How President Obama’s Support of Gay Marriage Signals the Decline of Homophobia in America
This week President Obama become the first sitting president (and serious presidential candidate) in history to publicly announce his support of gay marriage. While this declaration is a long time coming and has been decried as too little too late by some gay rights activists, it represents a major shift and hopefully a bellwether for the decline in homophobia in the US.
Support for Gay Marriage in America
Public opinion has slowly been shifting in support of gay marriage, with more Americans (46%) favoring same sex marriage, up from 35% just 10 years ago in 2001, according to the Pew Research Institute. While this increase in support cuts across different political, demographic, and religious group, age seems to be the most stubborn factor when it comes to changes views about gays. 53% of those born after 1980 favor gay marriage rights, compared to only 38% of those born between 1946 and 1964, and only 29% of those born between 1928 and 1945.
Do you support gay marriage?
Why Homophobia is on the Decline
Many factors in recent decades have contributed to a decline in homophobia in America.
- Legalization of gay marriage. Same-sex marriages were first legalized by a state (Massachusetts) in 2004. Currently 6 states and the District of Columbia legally recognize gay marriages, three others recognize gay marriages made in other jurisdictions, and many other states allow for civil unions or domestic partnerships among gay couples, granting state-level marriage rights. Dozens of other states are currently battling for same-sex marriage rights in their courts. The legalization of same-sex marriage makes clear that gay couples should enjoy equal rights under the law. In addition, gay marriage helps debunks myths and stereoptypes about gay couples, demonstrating that they share the same values and lifestyles as their straight counterparts.
- The gay rights movement. Over the last few decades, the gay rights movement in the United States has made enormous strides towards social equality for gays and lesbians. Through political activism, street parades and marches, advocacy work, and support groups, the gay rights movement has been effective in changing american attitudes towards gay people.
- Increased positive portrayals of gay couples in the media.While there is still work to be done, more and more TV shows and movies are positively portraying gay couples. In fact, today's most popular TV show, Modern Family, features a gay couple trying to adopt a child. Often these couples are simply the guys next door or the family down the street, demonstrating the reality that gay men and women are woven into the fabric of our society and helping make people more comfortable with their real-life gay neighbors.
- Greater visibility. More and more youth today are growing up with gay people as part of their every day lives. Not only are politicians and other public figures “out” but gay couples are raising children and young people are able to come out of the closet without as much fear of marginalization. Knowing someone who is openly gay is becoming the norm, leading to greater acceptance and support.
Saying Goodbye to Homophobia
Whether president Obama’s public support of gay marriage will make a difference in the fight to end homophobia or in the 2012 presidential election is yet to be seen. However, having a presidential candidate make this type of statement is a major step in the right direction. Every generation seems to be increasingly at ease with the idea that gays and lesbians are an integral part of our society. Let’s hope that the next generation grows up in a world where gays and lesbians have equal rights and the idea of discrimination based on sexual preference seems as antiquated as the idea of racial or gender discrimination does today.
Related
10 Reasons Why American President Barack Obama May or May Not Have Been Re-Elected in 2012
What has President Obama Done Right in Eight Years? LOTS To Be Proud Of!
A Tribute to Outgoing President Barack Obama - Giving Credit Where Credit is Due
Is Donald Trump A Viable Presidential Candidate?
In Answer to Opinion Duck about TARP and the Stimulus, the Debt, and the Deficit (updated 3-5-2011)
Comments
- AUTHOR
jaba219: It is pretty interesting how different the US is from other parts of the industrialized world when it comes to social issues. I think people will look back at these times and be flabbergasted by homophobia. Thanks for commenting!
Obama has definitely done more for LGBT rights then most other Presidents have done, which includes the repeal of DADT. Homophobia is silly and it just reminds me of how far behind our country always is when it comes to social issues, i.e. slavery, civil rights, women's rights, and how hypocritical of a society we live in!
- AUTHOR
Whowas: Thanks for commenting. Interesting that his outspokenness on this issue has improved public opinion in the black community - I would not have expected that. Why do you think that's happening?
Obama's public support of Gay marriage is just about the best thing he has been able to achieve during his presidency (I know there is a lot more he would like to do but with a republican majority in the senate he is blocked at every turn - isn't democracy depressing?!)
