revisionist scholars question this claim. For example, Hunter (1984, 1987) maintains that conservative Protestants, especially the younger generation of evangelicals, are committed to social and political tolerance. Smith (2000) argues that survey research is awed in that it does not allow respondents to convey complex theological beliefs. Through in-depth interviews, Smith observes that the majority of evangelicals convey their theological beliefs through establishing personal relationships with non-Christians, rather than engaging in overt political action. Smith also asserts that evangelicals are largely tolerant of gays and lesbians, as well as other groups viewed as in opposition to conservative Protestant beliefs. Nevertheless, in an appendix Smith (2000) acknowledges that conservative Protestants are more likely than other Americans to believe that gays and lesbians have too much inuence in America, to not want a homosexual to live in their neighborhood, and to support restrictions of basic civil liberties to homosexuals. Differences between religious afliates and other Americans seem to be partially explained by sociodemographic differences. Intolerance has been related to low levels of education, rural residence, being a native southerner, and low levels of income (Bobo and Licari 1989; Ellison and Musick 1993; Loftus

Table 1 Summary of Research on Religion and Tolerance

CONSERVATIVE PROTESTANTISM AND TOLERANCE TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 179

Data

Religious groupings

Measure of tolerance Index ranging from 1 to 4 for ve groups, general tolerance index for leastliked group

Conclusions

Beatty and Walter (1984) GSS 1976, 1977, 1980 16 Protestant denominations, Mormons, Jehovahs Witness, Christian, Catholic, Jewish, none Bobo and Licari (1989) GSS 1984 Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, and nonreligious

Ellison and Musick (1993)

GSS 1988

Control for fundamental Protestant

Hunter (1984)

Evangelical Academy Project

Evangelical college students, public university college students Fundamentalist Protestant, Liberal/ Moderate Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, other religion, and no religion

Loftus (2001)

GSS 19731998

Denominations usually characterized as fundamentalists are less tolerant of all groups. Tolerance decreases with increased church attendance. Individual binary items for Education leads to an increase in tolerance, taking into ve target groups, Overall civil liberties index of account negative feelings 15 items, college teaching toward the target group. Protestants are least tolerant subscale, speaking, and library book subscale among religious groups. Prominence of fundamental Index of overall tolerance created from 15 items, Protestantism contributes to group specic indices for intolerance, but does not ve groups account for native southern antipathy toward left-wing groups. Civil liberties index ranging Evangelicals, with some from highly tolerant to exceptions, are committed highly intolerant. to liberal traditions of social and political tolerance. Index ranging from 0 (no There has been a decline restrictions on civil liberties) in willingness to restrict to 3 (all restrictions) civil liberties to homosexuals. concerning homosexuals Fundamentalist Protestants are most willing to restrict the civil liberties of homosexuals.

(continued )

Table 1 (continued )
180 AMY M. BURDETTE, CHRISTOPHER G. ELLISON, AND TERRENCE D. HILL

Data

Religious groupings

Measure of tolerance Index ranging from 3 (no civil liberties) to 6 (all civil liberties) for homosexuals Index ranging from 3 (no civil liberties) to 6 (all civil liberties) for ve groups

Conclusions Over time there has been an increase in tolerance among Christian groups, including Conservative Protestants.

Peterson and Donnenwerth (1998)

GSS 19721993

Conservative Protestants, Mainline Protestants, Catholics, and none Conservative Protestants, Mainline Protestants, and Catholics (white)

Reimer and Park (2001)

GSS 19721998

Conservative Protestants have become more willing to grant civil liberties over time, yet continue to be signicantly less libertarian than other white Christians.

Roof and McKinney (1987)

GSS 19721984

Conservative Protestants, Moderate Protestants, Liberal Protestants, Black Protestants, Catholics, Jews, others, and none

Responses on binary items for Atheists, Communists, and Homosexuals, Civil liberties scale of overall tolerance

Jews and those with no preference are most tolerant, followed by Liberal Protestants and Catholics. Conservative Protestants are consistently the least supportive of civil liberties. Tolerance among Evangelicals is not group specic. All types of conservative Protestants are less tolerant than other Americans.

Wilcox and Jelen (1990)

Nunn et al. 1973

Evangelical Protestant, other Protestant, Catholic, Jews, and none (white)

Index ranging from 0 (no civil liberties) to 3 (all civil liberties) for four groups

GSS 19721988

Evangelical, fundamentalist, Pentecostal, other Protestant, Catholic, Jews, and none (white)

Index ranging from 0 (no civil liberties) to 3 (all civil liberties) for ve groups, two measures of general tolerance

