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
Associated Press
13 minutes ago
- Associated Press
A 12-day war followed by a sudden ceasefire. Some Iranians now wonder what comes next
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — For many Iranians it was a lightning sequence of events: A 12-day war with Israel and a sudden, U.S.-brokered ceasefire. Now, as they return to their neighborhoods deeply shaken by Israeli air assaults, fears mount over what the country's theocracy may do next. Human rights advocates have already warned that Iran's government is ramping up executions of dissidents and political prisoners. Since Israel launched strikes on June 13, targeting Iran's nuclear program and top military officials, Tehran has said that six people were executed on charges of spying for Israel — three of them on Wednesday alone. Four Iranians recounted to The Associated Press that they believe only a minority in the Islamic Republic still firmly supports its leadership. They said they are concerned the fallout from Israel's attack will derail any momentum for change in the country's clerical rule, in place since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The four spoke on condition of anonymity or agreeing that only their first names be used over fears of reprisals. 'We don't know what will happen,' said Shirin, a 49-year-old living in northern Tehran, the Iranian capital. She speculated that the authorities could 'take out all of their anger' at the losses in the war on ordinary Iranians. Fear of repression grows Nooshin, a 44-year-old Tehran housewife, said the government's playbook of clamping down amid internal or external pressure had already started when U.S. President Donald Trump announced a truce between Iran and Israel on Tuesday. 'Basically, after every crisis, the Iranian regime has a habit of punishing its own people, and this time, it will probably get many dissidents into trouble,' she said. The fast-tracking of several death sentence cases in recent days has sparked fears from activists that an even deadlier wave of executions could take place now that the conflict is over, similar to what followed Iran's 1980s war with Iraq. 'After the ceasefire with Israel, the Islamic Republic needs more repression to cover up military failures, prevent protests, and ensure its continued survival,' Mahmood Amiry Moghaddam, the director of the Norway-based Iran Human Rights Organization, said Wednesday. 'Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of prisoners might be at risk of executions' in the coming weeks, he added. Iranian officials, including Esmail Baghaei, spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry, defended the government's actions and lauded what he described as the unity of Iranians. 'Our people showed that they are resolute in their defense of national security and sovereignty,' he told Al Jazeera English on Wednesday. Information blackout Days of on-and-off internet connectivity have left the population of more than 80 million people scrambling to fill in the gaps of Iranian state broadcasts. Alongside revolutionary and Islamic slogans, state media has tried to drum up a rally-behind-the-flag message, echoing past similar efforts during the Iran-Iraq war. Anchors signed off broadcasts by reciting a famous line of nationalist poetry. Elias Hazrati, a state media official considered close to Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian, made a rare acknowledgment of deep political and social divisions in the country while calling for solidarity against foreign threats. But Shirin, from northern Tehran, said she feared there were 'horrible things the government is doing right now that we have no clue about and won't know until they want us to know.' Some are optimistic Mahshid, who lives in the northwestern city of Qazvin, said she was hopeful about what the end of the war would bring and that she expects the authorities' recent leniency on enforcing the mandatory headscarf, or hijab, will remain in place. 'I feel that after emotions subside, the government will be tolerant of people on issues such as the hijab and personal freedoms,' the 45-year-old woman said. Another Tehran resident, an academic researcher who asked not to be identified by name, echoed that sentiment. He said that it was less likely authorities would be able to roll back other changes that have swept the country following years of unrest and protests against the law on the women's headscarf. 'It's unlikely the Islamic Republic will become more hard-line on social issues,' he said. 'Because of Israel's attacks, they've been weakened,' he said of the authorities, adding that there have been rumors about easing restrictions on social media platforms like WhatsApp and Instagram in the coming days. Same old power shortages The researcher said Israel had 'also been targeting a lot of non-military targets' around the capital. He said an airstrike near Midan-e Tajrish, a central square surrounded by upscale Tehran areas, had knocked out water supplies for at least a couple of days in the nearby neighborhoods. Power shortages, however, were already a part of everyday life before the war — a result of years of economic mismanagement in the country that has fueled calls for change. 'The electricity cuts for about two hours most days of the week, like we did before the war,' he said. Amid the war, supporters of Iran's clerical establishment have also tried to align themselves with what he called more 'nationalist' parts of society, without really addressing popular calls for deep reforms. 'These are the people you see demonstrating in the streets, saying we have been victorious in this war,' he said. 'But most people, more than half of the country, were people who didn't want this war.'
