Gay Marriage

Even Folks Who Dislike Gay Marriage Realize It's Inevitable

Attitudes toward gays and lesbians in America have shifted considerably in just a decade

|

According to the Pew Research Center's latest poll, 72 percent of Americans say legal recognition of gay marriage is coming. It doesn't necessarily mean they support it. Almost 60 percent of those who oppose recognition of same-sex marriages think it's inevitable anyway. (Libertarians may well commiserate regardless of their positions on marriage recognition, given the apparent inevitability of many policies they oppose.)

Pew Research Center

Pew's research goes much further, though, showing significant cultural shifts in attitudes toward gay people. Over the course of a decade, the majority has shifted to accept gay people should be part of society, to have more favorable opinions of the gays (women a few points higher than men), and to say they're much less likely to be upset if their children told them they were gay.

The number of Americans who say they personally know somebody gay has jumped from 61 percent to 87 percent in 20 years (that may explain a Gallup poll from last year where people estimated nearly 25 percent of the population was gay or lesbian).

Their latest poll numbers for gay marriage recognition have 51 percent supporting it and 67 percent supporting legal agreements that offer the same "rights" as marriage (scare quotes because I can hear some of you grinding your teeth — they really mean "privileges").

It's all over but the voting, pretty much. The Supreme Court's decisions on California's Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act are expected sometime during June. They may well end up punting on Prop. 8 (which could lead to more confusion, as Damon Root wrote in March). The Defense of Marriage Act decision is likely to be narrowly tailored so as not to decide whether gays can claim a national right to have their marriages recognized by law.

But state resistance is falling like dominoes. Today gay Minnesota couples started getting their marriage licenses. We may not even need a Loving v. Virginia decision to make it happen. Maybe we can just do it ourselves.

Read the full report here.

Emily Ekins noted yesterday our recent Reason-Rupe poll showing a majority of Americans don't really care if professional athletes are gay.

NEXT: Aussie Internet Censorship 'Accidentally' Blocked 250,000 Websites

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yeah, always figured that SSM would sooner-or-later be legalized just by virtue of changing social attitudes towards it.

  2. I don’t like dudes but I guess I have to accept the fact that I’ll be gay-married someday whether I want to or not.

    1. We’ll do our best to pair up the Reason commenters together. Most of you argue like married couples already.

      1. *sigh* Fine. Just don’t stick me with Episiarch. He can’t seem to grasp the concept of my toothbrush vs his toothbrush.

        1. I don’t think that’s the kind of thing married couples usually fight about, Hugh. My parents seem to have it down, at least.

          1. I’m not sure you understand what “toothbrush” means in the twisted EpiAk relationship.

            1. Oh…OH.

        2. Fine, you’re sleeping on the couch all week.

    2. Shut up, Hugh. This is why you’re sleeping on the couch tonight.

  3. I am glad one side of this battle is showing signs of giving up. Maybe we can move on to another most important civil rights issue of our day.

    1. Yes.

      Please let the anti-abortion and pro-gun control inevitable losers each quickly give in too.

      1. Never gonna happen. Both sides see their goal as a noble crusade to save lives. People don’t give up on those issues.

  4. This something that reason commenters hves changed my opinion on. I thought gay marriage should be a right at first, now I think why the hell do I need a government permission slip to enter into an adult agreement older than civilization itself?

    1. Hves= has/have. Not sure which is grammatically correct.

      1. Yeah we should definitely get out of the mindset that any right could require a state certificate to enjoy.

        1. It didn’t take long hanging around here to come to that conclusion. Anything you need government permission to do is not a right.

        2. I used to think the same. Equal rights to marry whoever you wanted.

          ‘Course then I asked myself, “Why the hell do I, or anyone else, need to ask permission from the government for a license to fuck?”

          Then I placed a top hat upon my head and polished a monocle.

          1. Little orphan monocle polish… Only the best for me!

            1. Do you mean orphan tears or actual orphans? In my experience the actual ground orphans can scratch your monocle. Orphan tears will never scratch!

            2. I’ve long since gotten past letting an orphan polish the monocle… the finish is never quite even, and there are generally water marks from their salty tears. I’ve rigged up a monocle polishing machine instead. One orphan rides a bicycle hooked up to a lazy susan of orphans with their tongues sticking out. It’s a good even polish, and my orphan utilization rate has soared!!

              Also, to add something of substance to the thread, this issue is one of a handful that got me out of team red. (That and having my only 2 presidential votes so far go to John “My Friends” McCain and Mitt “Strapped my dog to the roof” Romney)

              Socons seem to have a Constitutional blind spot when it comes to sex.

  5. I’ll let the government back in my bedroom if they’ll get out of my phone records, email, personal financial and health information.

    Deal?