I read just yesterday that his outspokenness on this point has led to a measurable shift in public opinion - especially in the 'black' community. I wish he would stick his neck out more on other issues. I think he'd find that if he were to take a stronger lead, many would follow.
Well, LauraGT, what can I tell you? I think that I have said enough already; and so have some other people.
However, the fact remains that you can change the truth about something to suit your own psyche or ego, but the truth itself never changes.
Society may metamorphose as much as it wants; but the debate about whether the meaning of "marriage" will change in any way, shape or form will still remain a question for you and many people; including myself, of course.
- AUTHOR
Hmmm.... well, I would say to you that gay people are simply the offspring of heterosexual unions, so they aren't going anywhere!
But, let me bring this back to the original topic of my hub, which is how Obama's statement signals a change in our society. Just 4 years ago, major political candidates considered political suicide to state that they supported same-sex marriage. Now, just 4 years later, the president, in an election year, has stated his support. Public opinion is changing, and changing quickly. I expect that in the next generation, the idea of excluding gay men and women from any public institution will seem archaic.
I did not intend to spark a debate about the morality of homosexuality, but rather comment on a societal/political shift. I think that type of debate is better suited for a forum debate.
Thanks again for your thoughtful comments, even if they differ from mine.
LauraGT,
Nobody is asking you to change anything about yourself.
Just use your own extensive gumption, as many can tell that you possess, to sort things out for yourself.
In other words, always choose what you THINK is right or good for you, with respect to your way of life, and in dealing with other people's opinions on any topic.
We must all try to be sensitive to other people's feelings or sentiments; but we must not attempt to sensitize anything that is true; because it is true, whether we agree with it or not.
For example, birthing that has brought us all here on earth, can only come between a man and a woman copulating.
There are no two ways about that; and that is where marriage comes or fits in, to cement a relationship and generally assist the connection between two persons devoted to each other to start a FAMILY; which is the nucleus or the basis of society.
The continuation, or the "CONTINUUM" of human existence, solely depends on that connection or contact.
The nucleus can only come about, when an "egg" in a female individual combines with "the sperm" in a male person to form "the fetus", from which a baby, and therefore a human being, is reproduced.
Without the two coming together, there will be no procreation; but an emptiness, bereft of human beings, in a vacuum, commonly referred to as the Universe.
That is what, in my humble opinion, "liftandsoar" and I are talking about.
-
-
Thanks! I'll take anything I can get. Both the points and the blow off! :-)
- AUTHOR
I'll give you both points for creativity! ;)
You're not daft. We're just coming at this from different worlds. An analogy. When our kids were small we lived in a home where railroad tracks ran just behind our back yard. A train went by only once in a blue moon. Of course our kids wanted to play down by the tracks. We forbade it as I'm sure you would. Would you now say that because of the theoretical possibility of their being run over by a train we were unjustly denying them their right to have fun? I doubt it.
LauraGT,
You still do not understand. The existence of human beings is through an inter relationship between a man and a woman. That is how people are born on this earth or into this world.
Two men or two women having the same relationship will not be able to reproduce. It will not work.
When that happens, there will be no more human births, and that will spell the end of the human race.
Looking at the issue another way, homosexuals want to adopt children, but they are throwing their sperms away. What sense do you see in that? They like to have children, but they cannot do so using their method.
Who must then have children for them to adopt?
That means that they do not really know what life really is.
If their behavior is not the height of hypocrisy, and outright selfishness on their part, then nothing else will ever be.
Besides, marriage is not a right. Originally, it is an institution for birthing. So, if they do not subscribe to the idea of birthing or having children, why must they interfere with a special institution deliberately set aside for the purpose of birthing or procreation?
They can have "sex" and call their relationship or life style any other name, but "marriage".
There is "domestic partnership" or "civil union". They can go for any of those nomenclatures.
I completely agree with "liftandsoar".
Homosexuals must leave marriage alone; because the name "marriage" is not synonymous with their character. Or it does not fit the way that they want to live their lives.
Precisely, their mindset is characterized by nothing less than a venue that leads to the extinction of humanity.