The Intercept
14 minutes ago
- The Intercept
War Powers Resolution From House Democratic Leaders May Not Limit Trump's War Powers
As Democrats try to push forward legislation that would block further strikes on Iran, one measure advanced by House leadership could actually strengthen the Trump administration's justification for subsequent attacks, anti-war advocates warn. House progressives on Wednesday were trying to reach a compromise with Democratic leaders that would curb further U.S. military involvement in Iran while satisfying concerns from pro-Israel members about American support for Israel's missile defense. There are three different war powers resolutions in play in Washington. In the Senate, a resolution from Tim Kaine, D-Va., appears to be on track for a vote on Friday. In the House, however, Democrats remain sharply divided between two resolutions. 'There's no upside to advancing a competing War Powers Resolution. It's not just unnecessary — it's actively counterproductive,' Cavan Kharrazian, a senior policy adviser at Demand Progress, said in a statement. 'There's still time to reconcile this on the House side, and we hope an agreement can be reached to enable a strong vote with the best possible language.' The resolutions in both chambers face long odds, thanks to near-unanimous support from the majority Republicans for President Donald Trump's strikes. Congressional Democrats are responding to Trump's strikes by pursuing a vote under the War Powers Act, the Vietnam War-era law designed to limit presidents' ability to launch military action abroad without congressional approval. Kaine's initial resolution introduced last week directs Trump to halt hostilities against Iran, while making clear that the president can still defend the U.S. from imminent attack. Kaine's resolution has drawn support from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. It is expected to come to a voter later this week. Amid concerns from pro-Israel Democrats, Kaine said Tuesday that he was co-sponsoring an amendment to his resolution with Sens. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Andy Kim, D-N.J. The amendment is intended to continue to allow the U.S. to participate in Israeli missile defense. Pentagon officials said last April that the U.S. — not Israel — shot down most Iranian drones and missiles during an Iranian attack. 'This amendment would leave no doubt that Senator Kaine's resolution would ensure that President Trump has to make the case to the American people for further action against Iran without constraining our ability to help defend the Israeli people from Iranian attacks,' Kim said in a statement. While most Senate Democrats appeared to have coalesced around Kaine's resolution, House Democrats remained split on Wednesday over how to respond to Trump's strikes. Advocates last week said they were frustrated that Democratic leaders were not moving forward with a resolution as Trump publicly mulled attacking Iran. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., teamed up with Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., to introduce a resolution. After the strikes were launched, three House Democratic committee ranking members introduced an alternative resolution that its authors claim would also force Trump to cease hostilities with Iran. The sponsors are Reps. Jim Himes of Connecticut, Adam Smith of Washington, and Gregory Meeks of New York. Anti-war advocates worry that the House leadership measure could actually wind up strengthening Trump's justification for launching further strikes on Iran. In an apparent nod to Israel, the leaders' resolution would give the president the power to 'defend the United States or an ally or partner of the United States from imminent attack.' Trump has already justified his strike on Iran as an act of 'collective self-defense of our ally, Israel,' according to a letter he sent Congress, despite the assessment of U.S intelligence agencies that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. Critics say the House Democratic leadership resolution mirrors the language of Trump's justification far too closely. 'We think if it passes, it would be worse than not having a war powers resolution.' 'We think if it passes, it would be worse than not having a war powers resolution,' said Yasmine Taeb, the legislative and political director for the Muslim advocacy group MPower Change. 'This war powers resolution gives the impression that the president has broad authority to be able to engage in military offensive action with respect to Iran — if Israel is asking us to.' Spokespersons for Himes, Meeks, and Smith's offices did not immediately comment. Khanna has said that his resolution is intended to preserve the U.S. military's ability to participate in Israeli missile defense. Advocates said they understood there were ongoing discussions about a compromise. The two sides have ample time: A vote on the measure is not expected to come to the floor before mid- to late-July. Whether or not the two sides come to an accord, however, the push to respond to Trump's strikes could face serious pushback from Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson. Johnson said Tuesday that he thought the War Powers Act itself was unconstitutional and signaled that he may use a procedural move to prevent it from coming to the floor. The War Powers Act states that resolutions brought under its auspices must be fast-tracked to the House floor within 15 working days. Johnson, however, could try to block the resolution from receiving such a 'privileged' status — although that would likely force a vote on the procedural maneuver itself. Massie's co-sponsorship of the resolution gave it bipartisan support, but it's unclear whether he will continue to push its passage in the face of intense pressure from the White House and the ceasefire announced by Trump on Monday. Massie has said he is taking a 'wait and see' approach. As a shaky ceasefire between Israel and Iran continued to hold Wednesday morning, progressives in the House said they were pursuing a vote on their preferred resolution despite the opposition from Johnson. Khanna said at a Capitol press conference that blocking the vote with a procedural maneuver would be an 'unprecedented abrogation of congressional power.' 'The fundamental point here is that we don't know what the strikes accomplished, but we do know a lot of the harm,' Khanna said. 'It has hardened the resolve in Iran to now race towards a nuclear weapon.'
San Francisco Chronicle
21 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Ex-Ohio Supreme Court Justice Bill O'Neill joins race for district held by GOP US Rep. David Joyce
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Former Ohio Supreme Court Justice Bill O'Neill has announced plans to run for the northeast Ohio congressional seat held by Republican U.S. Rep. David Joyce. The 78-year-old Democrat said Wednesday he is coming out of retirement because he can't 'sit idly by as my government falls apart.' 'Reasonably priced health care is out of reach for a majority of Americans, armed thugs with masks masquerading as police officers are openly violating the U.S. Constitution, and environmental protection is a thing of the past,' O'Neill said in a statement provided to The Associated Press. He said Joyce is 'a nice guy' but he needs to answer for his votes in favor of President Donald Trump' s agenda and the actions of billionaire Elon Musk, who ran the president's Department of Government Efficiency initiative. The U.S. Army veteran, registered nurse and former appellate judge served on the Ohio Supreme Court from 2013 to 2018. O'Neill said that, counting his judicial runs and past bids for Congress, voters in the counties comprising Ohio's 14th Congressional District have delivered him to victory nine of 12 times.
