No abstract

Objective. The objective of this article is to examine the trend in attitudes toward gay marriage through the analysis of data from the General Social Survey. Methods. Using linear decomposition techniques, I explain the change in attitudes toward gay marriage from 1988 to 2006. Results. Attitudes significantly liberalized over time; 71 percent opposed gay marriage in 1988, but by 2006, this figure dropped to 52 percent. Approximately two-thirds of this change was due to an intracohort change effect, or individuals' modifying their views over time, and one-third was due to a cohort succession effect, or later cohorts replacing earlier ones. This pattern was replicated across many subgroups of the U.S. public, including age, sex, residential, educational, and religious groups. Conclusion. The results suggest that the use of the “equality/tolerance” framing of gay marriage by its supporters and other societal events or “moments” may have convinced some people who used to disapprove of gay marriage in 1988 to approve of it by 2006.

Recent surveys have found antigay attitudes and behavior to be commonplace. In this article, we use contact theory to explain these prejudicial attitudes. We contribute to the literature on contact and prejudice by expanding contact to include not only whether the heterosexual knows any gay men or lesbians, but also how many, for how long, and in what ways. To these, we add a new and unique measure of contact: a person's contact with the gay community. The data are from a survey of 956 undergraduate students at a large urban university in the southeastern United States. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analyses find that contact with gay men and lesbians significantly reduces prejudice toward them; although, only as contact with gay friends or the gay community. Contact has stronger effects on women's prejudice than men's prejudice; however, the attitudes of African Americans toward lesbians and gay men are unaffected by gay contact. The results suggest that contact intervenes between prejudice and sex, race, religiosity, and gender attitudes.

No abstract

No abstract