Garance Franke-Ruta blogs for The Atlantic:
"...In surveys conducted in 2002 and 2011, pollsters at Gallup found that members of the American public massively overestimated how many people are gay or lesbian. In 2002, a quarter of those surveyed guessed upwards of a quarter of Americans were gay or lesbian (or "homosexual," the third option given). By 2011, that misperception had only grown, with more than a third of those surveyed now guessing that more than 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian. Women and young adults were most likely to provide high estimates, approximating that 30 percent of the population is gay. Overall, "U.S. adults, on average, estimate that 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian," Gallup found. Only 4 percent of all those surveyed in 2011 and about 8 percent of those surveyed in 2002 correctly guessed that fewer than 5 percent of Americans identify as gay or lesbian.
... The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, a gay and lesbian think tank, released a study in April 2011 estimating based on its research that just 1.7 percent of Americans between 18 and 44 identify as gay or lesbian, while another 1.8 percent -- predominantly women -- identify as bisexual. Far from underestimating the ranks of gay people because of homophobia, these figures included a substantial number of people who remained deeply closeted, such as a quarter of the bisexuals. ACenters for Disease Control and Prevention survey of women between 22 and 44 that questioned more than 13,500 respondents between 2006 and 2008 found very similar numbers: Only 1 percent of the women identified themselves as gay, while 4 percent identified as bisexual."
She concludes:
"One thing's for sure: it's hard to imagine the fact that so many think the country is more than a quarter gay or lesbian has no impact on our public policy."
26 Comments
One thing is for sure. It's hard to imagine that 2 to 3 percent of the population can have such an impact on our public policy...
Is it any wonder that our young don't think 50 percent of the population is gay. When its obvious that in a decade or so the ivy league educated, (the “experts”), will be teaching our children that we are all born bisexual.
Here at NOM we are looking after the well being of the 80 to 97 percent of the children and young adults who are “not” born that way, but can be encouraged to try, and to develop habits that way.
Someone has to look after the future will being of America's children.
Scrounger, your comparison is specious. Owning a firearm is an enumerated constitutional right. So-called same-sex "marriage" is not. You should keep trying it anyway. Maybe some folks will buy it.
The opposition has been pushing these higher % numbers for some time. I've been forced to attend gay indoctrination sessions for my job, where these ridiculously high numbers were presented.
It most certainly does affect public perception.
So the message here is basically "the smaller a minority is, the more justified we are in discriminating against them". Good luck with that at SCOTUS.
Barb, So-called traditional marriage is not an enumerated constitutional right. Yet you're demanding that the government give YOU that right.
"One thing's for sure: it's hard to imagine the fact that so many think the country is more than a quarter gay or lesbian has no impact on our public policy."
I agree. It's hard to imagine that such wild ignorance among the American populace holds no implications for public policy. The overestimation of the gay/lesbian numbers is an important topic; not because it is the final straw in determining whether something should be legal, but because it sheds light on what policy positions people support and why.
While Stuart Gaffney cheers the ignorance of the American people as a benefit to the ssm movement, I'd venture to say that revealing the truth to the country can help to give even more crushing defeats to ssm.
When people find that all of this hubbub is about less than 3% of the population, that might take away a lot of the emotion surrounding the issue--emotion from the pro-ssm side, I should say.
Conversely, it might infuriate people on the fence, or against ssm, who could feel resentment that changes to the ancient institution of marriage are being *demanded* to please such a small, but vocal, group. (Even smaller when you consider how much of that group actually favors ssm and/or wants to get married.)
It's interesting that young people are more likely to provide high estimates. Perhaps that is a partial explanation of why they tend to favor ssm in larger numbers.
Actually, 14th, I'm not demanding anything. I'm simply participating in an institution, recognized by the government, that unites children with their mother and father.
Women and young people are the ones who vote disproportionately in favor of so-called SS"M" when it is on the ballot. These are emotional votes and we now know that the emotion is based on the misperception that a high percentage of people are somehow being denied equal rights.
When you take the higher numbers out of the mix, it is easier to make a decision based less on emotion and more on logic.
Emotion leads to the erosion of law.
Barb, You may not need to demand marriage rights because as a heterosexual, they're automatically granted, even though that right is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. But I think it's safe to say that if you were denied a marriage license when you applied for one you'd be be screaming that it was your right to obtain one. Let me point you back up to your comment about gun rights - do you see the hypocrisy?
14th, there is a public purpose for marriage. I meet the qualifications. Therefore, I would not be denied a license. The "what if" scenario is pointless.
Some folks are prohibited from owning firearms, and some do not qualify for marriage. There are good reasons for each. They are completely fair.
Try to engage someone else. Our internal wiring is so different on this issue that we will just continue to talk past each other. Maybe you get a kick out of it. I do not. Bye.
14th - Barb would not have to demonstrate that she is heterosexual to get a marriage license; neither would you.
There is no sexual orientation requirement for marriage; just a sex requirement that you, Barb, or anyone else could meet. You wanna get married, go ahead.
And so again the paradox is brought into view.
Since we know that the homosexuals cannot possibly have amassed the kind of political power necessary to force a sitting President to refuse to enforce the duly-enacted laws of this Republic..........
Who has?
Who actually benefits from the destruction of morals, of family, of traditional marriage?
The homosexuals?
Please.
Pseudo-marriage is simply a useful tactical ploy in the broader assault on religious freedom- as well as the rights of parents...in other words, in the broader assault on civilization's basic unit, the family.
Read Saul Alinsky, "Rules for Radicals", for details.
