Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A longstanding Gallup tracking poll shows how dramatically public opinion has shifted when it comes to gay relationships.
Americans' support for the moral acceptability of gay and lesbian relations crossed the symbolic 50% threshold in 2010. At the same time, the percentage calling these relations "morally wrong" dropped to 43%, the lowest in Gallup's decade-long trend...While public attitudes haven't moved consistently in gays' and lesbians' favor every year, the general trend is clearly in that direction. This year, the shift is apparent in a record-high level of the public seeing gay and lesbian relations as morally acceptable. Meanwhile, support for legalizing gay marriage, and for the legality of gay and lesbian relations more generally, is near record highs.
Here's the key chart:
Notice that the negatives for gay relationships peaked just as the Goodrich decision came out. In the wake of that ruling in Massachusetts, an anti-gay wave of fervor came out. But then the tide began to turn, quickly and steadily, leading us where we are today. And I have no doubt that will continue.
Andrew Sullivan notes some of the important details of the poll:
A large part of the increase comes from men, not women. The religious grouping with the biggest increase in moral acceptance: Catholics, with a 16 point gain in tolerance since the hierarchy decided to demonize gays and banish them from the seminaries. Keep it up, your Holiness. And the issue of homosexuality isolates Republicans from Independents more than any other issue I've seen: 61 percent of Independents and Democrats alike see gay relationships as morally acceptable; only 35 percent of Republicans do. And the moderates are changing twice as quickly as Republicans.
This is something I've been predicting for the last couple of years, that sometime soon -- probably as early as the 2012 election -- the GOP's advocacy of anti-gay policies will actually hurt them. Public opinion is changing steadily on this issue and all in the same direction. In 2004, the Republicans used that anti-gay sentiment to fuel a victory for Bush. That is no longer a credible political strategy. And in another few years, if not already, attempting that will backfire on them.
Politics
Comments
I'm not sure that the disconnect between centrist independents and Republicans on gay rights is a determining factor when it comes to actual voting patterns. I would think factors such as the perception of capability for a party or politician to manage the economy or their region's interests would overwhelm an independents support of gay rights when it comes to capturing independents.
I wish all Americans were more empathetic towards the liberty rights of others but I don't see this out of either Republicans or sufficiently enough from independents to cause the latter to swing their vote to the left on that factor alone.
Posted by: Michael Heath | May 31, 2010 9:16 AM
I think that the organized anti-gay interests have been rebuked by the fact that we have same sex marriage is 5 states and D.C and the world has not yet ended. As a military wife pointed out on my facebook recently, DADT is meaningless if we don't recognize same sex unions/marriages. On that train of thought I think that repealing DADT will have a huge effect on the momentum of the same sex marriage movement.
Posted by: Kyle Stewart | May 31, 2010 9:45 AM
"This is something I've been predicting for the last couple of years, that sometime soon -- probably as early as the 2012 election -- the GOP's advocacy of anti-gay policies will actually hurt them. Public opinion is changing steadily on this issue and all in the same direction. In 2004, the Republicans used that anti-gay sentiment to fuel a victory for Bush. That is no longer a credible political strategy. And in another few years, if not already, attempting that will backfire on them."
Ah you just love saying things like that but the truth is they're not true. One need only look at how Californians and Mainers actually voted to reverse gay marriage in their states - in spite of almost all the polls showing otherwise - to realise that both polling and 'conventional wisdom' are not true. I don't believe that the Gallup Poll is actually correct on this. Late last year, Pew found that about 50% of adults still regarded homosexuality as morally wrong.
Running against gay rights doesn't hurt Republicans as you suggest. In fact, gay rights had virtually nothing to do with GOP defeats in 2006 and 2008. Beware of polling data that understates the true conservative sentiment of Americans.
Posted by: Steve | May 31, 2010 9:49 AM
Kyle said:
"I think that the organized anti-gay interests have been rebuked by the fact that we have same sex marriage is 5 states and D.C and the world has not yet ended. As a military wife pointed out on my facebook recently, DADT is meaningless if we don't recognize same sex unions/marriages. On that train of thought I think that repealing DADT will have a huge effect on the momentum of the same sex marriage movement."
