In 1988, the GSS [General Social Survey] began asking Americans to share their thoughts on another topic: whether gay people should have the right to marry. That year, fewer than 12 percent of respondents said yes.An example of the shift: William, the adopted son of a Mormon couple was thrown out of the house after he announced he is gay. Fifteen years later his parents enjoyed Thanksgiving in the home of William and his partner.
Fast-forward three decades. In 2018, 68 percent of those surveyed said that gay couples should have that right.
"This is actually one of the most surprising things in the whole history of public opinion," says Stanford sociologist Michael Rosenfeld. "There's more and more rapid change in attitudes towards gay rights in the past thirty years in the United States than there ever has been in recorded attitudes in the United States on any issue."
Public opinion rarely shifts on contested issues. Given the long history of discrimination against gays in the United States and abroad, this change has social scientists scratching their chins.
"This was not a simple negative attitude. Gay people have been killed. So how can it be that an attitude that was as vicious as this one has changed?" asks Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji.
The first thought in such a big swing in opinion was just a generational change – younger people have different opinions than the older and more conservative respondents of previous years. But the data showed personal changes of opinion, such as a person giving a different answer in later years. Even conservative people changed their minds.
Opinions of wartime enemies may change quickly, but the change is from dislike to hatred. But with the change of 12% to 68% we’re talking a change to the opposite opinion by half of the country! And the most dramatic change wasn’t in courtrooms, but in families, on the job, and in school.
Banaji conducted a test of bias against different groups of people. The bias against lesbians and gays has dropped by 33%. This is the only group where bias has changed much. The trend line shows that bias might be eliminated in only nine years (though this is not a prediction). In contrast the trend line for race says it will take six decades for blacks and whites to be seen the same way and 138 years to get rid of the bias for lighter skin (if current trends persist). Bias against the elderly won’t reach neutrality within the next 150 years.
So what drives that?
Gay people were and are embedded in the homes of people who thought they were an abomination. Gay and straight are in the same family. Much more rare is white and black in the same family. Straight people met gay people with a similar social status to themselves. Parent had to choose between their love for their child and their preexisting attitudes of homosexuality.
Coming out of the closet is a big reason of why attitudes change. But this change is so big it isn’t the only reason.
For example, old people also exist in large numbers of families in all parts of the country and in all economic levels. They’ve had long associations before becoming elderly. But biases against the elderly haven’t budged. The same is true for women. Their presence in families hasn’t changed the level of misogyny.
Another big change in attitudes was the AIDS crisis. Gay people were seen as parts of families and people who were grieving and caring for one another. This was a profound change in gay people. The attitude changed from just leave us alone, to let us into the institutions (such as marriage) that will protect us too. We want to be a part of the community. That prompted the creation of activist groups. And that translated into a political presence.
Pres. Bill Clinton may have fumbled badly on the Defense of Marriage Act and the military Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. But he did start a big shift towards gay rights being civil rights. That allowed Hollywood to begin to tell gay stories. Lots of things built on one another. But that still doesn’t tell the whole story. The same things have been true of women and black people.
Another part of the answer: Not all prejudices are the same. Some have deeper roots. The stakes – societal structures – in entrenched misogyny and racism are much greater than the stakes of casual homophobia.
There is also the pace of change. The poll showed 68% approval in 2018. But it 2016 it was only 59%. A huge change in two years. The change accelerated in 2004 – after 11 states banned same-sex marriage. Ah, there’s a hint.
Back in the 1980s Evan Wolfson began advocating for marriage equality. Some said it was the wrong time. But he knew the right to marry would pull lots of other rights and concepts along with it – love, caring, commitment, dignity, respect. As straight people saw gay people with these attributes, other rights would come along as well. It was a way to say gay people and straight people are similar. Wolfson had a lot of resistance in the gay community. Why do we want to say we’re just like the people who oppress us? Why do we want to join the institution of marriage which is based on patriarchy? Why aren’t we trying to redefine institutions?
But gay people needed allies. We’ll never be in the majority. We’ll be facing straight judges and need the support of straight voters. We need to talk to them. But isn’t it unfair for the oppressed to speak the language of the oppressor? Wolfson said it is unfair, but the greater goal is to end the oppression.
So does an oppressed group look back and seek retribution and restitution? Or does it look forward and seek change and reconciliation and forgiving of those who have oppressed. Both can be done, but there is tension between them. It asks a lot of the oppressed. But change means winning over some of the oppressors. Shared goals and shared dreams means more allies. And given enough allies legislatures and courts would follow.
The marriage equality movement was different. The cost to allies was minimal. It asked allies to join in celebration of love, commitment, and normalcy. The commitment aspect allowed allies to say they’re like us.
And marriage has pulled other rights with it, though the work continues.
The way forward, perhaps for any oppressed group, is connecting with others, to bring about empathy, understanding, and awareness and doing so by bridging differences and invoking shared values.
Do you overthrow the old order perhaps through violence or revolution or do you reform the old order, reconcile, and forgive? The choice of path depends on your own strength and whether you need allies. Both ways can succeed. But violent movement succeeded about ¼ of the time. Militant activists that do a lot of disruption get lots of attention, but can turn off allies who say they’re not like those activists. Non violent movements succeeded about ½ the time. It is hard to fight with people who say they embrace your values.
Public opinion changed for us because we asked for marriage, and in asking showed how much we share values with others.
No comments:
Post a Comment