GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Increasing support for same-sex unions

by

There are two new polls out which suggest that even as voters across the country reject state recognition of same-sex marriages, they are increasingly open to civil unions.  Given the care Gallup takes to survey a representative sample of the American population, we should have every confidence that theirs presents a pretty accurate portrait of American public opinion.

Their latest shows, as per their headline, U.S. Acceptance of Gay/Lesbian Relations Is the New Normal. Indeed.  Take a gander at this chart and look when the shift occurred:

During the Bush years, the 13-point advantage of those finding gay relations morally wrong was erased.

And this belief that gay/lesbian relations are morally acceptable accelerated in recent years. Another chart shows that more Americans find gay/lesbian relationships morally acceptable than believes same-sex marriages should be valid. Guess that means that all opponents of state recognized gay marriages are not haters — as goes the narrative.

By a 2-to-1 margin (63-31), Americans think gay and lesbian relationships between consenting adults should be legal. A CBS survey yields a similar result, showing that “62 percent – close to two thirds – of Americans believe that same-sex unions should be recognized by law.”

With research from NYU political scientist Patrick Egan showing that “the share of voters in pre-election surveys saying that they will vote to ban same-sex marriage is typically seven percentage points lower than the actual vote on election day”, perhaps the better strategy toward improving the lot of gay people in relationships would be, in the present, to push for civil unions.

These numbers show just how greatly things are improving for gay people in America.  Attitudes are shifting.  Not all Americans may want to call our unions marriages, but increasingly, they respect their integrity and moral worth.  A good sign indeed.

Comments

  1. perhaps the better strategy toward improving the lot of gay people in relationships would be, in the present, to push for civil unions.

    Of course that is the better strategy, but gay activists are idiots who only care about the symbolic trophy (i.e. gay marriage) and not what would actually benefit gay people (i.e. civil unions or something similar). Of course, they might be more persuasive if they weren’t so militant.

  2. I’m against civil unions. Sorry. The Prop 8 court decision tells me civil unions and marriages cannot co-exist. There is no separate but equal. I’m in favor of civil unions for all if this route is take, but not the opposite.

  3. Hi Dan,
    I found this interesting conclusion from your link:

    Significant pockets of resistance remain — namely Republicans, those 55 and older, Protestants, residents of the South, and, in some respects, men — but majorities of other groups have grown comfortable with gay rights.

  6. ROFLMAO…………when is Gallup going to actively poll social conservatives instead of social liberals?

    Gay ‘marriage’ not a right, prohibiting gay adoption not ‘discrimination’: European Court of Human Rights (REJECTION OF THE SOCIAL ACTIVISM OF THE APAs/ABA AND THE SWEDISH MODEL IN THE INTEREST OF CHILDREN)

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-marriage-not-a-right-prohibiting-gay-adoption-not-discrimination-europe#

    Russians overwhelmingly endorse ‘gay propaganda’ ban

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/russians-overwhelmingly-endorse-gay-propaganda-ban?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com%20Daily%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=448adc7414-LifeSiteNews_com_Canada_Headlines_04_19_2012&utm_medium=email#

  7. Is anyone gonna talk about the economy or are we just gonna talk about that Obama evolved on gay marriage but hasn’t really done anything about it. Let’s talk about Obama’s terrible record on the economy and jobs. Surely we’re not going to go on and on for the next 6 months talking gay marriage. What really is interesting is that marriage is actually a conservative institution and not a liberal issue. Just get a will if you’re in a committed relationship and get a life.

  8. To sum up this post: “Yippee! More and more Americans approve of my libido! I’m validated!” Geez, Dan, could you have been any more socially liberal here? American Elephant was so right. There is no real difference between the gay right and the gay left; they’re both working for the same agenda and Dan, in this post you really proved it.

  12. You know, something no one’s ever bothered to explain to me, what exactly is the difference between gay marriage and civil union? Is it just the name? If so then that’s…..really stupid.

  13. Ideally Cy, there should be no difference, so your argument that it is really stupid is cogent. My own opinion is simply that marriage is a religious rite and that civil unions would be a legal facility installing the attendant benefits and responsibilities of marriage without the religious aspect.

    It appears that civil unions are more palatable than same sex marriage. If this is the case AND the same marital benefits are bestowed on the recipients of civil unions, then the sanest course of action has to be working toward civil unions. We have two presidential candidates who agree with this cause of action. Can anyone say “strike while the iron is hot”?

    I fear the more activist gays are going to phuck it up for the rest of us by going after something that is clearly less attainable at present, when there is a real opportunity to have something that offers the same protections and benefits currently afforded by marriage.

    And as to marriage, anyone can call themselves married. I know I do and have for going on 28 years.

  14. If this is the case AND the same marital benefits are bestowed on the recipients of civil unions, then the sanest course of action has to be working toward civil unions. We have two presidential candidates who agree with this cause of action.

    Actually, we don’t. The proof, brilliantly, is to be found on Mitt Romney’s official ‘Setting The Record Straight’ site, which says:

    They say Romney changed his position on civil unions. In truth, Romney said he opposed civil unions but “would look to protect already established rights and extend basic civil rights to domestic partnerships”. Critics who fail to distinguish legally between a “domestic partnership” and a “civil union” have falsely characterized Romney’s statement as a support of civil unions while neglecting his answer about civil unions in that same questionnaire.

    The only instance in which Romney considered civil unions was as a possible downgrade from same-sex marriage as imposed by the state high court. At the time, Romney stated he would prefer to not have either one but felt it was a necessary compromise in order to prohibit gay marriage, which redefines family. In Romney’s exact words, “If the question is: “Do you support gay marriage or civil unions?” I’d say neither; if they said you have to have one or the other, that Massachusetts is going to have one or the other, then I’d rather have civil unions than gay marriage.”

    So you have it from the horse’s mouth as it were. Mitt Romney definitely does not support civil unions with full marriage-like benefits and he would appreciate you not distorting his position like you just did.

  15. Serenity, I stand corrected. Mitt’s stance is completely opposite of what I thought and I am very disappointed to now know that.

    BTW, the snark was uncalled for. I am more than certain I have never done that to you.

  18. Marriage is between one human female and one human male who are not impeded by the restrictions on age, mental capacity or kinship that is too close.

    The case could be made for one human male and one human male or one human female and one human female who (…), (….), (…) to be recognized as united in the eyes of the state for the purposes of certain state recognitions extended to married couples.

    The civil union is merely a statist solution to a request from certain citizens. The state might decide to permit other combinations according to the cases presented that indicate a compelling state interest in reaching a solution.

    On official forms, you would check single or married or civil union. (Why? I don’t know. Ask a bureaucrat.)

  19. BTW, the snark was uncalled for. I am more than certain I have never done that to you.

    Yeah, I got a little carried away. It was more directed at Dan really, who seems really determined that there’s no difference whatsoever between Romney and Obama when it comes to LGBT rights, and it was funny to see Romney’s site going to pains to contradict him on that.