Welcome Instapundit Readers!!
Perhaps the most interesting thing in the latest Pew Research Center survey on public attitudes toward gays was the juxtaposition of these two numbers. While 57% of Americans supports civil unions “allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples,” 49% say “homosexual behavior is morally wrong.”
Does that mean that at least 6% of Americans think it’s fine for us to enter into relationships, but would rather we didn’t have sex?
While Pew finds a steady increase in support for civil unions over the past six years (as the chart below indicates), a solid majority (53%) still opposes gay marriage.
Interesting to note that public support turned in favor of civil unions, with ever increasing levels of support during the Administration of George W. Bush. Even that diabolical Republican (in the eyes of the gay left) could not thwart social change.
Not just that, left-wing bloggers notwithstanding, in the past year, Pew found a “significant change” in the number of Republicans supporting civil unions, jumping from 40 to 48%.
These numbers suggest that we should perhaps push more aggressively for state recognition of civil unions in the public sphere, while working in the private sphere to change attitudes toward gays, so that fewer people find the expression of our natural longings morally repugnant. And so they understand and appreciate the choices we make and the relationships we seek.
I would guess it means that while 6% think gay sex is morally wrong, they also think it is not their business to impose their morals upon you.
I know you say that tongue in cheek, but just to preempt the Bush haters, not only did he not simply thwart change, President Bush actually voiced his support for civil unions.
I also suspect these numbers are off considerably. People like Perez Hilton shrieking that anyone who opposes his views is a hateful bigot tends to make people fear to respond honestly to polls like this, where they feel free to voice their true opinion without fear of reprisal in the privacy of the voting booth.
And lastly, the most disturbing numbers are at the end, where 64% responded that they feel there is “a lot of discrimination” against gays and lesbians.
Where????
Not only have I never experienced any discrimination because of my sexuality. I have asked around extensively, and I know of NO ONE who has ever been denied a job, a place to live, a business opportunity etc, because they are gay.
And yet Americans believe gays face more discrimination that ethnic minorities? and more than Evangelical Christians?
Give me a break!
It just goes to show how much liberals have distorted reality with their dishonest campaigns.
AmericanElephant is correct,“I would guess it means that while 6% think gay sex is morally wrong, they also think it is not their business to impose their morals upon you.”Many American understand the difference between behavior that is permitted in a politically free society, and what they believe is morally acceptable in their religious communities. They regulate their behavior – or at least try to – within their personal lives and communites, but don’t try to impose their values on others.Sounds like libertarianism to me, and very American.
I have often said that I am OK with civil unions as a way to clear up some of the legal messes that gay couples encounter.
I will regret the day I supported civil unions when the militant, in-your-face gays decide they have to have marriage anyway.
I am an old fashioned “live and let live, different strokes for different folks” type of person. Libertarian? To some extent. But when some gays come unglued over another person’s religion or try to enforce respect through “hate” legislation, I draw the line. There is always a point where tolerance and objectivity take a turn. That is why we sometimes curse the person AND the mule he rode in on.
Didn’t Bush say he was okay with Civil Unions? And didn’t the Gay Left start demanding full marriage rights about the exact time he said this? Kind of moving the goal posts so they could still have their villain is how it seemed to me. But then give the Gay Left a choice between villifying Republicans and doing something for Gays and you know what they’ll pick every time.
My straight friends often joke that this is the definition of a long-term marriage. 😉
Best wishes,
-MFS
49% – That make me wonder how the question was worded and whether or not “homosexual behavior” was defined.
I believe many of that 49%’s view of homosexual behavior is second/third/media hand reports of parties, drugs, promiscuity and the like.
I think the % would drop notably if the question were about “being homosexual” or any specific gay person they actually knew.
I would guess it means that while 6% think gay sex is morally wrong, they also think it is not their business to impose their morals upon you.
We’re in agreement here, AmericanElephant.
I know you say that tongue in cheek, but just to preempt the Bush haters, not only did he not simply thwart change, President Bush actually voiced his support for civil unions.
Yes, he did. I just wish he would have at least used the same fervor for civil unions that he did for the FMA. And yes, I’m waiting for Obama to use his leadership for this as well.
