After ignoring the fact that the throughlines in this chart look like a misshapen John Thomas, what's with the weird anti-gay bump around 2004? Lawrence v. Texas was a year earlier, so why were public polls suddenly so opposed?
After ignoring the fact that the throughlines in this chart look like a misshapen John Thomas, what's with the weird anti-gay bump around 2004? Lawrence v. Texas was a year earlier, so why were public polls suddenly so opposed?
That one is easy to answer. The hard-core right tried very hard to make gay marriage a campaign issue in the 2004 elections. I think their ridiculous scare tactics and absurd claims about the "homosexual agenda" actually hurt them when it came down to the wire, though the economy is what got Obama elected in the end. (Just as the senior Bush's economic idiocy got Clinton elected, in fact. Not a coincidence in my opinion.)The pre-election smear campaign against gays was widespread and ugly, and undoubtedly produced the twitch in the trend that is apparent here.
ReplyDeleteA couple of reasons come to mind:1. Poll-density artifact. Given 2004 was an election year, polling was heavy, particularly on potential issues of voter concern. You'll notice the tight clustering of points around that time.2. State initiatives. Various states either had court cases involving gay marriage (like Massachusetts), or began passing laws permitting civil unions, or laws restricting recognition of same-sex marriages, or attempting to amend state constitutions. This greatly highlighted the visibility of the issue.3. The Presidential Election. Same-sex marriage became an election issue, especially raised in importance by the state court decision that required the legalization of it in Massachusetts. By many who otherwise wouldn't think of it, the election made them aware of the decision, and many Americans otherwise on the sidelines do not like the courts riding roughshod over the people and their elected representatives, as they see it. Add to that the fact that the Democrats, supposedly favorable to same-sex marriage, didn't really defend it. There certainly were some who made favorable arguments, but for the most part commentary from that party was... tepid, at best. This left the arguments for marriage to activists and those further out on the fringe, and unfortunately they were(are) ineffective at persuading the mushy middle. (That's why they're on the fringe.)Those would be my guesses, and it might be some combination of those and other factors I've simply forgotten.
ReplyDeleteOf course the folks who complain about the courts "overriding the will of the people" are quick enough to stand on court decisions with which they agree. The reason the federal courts were created (in the Constitution they all revere so highly) is just that. Not everything can properly be decided by a majority vote. Sometimes it has to be left to arbitration by the most informed and, hopefully, unbiased.In any case, 2004 was a year of much turmoil, stirred up by a lot of hyperbole from both political parties. Gay marriage wasn't getting much good publicity at the time, but has had a lot more favorable viewpoints on display since then.
ReplyDelete