The survey Stephen Ansolabehere and I placed in the field this past July included many questions on so-called “moral values” issues. Most of the book, Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy, http://www.amazon.com/Opinion-Constitutional-Controversy-Nathaniel-Persily/dp/0195329422, which I edited with Pat Egan and Jack Citrin, also covers these issues. The trajectories of opinion in this category of issues do not seem to be following a consistent pattern, and it is interesting to speculate why. I will focus in this post on gun rights, abortion, and same sex marriage.
First, guns: It is well known that support for stricter gun laws has been going down for some time. See http://www.gallup.com/poll/123596/In-U.S.-Record-Low-Support-Stricter-Gun-Laws.aspx . Our survey included the question: “In general, do you agree or disagree that an individual should have a right to have a registered handgun at home?” 52% strongly agreed, 30% agreed somewhat, 10% disagreed somewhat, and 7% strongly disagreed. This is also consistent with polls concerning views of the Second Amendment, where over 70 percent view gun ownership as an individual right. See http://www.gallup.com/poll/105721/Public-Believes-Americans-Right-Own-Guns.aspx
It appears that support for gun rights has increased during Obama’s first year in office, although the trajectory seems to be a continuation of a trend that began during the last years of the Bush Administration. See http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
Next, abortion: Our survey asked the traditional question: “In general, do you agree or disagree with the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that established a woman’s right to an abortion?” 37% strongly agreed, 24% agreed somewhat, 13% disagreed somewhat, and 25% strongly disagreed. Majorities also support various restrictions, such as a 24-hour waiting period (79% favor), parental consent (74%), a ban on late term abortions (74%), and requirement for doctors to inform women of alternatives (90%). Several surveys have suggested that trends in the last year have been moving in a pro-life direction, See http://www.gallup.com/poll/122033/U.S.-Abortion-Attitudes-Closely-Divided.aspx , although not all polls are pointing in that direction and the differences are probably not large enough yet to make firm conclusions. See http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm . As Sam Luks and Michael Salamone detail in our book, aggregate opinion on abortion has moved up and down a little since Roe, but not in any consistent trajectory. In short, most Americans favor abortion rights, although not for all reasons, and they also favor many restrictions.
Finally (until the next post) gay rights: Like several recent surveys we find 41% of respondents support legalization of same-sex marriage, but find that 48% support federal government recognition of same sex marriages where they are legal. As compared to other surveys we find a much higher level of opposition (70%) to state bans on sex between two people of the same gender. As Pat Egan and I have written elsewhere,
http://www.pollingreport.com/penp0908.htm , the trend in favor of same-sex marriage suggests a majority will support it within five years. Much of this is being driven by cohort replacement rather than attitudinal change – that is, opponents of same-sex marriage are older and when they die off, younger respondents with more liberal attitudes on gay rights take their place. Although the public, in the aggregate, backlashed against same sex marriage in the wake of Lawrence v. Texas and the Goodridge decisions in Massachusetts, that backlash ended sometime after the 2004 election and reversed by 2005. Since then, the pro-marriage equality position has grown by about 1.7 percentage points per year. The trend has been relatively uniform across states: states that have legalized or illegalized same sex marriage, by court decision, referendum or legislation, do not exhibit a trajectory different from other states. Although states differ greatly in their level of support, they all appear to be moving in the same direction and events since 2004 appear to have had no effect.
Owen H. says:
I think you badly mis-state the conclusion of your polling question on guns. Supporting an individuals right to have a registered handgun at home says nothing about support or opposition to stricter gun laws for other situations, such as strengthening existing laws and adding new laws intended to cut down on and go after straw purchases.
Quote
November 15, 2009, 8:02 pmSome dude says:
<blockquote?41% of respondents support legalization of same-sex marriage
That’s a little misleading. Is it criminal? I mean is it criminal for a same-sex couple to go out and get married—to go out and have whatever ceremony they want and call themselves married?
Quote
November 15, 2009, 8:15 pmDan M. says:
Since when is support for a right to a registered handgun opposition to stronger gun control? We don’t have registration in this country except in a handful of states.
Quote
November 15, 2009, 8:26 pmArthurKirkland says:
It appears Americans support entitlement to own a firearm for self-defense at home (with appropriate registration and other regulation), support entitlement to choose abortion (with restrictions), and are continuing to move away from bigotry with respect to gays.
Great country, if you ask me. (cue anthem)
Quote
November 15, 2009, 8:39 pmHoly Poll Stacking Batman says:
WOW. Lefties really are desperate to stack polls on the marriage issue and paint the OH NOES INEVITABLEZ!!!! meme as accurate.
I thought that the polls showed that the redefinition of marriage was a done deal in ultra-liberal Maine. In fact, exit polls showed that the turnout was great, and young people came out in record numbers.
Yet you STILL lost. In ultra-left MAINE. Despite the polls that showed you were going to win in Maine by a lopsided margin, YOU STILL LOST.
Could it be that stacking polls and “OH NOES INEVITABLEZ!!!!” is nothing more than a leftist pipe dream?
You people can scream “INEVITABLEZ” all that you want, but it won’t make it accurate.