CONSERVATIVE PROTESTANTISM AND TOLERANCE TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 181

2001; Wilcox and Jelen 1990). Conservative Protestants are more likely to have these same attributes (Wald 1987). However, sociodemographic differences do not fully account for variations in levels of tolerance (Ellison and Musick 1993; Wilcox and Jelen 1990). Several studies take into account differences in levels of church attendance. On average those who attend church more frequently are more intolerant, although the magnitude of this association seems to vary by denomination (Beatty and Walter 1984). Research shows that conservative Protestants attend church more frequently than members of other religious groups (Roof and McKinney 1987), and frequency of church attendance increases exposure to certain moral messages through sermons and interactions with other afliates (Sherkat and Ellison 1997). The moral messages that accompany religious attendance routinely pertain to appropriate sexual behavior and may help to create and maintain opposition to homosexuality. Research has also demonstrated the importance of biblical literalism in connection with tolerance toward controversial groups, particularly gays and lesbians. Conservative Protestants are more likely to believe that the Bible is the literal word of God (Hunter 1987), and biblical literalists are on average less tolerant than those who hold other views of the Bible (Ellison and Musick 1993; Wilcox and Jelen 1990). Even though it is extensively documented that conservative Protestant literature emphasizes the perceived dangers that gays and lesbians pose to society, few studies in the area of religion and tolerance have taken into account the respondents notion of societal contamination. Additionally, previous research has simply overlooked the impact of viewing morality as a personal, rather than a societal, issue. Despite the evidence that conservative Protestantism is inversely associated with tolerance, surprisingly little attention has been given to the worldviews that underlie the reluctance to extend civil liberties to unpopular groups in general and gay men in particular. Is intolerance simply a reection of disproportionate antipathy toward homosexual conduct? Is it a product of conservative Protestant allegiance to biblical truth claims? Or does it reect a distinctive orientation toward public morality and the role of civil authorities in shaping and regulating personal behavior? Addressing these questions is the major contribution of this paper. Conservative Protestant Worldviews and Intolerance of Homosexuality We have already noted that while other religious groups continue to debate issues relating to homosexuality, conservative Protestants appear to be more intolerant than other Americans. This opposition may be partially explained by high levels of church attendance, as well as holding a literalist view of the Bible (Beatty and Walter 1984; Ellison and Musick 1993; Wilcox and Jelen 1990).

182 AMY M. BURDETTE, CHRISTOPHER G. ELLISON, AND TERRENCE D. HILL

Those who believe that the Bible is the literal word of God hold a certain moral absolutism that may be incompatible with tolerance toward gays and lesbians. Many conservative Protestants see the Bible as the ultimate source of authority, providing necessary and sufcient information about the conduct of human affairs and the answers to mundane human problems, as well as interpretations of world events and societal developments (Boone 1989; Ellison, Bartkowski, and Segal 1996). The doctrine of biblical literalism is directly connected to conservative Protestant opposition to homosexuality. One of the most widely cited passages from the Old Testament is the account of Sodom in Genesis 19, involving the destruction of the city by God. This passage has been cited as evidence of the threat of sexual immorality, particularly homosexuality.1 A general interpretation of this story held by many conservative Protestants has been that of a warning: those who fail to practice sexual restraint are in danger of being annihilated in the hands of God. Conservative Protestants more commonly cite New Testament passages as support of the harmful nature of homosexuality. Romans 1:2627 is often quoted as evidence that homosexuality is both unnatural and perverse. In addition, 1st Corinthians 6:910 is often cited as support that homosexuals will not be admitted to heaven unless they reform their behavior (e.g., Dobson 2000; Falwell 1980). Other biblical passages relating to appropriate relationships between husbands and wives (Ephesians 5:2223, 1 Peter 3:1), or relating to procreation (Genesis 1:2728) are also cited as support of the unnatural nature of homosexual relationships (Falwell 1980). Social Contamination, Moral Privatism, and Intolerance Regnerus and Smith (1998) argue that a signicant minority of Americans have resisted the individual-level privatization of religion. In particular, conservative Protestants are the most publicly oriented on a number of issues, including the place of gays and lesbians in society. Those who believe that homosexuals and other groups could threaten or contaminate American society may feel that morality is not a matter of personal choice, but something that affects society as a whole. Those who hold oppositional attitudes toward moral privatism may feel that restricting the civil liberties of certain groups is a legitimate option for protecting American society. Conservative Protestants tend to view the nuclear family as the central institution in society, supporting (a) social and moral stability, including the regulation of sexuality, a key site for the embodiment and reproduction of divinely ordained principles of hierarchy and patriarchy, and (b) procreation and the intergenerational transmission of religious faith, including the moral training of youth, character building, and the like. Viewed in this light, relativizing absolutist claims about family arrangements and delegitimizing norms of sexual