I fail to see the connection of this 'rebuke' when most of the legalizations occurred via judicial fiat or legislative bullheadedness with a refusal to consult the voters. I think it says more that in each of the states you mentioned, liberals and Dems did everything in their power to deny voters their right to weigh in on the issue. When voters did get a chance to weigh in in California and Maine, the result was far from what liberals hoped.
That's why sitting back and quoting the Gallup Poll to justify the homosexual agenda is pretty silly. Additionally, repealing DADT is very indirectly related to DOMA and it would seem unlikely that DOMA would be touched anytime soon - especially considering that the GOP will be almost certainly gaining seats in November, if not an outright majority in one or both houses of Congress.
Posted by: Steve | May 31, 2010 9:57 AM
Do you have exact figures? cause just from your description thew two polls sound compatible to me. If *about* half of those polled regard homosexuality as morally wrong then it must follow that about half don't, which is pretty much what the Gallup poll says (52% is close to 50% isn't it?)
Posted by: Matty | May 31, 2010 10:11 AM
Steve @4: What, precisely, is "the homosexual agenda?"
Posted by: Dave W. | May 31, 2010 10:16 AM
@Steve
I was not referring to anti-gay groups being rebuke by legislation, I was referring to the types of propaganda that has been used to oppose any sort of same-sex legislation. If you remember "The Storm is coming" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bDjkKnO_cM&feature=related
TV spot, this has been typical of the scare tactics used to oppose same sex marriage. The rebuke I was referring that same-sex marriage has been happening in multiple states and we don't see any of these hyped up examples of the "homosexual agenda" affecting the rights of anyone else.
As far as the GOP gaining a majority, forget about it. The GOP has way over-hyped their chances in this next election. The voters are pissed at both the Repubs and the Democrats and the Tea Party represents a serious issue for Repubs in a number of districts.
Anyway, I agree the poll is not relevant to the issue. Legislating morality has no place in government. And remember, people were arrested for interracial marriages under the guise of morality.
Posted by: Kyle Stewart | May 31, 2010 10:19 AM
@dave: The homosexual agenda is the desire to not be a second class citizen because of sexual orientation. Up until 2003, sodomy was still a crime in some states. You can't serve in the military and in 30 states you can be fired from a job for your sexual orientation.
Either that or the agenda is to turn your kids into homosexuals and then have sex with them. Or was that the Catholic priest agenda?
Posted by: Kyle Stewart | May 31, 2010 10:26 AM
Kyle:
Nice try, but FAIL. As every really real KKKristian MerKKKin knows; the homaseckshul Aygenda is to undermine marriage and turn everbody into teh GAY podsters. They already done it to priests, they're workin' on congress critters (going after the bravest, most hateroseckshuls--like Larry Craig, Mark Foley--first, to prove that the rest of us ain't gotta a prayer. Well, actually, we got prayers--and preachers--out the wazoo, but it don't seem to help.
I will resist. They can have my haterosechshul penis when they can pry it from my cold, dead fin--um, let me get back to you on this.
Posted by: democommie | May 31, 2010 11:00 AM
I think it's a safe bet that 20 years from now when homosexuality is considered perfectly OK by the vast majority (as the trends indicate it will) and gay marriage is as acceptable as interracial marriage is, social conservatives will claim it was they who defending the liberties of the LGBT minority all along, and it was the evil libruls who were the bigots. You can find many examples of this today with conservative revisions of the civil rights era, a la Ann Coulter: "Democrats are surprised a black man can walk and talk"
Posted by: Eric J | May 31, 2010 11:03 AM
Steve,
The "judicial fiat" trope is a favorite one of those eager to deny individual rights. It was commonly used after the Brown v. Board of Education decision, too, with angry conservatives even demanding the impeachment of Chief Justice Earl Warren.
But here's how constitutions work--the majority doesn't get to violate their provisions, and if the state's constitution says all citizens must be treated equally, then the majority is constitutionally obligated to treat everyone equally. The majority may not like it, but as the great U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is." That logic applies to state supreme courts as well.
