The Public Religion Research Institute/Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs at Georgetown recently released a report showing that among Millennials (Aged 18-24), 37% of them oppose same-sex marriage. 59% said they favored same-sex marriage and 4% did not answer.
If we take these percentages at face value, they still mean that almost 12 million young Americans believe in marriage as the union of husband and wife.
So where are they?
I've met them. But many Americans obviously have not, judging by what I've seen on college campuses and witnessed in mainstream entertainment. And what is more surprising to consider is how many of these young pro-marriage Americans are currently enrolled in college or graduate school programs where free speech and academic freedom are supposedly essential values.
Is there truly a place for pro-marriage Millennial voices in our culture? It's not at all clear to me that there is right now. But it is equally clear to me that there should be such a place.
When it comes to the question of marriage and the views of the next generation, I'm a "glass is half full" sort of guy. Even if it's less than half full right now. For one thing, young people's attitudes change over time, and it's no surprise to me that people's views about what it takes to be married and raise a family change the closer one gets to actually having to live these choices.
It's also amazing and inspiring to witness how stubbornly young people continue to be for marriage despite all of the pressure that is brought against them for valuing it. Daniel Glowacki's story is just one such example. How many other Daniel Glowacki's are there out there who simply avoid taking that first step of speaking up and choose to remain silent instead?
Moreover, how much will this debate over marriage change when young pro-marriage people begin speaking out in more numbers and with more conviction?
I'm excited to find that out. So stay tuned!
31 Comments
Oy, can we please stop we these surveys asking whether same-sex couples "should be allowed to get married?" It assumes that same-sex couples are marriable in the first place, and they are not BY DEFINITION.
The question asked should always be whether people think the definition of marriage should be changed from the lifetime union of a man and a woman to include any two people, regardless of sex, for any period of time of their choosing.
Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron.
I see the glass as half-full as well. To me, we’re doing pretty good when a group of people who (1) have brains that aren’t fully developed (http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familylife/tech_assistance/etraining/adolescent_brain/Development/prefrontal_cortex/); (2) were born into a culture of marital decline; and (3) are less religious than their parents’ generation, are still 37% opposed to redefining marriage.
I’m also excited to see what will happen when young marriage supporters speak out on this issue. The case for ssm is pure emotion. And a lot of young people favor it, perhaps, because they think that marriage is a pretty label for a loving relationship. I’d like to see how the dynamics of this discussion will change when young people are educated on the societal purpose of marriage.
Marriage supporters need to "arise and shine forth, that [their] light may be a standard for the nations."
Glad you recognize it's less than half full, Thomas. A brief glimpse of honesty.
Plus, what's up with the stalled Dump Starbucks boycott? Signatures on our site have slowed to a trickle, SBUX stock has only gone up, and the total number of signatories would fill 1/3 of a major football stadium.
Since young people generally become more conservative and more religious as they grow older, the "youth vote" is misleading as an indicator of future trends. I probably would have supported gay marriage when I was that age, too.
I would add that we've heard the "We're The Wave Of The Future Because We Control The Youth Vote" spiel from liberals before, in the 60s and 70s when the hippie subculture was touted as the future norm and abortion was supported by most young people. But today, a majority or plurality of young people oppose abortion, and how many hippies do you see running around?
Addendum II - Ever notice how young people (including young adults and college students) routinely say "that's so gay!" to describe things they find foolish or silly? That phrase is a direct reaction against the homosexual movement, as even gay activists often say, and I think it indicates that support among young people has been exaggerated or misinterpreted.
AW, you're correct that people do tend to return to the church pews as they get older, and you're correct that people become more economically conservative as they age (my uncles read Marx in the 60's and voted Reagan in the 80's) and more geopolitically conservative as well (those same uncles protested Vietnam in the 60's but supported invading Iraq in 2003). But that trend hasn't applied as strongly to social issues. You find many former anti segregation marchers who are now KKK members. Time will tell.
