Gays may have the fastest civil rights movement

[heightsyankee]

SAN FRANCISCO — In 1958, the Gallup Poll asked Americans whether they approved or disapproved of marriage between blacks and whites. The response was overwhelming: 94% were opposed, a sentiment that held for decades. It took nearly 40 years until a majority of those surveyed said marriage between people of different skin colors was acceptable.

By contrast, attitudes toward gays and lesbians have changed so much in just the last 10 years that, as Gallup reported last week, "half or more now agree that being gay is morally acceptable, that gay relations ought to be legal and that gay or lesbian couples should have the right to legally marry." (In 1996, when Gallup first asked about legalizing same-sex marriage, 68% of Americans were opposed.)

Politically, President Obama felt it safe enough recently to abandon his studied ambiguity and endorse same-sex marriage amid a tough reelection campaign. Days later, a top Republican pollster, Jan van Lohuizen, issued a warning to his party, suggesting opponents were on the wrong side of the issue. Support has grown, he wrote in a strategy memo, "at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down."

If, as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, the arc of the moral universe is long but bends toward justice, then it's arguably moving faster and bending quicker in the direction of gay rights than any civil rights movement before.

That is not to say that gays and lesbians enjoy a full measure of equality, or complete legal protection. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in the vast majority of states and, in many, gays and lesbians lack the protections against job and housing discrimination afforded women, Latinos and African Americans.

Just last week, Republicans in the Colorado House stymied a measure recognizing civil unions between gay couples, calling it an attempted end-run around the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. In Virginia, GOP lawmakers blocked a prosecutor from becoming the state's first openly gay judge.

Still, "it's pretty extraordinary what we've accomplished in less than 50 years," said Cleve Jones, who has spent decades as a gay rights activist, starting in the 1970s as a protege of San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk.

"Homosexual behavior itself was a felony almost everywhere," Jones recalled. "There were laws on the books preventing us from congregating in bars and restaurants. There were special police units in every single city whose job was to entrap and arrest and imprison us. … There's been enormous progress, astonishing progress."

Jones, like many, was loath to compare civil rights movements. "African Americans essentially wrote the book on how to do a social movement in the United States," said Gary M. Segura, head of Stanford University's Chicano studies program.

There is not even agreement on when the movements began. For blacks, some say it was the end of the Civil War in 1865 or the founding of the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People in 1909. For gays and lesbians, some cite the homophile movement of the 1950s, while others point to the explosion of activism after the 1969 Stonewall riots in New York.

Nor is there consensus on how to measure progress, or a lack thereof. Is it economic gains? Is it the ability of gays and lesbians to marry? Or the inability of black men in certain cities — even with a black president — to successfully hail a cab after dark?

Regardless, by moving public opinion so dramatically and changing the political dynamic with such rapidity, the gay rights movement has achieved remarkable success with unprecedented speed — to a point where some criticized Obama as a laggard when he endorsed same-sex marriage, a historic move unthinkable just a few years ago.

In a convergence of causes, the NAACP board voted Saturday to endorse same-sex marriage, saying "marriage equality" was "consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution."

Several reasons account for the success. The gay community tends to be more affluent, and the ability to give generously to candidates has translated into significant political clout, from the local level to the White House. Its leaders are well-versed in the machinations of government and the means of power, knowledge hard-won through years spent dragging politicians into the fight against the AIDS epidemic.

But experts and advocates agree on one explanation above all others: Familiarity.

"People came to understand we existed," Jones said. "They worked with us. They knew us. They had [gay] family members. That demystified it and made it harder for them to hate us in an abstract way."

That was an avenue obviously unavailable to African Americans. "It isn't as if white people suddenly come to discover they have African American children or relatives," said Kenneth Sherrill, a professor at Hunter College in New York and a longtime gay activist.

Gays and lesbians "are born into straight families and live in straight neighborhoods and go to straight schools and work in straight businesses," Sherrill said. "There's a kind of familiarity that's exceedingly difficult to achieve in the case of race."

Popular culture and its shaper, the mass media, have also played a crucial role in changing attitudes, much as news accounts helped advance the cause of the black civil rights movement. Only this time it wasn't images of fire hoses and police dogs turned on innocents but the sympathetic portrayal of gay and lesbian characters in prime time, in what has become a TV staple.

"Will & Grace," the NBC comedy that ran from 1998 to 2006, "probably did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody's ever done so far," Vice President Joe Biden said in a "Meet the Press" interview that helped prod Obama off the fence into supporting same-sex marriage.

That may be hyperbolic, but many said the vice president hit on something important: that welcoming fictionalized gay characters into the home made it that much easier to welcome gays and lesbians as family, friends, neighbors and co-workers in real life.