Quote
November 15, 2009, 8:41 pmHoly Poll Stacking Batman says:
BTW: Polling Report has a history of selecting polls for its average that support the liberal side, while ignoring polls that don’t fit with its agenda.
Polling Report is a hack propaganda outfit that libtards like to imagine is objective. Anyone who uses anything from it is completely discredited.
Quote
November 15, 2009, 8:44 pmHoly Poll Stacking Batman says:
The only thing that liberals are going to succeed in doing by continuing to push this agenda, is to cause secession. You can pretend that it will never happen, but you are dead wrong. People can only take so much before it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another.
Quote
November 15, 2009, 8:49 pmmerevaudevillian says:
I’m not sure if I missed this, but I’m interested in learning more about the “cohort replacement” theory on same-sex marriage opinions. It seems to me that the window of polling is a little too narrow, or at least not detailed enough, to draw conclusions about generational shifts over time. That is, are people in their 20s more likely to support same-sex marriage than people in their 50s, or is it that people born in the 80s are more likely to support same-sex marriage than people born in the 50s? It’s quite a different proposition if individuals increasingly oppose same-sex marriage as they get older (which may not be the case; I’m only indicating one perceived shortcoming).
Additionally, why is it that same-sex marriage bans continue to pass every state (with a hiccup the first time around in Arizona) at fairly stable margins, between 50 and 60 percent, regardless of perceived ideological makeup? Is it less partisan, more age-driven? Maybe this isn’t as relevant, but it interests me, at least!
Quote
November 15, 2009, 9:23 pmMark N. says:
For those who, like me, prefer hyperlinks to copying and pasting URLs, a free public service:
The post author’s book, Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy
A Gallup poll of October 2009 on gun rights and restrictions
A Gallup poll of March 2008 on the 2nd amendment
A pollingreport.com compendium of gun-rights-related polls
A Gallup poll of August 2009 on abortion
A pollingreport.com compendium of abortion-related polls
An article by the post author on trends in same-sex-marriage support, and their relationship to court decisions
Quote
November 15, 2009, 9:25 pmtamerlane says:
This is a terrible public opinion question on many levels: (1) How many respondents have a clue what the original decision entailed? How many are aware of the judicial expansion of the decision? Of those, how many support the original decision but not the expansion? (2) The question is two-barreled on its face; asking whether respondents agree or disagree with Roe v Wade (whatever that means) and whether they agree or disagree wwith the establishment of a woman’s right to abortion (whatever that means).
The detailed questions asking whether respondents approve of abortion under different circumstances are far more revealing. They show clearly that a majority do not support the results of Roe v Wade and that the size of this majority has remained constant over nearly half a century. [This was noted nearly forty years ago by Judith Blake Davis in a research paper in the journal DEMOGRAPHY and nothing has changed since then.]
A particularly interesting analysis is to combine longitudinal and cohort analysis. Older women are more opposed to abortion than younger women and this differential has persisted across nearly forty years of period data. In other words, opposition to abortion has not decreased over time as those age groups more opposed to it die out — the secret hope of liberals. Rather, as persons age and become more aware of the moral and practical problems associated with abortion, i.e., as they become wiser, their opposition to abortion increases. As a result, over forty years of polling opposition to abortion has remained quite high. About 75% of Americans oppose unrestricted abortion on demand.
Finally, the analysis of support for homosexual marriage would benefit from considering the possibility of the same type of interaction between cohort-aging effects and age and period effects that helped shape the course of public opinion on abortion. The fond and nasty wish of liberals that as conservative older folks die they will be replaced by more liberal older folks has proven a pipe dream with regard to abortion. I see no reason why the same will not prove true for homosexual marriage. Particularly if the underhanded and overbearing tactics of those who are pushing for homosexual marriage cause a push back response among some segments of the public.
Quote
November 15, 2009, 9:52 pmFub says:
Thanks for posting here. I look forward to further interesting posts about opinion polls on constitutional issues.
I have a technical question, unrelated to specific poll subjects:
Can you recommend an article which covers methods for estimating cohort replacement effects in some detail?
I realize that we all use naive “guesstimation” methods, along the lines of “10 years ago 21–30 year olds supported this, and now 31–40 year olds support it.” I’m looking for something like a survey of methods to make statistical estimates from, just for one example, longitudinal data from a series of polls (perhaps by different pollsters) with differing age cohort ranges.
This is a casual question. I’m not an academic, just a technically inclined VC reader with modest understanding of general statistics.
Quote
November 15, 2009, 10:00 pmSoronel Haetir says:
I too find your handgun and abortion questions highly troublesome.
As mentioned already hardly anyone in the general public actually knows what the holding in Roe was, or how it differs from modern practice.
Your handgun question would seem far more accurate if it left registration out completely since registration only applies in a handful of states (despite those states being population heavy), or at least asked more probing questions as you have done with abortion.
As for SSM I too find it interesting how consistently it has failed when put to the people for a vote.
Quote
November 15, 2009, 10:11 pmSo much wrong in so few words « Ry’s Blog says:
[...] God, Guns, and Gays: Public Opinion on Gun Rights, Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage [...]
LN says:
And how many Americans support a complete ban on abortion?
A majority of Americans support a fuzzy “middle ground” on abortion.
