Teoría actitudinal y la Ley defensa del matrimonio de 1996 : un análisis empírico del comportamiento de votación del Congreso

Esta investigación explora cómo los atributos personales de los miembros del Congreso influyeron el comportamiento de votación legislativo en la Ley de Defensa del Matrimonio en 1996 (DOMA). El autor usó el método estadístico Chi-cuadrado (χ2), y el coeficiente Phi (φ) para probar la relación entre...

Full description

Autores:

Tipo de recurso:

Fecha de publicación:: 2018

Institución:: Universidad del Rosario

Repositorio:: Repositorio EdocUR - U. Rosario

Idioma:: spa

id	EDOCUR2_2e4db683e08bd980afc8e489b1e40f1d
oai_identifier_str	oai:repository.urosario.edu.co:10336/18057
network_acronym_str	EDOCUR2
network_name_str	Repositorio EdocUR - U. Rosario
repository_id_str
dc.title.spa.fl_str_mv	Teoría actitudinal y la Ley defensa del matrimonio de 1996 : un análisis empírico del comportamiento de votación del Congreso
dc.title.alternative.eng.fl_str_mv	Estudio de caso : Ley de defensa del matrimonio de 1996
title	Teoría actitudinal y la Ley defensa del matrimonio de 1996 : un análisis empírico del comportamiento de votación del Congreso
spellingShingle	Teoría actitudinal y la Ley defensa del matrimonio de 1996 : un análisis empírico del comportamiento de votación del Congreso Teoría Actitudinal Comportamiento del Voto Legislativo DOMA Chi-cuadrado Coeficiente Phi Sistemas de gobierno & estados Attitudinal Theory Congressional Voting Behavior DOMA Chi-squared Phi Coefficient Estados Unidos::Congreso::Voto Actitud (Psicología) Matrimonio::Legislación
title_short	Teoría actitudinal y la Ley defensa del matrimonio de 1996 : un análisis empírico del comportamiento de votación del Congreso
title_full	Teoría actitudinal y la Ley defensa del matrimonio de 1996 : un análisis empírico del comportamiento de votación del Congreso
title_fullStr	Teoría actitudinal y la Ley defensa del matrimonio de 1996 : un análisis empírico del comportamiento de votación del Congreso
title_full_unstemmed	Teoría actitudinal y la Ley defensa del matrimonio de 1996 : un análisis empírico del comportamiento de votación del Congreso
title_sort	Teoría actitudinal y la Ley defensa del matrimonio de 1996 : un análisis empírico del comportamiento de votación del Congreso
dc.contributor.advisor.none.fl_str_mv	Basset, Yann
dc.subject.spa.fl_str_mv	Teoría Actitudinal Comportamiento del Voto Legislativo DOMA Chi-cuadrado Coeficiente Phi
topic	Teoría Actitudinal Comportamiento del Voto Legislativo DOMA Chi-cuadrado Coeficiente Phi Sistemas de gobierno & estados Attitudinal Theory Congressional Voting Behavior DOMA Chi-squared Phi Coefficient Estados Unidos::Congreso::Voto Actitud (Psicología) Matrimonio::Legislación
dc.subject.ddc.none.fl_str_mv	Sistemas de gobierno & estados
dc.subject.keyword.eng.fl_str_mv	Attitudinal Theory Congressional Voting Behavior DOMA Chi-squared Phi Coefficient
dc.subject.lemb.spa.fl_str_mv	Estados Unidos::Congreso::Voto Actitud (Psicología) Matrimonio::Legislación
description	Esta investigación explora cómo los atributos personales de los miembros del Congreso influyeron el comportamiento de votación legislativo en la Ley de Defensa del Matrimonio en 1996 (DOMA). El autor usó el método estadístico Chi-cuadrado (χ2), y el coeficiente Phi (φ) para probar la relación entre los atributos personales y el comportamiento legislativo en DOMA. Para esto se hizo uso de los puntajes de los miembros del 104 Congreso de los Estados Unidos registrados en la tabla DW-NOMINATIVE de Poole y Rosenthal. Los resultados indican que a pesar de tener una correlación moderada o débil los atributos personales importan, dado que factores tales como su partido político, su ideología, y su género son estadísticamente significantes para los legisladores a la hora de votar en función de políticas relacionadas con la conservación del matrimonio tradicional.
publishDate	2018
dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv	2018-06-08T16:50:46Z
dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv	2018-06-08T16:50:46Z
dc.date.created.none.fl_str_mv	2018-05-31
dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv	2018
dc.type.eng.fl_str_mv	bachelorThesis
dc.type.coar.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_7a1f
dc.type.spa.spa.fl_str_mv	Trabajo de grado
dc.identifier.doi.none.fl_str_mv	https://doi.org/10.48713/10336_18057
dc.identifier.uri.none.fl_str_mv	http://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/18057
