Syndicated, openly gay columnist Deb Price predicts that the "millennial generation" (Americans born between 1985 and 2004) will usher in legal approval of same-sex marriage:
Even two years ago, 15-to-25-year-olds favored gay marriage by 56 percent to 39 percent, according to a national survey by the University of Maryland's youth think tank, the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE at civicyouth.org).
"Each generation has come of age being considerably more tolerant and become even more so," says CIRCLE Director Peter Levine, who tracked attitudes of generational groups over time.
"This youngest generation is very tolerant, a very large group, and they have turned around the voting decline in the first election in which they could vote. If you put all that together, it spells a huge change in gay rights-and one not very far off," he adds.
Will this generational change of attitude last? Some studies suggest people tend to become more conservative as they age. But from what I've read, this often means that many on the left in their teen and young adult years come to realize, through experience, that the solutions promised by big-government social programs not only don't materialize, but that social engineering has counter-productive results-providing long-term betterment only to those politicos who appropriate tax dollars to expand their power bases.
That young, gay-friendly Americans will become gay-intolerant in large numbers as they grow older seems less likely, although if some activists continue to cement the (mis)perception that gay legal equality is part and parcel of left-liberalism's big-government, redistributionist social agenda, it could happen.
25 Comments for “Time Is on Our Side.”
posted by Lori Heine on
The best preventative medicine for gay rights being linked to big-government is for more gays and lesbians to choose the libertarian or at least moderately-conservative option.
IGF is very important, in my opinion, for this very reason. Eyes are being opened and opinions are being changed because of what is said here.
Once we get people who think they oppose our rights to see us as actual human beings — as complex and nuanced as everybody else is — instead of simply as useful idiots for the Left, they are usually much more open to hearing what we have to say to them.
posted by kittynboi on
I’ve yet to see anyone make any link between gays and “big government liberalism.” Most people, actually, 99% of all people who oppose us do so on religious grounds, with little to no attention paid to any principles of big vs small government.
And the fact that many people who oppose gay marraige seem intent on USING big government power to stop gay marraige should also say a lot.
Once we get people who think they oppose our rights to see us as actual human beings — as complex and nuanced as everybody else is — instead of simply as useful idiots for the Left, they are usually much more open to hearing what we have to say to them.
I don’t think their inability to see us as human beings has anything to do with our associations with the left. First off, it comes from religion and “culture”, not our association with the left.
and in many cases, it seems that they criticize the LEFT for their association with US, not the other way around.
posted by Randy R. on
Stephen — let me guess. You live in the Washington area, right? So do I. And here in Washington, we live and breath all these Really Important Issues like ‘big government liberalism’ and ‘social engineering that produces counter results’ and the like. Only a Washingtonian steeped in politics could possibly write like that.
But out in the hinterlands, you know, where people don’t give a damn who the next CIA Director will be, don’t see the world in the same way. They don’t say to themselves, well, gosh, I really like my gay neighbor and his boyfriend, and I think they should get married, but with Hillary being the presidential candidate and her push for big government liberalism, well, I don’t know. Seeing as how those libs failed at welfare and public schooling — heck they won’t even try vouchers! — well, then I’ll just have to deny my nieghbors the right to get married.”
I don’t know whether it is sad or hilarious that anyone would think this way, or would think that this is how the average American thinks…..
posted by Lori Heine on
99% of the people who oppose us may like to claim they do so on religious grounds, but every one of ’em I’ve ever taken on in a debate on the issue has fallen apart quicker than a paper doll in a rainstorm. 99% of the time, their claims are lame.
This is what Joe Average Homophobe says, when confronted with his bigotry: “Uh, somebody told me that somebody told them that somebody else told them that the Bible says you’re gonna go to Hell. And you make me nervous. And those damn liberals all like you, so I hate you!”
