Pew Research takes a look at public opinion in the U.S. regarding homosexuality as sin, same-sex marriage, and requiring businesses to provide services to gay weddings.
The big news is that support for same-sex marriage has fallen from 54% last year to 50%. Says Pew:
It is too early to know whether this is an anomaly or the beginning of a reversal or leveling off of the growth in support for same-sex marriage widely observed in polls over the past decade.
This was noted, accurately, by the Wall Street Journal’s law blog, and for ideological purposes by by the National Organization for Marriage.
But for me, a more troubling finding is that 50 percent of all Americans consider homosexuality to be a sin, up from 45 percent last year. This mini-backlash (if that’s what it is) may be related to judicial victories for marriage equality in appellate courts, the Supreme Court’s overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act, and perhaps to local rulings that small business owners must bake cakes and photograph gay weddings even if they have religious objections to these assignments and would prefer to let their competitors take these gigs.
In other words, some of the backlash may be an inevitable result of progress toward equality under the law, and some may be self-inflicted by activists who would violate others liberty in order to compel ideological conformity.
32 Comments for “Let’s Go to the Stats”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
In other words, some of the backlash may be an inevitable result of progress toward equality under the law, and some may be self-inflicted by activists who would violate others liberty in order to compel ideological conformity.
Or it may be related to the increasingly loud and relentless attacks in recent months by conservative Christians like Brian Brown, Byran Fischer, Tony Perkins, Mat Staver, Tim Widlmon, Kelly Rios, Todd Starnes, Gary Bauer, Matt Barber, Scott Lively … and on and on.
Who knows?
I would point out, though, that your first rationale (“… inevitable result of progress toward equality under the law …”) is the more likely of the two you posit. A similar drop in support for marriage equality followed the Massachusetts judicial ruling in 2004, according to Gallup trending polls on marriage equality.
And I would also point out that whether or not homosexuality is a sin is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether marriage equality should be extended to same-sex couples, both as a constitutional matter and as a matter of simple fair play.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
—Public opinion polls of this sort are bound to shift some depending on how the question is asked, who asks it and what sort of mood the person taking the survey happens to be in.
“violate others liberty in order to compel ideological conformity.”
Nice how you totally dismissed the serious concerns that people have about religious exemptions….and distorted what they believed…….Oh, wait….ideological conformity must be OK when its done on the right……
posted by Don on
While public approval is important in some respects, I still point to the unfortunate number of people who disdain anti discrimination laws for racial minorities and women. There will always be a rump that will refuse to go along simply because it is the direction the majority has taken.
I can personally understand that sentiment. I have a rule of thumb with movies. If everyone in America raves about a mega-hit, I won’t see it. (Look Who’s Talking; Home Alone; Wayne’s World) I have always believed that if 98% of America loved it, then it probably sucked in my opinion. I’ve been right about this every time I dropped that rule.
The same phenomena exists with Dr. Pepper. the 1980s slogan “Wouldn’t you like to be a Pepper, too?” actually made sales drop from present levels. apparently those who chose the cola saw them selves as non-conformists. they actually didn’t care about the soda as much as it’s “outsider” label.
Go figure.
Personally, I think conservative Christians are relishing their outcast status. They are actually cultivating it. Mostly because Christ is presented as a rebel who walked the walk no matter what society said was right and wrong.
I’d be perfectly happy to marginalize them further if they think it would help their street cred. (just a joke)
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Personally, I think conservative Christians are relishing their outcast status. They are actually cultivating it. Mostly because Christ is presented as a rebel who walked the walk no matter what society said was right and wrong.
I don’t usually comment on Christian theology, but the idea that Christians will be persecuted runs deep in Christian scripture.
Each of the Gospels has many warnings about Christian persecution (e.g. “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues.” in Matthew 10:16-17) and the Epistles have many, many more. If it were just a verse or two, it would be one thing, but there are scores and scores of such warnings in Christian scriptures.
