One of the few issues on which opinion has moved left over the last few years is same-sex marriage. In 1996, Gallup found that Americans opposed it by a 68 percent to 27 percent margin. Last May, Gallup found Americans in favor by 53 percent to 45 percent. That’s a huge change in 15 years.
Other polls have shown similar movement. Pew Research reported last week that 45 percent favored same-sex marriage and 46 percent were opposed — a dead heat. Pew polls in 2008 and 2009 found only 35 percent to 40 percent in favor.
Advertisement
This is an issue on which the differences between age groups are as large as any I can remember. In the May Gallup poll, 70 percent of those under age 35 favored same-sex marriage. Only 39 percent of those over 55 agreed.
So while opinion on one controversial cultural issue, abortion, has not changed much, opinion on same-sex marriage has changed vastly.
Why? One reason is probably that as people learn that friends and relatives are gay, they become more sympathetic to gay rights. We see a similar change in voters’ willingness to elect openly gay candidates to Congress and other offices.
But increasing support for same-sex marriage causes problems for politicians. When two-thirds of voters were opposed, it didn’t: Almost everyone opposed it. Possible exception: Barack Obama, running for state senate in a university-dominated district in 1996.
As a candidate for U.S. senator and president, Obama said he opposed same-sex marriage. As president, he says he still does, but his opinion is “evolving.”
This may reflect a split between Democratic core constituencies. Affluent liberals overwhelmingly favor same-sex marriage. But most black voters are opposed.
In a 2008 referendum in California, 70 percent of blacks voted against same-sex marriage. A same-sex-marriage bill was defeated this year in Maryland after black Democratic legislators opposed it. Same-sex marriage would be legal in California and Maryland were it not for opposition by black voters.
Mainstream media reporters pepper Republican presidential candidates with questions about the issue but seldom ask Obama about it. But if it’s a fair question for Republicans, it’s a fair question for Democrats, as well.
The problem for Republican politicians is not that opposition to same-sex marriage antagonizes gay voters. According to exit polls in the last three presidential elections, gays and lesbians made up just 3 percent of the electorate, and they were one of the few groups that voted for John McCain in 2008 in larger numbers than had voted for George W. Bush in 2004.
The Republicans’ problem is young voters. Huge majorities of them favor same-sex marriage, and for most of them it’s simply a no-brainer. They must have been turned off if they were watching the Republican presidential candidates vie with each other in opposing it in the Fox News/Washington Examiner debate in Iowa.
The constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage that they supported is never going to get a two-thirds vote in Congress or be ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures. Unless the Supreme Court rules there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, this is an issue that is going to be decided by the states.
Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that it would weaken the institution of the family. Certainly there are problems there: Rising percentages of children are raised by one parent or none, and nearly 50 percent of teenage children in non-college households did not live with both parents. Yet outcomes for children raised in two-parent families are far better than for those who are not.
But as one who favors same-sex marriage for reasons set out in Jonathan Rauch’s 2004 book Gay Marriage, I think the institution of the family is less threatened by a few people who want to get married than by the very many more people who get divorced or who have children without getting married at all.
In any case, we now have an experiment going on. Some 11 percent of Americans live in the six states and the District of Columbia that allow same-sex marriage. That would rise to 23 percent if California voters, who narrowly rejected it, switch. Other states may follow. On the other hand, states where blacks and white evangelical Protestants form a majority are unlikely to accept it any time soon.
We will be able to see how things work out and make judgments, without much need for guidance from our presidents or presidential candidates.
Are there any longitudinal studies of how generations born in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's Have felt about gay marriage over the past few decades? I think the numbers would be rather consistent but that is what happens is that as older voters die out and younger Americans start to vote, the electorate's opinion has changed. Personally, I know that people my age (42) have been pretty consistent for 20+ years.
One thing Barone doesn't mention about the age divide is divorce, and the effect it has had on "young people". It is difficult to lecture people about the sanctity of marriage when many if not most adult couples have been divorced. From a Catholic perspective, marriage is a sacrament. The Marriage Act has both a mystical and physical aspect. Homosexuality as well as adultery and fornication are considered not only defective, but sinful. Yet, couples (Catholic and Protestant) continually commit adultery, use artificial birth control, and divorce. Marriage, as a result, is weakened. Sex becomes nothing more than a life-style choice. Homosexuality is just one legitimate choice amongst many in the eyes of the young.