The more a person learns about the negative consequences of so-called same-sex "marriage," the less likely they are to support it. I used to not care much one way or the other. I was uninformed. I suspect this is very common.
Scrounger: As people return to the church pews, they generally also tend to accept the Church's prohibition against homosexual sex. And as people age, they tend to learn from past mistakes in their own sexual habits; their sex drive gradually diminishes; and they become concerned about their children's potential sexual mistakes, all of which often lead them to adopt more traditional views on sexuality.
Your KKK analogy seems designed to make a comparison between sodomy and racial issues, although there is objectively no comparison. Today, the strongest voices against same-sex marriage are among African-Americans.
the origins of the word marriage Comes from the word Maier which means Bonding social unions under law
Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people may also be called matrimony. People marry for many reasons, including one or more of the following: legal, social, libidinal, emotional, economic, spiritual, and religious. These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a nuclear family unit, the legal protection of children and public declaration of commitment
Gay Marriage has openly been Accepted by all of Society For THOUSANDS OF YEARS
Christianity DID NOT Create Marriage not do you have a copywrite on marriage
Marriage is about LOVE NOT GENDER
all of you at NOM should be Ashamed of yourselves
you are no better than the KKK or the Aryan Brotherhood
AW -
Good point about older people learning from their sexual mistakes and influenced by their decline of sex drive.
As we get older, we make decisions less on emotion than we do as youths, armed with facts, rather than impressions, to help us draw our conclusions; though I do know quite a few women who seem to buck that trend (sorry gals).
The Public Religion Research Institute? Gee... I wonder if an organization that has the word "Religion" in their title, might be slightly biased when they asked their questions? Who exactly are they asking, religious people?
If 12 million young people support marriage discrimination, that is less than 20% of that populous. There are over 70 million that are between the age of 18 to 34. If 18 year olds think gay Americans should have equal rights, that mindset is unlikely to change when they become 40 or 50 year olds. They're still going to have family, friends and coworkers that are gay.
Steve says:
"If 18 year olds think gay Americans [believe in so-called SS"M"], that mindset is unlikely to change when they become 40 or 50 year olds.
Spoken like a true 18 year old who has no idea about what happens when people age. Hilarious!
To the guy who said: "Gay Marriage has openly been Accepted by all of Society For THOUSANDS OF YEARS"
Are you really going to claim that everyone in society has accepted gay marriage for thousands of years? I don't even know where to begin with that one...
Even the ancient Greeks, who had a relatively high rate of open homosexuality, did not allow same-sex marriage. Name one society that did allow it prior to the last couple decades.
Steve - plenty of us, myself included , have changed our minds about homosexual issues as we have become more informed (as well as older and wiser). Most 18 year olds are not particularly focused on issues like this - I never was when I was 18 - and hence whatever viewpoint they give to pollsters is likely lukewarm or disinterested at best. As they gain more experience, produce kids of their own and become more engaged in their communities, those viewpoints are likely to change. There's no reason why this particular issue is going to be different than any other issue in that regard.
BTW, I support "equal rights" for all people and have had gay friends, but I don't support redefining marriage nor do I support the sin of sodomy.
The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.
For instance, Emperor Nero is reported to have engaged in a marriage ceremony with one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus "married" a Man named Hierocles
A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova
thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman Emperors held to be bisexual or exclusively homosexual.
Egyptian Pharoahs were also known to be Bisexual and homosexual including a Lesbian Female Pharoah
Same-sex marriage was outlawed on December 16, 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law specifically outlaws marriages between men and reads as follows:
When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion [quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam], what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment. (Theodosian Code 9.7.3)
Even after the passing of the Theodosian code the Christian emperors continued to collect taxes on male prostitutes until the reign of Anastasius (491–518). In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodoisus and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be burned alive in front of the public. The Christian emperor Justinian (527–565) made homosexuals a scapegoat for problems such as "famines, earthquakes, and pestilences."] While homosexuality was tolerated in pre-Christian Rome, it was still nonetheless controversial. For example, arguments against same-sex relationships were included in Plutarch's Moralia
In pre-Christian Rome and Greece, there had been some debate on which form of sexuality was preferable. While the majority of people seemed to have believed that bisexuality was the norm, there were those who preferred to be exclusively heterosexual or homosexual. For example, a debate between homosexual and heterosexual love was included in Plutarch's Moralia.