I don’t know if Christian historic focus on persecution is related to the times in which the Gospels were written or is related to the Jewish history of “redemptive suffering” (the idea that the Jews, as the “light to the nations”, are destined to suffer at the hands of the “nations”) but I do know that the Christian propensity to view the world through the lens of Christian persecution is real.
We may laugh at the likes of Tony Perkins, who is running around predicting that Christians are about to be “put into boxcars” and we may think that the Christian hyperbole about “re-education camps” and pastors being jailed for preaching the Gospel is nonsense (and, given the First Amendment protections, it is), but such fears are very real to conservative Christians. I hear it all the time from my fundamentalist/evangelical neighbors.
It annoys me (when my one of my neighbors started up a few months back and wouldn’t get off the dime after a few minutes, I finally shut him down by telling him that if he fancied himself “adopted” into the Chosen though Jesus Christ, then he ought to shut up about it and join us in enduring persecution for being a “light to the nations” as the price to pay for being “adopted” into the Chosen). That shut him up, believe me. But I don’t doubt the sincerity of his belief, however factually trivial the actual “persecution” he suffers (that is, not being able to have his version of Christianity taught in the schools, etc.) his complaints may be.
posted by Mike in Houston on
A single data point does not a trend make…
But I would expect that anti-equality sentiments might solidify, temporarily, as some folks harp on a non-existent loss of privilege when they see the actuality of LGBT equality.
Public sentiment against interracial coupling – “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” notwithstanding — rose after Loving… leveled off, then declined as reality continually trumped the dire predictions of the past.
And, I’m sorry Stephen, but the number of businesses that have been “negatively impacted” by LGBT-inclusive public accommodation laws as cited by the usual sources you keep dredging up is a pretty insignificant number statistically. The statistics around discrimination in public accommodations against LGBT people tell an entirely different story.
posted by Houndentenor on
I agree that one data point doesn’t a trend make, and this is just a headline, not a detailed analysis. Without digging deeper into the numbers no conclusions are valid. Also this ignores the margins for error in both polls. It’s possible that there’s been no change at all.
As far as the “sin” part goes, that only matters if you are gay and belong to that particular religious sub-group. Beyond that it’s none of our concern. Gossip is a “sin”, too. Should I look for the tabloids to go out of business any time soon?
posted by Mark Peterson on
It’s also possible that this is nothing more than statistical noise. As has been pointed out elsewhere, this was an odd poll, in that it contained questions about whether religion had enough influence in American life, so the respondents might have been primed to express skepticism about other policies (such as marriage equality) that could be seen as contradicting religious values.
As to the two explanations offered by Stephen, and assuming the poll is correct, since anti-discrimination laws (the laws Stephen seems to oppose that require businesses–even businesses that sell cakes and pastries–to serve gay customers) in most marriage states have been around for years, it’s hard to see how the existence of these laws could cause a decline in marriage support.
posted by Houndentenor on
The “conclusions” are nothing but baseless conjecture. We all do it, but it doesn’t have any actual validity unless there is some proof for a cause and effect.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It’s also possible that this is nothing more than statistical noise.
Quite possibly. And if not, a dip isn’t all that unusual, either, whatever the reason. Support for marriage equality has not been a straight line progression. It has bounced around several times in the last decade.
Sooner or later, though, support is going to level out. In Canada, support grew to the 65%-35% point, and then got stuck. That will happen to us, too, although given the alliance between the religious right and the GOP, the level-out number may end up closer to 60%-40% until time has worked a change in demographics, which is a polite way of saying that a lot of old people die off.
posted by Doug on
If there is in fact a decline in support for marriage equality, I dare say that decline is coming from the political right not the political left. Therefore Stephan has much more work to do on his side of the political spectrum.
posted by Lori Heine on
The shift is probably temporary. But I think it may very well have been caused by the overkill of activists seeking “public accommodations” laws that go well beyond the bounds of necessity or common sense.