- AUTHOR
Hi again. Sorry for being daft, but you're saying that because in a completely hypothetical, ficticious world in which there were only same-sex marriages and no heterosexual sex that the human race would become extinct is a reason to deny gay people the right to marry?
Oh, I'm not saying that procreation is the only reason for marriage. Only that if we all were in same sex marriages there would be no procreation. It seems to me that any position which logically leads to humanity's demise is patently wrong. I say logically, bacause I don't expect that to happen in reality. Still in principle same sex marriage leads to the extinction of the human race and must be considered antithetical to human well-being.
- AUTHOR
Hi Liftandsoar. It is interesting that for people equate marriage with procreation. I think there are a lot of people for whom it has a broader meaning. For me, I married my husband in hopes of having a partner and companion, and to solidify our lifelong commitment to each other. Yes, I always wanted children, but I do think a healthy, meaningful marriage exist outside of biological children. I think many gay people in long-term relationships want the same thing.
-
-
Thanks, LauraGT, a reasonable answer indeed, and graciously put. It's my opinion that homosexuals should have all the rights available to hetersexuals. However marriage is in a different category altogether. This seems self-evident to me for if we all were married to somone of the same gender the human race would cease to exist, unless of course, we separated marriage from procreation. That's already been done to a huge degree, but that's just as destructive. Again that's my opinion. It doesn't mean I'm afraid of homosexuals. In fact I work of Home Depot, an outfit known for supporting homosexual rights. It does me that I am one who would oppose laws legalizing same-sex marriage.
- AUTHOR
Hi liftandsoar: I think the problem is that this is not about just disagreeing about a concept/idea. This is about people's legal rights.
There is the issue of semantics - several people have asked whether someone can be against gay marriage but not be homophobic. Homophobia is defined by Merriam-Webster as: "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." So, no, I don't think everyone who opposes same-sex marriage is a bad person or hates gay people. But, taken more broadly, homophobia applies to discrimination against gay people. I think denying gay people the legal right to marry is a disciminatory policy. So, yes, I see opposition to gay marriage as homophobic (i.e., discriminatory against gay people).
I think that our policies, in part, shape our culture and attitudes, as well as reflect them. As long as gay people are not given equal rights under the law, others will see them as unequal and will treat them so. It happens every day, in horrible ways (as you describe) and less subtle ways (harder to see).
I'm not really sure what the "gay agenda" is. If by that you mean being granted equal protection under the law, I don't see that as "gay agenda" but as a human agenda.
Is it possible to honestly disagree with the gay aganda without being labeled a homophobe? While there have been despicable intances of vilence and prejudice toward homosexuals, fact is that most of us who disagree on principle do not fear you. We just think you're wrong.
- AUTHOR
I also hope that "your personal outlook in life in general will evolve in a positive direction." :)
LauraGT,
I agree that there is no room for compromise on this issue; but do you see how shallow your argument is?
You say that my beliefs are "based in a religious/traditional framework," and "mine in equal rights for all living human being." (Your own words; and not mine). Meaning that those are the basis of your convictions.
However, where do "rights" and "all living human beings" come from?
Out of nothing? Is that what you and your friends are telling or teaching to the children that you are adopting?
Aren't you misleading them; and if not, how do you know you are right?
Now, I know that I have given another person plenty of food for thought; and that makes me very happy.
I can only wish you the same kind of happiness, in your own life's pursuits; and hope that your personal outlook on life in general will evolve in a positive direction.
That is only how you will find your real self.
By the way, what is "positive" to one person can be "negative" to another. Think about that.
- AUTHOR
Owurakwasip: It seems that we've reached an impasse. We clearly believe in different "ends" - yours is based in a religious/traditional framework and mine in equal rights for all living human being.
Sir/Madam,
Sorry to say this, but your way will not work.
Nature has its own rules and nothing can ever change them.
In other words, if you cannot comply with the rules set by "Mother nature", that will be your problem and nobody else's.
You are interested in isolated cases. I am not.
Generally speaking, the theory of life is for couples to copulate for the purpose of having children.
Do not waste your time, trying to make excuses by using people who are unable to reproduce.
In so many of those lives, there is only regret and self flagellation in the end.