url	https://doi.org/10.48713/10336_18057 http://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/18057
dc.language.iso.none.fl_str_mv	spa
language	spa
dc.rights.spa.fl_str_mv	Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 2.5 Colombia
dc.rights.coar.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.rights.acceso.spa.fl_str_mv	Abierto (Texto Completo)
dc.rights.uri.none.fl_str_mv	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/co/
rights_invalid_str_mv	Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 2.5 Colombia Abierto (Texto Completo) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/co/ http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.format.mimetype.none.fl_str_mv	application/pdf
dc.publisher.spa.fl_str_mv	Universidad del Rosario
dc.publisher.department.spa.fl_str_mv	Facultad de Ciencia Política y Gobierno
dc.publisher.program.spa.fl_str_mv	Ciencia Política y Gobierno
institution	Universidad del Rosario
dc.source.bibliographicCitation.none.fl_str_mv	Ayers, E. L., Gould, L. L., Oshinsky, D. M., & Soderlund, J. R. (2000). American Passages: A History of the United States. Orlando, FL: Harcourt, Inc. Ceaser, J. W., & Busch, A. E. (1997). Loosing to Win: The 1996 Elections and American Politics. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Guillon, S. M., & Matson, C. D. (2006). The American Experiment: A history of the United States. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Norton, M. B., Katzman, D. M., & Blight, D. W. (2007). A People and a Nation: A History of the United States. New York: Houghtin Mifflin. Presidential Elections 1789-2000. (2002). Washington D.C.: Congressional Quaterly James Q. Wilson & John J. DiIulio, J. (1998). American Government. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. (20-60) Ansolabehere, S., Jr., A. M., & III, a. C. (2001). The Effects of Party and Preferences on Congressional Roll-Call Voting. Legislative Studies Quaterly, Vol. 26 Issue 4, p533-572. 40p. 57 Diagrams, 9 C. Bender, B. (July 1991). The Influence of Ideology on Congressional Voting. Economic Inquiry, Vol. 29, Issue 3, p. 416. Bergan, D., & Cole, a. R. (2015). Call Your Legislator: A Field Experimental Study of the Impact of a Constituency Mobilization Campaign on Legislative Voting. Poltical Behavior, Vol. 37 Issue 1, p27-42. 16p. 6 Charts, 1 Graph. Clark, J. H., & Williams, a. L. (2014). Parties, Term Limits, and Representation in the U.S. States. American Politics Research, Vol. 42 Issue 1, p171-193. Frederick, B. (2010). Gender and Patterns of Roll Call Voting in the U.S. Senate. Congress & The Presidency, Vol. 37 Issue 2, p103-124. Frederick, B. (2011). Gender Turnover and Roll Call Voting in the U.S. Senate. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, Vol. 32 Issue 3, p193-210. Griffin, J. D. (2008). Measuring Legislator Ideology. Social Science Quarterly; , V. 89, iss. 2, pp. 337-50. Halcoussis, D., & Lowenerg, a. A. (2015). All In: An Empirical Analysis of Legislative Voting on Internet Gambling Restrictions in the United States. Contemporary Economic Policy, v. 33, iss. 1, pp. 17-28. Hogan, R. E. (2008). Sex and the Statehouse: The Effects of Gender on Legislative Roll-Call Voting. Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 89 Issue 4, p955-968. 14p. 2 Charts. Iaryczower, M., & Katz, G. (March 2016). What does it take for Congress to enact Good Policies? An Analysis of Roll Call voting in the US. Congress. Economics and Politics, v. 28; iss. 1, pp. 79-104. Jenkins, J. A. (1999). Examining the bonding effects of party: A comparative analysis of roll-call voting in the U.S. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 43 Issue 4, p1144. 22p. 3 Charts, 2 Graphs. Jenkins, S. (2008). Gendered Choices? Examining the Differences Roll Call Voting for Female and Male Legislators. Conference Papers -- Western Political Science Association, 26-27. Jenkins, S. (2008). Party Influence on Roll Call Voting: A View from the U.S. States. State Politics & Policy Quaterly, Vol.8.Issue 3, p 239-262. Jenkins, S. (Social Science Quarterly). How Gender Influences Roll Call Voting. 2012: Vol. 93 Issue 2, p415-433. 19p. 1 Diagram, 2 Charts. Levitt, S. D. (1996). How Do Senators Vote? Disentangling the Role of Voter Preferences, Party Affiliation, and Senator Ideology . American Economic Review, Vol. 86 Issue 3, p425-441. 17p. 6 Charts. Rocca, M. S., Sanchez, a. G., & Uscinski, a. J. (2008). Personal Attributes and Latino Voting Behavior in Congress. Social Science Quarterly, V. 89, iss. 2, pp. 392-405. Schnakenberg, K. E. (2017). Informational Lobbying and Legislative Voting. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 61 Issue 1, p129-145. 17p. 2 Charts. C-SPAN. (1996, 07 12). Retrieved 01 11, 2018, from https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4395751/house-debate-doma abcNEWS. (2012, 12 06). Retrieved 01 09, 2018, from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/congress-evolves-doma-sex-marriage/story?id=17888075 ThinkProgress. (2013, 03 06). Retrieved 01 09, 2018, from https://thinkprogress.org/21-senators-who-voted-for-doma-in-1996-but-later-opposed-it-d178316e0af/ abcNews. (2015, 03 15). Retrieved 01 09, 2018, from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/high-profile-politicians-changed-positions-gay-marriage/story?id=18740293 Gallup. (2016, May 19). Retrieved April 21, 2018, from http://news.gallup.com/poll/191645/americans-support-gay-marriage-remains-high.aspx Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 8, 2017, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ideology .Congress.gov. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 10, 2017, from http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xml Cornell Law School. (n.d.). Retrieved 01 07, 2018, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutiny Democrats.com. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 12, 2017, from https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#our-values GOP.com. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 12, 2017, from https://www.gop.com/ Gordon, S. B., & Gillham, C. (2004). Party Pressure and Legislative Voting on the Contract with America. Conference Papers -Midwest Politcal Science Association, 1-19. Government Publishing Office. (n.d.). Retrieved 01 07, 2017, from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-104hrpt664/pdf/CRPT-104hrpt664.pdf Govtrack. (n.d.). Retrieved 10 17, 2017, from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/104/hr3396/summary Hawaii.gov. (n.d.). Retrieved 01 07, 2018, from https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0572/HRS_0572-0001.htm Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Retrieved 01 02, 2018, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion Monroe, A. D. (2000). Essentials of Political Research. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. National Archives. (n.d.). Retrieved 01 08, 2018, from https://www.archives.gov/espanol/constitucion.html Out History. (n.d.). Retrieved April 18, 2018, from http://outhistory.org/exhibits/show/out-and-elected/1996/jim-kolbe Religious Tolerance. (n.d.). Retrieved April 21, 2018, from http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_poll5e.htm The American Conservative Union. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 13, 2017, from http://acuratings.conservative.org/acu-federal-legislative-ratings/?year1=1996&chamber=11&state1=0&sortable=1 The New Yorker. (n.d.). Retrieved 01 09, 2018, from https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-bill-clinton-signed-the-defense-of-marriage-act United States Senate. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 10, 2017, from https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00280 Voteview.com. (n.d.). Retrieved 01 04, 2018, from https://voteview.com/congress/senate Wilson, W. (n.d.). IzQuotes.com. Retrieved 11 9, 2017, from https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=wFbnJb%2Fd&id=F30D4B20FEB6C186C0AACAE27475852A0B529070&thid=OIP.wFbnJb_depDMBhB4IQuUVwEsCN&mediaurl=http%3A%2F%2Fizquotes.com%2Fquotes-pictures%2Fquote-congress-in-session-is-congress-on-public-exhibit
dc.source.instname.spa.fl_str_mv	instname:Universidad del Rosario
dc.source.reponame.spa.fl_str_mv	reponame:Repositorio Institucional EdocUR
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv	https://repository.urosario.edu.co/bitstreams/743af952-91be-4c79-8529-8506a7c20fb2/download https://repository.urosario.edu.co/bitstreams/08e70ea8-415b-4675-aa1b-210ba03fc367/download https://repository.urosario.edu.co/bitstreams/3f660c4c-9c5f-467b-8762-56d3e1203802/download https://repository.urosario.edu.co/bitstreams/02649b42-2a95-4c93-83d7-449a17c09e7c/download https://repository.urosario.edu.co/bitstreams/30f9b4b3-dcba-4c40-ba9b-2c50ffa8dbbd/download
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv	d46be6742a45f3649c511733e1e1d2ba fab9d9ed61d64f6ac005dee3306ae77e 9f5eb859bd5c30bc88515135ce7ba417 048f2ca66642f4fc64fb1f0e9c123172 3633f38abd1f6f804c6480610f30a3ca