I generally hang around with college-educated people. And the level of intelligence in the remarks of those who are anti-gay seldom rises above that.
posted by dalea on
Generally, ‘big government liberalism’ is linked in most peoples’ minds with ‘big government social tolerance’ when subjects like gay rights or abortion rights come up. Like kittynboi, Randy R. and Lori Heine I have never heard anyone associate gay rights with ‘big government liberalism’. It is seen as something liberals support and conservatives oppose. Actually, most people I have heard comment on BGL rather like the programs they benefit from. Opposition seems confined to conservatives and religious whackjobs. And just why is gay rights part of BGL?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Opposition to GLBT equality is based, I think, on twin towers of repulsion (the “yuk” factor) and fear that children will become GLBT if society “tolerates” gays and lesbians. Both are, essentially, irrational.
Like the others, I’ve never heard anyone suggest that “gay legal equality is part and parcel of left-liberalism’s big-government, redistributionist social agenda”. The opposition to GLBT equality is much to primal for that sort of thinking.
Younger people are more supportive of GBLT equality, it seems to me, for the simple reason that younger people tend to know more GLBT people. Younger GLBTs are coming out earlier and more openly than GLBT people used to do, and are living more openly — among my children’s crowd (ages 21 to 35), GBLT couples are just part of the mix.
I don’t believe that younger people’s suuport of GBLT people is likely to change over time — the trend from “liberal” to “conservative” over time is based on classic liberal and conservative distinctions, and the generation gap on GLBT equality does not seem to me to be closely related to the classic distinctions. In fact, classic conservatism would support GLBT equality as a matter of course, as Barry Goldwater did to the extent that the issue had developed before his death.
Although I think that Steve is dead wrong in his analysis, I think that we should mindful that the “homosexual agenda” does involve, to some extent, “big government” funding and programs and redistribution of wealth — HIV/AIDS funding (redistribution), the social safety net for PWAs who cannot afford treatment (redistribution), demands that the NIH and other government agencies promulgate accurate information concerning GLBT issues rather than becoming a bullhorn for the Bush/Rove/Robertson/Falwell agenda (big government), the push for laws banning discrimination in the workplace and housing (big government), and so on.
But the core issue in our struggle — equality under the law — is not a “big government” of “redistribution” issue, and opposition to GLBT people on that issue does not seem to me to be based on opposition to “left-liberalism’s big-government, redistributionist social agenda”.
Let’s not wet our pants just because the Bush/Rove/Robertson/Falwell might try to paint it that way …
I’ve been reading this blog for two or three years now, and Steve’s basic position seems to be that we should shape our strategy and tactics to avoid offending the social conservatives who have “hijacked” (Barry Goldwater’s word for it) the Republican Party.
I disagree. I am an unreconstructed Goldwater conservative, and my view is that we need to fight the MF’s hammer and tong. I would no more try to accommodate social conservatives than try to make love to a rattlesnake.
posted by Anthony on
I know several younger folks whose attitudes about gay people in general are far more positive than older generations. My younger brother and sister are both very supportive of me and my partner. They see nothing unusual for a same-sex couple being together in a committed, monogamous relationship. They also believe that marriage should be something we are able to do. I think the trends are in our favor but it is going to take some time. Quite frankly, we need to have more diverse voices speaking out in favor of marital rights. The Human Rights Campaign is little more than a wing of the Democratic Party and other gay groups align themselves with too many leftist causes to make a number of moderates and conservatives comfortable with the whole discussion. I have stated before that my partner and I don’t feel we have to be married because we already are in our own eyes. But, it is encouraging to see that a lot of younger Americans are embracing it.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I think there is some merit to the idea that gay rights is a partisan issue. . . and that’s largely due to the slavish devotion to Democrats which some gays have indulged in, despite many Democrats’ records on gay rights.
However, I, like most of the other commenters, am perplexed with regard to the “big government” angle to this.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Anthony: “Quite frankly, we need to have more diverse voices speaking out in favor of marital rights.”
I agree.
But you won’t find those voices, with rare exceptions, among the so-called “conservatives” who compose the Republican Party. The only thing that most of them know how to do is cow-tow to the Christian right in hopes that the “base” will be energized by “faggot, faggot” rhetoric and promises to stop same-sex marriage in its tracks.
