During the past couple days there has been some good commentary on NRO about the diverging political trajectories of abortion and same-sex marriage. One aspect of this debate that deserves more attention is the opinions of young adults. The overall trends in public opinion are interesting. However, what is especially encouraging for both pro-lifers and same-sex marriage proponents is not only the gains they are making in the court of public opinion, but also the fact that these gains are more pronounced among young people.
Regarding abortion, the General Social Survey has been collecting opinion data on abortion using the same battery of questions since the early 1970s. Throughout the 1970s, 18- to 29-year-olds were more supportive of legal abortion than any other age cohort. This trend continued through the 1980s and 1990s as young adults were generally more “pro-choice” than the rest of the population. But starting around the year 2000 something very interesting happened: This group became the most pro-life age cohort — even more pro-life than senior citizens.
One would not expect the current generation of young people to espouse pro-life views. They tend to be less religious and more secular, and have more liberal attitudes toward sex than previous generations. Social scientists have not arrived at a consensus to explain their pro-life views, but various theories include: (1) the development of ultrasound technology, (2) the 1990s debate over partial-birth abortion, and (3) popular culture’s depiction of single motherhood as non-disruptive in television shows such as Friends and Murphy Brown and movies such as Juno.
With regard to same-sex marriage, a number of surveys have shown that young people are more sympathetic toward it than their older counterparts. But there is some evidence that this support may be leveling off. In the years following the Goodridge decision, which legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, UCLA’s annual survey of college freshmen indicated that support for same-sex marriage fell slightly. This is despite the fact that the decision received plenty of favorable media attention and granted same-sex marriage mainstream political legitimacy.
I do not think that all is lost for supporters of traditional marriage. First, many surveys likely overstate public approval for same-sex marriage. Socially conservative positions tend to perform better at the ballot box than they do in public-opinion surveys. Also, when respondents are given the option to support civil unions, support for same-sex marriage typically falls. And even in deep blue states like New York, same-sex marriage supporters have had to work very hard to scrape out narrow legislative victories. Overall, social conservatism has proven to be resilient over the years as young people tend to become more conservative as they get older. Still, public-opinion data shows that supporters of traditional marriage face a real challenge in their efforts to garner support among many young voters.
— Michael J. New is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Michigan – Dearborn and a fellow at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, N.J.
Our party is on the wrong side of the gay marriage debate. One has to have their head in the sand if they don't recognize the trend lines here. More and more Americans are of the belief that the government should not be able to deprive an entire segment of its society of the right to marry. And I don't care how many sociological or theological rationales "experts" come up with -- the refusal to recognize their right to marry is predicated upon prejudice. And we should be better than that. Just my take.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs a gay conservative, I find that arguments for traditional marriage fall apart very quickly when so many that marry make a mockery of the institution. Until heteros show the respect to traditional marriage that traditional marriage supporters espouse, it's very hard to convince a population to not support gay marriage.
Too many people see marriage being abused by heteros to wonder how could gay marriage degrade it anymore.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusekbj,
First, it's apparently not too hard to convince the public to support traditional marriage b/c every time the citizens have put it to a vote so far, they've won. Even in CA and I know I didn't see that coming.
Two, I don't see how allowing more immorality (as social conservatives see it) into an already diseased system is somehow a good thing.
Three, I know Christians are concerned about divorce and other problems afflicting traditional marriage. Pastors are quoting the statistic that church people often divorce at the same rate as secular, and they're quoting that statistic to tell their congregations, "shape up and start living what you preach".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI concur with your assessment but would add that promoting homosexual marriage won't do anything to improve the status problematic heterosexual marriages. In fact, I offer that homosexual marriage could have the unintended consequence of pushing the view of marriage in general further down that rabbit hole. It just dilutes what a "traditional marriage" altogether. So that argument, as far as it goes, doesn't hold much water either.