Heliotrope, I appreciate your support for civil unions, but I don’t understand why you would regret your opinion based on the action of others who want to go a step further. Is it the militant, in-your-face that you oppose? Do you regret marriage between a man and a woman because there are plenty of militant, in-your-face persons who support keeping marriage between a man and a woman? Or is it you only dislike militant, in-your-face, when its gay persons?
But when some gays come unglued over another person’s religion or try to enforce respect through “hate” legislation, I draw the line. There is always a point where tolerance and objectivity take a turn.
Just to be clear, your ire is not restricted to gays who behave this way, right?
Pat,
I’d assume that heliotrope’s fear is akin to mine.
I support the recognition of same sex monogomous relationships (I call ’em Fred) I don’t support same sex ‘marriage’. I believe that word has a traditional meaning in Western civilization, and don’t want it changed.
That said, the concern is in giving people Fred, I’d be worried in seeing people take the offering and then ram their redefinition down my throat. And I’d regret that my support of Fred was turned into the thing I oppose.
Heliotrope, I appreciate your support for civil unions, but I don’t understand why you would regret your opinion based on the action of others who want to go a step further.
If I may, to use an old analogy, it is all right to allow the camel’s nose inside your tent if you are certain the camel will go no farther; however, if it even looks like the camel wants to end up in your bed, not even the nose is a good idea.
I think being gay in this day and age comes down to respect. If you want it then you have to give it. Being gay has been politicized by democrats. Gay people (and democrats) have been fighting for the wrong union. If I say I don’t want gays to get married then I am called a racist homophobe. But they don’t let me finish my thought. Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Please don’t make me redefine that. I want gays to have a union and get the same benefits as a married couples. Just change the name. Call it whatever you want. We all want to be respected, and many married people want their sacred institution to remain that way–between a man and a woman.
Livewire and NDT, I get your point and analogy. I would just say to you and Heliotrope that I don’t think that it will end at civil unions. And I don’t think that a militant, in-your-face strategy is going to lead to same sex marriage. It will happen, at the federal level, when a clear majority of people support same sex marriage.
Since marriage is a religious sacrament, why does the state recognize it anyway?!? Get the government out of this private contract (between 2 individuals, to love, honor, and cherish, till death do they part) blessed by their house of worship – and leave the matter up to the individuals involved and their respective churches/synagogues/mosques.
PS: Dad’s on wife #5, Mom’s on #2 – but only because her b/f of 20 years was already married. How is it gays are going to destroy the institution of marriage?
I still think traction on this issue is still a few years off. I’m a straight, small-government conservative who isn’t into separate but equal arrangements. My feelings on gay marriage/civil/unions/whatever you want to call it has changed because I clarified my thinking on the subject with regard to separate but equal. I think that as long as the gay community respects the religious community and does not try to force churches to perform marriage ceremonies, it is difficult to refuse gay marriage.
I have to wonder if DADT may be a better target. After all, didn’t desegregation in the military help the civil rights movement to move forward? It’s hard to ask someone to be a second class citizen when he/she is willing to lay his/her life on the line for the country.
If you’re curious about a non-typical rightwinger’s opinions on the subject, please feel free to visit my blog.
By the way, I noticed where Barney Frank would rather the gay community act silently than march in public. I don’t think have the Democrats in charge will help equality much. They love to keep their support groups angry.
The wording is SO wrong. Homosexuals are already free to sanctify long-term relationships. What is missing is a requirement that the privileges accorded to heterosexual marriages also be accorded to homosexual marriage. If “pursuit of happiness” does not confer the ability to determine the major milestones of our own lives, it’s empty rhetoric.
Liz, I don’t believe that supporting civil unions with the same benefits, rights, etc., of marriage, but don’t want it to be called marriage makes one a homophobe. And I’m sure that there are people who want same sex marriage are doing it to stick to people and/or religion. But there are people who support same sex marriage for similar reasons why you believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman.
agree with most comments above: marriage really IS a religious institution, and CANNOT be changed by secular authorities, only acknowledged. (maybe the state should completely butt out of the marriage business, and ONLY regulate ‘unions’ as they regulate business, i.e. enforce contract) This would provide safety, fairness etc., but – WARNING – there really is no reason why ‘union’ need to be 2 people, gay or straight. maybe 3 -20 could form a union, aka ‘polyamory’. As already said, the ONLY valid objection to ANY consensual civil union of adults is the religious one. Here I would hold that those sects (I refuse to consider them more than that) of Christianity that allow for gay or other ‘alternative’ marriages, divorces, etc., are ipso facto heretical and ought to be somehow removed from the ‘religious sphere’ however that might be accomplished (maybe have their tax exempt status revoked :). I really see no way to be Christian and believe that homosexual/premarital/extramarital sex is not sinful. (I’m not a saint, I wish it were different, but it isn’t, unless ~1900 years of bible interpretation is wrong).