The problem with the federalist position on this issue is that it's hardly defensible ground. The radicals insist on appropriating the language of rights, the logic of which demands a resolution across all 50 states, and there are absolutely no assurances that a gay couple whose so-called marriage is recognized in New York would NOT file a suit against whatever traditionalist state that was subsequently blessed with their residency.
Barone's position assumes a live-and-let-live approach that the other side would accept only temporarily and tactically. They are as willing to tolerate other views among the states as they are among bakers and photographers -- that is to say, not at all, unless the political winds require they do so for the moment.
Barone's position is a reasonable compromise, but at least one side in this battle is wholly uninterested in compromise.
--
About Barone's finding Rauch's position persuasive, I'd point him to the debate at NRO a few years back:
From what I've read over the last few years, it seems that, in general, conservatives have increasingly little reason to treat Rauch as a person arguing in good faith.
Correction: ignore that last bit calling into question Rauch's willingness to argue in good faith. I confused Rauch with Peter Beinart, for some reason.
It is no surprise that young people overwhelmingly support gay marriage. They are the products of a school system that has promoted gay marriage relentlessly since kindergarten. There are a thousand insidious methods schools use to influence a child's thinking in this matter. From propagandizing textbooks to gay-straight alliance clubs (in middle school!) our children are taught that gay marriage is a civil right and only haters oppose it. We have lost this battle for now and it is in God's hands to teach us the error of our ways. Some will scoff at my simpleminded critique, but look where subtle and nuanced thinking has landed us.
JPK is spot on as to the weakness in our defense of marriage.
Catholic and Protestants alike have relegated marriage to a union of convenience for the purpose of pleasure and fulfillment, completely disregarding the Biblical establishment, purpose, and sanctity of the institution.
Unfortunately, when even reliable conservatives like Barone no longer feel the institution is worth defending, marriage as we have traditionally viewed it is not long for this world.
Strong, stable, lasting marriages are the bedrock of societies which produce and prepare the next generation.
Acknowledging same-sex unions will only further erode what is already unfortunately an ailing institution.
As we drift further away from our moorings, we should not be surprised as an increasing number of vessels dash against the rocks, the innocent perishing along with the guilty.
I am not Catholic but I respect and appreciate their Biblical view of the sanctity of marriage and life.
Young people have supported progressive measures by strong majorities for the last four decades, and yet, oddly enough, a majority of the population does not yet identify as progressives. And why would that be?
Because people grow up. There are things - like environmentalism, and public housing, and "tax the rich", and "choice" - which seem like good ideas on paper to young college students with little to no practical real-world experience. That becomes tempered when they actually have real-world experiences, and when they actually have children of their own and start thinking seriously about the future.
It is, as Michael noted, an experiment, but if previous experiments with progressive policies are any indication (public housing, abortion on demand, support for mothers with dependent children, etc.), the effects are likely to be far less positive than had been expected. And once the same-sex divorces start coming - and they will come, sooner rather than later - there will be a renewed cynicism regarding the institution of marriage as a whole that will dramatically undermine the naive optimism that is a feature of the "marriage equality" movement. And once the statistics continue to deteriorate - and unfortunately, I fully expect that they will - it will become clear that there has been nearly irreparable damage done to the institution of the family, and that attempting to redefine marriage has only hastened the process.
First I see the trumped up poll numbers and then a read that the author supports redefining words to lend the appearance of acceptability to sexual deravity and it suddenly all makes sense.
The real poll numbers for and against Perversion Marriage have not budged a single percentage point since 1997, but the spin has.
Supporters of sexual depavity and the remaking of this nation to better reflect the ideals of the Godless are pulling out every trick in the book just to lend the appearance of acceptability to their depravity.
The government wastes money and then prints a lot more in order to go on spending. Consistency might seem to demand that the laws against counterfeiting be suspended. Is the cheapening of marriage by certain immoral heterosexuals grounds for allowing homosexuals to render it meaningless?If marriage as a legal institution were to change its name and then be extended to all, regardless of sex, species, or other biological or numerical status, with "marriage" retained in its traditional sense, Organized Lavenderdom would still howl, for their idea of equality and justice is Burn, Baby, Burn...
Here in England, we came up with what I think is an elegant solution to this problem.
We invented a new institution called a "civil partnership" especially for gays. It gave them many of the same legal rights that are afforded to married couples, but without redefining the fundamental institution of marriage, which remains between a man and a woman.