And anyway, your argument about same-sex marriage being anti-democratic doesn't work for two reasons. First, there now have been some straightforwardly democratic victories for same-sex couples' rights. In New Hampshire same-sex marriage came about through a bill passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor. In Vermont, the legislature over-rode the governor's veto to pass a same-sex marriage bill. And in Washington, first the state legislature, then the public through a referendum, approved a "everything but marriage" law that gives same-sex couples all legal rights pertaining to opposite-sex couples' marriages, but just without the name. As they say, a rose by any other name smells as sweet. D.C. was also legislatively enacted, so it was also a democratic victory (at least until the Republicans retake Congress--they could over-ride it, but if they don't manage that until 6-12 years from now, they may find it hard to repeal an established institution).
Second, there have been democratic opportunities to repeal same-sex marriage by constitutional revision that have failed. In Massachusetts, the Constitution can be changed by a vote of the legislature in two consecutive sessions--they could never manage the vote in even one session. There was very little democratic will for overturning the court's decision. And in Iowa repealing the state court's decision just isn't a high level issue. (I have good contacts in the state of Iowa, and I keep asking them, but they just shrug their shoulders and say, "most people are just focused on the economy, and we're traditionally a live and let live state.")
And your "let the public weigh in" argument is a complete red herring. The public doesn't get to weigh in on most issues--that's why we why elect representatives. People normally only get excited about "letting the public weigh in" when the normal democratic process doesn't go their way. And some states never let their public weigh in on anything--except through normal elections--because they don't have an initiative or referendum process. And in Washington, the public did weigh in, and full legal equality absent only the word "marriage" won. So the public doesn't always vote against equality for same-sex couples.
And you're ignoring the substantial number of states that allow domestic partnerships or civil unions. Even in California and main, where you boast about the public overturning SSM, they aren't clamoring to overturn their states' civil unions. In general, same-sex couples' equality has advanced in those states from where they were 15-20 years ago.
Besides that, you're missing the important point, which is the trend in the data. Whether any particular data point is off by a couple of percentage points doesn't mean much when there's a distinct trend in the data. There's little doubt that more and more people are coming to accept same-sex marriage. Battles that opponents of equality would have won easily 10 years ago are not at all certain anymore, and likely will be impossible to win 10 years from now (except in the more conservative states--I'm not claiming we'll have same-sex marriage in, say, Mississippi anytime soon).
So, yes, the democratic process has sometimes gone against marriage equality, but it's also sometimes gone for marriage equality. And you know what? That's pretty much how democracy is supposed to work--sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. What's important is what happens over time, and while SSM opponents used to be able to say, "It's never happened anywhere democratically," they can no longer say that--it has happened democratically in two or three states (depending how you count Washington).
The long-term trend does not appear to be in your direction, especially given that it's older people who mostly oppose SSM, while younger cohorts are more supportive. The older folks--who are overwhelmingly opposed, and who vote in far larger proportions than younger people--will die off over the next 20-30 years, and the younger people--who are more supportive of SSM--will reach the age where they vote in larger numbers. The math is simple.
Opponents of equality for homosexuals are now fighting a rear-guard battle. It's a delaying action, that will continue to be successful in the more conservative states, but will lose out in the less conservative states one-by-one. And I would bet that even some of the moderately conservative states--the ones that aren't dominated by religious conservatives, but by economic conservatives--will slowly begin to allow domestic partnerships.
Posted by: James Hanley | May 31, 2010 11:39 AM
Hah! Three internets for Democommie.
Posted by: James Hanley | May 31, 2010 11:44 AM
The political map is influenced heavily by framing. Some people still see homosexuality in the ranks as an issue affecting esprit de corps, many still see marriage equality as an attack on a primarily religious institution, and so it's still possible for the same person to both say that homosexuality is not immoral and to oppose gay marriage and open homosexuality in the military.