People tend to dislike aggression, when it’s aimed at them. When a group of people who tend to be gigantic crybabies, anyway, are aggressed against, they’re going to cry about it. Nothing surprising there. Conservative Christians have no strategy left except for portraying themselves as victims, so of course they’re going to play that to the hilt.
Why we’d want to make it easier for them than it needs to be makes no sense. I would think it would be far better to publicize the businesses that won’t bake cakes or take photographs for us, and let them go out of business. The fact that the crybabies in Mississippi were screaming because that was happening to them shows that it would be the inevitable result.
posted by Mark Peterson on
But who are these activists? There have been some cities that have adopted public accommodations laws recently, but It’s been years since a state has done so. (Maryland and Nevada five years ago are the last states to pass public accommodations laws: http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com//files/assets/resources/public_accommodations_5-2014.pdf). I don’t believe any of the 29 states that don’t have the protections have even voted on a bill, though a bill sponsored by Democrats has been pushed in Michigan.
It’s hard to imagine why support for marriage would drop in Sept. 2014 in response to laws that were passed 5-10 (or more) years ago.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Sorry Lori, but the anti-public accommodation law folks have put forth at most 5-10 ‘cases’. … all of which have been rejected at the local, state and federal level. This is not ‘aggression’ , but sanity.
posted by Lori Heine on
Mike, you are making my point for me. We don’t need an anti-aircraft missile to kill a mosquito.
The arguments of the crybabies are absurd. They are dignified, and lent a credibility they don’t deserve, when we treat them as so dangerous that laws must be passed to squelch them. These people are pitiful. If we simply stood back and let them pitch their little tantrums, that would be clearly seen.
I’m not the one that needs to be convinced that the “threat” to religious freedom posed by same-sex marriage is a paper tiger. It gets magnified, in the imagination of the ignorant, when we use legislation against our adversaries that would be appropriate only if they actually were a threat.
posted by Mark Peterson on
It might be, as you’re suggesting, that the 29 states that permit businesses to discriminate against gay customers have it right, and the other 21 states should repeal their laws and once again allow the practice.
But I still don’t see the point that Stephen is raising about an (alleged) decline in marriage support and public accommodations laws. These laws were passed years ago–if they were going to trigger a decline in marriage support, that decline should have appeared when the laws were passed, not years or (in some states) decades later. As Tom S. observed, the Massachusetts marriage decision in 2003 triggered a slight backlash in the national polls. But the backlash occurred at the time (in 2003 and 2004 polls). It would be crazy to suggest that any current decline (and again, I suspect the Pew result is basically statistical noise) is attributable to a change in the law (whether Mass. marriage or passage of public accommodations laws in the early or mid-2000s) that occurred many years ago.
As for the other 29 states, why would someone in Utah who strongly believes (as Stephen seems to) that businesses should be able to refuse service to gays use that as a reason for opposing marriage? Even if equal marriage comes to Utah, every business in the state will still be allowed to refuse service to every gay customer the business owner wants to humiliate.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
You know, that Pew Poll on whether businesses can refuse service to same-sex customers with respect to their weddings is interesting — the support for refusal of service comes from white, male, older evangelicals.
I’m not surprised that women don’t support refusal of services, or blacks, or Hispanics, or Catholics. All have suffered from discrimination. And I’m not surprised that white, male, older evangelicals support refusal of services. Hell, its their God-given right, by Jesus to run over the rest of us.
posted by Lori Heine on
So we must run over them first? Are we really that scared of them?
Why don’t we simply point, laugh and let them die out?
You have become the enemy, and you don’t even recognize it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
You have become the enemy, and you don’t even recognize it.
Really?
I have consistently argued, for many threads running, for broad, comprehensive personal conscience exemptions to our laws (including, but not limited to, public accommodations laws), exemptions that are religion-neutral, issue-neutral and class-neutral. Where have you been with respect to that argument?
