Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Jan van Lohuizen, a former George W. Bush pollster with a Ph.D. from Rice, is on a mission to show that opposition to same-sex marriage is a political and demographic dead end, propped up by a shrinking core of the old, the undereducated, and the highly churched. Bitter clingers, if you will, to the idea of traditional marriage.
“I have any number of gay friends who are Republicans,
but what makes me tick is that I have concerns that this is another issue that
would limit the growth of the Republican party,” van Lohuizen told me in a
phone interview.
“If you believe that the government is better off if it
is governed by Republicans than Democrats, you have to worry about issues that
impede the growth of the party. And this is one.”
Together with Joel Benenson, former lead pollster for
President Obama’s first campaign, van Lohuizen has looked at decades of polling
data on gay marriage and come to some interesting conclusions in a series of
memos the pair has distributed to policymakers, think tanks, and political
media.
Most significant, support for gay marriage is
accelerating. “We originally wrote a memo in May of 2011 that basically said
that in the previous 20 years, the increase of support for gay marriage had
been about 1 percent a year,” van Lohuizen told me in a phone interview. “And
then somewhere around 2009 there was an increase to 4 or 5 percent. It’s like a
hockey-stick curve. All of the sudden there is this elbow.” With due apologies
for the “hockey stick” reference, this is certainly borne out by the shift in
the fortunes of pro-gay-marriage ballot initiatives. After a decade marked by
almost universal failure, all four pro-gay-marriage measures on state ballots
in 2012 passed.
Second, the coalition supporting gay marriage is more
broad-based than the coalition opposing it. “If you look at the crosstabs, the
opposition is really concentrated in a few really small groups,” van Lohuizen
says. “Evangelical whites, tea-party Republicans, older voters, and whites that
do not have a college degree.” Indeed, national exit-polling data from the 2012
election shows that while support for gay marriage sits at 37 percent with
voters 65 and older, 52 percent of younger voters support “freedom to marry”
(the phrase strategically used in place of the slightly more loaded “marriage
equality” in Benenson and van Lohuizen’s memo on the subject). Likewise, gay
marriage enjoys majority support from all major religious confessions except
white evangelical Protestantism — including mainline “non-evangelical”
Protestants, Catholics, and Jews. And while a majority of whites without
college degrees oppose gay marriage, majorities of whites with college degrees,
and nonwhites of all education levels, support it.
Even among Republicans, opposition to same-sex marriage
is increasingly tenuous, particularly along two axes. First, self-described
tea-party Republicans oppose gay marriage 84/13, while Republicans who describe
themselves as neutral toward or opposed to the Tea Party oppose gay marriage by
smaller 62/34 and 52/47 splits, respectively. This is a more or less momentous
split depending on how credible one finds evidence that tea-party membership is
in sharp decline.
Second, and perhaps most critically, exit polling shows
that 51 percent of Republicans under 30 support gay marriage in their state. If
this datum alone holds, one might think, gay marriage is a fait accompli in the
near to medium term. And indeed, the polls report just that feeling among the
broader public: 83 percent of voters, supporters and opponents included, think
that gay marriage will be legal nationally in the next five to ten years.
But is a Republican party that is broadly
pro-gay-marriage an inevitability, and sooner than later? Here the data is
perhaps less definitive than it looks on the surface. Consider the above datum,
which shows that young Republicans support gay marriage in their state. This,
of course, fails to capture a number of distinctions that most Republicans and
conservatives consider important to the gay-marriage debate. Does support among
young Republicans for “freedom to marry” in one’s state of residence imply
support for federal intervention in the marriage question?
Many on the left who support “marriage equality” frame it
as a civil-rights issue and favor a federal remedy, as they do in most
civil-rights contexts. But it would be dubious to infer that the Republican
respondents to the above question would favor a similar remedy, considering the
relative importance Republicans and conservatives place on the principles of
federalism. Likewise, I asked van Lohuizen whether any of the data he looked at
distinguished between support for various other means of gay-marriage
legalization — from judicial imposition to legislation to ballot referenda —
that are likelier to draw out distinct responses from self-described
Republicans and conservatives for similar, principled reasons.
While van Lohuizen admitted that such distinctions aren’t
captured in the data that informs his memos, he referred to a survey he helped
design on support for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Two questions — one
on the section of DOMA that forbids the federal government from recognizing
legal same-sex unions from the states, and the other on the section that denies
various legal benefits afforded to spouses (such as hospital visitation) to
same-sex couples — suggest that support for and opposition to same-sex marriage
can and do exist apart from support for and opposition to individual principles
and doctrines implicated in the gay-marriage debate.
To wit, the survey shows that while only 52 percent of
respondents supported gay marriage, 59 percent believed the federal government
should recognize legal same-sex unions from the states. And even larger
majorities believed that the government should extend to same-sex couples
various privileges and responsibilities attendant on traditional marriage:
Interestingly, while there are conservatives and
Republicans who express these sorts of “cat’s out of the bag4” views on issues
attendant to legalized gay marriage, there are also attempts by some
gay-marriage proponents to accommodate the worries of Republicans and
conservatives on the same. Here, van Lohuizen pointed to Maryland’s Question 6,
which last year granted gay and lesbian couples the ability to obtain
civil-marriage licenses. But the ballot question also, according to an official
summary:
protects clergy from having to perform any particular
marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each
religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine
regarding who may marry within that faith; and provides that religious
organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods,
services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion
of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.
It’s not crazy to think that Question 6, which passed
with a narrow majority of 52.4 percent and represents the first time same-sex
marriage has been legalized in the United States through a popular vote, was
pushed across the finish line by such protections. Indeed, the legislative precursor
to Question 6 passed the Maryland state house only after its sponsors beefed up
religious protections.
In a world in which one can be against gay marriage but
for its recognition, and for marriage equality but against requiring its
religious recognition, it’s not enough to ask whether the Republican party is
destined to wed “freedom to marry.” The truth is, it’s complicated.
No comments:
Post a Comment