How US adults' views on same-sex marriage have changed since the Supreme Court's 2015 ruling
WASHINGTON (AP) — For years, it looked as though the United States was steadily climbing toward a consensus on same-sex marriage. But 10 years after the Supreme Court ruled that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, the split between Republicans and Democrats on the issue is wider than it's been in decades.
Recent polling from Gallup shows that Americans' support for same-sex marriage is higher than it was in 2015. Gallup's latest data, however, finds a 47-percentage-point gap on the issue between Republicans and Democrats, the largest since it first began tracking this measure 29 years ago.
The size of that chasm is partially due to a substantial dip in support among Republicans since 2023.
An Associated Press polling analysis shows how same-sex marriage shifted from a clear minority position to a stance with broad support — and what the future could hold for views on the issue.
Same-sex marriage was once highly unpopular
Less than 40 years ago, same-sex marriage was a deeply unpopular issue.
In 1988, The General Social Survey showed that just about 1 in 10 U.S. adults 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' with a statement that gay couples should have the right to marry. At that point, roughly 7 in 10 Americans — including similar shares of Democrats and Republicans — disagreed with the statement.
But as early as the 1990s, the politics of same-sex marriage were shifting. Gallup data from 1996 — the year the Defense of Marriage Act defined marriage as between one man and one woman — showed that 27% of U.S. adults said marriages between same-sex partners 'should be recognized by the law as valid.' But Democrats and Republicans weren't in lockstep anymore: Democrats were nearly twice as likely as Republicans to support legal recognition of same-sex marriages.
Democrats' support for same-sex marriage shifted faster
By 2004, the legalization of same-sex marriage started to unfold at the state level. That year, Massachusetts became the first state to allow same-sex couples to marry. President George W. Bush, a Republican, championed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage on the campaign trail, while Democrats vying for their party's 2004 presidential nomination said the legalization of same-sex marriage should be left to the states.
At this time, Americans' support for same-sex marriage was still somewhat limited, and the divide between Republicans and Democrats deepened. About 4 in 10 U.S. adults agreed that same-sex marriage should be permitted, according to the Gallup data. Among Democrats, that agreement was higher — about half were in favor — compared with 22% of Republicans.
Since then, Americans' upward movement on support for same-sex marriage has been driven by Democrats and independents. Throughout Gallup's trend, Democrats have been more supportive of same-sex marriage than Republicans have. Since 2006, at least half of Democrats have supported same-sex marriage, and independents started to see consistent majority support in 2012.
The gap between Democrats and Republicans, meanwhile, stayed wide. By 2015, the year of the Supreme Court's ruling, about three-quarters of Democrats — but only about one-third of Republicans — supported same-sex marriage.
But Republicans did become somewhat more supportive of same-sex marriage between 2010 and 2020. While Democrats continued to lead the shift, Republican public opinion also moved during this decade — signaling a broader movement toward acceptance of same-sex marriage across party lines, even if it wasn't always linear.
Republicans' support for same-sex marriage dropped in recent years
About 7 in 10 Americans think marriages between same-sex partners should be recognized by the law as valid, according to Gallup data from this year, which is similar to the latest General Social Survey data showing 63% of U.S. adults agree that same-sex marriage should be considered a right.
But while the public's support for same-sex marriage ticked up in the years following the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling — from about 60% in 2015 — it has been relatively steady since 2020.
At the same time, Republicans' support has fallen in each of the past three years. Now, about 4 in 10 Republicans say marriages between same-sex partners should be recognized as legal, down from a record high of 55% in 2021 and 2022. This latest decline by Republicans returns their views to their 2016 measure, when 40% supported legal same-sex marriage.
Gallup Senior Editor Megan Brenan said Republicans' recent shift in opinion on same-sex marriage is dramatic.
'This was a much steeper fall from 2022 through 2025,' she said. 'And now, of course, we have the widest partisan gap that we've seen in the trends.'
Younger and older Republicans split on same-sex marriage
Even as overall Republican support for same-sex marriage declines, a generational split within the party suggests that opposition may not hold in the long run.
Among Republicans under age 50, about 6 in 10 say same-sex marriages should be legally recognized, the Gallup poll finds. That stands in stark contrast to just 36% of Republicans over 50 who say the same —- suggesting that views on the issue could continue to shift.
Overall, younger adults are significantly more likely to support legal recognition of same-sex marriage. About 8 in 10 adults under 35 are in favor, compared with roughly 7 in 10 between ages 35 and 54 and 6 in 10 among those 55 or older.
Brenan noted that younger Americans are more accepting of same-sex marriage than older adults are, and it's an issue that especially appears to divide Republicans today.
'I think that's a key to where things will be headed, presumably,' Brenan said. 'Historically, people have become more conservative as they age, but this is an issue that's so ingrained in society today and especially younger society.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
18 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Colombia's president signs a labor overhaul into law after 2 failed attempts
BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) — Colombian President Gustavo Petro signed into law on Wednesday a controversial labor overhaul with the potential to profoundly shift the balance of power from employers to workers, a key victory for the left-wing leader even as Congress compelled him to scale back his more radical ambitions. The enactment of the law marks a milestone for a president who has struggled to deliver on his promises to reduce inequality in one of the region's most unequal nations. But it's faced opposition from business leaders and Colombian government bonds have suffered as markets worry about the fiscal and economic effects. The law increases overtime pay for salaried workers and limits the use of short-term contract workers, while requiring companies to provide medical coverage and social security for gig workers like food delivery drivers. It also promises student interns proper contracts and benefits like vacation time and severance pay. Many of Petro's efforts to vastly expand social programs have stalled in Congress, with lawmakers shooting down this labor law twice. Lawmakers let the legislation squeak by last week after Petro's moved to call a public referendum. Petro signs the law at the home of Simón Bolívar Petro signed the legislation at the historic home of 19th-century war hero Simón Bolívar, who led South America's fight against imperial Spain. He posted on social media platform X: 'I sign the labor reform into law before Bolívar and the working people.' 'We must elect a government that will uphold this law and enforce it,' Petro said, alluding to the 2026 presidential elections. Opposition says the law will hurt employment The reform was cheered by trade unions and Petro's political allies Wednesday. But his push to strengthen worker protections has proved controversial, as the expensive benefits are expected to hike up costs for business owners. Petro's government has promised to push through a new bill to help small businesses, though the details remain unclear. Opposition lawmakers have painted a nightmare scenario of mass layoffs that will push more workers into Colombia's already vast informal economy. Many say that the mandated reductions in working hours, increases in overtime pay for Sunday and holiday shifts will especially squeeze small and medium-sized businesses. Already, his government's increased spending and reduced tax income have challenged fiscal stability. Critics also say that the changes won't help informal workers without contracts, who represent over half of Colombia's total labor force, according to the latest figures. The legislation guarantees health and pension benefits for only some gig workers, such as app-based delivery workers. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. Then there's the question of compliance. 'I want to tell those employers who say they won't implement the labor reform that they're not intelligent,' Petro said on Wednesday. Petro had to scale back the law to get it through Even as he hailed the law, it fell short of Petro's ambitions. He was forced to compromise on some key provisions to push it through a hostile Congress. Provisions stripped from the final version included extended paternity leave, paid leave for women with debilitating menstrual pain and some collective bargaining rights for unions. The signing of the law comes at a tumultuous time for the third largest nation in Latin America, with a wave of bombing attacks shaking the northeast and an assassination attempt on conservative presidential hopeful and senator Miguel Uribe stunning the country. Uribe remains in intensive care.
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
EU leaders meet to discuss tougher Russia sanctions, US tariffs and Middle East conflicts
BRUSSELS (AP) — The heads of the European Union's 27 member nations will meet Thursday in Brussels to discuss tougher sanctions on Russia, ways to prevent painful new U.S. tariffs, and how to make their voices heard in the Middle East conflicts. Most of the leaders will arrive from a brief but intense NATO summit where they pledged a big boost in defense spending, and papered over some of their differences with U.S. President Donald Trump. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will join the EU summit by videoconference, after meeting Trump on Wednesday. U.S.-led NATO downgraded Ukraine from a top priority to a side player this week, but Russia's war in Ukraine remains of paramount concern for the EU. Members will be discussing an 18th round of sanctions against Russia and whether to maintain a price cap on Russian oil, measures that some nations oppose because it could raise energy prices. Meanwhile, Trump's threatened tariffs are weighing on the EU, which negotiates trade deals on behalf of all 27 member countries. He lashed out at Spain on Wednesday for not spending more on defense and suggested yet more tariffs. France's president called Trump to task for starting a trade war with longtime allies. European leaders are also concerned about fallout from the wars in the Middle East, and the EU is pushing to revive diplomatic negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. EU members have internal disagreements to overcome. They are divided over what to do about European policy toward Israel because of its conduct in Gaza. And left-leaning parties are attacking European Commissioner Ursula von Der Leyen's pivot away from the EU's climate leadership in favor of military investment. Defense and security are likely to top the agenda. The summit will end with a statement of conclusions that will set the agenda for the bloc for the next four months and can be seen as a bellwether for political sentiment in Europe on major regional and global issues. ___ Associated Press writer Lorne Cook in Brussels contributed to this report.
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Trump officials to give first classified briefing to Congress on Iran strikes
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senators are set to meet with top national security officials Thursday as many question President Donald Trump's decision to bomb three Iranian nuclear sites — and whether those strikes were ultimately successful. The classified briefing, which was originally scheduled for Tuesday and was delayed, also comes as the Senate is expected to vote this week on a resolution that would require congressional approval if Trump decides to strike Iran again. Democrats, and some Republicans, have said that the White House overstepped its authority when it failed to seek the advice of Congress and they want to know more about the intelligence that Trump relied on when he authorized the attacks. 'Senators deserve full transparency, and the administration has a legal obligation to inform Congress precisely about what is happening,' said Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, who said Tuesday that it was 'outrageous' that the Senate and House briefings were postponed. A similar briefing for House members was pushed to Friday. CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are expected to brief the senators on Thursday. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was scheduled to be at the Tuesday briefing, but will not be attending, according to a person familiar with the schedule. The briefing could be contentious as questions have swirled around Trump's decision to strike Iran and whether the attacks were successful. A preliminary U.S. intelligence report found this week that Iran's nuclear program had been set back only a few months, contradicting statements from Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the status of Iran's nuclear facilities, according to two people familiar with the report. The people were not authorized to address the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. On Wednesday, Gabbard and Ratcliffe sent out statements backing Trump's claims that the facilities were 'completely and fully obliterated.' Gabbard posted on social media that 'new intelligence confirms what @POTUS has stated numerous times: Iran's nuclear facilities have been destroyed.' She said that if the Iranians choose to rebuild the three facilities, it would 'likely take years to do.' Ratcliffe said in a statement from the CIA that Iran's nuclear program has been 'severely damaged' and cited new intelligence 'from a historically reliable and accurate source/method that several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years.' Most Republicans have staunchly defended Trump and hailed the tentative ceasefire he brokered in the Israel-Iran war. House Speaker Mike Johnson even went as far as to question the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, which is intended to give Congress a say in military action. 'The bottom line is the commander in chief is the president, the military reports to the president, and the person empowered to act on the nation's behalf is the president,' Johnson told reporters. But some Republicans — including some of Trump's staunchest supporters — are uncomfortable with the strikes and the potential for U.S. involvement in an extended Middle East conflict. 'I think the speaker needs to review the Constitution,' said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. 'And I think there's a lot of evidence that our Founding Fathers did not want presidents to unilaterally go to war.' Paul would not say if he is voting for the resolution by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., that would require congressional approval for specific military action in Iran. The resolution is likely to fail as 60 votes would be needed to pass it and Republicans have a 53-47 majority. But Kaine says it's important to put the Senate on the record. 'You have a debate like this so that the entire American public, whose sons and daughters are in the military and whose lives will be at risk in war, get to see the debate and reach their own conclusion together with the elected officials about whether the mission is worth it or not,' Kaine said. While he did not seek approval, Trump sent congressional leaders a short letter Monday serving as his official notice of the strikes, two days after the bombs fell. The letter said that the strike was taken 'to advance vital United States national interests, and in collective self-defense of our ally, Israel, by eliminating Iran's nuclear program.'