However, you may not believe this, but it is always the end that matters.
- AUTHOR
Owurakwasip: Again, your argument is based in a religious belief.
I beg to differ that same sex marriages can only exist in a vacuum. If only couples who can procreate are allowed to marry, many male/female couples would have to separate due to infertility or lack of desire to have children. Should people who are beyond child-bearing age be prohibited from marrying? Many gay couples these days have children (either biologically or adopted) and raise wonderful people. What a loss for society if those people were not allowed to be. All life should be valued.
LauraGT,
I made it quite clear that whoever was responsible for placing humans on earth designed marriage for procreation.
In other words, marriage has a specific purpose.
It is not just an institution; it is the foundation of family life or existence.
Nobody can ever change that.
Have another name for your lifestyle, if you are going to pair up; but that will not be marriage, because such a relationship will only exist in a vacuum. Nothing can ever come out of it. Besides, that name (marriage) has already been taken.
- AUTHOR
owurakwasip: I think it's a hard sell that marriage is somehow supposed to be only between a man and a woman. From a biblical perspective, perhaps, but our constitution makes it pretty clear that religion does not dictate US policy and law. What's left is a cultural perspective. Marriage has historically been defined as between a man and a woman, but culture changes and so do laws and institutions. Thankfully! Can you imagine if the original traditions that were in place when the US became a country were still in place existed today? I would not want to live in that world. Things change. It's time.
It was not what homosexuals and lesbians wanted to do with their lives that bothered many people. They could co-habit, they could swim and dance; and nobody would give a damn.
They could come together in any way they chose; but not to "marry". "Marriage" should be an entirely different kettle of fish. It was designed by whoever put humans down on planet earth.
The rights of homosexuals and others like them would not be abrogated, if they decided to fight for those rights as normal couples have, but in different way.
Form an entity; like "domestic partnership" or "civil union", and nobody would object to any of those.
However, whatever they did, the word "marriage" did not fit their lifestyles.
By the way, "phobia" meant inexplicable fear; and so when it should be attached to "homo", it should mean the fear of "men".
Yet, people were not afraid of men per se; they were afraid of aberrant behavior of any kind, sexual or otherwise.
- AUTHOR
goagirl: Thanks for reading and commenting. I can appreciate your viewpoint and I agree that there should be open, honest discussion based on facts. I think the problem comes in when a group is being denied fundamental rights based on an attribute like sexual orientation.
Is it homophobic to be against same-sex marriage? Great discussion forum question! :)
- AUTHOR
jenubouka: Thanks for commenting and sharing your story. I think you've made a very apt comparison and hope that we'll look back in wonder at how this ever was such a heated issue.
It's easy to look as if you are doing the right thing. Coming out blatantly in support of Gay Marriage is a popular stance. However, it seems that if people are uncomfortable, perhaps from the point of view of their religion, with Gay Marriage, and express that view, they are almost always deemed to be 'homophobic'. I would encourage open debate where people are enabled and empowered to express their views honestly without being judged in terms such as 'homophobic' - a lazy criticism that often negates some valid opinions, ideas and questions.
The other day a man of another color rode his bike past my house; I was outside and he asked if I had an air pump. I said I had something that might help. Minutes later I had fix-a-flat exploding all over; I told let me do it for I didn't want him smelling like the cursed chemical. As he rode off, thanking me, I though 50 years ago his color would have prevented him to even be free. How silly of a society are we to judge another over color or any other free choice.
I tell this story for it was no long ago we raged against a man for his skin, now we are angry for another civil right and choice. so my hope is not to long from now we will shake our judgmental minds in shame to have repeated history once again.
Whether this is a ploy for votes; it simply is the right thing to do.
Wonderful hub Laura.
Thanks so much for your thoughtful, mature input as usual LauraGT. As the target of some of those insults I appreciate it :)
- AUTHOR
I see there's been a vigorous debate on this topic. I would like to remind people that hub comments are meant for serious, respectful comments. It is not the place for name calling and diatribe. There are many forums that might be a better place to continue some of the more heated discussion that has digressed from the content of my article.
Thanks for reading!
