A puzzle on gay marriage (prasad)

1. Roughly equal parts of the country want gay marriage, civil unions without marriage, and no legal recognition whatsoever. I'm assuming the second category is what 'swings' in marriage votes as in California or Maine.
2. Ad campaigns that cleverly use the words 'gay' and 'children' in the same sentence seem, at least for now, to be effective against marriage equality
3. The number of people who're fine with gay adoption and fertility treatments is rather larger than the number who want marriage.

Now point 2. suggests to me people who're willing to suffer consenting adults doing as they please, but who draw the line at imposing externalities upon children, perhaps until there is conclusive research. This has been seen in Europe; Belgium for instance made same sex marriage legal before gay adoption.

Point 3 instead suggests those who don't think teh ghey destroys childhoods or seduces and corrupts youth, but who want to feel superior to gay folk, people whose psychologies are well described by John Holbo:

What makes these arguments so weird is the mildness of the underlying opposition to homosexuals and homosexuality – the implicit inclination to be basically tolerant. ‘C’mon, gays, you know you’re ok, and we know you’re ok, and you even know that we know you’re ok, but we don’t like it, so can’t there be some way that we can insist on us being a little better than you? It can be a small thing. Symbolic, but slightly inconvenient for you, so people know it’s also serious?’

I'd like to know what the relative fraction of these sub-populations is! Going by the data-points given,it seems like at least ten percent of America is comfortable with gays adopting, but not with gays marrying. That would suggest 3. (not 2.), but I don't understand why *this* population would have unusual difficulty with gay marriage being "taught in public schools", whatever that means.

What is going on here? What are these people thinking? Might there be low-hanging fruit with outreach efforts aiming to bring marriage and adoption views into harmony? Obviously some people will decide to disapprove of both gay marriage and adoption, but it's plausible to me they'd be outnumbered by those who'd move the opposite way. Even if not, gay adoption isn't a particularly hot or touchy issue, so taking that hit for a boost on gay marriage might be worthwhile. In any case, the constitutional hurdles involved in restricting a sub-population from adopting or seeking reproductive treatments are rather higher...

[Actually, never mind. It might just be a significant Rove-effect, though the media hasn't emphasized one; did evangelicals turn out in disproportionate numbers in Maine? In any case, it seems like targeting the bizarro anti-marriage pro-adoption ten percent might be useful]

Comments

[Ruchira]

Prasad (you are still showing up as D in the post footer),

Confounding questions indeed. I don't have good answers, only speculations and anecdotal accounts.

I think the gay adoption and marriage issues are all over the place. On the whole, I have found women to be more accepting of both than men. I have also met very liberal folks who don't think much of marriage (gay or straight) as a token of commitment. According to them, why bother wasting your breath for marriage rights when the instituion is so easy to break up. Instead, they recommend fighting for federally granted partnership rights which are equally binding and have all the benefits of legal marriage laws and are not subject to states' whims. These people tend to be supportive of adoption also. There are those who don't like either right even if they have little objection (ostensibly) with what consenting adults do in private. Then of course, there are those who want to outlaw homosexuality altogether.

I am not sure why with Child Protective Services stretched to a breaking point in most states, heterosexuals feel that they are doing a better job of child rearing than gay parents would. We talked about it on A.B. here where I asked why singles are allowed to adopt if a two parent "mom and dad" set up is the only predictable way to turn out healthy, well adjusted children.

I think you are right in suspecting that there may indeed have been a Rove effect in the Maine election. In low turn-out elections, those who do turn out, often have a single axe to grind. So with a gay marriage initiative on the ballot, evangelicals and other conservatives probably did vote in larger numbers than others. But that too is not entirely certain. Some groups like African Americans and Latinos (probably not a factor in Maine but definitely significant in California when Prop 8 was voted upon and similarly in Texas a few years back) vote for the liberal agenda on most issues except gay marriage and sometimes, abortion.

It is always a dodgy proposition when the advancement of the civil rights of minority groups is left to the largesse of the majority. Legislation is the way to go when addressing issues of "equal under the law." As Jesse Ventura pointed out last night on CNN, if the civil rights of African Americans had been left to ballot initiatives, slavery would still be legal in America!

Funny thing is that while stoic and personal freedom minded Maine voted down gay marriage, the city of Houston may end up with its first openly gay woman mayor next month. In yesterday's election, City Controller Annise Parker garnered the most votes but not enough to win outright. We will find out if she succeeds in the run off election in early December. Incidentally, Ms Parker who is white, is the adoptive parent of two African American children (grown up now) who can be seen behind her in the photo in the linked story.