CONSERVATIVE PROTESTANTISM AND TOLERANCE TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 183

restraint appears to many conservative Protestants as a threat to the social and spiritual order. One important reason that Christian Rights activists are more willing to deny civil liberties to secular and liberal groups is because they see these groups as a major threat to America (Wilcox 1996). Conservative Protestants may perceive gays and lesbians as a threat to the nuclear family as well as the continued existence of America. Following the tragedy of September 11, fundamentalist leader Jerry Falwell named homosexuals as one of several groups bearing partial responsibility for the terrorists attacks, asserting that their actions had turned Gods anger against America (Washington Post, September 14, 2001:C3). Many conservative Protestants believe that America is a covenant society with a mission to uphold Gods word within its institutions. This is an idea that can be traced to the Puritans who believed that America enjoyed distinct blessings and had a distinct purpose or mission in the world, as a bastion of religious freedom and delity to Christian teachings (Bellah 1975; Wuthnow 1988). Failure to act in accordance with the will of God could result in Gods removal of his blessing of America, as asserted by Falwell:
The wicked shall be returned to hell, and all the nations that forget God. America will be no exception. If she forgets God, she too will face his wrath and judgment like every other nation in the history of humanity. (Falwell 1980:24)

Those who support the conservative form of civil religion see political leaders as having a moral obligation as well as a political one (Wilcox 1996). In the minds of many conservative Protestants, morality is more than a private decision. It is a public concern. As a result, conservative Protestant afliates may feel an obligation to mobilize politically to oppose groups dened by religious leaders and interpreted by biblical texts as posing a threat to society. Therefore, restricting gay men from public speaking, teaching in colleges, and having accessible books is not just a choice made by some conservative Protestants, but it is viewed as an obligation to protect society from exposure to and perhaps temptation by immoral, unbiblical ideas, and lifestyles. These particular civil liberties are important because they indicate (a) the degree to which gays should be allowed to contribute to public discourse and debate through free speech, assembly, and distribution of published materials, and ( b) acceptance of employment-based discrimination in positions that may allow for social esteem and intellectual inuence. Hypotheses In this paper, we propose that church attendance, beliefs about the Bible, attitudes about social contamination, moral privatism, and attitudes about the morality of homosexuality may help to explain why conservative Protestants

184 AMY M. BURDETTE, CHRISTOPHER G. ELLISON, AND TERRENCE D. HILL

tend to be less tolerant of homosexuals than other Americans. From the discussion above, we have developed six hypotheses. First, research has consistently shown that members of conservative Protestant denominations (e.g., Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, Evangelicals) tend to be less tolerant of gays and lesbians, as well as other controversial groups (e.g., Beatty and Walter 1984; Loftus 2001; Peterson and Donnenwerth 1998). Therefore, we expect to nd that conservative Protestant afliation is associated with greater intolerance toward homosexuals (H1). Second, research shows that those who attend religious services on a regular basis tend to exhibit lower levels of tolerance (Beatty and Walter 1984). Because conservative Protestants attend church more frequently than other religious afliates (Roof and McKinney 1987), we expect to nd that the association between conservative Protestant afliation and tolerance toward homosexuals may be partially mediated by differences in church attendance (H2). Third, studies indicate that those who hold a literal interpretation of the Bible are less tolerant of certain controversial groups, like homosexuals (Ellison and Musick 1993; Wilcox and Jelen 1990). Given that conservative Protestants are more likely to hold a literalist view of the Bible (Hunter 1987), we expect to nd that the association between conservative Protestant afliation and tolerance toward homosexuals may be partially mediated by biblical literalism (H3). Fourth, research on tolerance has demonstrated that individuals are less tolerant of groups they fear or see as threatening than they are of groups they deem benign (Green and Waxman 1987; Stouffer 1955; Sullivan, Marcus, Feldman, and Piereson 1982; Sullivan, Piereson, and Marcus 1982). Because conservative Protestants may view homosexuals as a threat to or contaminants of American society (Wilcox 1996), we expect to nd that the association between conservative Protestant afliation and tolerance toward homosexuals may be partially mediated by attitudes about social contamination (H4). Fifth, research has noted that conservative Protestant literature often emphasizes the dangers of homosexuality for society at large (Rimmerman, Wald, and Wilcox 2000; Wilcox 1996). Given that conservative Protestants are likely to believe that morality is a societal issue, we expect to nd that the association between conservative Protestant afliation and tolerance toward homosexuals may be partially mediated by beliefs about moral privatism (H5). Finally, it could be that conservative Protestants are intolerant of gays and lesbians because they tend to object to homosexuality on moral grounds. Perhaps biblical passages focusing on the sins of homosexual behavior create a moral absolutism that prevents acceptance of homosexuality and homosexuals alike. Drawing on these arguments, we expect to nd that the association between conservative Protestant afliation and tolerance toward homosexuals may be partially mediated by attitudes concerning the morality of homosexuality (H6).

