Decomposing Trends in Attitudes Toward Gay Marriage, 1988–2006^*

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.

What a Year! The Framing of Marriage Equality Through Media’s Selected Sources in 2013

“…In terms of equality, Baunach (2011) states that the equality or tolerance frame, used by same-sex marriage supporters, equates same-sex marriage and same-sex unions to heterosexual marriage and paints a portrait of equal rights. The equal rights frame emphasizes the lack of access to fundamental rights and legal securities accompanying marriage to same-sex couples (DeLaet & Caufield, 2008).…”

“…Opponents of same-sex marriage use the morality frame to highlight the negative consequences for society if gays and lesbians were allowed to marry, call attention to government behavior, the immorality of same-sex marriage, and the influence same-sex marriage would have on family and children (Adams, 2013;Baunach, 2011). Other frames that fall under the morality category are sexual preference, homosexuals prey on children, homosexuality is teachable/contagious, it goes against the Bible and God, judicial activism, not needed/special rights, and children need mom and dad (Adams, 2013;McFarland, 2011).…”

The impact of demographic factors on the way lesbian and gay employees manage their sexual orientation at work

“…In contrast, it seems as if families have a supportive function for gay men and lesbians, and thus they enhance their coping resources at work. In Germany, as well as in the whole of Western Europe and North America, the stigmatizing power of homosexuality is indeed shrinking, but still exists (Baunach, 2011(Baunach, , 2012Keleher and Smith, 2012) and still confronts lesbian and gay employees questioning terms of how to deal with it in the workplace.…”

The legacy of medicalising ‘homosexuality’: A discussion on the historical effects of non-heterosexual diagnostic classifications

“…It appears that both popular and scientific ideas of sexuality and sexual orientation have rapidly evolved in a relatively short amount of time. Although some cultures have arguably become tolerant of gay men and lesbian women (Baunach, 2011;Loftus, 2001), there is still evidence to suggest that not all individuals (or cultural groups) concur with this attitudinal shift. Furthermore, there is also evidence that institutionalised heteronormativity (i.e., the assumption that heterosexual is the default sexual orientation) is socially and psychologically functional for heterosexual members of society (for a full review, see Herek & McLemore, 2013).…”