I think that the burden of making it acceptable really lies with the gay community. I'm actually not opposed to it; I'm married to a wonderful women and enjoy the life that marriage has created for me. I think the societal beneifts of marriage are numerous, and I have never been convinced it should be unreasonably forbidden it to same-sex couples. The difficulty, as I see it, is that the homosexual community still has a, for lack of better term, "loud and proud" segment that turns a lot of folks off.
While it's satire, it's not that far off: External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"In fact, I offer that homosexual marriage could have the unintended consequence of pushing the view of marriage in general further down that rabbit hole."
And yet you're open to it. What a shame.
By the way, the consequence you speak of isn't unintended at all, by a large group of people.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMarriage is not a Constitutional right; it's a licensed activity and legal contract regulated by the states. If marriage becomes a Constitutional right - which is the direction we're heading - then states have no authority to restrict who gets married and under what conditions. If two men can marry, why not two men and one woman? Why not twelve year olds without parental permission? Should recreational drug use and alcohol consumption be Constitutional rights because those activities have become more popular and socially acceptable?
Social and cultural "trend lines" should not be the arbiter of what is a Constitutional right and what is not, as there are long-term consequences to transforming designated activities into Constitutional rights in order to mainstream them. It's one thing for two same-sex adults to enter into a relationship, but quite another when they expand that relationship to include children who have no say in the matter and might not share their enthusiasm for the same-sex lifestyle. Whether or not it's politically correct to say so, same-sex marriage is not the norm in our society, which makes it a much more complicated issue than it appears to be on the surface.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If two men can marry, why not two men and one woman? "
Treating people equally doesn't imply treating three people the same as two. That's literally inequality.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJason, that doesn't make any sense. The point is if marriage is just "you can marry anyone you say you "love"", then why not allow polygamy? In Utah, polygamists are already making this argument using the exactly same reasoning that pro-SSM activists use.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's another reason it doesn't make any sense -- at least as an argument for SSM.
People are already being treated literally equally. Every man can marry a woman and vice versa. Only by changing the definition of marriage can an argument be made that homosexuals are treated "unfairly."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEquality of access refers necessarily to access to the same thing. Treating a relationship between two men or two women as the same thing as a marraige between a man and a woman is obviously false. Something that crosses the sexual divide differs in an essential way with something that stays on one side. Access to the traditional heterosexual marraige is equally available to all who meet the requirements regarding age, consanguinity, present marriage status, and freedom from compulsion..
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe demand for marriage "Equality" is a rhetorical ploy trying to fix a new obsession on the moral coattails of the Civil Rights Movement.
That thisvapid sloganeering in lieu of precise discourse is appealing to more young than old should not surprise, especially in view of the current state of public education.
Traditional marriage does not come from state law. State law merely gives shape and focus to what is (or what used to be) the normal, traditional practice of society. That is, people get married. One man to one woman. Without recognition that marriage contract orginiates with someone other than mere human law, this debate will never be resolved. Without recognition that marriage is a right that comes from a Creator and He has a view of what marriage really should be, then it can be made into anything. As we see in all of these debates arguing "rights" without any basis or respect of traditional morality founded on something greater than law leaves society to the forces of the wind.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If marriage becomes a Constitutional right"
Too late.
As a technical matter of law, the Supreme Court has held otherwise. In Loving v. Virginia, the unanimous opinion held that...
"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTechnically, the language in Virginia v. Loving that you cite wasn't necessary to the holding, but you're right as a practical matter -- marriage is a civil right.
However, I believe what Jenna meant was that *same-sex marriage* isn't a civil right. Read in that light, her post is correct. First, under the traditional definition of marriage, there is no equal protection violation at all -- everyone can marry under the same rules. Second, without getting into all the ridiculous tests the Supreme Court has invented to make sense of the Fourteenth Amendment: Homosexuals haven't yet been denominated a discrete group to whom equal protection law applies with the added force needed to turn SSM into a civil right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe could have a lengthy debate about whether it was or was not part of the holding - and it gets a bit dicey because the Court was deciding marriage only with respect to racial discrimination; they clearly state that the right to marry between the races is a right - but I'll certainly concede your second point.