Christianity the same Religion that did this
Pope Damasus I 366-384 AD
Individuals who lived to see Damasus’s rule saw a bitter day: women and children were bought and sold as sex slaves to increase funding for the church at Damasus’s design. Those who opposed the tyrannical rule of Damasus would be tortured and literally burned alive after their lands were seized and used for church designated purposes. Worse still is that the women forced into prostitution were not always simple subjects of Rome, but female priests and nuns themselves. So much for serving in humility before God
While some light could be said to come out of this, there were forty-four bishops who abhorred the acts of Pope Damasus I and had found him guilty of adultery on many counts. Unfortunately, the office of the Pope was a strong central figurehead and Pope Damasus I weaseled his way through being convicted of the crimes that he was known to commit on a regular basis. After the charges had passed, all forty-four bishops were murdered at the order of Damasus I. What could be done? Nothing. Damasus I was also the first among Popes to instill the concept that the papacy was a supreme office of God, using the Petrine text in the Holy book of Matthew to support his claims. Nothing like divine intervention eh? Among the populous these heinous crimes went without retribution.
Pope Alexander VI 1492-1503
. On Halloween night of 1501, he was said to have organized and participated in the “worst orgy ever in the Vatican”. While sex with promiscuous women while unwed and sworn to celibacy and a life devoted to God may be forgivable in certain circles, his other most awful sexual conduct would be frowned upon by just about any member of our currently civilized society. Alexander VI also was known to fornicate regularly with his two sisters and his daughter.
Pope John XXIII
1410-1415 - not to be confused with Pope John XXIII from the 20th century.
Why people called this man the most depraved criminal who sat on the papal chair rather than calling him the most depraved criminal of all time may never be understood. Perhaps it was simply because they didn’t understand the scope of his evil. This “man” if you can call him that, committed almost every heinous crime imaginable – by the hundred. There were thirty-seven clergy members who witnessed and professed against him on the following charges: Fornication, Adultery, Incest, Sodomy, Simony, Theft, and last but not least, Murder. Even more members of the church than the thirty-seven who had accused him had been witnesses to the gut-wrenching fact that Pope John XXIII had a harem of mistresses in Boulogne numbering two-hundred. Even more disgusting yet was the fact that these two-hundred women consisted mostly, if not entirely of nuns. Thousands of lives were lost during the schism enacted in efforts to depose John XXIII, but luckily for the people, and the two-hundred nuns, he was indeed deposed
I think from the comments it becomes clear that when the issue of 'gay marriage' or 'gay rights' come up the reason young people 18-24 are less certain of their opposition is that they are surrounded by a pop culture that makes accepting 'gay marriage' nearly a default position. I'm certain that if you did a detailed poll that measured a finer grain you'd fine the support is conditional and also not necessarily hardline support but more casual support like casual drug use etc. Prop 8 showed that when you fight head to head and make the case against gay marriage you can change minds.
The fight to protect marriage is a fight for liberty and reign in the scope of a government that has grown so large as to think it can redefine the very basic definition of words that have meanings rooted in the origins of man. It also doesn't take a away the ability of anyone to partner with whom they like or even get 'married'. Just because the government doesn't not issue a license sanctioning unions outside of heterosexual marriage does not mean one is being discriminated against no more than because the government hasn't licensed me to access the internet that I am being discriminated against. The fight for marriage is the fight for limited government. Those that fight to redefine marriage want to make it illegal to hold a position contrary to their own. They want to make sure that schools teach their fallacy and that media and news people lose their jobs when they deviate from their fallacy. They are the threat to liberty and to the very founding concepts this country was founded on one of which is free will.