CONSERVATIVE PROTESTANTISM AND TOLERANCE TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 185

Data We use data from the 1988 General Social Survey (GSS) to investigate the relationship between religious afliation and tolerance toward homosexuals. The 1988 religion module provides information concerning religious afliation, biblical literalism, church attendance, social contamination, and moral privatism. Although we would prefer to analyze more recent data, this is the only nationally representative data which contain all of these measures. Because of the split-ballot design of the GSS, only 937 of the original 1481 respondents have valid responses on the dependent variable. The sample size was further reduced to 848 as a result of listwise deletion of missing values. Although the split-ballot design reduces our sample size, the potential for sample bias is minimal because ballots are randomly assigned. Tolerance toward Homosexuals Tolerance toward gay men is measured using an index composed of the following three items related to civil liberties continually present in the GSS: (1) Suppose this admitted homosexual wanted to make a speech in your community. Should he be allowed to speak, or not?; (2) Should such a person be allowed to teach in a college or university, or not?; and (3) If some people in your community suggested that a book he wrote in favor of homosexuality should be taken out of your public library, would you favor removing this book or not? Responses to each item are dichotomously coded. The resulting index ranges from 0 to 3 (alpha = .84), with higher scores reecting higher levels of tolerance. Religious Factors There are three religious factors related to tolerance of homosexuals: (1) religious afliation; (2) frequency of church attendance; and (3) biblical literalism. Using a coding scheme similar to that of Roof and McKinney (1987), religious afliation is divided into the following categories: mainline Protestants (Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians); Catholics; other faiths (Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses, Non-Christian faiths); those with no religious afliation and conservative Protestants (Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, Evangelicals), the reference category. We have included other faiths to maximize our overall sample. Given its varied composition, we will not attempt to interpret the results for this grouping. Frequency of church attendance is measured using an item on the GSS that ranges from 0 (never) to 8 (more than once a week). Biblical literalism is measured using the question: Which of these statements comes closest to describing your feelings about the Bible?The Bible is the actual word of God

186 AMY M. BURDETTE, CHRISTOPHER G. ELLISON, AND TERRENCE D. HILL

and is to be taken literally, The Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, word for word, or The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man. This item was recoded into a dichotomous variable, with one indicating a literal interpretation of the Bible and zero indicating the other two possible views of the Bible. Social Contamination Social contamination is tapped using an item that measures (dis)agreement with the following statement: Immoral actions by one person can corrupt society in general. The response categories range from 1 (agree strongly) to 4 (disagree strongly). Responses were recoded so that larger numbers indicated conservative moral attitudes. Moral Privatism Opinions about the nature of morality are tapped using an item that measures (dis)agreement with the following statement: Morality is a personal matter and society should not force everyone to follow one standard. Responses range from 1 (agree strongly) to 4 (disagree strongly). Moral Objection to Homosexuality In order to measure moral objection to homosexuality, respondents were asked: What about sexual relations between two adults of the same sexdo you think it is always wrong, almost always wrong, wrong only sometimes, or not wrong at all? The results were recoded so that larger numbers indicate more conservative responses. Sociodemographic Controls There is a long tradition of research that suggests that religious afliations vary greatly by demographic characteristics. Studies also indicate that various demographic groups differ in their levels of tolerance of homosexuality (Ellison and Musick 1993; Loftus 2001; Yang 1997). Therefore, we included controls for the following factors: years of education, age (measured in years), race (1 = black, 0 = white, 1 = other race, 0 = white), gender (1 = male, 0 = female), political orientation (1 = extremely liberal to 7 = extremely conservative), being a native southerner (1 = native southerner, 0 = nonnative southerner), and rural residence (1 = rural, 0 = other).2 Analytic Strategy Our analysis proceeds in two steps. First, we compare differences in the means of conservative Protestant afliates with those of other afliates on all

CONSERVATIVE PROTESTANTISM AND TOLERANCE TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 187

religion variables and potential mediators (Table 2). Second, we estimate a series of ordered logistic regression models to measure the effects of predictor variables on tolerance toward homosexuals. More specically, sequential models were estimated in which sociodemographic variables (education, age, race, gender, political views, rural residence, and native southerner) were entered into Model 1. We then incorporated religious afliation (mainline Protestant, Catholic, other faith, and no religious afliation) into Model 2. Models 3 through 7 introduce a sequence of mediators. Model 3 includes church attendance, followed by biblical literalism in Model 4. In Model 5, social contamination was included. Moral privatism was introduced in Model 6, followed by the measure of the morality of homosexuality. In order to determine the appropriate method of analysis, a test of parallel lines was preformed on all of the models. At no time was the test signicant, thus indicating that ordinal logistic regression was the appropriate statistical method rather than multinomial logistic regression (Borooah 2002). Results Mean Comparisons Focusing on the adjusted means, both mainline Protestants and those with no religious afliation report signicantly lower levels of church attendance compared to conservative Protestants. With regard to biblical literalism, conservative Protestants report higher levels than all other categories. Members of conservative Protestant denominations also differ from mainline Protestants, Catholics, and those with no religious afliation on our measure of social contamination. Once sociodemographic characteristics are accounted for, conservative Protestants differ only from those with no religious afliation on our measure of moral privatism. Conservative Protestants report signicantly higher levels of moral objection to homosexuality and signicantly lower levels of tolerance as compared to all other categories of religious afliation. Multivariate Analysis Table 3 presents cumulative odds ratios for a series of ordered logistic regression models. Model 1 contains the demographic controls thought to impact the granting of civil liberties, based on previous research. Consistent with previous ndings (Loftus 2001; Wills and Crawford 2000; Yang 1997), those who are younger, female, politically liberal, and more educated have higher levels of tolerance toward gay men than those who are older, male, politically conservative, and less educated. Also in accordance with earlier literature (Ellison and Musick 1993), those respondents who are native southerners are less willing to grant civil liberties to homosexuals than those native to other parts of the United States.