Quote
November 15, 2009, 10:24 pmCornellian says:
The fond and nasty wish of liberals that as conservative older folks die they will be replaced by more liberal older folks has proven a pipe dream with regard to abortion. I see no reason why the same will not prove true for homosexual marriage.
I highly doubt people in their 60s and 70s today who oppose same sex marriage were supporters of SSM when they were in their 20s and 30s. Why do you think people who are in their 20s and 30s today who support SSM will change their mind when they are in their 60s and 70s?
Quote
November 15, 2009, 10:31 pmCornellian says:
The only thing that liberals are going to succeed in doing by continuing to push this agenda, is to cause secession. You can pretend that it will never happen, but you are dead wrong.
Love it or leave it. You’re free to move to a country more to your liking and renounce your US citizenship. You’re fast running out of options in the Western world but the Middle East and Africa still offer plenty of choices.
Quote
November 15, 2009, 10:34 pmOwen H. says:
Oh please; same-sex marriage is going to drive states to secession? And you complain about anyone else’s credibility?
Quote
November 15, 2009, 10:50 pmJoseph Slater says:
The credibility thing was kind of destroyed by the use of the term “libtard” anyway.
Quote
November 15, 2009, 10:58 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Which of your respondents were responding positively or negatively to ‘handgun’, and which to ‘registered’? You’ve got a question with two variables, bad technique unless there are further questions that resolve the confusion.
Quote
November 15, 2009, 11:00 pmHoly Poll Stacking Batman says:
What if people want to leave it, and take their land with them? People possess an inherent right to do just that. Not a thing you can do about it either.
You don’t get to dictate “love it or leave it” when it suits your agenda. You have no power over anyone else, unless that person WILLINGLY cedes power to you.
If you take away a people’s right to have a say on political issues such as this, then you are reducing them to nothing more than slaves in an oligarchy. Yes, people will revolt under such a system. Especially in a nation such as ours that has a Second Amendment. People are absolutely fed up with arrogant pretentious blowhard lawyers dictating to the rest of us the way things are going to be. They are sick on tired of loudmouth rich political powerful minorities (that make up less than 2% of the population), dictating to the other 98% the way things are going to be.
Same-sex “marriage” is only a symptom of a much more dangerous disease. That disease is fatal to a Republic. It’s only a matter of time before people say that enough is enough. It’s happened before, it will certainly happen again if things stay on the present course.
Quote
November 15, 2009, 11:04 pmHoly Poll Stacking Batman says:
Only in the mind of a PC libtard.
Quote
November 15, 2009, 11:06 pmBenP says:
I’m calling poe on that.
What’s with the influx of trolls recently anyway?
Quote
November 15, 2009, 11:09 pmCornellian says:
What if people want to leave it, and take their land with them? People possess an inherent right to do just that. Not a thing you can do about it either.
I believe that was put to the test about 150 years ago, and it didn’t turn out the way you appear to believe.
Quote
November 15, 2009, 11:29 pmRandy says:
Holy: ” It’s only a matter of time before people say that enough is enough. ”
SSM is now legal in five states. Any evidence those five states are ready to leave?
Quote
November 15, 2009, 11:42 pmOren says:
I count the following States are requiring registration of handguns: CA, IL, IA, MA, MD, MI, MN, NE, NV (Clark County, but that’s most of the state), NJ, NY, NC, SD.
That amounts to ~125 million people (as of 2008), or more than 1/3rd of the population.
Quote
November 15, 2009, 11:56 pmOren says:
PS. Don’t feed the trolls. Just let it pass.
Quote
November 15, 2009, 11:58 pmRandy says:
You are so right, but it’s really fun to provoke them!
Quote
November 16, 2009, 12:36 amLior says:
I’d like to second tamerlane: which of the two questions did you intend to ask?
1. “Do you support the holding of Roe v. Wade?
2. “Do you think women should have a right to abortion?”
3. “Do you think the Constitution secures to women a right to abortion?”
I understand that there is a high correlation between people’s views on these two issues. They are nevertheless distinct (for example, I’d guess the readers of this blog generally oppose (1) but are evenly split on (2)). More importantly, question (1) is not very important in terms of measuring the public’s views on public policy issues — the real question is (2). Question (3) is a fundamental question regarding one’s views of the US Constitution, but again it seems you were not so interested in the public’s views on the Constitution — you were interested in their views on the actual policy issues.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 1:18 amsgi says:
Not a troll but a regular reader. And for all you know, “Holy” is too.
A poll conducted recently by Rasmussen revealed that 40% of Americans consider themselves conservative, about 30% are independent and only 27% consider themselves liberal.
This poll supports Holy’s statement that a minority of liberals are forcing their agenda onto a majority. Unfortunately, all those independents can swing either way. But the fact remains that the United States is a center/right nation.
Eight years of President Bush and the election of President Obama by the most disingenuous campaign ever seen, have now produced an equal and opposite reaction, a conservative awakening.