If you look at the demographics from Prop 8 exits 40-49 year olds voted more conservatively than 50-64 year olds. Demographics change. Young people naturally shift to more conservative positions on sex as they get older, have children, etc. The big thing that conservatives/GOP should take away is that if you want to win larger chunks of the minority populations you will have to take these social issues more seriously. If the CA GOP could get the same result as Prop 8 they would not be a party in decline in CA. We see the same thing in recent NY races where SSM became a big issue. Even in otherwise liberal strongholds we both Bob Turner and now David Storobin showed how the issue can help make districts long thought lost to the GOP competitive. We need to stop letting the left define the debate nor be ashamed of defending marriage liberty which means the freedom to hold and be proud of the traditional meaning of marriage and not face penalty or fine because of it.
@Marriage is about LOVE not Gender
In 2009, before a Senate Committe in Australia exploring this issue, an Auxillary Bishop of Melbourne, Bishop Elliott pointed out the significance of the etymology of the word marriage: "Marriage: from maritus and maritata—husband and wife in Latin. Matrimonio; matrimonium—matrimony; making of a mother."
Get your facts and your history straight.
Son of Adam,
Excellent point; thank you.
@Fred, I agree that this fight for marriage is a fight for liberty and limited government, in more ways than one.
@Great point, SoA. I'm always tickled when I hear talk of same-sex male couples entering into "matrimony." (When I think about it, it's also silly to apply the term "matrimony" to same-sex female couples.)
Wow, go Fred. Great comments.
To the person calling himself "Marriage is about LOVE not Gender" : you've presented a mishmash of stuff that sounds precisely like these alternative history books which profess to present "The Secret History Of....", especially the over-the-top material about what various Popes allegedly did. Some of this could serve as a parody, but it also dodges the point I had made: you had previously claimed that ""Gay Marriage has openly been Accepted by all of Society For THOUSANDS OF YEARS" and I had challenged you to back that up. Instead, you presented - at best - a few isolated anecdotes about a handful of specific individuals rather than proof that "all of society" practiced and supported same-sex marriage for thousands of years. What Emperor Nero may have done with one of his slaves is not relevant to that issue - for one thing, it doesn't indicate what society as a whole was doing, nor how marriage was legally defined; for another thing, it involves a slave rather than a freeman who could legally serve as the spouse of an emperor; thirdly, Nero is believed by many historians to have been insane. In some cases your claims are contradictory, such as when you point out that the Church outlawed homosexual marriage in 342 but then you claim that it was still practiced even by Christian priests in 1061.
In any event, the actual laws from these societies defined marriage as between a man and a woman - e.g., ancient (pagan) Roman law certainly defined it that way, regardless of whether Nero tried to "marry" one of his slaves or not (he is also believed to have burned down much of Rome). Spartan society required all men to marry a woman even though the men lived in barracks and are believed to have practiced a relatively frequent degree of homosexual activity. And certainly medieval European law only allowed marriage between a man and a woman, regardless of whether there may have been a handful of exceptions in spite of the law.
Fred: it's interesting that "40-49 year olds voted more conservatively than 50-64 year olds" on Prop 8. That seems to be part of the generational difference between the Baby Boomers (60's / Hippie Generation) versus Generation X"" - the latter has long been known to be more conservative than the 60's Generation.
Government recognition of marriages is justified solely by their serving to further the compelling common interest of humanity in promoting opposite-sex relationships.
AW,
As a Gen X'er I can testify that I have experienced first hand the damages caused to our nation at the hands of the "Me" generation - aka the BabyBoomers.
Nero castrated a young slave and then put on a mock wedding ceremony to further humiliate the boy.
How odd that an SSMer would present that as a worthy example of the SSM idea.
The other stabs at historical revisionism are just as appalling and, well, comical. The low level of intellectual honesty on display in those remarks ought to be denounced by SSMers far and wide. But this is the sort of tripe that passes for pro-SSM argumentation these days. Throw enough mud at the wall and something, even something as appalling as Nero's example, just might stick long enough to mean something ... positive?