188 AMY M. BURDETTE, CHRISTOPHER G. ELLISON, AND TERRENCE D. HILL

Table 2 Unadjusted and Adjusted Means Comparing Religious Afliations on Key Variablesa Conservative Protestants Unadjusted means Church attendance Biblical literalism Social contamination Moral privatism Moral objection to homosexuality Tolerance toward homosexuals Adjusted meansb Church attendance Biblical literalism Social contamination Moral privatism Moral objection to homosexuality Tolerance toward homosexuals
a

Mainline Protestants

Catholic

Other Faiths

No Afliation

4.565 .622 2.798 2.042 3.805 1.431 4.513 .549*** 2.761 2.070 3.629 1.649

3.648*** .239*** 2.460*** 2.028 3.333*** 2.028*** 3.525*** .254*** 2.439** 1.974 3.380* 1.986**

4.136 .209*** 2.511** 2.030 3.396*** 2.094*** 4.215 .206*** 2.500* 2.014 3.429* 2.081***

4.105 .307*** 2.614 2.070 3.272*** 2.132*** 4.129 .203*** 2.223 1.694 2.763* 2.389*

.588*** .118*** 2.118*** 1.627** 2.569*** 2.549*** .943*** .358*** 2.675** 2.053* 3.377*** 1.936***

Asterisks (*) indicate differences from conservative Protestants. Controlling for education, age, race, gender, political views, rural residence, and southern native. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
b

CONSERVATIVE PROTESTANTISM AND TOLERANCE TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 189

Also consistent with previous research, conservative Protestants are less tolerant than mainline Protestants, Catholics, and those with no religious afliation (H1). As shown in Model 2, those with no religious afliation exhibit an increase in the cumulative odds of tolerance that is over four times that of conservative Protestants. In support of our second hypothesis (H2), we nd that church attendance helps to explain some of the effect of conservative Protestantism on tolerance toward homosexuals. In fact, church attendance helps to explain 16 percent of the variance between conservative Protestants and mainline Protestants and 22 percent of the variance between conservative Protestants and those with no religious afliation.3 According to Model 3, church attendance does little to explain the difference between conservative Protestants and Catholics. Moving on to Model 4, we nd that biblical literalism is associated with about a 70 percent reduction in the cumulative odds of tolerance toward homosexuals. In support of our third hypothesis (H3), we nd that biblical literalism also helps to explain the effect of conservative Protestantism. More specically, biblical literalism accounts for an additional 58 percent of the difference between conservative Protestants and mainline Protestants (a total of 74 percent from Model 2) and 17 percent of the difference between conservative Protestants and those with no religious afliation (a total of 39 percent from Model 2). Whereas church attendance accounted for only a trivial portion of the difference between conservative Protestants and Catholics, biblical literalism helps to explain approximately 50 percent of the difference (a total of 52 percent from Model 2). Although church attendance is initially related to lower levels of tolerance toward homosexuals (Model 3), this effect is entirely mediated by the introduction of biblical literalism in Model 4. With the addition of social contamination in Model 5, we nd that those who believe that the actions of an individual can contaminate society in general are less tolerant of homosexuals than those who believe otherwise. In support for our fourth hypothesis (H4), we nd that social contamination helps to explain an additional 10 percent of the difference between conservative Protestants and mainline Protestants (a total of 84 percent from Model 2). It should also be noted that social contamination does little to explain the differences between conservative Protestants and Catholics and those who report no religious afliation. Model 6 adds moral privatism to the regression equation. As one would expect, moral privatism is a signicant predictor of tolerance. However, we nd no support for our fth hypothesis (H5). That is, whether or not people agree that morality is a personal matter does little to explain the effect of conservative Protestantism on tolerance toward homosexuals. Model 7 tests whether attitudes concerning the morality of homosexuality mediate the effect of conservative Protestantism on tolerance toward homosexuals (H6). We nd that attitudes concerning the morality of homosexuality