Thus far, homosexuality isn't suspect class, nor is marriage a fundamental right (which I think is the "magical" phrase",) and subject to strict scrutiny.
However, when the day probably comes that the Court sustains a SSM case on the merits, I've got $5 that says Loving is cited as case law more than once.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, sure, they'll cite whatever they want to cite and whatever is at hand it if they do something as ludicrous and extralegal as that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou can say you would disagree with their reasoning, but if you claim it is extra-legal you have no understanding of civics, history or constitutional law.
It is the role of the Judiciary to interpret the text of the Constitution of the United States... including the text contained in the 14th Amendment dealing with Equal Protection.
You can argue about the appropriate way to interpret that text, and whether sexual orientation is a suspect classification within the meaning of the line of cases that interpret that text, but claiming that the Court has no legal authority to make that determination is foolish.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJenna:
(i) is it fair to state from your position that you think a "marriage" amendment to the US constitution is inappropriate?
(ii) if it's a state-law issue (and I agree with that), should be states be free to restrict/allow same sex marriage?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have to agree with Jenna. It's funny that conservatives fall into this trap. We scoff when liberals claim a "right" to things like Social Security and say "that's not in the constitution". But when some SSM activists make you feel guilty and like a bad person for thinking what they do is wrong, suddenly we recognize a "right" to marriage. No one has a right to marry whomever they please; I cannot, for example, marry my sister (regardless of her age). Is some right of mine being violated or taken away? Of course not.
We all can marry anyone who is eligible for marriage, but the idea that marriage should just be redefined to be whatever people want it, has no basis. And yes (before some fool brings it up), of course banning interracial marriage was wrong and stupid, no one is advocating a return to that. Interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are apples and oranges.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFAR52, no one is depriving anyone of the "right to marry." What we are against is a redefinition of what marriage is. The only reason the state has an interest in marriage is because it wants to promote is future. Raising children in a marriage is clearly the best available option. Homosexual relationships do not naturally produce children, and the state should have no interest in them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is such flawed logic.
I'll dissect it piece by piece.
"No one is depriving anyone of the 'right' to marry'"
In the decision of Loving v. Virginia, Marriage is described as being "one of the 'basic civil rights of man." We can correctly assume that, as he refers to it as being vital to our survival, he believes that the purpose of marriage is to have children. However, regardless of that assumption, it is still considered a "right," and as such can not be denied to certain groups without good cause. Moving on however, you then say that "Homosexual relationships do not naturally produce children," which is true in the sense that two men or two women can not create children, however homosexual people can still have their own children, even while staying in their exclusive relationship through means such as insemination or surrogacy, which would produce children from someone who would otherwise choose not to have a child. Gay couples can also choose to adopt, something which is clearly positive considering there are thousands of children already in foster care, and as you say, it would be best if they were raised "in a marriage" which by your wording is in fact in support of gay marriage.
You also say that you don't want a "redefinition of what marriage is," however 'redefinition' has occurred through out history already, and it's already been proven (in Massachusetts) that allowing gay couples to marry does not inherently ruin heterosexual relationships, unless your wife/husband suddenly realizes they're gay as a result of legalization. In which case, you're doing something wrong. Marriage has "traditionally" been about solidifying political connections and producing heirs. Ask any modern-thinking American, and they will agree that the definition of marriage is about love, which is actually a pretty radical concept by itself, but not wrong in it's morality. Another major "redefinition" occurred in the case quoted above, with the legalization of interracial marriage. I'm NOT saying that race and orientation are the same things, though both are not by choice. However, the parallels between their situations are astounding, considering the arguments used against both are virtually identical, and both as flawed. Marriage has already changed over the years to become a more positive, forward thinking and LEGALLY BINDING institution.
Lastly, your comment that "the state should have no interest in them" is entirely offensive and false because gay couples, regardless of their current lack of rights, are full citizens and as such they should be afforded the same rights, respect and attention as all other constituents.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse