Marriage support in the Americas

Timothy Kincaid

July 22nd, 2010

Americas Quarterly gives a good summary of the current status of LGBT rights in the Americas. They also provide a graph of the support for marriage equality in the various nations. Based on the American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP), it provides more than a yes or no answer to the question of support.

With public policies toward gay marriage varying widely, this is a critical moment to look at citizens’ opinions with respect to same-sex marriage. First, we examine levels of support for same-sex couples having the right to marry. Then, we assess both individual- and national-level determinants of variation in that level of support. Analysis is drawn from data from the American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP) survey, which includes 42,238 respondents from 25 nations in North, Central and South America and the Caribbean were asked this question:

We asked the following question: How strongly do you approve or disapprove of same-sex couples having the right to marry?

Responses were given based on a 1-10 scale, where ‘1’ meant “strongly disapprove” and ’10’ meant “strongly approve.” These responses were then recalibrated on a 0-100 basis.

johnathan

July 23rd, 2010

I know nothing of South American sociopolitics but, considering the geographical proximity of Uruguay and Paraguay, I find the large difference in support for same-sex marriage between the two nations (50.5 v. 16.1 percent, respectively) intriguing. Can anyone provide an explanation for this?

johnathan

July 23rd, 2010

Or, is the difference largely due to population distribution, with Uruguay having a larger urban population (Montevideo)?

sun

July 23rd, 2010

@johnathan: uruguay is a lot richer and has higher living standards than paraguay. as well, it’s more urban and cosmopolitan.
plus, it already allows for gay adoption, which settles the biggest overall issue latin american countries seem to have with same-sex marriage (at least, judging by the debate in mexico and argentina).

cd

July 23rd, 2010

@johnathan: there seems to be a rough correlation with average wealth and social stability. Proportion of population of African descent seems to correlate with additional opposition (perhaps cultural/religious).

Regan DuCasse

July 23rd, 2010

I think the size of these countries is important. The US is a large country, closer in size to Canada and Mexico. The difference in support north and south of us is remarkable. Canada has more in common with the US than Mexico.

Although I think Mexico’s urban centers are more dense, their population size is getting close to the US as well.

But yeesh, the influence of the Catholic Church on these particular places bears note too.
Which really makes me wonder how a country like the US, whose government is essentially secular hasn’t moved further than this?

Priya Lynn

July 23rd, 2010

Makes me wonder too, Regan. I speculate that the difference between Canada and the U.S. is that religion is significantly more important to people in the U.S. than in Canada.

johnathan

July 23rd, 2010

Thank you, all. And yes, as to the difference between the U.S. and Canada, I strongly suspect that religion is a MAJOR influence as well.

Grant

July 23rd, 2010

A few thoughts immediately popped up when I saw this graph:

1. Surprised Costa Rica is so low on acceptance

2. What about Cuba? It is a secular country – it would be interesting to note the populace’s feelings on homosexuality – and whether the relative lack of influence by the Catholic Church is supplanted by official government disdain for LGBTs there. Perhaps they’d come out similar to Venezuela.

3. I agree with others that the greater the influence of the Church, combined with lower relative per-capita wealth and education, the lower the acceptance of LGBT communities.

Strepsi

July 23rd, 2010

I am Canadian, and I guarantee you religion is the answer: Canada separates Church and State, the U.S. does not. I am very proud of former Prime Minister Paul Martin, who gave this speech for the Civil Marriage Act way back in 2005:

“The facts are plain: Religious leaders who preside over marriage ceremonies must and will be guided by what they believe. If they do not wish to celebrate marriages for same-sex couples, that is their right. The Supreme Court says so. And the Charter says so.

One final observation on this aspect of the issue: Religious leaders have strong views both for and against this legislation. They should express them. Certainly, many of us in this House, myself included, have a strong faith, and we value that faith and its influence on the decisions we make. But all of us have been elected to serve here as Parliamentarians. And as public legislators, we are responsible for serving all Canadians and protecting the rights of all Canadians.

We will be influenced by our faith but we also have an obligation to take the widest perspective — to recognize that one of the great strengths of Canada is its respect for the rights of each and every individual, to understand that we must not shrink from the need to reaffirm the rights and responsibilities of Canadians in an evolving society.

The second argument ventured by opponents of the bill is that government ought to hold a national referendum on this issue. I reject this – not out of a disregard for the view of the people, but because it offends the very purpose of the Charter.

The Charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority.

We embrace freedom and equality in theory, Mr. Speaker. We must also embrace them in fact.”

Have you ever heard ANY U.S. politician separate Church and State, and elucidate his DUTY to ALL his citizens, so clearly?

Audrey the Liberal

July 23rd, 2010

It looks like I have to point out the giant (pink)elephant in the room: There is a strong correlation between epidermal melanin production and anti-gay bigotry.

Erin

July 24th, 2010

Seriously, when is it going to be 100% across the board. I’m so tired of reading about how the polls are looking good because 50 something percent of people support it. That’s not good enough. There have always been gay, bisexual, and varying gender-expressive people for as long as humanity has existed, and there is absolutely no harm done in being any one of those things. It is society that assigns negative labels based on fear, misinformation, and ignorance.

Timothy Kincaid

July 24th, 2010

Audrey,

Russia is far far more homophobic than Spain. South Africa has marriage equality but Lithuania bans “promotion of homosexuality”.

I think that your observations about correlation are probably based on cultural assumptions within ethnic communities in the US and do not hold up well to broader application.

Hue-Man

July 25th, 2010

Visiting from Towleroad.com which linked this interesting graph. Our conversation: The chart does not represent percentage of population supporting or against equal marriage; instead it sets out how strongly an average person in each country views same sex marriage. 100 means “I would fight to my last breath to change the law (or continue existing laws) so that gays can marry.” Since 95%+ of any country is heterosexual, anything close to 100 is impossible because it isn’t that relevant. 50.5 is indifference. “I don’t care if gays marry or not because it doesn’t affect me.” Any country close to 0 is rabidly against LGBT rights in the most deep-rooted way. The U.S. at 45/100 is surprisingly positive: “I am against same-sex marriage but wouldn’t care too much if it were legalized.” [I will, of course, defer to public polling experts if my interpretation is incorrect.]

Willis

July 26th, 2010

Stepsi, in quoting Prime Minister Paul Martin, explained one reason why the Canadian acceptance rate is so high. Canada at the national level upholds individual rights.

Another reason, a mathematical reason, if you will, is that Canada does not recognize the option of domestic partnerships. In other countries, especially the US, where marriage rights are determined state by state, the acceptance rate for some form of legal recognition for same sex couples is split between marriage and domestic partnerships.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Orlando-Area Republicans Back LGBT Protections

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Emphasis Mine

This Month In History, 1958: "My Daughter Is a Lesbian!"

Born On This Day, 1953: Tim Gunn

Because Fox News Cut Away From Khizr Khan

Federal Appeals Court Reluctantly Rejects Expanding Existing Civil Rights Law To Cover Sexual Orientation

Report: Florida Gov. Scott May Support Gay Rights, Post-Pulse

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.