Traditional conservatives need to speak up. I do, and frequently. So do many others.
But that does not mean, to me anyway, that I should try to be an apologist for the Republican Party. I am an organizer for BlockOut Wisconsin in Sauk County, a rural county where I live, working to defeat the anti-marriage amendment that the Republican state leadership put on the November ballot. I’ve had good support and cooperation from the Sauk County Democratic Party at all levels, right down to the ward level in the various cities, towns and villages we are trying to leaflet.
On a statewide level, Senator Russ Feingold, a Democrat, has come out on record in favor of same-sex marriage. Governor Jim Doyle and Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager, both Democrats, have been fighting against the proposed amendment in public, to the point where the Republican leadership in the state has tried to intervene in several court cases to remove the Attorney General’s office from representation.
And the Republicans in the state? Don’t even bother to ask.
I’ve elected to cooperate with the Democrats in this area. Maybe I’m guilty of “slavish devotion to Democrats”. But I’d call it “recognizing reality”, myself.
The Republican Party is fighting against us tooth and nail in Wisconsin. I’ll work with those who will stand with us, and the devil can take the hindmost.
posted by Ed Brown on
Young people on the left are sometimes taught that “big government” does not work and the “free market” will magically solve all problems.
posted by Lori Heine on
As the free market at the very least deals realistically with human nature and human behavior, it is still more of a constructive means of dealing with social issues than big government is.
Government always involves an element of coercion, whereas the free market allows people to opt out if they wish.
posted by Ed Brown on
“As the free market at the very least deals realistically with human nature and human behavior, it is still more of a constructive means of dealing with social issues than big government is.”
I disagree. Sometimes it is and sometimes it is not.
“Government always involves an element of coercion, whereas the free market allows people to opt out if they wish.”
Well, absent of anarchy their will always been government “coercion” and the free market is not always so free.
posted by kittynboi on
I am also wary of the notion that the free market will solve everything.
I’ve yet to encounter any system, method, or ideology that is a 100% cure all that works better than everything else. The free market is no different.
posted by Anthony on
I must admit there is a paradox for me in determining how to approach issues like the one Tom mentioned in Wisconsin and my steadfast conservatism and loyalty to the Republican Party. You won’t find a more dominant, strident social conservative state party organization than ours here in Arkansas. I think much of it has to do with the absence of moderate Republicans at all levels of leadership in the party. Our stronghold in the state is in the ever-growing northwest corner, where thousands of upperwardly mobile families are moving in and joining mega-churches. They are the heart and soul of social conservatism. You’re hard pressed to find many fiscal conservatives these days. I am quite concerned about it. And I acknowledge that my party has been co-opted by such forces. I have been thrown out of a church because of my sexual orientation, along with my partner. We know what reality has told us. Yet we are both still devoted to our beliefs and those are best represented overall by the GOP. On the one hand, we abhor thinking of ourselves as an oppressed minority and on the other we see what is taking place around us with legislators attempting to write discrimination into state constitutions, taking away adoption rights, civil unions as an alternative, etc., etc. The question is – what do we do and where do we turn? The Democrats in this state aren’t interested in battling the GOP on gay issues per se. Many of them are just as stridently rightist as their counterparts in the Republican Party. I’d get involved with some of the gay organizations here but their politics are far too left-of-center for me. I’d start a Log Cabin chapter but I get no response from the national office about how to do that. I guess I’m left with self reliance when all is said and done. And that’s what the GOP has traditionally stood for, and I believe still does overall. See my dilemma? Any thoughts or help in figuring out what to do? And please only serious posts!
posted by Ed Brown on
Anthony
Your situation is a good example of why gay people should support fair and free ballot access laws. At least them their would be some likelyhood you could make a protest vote, if not some competitive for our vote.
As far as a local LCR group. Perhaps try creating a yahoo group or homepage (they are free). I would be surprised if the national LCR does not have something online about start up chapters.