    1. No deal! I don’t ask much from my government. Just LEAVE ME ALONE!

  6. When it’s inevitable you’re supposed to lay back an enjoy it, I’m told.

  7. Even folks who dislike being spied on by the government realize its inevitable.

    Even folks who dislike having their money wasted by government realize its inevitable

    Even folks who dislike the government lying to us realize its inevitable.

    1. And its inevitable that homosexuals will use their new legal powers to apply force to others since that is what laws do.

      “”””Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake””‘

      http://news.yahoo.com/colo-gay…..25831.html

      1. Ooh, look at this from the linked article:

        “…Colorado’s civil union law does not provide religious protections for businesses despite the urging of Republican lawmakers. Democrats argued that such a provision would give businesses cover to discriminate.”

        So they had a chance to adopt libertarian principles, and they specifically rejected them.

        Reason wants to celebrate this as a triumph of freedom, but you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

        1. Gay marriage is banned by the Colorado state constitution. Which supports the notion that gay marriage laws aren’t the cause of anti-discrimination laws or court decisions. Both phenomena are the results of changing societal attitudes about homosexuality. One is not causing the other. Ideally, the government would not give out marriage licenses. As long as they do, they should give them to gay as well as straight couples. Anti-discrimination laws should not exist, regardless.

          1. As long as government sends checks to the old or poor, they have to send them to everyone or they are discriminating.

            1. So would you be ok with restricting welfare benefits to just black (or white or whatever) people? Or making it so only Asians have to pay taxes?

              1. So would you be ok with restricting welfare benefits to just black (or white or whatever) people? Or making it so only Asians have to pay taxes?

                Discrimination against identifiable genetic traits is definitely wrong. “Discrimination” based upon the idea of choice or predisposition, on the other hand, isn’t the same thing.

                Are you also opposed to government restricting small business loans to billionaires?

                The only purpose of government recognition of marriage is the idea that children are raised more roundly with both sexes as role models. The role models don’t even have to fuck each other, but could be a gay man and a lesbian. If the government is not going to promote this, marriage serves no purpose. Even if it serves a “social” purpose, that doesn’t justify government doing it.

                Hardly the same as racial discrimination for welfare or taxation. And you didn’t answer my question. Do you favor government checks for everyone?

                1. “Discrimination against identifiable genetic traits is definitely wrong.”

                  Why? I could just as easily use your retort against you. Why the emphasis on genetics? Do you really think people choose to be gay? And is age a choice?

                  “The only purpose of government recognition of marriage is the idea that children are raised more roundly with both sexes as role models.”

                  Gay marriage doesn’t affect straight people getting married, and is being raised by a gay couple worse than being raised by a single parent or in foster care?

                  “Even if it serves a “social” purpose, that doesn’t justify government doing it.”

                  Government isn’t justified in doing what it’s already doing regarding marriage. It isn’t the job of the government to promote how people live and raise kids.

                  “Hardly the same as racial discrimination for welfare or taxation.”

                  It isn’t the same thing, but your argument could just as easily be used against it. Or to give a more direct (but still admittedly not exact) comparison, plenty of people think (or thought) that the qualifier”of the same race” should be a part of the definition of marriage, and many people still think interracial marriage is bad for the kids.

                  1. “Do you favor government checks for everyone?”

                    No. I don’t favor government checks for anybody (except public employees, although there would be a lot fewer if I was in charge). Now, assuming the existence of welfare programs, I don’t think they should discriminate in any fashion unrelated to their purpose. So, no, I don’t have a problem with discriminating based on income or wealth, because the entire (stated) purpose of welfare programs is to help people who can’t take care of themselves. Marriage isn’t the same thing because 1) there are many benefits or aspects of being married completely unrelated to having children (nor is having, adopting, or raising children a requirement to be married) and 2) as I stated above, even though kids may be worse off growing up in gay households than straight households, there still better off than they would be growing up in a single parent home, foster care, or not existing at all (which are the actual alternatives for those kids). So even under the purpose of marriage given by you, gay marriage would be beneficial

          2. Reason is citing support for gay marriage as a pro-libertarian trend. I can at least offer evidence to contradict this thesis.

            The problem is that, in the real world – rather than in the world of libertarian seminars and comment boards – the movement for SSM and the movement to tighten restrictions on the private sector are interconnected. When the state legislatures vote down exemptions for private business, or extend exemptions only to specifically religious organizations rather than for-profit businesses, they are voting specifically to tighten the governmental noose over the private sector. If libertarians shrug this off as mere collateral damage, this shows that Kultur War considerations are more important than liberty itself.

            1. Marriage, natural or homo, is communism in these here socialist, unfree, states.

              1. Dare I ask what that means?

                1. Probably not.

                2. It means the following:

                  (1) Public sector employees have spouses. Of course, not all, but, I take it that you would grant that there are many public sector employees who have spouses.