We’re almost back to the beginning days of our era, in ancient Rome, where majority morality favored near universal tolerance. Then came Christianity, strict and severe, demanding impossible virtue, ridiculed by pagan elites, eventually to create Western culture. Will we go full circle? Is it a never-ending wheel, or a convoluted arrow?
As a gay man, I am all for civil marriage, but we gay boys are going to have to clean up our act. I know of very few gay male relationships that are completely monogomous. While hetrosexuals have sullied the institution of marriage in many ways, it seems to me they still by and large insist on monogomy – whether married, cohabitating, dating, etc.
If we want to join their club, we will have to play by the rules. Otherwise, I can understand why they would oppose gay marriage.
Once that the gay community decides to honor its own history and create a new form of legal relationships based on GAY relationships and not STRAIGHT relationships, we’ll probably have the civil unions (or what I would call covenants) that gays have a right to. We don’t need to co-opt a heterosexual tradition. Gay relationships have their own history and dynamic and we need to honor that by refusing the word “marriage” and creating our own form of lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable–and legal–relationship.
Ashpenaz, like any history, some of it is good and some not. Part of this history, even in America, included oppression and criminalization of homosexuality. Acceptance was rare, and many times involved silly use of euphemisms. And I’m afraid that we also have a history of having higher promiscuity rates.
Whether it’s called marriage, civil unions, or Fred, I think there is a good model to follow. And that is marriage that has taken the form that it has now. Also, except for the name, I’m not sure what you propose for gay relationships is different than marriage.
“allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples”
I suspect the data would yield a converse result if the question were posed as: “Do you support homosexual marriage?” in lieu of a long, vague (“legal agreements”) begging the question query.
The whole issue gets coulded because of the word marriage. I am happy to see civil unions but I do not want the meaning of the word marriage to change just to accomodate a sexual orientation. Corrupting the word marriage is just an end around by certain groups and is IMO hindering the effort
Does that mean that at least 6% of Americans think it’s fine for us to enter into relationships, but would rather we didn’t have sex?
No, it means that at least 6% of Americans think that what you do is your own business as long as you follow certain rules and don’t hurt anybody — but that, if you must know, they don’t particularly approve of it.
So we change our Laws for homosexuals. What about
polygamous, incestuous unions and relationships between adults
and minors? And obviously all of these should have the
abilty to adopt on an equal status with heterosexual
couples.
I think we’re asking the wrong question with regards to gay marriage and civil unions.
Shouldn’t the question be, “Should the government be involved at all in any marriage beyond that necessary to enforce voluntary contracts between individuals empowered to make them (e.g. consenting adults of sound mind)? Legally, marriage should be a private matter. Like Bar Mitzvah’s.
Unmarried people can legally have children and make purchases jointly. Married or unmarried, parents can be legally compelled to support their families.
Civil regulation of marriage is or has been used primarily to convey special unearned tax benefits, and prevent interracial marriage — to my mind, both nefarious purposes.
Why not the maxim — Government, butt-out.
Oh — I’m happily married for many years. With or without a government sanction.
Actually, here’s a better idea — why don’t you work to get the civil unions most folks support into law AND don’t bother trying to change the moral and religious views of those who consider homosexual activity immoral.
Call it a “live and let live” solution that respects the moral beliefs of both sides.
Martin,
Because heterosexual marriage is demonstrably, undeniably very good for society, and it is in society’s best interest to encourage it.
GOD permitted Abraham to father Ishmael and today we have the middle east with all it’s problems. You see, GOD will permit sin, he just won’t allow it to win. GOD is very clear on relationship between fellow humans. If you don’t believe me, then ask him.
1. Proof that brainwashing works. But we’ve known that for ages. Bully people for a decade over an issue and they’ll say, ‘Sure, I favor it. Only bad people don’t’. In short, the “poll’ is total BS – as is the whole concept of gay marriage. Everyone knows this to be a fact of reality, including and probably especiailly homoesexuals (I refuse to call the sorry sots ‘gay’).