Conservatives won’t be fooled again by politicians like President Bush or President Obama.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 2:06 amjab says:
Let me suggest a possible reason why cohort replacement occurs with same sex marriage, but not abortion. As people get older, they have children, grand children, etc... and the growth of their families leads to their support for abortion to decline... on the other hand, I don’t see how that sort of feedback would work with gay marriage... as one grows older and sees one’s family grow, why would that negatively impact one’s view on gay marriage?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 2:57 amAthelstane says:
“It appears Americans support entitlement to own a firearm for self-defense at home (with appropriate registration and other regulation)”
I don’t think most such advocates would call it an “entitlement.” More like: “a right.”
I do think the survey question could have dug into what restrictions respondents actually supported.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 7:18 amAthelstane says:
P.s. I agree with others here who have pointed out the unwisdom in asking whether respondents agree with the holding of a Supreme Court case, given that most are not familiar with the actual holding. Especially when that holding has been essentially replaced by another case (Casey), and qualified by numerous other cases.
Better simply to ask straight up what restrictions, if any, a respondent supports.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 7:22 amWallace says:
I don’t know where you got your information, but many of those States DO NOT require registration. For instance, there is absolutely NO gun registration of any kind in NC. There is a procedure that requires owners to obtain a purchase permit from a Sheriff before buying a handgun, but that is not registration. When one obtains a pistol purchase permit, there is no record of what handgun you buy, or even if you buy a handgun at all.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 8:14 amJoseph Slater says:
SGI:
The polls that matter are elections. If conservatives win more, they will be able to do more to implement their agenda. Until then, threats of secession and the like will be met with appropriate derision.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 8:26 amfishbane says:
SGI: Conservatives won’t be fooled again by politicians like President Bush or President Obama.
As a non-conservative, I can only dream of a world in which that were true.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 8:48 amOren says:
A purchase permit is far more restrictive. I applied once for an LTC here in MA but in NC, I have to go get a permit every time I buy a handgun. You are right, there are subtle differences, but I think ultimately all those restrictions are similar enough to fold into a general public opinion poll about gun registration.
I guess technically, in IL (the bete noir of gun rights) you don’t need to register handguns either. You apply and receive a FOID card from the State Police and then are done.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:14 amWallace says:
The purchase permit is NC’s way of complying with the Brady Act. If you have a NC CCW permit you do not need to purchase a pistol purchase permit when you want to buy a handgun.
Registration has very specific criteria. It means that the government has a record of the guns that you own, along with serial numbers ect... The purchase permit system in NC is not registration. In fact, if you have a CCW permit, you don’t obtain purchase permits at all.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:21 amegd says:
I sure hope you felt the same way during the previous administration when liberals threatened to secede.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:23 amBama 1L says:
I would never wish to deny my fellow citizens the right to register their handguns as they see fit.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:26 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Guns, God and Gays: Public Opinion on Gun Rights, Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Doug Goff, Kellijo Huff. Kellijo Huff said: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Guns, God and Gays: Public ... http://bit.ly/IkUui [...]
deathsinger says:
Maybe the opinion polls showed the backlash ended, but about 16 states enshrined that backlash with legislation and/or constitutional amendments. Repealing (especially the amendments) is going to take US Supreme Court action or a considerable length of time (much more than 5 years).
Quote
November 16, 2009, 10:03 amSmallholder says:
I am an example of cohort change vs. change with age.
I used to be reflexively pro-choice. I didn’t spend much time worrying about the moral complexities.
As my wife and I started our family, the miracle of children has made me think about those issues in a different way. When we lost a child to a miscarriage I realized that I was thinking about my daughter as a child — not a disposable fetus — before she was born.
I’m not really pro-life today, since I think the issue of when life begins and/or the soul enters the body is unanswerable through logic. But I’ve certainly moved into the fuzzy middle ground.
I don’t think this will be the case with gay marriage. I think a better historical analogy would be the civil rights movement. Attitudes about the appropriateness of black kids going to school, interracial marriage, and (gasp!) black enfranchisement have changed dramatically. Some folks may have had their minds changed by the images of police dogs being turned on kids, but the religiously-driven segregationists didn’t change their minds. They have died out. They may have passed on their bigotry to some of their kids, but most Americans would react with horror at the idea of undoing Brown v. Board. Theodore Bilbo didn’t change his mind. He died.
The same thing is happening with gay marriage. The persuadables have largely changed sides. Young people are more tolerant. The heart of anti-gay discrimination is old.
The “Holy Poll Stacking” troll has an odd blindspot. Even if this poll does cherry pick data, I don’t see how anyone can deny that public opinion is changing — even if the vote in Maine failed, can anyone imagine a referendum in 1970 being that close?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 10:13 amJMA says:
Dan M: I was wondering how many of those who responded as vehemently against the right to have a “registered handgun” had the same response you did, demanding to know how that was not stronger gun control and then rebelling at the thought. :)
Quote
November 16, 2009, 11:41 amWallace says:
So when Obama wins 52.87% of the vote, it is a massive landslide that gives him a mandate to do whatever he wants.
Yet, when marriage wins 52.94% of the vote, it is a “narrow victory.”
Isn’t 52.94% > 52.87%?
Why is the latter a massive landslide, but the former a “narrow victory” when the “narrow victory” is larger than the “massive landslide?”
