Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


New Supreme Court website (DJS)

A digital-age bird man for Alcatraz?  Tweeting oneself to jail. (DJS)

NYT: How privacy vanishes online (DJS)

Orin Kerr critiques the 11th Circuit on email and the Fourth Amendment (DJS)

Identification by your germs (DJS)

Interview of Professor William Stuntz (DJS)

Professor Eric Goldman on the proposed federal Anti-SLAPP Bill (DJS)

Important advice for new profs: DO NOT make jokes (online or otherwise) about killing your students. (kw)

FTC Report: ID theft is down but overall fraud is up (DJS)

Balkin on reconciliation vs. filibuster (DJS)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • anon on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • Keder on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • Aspirant on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • Gerard Magliocca on Where Things Stand

    • dave hoffman on Where Things Stand

    • ParanoidProf on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • editor on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • Geoff Garver on A Civil Procedure Curriculum Challenge

    • David Adams on Deem and Pass

    • edi juandi on Network News Gives Up

    • Gerard Magliocca on Deem and Pass

    • PublishingProf on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • Robert Scott Lawrence on Thoughts about choosing law school, part 4

    • anon on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • anon on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

  •  

    Site Meter

Public opinion on same-sex marriage

posted by Sonja Starr

Thanks again to Danielle and Dan for inviting me to blog here this month. I didn’t expect, when I started this guest-blogging stint, that same-sex marriage would be a primary focus of my posts–it’s something I care about as a citizen, but not one of my academic research fields. But my posts have been largely driven by events, and it seems clear that April 2009 will be looked back upon as a turning point in this civil rights movement. The month started with major developments in Iowa, Vermont, and DC, and today it ends with what strikes me as even bigger news: the Washington Post and ABC News released what I think is the first nationwide poll showing that more respondents support same-sex marriage than oppose it. The split (49% to 46%) is within the poll’s margin of error, but even so, it represents a pretty dramatic shift–less than three years ago, the same poll split 58% opposed and 36% in favor.

The Post article treats this as being largely a story about demographics, and of course that is part of the explanation: young people are much more likely to support marriage equality than older people. But the composition of the population hasn’t changed fast enough to explain shifts of this magnitude in a few years–it’s also got to be that a lot of people, young and old, have changed their minds. As I suggested in an earlier post, court decisions might have contributed to that change–by direct persuasion, by starting a statewide or nationwide conversation that gets people to question traditions, or simply by allowing gay and lesbian couples to begin to marry (which could shape public opinion as people realize that fears about the effects on marriage as a social institution have not panned out).

In any event, whatever the role of courts in bringing about this cultural shift, now that it’s happening, it suggests that the courts will probably play a less central role in pushing the movement toward marriage equality forward in the future. This is increasingly becoming a battle that marriage equality advocates can win in legislatures and at the ballot box. As the poll numbers shift, we’re likely to see increased support for same-sex marriage from politicians who might have been reluctant to take that stand previously. (I suspect this will eventually include President Obama.) That support may be led by Democrats, but it will cross party lines. Of course, this cultural shift is far from being complete, as California voters demonstrated a few months ago. There are still a substantial number of energetic opponents (like the National Organization for Marriage, which I’ve noticed seems to have dropped its priceless “2M4M” slogan). But the road ahead may not be that long. Check out statistician Nate Silver’s state-by-state projections–a few weeks ago, he predicted that every state will have majority support for marriage equality by 2024. Silver also projected that marriage equality would achieve majority support nationwide by “sometime in the 2010s”–so if the Post/ABC News poll is correct, Silver’s projections may have been on the conservative side.

Increasing public support matters, and not just because it is likely to affect the ultimate state of the law–I suspect that given a choice between achieving marriage equality through the courts and achieving it through the democratic process in the same timeframe, just about every equality advocate would prefer the latter (even if the court decisions couldn’t be overturned by referendum). That’s because the battle over same-sex marriage is ultimately one about social meaning–it’s about the expressive power of the law. Sure, it’s about the various legal benefits attached to marriage too, but if that were all it was about, then both sides of the struggle would treat civil unions as being interchangeable with marriage, and they don’t. The recognition of committed same-sex unions as marriages is a social statement that such unions, and the men and women in them, are worthy of respect rather than stigma. So if the ultimate goal is to foster inclusive social norms, then changing public opinion isn’t just a sign that the movement may achieve its goals–in an important sense, changing public opinion is the central goal. Court decisions, in contrast, can only ever be a step along the way.