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv	MD5 MD5 MD5 MD5 MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv	Repositorio institucional EdocUR
repository.mail.fl_str_mv	edocur@urosario.edu.co
_version_	1814167549532700672
spelling	Basset, Yann1010249990600Roldan Hernandez, Camila AlejandraPolitólogo – Profesional en Ciencia Política y Gobiernoe54d80ef-4091-4781-a18a-469f9ce06f1d6002018-06-08T16:50:46Z2018-06-08T16:50:46Z2018-05-312018Esta investigación explora cómo los atributos personales de los miembros del Congreso influyeron el comportamiento de votación legislativo en la Ley de Defensa del Matrimonio en 1996 (DOMA). El autor usó el método estadístico Chi-cuadrado (χ2), y el coeficiente Phi (φ) para probar la relación entre los atributos personales y el comportamiento legislativo en DOMA. Para esto se hizo uso de los puntajes de los miembros del 104 Congreso de los Estados Unidos registrados en la tabla DW-NOMINATIVE de Poole y Rosenthal. Los resultados indican que a pesar de tener una correlación moderada o débil los atributos personales importan, dado que factores tales como su partido político, su ideología, y su género son estadísticamente significantes para los legisladores a la hora de votar en función de políticas relacionadas con la conservación del matrimonio tradicional.This research explores the extent to which personal attributes influenced the voting behavior of the members of Congress on the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 (DOMA). The author tested the relationship between legislators’ personal attributes and the way legislators voted on the law by using the Poole and Rosenthal’s DW-NOMINATIVE scores for the 104 Congress of the United States on the statistical method of Chi-squared (χ2), and the Phi (φ) coefficient of correlation. The results suggested that even though the strength of the correlation is moderate or weak, the personal attributes matter; since factors such as political party, ideology, and gender are statistically significant for legislators when they have to vote for or against politics that defend and preserve the traditional marriage.application/pdfhttps://doi.org/10.48713/10336_18057 http://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/18057spaUniversidad del RosarioFacultad de Ciencia Política y GobiernoCiencia Política y GobiernoAtribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 2.5 ColombiaAbierto (Texto Completo)EL AUTOR, manifiesta que la obra objeto de la presente autorización es original y la realizó sin violar o usurpar derechos de autor de terceros, por lo tanto la obra es de exclusiva autoría y tiene la titularidad sobre la misma. PARGRAFO: En caso de presentarse cualquier reclamación o acción por parte de un tercero en cuanto a los derechos de autor sobre la obra en cuestión, EL AUTOR, asumirá toda la responsabilidad, y saldrá en defensa de los derechos aquí autorizados; para todos los efectos la universidad actúa como un tercero de buena fe. EL AUTOR, autoriza a LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO, para que en los términos establecidos en la Ley 23 de 1982, Ley 44 de 1993, Decisión andina 351 de 1993, Decreto 460 de 1995 y demás normas generales sobre la materia, utilice y use la obra objeto de la presente autorización. -------------------------------------- POLITICA DE TRATAMIENTO DE DATOS PERSONALES. Declaro que autorizo previa y de forma informada el tratamiento de mis datos personales por parte de LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO para fines académicos y en aplicación de convenios con terceros o servicios conexos con actividades propias de la academia, con estricto cumplimiento de los principios de ley. Para el correcto ejercicio de mi derecho de habeas data cuento con la cuenta de correo habeasdata@urosario.edu.co, donde previa identificación podré solicitar la consulta, corrección y supresión de mis datos.http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/co/http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2Ayers, E. L., Gould, L. L., Oshinsky, D. M., & Soderlund, J. R. (2000). American Passages: A History of the United States. Orlando, FL: Harcourt, Inc.Ceaser, J. W., & Busch, A. E. (1997). Loosing to Win: The 1996 Elections and American Politics. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Guillon, S. M., & Matson, C. D. (2006). The American Experiment: A history of the United States. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Norton, M. B., Katzman, D. M., & Blight, D. W. (2007). A People and a Nation: A History of the United States. New York: Houghtin Mifflin.Presidential Elections 1789-2000. (2002). Washington D.C.: Congressional QuaterlyJames Q. Wilson & John J. DiIulio, J. (1998). American Government. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. (20-60)Ansolabehere, S., Jr., A. M., & III, a. C. (2001). The Effects of Party and Preferences on Congressional Roll-Call Voting. Legislative Studies Quaterly, Vol. 26 Issue 4, p533-572. 40p. 57 Diagrams, 9 C.Bender, B. (July 1991). The Influence of Ideology on Congressional Voting. Economic Inquiry, Vol. 29, Issue 3, p. 416.Bergan, D., & Cole, a. R. (2015). Call Your Legislator: A Field Experimental Study of the Impact of a Constituency Mobilization Campaign on Legislative Voting. Poltical Behavior, Vol. 37 Issue 1, p27-42. 16p. 6 Charts, 1 Graph.Clark, J. H., & Williams, a. L. (2014). Parties, Term Limits, and Representation in the U.S. States. American Politics Research, Vol. 42 Issue 1, p171-193.Frederick, B. (2010). Gender and Patterns of Roll Call Voting in the U.S. Senate. Congress & The Presidency, Vol. 37 Issue 2, p103-124.Frederick, B. (2011). Gender Turnover and Roll Call Voting in the U.S. Senate. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, Vol. 32 Issue 3, p193-210.Griffin, J. D. (2008). Measuring Legislator Ideology. Social Science Quarterly; , V. 89, iss. 2, pp. 337-50.Halcoussis, D., & Lowenerg, a. A. (2015). All In: An Empirical Analysis of Legislative Voting on Internet Gambling Restrictions in the United States. Contemporary Economic Policy, v. 33, iss. 1, pp. 17-28.Hogan, R. E. (2008). Sex and the Statehouse: The Effects of Gender on Legislative Roll-Call Voting. Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 89 Issue 4, p955-968. 14p. 2 Charts.Iaryczower, M., & Katz, G. (March 2016). What does it take for Congress to enact Good Policies? An Analysis of Roll Call voting in the US. Congress. Economics and Politics, v. 28; iss. 1, pp. 79-104.Jenkins, J. A. (1999). Examining the bonding effects of party: A comparative analysis of roll-call voting in the U.S. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 43 Issue 4, p1144. 22p. 3 Charts, 2 Graphs.Jenkins, S. (2008). Gendered Choices? Examining the Differences Roll Call Voting for Female and Male Legislators. Conference Papers -- Western Political Science Association, 26-27.Jenkins, S. (2008). Party Influence on Roll Call Voting: A View from the U.S. States. State Politics & Policy Quaterly, Vol.8.Issue 3, p 239-262.Jenkins, S. (Social Science Quarterly). How Gender Influences Roll Call Voting. 2012: Vol. 93 Issue 2, p415-433. 19p. 1 Diagram, 2 Charts.Levitt, S. D. (1996). How Do Senators Vote? Disentangling the Role of Voter Preferences, Party Affiliation, and Senator Ideology . American Economic Review, Vol. 86 Issue 3, p425-441. 17p. 6 Charts.Rocca, M. S., Sanchez, a. G., & Uscinski, a. J. (2008). Personal Attributes and Latino Voting Behavior in Congress. Social Science Quarterly, V. 89, iss. 2, pp. 392-405.Schnakenberg, K. E. (2017). Informational Lobbying and Legislative Voting. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 61 Issue 1, p129-145. 17p. 2 Charts.C-SPAN. (1996, 07 12). Retrieved 01 11, 2018, from https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4395751/house-debate-domaabcNEWS. (2012, 12 06). Retrieved 01 09, 2018, from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/congress-evolves-doma-sex-marriage/story?id=17888075ThinkProgress. (2013, 03 06). Retrieved 01 09, 2018, from https://thinkprogress.org/21-senators-who-voted-for-doma-in-1996-but-later-opposed-it-d178316e0af/abcNews. (2015, 03 15). Retrieved 01 09, 2018, from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/high-profile-politicians-changed-positions-gay-marriage/story?id=18740293Gallup. (2016, May 19). Retrieved April 21, 2018, from http://news.gallup.com/poll/191645/americans-support-gay-marriage-remains-high.aspxCambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 8, 2017, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ideology.Congress.gov. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 10, 2017, from http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xmlCornell Law School. (n.d.). Retrieved 01 07, 2018, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutinyDemocrats.com. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 12, 2017, from https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#our-valuesGOP.com. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 12, 2017, from https://www.gop.com/Gordon, S. B., & Gillham, C. (2004). Party Pressure and Legislative Voting on the Contract with America. Conference Papers -Midwest Politcal Science Association, 1-19.Government Publishing Office. (n.d.). Retrieved 01 07, 2017, from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-104hrpt664/pdf/CRPT-104hrpt664.pdfGovtrack. (n.d.). Retrieved 10 17, 2017, from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/104/hr3396/summaryHawaii.gov. (n.d.). Retrieved 01 07, 2018, from https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0572/HRS_0572-0001.htmMerriam-Webster. (n.d.). Retrieved 01 02, 2018, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religionMonroe, A. D. (2000). Essentials of Political Research. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.National Archives. (n.d.). Retrieved 01 08, 2018, from https://www.archives.gov/espanol/constitucion.htmlOut History. (n.d.). Retrieved April 18, 2018, from http://outhistory.org/exhibits/show/out-and-elected/1996/jim-kolbeReligious Tolerance. (n.d.). Retrieved April 21, 2018, from http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_poll5e.htmThe American Conservative Union. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 13, 2017, from http://acuratings.conservative.org/acu-federal-legislative-ratings/?year1=1996&chamber=11&state1=0&sortable=1The New Yorker. (n.d.). Retrieved 01 09, 2018, from https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-bill-clinton-signed-the-defense-of-marriage-actUnited States Senate. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 10, 2017, from https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00280Voteview.com. (n.d.). Retrieved 01 04, 2018, from https://voteview.com/congress/senateWilson, W. (n.d.). IzQuotes.com. Retrieved 11 9, 2017, from https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=wFbnJb%2Fd&id=F30D4B20FEB6C186C0AACAE27475852A0B529070&thid=OIP.wFbnJb_depDMBhB4IQuUVwEsCN&mediaurl=http%3A%2F%2Fizquotes.com%2Fquotes-pictures%2Fquote-congress-in-session-is-congress-on-public-exhibitinstname:Universidad del Rosarioreponame:Repositorio Institucional EdocURTeoría ActitudinalComportamiento del Voto LegislativoDOMAChi-cuadradoCoeficiente PhiSistemas de gobierno & estados321600Attitudinal TheoryCongressional Voting BehaviorDOMAChi-squaredPhi CoefficientEstados Unidos::Congreso::VotoActitud (Psicología)Matrimonio::LegislaciónTeoría actitudinal y la Ley defensa del matrimonio de 1996 : un análisis empírico del comportamiento de votación del CongresoEstudio de caso : Ley de defensa del matrimonio de 1996bachelorThesisTrabajo de gradohttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_7a1fORIGINALRoldanHernandez-CamilaAlejandra-2018-1.pdfRoldanHernandez-CamilaAlejandra-2018-1.pdfArtículo principalapplication/pdf774311https://repository.urosario.edu.co/bitstreams/743af952-91be-4c79-8529-8506a7c20fb2/downloadd46be6742a45f3649c511733e1e1d2baMD51LICENSElicense.txtlicense.txttext/plain1475https://repository.urosario.edu.co/bitstreams/08e70ea8-415b-4675-aa1b-210ba03fc367/downloadfab9d9ed61d64f6ac005dee3306ae77eMD52CC-LICENSElicense_rdflicense_rdfapplication/rdf+xml; charset=utf-8810https://repository.urosario.edu.co/bitstreams/3f660c4c-9c5f-467b-8762-56d3e1203802/download9f5eb859bd5c30bc88515135ce7ba417MD53TEXTRoldanHernandez-CamilaAlejandra-2018-1.pdf.txtRoldanHernandez-CamilaAlejandra-2018-1.pdf.txtExtracted texttext/plain74114https://repository.urosario.edu.co/bitstreams/02649b42-2a95-4c93-83d7-449a17c09e7c/download048f2ca66642f4fc64fb1f0e9c123172MD54THUMBNAILRoldanHernandez-CamilaAlejandra-2018-1.pdf.jpgRoldanHernandez-CamilaAlejandra-2018-1.pdf.jpgGenerated Thumbnailimage/jpeg2740https://repository.urosario.edu.co/bitstreams/30f9b4b3-dcba-4c40-ba9b-2c50ffa8dbbd/download3633f38abd1f6f804c6480610f30a3caMD5510336/18057oai:repository.urosario.edu.co:10336/180572019-09-19 07:37:54.609585http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/co/Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 2.5 Colombiahttps://repository.urosario.edu.coRepositorio institucional EdocURedocur@urosario.edu.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

Teoría actitudinal y la Ley defensa del matrimonio de 1996 : un análisis empírico del comportamiento de votación del Congreso

Publicaciones similares