190 AMY M. BURDETTE, CHRISTOPHER G. ELLISON, AND TERRENCE D. HILL

help to explain an additional 6 percent of the difference between conservative Protestants and mainline Protestants (a total of 90 percent from Model 2) and 5 percent of the difference between conservative Protestants and those with no religious afliation (a total of 48 percent from Model 2). To summarize, the results of our multivariate analysis suggest several important points. First, conservative Protestants tend to be less tolerant of homosexuals than mainline Protestants, Catholics, and those with no religious afliation. Second, church attendance helps to explain differences between conservative Protestants and mainline Protestants and those with no religious afliation, but not Catholics. Third, biblical literalism is by far the most inuential mediator included in these analyses, accounting for over half of the difference between conservative Protestants and mainline Protestants and Catholics, and nearly 20 percent of the difference between conservative Protestants and those with no religious afliation. It should be stressed that the effects for biblical literalism are over and above the signicant mediating inuence of church attendance. Fourth, social contamination helps to explain differences between conservative Protestants and mainline Protestants, but not Catholics or those with no religious afliation. Fifth, moral privatism does not help to explain why conservative Protestants tend to be less tolerant of homosexuals than other Americans. Sixth, attitudes concerning the morality of homosexuality help to explain a small portion of the difference between conservative Protestants and mainline Protestants and those with no religious afliation, but not Catholics. Finally, the constellation of mediators proposed and tested in this paper account for an astounding 90 percent of the difference between conservative Protestants and mainline Protestants, 55 percent of the difference between conservative Protestants and Catholics, and 48 percent of the difference between conservative Protestants and those with no religious afliation. Discussion and Conclusion Although popular television shows (e.g., Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, Will and Grace) reect a growing acceptance of gay men in mainstream American culture, recent trends in attitudes toward gay marriage reect a resistance among Americans to grant gays and lesbians full access to civil liberties (USA Today, July 1, 2003). Recent debates within the Episcopal Church over the approval of the rst gay bishop reveal that even among more liberal Protestants, debates over homosexuality continue. Although other Protestant denominations have struggled with the place of gays and lesbians within the church, the most consistent opposition to homosexuals has come from conservative Protestant denominations. Conservative Protestant attitudes about granting basic civil liberties to gays reect more than a simple moral objection to homosexual behavior, but an opposition to the role that homosexuals play in society.

Table 3 Odds Ratios for Ordered Logistic Regression of Tolerance toward Homosexuals on Selected Predictors
CONSERVATIVE PROTESTANTISM AND TOLERANCE TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 191

Model 1 Education Age Black Other race Female Political views Rural residence Native southerner Mainline Protestant Catholic Other Faith No Religious Afliation Church attendance Biblical literalism Social contamination Moral privatism Moral objection to homosexuality Cutpoint 1 Cutpoint 2 Cutpoint 3 N Likelihood Ratio 1.264*** .983*** 1.005 .370** 1.336* .823*** .684* .450***

Model 2 1.266*** .983*** 1.299 .388** 1.503** .862** .713 .590** 1.780** 2.322*** 1.379 4.403***

Model 3 1.282*** .984*** 1.362 .367** 1.551** .886* .738 .588*** 1.621* 2.279*** 1.403 3.153*** .910***

Model 4 1.234*** .981*** 1.249 .329** 1.699*** .915 .690* .621** 1.162 1.494 1.132 2.456** .947 .296***

Model 5 1.225*** .981*** 1.164 .303** 1.708*** .923 .687* .633** 1.096 1.468 1.150 2.315* .954 .326*** .727***

Model 6 1.235*** .982*** 1.157 .300** 1.699*** .930 .683* .624** 1.100 1.469 1.151 2.329* .966 .335*** .740*** .837*

Model 7 1.205*** .984*** 1.321 .272*** 1.564** .985 .663* .649** 1.061 1.460 1.140 2.146* .980 .391*** .769*** .854* .503*** 2.731 2.987 1.894 848 398.461

.261 .385 1.312 848 22.991

.613 1.277 2.232 848 253.750

.526 1.198 2.164 848 264.825

.460 .254 1.275 848 320.442

1.325 .595 .448 848 340.384

1.437 .701 .349 848 345.674

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

192 AMY M. BURDETTE, CHRISTOPHER G. ELLISON, AND TERRENCE D. HILL

Several scholars (e.g., Hunter 1984; Smith 2000) have asserted that conservative Protestants are not intolerant toward controversial groups like gays and lesbians; however, our ndings suggest otherwise. It appears that even when negative feelings toward homosexuality are taken into account, conservative Protestant groups are indeed less willing grant basic civil liberties. These ndings highlight the validity of distinguishing, both theoretically and empirically, between aversion to the behavior of certain groups and intolerance. It appears that conservative Protestants are more comfortable than other Americans with denying gays and lesbians even basic civil liberties such as freedom of speech. As debates rage over gay marriage, it is notable that a sizable contingent exists that would prefer to restrict homosexuals from even basic participation in American society. It is also important to note that higher rates of intolerance do not exist solely among religious elites, or among religious extremists, but are present among conservative Protestant laypersons. These ndings serve as a chilling reminder to variations in allegiance to the marketplace of ideas, a fundamental tenet of American democracy. It may be that the moral absolutism endorsed by some religious communities presents an irresolvable conict with democratic values. If an individual believes that he or she already has access to moral truths (i.e., biblical texts), there is little to be gained, and perhaps much to be lost, by greater exposure to controversial outsiders. This is particularly true when these outside groups are viewed as a threat to traditional American values. Those who see gays and lesbians as a danger to Americas legitimacy as part of Gods plan, may have no qualms about restricting the rights of these individuals. Therefore, it appears that the combination of endorsing a literal interpretation of the Bible and perceiving certain individuals as social contaminates explains increased rates of intolerance among conservative Protestants toward gays and lesbians, compared to others. As noted by Gay, Ellison, and Powers (1996) conservative Protestants constitute a diverse, internally heterogeneous population. Depictions of this group as a cultural or political monolith have done a grave disservice to our understanding of the impact of conservative Protestant afliation on family issues, including homosexuality. Not all conservative Protestants are intolerant toward homosexuals. In fact, both scholarly and journalistic accounts show that debates over homosexuality are taking place within conservative Protestant churches, despite the recent focus on debates within mainline Protestant denominations (Hartman 1996; White and White 2003). Individuals who are most receptive to alarmists messages concerning the gay agenda and its potential threat to American society seem to be most willing to restrict the civil liberties of homosexuals. In addition, those most active within the conservative Protestant community, as demonstrated by certain interpretations of the Bible as well as high levels of church attendance, appear to