2. BS#2 – How can you favor something that does not exist, and has never existed, and can never, based on the actual facts of reality, exist? That’s like favoring green unicorns. Which, in reality, shows what gay marriage ‘is’. It is precisely analogous to nailing a horn to a horse, and painting it green, and calling the thing a green unicorn. After that there will be a parade celebrating green unicorns.
3. I swear, Sodom and Gomorrah got a raw deal.
Pat,
I have been away all day and I apologize for not answering you sooner.
I do not respect gays; I respect people. I once disdained gays, because I thought they had made a lot of bad choices. I now feel that there is much more to being gay than mere choice. Furthermore, I work with and associate with many gays whom I greatly admire and respect. That said, there is also a group of gays I would just as soon see go the way of the dodo.
My comments in #3 are fairly clear. Those who want civil unions as a leg up on marriage are not in my favor. Marriage is reserved to one woman and one man for the purposes of keeping the whole procreation and lineage problem organized.
Certainly there are men and women who trash the concept of traditional marriage. If I were a gay, I would not be arguing for entrance into the fraternity of heterosexual misfits and screw-ups.
I read in your comment an undertone of the search for normalization. I refuse to belittle the differences between gays and heterosexuals, because I accept the differences. But do not mistake my acceptance of differences as an endorsement for total indifference.
Big J,
I don’t know about that – for a short moment a bit of a very close gay friend’s sex life came to my attention and I was pretty well revolted by it. This is a man I’ve known for years and love very dearly. For non-homosexuals, the mere fact of homosexual sex is off-putting, to say the least. Of course, I don’t know how he views my heterosexual sex life – the feeling might be mutual, for all I know. It is, of course, something we don’t discuss with each other – being gentlemen, and all that.
crusader,
Not a wheel – Christianity is what it is and it doesn’t change. The only which makes it seem like there’s change is that as basic knowledge grows, so does the understanding of the applicability of various scriptures and traditions…but nothing has changed since the Ascension. Christianity abhors homosexual sex for the same reason it abhors pre-marital sex, or sex with the use of contraceptives….it is sex cut off from its unitive and pro-creative functions. Its why the early Christians condemned homosexual sex in 209, its why modern Christians condemn homosexual sex in 2009. Tolerance is afforded these days because we understand, now, that we cannot enforce belief…St. Francis, and many others, taught us that (eg, “preach the Gospel constantly; when necessary, use words”).
Wow!
Am I the only one who could care less about homosexual behavior, and is constantly irked by behavior deemed “gay”?
Am I the only one who has addressed easily surmounting the alleged “legal issues” that are “suffered” by unwed gay, AND
unwed hetro folk, alike?
Yeah, a la (ie)”Hilton Perez”.
The problem with “In your face” is that it’s sooooo much easier to get poked in the nose. Just ask Barney Frank.
Thanks, Heliotrope for your response.
I do not respect gays; I respect people. I once disdained gays, because I thought they had made a lot of bad choices. I now feel that there is much more to being gay than mere choice. Furthermore, I work with and associate with many gays whom I greatly admire and respect. That said, there is also a group of gays I would just as soon see go the way of the dodo.
Same here. But I’ll assume you’ll agree with me that we can change “gays” to people, and we’ll be in agreement as well.
My comments in #3 are fairly clear. Those who want civil unions as a leg up on marriage are not in my favor. Marriage is reserved to one woman and one man for the purposes of keeping the whole procreation and lineage problem organized.
It was clear. My point is there may be different reasons why people support civil unions. Some may see it as a stepping stone to marriage, some don’t. I’m saying that same sex marriage would be, or at least could be, a natural next step. And there will be people who may want to stop at civil unions, but over time, have the opinion that marriage is more appropriate. So I guess what I’m trying to say that your support for civil unions will help the push towards same sex marriage.
Certainly there are men and women who trash the concept of traditional marriage. If I were a gay, I would not be arguing for entrance into the fraternity of heterosexual misfits and screw-ups.
Neither would I. Again, I fully realize that there are people who want same sex marriage for dubious purposes, and want to trash the concept of traditional marriage. I’m not one of them.
I read in your comment an undertone of the search for normalization. I refuse to belittle the differences between gays and heterosexuals, because I accept the differences. But do not mistake my acceptance of differences as an endorsement for total indifference.