I'm not only an attorney, but I have specialized in constitutional law for over a decade. Rights are not, and have never been, determined by the number of people affected by whatever is at issue. This is completely irrational. For example, the Supreme Court never ruled that states could not discrminate against black people without violating the Constitution simply b/c they reached a certain number in existence. Romer v. Evans, in which the Supreme Court ruled that state laws prohibiting the issuance of marriage licenses to interracial couples were unconstitutional, did not remotely rely on how many interracial couples were being denied marriage licenses. The Court's ruling was based on constitutional principles, not statistics.
Regardless of whether you are for or against ssm, the question of whether it is constitutional for a State to grant or deny them has nothing to do with the number of people affected. Surely we are smarter than that.
I always find it concerning how little people, including large organizations who are so active politically, know about our laws and our Constition. Whether you are on the so-called left or right, you should know the underlying law before you try to influence people.
Yes, lets force left-handed people (also a tiny minority) to be right-handed. Religionists thought that was evil too at one point.
Let's roll back civil rights for blacks since only 14% of population is black. And let's make interracial marriage illegal again since only 8% of current marriages are interracial.
The homosexual community isn't a real community if you really think about it. I read in an Army Times newspaper that just only 9 million people identify as homosexual. In a population of over 300 million that's less than 1% of the total population. Now keep in mind, this is a "demographic" that neither grows nor shrinks in population since it isn't something that people are born with.
@GZeus
Talk about a straw-man argument. The REAL civil-rights movement was about ending discrimination of skin color. It was about judging people based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin(which is something people can't control as opposed to who they sleep with). You remember that famous speech by MLK right? 14% of the population black? I suspect you are only talking about America. There are more black people who inhabit this world than whites. In the states, they were fighting for literal human rights such as drinking from the same fountain, voting, going to the same school and not having to give up their seat on the bus just because someone told them to. No such discrimination exists today and you'd be hard pressed to find a community that still operates like that.
A perfect example of the minority dicating the majority? South Africa under apartied. Whites were in the minority but they wrote the laws for blacks who made up the majority of the population.
Put simply, there is no justification for the citizens of this country to be held hostage by gay identity politics, at the expense of our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech and religion.
@ Jen
I always find it concerning how many lawyers and people really think humanity (good and bad, right and wrong, what is acceptable and unacceptable) has to do with judicial laws, legal proceedings and judges rulings.
You are nothing. Just a tool. And we'll use you as we like. Now go back into your box, and just do your job. Leave the thinking to us, the people.
The supreme court, the constitution, the nations laws and the people that specialize to much in them are a castle of playing cards. There is no reality to be found in it. As this current state of affairs can testify to.
They have always cleverly inflated their numbers. In MA which has marraige corrumption the amount of marriages which are corrupted is only 1%.
DoE,
How, exactly, is the country being held by "gay identity" politics? Don't LGBT people have the same rights as other citizens to seek what they believe to be fairness for themselves both legislatively and in the courts?
Barb writes: "14th, there is a public purpose for marriage. I meet the qualifications"
You meet the qualifications because you're heterosexual - you've simply restated the problem, not its legal justification.
Jen writes: "Regardless of whether you are for or against ssm, the question of whether it is constitutional for a State to grant or deny them has nothing to do with the number of people affected. Surely we are smarter than that."
No, you're smarter than that. The average NOM supporter is not.
Overcame wrote: "14th - Barb would not have to demonstrate that she is heterosexual to get a marriage license; neither would you. There is no sexual orientation requirement for marriage; just a sex requirement that you, Barb, or anyone else could meet. You wanna get married, go ahead."
The Iowa Supreme Court wrote: "It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all."
14th - Is this the Iowa Court that the electorate through out because of this decision?
Love the way the courts confuse the reasons that people get married with the definition of marriage. There has never been an intimacy requirement, love requirement, or sexual orientation requirement for marriage. Just an opposite sex requirement, which is based on the complementary and procreative nature of men and women. Everyone has this right.
Many people don't like guns, but everyone has the right to own one. No one would argue that people who don't like guns don't have a right to one. That's just stupid reasoning.
But the Iowa Court is made up of citizens no better or smarter than anyone else who haven't thought through the consequences of their decisions, to the detriment of society. They put their pants on just like everyone else. They overstepped their boundaries. They got caught up in the lies of sexual identity politics, and lost their way. They are no gods, infallible and all-knowing. They blew it.
Well sure they do, Bruce. But being gay is a political choice, not an immutable human characteristic. Those who self style themselves as "gay" are already protected to the same protections as everyone else, and priviliged to enter into marriage under the same requirements of everyone else. They need no special protections, they deserve no special rights. By seeking "more fairness" than what they already have, they look beyond the mark.
14th blurted out:
"So the message here is basically 'the smaller a minority is, the more justified we are in discriminating against them'."
No, the message is that inflation of the size of the homosexual population has been used to adversely influence social policies and the like.
The message is that a significant portion of the population has been hoodwinked by such inflation.
The message is ... well, hang-on, SSMers have routinely dodged the question about polygamists whose numbers, we are told, are so small as to deeply discount the right of polygamists to marry amongs themselves.
Hey if you don't want a polygamist marriage don't do polygamy.
Oh, and the same is said by SSMers regarding incestuously inclined people -- such as those in particular who experience Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA) and who are born related.
If there is just one loving, committed, caring, happy polygamist marraige; or just one such incestuous marriage, well, then, that should suffice. But SSMers like to argue out of both sides of their mouths.