I have consistently argued, for many threads running, for a “de minimis” exemption to our public accommodations laws, an exemption that would grant an across-the-board exemption to businesses below a certain size. What have you been with respect to the argument?
As far as I can recall, you’ve never commented on either argument. You simply attack. You attack those of your religion who do not agree with you as “Christianists”, denying them even the dignity of being called “Christian”, and you attack those of us who believe that our laws should be applied with “equal means equal” as somehow equivalent to conservative Christians. I say it is all nonsense, Lori.
posted by Lori Heine on
Where am I with respect to that argument? I don’t believe businesses of any size should be told, by the government, who they should or should not hire or serve. That’s where I am with respect to it.
As far as your tears of pity for “Christians” who abuse Scripture to abuse other human beings, spare me. They say a hell of a lot worse about me and those who believe as I do.
The difference is that I don’t expect government to do anything but stay the hell out of it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Where am I with respect to that argument? I don’t believe businesses of any size should be told, by the government, who they should or should not hire or serve. That’s where I am with respect to it.
And it follows from that, logically, anyway, that you believe that all public accommodations laws should be repealed. I don’t have a problem with that, from the standpoint of “equal means equal”. And, unlike most libertarians I’ve been reading lately, you are honest about it. Most are making lame attempts to distinguish between public accommodation laws as they apply to race, or religion, or gender, trying to make a case why public accommodations laws should not apply to gays and lesbians on the same basis as they apply to African-Americans or Jews or women.
As far as your tears of pity for “Christians” who abuse Scripture to abuse other human beings, spare me. They say a hell of a lot worse about me and those who believe as I do.
Tears of pity? A nice turn of phrase, but hardly accurate.
I have no “tears of pity” for any Christian. Christians, for the most part, are a fractious lot, constantly at odds with other Christians, damning each other back and forth as apostates, and have an long and ugly history of suppression, suppression of each other and of adherents of other faiths.
Your refusal to grant Christians with whom you disagree the dignity of status as a “Christian” fits right into that history.
Our country was initially settled, for the most part, by Christians fleeing persecution from other Christians, and the ugliness continued in this country through the Colonial period. The First Amendment was the Constitutional response, a response intended to keep Christians from imposing their particular brand of Christianity into law, federally or state-by-state, and all of us benefit from the First Amendment keeping a lid on religious suppression.
Christians can damn each other all they want, as far as I am concerned, and I’ll get off the topic, not raising it again.
posted by Don on
I’m curious if Stephen is going to have a thread about NOM targeting Carl Demaio for being a pro-gay republican. Apparently the God Squad is pulling out all the stops to make sure that there are acid tests for being a Republican. There will be no tolerating of gay rights. And they will burn anyone who tries.
I’m happy that he’s done it. And I hope that he’s successful in making a bigger tent. But it’s just further proof that there is no appeasement with them. it’s all or nothing.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The NOM/FRC campaign is aimed at Richard Tisei and Monica Wehby as well as Carl DeMaio. Stephen may raise it, or not, but if he does, you can bet that he’ll find a way to spin it as a failure of progressive gays and lesbians.
Brian Brown issued this statement explaining the effort to destroy the three candidates:
An odd development is that the American Unity PAC (the pro-equality GOP “SuperPAC” aimed at turning the Republican Party) is focusing on five “Priority Races“, and that DeMaio and Tisei are notably absent from the list.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
Of course, as this Salon article reminds us – it could simply be a matter of how the poll is worded:
“There’s another reason for doubt. As polling experts often caution, the phrasing and context of questions has a big impact on the results. Survey respondents were asked about the support for gay marriage in the context of other questions about the role of religion in public life. In the same survey, three-quarters of respondents said the influence of religion in America was waning, and most saw that as a bad thing. The framing here couldn’t be better to elicit skeptical responses about gay marriage: Now that gay marriage nationwide seems “inevitable,” the strategy from social conservatives has been to portray it as a threat to “religious liberty.”