Quote
November 16, 2009, 11:43 amyankee says:
It’s not very complicated. A majority of the public is still against same-sex marriage, but the majority is shrinking. Earlier this decade, social conservatives pushed (and voters approved) measures to ban both gay marriage and civil unions, and in some cases even private contracts. Today, they can still get marriage bans, but they cannot go further. The Question 1 campaign in Maine was reduced to running ads arguing that gay couples would still be protected, and the attempt to overturn Washington’s domestic partnership law was a failure.
Unless the trend in public opinion stops, SSM will have majority support in a few years. Civil unions already have majority support, which would have been unfathomable when the gay rights movement started in 1969.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 11:49 amPublic Opinion | Snowflakes in Hell says:
[...] like to know the numbers without the word “registered” being in there, but this is interesting: Our survey included the question: “In general, do you agree or disagree that an individual [...]
Einhverfr says:
Tamerlane is onto something here. Personally I see Roe as a fairly horrid decision, but I entirely agree with the logic of Casey and the general proposition that certain private portions of life deserve extra protection. The main complaints I have with Roe are the questions of how the courts tried to articulate a clear framework (more worthy of a legislature) than a set of Constitutional principles and a process for applying them. The lines drawn were thus both unworkable and arbitrary.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 12:16 pmRandy says:
Nate Silver has an excellent graph of how SSM and other gay rights are trending in every state. Click here and then scroll down to June 13, 2009.
It should most everyone’s questions.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 12:23 pmRandy says:
Wallace: “Yet, when marriage wins 52.94% of the vote, it is a “narrow victory.”
No, it’s a narrow loss. The victory is that we got the numbers so close. Even a few years ago, the numbers would not have been so close. As the previous graph shows, we just have to wait a few more years, and if trends continue we’ll have an easy majority in many states, and if by 2020, we’ll have a majority in most states.
The question, of course, is whether the trends will continue. As more people see more states allowing SSM and that none of the dire predictions of opponents occur, then we’ll probably see the trend accelerate if anything.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 12:27 pmOren says:
Wallace, so your point is that if I pass an even more intrusive check (CCW) I can skip the less intrusive one (purchase permit)?
If you want to play semantic games, sure, “registration” (in your narrow definition) is only in CA, CT and HI. Not even liberal MA and IL qualify.
If you want to talk about what average people associate with the question, licensure of owners and permits to purchase probably falls within that category. Then again, linguistic purity might be more important than understanding the results of the poll.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 12:37 pmOren says:
BTW, I missed CT in my first pass. That makes it >40% of the populace that cannot own a handgun without some form of State government permission.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 12:40 pmPintler says:
With respect, I’m not sure I agree. People object to registration (defined as ‘the gov’t has a list by serial number of every legally owned gun’) for various reasons.
1)A time-of-purchase check is a one time hassle — having passed, you don’t have an ongoing annual paperwork hassle, and you don’t become an inadvertent felon by forgetting the annual paperwork either.
2)People who object on ‘first step to confiscation’ grounds may not care about getting a purchase permit, if the permit is just documentation of passing a background check, vice sending in serial numbers. Not my personal bugbear, but I think it is for some.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 1:23 pmSmallholder says:
Exactly.
And Randy has it exactly right: the trend is likely to accelerate when all the dire “end of mankind” “man-dog marriage” predictions of the bigots don’t happen. Gay marriage exists and we haven’t experienced armageddon. In fact, the failure of bigots’ claims about the results of marriage equality can be seen in the way they have changed their arguments over the last few years. I like Nate Silver’s post on “Aguments Against Gay Marriage Officially Stop Making Sense.”
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/arguments-against-gay-marriage.html
Quote
November 16, 2009, 1:30 pmADF Alliance Alert » “Guns, God and Gays: Public Opinion on Gun Rights, Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage” says:
[...] Persily writes at the Volokh Conspiracy: “The trajectories of opinion in this category of issues do not seem to be following a [...]
ptt says:
I would guess that support for SSM hovered in the single digits at the birth of the gay rights movement. Today, a majority support civil unions. If cohort replacement were the cause, we’d be neck-deep in bodies.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 1:56 pmyankee says:
I think you mean man and box turtle.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 2:08 pmegd says:
With all due respect to the gay marriage proponents, discussions that bring up the “inevitability” of popular support for gay marriage remind me of Disco Stu’s graph of “Disco Record Sales.”
For non-Simpsonphiles, past performance is no guarantee of future returns.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 3:22 pmRandy says:
egd: Yes, which is why I was careful to say IF current trends continue. Fads grow and then sputter out. However, if we look at something fundamental, such as interracial marriage, you will find that just after SCOTUS ruled in Loving v. Virginia, Americans opposed interracial marriage by 60%. Today, that number would be down to the single digits, so low that no one cares anymore. In other words, that trend continued and continues today in only one direction.
So the question is can the current trend going in favor of SSM be stopped or reversed? If so, what would be the cause? You would need to differentiate SSM from interracial marriage, or find another differentiator. So far, anti-SSM people haven’t been able to come up with anything to stop the trend and they have been trying for at least ten years. Despite all their arguments and efforts, approval is way up from ten years ago.
All their arguments rest upon fears that something bad will happen. As we get more SSM approved throughout the country, those fears will evaporate, as they are already. Significant point: approval rates of SSM in massachusetts far exceed what they were just five years ago. I would suggest that’s because people have become comfortable with SSM, and found that the fearmongers were wrong.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 3:53 pmwooga says:
I agree that SSM trends do not follow the normal trajectory of “people become more conservative as they get older.”
However, “SSM inevitability” could be reversed instantly if any of the polygamy suits succeed. That (not man-on-pumpkin action, for example) is where the ‘slippery slope’ arguments have some thread of credibility. All it will take is one court victory authorizing polygamy — even if overturned on appeal — and SSM will be dealt a fatal blow for at least another generation. Regardless of how ridiculous you think the polygamy arguments are, you have to admit that (1) such a case would validate some of the concerns of the anti-SSM side, and (2) there are enough wacky lower judges out there that there is a real chance a polygamy suit will succeed just long enough to do the damage.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 4:30 pmFreedom!!!!!! says:
Weasel Silver is completely discredited. He bet the farm that the marriage referendum would lose in Maine. He lost. Anything that he says is less than worthless at this point.
He’s been caught in numerous other lies and erroneous predictions. Why the little Weasel is such an icon is beyond me. He wasn’t even the most accurate of people who averaged polls in 2008. Some guys from Princeton beat him by a mile.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 4:30 pmFreedom!!!!!! says:
Weasel Silver is likely a homosexual himself. Thus he has a vested interest in spinning poll results to his liking. It doesn’t matter, his reputation is shot at this point.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 4:32 pmFreedom!!!!!! says:
A bold face lie. The overwhelming majority of States had legislatively repealed laws against interracial marriage. Only a small minority of States retained the Statutes. If it was so unpopular, the reverse would have been true.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 4:33 pmJohn D says:
Which part of Randy’s statement are you calling “a bold face lie”? The part about SCOTUS ruling in Loving, or the 60% opposition to that ruling?
It’s certainly telling that in 2000 when Alabama voters had a chance to remove their constitutional ban on interracial marriage, 40% voted to retain it. Why would anyone support retaining this, 33 years after the Supreme Court invalidated it?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 4:59 pmOwen H. says:
Your own post is the one that is wrong. Polls at the same time showed public opposition to inter-racial marriage at closer to 72%. And 16 states still had anti-miscegenation laws.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar14.htm
Quote
November 16, 2009, 5:35 pmjab says:
Here’s some polling data on approval of black-white intermarriage:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/most-americans-approve-interracial-marriages.aspx
In 1958, 94% OPPOSED it.
In 1968, 70% OPPOSED it.
Even as recently as 1972, 60% OPPOSED it.
But the trend is unmistakable and incredibly monotonic.
The lines crossed sometime between 1983 and 1991...
In 1997, 64% SUPPORTED it, and by 2007, 77% supported it.
So Freedom!!!, you owe Randy an apology... he was exactly correct.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 5:40 pmFreedom!!!!!! says:
“Religioustolerance.org” is not a credible site. That said, you just pwned yourself. 16 States out of 50. 50 — 16 = 34.
So 68% of States had repealed laws against interracial marriage.
Just as I said. The overwhelming MAJORITY of States had repealed laws against interracial marriage.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 6:17 pmRandy says:
Owen and Jab, thank you for calling me on my lie. I apologize to everyone for saying opposition to interracial marriage was only 60% when it was clearly higher.
Incidently, the graph I linked to at Nate Silver’s cite was from another source. It’s not Silver’s own graph. So I guess everyone involved must be a homosexual.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 6:18 pmFreedom!!!!!! says:
Gallup has a record of cooking its polls to suit its agenda. In any case, the question that is presented in that dubious “poll” isn’t the same as “should interracial marriages be ILLEGAL.”
The question was, “Do you approve of marriages between blacks and whites.” Many people might disapprove, but still not want a law against it.
The fact is, the overwhelming MAJORITY of States had removed laws against interracial marriage. If that was as unpopular as the homosexualists are suggesting, there would have been a massive backlash.
There wasn’t, because the overwhelming majority didn’t want to see laws against Blacks marrying Whites outside the deep south.
Once again, 34 > 16. I’ll say again, 68% > 32%
You fail. Epic Fail. Total Fail.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 6:21 pmFreedom!!!!!! says:
Wrong.
34 > 16.
68% > 32%
Do you really want to continue to play that game when it is so easy to debunk?
Not to mention, as I pointed out, the question presented in the Gallup poll doesn’t support your cause.
Your agenda is well known. And yes, Weasel Silver, the discredited nerd is also a homosexual who relies on dubious sources to produce his fantasies. He bet the farm on Maine, and he LOST.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 6:24 pmFreedom!!!!!! says:
By the way, why do homosexualists constantly scream “Loving v. Virginia” when they should be referring to Baker v. Nelson?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 6:25 pmdr says:
Well I for one am sold.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 6:30 pmjab says:
Freedom!!!
