The latest Pew Research Center poll of Americans' social attitudes found that 56 percent of adults oppose gay marriage while only 36 percent support it. However, 54 percent said they support same-sex civil unions and only 42 percent oppose them. The poll of more than 2,000 people also found that adults under 30 are more supportive of gay marriage than people over 30 and that Americans are less likely than a few years ago to think that someone's sexual orientation can be changed.
A few quick points:
- Clearly many more people are concerned about preserving the
word "marriage" for heterosexual unions than are worried about
depriving gays of the legal entitlements.
- Young people are comfortable about gays, having grown up
knowing gays among their peers and seeing them in popular
culture.
- The "ex-gay" campaign is making no headway whatsoever. People
who get to know gays fairly quickly realize that there is no defect
to be "fixed" or "repaired."
- Despite these seeming gains, political progress will be slow in coming.
Elaborations:
Point #1. To many people, especially but not exclusively religious people, marriage is not something that can be extended to homosexuals because the word "marriage" means heterosexual unions-a bride and groom, man and woman. To speak of "gay marriage" is self-contradictory as if we were to speak of a round square or cold fire. There isn't any argument for this, it is just the way the world is.
To them, it is as if someone claimed that gravity pulls "up." We all could answer: "No, that direction is called down. You just don't understand what the word 'up' means." Or if somone claimed that parallel lines meet, we could all reply, "No, calling them 'parallel' means that they do not meet. That is what 'parallel' means." So all our counter-examples about childless heterosexual unions or same-sex couples with children simply have no persuasive power. They are irrelevant. How to reach such people requires careful thought.
Point #2. The pro-gay trend will continue as more gays are open about their lives and as gays are visible in popular culture. You're thinking of Lance Bass. Yes, but think too of the syndicated comic trip "Zits." On July 25, teenager Jeremy pointed at fellow-student Billy's shoes and says "Billy, your shoes look so gay." Billy replies patiently, "I AM gay, Jeremy," to which Jeremy replies "I know. I didn't mean 'gay' as in 'homosexual,' I meant 'gay' as in 'lame.'" Then in a thought bubble the puzzled Jeremy adds, "Why do people always misinterpret what I say?"
The strip is not only a wry critique of the popularity of "gay" as a generic put-down among students, it is remarkable for the casual way it introduces a gay character and lets Jeremy treat that fact as insignificant. It is a notable addition to the number of comic strips that have included gay characters such as "Doonesbury," "For Better or Worse" and "Brenda Starr." Things are changing: Less than twenty years ago the Tribune Syndicate forced the cancellation of a story line in "Winnie Winkle" in which Winnie's son Billy was to come out.
Point #3. The fraudulent "ex-gay" movement is simply the tail end of the century-long notion that homosexuality can be altered. Gay poet Edward Field's recent autobiography "The Man Who Would Marry Susan Sontag" (the reference is to gay writer Alfred Chester, not Field himself) reminded me of the enormous damage that error caused to gays who felt pressured in the 1940s, '50s and '60s to enter therapy to be heterosexualized. Martin Duberman's autobiography documents the same thing.
Therapy never worked-except to make gays unhappy, guilt-ridden, and sexually repressed. And it inhibited their assertion of legal and social equality. That is the real agenda of today's "ex-gay" programs. The Viennese satirist Karl Kraus once caustically observed, "Psychoanalysis is the disease for which it claims to be the cure." That statement is equally, especially true of the ex-gay movement. Incidentally, in case anyone (such as the New York Times) doubted Susan Sontag's lesbianism, Field discusses it at length.
Point #4. Although the Pew Research Center poll suggests a welcome increase in gay-supportive attitudes, that does not automatically or rapidly translate into legal or political progress. Referendums usually result in 5-10 percent lower support for gays than opinions surveys indicate. People lie to opinion pollsters, giving answers they think pollsters will approve and most "undecided" people are evading stating a negative opinion.
A more important factor, however, is that our opponents feel more intensely about gay issues than our heterosexual supporters. With a few honorable exceptions, for most of our supporters, gay equality is not a major motivating issue. Our opponents, whether motivated by religious doctrine, stereotypes or visceral distaste, are more likely to vote in elections, vote in primaries, and canvass among their friends and neighbors when gay issues are at issue.
14 Comments for “Winning — but Slowly”
posted by John Kauderer MD on
It is interesting to ponder why our neighbor to the north, Canada, isn’t hung up on he word marraige as we are in USA. Spain’s acceptance of gay marriage is an awesome change. Think where Spain was at the end of the Franco regime. It would appear that countries which have become secularist have embraced gay rights including marriage while the more power religion as in a culture the more virulent the homophobia.
posted by Randy on
The anti-gay people are indeed quite passionate about it, but I see (or maybe just hope) that it is a passing passion. The anti-gay movement was really losing steam UNTIL Lawrence v. Texas renergized it.
As long as gay marriage remains an issue, it will continue to be flamed by churches eager for the ‘fear money’ it brings in. Once the states have settled on their version of gay marriage, it will die away.
