Public Opinion About Gay Rights and Gay Marriage

Abstract

Two striking features characterize the state of public opinion about gay rights in general and gay marriage in particular.1 The first is the increasing level of support in some nations. As Page and Shapiro (1992) observe, large shifts over time in public policy preferences tend to be rare. In the case of gay marriage, however, polling reveals a number of rapid transformations. For example, support for gay marriage among Britons increased from only 16% in 1975 to 69% in 2014 (Ipsos MORI, 2014). In the United States, such support doubled from in 27% in 1996 to 54% in 2014 (Gallup, 2014). In Canada, it increased from 37% in 1993 to 61% in 2011 (Canadian Opinion Research Archive, 2014), and in France, it increased from 51% in 1995 to 65% in 2012 (IFOP, 2012). Put simply, a number of nations have witnessed “sea changes” in public opinion about gay marriage. The other striking feature is the wide variation across nations in public opinion about gay rights and gay marriage, as well as related attitudes about gay men, lesbians, and homosexuality (see Table 1). Even within a single nation, such as the United States, public opinion can vary substantially across regions (Lewis & Oh, 2008). Looking at the national level, a 2013 survey of 16 “developed” nations found that support for full recognition of gay marriage was >75% in Sweden, Norway, and Spain but <30% in South Korea, Japan, and Poland (Ipsos, 2013). Polling also reveals vast differences across nations in public attitudes toward homosexuality. A 2013 survey of 39 nations found “broad acceptance of homosexuality in North America, the European Union, and much of Latin America, but equally widespread rejection in predominantly Muslim nations and in Africa, as well as in parts of Asia and in Russia” (Pew Research Global Attitudes Project, 2013).

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 52 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.