Same-Sex Marriage: Explicit Support Over Time 25 EY) I New York nade istans—| Connecticat | Massachusetts} ‘caltarnis—| vermont —| Nantans— Haas Penneyhvamla— New Jersey] ‘colorado Vichlgan Wissonsin—| uinals neeas Florida hasour | ‘Oregon Minnesota Azoas—] virginia] New exdco—| lowe ‘onbo— verse Kansas] Louslans— Alaska south Dawota—| wontena North Dakota indiana —| Norm Caroinga—] et Virginia ‘Sou Carolina Georgia] necrasts veyaring—] Tenness2e & Not Allowed, Not Allowed, Allowed, 2003-4 © Not Allowed, © Allowed 2008-6 Kentucky sano Arkansas] Misslesippi —| aAzoama—| oxancea—| uian kok a & od Figure 6: Same-Sex Marriage Opinion and Policy Over Time (Online Appendix oniy). Opinion is estimated using subsets of the poll data from the years indicated. States are ordered by opinion in 1994.6, Note that approximately as much change has occurred in the last four years (solid lines) as the previous eight (dashed lines) and that states with higher levels of early support changed the most. Policy is as of June 2009.Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions: Policy an 20 id Public Opinion in the Stat 20 45 s 5 tes Ey | Maaesacnusets— Rhode letand— Mew ork} vermont Connecticut—| New Jersey New Hampenire— Caltoria—} ware vessnington— Hawa celersao— Gregor Nevada waryana] ‘Arizona Delaware New Mexia incl Montana} Penneynaria—| Fong Mannescta—} oa aga] Wisconsin} Micnigan] ono kansas urgas nvdlana—] Missauct vyyoming—| West Virgria] South Dakota ‘Narn Daxeta—| Teas Nenrasa— ‘cearga] ‘Sout Caroina— idaha— Lousiana} Nort Carona Kentucky Temesses] ‘uianama— Miselssippl— Alscama—| a o ‘Same-sex marriage allowed ‘Same-sex marriage not allowed Civil unions allowed Cuil unions net allowed brae g Figure 5: Same-Sex Mar jage and Civil Unions & Policy and Public Opinion (Ont 1¢ Appendix only). Opinion is estimated using data from 1994-2008, weighted towards the most recent levels of sup- port. Policy is as of June 2009