Most Americans believe their fellow citizens hold strong biases against minorities, according to a new poll by Zogby International, one of the most comprehensive ever conducted on prejudice. On sexual orientation, it found:
62% said they believe Americans oppose same-sex marriages. Yet 58% would elect a gay person for President-about the same as for an Arab-American (57%), and more than for a person over age 70 (51%) or for an atheist (51%).
Meanwhile, a plurality (47%) believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to adopt children.
Pollster John Zogby said:
Over my years of polling, I've learned that Americans tend to offer socially acceptable responses when questioned on their own views about race and prejudice. That's why in this poll we predominantly asked people about "most Americans'" views on race and prejudice. We believe this provides a far more accurate window into how people really think about these issues. Americans are more forthcoming when discussing the problem in the context of their neighbors' lives than in the context of their own lives.
The upshot: Popular opposition to same-sex marriage remains the prime hurdle to full legal equality for gay Americans.
14 Comments for “Gay President Is OK…If Unwed”
posted by Don Norte on
I guess an unmarried gay man has just as good of a shot as being President as a divorced straight man.
posted by Greg Capaldini on
Some historians would argue that we already HAD a gay President, James Buchanan, who left office in 1861 and was succeeded by Lincoln. Quoting Encyclopedia Britannica: “While Buchanan was senator he shared lodgings with another bachelor, Senator William R. King of Alabama, causing some tongues in Washington to wag, but, in conformity with the mores of the time, the relationship was not a public matter.” As President, Buchanan is generally viewed as failing to mitigate tensions prior to the Civil War. I wonder if that stigma will affect other non-hetero politicians.
posted by Ted B. on
Even more interesting, Sen. King was the 13th Vice President of the United States in 1853, prior to Buchanan’s administration (1857-1861) and died early in the term; which was never filled. So at the time that Pres. Buchanan was elected, he was King’s surviving-companion.
Quite the Washington DC “power couple” once you put the pieces together.
posted by Doug on
I’m absolutely sure that acceptance of gays and lesbians has come a long way but if you honestly believe that 58% of Americans would vote for a gay or lesbian for President you are delusional.
posted by Nicola on
I agree with Doug, there is no way 58% of the people in the US would vote for a gay person for president. Probably the majority who said they would said so because they are ashamed to say how they really feel about gay and lesbians.
posted by James on
Why would a gay candidate have to be “out ‘n proud”? Why couldn’t he be a “confirmed bachelor” with a “dear, close friend”? I admire the political facade of Buchanan or Lincoln. I don’t think being “out” means being “in your face, gay 24/7.” There is nothing wrong with living your life inside a social fiction, like, say, Condoleeza Rice or David Souter. A social fiction is not a closet–it’s a way of saying something about yourself indirectly. We all “know,” wink, wink, but we don’t have to know the details.
posted by Zeke on
James, David Dreier must be your hero.
posted by James on
Many Republicans were willing to vote for Condoleeza Rice. David Souter had no problem being appointed to the Supreme Court. Perhaps they should serve as examples for successful gay politicians.
posted by Doug on
James – there is a vast canyon between the closet and ‘in your face 24/7’, why do you have to frame the question between the two extremes. And just because some is single, Rice and Souter, does not necessarily make them gay.
posted by James on
My point is exactly that–why do Rice and Souter have to tell us anything about themselves? Why can’t they just be “confirmed bachelors” or “maiden aunts”? Why can’t Bush have a “special friend” in Tennessee? Why can’t the Clintons be a “happily married couple?” Why do we have to know the details of a politician’s sex life? Why does a gay candidate have to “out ‘n proud”? A social fiction is not the closet–a social fiction is a zone of privacy which allows people to speculate but not confirm. I think the gay community would be more successful if we chose social fictions over rainbow flags, particularly when it comes to candidates.
posted by Carl on
I’ve never been much of a fan of Zogby. His polling was off in the 2004 elections and the 2006 elections, and I think in 2003 he ran a poll for the groups in Massachusetts that oppose gay marriage.
posted by Amicus on
The upshot: Popular opposition to same-sex marriage remains the prime hurdle to full legal equality for gay Americans.
———-
True or False: A gay, Republican-styled ‘name and shame’ campaign on gay-marriage at the National level is not going to change minds on the issue.
posted by Brian Miller on
James, David Dreier must be your hero.
ROFL!
A gay, Republican-styled ‘name and shame’ campaign on gay-marriage at the National level is not going to change minds on the issue.
Minds aren’t going to be changed on the issue until after a long period of hardship. Right now, the national psyche is about getting as much as possible from the government, while continuing to slide by on consumption funded by debt. Eventually the party will be over, and when things slowly crawl their way back, a lot of people will be forced to re-evaluate their priorities when “the system” treats them just as poorly as the gay people they used to view as inferior to them. It’s inevitable.
posted by Jim on
Hey, straight people aren’t quiet about their sexuality, so why should we be? Gay candidates SHOULD be out and proud.