Even the researchers behind the poll cautioned journalists and advocates not to jump to conclusions. “Since we’ve seen this upward trend for so long, we’re cautious because it’s too early to say what this means for long-term trends,” Pew’s Jessica Martinez told the Associated Press. “We’ll keep an eye on where this moves.” ”
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/23/why_does_a_new_poll_show_gay_marriage_support_dropping/
Stephen’s relentless march against all these ‘activists’ who are somehow ONLY derailing this train to equality is past the expiration date for me.
Miller posits that “activists” are to fault for this one-time-poll drop in numbers (/rise in “sin” numbers). Without ever telling us how this community achieved such support the past few years.
Stephen thinks this fluctuation – a 5% increase in this poll among those who think homosexuality is a sin – is the responsibility of those who support a couple’s right to sue when a business violates a state law.
It’s funny to me that Miller won’t look at the work of those groups like the ‘Values Voters Summit’ – where the line-up of Republican presidential candidates (Cruz, Paul, Christie), Repub crazies (Bachmann, Santorum – oops, he fits both pres candidate and crazy, ditto Dr. Ben Carson), etc… are speaking in a venue where “homosexuality is a sin” is being constantly trumpeted.
There’s no breakdown in the polling as to what demographic(s) provided the fluctuation in numbers to create this outlier of a poll.
Are more Republicans now thinking of ‘gay is a sin’ since we’re getting closer to the SCOTUS decision? And the Republican chorus is chanting as loud as it can – religious freedom and religious liberty are all about ‘gays, sin and the right to discriminate’?
posted by Mike in Houston on
Aubrey — since Stephen actually used to work for GLAAD years ago, this may be a case of “there’s nothing worse than a reformed sinner”.
posted by Wilberforce on
Stephen uses a meaningless, ambiguous poll to defend the far right fundamentalists supposed right to discriminate against us. Could he be more transparent?
It’s sad when emotional problems are splayed out for all to see.
posted by Doug on
It’s called internalized homophobia.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
With respect to Stephen, I don’t think that analysis of his inner self is needed.
I’ve been reading IGF for a decade now, and Stephen’s positions on matters gay and lesbian have (a) generally followed the Republican apologetic of the day, whatever the issue and whatever the day, and (b) consistently blamed “progressive activists” for all manner of evils, including the failure of gay and lesbian Republicans to make a dent in their party’s march toward anti-equality.
posted by Wilberforce on
Actually, by observing words and actions, it’s very easy to see inside someone’s mind. And it’s important to point out emotional issues. It’s the first step in overcoming them. Didn’t they teach you that in whatever high profile University you attended?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
And it’s important to point out emotional issues. It’s the first step in overcoming them. Didn’t they teach you that in whatever high profile University you attended?
Nope.
posted by Jim Michaud on
I take this survey with a grain of salt. When you have the surveyors trying to explain themselves, well, that speaks volumes. NOM got a crumb of good news (that looks like a banquet to them at this point), they did the obligatory happy dance, and that was that. I’m looking at the long term trends, our accumulating wall of rulings in our favor and the pounding the message home to the people out there that “equal means equal”. When support actually plunges to 30% or lower long termwise, then I’ll start worrying.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
so….
Bill refuses to bake a gay wedding cake. This in turn causes his major supplier (We Sell Stuff) of baking supplies and equipment to refuse to sell him anything and demand that he return any and all supplies/equipment ASAP.
The actions of We Sell Stuff, prompts someone — on the right — to refuse to sell them something and so on and so forth…..Now….does anything see this as a really big potential mess with no end in sight?
posted by JohnInCA on
It might be a “big potential mess with no end in sight”, but it’s also how free markets work.
With few restrictions, you are free to decide who you partner with in business. Most of those restrictions, of course, revolve around “public accommodations”.