                  (2) Some public sector employees are straight. You would, I assume, that most public sector employees are straight.

                  (3) There are also some public sector employees who are homosexual. Some of this subset is married.

                  (4) The property of both individuals and business associations is confiscated, at least in part, to finance the payment of benefits to the spouses of gay public sector employees.

                  (5) A good deal of the property confiscated from both individuals and business associations is by means of the income tax.

                  (6) The income tax is, in and of itself, communism.

            2. What is very interesting to me is the fact that government recognition isn’t good for opposite sex marriage. As far as I know, it is one of the few contracts to which you can enter in which the government can change the conditions without your knowledge, much less consent.

              “Family Law” is a shit pile of emotive evil. I think people who are promoting SSM actually hate gay people. I wouldn’t wish Family Law on my worst enemy.

              On the other hand, it is just possible that SSM will bring the whole shit pile down, which would be an unbelievably wonderful, unintended consequence.

              1. First two paragraphs, right-on, MG. How about alimony for a shit pile of emotive evil?

                Last paragraph, your words to Zoroaster’s ears.

                1. Alimony was definitely meant to be included in Family Law.

            3. “the movement for SSM and the movement to tighten restrictions on the private sector are interconnected.”

              That’s pretty much what I said. Because of changing social attitudes about homosexuality, more people are accepting of gay marriage, and many of these people think discrimination against gays should be prohibited. Because one is bad doesn’t mean the other is too. Ending Jim Crow and passing anti-discrimination laws in the 60s were also connected. Doesn’t mean ending Jim Crow wasn’t right (Note: I’m not saying gay people have it as bad today as black people did in the 60s. That’s not the point of the analogy). Your entire argument rests on the premise that one cannot support gay marriage, but oppose anti-discrimination laws. That is quite simply false. And as examples like this one and the New Mexico photographer show, it’s entirely possible to have anti-discrimination laws regarding gays without gay marriage

              1. What in the fuck is Libertarian about anti-discrimination laws?

                An individual or business should be at liberty to refuse service to any person at any time for any reason.

                Government, by your definition of “discrimination” will continue to discriminate against single people by not giving them the same treatment they give “married” couples. No longer showing favoritism to anyone for their personal relationships would be actual anti-discrimination.

                SSM proponents favor a tiny adjustment in the discrimination scale, nothing less.

                1. Nothing less? Nothing more.

                  I blame the 134 proof Elijah Craig.

                2. “What in the fuck is Libertarian about anti-discrimination laws?

                  An individual or business should be at liberty to refuse service to any person at any time for any reason.”

                  Um, where the fuck did I imply that I disagreed with those statements? I’ll cut you some slack because of the Elijah Craig, I hope your reading comprehension isn’t normally this bad.

                  “Government, by your definition of “discrimination” will continue to discriminate against single people by not giving them the same treatment they give “married” couples.”

                  I agree with this. I favor ending all marriage licenses, which I’ve stated in this thread, and of course making all laws marriage-neutral. All I’ve said is that if marriage licenses are given out by the state, they should be given to both gay and straight couples. I’d say the same thing if this was the 60’s and we were talking about interracial couples.

                  “SSM proponents favor a tiny adjustment in the discrimination scale, nothing less.”

                  Most of them yes. But not all, and to use this as justification for opposing SSM is an ad hominem

                  1. Most of them yes. But not all, and to use this as justification for opposing SSM is an ad hominem

                    No, SSM would amount to 1% of the population, at the very most. Many, many more people who are not “married”, gay and straight, will continue to be “discriminated” against. So it is factually a tiny adjustment of discrimination.

                    1. “No, SSM would amount to 1% of the population, at the very most.”

                      So? That wasn’t even my point. I said that arguing against SSM based on the beliefs or motivations of its proponents is an ad hominem. When I said, “but not all,” I was referring to people like myself and other libertarians who would prefer to see an end to marriage licenses and marriage-biased laws, but support SSM as an improvement over the current situation.

                    2. “(Note: I’m not saying gay people have it as bad today as black people did in the 60s. That’s not the point of the analogy).”

                      I think that’s the point of most people who constantly whip out this comparison. Or at least they would prefer not to acknowledge the differences.

                      “Your entire argument rests on the premise that one cannot support gay marriage, but oppose anti-discrimination laws.”

                      No, it’s a narrower and more specific argument – if you’re against restrictions on secular businesses, you can’t support the *actual SSM bills* being passed in the states, with their derisory exemptions which don’t protect private for-profit businesses. You could support alternative bills which contain the requisite exemptions. But you can’t cheerlead the actual bills they’re passing and still claim that you in any relevant sense “oppose” the foreseeable consequences of these bills.

                    3. “arguing against SSM based on the beliefs or motivations of its proponents is an ad hominem.”

                      My point is about the actual content of these bills – what I say about motives is based on the laws they’re actually passing, not my guesswork on what they may be thinking.

                    4. “‘arguing against SSM based on the beliefs or motivations of its proponents is an ad hominem.’

                      My point is about the actual content of these bills – what I say about motives is based on the laws they’re actually passing, not my guesswork on what they may be thinking.”

                      That comment was to Marshall, specific to our discussion, it wasn’t at all intended for you

                    5. “I think that’s the point of most people who constantly whip out this comparison. Or at least they would prefer not to acknowledge the differences.”

                      Well it’s not my point. My point is that it is an example where a group was pushing for a good thing (ending Jim Crow) while simultaneously pushing for a bad thing (anti-discrimination laws). That’s it. And the thing is, the way you construct your arguments make any differences between gay and interracial marriage irrelevant. Plenty of people have religious objections to interracial marriage, not to mention interreligious marriage, marriage involving divorcees, etc. And there are laws outlawing discrimination on these grounds.

                      EvH, don’t pretend that you don’t have underlying religious objections to gay marriage in general, and are simply unsatisfied with the way the bills are currently written (and I agree that they’re flawed)

  8. So by this logic Reason should give up and become Communists. It’s inevitable after all.

    1. I didn’t see Reason make the argument that because it’s inevitable, people should support it. Just observing that a large number of people who oppose it think it’s inevitable.

      I also fail to see how communism is inevitable, or how gay marriage is in any way comparable to communism

      1. The fact that an individual’s property is confiscated by the state, at least in part, to finance the bennies given to spouses of public sector employees, absolutely eviscerates the proposition that gay marriage is not, in any way, related to communism.

        Income taxation is communism and Marx said so.

        1. Who gives a fuck what that shit-stain Marx said!

          Bastiat said basically the same thing. I guess even Marx was a blind squirrel.

        2. That’s a pretty flimsy link. Not that I support all the pay and benefits public employees get. I’m totally in favor of abolishing the income tax and eliminating marriage licenses. But that doesn’t mean that if we do have marriage licenses, that I don’t have a preference as to the rules governing them.

      2. “Just observing that a large number of people who oppose it think it’s inevitable.”

        A lot of people who opposed communism in the 1920’s thought it was inevitable, the results were…not good.

        “I didn’t see Reason make the argument that because it’s inevitable, people should support it.”

        So Reason is making an irrelevant point?

        1. “A lot of people who opposed communism in the 1920’s thought it was inevitable, the results were…not good.”

          What’s your fucking point? Gay marriage is going to lead to the second coming of gulags and the Great Leap Forward? Seriously, what exactly are you and him trying to say?

          “So Reason is making an irrelevant point?”

          I wouldn’t say it’s irrelevant. It’s simply data on the shifting societal attitudes of homosexuality and gay marriage, including the pessimistic outlook of those opposed to gay marriage. Now I’m not saying that Reason isn’t in favor of acceptance of homosexuality. They are (as am I, as I could not care less who other people choose to fuck in their personal lives). I’m saying that reporting a poll that says that most gay marriage opponents think gay marriage is inevitable doesn’t mean that Reason thinks that the reason people should support gay marriage is because it’s inevitable.

        2. “A lot of people who opposed communism in the 1920’s thought it was inevitable, the results were…not good.”

          What’s your fucking point? Gay marriage is going to lead to the second coming of gulags and the Great Leap Forward? Seriously, what exactly are you and him trying to say?

          “So Reason is making an irrelevant point?”

          I wouldn’t say it’s irrelevant. It’s simply data on the shifting societal attitudes of homosexuality and gay marriage, including the pessimistic outlook of those opposed to gay marriage. Now I’m not saying that Reason isn’t in favor of acceptance of homosexuality. They are (as am I, as I could not care less who other people choose to fuck in their personal lives). I’m saying that reporting a poll that says that most gay marriage opponents think gay marriage is inevitable doesn’t mean that Reason thinks that the reason people should support gay marriage is because it’s inevitable.

          1. Sorry for the double post

  9. Is that a Euphamism?

  10. Youve got to admit that makes a lot of sense .

    http://www.AnonStuff.tk

    1. Sometimes you jsut have to roll those bought and paid for politicians in bean footage!

  11. Don’t y’all get it, were all homos and socialists now!

  12. What does a gay man bring on a second date?

    What second date?

    1. Ah but you forgot the lesbian half of that joke:

      What does a lesbian bring on a second date?

      A U-Haul.

  13. The top line of that graph is why I hate the fight over gay marriage. If the people fighting for that had decided not to fight over the word ‘marriage’ and fought for civil unions instead (or something equivalent), gays would already have coupling privileges in more than just a handful of states and life for them would in generally be better off. But no, instead we have a pissing match over the word ‘marriage’ that just makes both sides smell like piss and bile.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.