Charles, you hit that nail right on the head. The media controls so much of what we see and hear. They tell you only what they want you to know and spin it to their own advantage. All you have to do is dig deeper into any of today's big headlines to see that what you are saying is not a conspiracy theory. Excellent points!
Straight vs Gay = Black vs White = ???
- Divide and conquer. Did you feel that? You are being mind controlled. Even the "Awake" are susceptible to such well laid traps.
What do you guys think will be the next major story pushed by the MSM?
- Probably Man vs Woman. Sprinkle in a little abortion here or maybe a rape there. Maybe another kidnapped little girl. That'll stir up some deep emotional energy for the vampires to feed off of.
Does anyone else feel like all these stories are just made up? Am I the only one living in the twilight zone?
- Be aware of the thoughts you let into yourself. Most of them are not your own.
The real question is.... what are we being distracted away from?
Again, I see marriage as a definition of a type of relationship, not a "right", per se. A man does not have the right to be a mother. He can be a father - which is gender specific to parenthood.
I believe civil unions afford the legal acknowledgment/protection of a lifelong commitment between same sex partners.
Your argument is illogical "if people people centuries ago were content with the way things were." We are discussing a definition, not stagnate complacancy. Our forefathers, who were not happy with the governing system from which their parents came, didn't re-define England's government, they chose a different government - a democratic republic. Both a Parliamentary Monarchy and a Democratic Republic are forms of government, with an objective to administrate a government, and different bodies being a part of the other. A marriage - its earliest definition is "1.The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife." Regarding your parents, ethnicity neither fulfills or annul the prerequisite of marriage. Even in biblical times there was interracial marriage - way back when.
I am not against the rights of anyone. But let's be clear on what a "right" is. Marriage is a specific type of relationship, "husband and wife", and, simply, "husband and husband" or "wife and wife" is not in that definition.
:)
I beg to differ. So, because it's been defined in a particular manner for centuries means it can never be changed? I think you should consider that statement very carefully. I shudder to think what kind of world we'd be living in if people centuries ago were content with the way things were. My own parents had an extremely difficult time finding someone who would marry them. Why? Because my dad is white and my mom is Mexican. Thank God things have changed since then.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I honestly have to wonder how you can say you have gay friends and don't consider yourself homophobic, yet you want to limit the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians.
Right and wrong are a non-issue. The definition of marriage for centuries has been "lifelong commitment between man and woman". I think civil-unions provide this same commitment level, but between same gender couples. As far as legal ramification, grant civil union partners the same rights at hospitals, taxes, etc. as married. Re-defining marriage doesn't change the history of marriage.
I neither hate nor fear homosexuals - just clarifying because you replied to my earlier comment on "homophobia" with an extended definition.
According to the ADL, homophobia is defined as a hatred or fear of homosexuals and lesbians. I believe it is this hatred and fear that drives people to resist accepting the gay lifestyle, including the right to marry. I challenge anyone to give just ONE intelligent, non-emotional, non-religious reason why same sex marriage is wrong.
I don't equate disagreeing with same-sex marriage as homophobia. I have many friends who are homosexual, some lifelong friends. I believe homosexuals can enter a civil union, but I believe marriage is between a man and woman.
Homophobia is fear of homosexuals and is a term thrown about much too loosely, IMO.
I do not much care for many of Obama's politics - his runaway Executive Orders, his light esteem for the military, the endless appointment of czars, his following Bush policy after winning an election by landblasting it... oh, there's more. Anywho.
I do enjoy your writing style, however. I'm sure you are aware that you write effectively. Kudos.
I could not disagree with you more. Obama threw Blacks and Hispanics under the bus with this announcement. I voted for Obama but will not this November. Many people who supported him will just stay home.
- AUTHOR
Hi Kim. Thanks for reading. There really is no correlation between someone supporting gay marriage and that person being gay. Of course, gay people are more likely to support gay marriage, but many straight people also support it. It's a funny leap of logic to think that he might be gay just because he supports the rights of those who are.
Re: him being born in this country, there is already documented evidence that he was. This is old dirty laundry (that has already been cleaned, again and again).
I really don't understand why President Obama made his statements concerning gay marriage during an election year. It's not like the gay population was going to vote for Romney. Maybe President Obama is a gay man. That's ok if he is, but if his marriage is a sham, maybe he really wasn't born in the United States. It really makes you think.
