Evan Wolfson: Why are the polls on 'gay marriage' so inconsistent?

Freedom to Marry
April 16, 2004

It seems as if almost every week we see a new poll on how Americans feel about the freedom to marry for same-sex couples. Here are some points to remember about polling:

A poll is just a glimpse of how people say they feel at a given moment, and does not indicate how they will feel when they come to hear more information or as events progress. Polls are snapshots, but what really counts is the movie — the trend and momentum. And in the decade that Americans have been discussing ending discrimination in marriage, the trend toward acceptance of equality is undeniable.

Most national polls these days show that the public supports providing the components of marriage (health coverage, inheritance, Social Security, etc.) to same-sex couples and their families; oppose discriminatory amendments to the Constitution (such as the Musgrave amendment pushed by the White House); and is divided on whether to end marriage discrimination — with opposition generally in the 50 or 60% range, depending on how the poll is conducted and framed.

At the same time, polls in particular states (for example, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York) and of particular parts of the population (younger people, women, Democrats, Independent voters, more highly educated) have shown majority support for marriage equality. And more than two-thirds of the American people believe that gay people will win the freedom to marry, which means that on a gut-level they understand that the sky won't fall when this discrimination ends.

It is, of course, particularly significant that nearly every poll shows strong support among younger people for ending marriage discrimination. History and time are on the side of equality (which is why right-wing groups are pushing constitutional amendments to try to cement discrimination into our governing documents so as to tie the hands of future generations and all states).

THE "MOVEABLE MIDDLE"

Still, we do see fluctuations in many of the national polls that come out — and here's why:

The country right now is divided roughly in thirds. One third supports equality for gay people, including the freedom to marry. Another third is not just adamantly against marriage for same-sex couples, but, indeed, opposes gay people and homosexuality, period. This group is against any measure of protection or recognition for lesbians and gay men, whether it be marriage or anything else.

And then there is the "middle" third — the reachable-but-not-yet-reached middle.

The reason the polls are inconsistent is because, on both a micro- and macro- level, this middle third gives different answers. Micro-, in that how the poll asks the questions and uses different words can literally invite a different response. And macro-, in the sense that these Americans are genuinely wrestling with this civil rights question and have divided impulses and feelings to sort through. How they frame the question for themselves brings them to different outcomes; their thinking is evolving as they grapple with the need for change to end discrimination in America.

To appeal to the better angels of their nature, we owe it to these friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens to help them understand the question of marriage equality through two truths:

Truth 1 — Ending marriage discrimination is, first and foremost, about couples in love who have made a personal commitment to each other, who are doing the hard work of marriage in their lives, caring for one another and their kids, if any. (Think couples like Del Martin & Phyllis Lyon who've been together more than fifty years.) Now these people, having in truth made a personal commitment to each other, want and deserve a legal commitment.

Once the discussion has a human story, face, and voice, fair-minded people are ready to see through a second frame:

Truth 2 — The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is discrimination; it is wrong, it is unfair, to deny these couples and families marriage and its important tangible and intangible protections and responsibilities. America has had to make changes before to end discrimination and unfair treatment, and government should not be denying any American equality under the law.

In our conversations and work now, we should reinforce these truths and develop messages so as to reach the middle at this crucial moment. Non-gay allies clearly can help deliver reinforcing messages from both perspectives:

• talking about families they know and care about, couples they have counseled or worked with, etc.; asking how ending discrimination will harm anyone else's marriage;
• and sharing the conviction that, as citizens and neighbors, we have a responsibility to stand up against discrimination and work to support families and build stronger communities for all.

It is also important to clearly highlight that the freedom to marry movement is challenging discrimination in legal or "civil" marriage. We must not blur the distinction between the right to marry and religious marriage rites protected by the First Amendment. Religious leaders and people of faith can play a crucial role in helping make the distinction clear, while speaking in a discourse of love, humanity, pastoral care and community support, etc., that supports both truths. We want our neighbors to understand that ending the exclusion from marriage for committed same-sex couples will help families while harming no one.

PUBLIC OPINION AND EQUAL RIGHTS

America's government rests on a pair of ideas that together make one of our country's greatest contributions to human freedom. They are:

1. the idea of democratic votes and majority rule, and
2. the equally important idea that not everything gets put up to a vote, that there are certain basic rights and protections that belong to each individual and cannot be taken away even by the majority.

We Americans count on our Constitution and courts to safeguard the inalienable rights guaranteed to all of us.

It took from 1776 until 1948 before any court in the country had the courage to strike down the ban on interracial marriage. When the California Supreme Court became the first to strike down race discrimination in marriage (by a 4-3 vote, much like the 2003 Massachusetts ruling ending sex discrimination in marriage), polls showed 90% of the public opposed marriage equality for interracial couples. As late as 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court finally made the same ruling nationwide, the polls showed 70% opposed.

Imagine the injury to our nation if the opposition had prevailed with arguments like "let the people vote" or attacks on "activist judges," and had written discrimination into our Constitution. Would we ever have secured the equality and freedom that most of us consider to be our nation's commitment and defining greatness?

Finally, polls, as we said earlier, are only snapshots. Whatever people think they think today about marriage equality for same-sex couples, they will think differently when it is a reality and not just a hypothetical or scary right-wing rhetoric. As The New York Times said in an April 2, 2004 editorial:

"[O]pposition might melt away if some state had the courage to legalize gay marriage and everyone could see that it posed no threat whatever to heterosexual unions."

That is the history of our country, and history is on our side. Massachusetts and other states are about to show the country married same-sex couples, families helped, and no one hurt. The polls will follow.