I’m a homosexual, and frankly, your bravado and swagger are just turning me on...
ooooohhh, I just love an alpha male who dominates the discussion.
would you like to go out on a date? wink, wink ;)
Quote
November 16, 2009, 6:35 pmOwen H. says:
Calling his statement a “bold faced lie” is incorrect, no matter how hard you try to spin it. States had repealed laws, but the public strongly opposed it. In addition, many other states (such as MA), had laws to refuse to perform marriages to out-of-staters who lived in states where the marriage would be illegal. Yes, a majority of states had repealed such laws (those that had them), but you called his statement on public opinion a lie, when in fact he understated it.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 6:42 pmOwen H. says:
Why cite Brown v. Board of Ed., when there’s Plessy v. Ferguson?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 6:43 pmOwen H. says:
Because clearly only a homosexual would support gay rights. I myself am also an elderly black woman.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 6:44 pmRandy says:
As an avowed homosexualist myself, I commend Freedom!!! for admirably refraining from calling Silver and others a fag. I thank him for keeping the discussion so civil.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 6:51 pmyankee says:
Because every time there’s not a “massive backlash” against some government policy, it means the people support it? Get real.
And of course in a large part of the country there was a massive backlash to the cause of black equality, including marriage equality. There’s a reason it took a Supreme Court decision to decriminalize interracial marriage in much of the country.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 7:17 pmOren says:
No disrespect taken at all, of course. I don’t buy your guesses either, but they are reasonable. Without more precise polling questions (probably beyond the patience of the person volunteering their time to answer), I think we can broadly separate into “free to purchase/posses” and “needs paperwork’, at least to zeroth order.
As to the actual complaints, point-of-sale seems to me far more burdensome than a once-a-decade licensure requirement, but that’s neither here nor these. As to the conspiracy nuts, I don’t imagine that they find having to submit to a background check palatable no matter when it is (and most of them will insist that they are keeping the data anyway).
Quote
November 16, 2009, 7:58 pmOren says:
Interesting. First, he “bet the farm” by calling it 70/30 then he’s totally worthless for failing to make his call.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 8:00 pmCarl from Chicago says:
The State of Illinois does not require registration of handguns.
At any rate, I would predict that many such state laws will be challenged post-McDonald ... and some of them will be overturned.
As an aside ... what in hell has happened to the quality and relevancy of comments on the VC? The site seems to have attracted a lot of blowhards as of late. Are junior high schools across America on recess or something?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:57 pmThrasymachus says:
Um .... Plessy v. Ferguson has been overridden and as such is no longer a valid legal precedent. Baker v. Nelson has not been overridden and remains the law of the land.
See the difference?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 11:05 pmThrasymachus says:
For the record, I don’t share Freedom!!!!!!‘s views about the desirability of gay marriage. He is clearly correct, however, in stating that there is a substantial difference between the acceptability of interracial marriage in the 50’s and 60’s and that of gay marriage today. Interracial marriage was legal in 34 of the 50 states at the time of the Loving decision, and almost all of those states repealed anti-miscegenation laws through legislation rather than judicial review. (California is the only exception that I can identify immediately). To date only two states have enacted same sex marriage by legislation.
While there’s no question that interracial marriage was unpopular, during the 1950’s and 1960’s states steadily repealed anti-miscegenation laws without the backlash that gay marriage provokes at present. People may have disapproved of interracial marriage, but they did not think that it should remain illegal. Obviously this does not apply to gay marriage today, since anti-SSM groups have placed the issue on the ballot in 31 states and won every referendum.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 11:25 pmRandy says:
Thal:” People may have disapproved of interracial marriage, but they did not think that it should remain illegal.”
I seriously doubt that very many southern states would have ever repealed the ban on interracial marriage, and most of them didn’t until Loving. Or, it would have taken them a very long time. As someone said earlier, 40% of the people in one state *still* think it should be illegal.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 12:49 amThrasymachus says:
I don’t disagree with this at all. Most of the 16 states with anti-miscegenation laws were unlikely to have repealed them around the time when Loving was decided. The point, however, is that 33 states either repealed these laws by legislative action or never implemented them in the first place. This is a HUGE difference from the contemporary situation with anti-SSM laws, which have been repealed by only two state legislatures, while many states have implemented constitutional and not just statutory bans on SSM.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 2:47 amThrasymachus says:
My general point is that Loving was not nearly as anti-majoritarian a decision as is sometimes suggested. Like Brown, it was much more the case of a national majority overruling a regional majority.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 2:55 amOwen H. says:
Brown overturned it, and it is generally held that Plessy was wrongly decided. I believe the future will see Baker overturned, for the same reason.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 7:23 amOwen H. says:
The majority of the public opposed inter-racial marriage. By the arguments made by SSM opponents, the legislatures were wrong to remove those laws.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 7:24 amWallace says:
Freedom has a point here. There is a clear difference between “disapprove” and “make illegal.” There are many individuals who might disapprove of an action, but would balk at the idea of making such action illegal.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 8:23 amTarget Rich says:
It doesn’t take much political skill to get 95% of the population to vote against equality for a much smaller group many view as “not like us.” Most of the numbers are closer to 52%/48% these days, so we can see where the trend is going.
As long as the same-sex marriage debate stays in the realm of emotion and religion, gays will be at a disadvantage. Many voters have not yet stopped to think beyond their pre-conceived notions about gays to examine the affirmative case in favor of marriage equality. Some never will. But, the ongoing public discussion ensures that increasing numbers will be exposed to the real arguments–not just scary TV ads about school indoctrination and moral decay caused by “those people.”