But here's the rub. There is reason to believe that public opinions on homosexuality are influenced by familiarity with homosexuals as people. It's harder to support laws that directly and unjustly affect the life of somebody you respect as a friend, a mentor, or a decorated soldier. Change will continue.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | May 31, 2010 12:05 PM
Very well said, James Hanley (#11). And while it's a bit disappointing that only 52% of the population supports same-sex relationships, at least the trend is moving in the right direction.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | May 31, 2010 12:16 PM
They can have my haterosechshul penis when they can pry it from my cold, dead fin--um--finite government protecting us from 'activist judges' boxer shorts. . .
;)
Posted by: mundusvultdecipi | May 31, 2010 12:20 PM
The so-called "trend" is only going up because of gay recruiting. Why, a bunch of them tried to recruit me in a park bathroom just the other night! I told them "No!" and "Not on your life!" and "I'll take the Bear!"
...
Uh, forget that last one.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | May 31, 2010 12:22 PM
Oh, Modus...I would have taken the twink.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | May 31, 2010 12:34 PM
Steve wrote:
Great. And if I'd actually claimed that this was true in either of those years, this might be relevant. But I didn't. I said it will be true soon, possibly as early as 2012 in some places. Certainly by 2016 in many places. The trends are quite obvious in terms of public opinion. Go look at the polls about gay marriage immediately after the Goodridge decision in 2003 and then track them to today. The change in just 7 years has been enormous. We are now seeing state legislatures, several of them, voting for gay marriage without any serious repercussions from voters. The trends are obvious and undeniable. The bigots will lose, just as they lost on civil rights.
The year I was born, the Supreme Court struck down laws banning interracial marriage and there was a huge outcry from conservatives. "Judicial tyranny!" they screamed. They're "destroying the will of the people!" It's 43 years later and you can hardly find anyone outside the KKK who would take such a position. The same thing will happen on gay rights. In another 20-30 years, it will be inconceivable to us that this was even an issue back in the early part of the century, just as it is inconceivable to us today that within our lifetimes a sizable portion of the country thought blacks should drink from separate fountains.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 31, 2010 1:34 PM
James Hanley:
I told my imaginary friend, in my best Sally Fields voice, "They like me, they really like me!"--now, back to work.
You said:
"There's little doubt that more and more people are coming to accept same-sex marriage."
That will all change when it's revealed that teh GAY IS Al-queda!
You also said:
"Opponents of equality for homosexuals are now fighting a rear-guard battle."
For that, I'm giving you 1-1/3 of my recently conferred "Netties".
Posted by: democommie | May 31, 2010 1:50 PM
A quick curve fit in Excel gives a decent-looking linear fit of (% acceptable) = (37.6)+ (73/55)(year-2000). That's an oversimplification that ignores the different rates of change for the two sexes, however.
Also not mentioned so far: the trend seems to be stronger among the young. Or, in other words: "You guys don't understand. You've already lost. My generation doesn't care."
Posted by: abb3w | May 31, 2010 2:06 PM
The homosexual agenda:
Brunch at 11
Meeting at 1
Dinner at 5:30
Sex and the City 2 at 7:30
Drinks at 10
So, Steve, you're saying that the Gallup poll that shows about half of the public favors gay marriage is wrong, but the Pew poll that shows about half the public disapproves of gay marriage is right? Not only are those completely in agreement, as others have noted, but why in the hell do you assume that one poll is an accurate reflection of the "will of the people" and the other isn't? The only reason you deny the validity of the Gallup poll is because it shows that your position is now in the minority and becoming more and more archaic by the day. Polls of younger people, teens and 20-somethings, show an overwhelming approval of gay relationships and marriage. More accurate than "approval" is probably a simple "don't give a shit." Most young people don't care at all if someone is gay or not; it's no more an issue for a large percentage of people under 30 than being male or female is. You can keep clinging to your bigotry and become a dinosaur if you want, but gay rights are a tide that is coming in. It's as simple as waiting things out at this point. Gay marriage and full gay rights are coming, no matter what the right says or does. And America won't come to a crashing halt.
Posted by: Ryan | May 31, 2010 2:22 PM
I think it's already at the point of hurting Republicans. And it speaks to Ryan and abb3w's points. People might still be bothered by gay marriage/relationships, but by and large, they're starting to realize it has *nothing* to do with them. Gay people getting married has no impact on their lives. And Republicans, by making a big issue out of this at a time when the real crises for our country are stacked up 10 deep, look like their priorities might be a little... misplaced.