- AUTHOR
Lovesleftovers: thanks again for your support. I think more and more people are becoming comfortable with gay people in our society. I think (and I'm hopeful) that we're moving towards a time when those kind of negative comments just won't be tolerated anymore.
Thanks for the well written and fair article, Laura. I write about Metaphysical topics and many "guests" write to tell me I'm possessed by the devil, am going to hell (which I don't believe in) and such. HP is a nice community, don't let a few bad apples spoil your experience, or supress that topics you wish to write on.
You just can't change some people.
LauraGT, you are most welcome. I saw that flaxseed comment as well. I think you hit the nail on the head. Some people lack the maturity required to be accepting of those with differing views and lifestyles. I feel sorry for people who prefer to spend their time in such an unproductive manner. Keep up the good work!
- AUTHOR
Lovesleftovers: Thanks for commenting and your support! I find the negative comments interesting. The commenter(s) have actually taken the time to go to many of my other hubs and make silly comments there too (e.g., flaxseed causes gayness). I simply can't understand why making a big joke out of someone's sexuality gives them pleasure. Clearly they are uncomfortable with themselves somehow. I'm glad that many other people are able to express their opinions in a open and mature way.
I agree with BJC. Some of the comments are indeed mean. At least BJC is kind enough to understand and state that everyone has a right to their own opinion. As for the negative comments, there are many people who are afraid of the unknown. Ignorance can be a scary thing. LauraGT is open enough to allow all comments on her hubs. If it were me though, I wouldn't give some of these people the attention they so desperately desire.
- AUTHOR
BJC, thank you for reading and for your thoughtful comment. I'm glad to be able to have an open dialog on the topic.
This is a well written article that was well thought out. I don't support gay marriage, but some of the comments are mean. Why? People are entitled to their views and we have to agree to disagree.
Glad you have written a well thought out hub.
What a pity. She doesn't look like a homosexual in the picture, but it's hard to tell these days.
You're right Laura. Things really have changed. When I was a young gay woman like you in the 1960's, I would of never thought about making my choice public. Your lucky to be a gay woman living in today's society.
Don't worry Laura. It's a little tough when you first come out of the closet, but it gets easier with time.
Great article LauraGT. The more I read, the more I realize that gay people like you should be tolerated as long as they behave properly.
LBJ advocated for civil rights in the 60s and instigated the civil rights bill. It changed my political persuasion (I wrote a Hub about this), and took courage on his part. This announcement by President Obama feels much the same to me. Both may have been somewhat politically motivated, but they still did the right thing.
Great Hub!! Thanks.
- AUTHOR
Thanks LYndaG. I'll have to look up what LBJ said. I'm glad to hear there is a precedent... for the president! :)
I am so happy to hear that President Obama suopports the rights of all and is willing to say so. LBJ did so and won reelection. I'm happy to be living in a country where people are not afraid to speak up for what is right
- AUTHOR
Sherry: Thanks for reading and commenting. I too hope it doesn't hurt his chances of getting elected. I'm glad that people in high political office finally feel like they can speak out on this issue!
I applaud this announcement, it was too long in coming. I don't think it will damage his chances in the next election, but I hope the reason for the announcement is not for political gain, but a genuine evolution of opinion and change of heart as the president has stated.
- AUTHOR
Hi Jed. I'm not going to take it upon myself to try to change your mind on this topic. However, according to your logic women should hate all men because a some men rape women (or men's rights should be taken away because some are abusive?). It just doesn't make any sense. There's a lot out there about what causes people to be homophobic, and being victimized by gay men is not a reason.
It's a bonehead move on O'Bama's part. The most adament homophobes I know were either witness to or victims of homosexual sexual assault. Like that coach at Penn State with those little boys. Takes a thick rug indeed to hide that much dirt.
- AUTHOR
Gregoriom: Thanks for reading and commenting. There are some who believe just the opposite is true - that this will cost him the election. I hope you're right, and that presidential candidates who support gay rights/marriage no longer have to fear jeapardizing a win!
@LaureGT
He's using a good technique to gain votes. With this he's turning the balance to his side.
62