Check to see if Outright Libertarians or Pink Pistols have anything locally or they might be able to help get soemthing started.
posted by Anthony on
Thanks Ed. Wow – we CAN have positive dialogue!
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The free market is just a form of voluntary democracy — participants get to choose to participate and choose their preference. If none of the offerings appeal to them, they can create their own offering.
Big government is a dictatorship of the majority. Participants are forceably excluded (or included). If none of the offerings appeal to them, one is forced on them and they’re told to like it (under penalty of fines, prison or worse).
I know which tool I think is better for social movements.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
For instance — same-sex marriage is a free market concept — it’s a creation of a segment of society to deal with its own unique problems and circumstances.
DOMA laws, on the other hand, are classic big government. You’re not married unless we say so and if you don’t fit our definition, you’re not married. And if you don’t like it, tough.
posted by kittynboi on
For instance — same-sex marriage is a free market concept — it’s a creation of a segment of society to deal with its own unique problems and circumstances.
Of course that is at odds with modern theoconservativism and christianism. To these people, no segment of society should be allowed to deal with its own problems and issues; only an enlightened elite versed in the ways of biblical (im)morality can do that.
I’ve yet to see people on here like Fitz and Anthony confront and answer head on about how that remotely qualifies as “conservative” and not more akin to Stalinism.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“I’ve yet to see people on here like Fitz and Anthony confront and answer head on about how that remotely qualifies as “conservative” and not more akin to Stalinism.”
Well, you’ve illustrated why the left has done itself a disservice by associating free markets with the right wing and not considering it as a powerful tool themselves. The right wing HATES free markets just as much as the left does — even more so in some cases. And it’s the free market which will set the country free, not big government.
posted by kittynboi on
Well, you’ve illustrated why the left has done itself a disservice by associating free markets with the right wing and not considering it as a powerful tool themselves.
I think the right wing has done much, much more to associate free markets with the right, as they constantly claim it is their territory and what they fight for.
posted by Anthony on
To me free markets and free trade are both very, very important aspects of our nation’s ability to sustain itself economically. When I became a Republican I did so because the party stood for fiscal responsibility, low taxes, less government intrusion into our lives, a strong national defense, the line-item veto, etc. Today, much of that list has been mutilated and torn to shreds by ultra-conservative wingnuts whose only concern is that women never be allowed near an abortion clinic or to keep gays literally invisible. Wow – am I speaking my true mind now or what? Yipeeeeee!!!!!!!!
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“I think the right wing has done much, much more to associate free markets with the right, as they constantly claim it is their territory and what they fight for.”
Just like they’ve done with concepts like “freedom” and “security” too.
The left in this country is dreadfully disorganized and intellectually lazy. It’s also strident and ideologically inflexible — it’s unwilling to drop what doesn’t work (huge centrally-planned and administered government bureaucracies to address problems) and consider successes in the free market.
That’s fertile territory for the right to co-opt the free market message. The irony, of course, is that the right wing doesn’t care about free markets either. Look at the steel tariffs, GOP efforts to impose gasoline price controls, and the immigration brouhaha.
posted by Ed Brown on
Despite, the constant Human Rights bashing by the gay “right”, it has done more for gay rights then the Log Cabin Republicans.
Anothony: Yes, we can. I would also suggest checking out Richard Winger’s Ballot Access News (www.ballot-access.org). He is the leader on ballot access law in the US (and a libertarian). You should also check out http://www.fairvote.org for info on IRV and PR.
I simply do not agree that the “free market is just a form of voluntary democracy.” Having been stuck in low paying jobs, high debts, discriminated against, etc. I view the free market with a healthy bit of mistrust.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Having been stuck in low paying jobs, high debts, discriminated against, etc. I view the free market with a healthy bit of mistrust.”
Of course, nobody forced you to choose to live in the Dakotas (where jobs typically aren’t very well-paying), work for people who don’t like you, or borrow money which you cannot pay back.