Posted by: sylphs | May 31, 2010 2:51 PM
Oh, f**k! If only I'd realized what I said. There's nothing that makes me feel so crestfallen as not actually having intended to write such a good line.
sylphs--I think you're right on target. It's not that moderates will take great offense and rise up in support of all their gay friends, but that they won't see it as a pressing issue, and will wonder why politicians are focusing on that when we're still at war in two countries, there have been very recent attempts at terrorist attacks, and the national unemployment rate is still unacceptably high.
"My nephew's getting shot at by the Taliban, I've been out of work for 18 months, and your big concern is two queers gettin' hitched?! Hell, I've been divorced twice and I'm still paying child support--good luck to 'em!"
Posted by: James Hanley | May 31, 2010 3:13 PM
James Hanley,
You are right on the money.
More and more the ideas of homosexuality in general and same sex marriage in particular are become ho-hum to most Americans.
It's not going to take some great moral awakening or concentrated political movement for the idea of same sex unions to become common place, just a gradual acceptance and apathy of a public that has more important things to wory about.
Of course there will continue to be opposition from religious die hards but their voices will drift farther and farther into the background as people see that the states that have adopted same sex unions/marriage haven't fallen into moral decrepitude or anarchy. (Well no more so than any other state.)
I had assumed that your "rear guard" remark was intentional. I almost posted a Beavis style rebuttal. Heh heh!
Posted by: Lance | May 31, 2010 4:14 PM
for the younger generation, it's not 'the gays' and their nefarious agenda, it's Aaron, Liz, Danny, Stephen, Jessica, Jeremy, and others. the idea that certain of my friends and relatives are wicked perverts out to take over the country and destroy the value of my relationship is not only manifestly incorrect and highly offensive, it's fucking stupid.
Posted by: andrew | May 31, 2010 7:15 PM
Kyle @8: "The homosexual agenda is the desire to not be a second class citizen because of sexual orientation."
Yeah, I knew that. But nobody needs to "justify" that (Steve's word) any more than one needs to justify the desire to not be a second-class citizen because one is a heterosexual.
I was hoping (perhaps unreasonably) that someone like Steve, who uses the phrase "homosexual agenda" expecting everyone to know what he means, would explain his understanding of the term.
It'd be a first, in my experience. The people I've run into who've used the term like Steve did haven't actually been able to articulate what it means. Maybe Steve will be back to break the streak.
Posted by: Dave W. | May 31, 2010 10:38 PM
Decent Americans are realizing that homophobia is a sin like lying, stealing and murder. Radical anti-gay activists continue to try to justify their sin of homophobia and make it into a legitimate "religious belief." It worked for a while and still works..to a certain extent. But it works less and less. Time is on our side and they cannot change that.
Posted by: Michael | June 1, 2010 3:02 AM
"Opponents of equality for homosexuals are now fighting a rear-guard battle."
They may have their backs to the wall but they won't go down easily.
Posted by: Matty | June 1, 2010 4:10 AM
Michael says; "Decent Americans are realizing that homophobia is a sin like lying, stealing and murder."
I don't think that's true. I suspect a lot of people are a little uncomfortable with homosexuality. That's one reason there have been so many jokes on this thread.
What people see as a sin is sticking their nose in other people's business (think clean thoughts, now ;) ) when it doesn't affect them. When sex before marriage ceased to be a sin worthy of condemnation (at least for women. Men always got a free pass) and became "none of your damn business, thank you very much," it was pretty inevitable that homosexuality would eventually fall in the same category.
Posted by: hoary puccoon | June 1, 2010 8:10 AM
hoary puccoon "I don't think that's true. I suspect a lot of people are a little uncomfortable with homosexuality. That's one reason there have been so many jokes on this thread."
To be fair, we make the same jokes about buttsex and carpet munching even on heterotopics.
It follows, therefore, that your statement reflects more on your own psyche than it does on ours. We're always immature.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | June 1, 2010 12:07 PM