CONSERVATIVE PROTESTANTISM AND TOLERANCE TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 193

be most willing to restrict the civil liberties of homosexuals. Opposition to homosexuality may be solidied through interpretive communities, guided by pastors and other religious elites. Therefore, having a literal interpretation of the Bible does not just imply following the word itself, but is also code for holding certain social and moral values established within the group. There are several limitations of these data that should be addressed. While the General Social Survey may provide the best measures for examining the relationship between religious afliation and tolerance of gay men, it does have certain restrictions. The rst limitation of these data is related to the time period during which they were collected. As noted previously, these data come from the 1988 version of the GSS, for which there were additional questions asked concerning religious beliefs and practices. Although these questions provided the necessary information for this research, the 1980s were marked by a sharp increase in religiously conservative beliefs that led to more negative attitudes toward homosexuality, and a decrease in tolerance of gays and lesbians (Loftus 2001; Yang 1997). Additionally, it was during the 1980s that AIDS rst came to the attention of many Americans. As AIDS was rst largely seen as a disease of gay men, it has no doubt had an impact on the attitudes of respondents questioned during this time period. As Le Poire, Sigelman, Sigelman, and Kenski (1990) note, born-again Christians appeared to be particularly fearful of those with AIDS, being more likely than others to favor a quarantine of those with the disease. Ancillary analysis (not shown) was conducted using data from the 2002 General Social Survey on variables used in this research, with the exceptions of items only asked in 1988 (i.e., moral privatism, social contamination). Consistent with previous research (Loftus 2001; Peterson and Donnenwerth 1998) there was a liberalizing trend in granting civil liberties to gay men. However, conservative Protestants afliation, biblical literalism, and church attendance remain consistently related to intolerance of gay men. Second, future research should investigate conservative Protestant denominational variation in order to fully understand the roles of social contamination and moral privatism in predicting tolerance of gay men. Although a few studies (Beatty and Walter 1984; Wilcox and Jelen 1990) have examined denominational variation in relation to overall tolerance, there is a lack of research on the role of specic religious beliefs. Although the GSS does provide detailed information on denominational afliation, sample size restrictions prevented a more specic investigation. Despite the limitations of the data, this research provides insight into the complex relationship between religious afliation and tolerance of homosexuals. As scholars have noted, religion plays an important role in the lives of many gays and lesbians. According to one study, gay men in particular are more

194 AMY M. BURDETTE, CHRISTOPHER G. ELLISON, AND TERRENCE D. HILL

devoted religious participants than male heterosexuals, displaying religious involvement rates similar to female heterosexuals (Sherkat 2002). Therefore, it is important to investigate ways in which religion can be employed to encourage solidarity, rather than exclusion, in this critical area of social justice.

ENDNOTES

*An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2003 annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, Atlanta, GA. Direct correspondence to: Amy Burdette, Department of Sociology, The University of Texas, 1 University Station A1700, Austin, TX 78712-0118. Email: burdamy@prc.utexas.edu. 1 It should be noted that several biblical scholars and historians argue that the story of Sodom is chiey concerned with the sin of inhospitable treatment of visitors sent from the Lord (Boswell 1980). 2 Controls for marital status and whether or not the respondent had children were originally included in the models. Because these controls were insignicant and further reduced the overall sample size, these variables were not included in these analyses. 3 In our examination of potential mediators, we use original regression coefcients (the natural log of the odds ratios provided in Table 3) to compute the change in the effect of religious afliation from Model 2. For example, the effect of mainline Protestants versus conservative Protestants in Model 2 is .577 (ln 1.780). In Model 3, the corresponding effect is reduced to .483 (ln 1.621) with the introduction of church attendance. This is a 16 percent reduction [(.577.483)/.577] in the difference between mainline Protestants and conservative Protestants. This implies that 16 percent of the difference in attitudes between mainline Protestants and conservative Protestants may be accounted for by church attendance.

