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.
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
New York Post
24 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump's appeals court nominee responds to allegation he suggested DOJ say ‘f— you' to courts: ‘I'm not anybody's henchman'
Justice Department official Emil Bove pushed back Wednesday against claims that he's President Trump's 'henchman' or 'enforcer' during a contentious Senate hearing on his nomination to serve a lifetime appointment on a federal appeals court. Bove, who served as Trump's personal lawyer during his criminal cases last year, has faced criticism from Democrats over his role in the dismissal of federal prosecutors who worked on Capitol riot cases; request for corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams to be dropped; and allegations from a whistleblower that he suggested administration officials should defy court orders. 'I respect this process, and I'm here today to address some of your questions about those decisions, but I want to be clear about one thing up front, there is a wildly inaccurate caricature of me in the mainstream media,' Bove said in his testimony. Advertisement 'I am not anybody's henchman. I'm not an enforcer. I'm a lawyer from a small town who never expected to be in an arena like this,' the senior DOJ official added. 3 Bove was nominated by Trump to serve as a judge on the third circuit appeals court earlier this year. Getty Images One day before Bove's confirmation hearing for the judicial post on the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees district courts in Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, fired former DOJ official Erez Reuveni alleged that the nominee told federal prosecutors that the Trump administration may not abide by court orders that would impede its mass deportation plans. Advertisement Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) brought up the whistleblower complaint during his questioning, and repeatedly used the expletive Reuveni claims Bove used during a March 14 meeting discussing Trump's yet-to-be signed proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act. 'In the complaint, it says, 'Bove stated the DOJ would need to consider telling the courts, f— you and ignoring any such court order.' Did you say anything of that kind in the meeting?' Schiff asked the judicial nominee. Bove responded: 'Senator, I have no recollection of saying anything of that kind.' 'Wouldn't you recall, Mr. Bove, if you said or suggested during a meeting with Justice Department lawyers that maybe they should consider telling the court 'f— you'? It seems to me that would be something you'd remember … Unless that's the kind of thing you say frequently,' Schiff pressed. Advertisement 'Well, I've certainly said things encouraging litigators at the department to fight hard for valid positions that we have to take in defense of our clients,' Bove shot back. 3 Bove served as Trump's defense team during his criminal cases last year. Getty Images 3 A whistleblower has accused Bove of informing DOJ officials that they may have to defy court orders regarding the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants. via REUTERS 'Have you frequently suggested that they say, 'f— you' and ignore court orders? Is that also something you frequently do so that you might not remember doing it on this occasion?' the senator continued. Advertisement Bove asserted that he 'did not suggest that there would be any need to consider, ignoring court orders,' noting that during the meeting Reuveni describes in his complaint, 'There were no court orders to discuss.' 'Well, did you suggest telling the courts 'f— you' in any manner?' Schiff responded. Bove answered: 'I don't recall.'
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Connecticut State Sen. Fazio ‘strongly considering' entering race for governor
NEW CANAAN, Conn. (WTNH) — State Sen. Ryan Fazio told News 8 on Wednesday he is 'strongly considering' entering next year's race for governor. The 35-year-old Republican is best known as the front man for the GOP's crusade against Democratic energy policies — policies that Republicans argue are responsible for the state's high cost of electricity. The cost of living, Fazio said, would be a focal point of a potential campaign for governor. Gov. Ned Lamont issues vetoes of hotly debated housing, striking workers bills 'Everyone understands electric rates are too damn high in this state,' Fazio said in an interview with News 8 on Wednesday evening. 'We need leadership, at long last, that doesn't inflate the cost of living and electricity but actually reduces it.' First elected in 2021, Fazio is the top Republican senator on the legislative committees that write the state's tax and energy laws. His telegenic presentation and studious command of policy issues has drawn the attention of party insiders, some of whom have been privately urging Fazio to consider jumping in the race. Behind the scenes, sources tell News 8 that Fazio has received those entreaties with growing receptiveness in recent weeks. Gov. Lamont planning on signing around 100 bills into law Fazio's interest in the race was first reported Wednesday morning by CT Insider columnist Dan Haar. Gov. Ned Lamont, a two-term incumbent who has drawn on vast personal wealth to power his campaigns, has not yet declared his intentions for next year's election. Earlier this month, Lamont said he's grown more inclined to seek a third term. Should he decline to run, a slate of ambitious Democrats stand ready to jump into the race. 