Commitment and responsibility are either beneficial to society or they are not. It doesn’t make sense to have a government policy of promoting stabilizing institutions for one segment of the population that it denies to others who could also benefit. The increasing number of same-sex parents raising children, and the need to give them legal protections, will further expose this nonsensical stance.
Gay marriage opponents don’t have any arguments that they aren’t willing to compromise if it benefits heterosexuals. Marriage is about children–except when heterosexuals are childless or when gay couples have kids. They’re defending marriage–but doing nothing to combat divorce. Gays are a threat to marriage–but they can’t articulate just how. They want freedom from government–but want government to impose their moral code on others. You just can’t fool a majority of people forever.
They focus on fear to avoid offering coherent explanations why the denial of equality to one specific group makes good policy sense. Because it doesn’t.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 11:26 amOren says:
It allows cities to require registration of all guns. Chicago requires registration of handguns and just ignores all applications.
This is effectively the same thing.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 12:04 pmThrasymachus says:
You are certainly entitled to make predictions about the future of constitutional law in this area. Those predictions are, however, irrelevant to the issue at hand. Plessy cannot be cited as a valid constitutional precedent because it has been overturned. Baker can be cited because to date it has not been overturned. Most observers think that it is extremely unlikely that SCOTUS will overturn Baker in the near future.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 7:58 pmOwen H. says:
However, Baker relies on the argument that procreation is central to the protections granted to marriage, and that has been not merely called into question but explicitly refuted in later cases.
As an aside, I find it amusing that Republicans challenged Sotomayor as to whether she considered Baker to be “settled law”, but object to calling “Roe v. Wade that.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 8:55 pmwooga says:
Just because you don’t listen doesn’t mean the arguments don’t exist. Ultimately, it’s a question of legislating morality. We have always, and will always, legislate on the basis of morality. So please do not make the silly argument that “legislating morality is wrong!” because you (like every non-anarchist) are all too willing to force your morality on me, and everyone else, via the power of the state (e.g., you ban me from walking around with my junk out).
The anti-SSM movement is primarily driven by the belief that homosexual behavior is immoral, and the state should not endorse such behavior. Very few people want to criminalize homosexual behavior anymore, but there are a lot who still balk at the idea of the state endorsing it. All of the other arguments are window dressing, trying to craft some pretext to oppose SSM without playing the “moral card” — since the courts have declared that moral opposition to homosexual behavior is not a legitimate governmental objective (it was still a viable purpose post-Romer in 1996, but 2003 Lawrence prohibits it).
Now of course I know you will call me a bigot and dismiss this post. Your rage at this point probably makes you disbelieve that I am on record (go ahead, search the volokh archives) opposing California’s prop 8 effort to ban SSM. Yet I still thought it was a legitimate use of the proposition process. Gasp! I actually support the right of the people to pass laws I find personally repugnant! How horribly democratic!
Quote
November 17, 2009, 9:00 pmRandy says:
wooga: “So please do not make the silly argument that “legislating morality is wrong!” because you (like every non-anarchist) are all too willing to force your morality on me”
So you return the favor my forcing your morality upon me? Oh, I guess when *you* do it, that’s okay.
It’s always easy to restrict someone else’s life, isn’t it? If you were serious about legislating morality, you would pass laws prohibiting alcohol, cigarettes, divorce, adultery, graven images, and the consumption of pork and shellfish of all kinds. You would also prohibit any businesses operating on the sabbath and make any sex outside of marriage criminal, and also prohibit interracial marriage. But no — those aren’t important enough to legislate against — it’s always easy to pick on the gays.
If SSM is allowed, no one will force to you get married to a person of the same sex, nor are you required to bring presents to their wedding, so I really don’t see how this affects you any more than interracial marriages affect you.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 9:46 pmPositive Liberty » “It’s Not Going to Last” says:
[...] Polls routinely show that older Americans oppose same-sex marriage, while younger ones support it. A cohort replacement effect will soon usher in solid majorities for same-sex marriage, the argument [...]
wooga says:
Randy,
You are confusing my acceptance of “legislating morality” as a legitimate function of state level government, with a personal desire to enforce my own morality. As I noted in my post, I voted against prop-8. What evidence do you have that I want to force my morality on anyone? You derive it solely from my willingness to let my fellow citizens vote on an issue.
See, I personally would vote to legalize local gambling and prostitution (for example), but I recognize that the vast majority disagrees with me on moral grounds (the crime/health issues with both are worsened by bans — the only real reason to outlaw them is morality). Whenever there is a conflict on a moral issue, the best solution is to put it to a popular vote — as every man is individually capable of making moral judgments (i.e., we do not need a special panel of judges or ‘experts’ to divine morality). I know this means I will lose on a lot of issues.
I do not seek to impose my own morality on society — I seek to impose the morality of the majority on society... as has been done throughout history and will be done forever. I just happen to admit this reality. The safety valve / protection against tyranny is the freedom to move between states, and the federal Constitution as a tool for the majority of states to keep rogue states in check. That safety valve is destroyed by the Progressive(and “Compassionate Conservative”) efforts to raise moral issues and social engineering to the federal level, forcing a ‘top down’ anti-democratic approach. For example, abortion and drug laws.
Quote
November 18, 2009, 3:59 pm