If I understand you correctly, I appreciate this. The way I look at this is that I find that there is nothing immoral about being homosexual in and of itself, in pretty much the same way that I don’t consider anything immoral about being heterosexual. And as long as the actions is not detrimental, we should encourage behavior, like stable relationships, that will benefit all. I acknowledge the differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, and such relationships. And besides not belittling the differences, I don’t believe the differences are enough to warrant a different status of relationships.
One of the commenters above suggested that if we okay same sex marriage (or even civil unions), that we will sanction pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, etc. Now, I can understand that position if one believes that homosexuality is as sinful as the other things. But I don’t. And I don’t believe we should go half-assed on this, e.g., that well, let homosexuals have their relationships, let’s just keep it quiet, or whatever.
Anyway, thanks for your response, and no worry about being late with your reply. We all have lives outside the Internet.
Christianity is what it is and it doesn’t change. The only which makes it seem like there’s change is that as basic knowledge grows, so does the understanding of the applicability of various scriptures and traditions…but nothing has changed since the Ascension.
In other words, Mark, Christianity has changed. You can dress it up all you like, but what you described is change. And I’ll say that, for the most part, it has changed for the better.
Christianity abhors homosexual sex for the same reason it abhors pre-marital sex, or sex with the use of contraceptives….it is sex cut off from its unitive and pro-creative functions. Its why the early Christians condemned homosexual sex in 209, its why modern Christians condemn homosexual sex in 2009.
Sorry, Mark, but you are becoming part of a small minority here. Also, have you noticed that the birth rates for children has decreased substantially since th 1930s. Eight or more children families are not commonplace anymore.
Pat,
I draw back when others start screaming about “sin.” Jesus admonished us to be careful about throwing stones when going after sinners. Therefore, I am, at least, retrospect.
I do not see how I will ever arrive at homosexuality as the “normal” part of God’s plan. But, as a true Christian, I am not about to decide God’s will. That said, when obnoxious, militant gays try to shove gross, indecent, and revolting, unadulterated crap down my throat, I am not about to look the other way.
Fair enough, Heliotrope. We’ll never know for sure what God’s will is. The only thing we can do is make our best guess and act accordingly. I just don’t think we have to limit ourselves to heterosexuality as the only “normal” part of His plan. We don’t (at least not anymore) say that being right-handed is “normal” and left-handed isn’t, as an example. I don’t see why we have to pigeonhole sexualities in such a way that only one is “normal.”
Also, when obnoxious, militant persons (gay, straight, religious, non-religious, liberal, conservative, whatever) try to shove gross, indecent, and revolting, unadulterated crap down my throat, I’m not going to look the other way either.
Well, I’m not gay, so my opinion doesn’t really matter on this, BUT… I am Christian and while I believe that homosexuality is wrong because of “all that religious stuff,” I would support gay marriage. I would like to see LGBT citizens have the same rights as everyone else. I guess that sounds like a contradiction, but I know that if my child or grandchild was gay I would still love them. If they asked me, I would explain my belief but I would still want them to be happy. The only thing that I find repugnant about homosexuality is the way that it is introduced in the schools. I feel that the way homosexuality is pushed so hard in the schools that it causes more resentment and anger against gays. Of course, you have to protect kids from bullies, too, but people who bully gays also bully straight kids – usually anybody they view as weaker than them. I lived in a small town and I grew up with some gay friends. We knew who they were and they were our friends, neighbors, classmates and relatives. They didn’t get beaten up and if they got teased, it couldn’t have been hidden. Everyone knew everyone else’s business. I remember a new boy starting ninth grade at my school in the middle of the year. He was gay, but he made lots of friends quickly and was active in drama and was a happy, fun person to be around. He didn’t get beat up either. And BTW, I lived in South Carolina so while we might be a bunch of hicks, we aren’t all hating hicks.
Laura, I am quite appreciative of the fact that, despite thinking homosexuality is wrong, that you believe we should have equality, including marriage. I don’t quite understand why you think homosexuality is wrong.
is this a surprise?
i know ALOT of people against gay marriage
i know NOBODY who opposes civil unions
its all about a word, and i think the word should stay exclusive, no reason to change it if you can get a different word with all the same benefits, then everybody is happy.