This compromise satisifed both sides of the debate. However, I wonder whether it would satisfy liberal activists in the United States, for whom destroying the institution of conventional marriage seems to be a priority.
You don’t have to wonder. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts imposed Same Sex Marriage on the Commonwealth in 2003. In 2007, we held a constitutional convention to discuss putting a civil union bill on the ballot so that the voters could have a say, and the gay community opposed it tooth and nail. To this date, the voters of Massachusetts have never had a say about whether they want to redefine Marriage.
Many gays view civil partnership, dishonestly I think, as a kind of 'separate but equal' arrangement, and therefore, insulting. This of course is ludicrous because obviously homosexual is a different thing than heterosexual, and by objecting to having a distinct institution to preserve the current definition of marriage, it's as though gays are conceding that 'different' is somehow 'inferior' when it's merely reality. Alternative circumstances call for alternative arrangements, but the left wing gay movement doesn't view their homosexuality as a personal circumstance to be both endured and enjoyed, but rather a thing that compels the rest of the world's assimilation, that is, the other 98% must assimilate to their personal circumstances rather than them having to adapt to an institution which has developed naturally, unconsciously, over millenia. Homosexuality is not even the issue; same-sex 'marriage' is just that; two people of the same gender may now marry in NY, regardless of orientation. That is a serious redefinition which no person or persons has the right to demand. Like the destigmatization of single motherhood, abortion and fatherlessness, theirs is a social and cultural construct, not an institution which developed on its own over time, which will have negative, though unintended, consequences.
"Experiment" is definitely the right word because this is a huge social experiment and one we'll regret, I believe. If only it was just about letting two men or two women share a life together. (By the way, they already do that. These stories of women who've lived together for 50 years before marrying in NY recently demonstrate that. How do you think their lives have changed in any huge way since they married?)
But it isn't about their lives changing. It is about demanding "acceptance," not tolerance, from everyone else. This is what drives all of this.
It is about forcing people to view homosexual unions as "equal" to heterosexual ones. It is about thinking a child doesn't get something valuable from both a mother and a father and much of that has to do with the parent's gender.
It won't be tolerated, for example, to give preferential treatment to married heterosexual couples when talking about adoptions or foster care. This idea that it will only affect "public institutions" is a joke. When have the people pushing this agenda shown that they're willing to stop there? That's right. They haven't. Look for it to be "hate speech" when teaching that heterosexual relationships follow Natural Law. When saying men and women were made to be together to procreate is considered radical, it's a testament to how far we've fallen.
I must add that as an Engineer I know that in order to marry two parts one part MUST have a male connector and the other part MUST have a female connecor; if you would like to connect parts with similar surfaces you must bond said parts by their pre-defined faying surface, but we know this bond is incapable of ever becoming a marriage - the joining of opposites.
Were the basic laws of engineering written out of animosity for sexual depravity?
I'm against bad marriage, period. Anything that makes a mockery of the institution or turns it into some cheap novelty act. That includes Vegas weddings, Hollywood weddings, quickie, mail-order, pet, or Lord-of-the-Rings-themed weddings. Of the gays I've known, there are only two couples in 30 years who have truly had long-term, marriage-like relationships.
And when it comes to coercing churches to validate something they view as intrinsically sinful, or forcing a like-minded caterer who refuses to provide service to such a union to choose between their livelihood or jailtime, the law is overstepping its bounds in a dangerous way.
It's insane to encourage our children to think of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, by approving gay marriage, when the incidence of AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, and other pathogens is 10-20 times higher for gay men than for the straight population. Didn't you see the CDC study from a few years ago? No? Oh yes, it was buried by the media. Didn't you see the internet articles a couple of weeks ago about AIDS in the Middle East and Africa? The doctors there all know that AIDs is a gay disease, and are desperately trying to educate the men over there to avoid homosexuality. So why encourage children to consider that an option during their formative years, when they're completely uncertain with their newly-awakened sexuality? And once physical well being is recognized as a legitimate reason for discouraging homosexuality in boys, it's obvious that homosexuality among girls should be discouraged, as it's obvious that children are much healthier when raised for the first 18 years of their lives by a mom and a dad--if only because they learn how to relate to the other sex. And you're mistaken to think that marriage is going to make gay men monogamous. Men by their nature are promiscuous unless they've learned self-control from good parents. It should be no surprise then that the culture of gay men is one of wild promiscuity. Don't think so? Go live in San Francisco for a couple years, find out for yourself.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