'From cutting taxes for working families, to building the best paid family medical leave program, and getting our state budget back on track, we are proud to put Governor Lamont's record on affordability and opportunity up against anyone,' Rob Blanchard, spokesperson for Lamont, said. Local leaders respond to potential Medicaid cuts For the last decade and a half, Connecticut's Republican party has found success in statewide elections to be elusive. The party was once a reliable contender, holding the governor's office between 1995 and 2011 and consistently winning at least one of the state's congressional seats for nearly half a century. But in the years since the late Gov. Jodi M. Rell and former Congressman Chris Shays left office — Shays lost re-election in 2008 and Rell retired from politics in 2011 — Republicans have not seen a victory in any statewide or federal election. In Fazio, many Republicans see a chance to end that historic draught. Fazio's district encompasses Greenwich and parts of Stamford and New Canaan. The profile of those communities — suburban and largely affluent — are representative of the places that once provided reliable votes for Republicans like Shays and Rell. In the last two gubernatorial elections, the Lamont-led Democratic ticket has made considerable gains in the Fairfield County suburbs. New Haven mayor claims state budget falls short on education 'Republicans have traditionally held that area of the state,' State Rep. Vincent Candelora, the leader of the Republican caucus in the state House, said of Fairfield County. 'It has now become blue.' Candelora has seen firsthand the decline of his party in Fairfield County. In the last several elections, the caucus Candelora leads has seen members in communities like Greenwich, Fairfield and Trumbull fall to Democratic challengers. Fazio has been a notable survivor of the Democratic march through the county. In 2024, he carried Greenwich by 7 points in the same election that saw then-Vice President Kamala Harris win the town by 16 points. 'His district reflects the exact voters that need to be garnered in order to win the governor's race,' Candelora said of Fazio. In order to win the general election, Fazio would first need to emerge victorious in the GOP's own nominating process. Accomplishing that will likely mean vanquishing several opponents, all of whom have their own theory of victory. Erin Stewart, the Republican mayor of New Britain, is actively exploring a campaign for governor. Like Fazio, Stewart is a millennial who has defied conventional political trends — winning multiple mayoral races in a city that typically favors Democrats. Westport First Selectwoman Jen Tooker, a declared candidate for governor, is another Republican who has found electoral success in a suburb that has rejected Republican candidates further up the ballot. This Week in Connecticut: West Haven Mayor on city's financial future As she tests the waters of a gubernatorial run, Stewart has made early efforts to garner the support of President Donald Trump. With a White House visit and posts on the social media platform X, Stewart has made clear that she would welcome the president's endorsement. Such an endorsement is a coveted prize in any Republican primary, though it could prove to be a liability in the general election. 'The question really is, how much are you gonna align yourself with Donald Trump to get the base versus try to win over swing voters,' State Sen. Bob Duff, the Democratic majority leader in the State Senate, said. Duff and other Democrats stand ready to challenge the eventual GOP nominee on their closeness to Trump, who made gains in Connecticut in the 2024 election but still lost the state by nearly 15 points. Ansonia mayor apologizes for Facebook comments Should he enter the race, Fazio appears to be preparing to thread a needle between fully embracing Trump and reaching out to swing voters and more moderate Democrats who disapprove of the president. Sources tell News 8 that Fazio has met with political consultants associated with former Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican who overcame anti-Trump sentiments in the 2018 midterms to win an election in a deep blue state. Baker was among the Republicans who kept his distance from Trump during the 2016 election. Fazio is more open to the president. When asked if he would campaign with the president, Fazio said, 'Yeah, absolutely — any Republican, I would welcome the support of.' 'Theoretically, if I made the decision, we'd have a big tent type of approach,' Fazio added. Fazio said he would make his final decision on whether or not to enter the race sometime by summer's end. That timeline mirrors the one Lamont has committed to. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Trump's latest rejection of intelligence assessments reflects a long distrust of spy agencies
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's fights with the intelligence community were a running theme of his first term, as he raged against an investigation into his campaign's alleged links to Russia. Now, a sequel is playing out as Trump battles to shape the public's understanding of his foreign policy gamble in Iran. An early U.S. intelligence assessment said Iran's nuclear program has been set back only a few months after American strikes on three sites last weekend. Trump has rejected the report and pronounced the program 'completely and fully obliterated.' The dispute is unlikely to fade anytime soon. Top administration officials are pressing Trump's case, with a news conference set for Thursday at the Pentagon. Briefings also are scheduled for lawmakers on Capitol Hill, though the White House plans to limit the sharing of classified information after the initial intelligence assessment leaked this week. 'Intelligence people strive to live in a world as it is, describe the world as it is, where politicians are all about describing the world as they want it to be,' said Larry Pfeiffer, a 32-year intelligence veteran who held positions including CIA chief of staff and senior director of the White House Situation Room. Though it's hardly unheard of for presidents to bristle at what they perceive as bad news from the intelligence community, it's rare for the conflict to spill into public view as it did this week. 