"It is certainly the case that gays and lesbians have been widely accepted in popular culture in a way that you could argue blacks in particular and Latinos too have never really been accepted," said Frank Gilliam, an expert on politics and race at UCLA.

He hastened to suggest, however, that such comparisons missed a larger point.

"I can't say how much worse your not being able to marry is than me being stopped [by police] for the color of my skin," Gilliam said. "To me, the question is not whether homophobism or racism is worse or better. The question is what kind of society do we want to want to live in? What kind of society do we want to raise our children in?"

[e-mail]

www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gay-rights-movement-20120521,0,5637291.story

[NitaX]

Just wanted to touch on this:

There is not even agreement on when the movements began. For blacks, some say it was the end of the Civil War in 1865 or the founding of the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People in 1909.

Read more: pandce.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=7360#ixzz1vWAHm6j1

The Civil Rights Movement started long before the Civil War. There were people who were instrumental long before the Emancipation of the Slaves - most notably David Walker. David Walker lived from 1785-1830 and his Appeal in Four Articles discussed at length the plight of slavery and its impact.

But considering you don't learn this in your American History classes in high school, I shouldn't be pissed that the Civil rights Movement only has its genesis with an Act that only freed slaves. Carry on.

As to the article, I still contend black folks don't own the Civil Rights Movement, any set of individuals who are denied basic rights get to jump in. Hell, did we forget that Dr. King's next chapter was the Poor People's campaign? Last I checked, not just black folks were poor.

[msmerymac]

The gay community tends to be more affluent

I kind of wonder about this. I mean, yeah, the stereotype of childless fashion gurus in HCOL areas as the "typical gay man" has long existed, but I remember a study (or several) a few years ago about the high levels of poverty in the gay community. Much of it was due to teenage or young adult LBGT individuals being kicked out or cut off from their parents, and forced to survive on their own at a young age. And some had to do with discrimination in housing and employment. (As a side note, the gay community also has a very high percentage of smokers. Interesting, huh? Tobacco companies target minorities.)

Anyway, I wonder if there is a basis to that, or if the article was basing this off a stereotype, or if it was actually looking at major campaign contributors who are LGBT.

[Deleted]

May 21, 2012 11:54:33 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

The gay community tends to be more affluent

I kind of wonder about this. I mean, yeah, the stereotype of childless fashion gurus in HCOL areas as the "typical gay man" has long existed, but I remember a study (or several) a few years ago about the high levels of poverty in the gay community. Much of it was due to teenage or young adult LBGT individuals being kicked out or cut off from their parents, and forced to survive on their own at a young age. And some had to do with discrimination in housing and employment. (As a side note, the gay community also has a very high percentage of smokers. Interesting, huh? Tobacco companies target minorities.)

Anyway, I wonder if there is a basis to that, or if the article was basing this off a stereotype, or if it was actually looking at major campaign contributors who are LGBT.

Interesting, I never heard about that study. This is not my (admittedly anecdotal) experience in NJ. The towns with higher gay populations here are very affluent. But, of course, NJ overall is affluent.

My theory (who knows if this is true), is that its more acceptable to be gay in liberal areas such as NY, NJ and CA, where incomes are higher. In Podunk, Southern State of your Choice, perhaps gay people who are born there may never come out because of the religious and conservative community in which they live. Or if they come out, they leave and then have more opportunities in the more liberal areas.

[msmerymac]

I remember first hearing about LGBT individuals being more likely to be impoverished when I was in college, but I found this study:

www.advocate.com/news/2009/03/20/new-study-highlights-gay-poverty

The Williams Institute and the UCLA school of law found that LGBT individuals are more likely to live in poverty than heterosexual individuals. The first page of a google search for "gay poverty" looks like it has some pretty legit links, including a link to the actual study.

I think this quote sums it up:
Recent data has found that denying LGBT people equal access to family benefits and other civil rights may be contributing to higher poverty rates in the LGBT community than in the general population overall.
www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/07/lgbt_rights.html

Perhaps the wealth gap between the richest LGBT people and the poorest is even more defined. That would be an interest twist on the argument of the 99%. Not a lot of middle class gays? Who knows.

I also heard the other day that anti-gay adoption policies and obviously anti-gay marriage laws mean that gay parents can't get family insurance policies for them and their kids, leading to crushing health care expenses.

[Deleted]

May 21, 2012 13:02:57 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

I remember first hearing about LGBT individuals being more likely to be impoverished when I was in college, but I found this study:

www.advocate.com/news/2009/03/20/new-study-highlights-gay-poverty

The Williams Institute and the UCLA school of law found that LGBT individuals are more likely to live in poverty than heterosexual individuals. The first page of a google search for "gay poverty" looks like it has some pretty legit links, including a link to the actual study.