As for homosexuality in general, there is a general waning of interest in that — you simply don’t see the passion against us like there was in the past.
It might take a generation or so, but it will pass.
posted by Gay in Florida on
Your excellent post is a thoughtful critique of the current situation as I see it. What I don’t understand is why the GLBT community is also so “hung up” on legalizing marriage. What I want (and I do believe most GLBT want) are the rights and legal protections that heterosexual married partners have. I could care less about the term but do care passionately about the rights.
posted by Randy on
Gay in Florida: The reason the GLBT community is so ‘hung up’ on legalizing marriage is that is the ONLY what to get all the rights and legal protections that heterosexual married partners have. There are over a thousand specific benefits that are given to ‘married’ couples that are given to none other at the federal level alone. In order to get those benefits, you either have to be ‘married’ — using that actual word, or you have to get Congress to change the wording of all it’s laws, AND the legislatures of each of the 50 states and its several territories to change state laws. Being civil unionized will NOT get you any of those benefits.
It is simply much easier to get us under the umbrella of ‘marriage’ than to attempt all this, which of course is very unlikely in places such as Alabama, Georgia, Florida and so on.
posted by Drew on
I think Paul is missing the boat on this. The survey does us no good. The fact remains, people still do not understand what gay people are asking for. Even with the twist on civil unions, that is still a defense of a counterfeit.
posted by Andrew on
Randy – OR, you could make a law that states “partners entered into a civil union are granted all the rights associated with the status of marriage.” No wording changes in other laws required.
posted by Randy on
Andrew: Yep, that would work fine for the federal government, as I pointed out. But if Congress passed a law like that, it would have no effect upon any of the 50 states or DC. EACH one of them would have to pass a similar law for their own state laws, which is just as difficult as getting marriage for gays passed in each of the states and the federal government.
That would be a compromise. However, if civil unions are just the same as marriage, then why not simply call it marriage? Why the need for a separate status? It’s that sort of stigmatization that grates on many gay people’s nerves.
posted by Andrew on
I’m for calling same sex unions whatever they need to be called in order to be enacted. If calling it a civil union instead of marriage will really make that big of a difference, then so be it. All things being equal, I would prefer not to be stigmatized, of course, but I’m not going to say no to (more) equal rights on semantic grounds.
posted by Randy on
The political reality is that we will likely have to settle for civil union status before we get full-on marriage, just because more Americans back that right now than marriage. I’m not happy with that, but if that’s the best way to get our rights (or even the only way), then I certainly would not stand in the way. And we can always work later to push for the word marriage. Afterall, it works in Massachusetts!
posted by Olga on
Point one is exactly valid. But gays are cared about not the word but equality. So if the government leaves the word “marriage” for religions, recognize federal civil union for everybody, equal and plain – then why not? The state should not deal with “sacred ceremony”, they should care about social policy…
posted by Walloon on
In defense of the New York Times, they didn’t “doubt” that Susan Sontag was gay, but they were unable to find, in the brief time they had to publish an obituary, an on-the-record statement by either Sontag or someone close to her that she and Annie Liebowitz were lovers.
posted by John K on
It is times like this that I am glad to live in a country with compulsory voting.
Compulsory voting means the politicians have to be more responsive to subtle social changes, and the end result tends to be a more moderate Parliament.
In Australia, we are getting closer to having civil unions in the states. Hopefully that will build to the campaign to have our rights recognised federally (where they are so behind).
The word ‘marriage’ is still important to me because it signifies the strongest form of love & commitment. To *not* have marriage necessarily gives our relationships second-class status, creating a sexual apartheid.
I have always believed that inclusionism – not separatism – is the best and only way forward.
posted by jp on
Curious but “parallel” lines can meet in non-Euclidean geometry!
posted by mikekev58 on
I don’t understand how the particular edition of “Zits” that was cited reinforces the point that young people are more comfortable with gays if that strip is a “wry critique of the popularity of ‘gay’ as a generic put-down among students”. As a high school teacher, I hear both “gay” and “faggot” used every day. I’ve even remarked that, based on the frequency of the use of those words in the hallways, one might conclude that the school is overwhelmingly homosexual.
Kids use the term “gay” as a generic put down, so does that mean that acceptance of homosexuality is not as widespread as some think? Of course, I am talking about high school kid but I’m not sure attitudes aren’t pretty much hardened by the time one gets out of high school. For example, whether rape was involved or not, the Duke fiasco is not untypical of frat boys on campus as they release their inner high school punk.
Personally, I think that a lot of straight people of all ages talk the talk of acceptance but harbor a quiet contempt nonetheless. I base that on what I hear when the topic comes up out of earshot of any “known” gays.
One final point: let’s remember that the word “gay” was appropriated by homosexuals as an alternative to queer or the above referenced clinical term(yes, I know that some will say that it really comes from the French). For people to attach yet another level of meaning to “gay”(generic put-down)is to be expected. Language is fluid and words are layered. Words don’t have meaning; they have meaningS.
I remember when “gay” used to be a word that could describe a particular kind of ligth hearted person, having nothing to do with sexual orientation. To be honest, I miss that usage.