'I don't think we've seen another president push back as strong as this guy has,' Pfeiffer said. Trump has a history of distrusting spy services Trump's suspicion of the intelligence community , particularly when its assessments do not align with his worldview, dates back to even before his first term. His 2016 campaign was shadowed by an investigation into whether his team had coordinated with Russia to sway the outcome of the election. He was so infuriated by the scrutiny over a dossier of unverified and salacious claims connecting him to Russia that, one week before he was sworn in, he tweeted: 'Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to 'leak' into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany?' Trump disputed the assessment that Russia had interfered in the election on his behalf, decrying as a 'hoax' and a 'witch hunt' an investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller , which ultimately concluded the Trump campaign had welcomed Moscow's help but did not find sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy. Trump also openly challenged the judgment of his intelligence agencies alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin at a Helsinki summit in 2018. 'I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today,' Trump said. 'He just said it's not Russia. I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be.' Such public protestation takes its toll on an intelligence community that historically has endeavored to produce data-driven and apolitical judgments, said Frank Montoya Jr., a former FBI supervisor who served as director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center. 'It's really demoralizing because nobody is looking at this stuff from a political perspective. They're looking at the data and they're analyzing the data,' he said. 'When you get this kind of unfounded criticism, especially from the policymaker in chief, it just destroys morale.' Tensions with the intelligence community persist Trump tapped loyalists to lead America's intelligence services in his second term — Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence and John Ratcliffe as CIA director. They promised to end what they said was the weaponization of intelligence and root out disloyal officers. But there have already been conflicts. Last month, the National Intelligence Council declassified a memo in response to an open records request that said American spy agencies found no coordination between the Venezuelan government and the Tren de Aragua gang, contradicting statements the Trump administration used to justify invoking the Alien Enemies Act and deporting Venezuelan immigrants . Gabbard later fired the two veteran intelligence officers who led the council because of their perceived opposition to Trump. More trouble came after the war between Israel and Iran began nearly two weeks ago. Trump dismissed Gabbard's testimony to Congress in March that U.S. spy agencies did not believe Iran was actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. Trump insisted Iran was very close. 'I don't care what she said,' he told reporters last week. Gabbard later accused the news media of mischaracterizing her testimony, noting that she had mentioned Iran's large stockpile of enriched uranium that goes beyond levels needed for civilian uses. Iran maintains that its nuclear program was peaceful, though the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly warned that Tehran has enough highly enriched uranium to make several nuclear bombs if it chooses. A preliminary report from the Defense Intelligence Agency that emerged this week said that while the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities did significant damage , the facilities were not totally destroyed and the program was only set back by a few months. The White House called the assessment 'flat-out wrong.' The DIA said the initial findings will be refined as new information becomes available. Given Trump's skeptical view of intelligence officials, Pfeiffer said, 'his initial instinct is to assume that if the intelligence community is telling him something different than he would like it to be, that it's because they're trying to undermine him.' Trump team says there's no conflict Gabbard and Ratcliffe have sought to brush off any perceived conflict between their agencies and Trump. Ratcliffe said Wednesday that new intelligence from a 'historically reliable and accurate' source reveals that U.S. strikes 'destroyed' several of Iran's nuclear facilities that would require years to be rebuilt. 'CIA continues to collect additional reliably sourced information to keep appropriate decision-makers and oversight bodies fully informed,' Ratcliffe said in a statement. 'When possible, we will also provide updates and information to the American public, given the national importance of this matter and in every attempt to provide transparency.' Gabbard noted the DIA assessment was of 'low confidence,' an acknowledgment by its authors that their conclusions could be mistaken. 'The propaganda media has deployed their usual tactic: selectively release portions of illegally leaked classified intelligence assessments,' she wrote on X. Trump narrated his own intelligence assessment while attending the NATO summit in the Netherlands . He mentioned satellite images showing the area around nuclear facilities 'burned black' and said the underground tunnels had 'all collapsed.' He also suggested Israel had sources on the ground in Iran: 'They have guys that go in there after the hit' to evaluate the damage. The White House pointed to an Israel Atomic Energy Commission assessment that the U.S. and Israeli strikes have 'set back Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons by many years.' Assessing the US strike will take time Intelligence officers routinely craft assessments about global threats and specific incidents — information vital to the decision-making of national security officials and lawmakers. Assessments are regularly updated as new intelligence is produced from sources including field agents, informants, open source material and secret surveillance. The work is secretive to protect the methods and sources of intelligence agencies and to avoid becoming a political football. Former intelligence officials said it's likely to take days, weeks, or even months to form a full picture of the impact of the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear capabilities. 'I would call for patience,' said John Negroponte, a former ambassador who served as the first director of national intelligence under President George W. Bush. 'Avoid the temptation to rush to judgment.' ___ Associated Press writer Aamer Madhani contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