I think this quote sums it up:
Recent data has found that denying LGBT people equal access to family benefits and other civil rights may be contributing to higher poverty rates in the LGBT community than in the general population overall.
www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/07/lgbt_rights.html

Perhaps the wealth gap between the richest LGBT people and the poorest is even more defined. That would be an interest twist on the argument of the 99%. Not a lot of middle class gays? Who knows.

I also heard the other day that anti-gay adoption policies and obviously anti-gay marriage laws mean that gay parents can't get family insurance policies for them and their kids, leading to crushing health care expenses.

Thanks for sharing.

[emilyj]

May 21, 2012 12:56:02 GMT -5 @iheartcosmos said:

My theory (who knows if this is true), is that its more acceptable to be gay in liberal areas such as NY, NJ and CA, where incomes are higher. In Podunk, Southern State of your Choice, perhaps gay people who are born there may never come out because of the religious and conservative community in which they live. Or if they come out, they leave and then have more opportunities in the more liberal areas.

Anecdote alert, but it lends to your theory - we live in a small conservative college town in Alabama. One of our good friends is a gay couple, and they just bought a condo as a 2nd home in midtown Atlanta, because, as they said when they have kids, they want their children to see other families where there are two daddies and two mommies. Even though there is a small gay community here, they are certainly going to find much more opportunities and exposure for it in Atlanta.

[2vermont]

May 21, 2012 12:56:02 GMT -5 @iheartcosmos said:

May 21, 2012 11:54:33 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

I kind of wonder about this. I mean, yeah, the stereotype of childless fashion gurus in HCOL areas as the "typical gay man" has long existed, but I remember a study (or several) a few years ago about the high levels of poverty in the gay community. Much of it was due to teenage or young adult LBGT individuals being kicked out or cut off from their parents, and forced to survive on their own at a young age. And some had to do with discrimination in housing and employment. (As a side note, the gay community also has a very high percentage of smokers. Interesting, huh? Tobacco companies target minorities.)

Anyway, I wonder if there is a basis to that, or if the article was basing this off a stereotype, or if it was actually looking at major campaign contributors who are LGBT.

Interesting, I never heard about that study. This is not my (admittedly anecdotal) experience in NJ. The towns with higher gay populations here are very affluent. But, of course, NJ overall is affluent.

My theory (who knows if this is true), is that its more acceptable to be gay in liberal areas such as NY, NJ and CA, where incomes are higher. In Podunk, Southern State of your Choice, perhaps gay people who are born there may never come out because of the religious and conservative community in which they live. Or if they come out, they leave and then have more opportunities in the more liberal areas.

My anecdote is my cousin and his partner.....they have a lot of money. Then again, they also live in CA, so maybe there is something to your theory. I wonder what the situation is here in VT. Our neighbors are gay but I don't know how well off they may be.

[ttt]

I can't find the article now (grr) but I just read an interesting study on empathy. They had straight men read stories, and for some, it wasn't revealed until late in the story that the character is gay. The men who read those stories identified more with the character and had greater acceptance of gay people and gay rights than those who read the stories where the character was straight. Basically, the takeaway is that if you "trick" people into having empathy for someone who is different by not revealing that they're different until after you've identified with them, they will have greater empathy and understanding for that person.

Anyway, my point is that I wonder if people came to a more rapid acceptance of gays because being gay isn't something you can necessarily see outright. People have gay siblings, cousins, friends, etc. that they probably knew as "my brother" or "my friend" *before* knowing them as "a gay person."

[heightsyankee]

May 22, 2012 7:49:11 GMT -5 ttt said:

I can't find the article now (grr) but I just read an interesting study on empathy. They had straight men read stories, and for some, it wasn't revealed until late in the story that the character is gay. The men who read those stories identified more with the character and had greater acceptance of gay people and gay rights than those who read the stories where the character was straight. Basically, the takeaway is that if you "trick" people into having empathy for someone who is different by not revealing that they're different until after you've identified with them, they will have greater empathy and understanding for that person.

Anyway, my point is that I wonder if people came to a more rapid acceptance of gays because being gay isn't something you can necessarily see outright. People have gay siblings, cousins, friends, etc. that they probably knew as "my brother" or "my friend" *before* knowing them as "a gay person."

I do think that this theory makes a lot of sense. I believe there are several factors at play of which this is just one.

[dylanite]

Of course their civil rights, as they are being fought for now, doesn't (need to?) reflect the fact that for thousands of years (even now in some societies, of course) gays were beaten and murdered for being what they were. It's fast acting now, in the context the article provides, but it ignores the full history (unless my glancing of the article missed that).

[pescalita]

My anecdote: both the gay guys I work with have house husbands. That's apropros of nothing except that I'm jealousE.

I do think the gay rights movement should pat itself on the back just a little. I remember when I first came on the nest, having arguments about why we should fight for gay marriage rather than civil unions. And it seemed like this big impossible fight. Six years later, the president supports it. That's not insignificant.