REFERENCES

Beatty, Kathleen Murphy and Oliver Walter. 1984. Religious Preference and Practice: Reevaluating Their Impact on Political Tolerance. Public Opinion Quarterly 48:31819. Bellah, Robert. 1975. The Broken Covenant: American Civil Religion in Time of Trial. New York: Seabury Press. Bobo, Lawrence and Fredrick C. Licari. 1989. Education and Political Tolerance: Testing the Effects of Cognitive Sophistication and Target Group Affect. Public Opinion Quarterly 53: 285308. Boone, Kathleen C. 1989. For the Bible Tells Them So: The Discourse of Fundamentalism. Albany: State University of New York Press. Borooah, Vani K. 2002. Logit and Probit: Ordered and Multinomial Models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Boswell, John. 1980. Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

CONSERVATIVE PROTESTANTISM AND TOLERANCE TOWARD HOMOSEXUALS 195 Dobson, James. 2000. Complete Marriage and Family Home Reference Guide. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers. Ellison, Christopher G., John P. Bartkowski, and Michelle L. Segal. 1996. Conservative Protestantism and the Parental Use of Corporal Punishment. Social Forces 74:100328. Ellison, Christopher G. and Marc Musick. 1993. Southern Intolerance: A Fundamentalist Effect? Social Forces 72:37998. Falwell, Jerry. 1980. Listen America! Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Gay, David A., Christopher G. Ellison, and Daniel. A. Powers, 1996. In Search of Denominational Subcultures: Religious Afliation and Pro-Family Issues Revisited. Review of Religious Research 38:317. Green, Donald Philip and Lisa Michele Waxman. 1987. Direct Threat and Political Tolerance: An Experimental Analysis of the Tolerance of Blacks toward Racists. Public Opinion Quarterly 51:14965. Hartman, Keith. 1996. Congregations in Conict: The Battle over Homosexuality. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Hunter, James Davis. 1987. Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. . 1984. Religion and Political Civility: The Coming Generation of American Evangelicals. Journal for the Scientic Study of Religion 23:36480. Le Poire, Beth A., Carol K. Sigelman, Lee Sigelman, and Henry C. Kenski. 1990. Who Wants to Quarantine Persons with AIDS? Patterns of Support for Californias Proposition 64. Social Science Quarterly 71:24049. Loftus, Jeni. 2001. Americas Liberalization in Attitudes toward Homosexuality, 1973 to 1998. American Sociological Review 66:76282. Peterson, Larry and Gregory Donnenwerth. 1998. Religion and Declining Support for Traditional Beliefs about Gender Roles and Homosexual Rights. Sociology of Religion 59:353 65. Regnerus, Mark D. and Christian Smith. 1998. Selective Deprivatization among American Religious Traditions: The Reversal of the Great Reversal [A]. Social Forces 76:134774. Reimer, Sam and Jerry Z. Park. 2001. Tolerance (In)civility? A Longitudinal Analysis of White Conservative Protestants Willingness to Grant Civil Liberties. Journal for the Scientic Study of Religion 40:73545. Rimmerman, Craig A., Kenneth D. Wald, and Clyde Wilcox. 2000. The Politics of Gay Rights. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Roof, Wade and William McKinney. 1987. American Mainline Religion. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Sherkat, Darren E. 2002. Sexuality and Religious Commitment in the United States: An Empirical Examination. Journal for the Scientic Study of Religion 41:31323. Sherkat, Darren E. and Christopher G. Ellison. 1997. The Cognitive Structure of a Moral Crusade: Conservative Protestantism and Opposition to Pornography. Social Forces 75:95780. Smith, Christian. 2000. Christian America? What Evangelicals Really Want. Berkeley: University of California Press. Stouffer, Samuel A. 1955. Communism, Conformity, and Civil Liberties. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Sullivan, John, George Marcus, Stanley Feldman, and James Piereson. 1982. The Sources of Political Tolerance: A Multivariate Analysis. The American Political Science Review 75:92 106. Sullivan, John L., James E. Piereson, and George E. Marcus. 1982. Political Tolerance and American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wald, Kenneth D. 1987. Religion and Politics in the United States. New York: St. Martins.

196 AMY M. BURDETTE, CHRISTOPHER G. ELLISON, AND TERRENCE D. HILL White, Daryl and O. Kendall White Jr. 2003. Issues of Homosexuality in Congregational and Denominational Realignment. Presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Sociology of Religion, Atlanta, GA. Wilcox, Clyde. 1996. Onward Christian Soldiers?: The Religious Right in American Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Wilcox, Clyde and Ted Jelen. 1990. Evangelicals and Political Tolerance. American Politics Quarterly 18:25 46. Wills, Georgia and Ryan Crawford. 2000. Attitudes toward Homosexuality in Shreveport-Bossier City, Louisiana. Journal of Homosexuality 38:97116. Wuthnow, Robert. 1988. The Restructuring of American Religion: Society and Faith since World War II. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Yang, Alan S. 1997. Attitudes toward Homosexuality. Public Opinion Quarterly 61:477507.