 April 30, 2009 at 2:07 pm   Posted in: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Politics   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (13)

  1. Wendy - May 1, 2009 at 7:00 am

    Just a quick comment. Whether you’re pro or against gay “marriage”, try seeing it this way…

    No matter what rights gay couples are granted, the majority of us will never take things such as their wedding vows seriously.

    How frustrating that must be, for the couple. So basically I believe that gay couples are still at a disadvantage, no matter how many laws are passed allowing them the same rights as the rest of us.

    This reality should release the conservatives of their angst over changes permitting a gay couple to say “I do”…let’s face it…it’s never going to be the same, or hold the same meaning.

  2. Shane - May 6, 2009 at 10:54 am

    No Im sorry wendy i dont agree I dont think they should even be together but we can’t do anything about it. but we can stop them from getting maried and i hope we do!!

  3. jessica jordan - May 11, 2009 at 12:22 pm

    same-sex marriage i think is every person’s right. Just because some people think it’s wrong doesn’t mean that it should be the law. They’re not hurting anyone.

  4. Steve - June 1, 2009 at 3:34 pm

    It all comes down to EQUAL RIGHTS … If what the Bible says is true, “God created all men equal” then just let EVERYONE be equal. Others say it’s about the children, wouldn’t you want to see those children that are given up/away the chance at a REAL family, to be loved and cherished for just who they are and not a label that society placed on them without their consent or permission … Aren’t those who support a ban on equal rights labeling those who want their own equal rights as the children up for adoption are “categorized” by society … ??? Those individuals are doing this from fear, they do not fully understand the issue before them and it’s so much easier to cross your arms and shake your head from side to side rather than up and down, open your arms and embrace the information available from both sides in order to make up your OWN mind …

  5. sulumits retsambew - June 16, 2009 at 4:58 am

    Just wanna share my opinion about same sex-marriage. Same sex-marriage is not legal at all for Christian. God does not not permit homosexual. But for non Christian there is nothing problem with same sex-marriage.

  6. Steph - September 1, 2009 at 6:14 am

    I think its not fair that they have to be looked down upon because they are gay or lesbian

  7. kerst - September 13, 2009 at 11:48 pm

    Im sorry shane but everyone is entitled to their own rights. Love is Love and thats just the way it is, same sex marrige hurts no one and should NOT be a law, otherwise there should be no marriges at all, because one marries the other on be cause they love each other, does that mean that its not LOVE because its the same sex?? I believe every person has the right to marry who they want, (thats concensual and adult).

  8. flood pictures - November 20, 2009 at 4:33 pm

    Just to add information from sulumits retsambew, in Islam same-sex marriage is not legal. Islam have story about it that happen when the age of Luth prophet.

  9. Babhyface - December 14, 2009 at 10:00 am

    I Think That Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legalized Because Some People Dont Like The Oppsite Sex.Also Because You Should Not Interfer With Other Other`s life.

  10. annie gypsy hater - January 14, 2010 at 9:31 am

    the only people who should not get married are gypsys they creep me out.. they will try to take over the world with gypsy children

    GO GAYS!!!!

  11. la la la you will never get this! - January 14, 2010 at 9:36 am

    i agreeeeee with ANNIE gypsy hater…….. ya ya

  12. leelee - January 31, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    I think all those people that want to refer to the bible and say gays are wrong in Gods eyes need to keep reading because it also says no man shall pass judgement on the other or that one shouldnt lie rape kill. All these things happen everyday yet murders are allowed to wed or rapest. As a homosexual myself i would like to know what wrong im doing by god or man that is any greater than any other persons crime or sin. if i am said to be wrong by god by loving another as god says to love all then so be it and if we follow the laws of man to convict or restrict us from marriage we forget the true reson people wed. Love is what marriage is supposed to be about not rece sex or religion.

  13. John Kuriakose - March 9, 2010 at 11:30 am

    The question is not whether gay marriage is good or bad. Individuals have the freedom to be or not to be gays, to sin or not to sin. There, they become the masters of their own fate!However,they deserve sympathy, for they decide to be gays because of a psychological or biological disorder. The question to be addressed is this: for a country whose president takes oath of office on the Bible, is it legitimate to approve of sodomy? And how about the priest who sanctifies it? The former, like Fisher King, invites doom to the land, and the latter brings perdition to himself. No Christian can deny that God destroyed Sodom for this vice. The same is the fate of any country that legitimizes it.

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Nate Oman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Robert Ahdieh
Lisa Fairfax
Michelle Harner
Sherrilyn Ifill
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
Tuan Samahon
Alfred Yen










Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Adam Benforado
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress