From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 94 18:06:23 EDT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This examination of national and local polls provides valuable insight into
attitudes toward anti-discrimination protections for lesbians and gay men and
popularly-held images of lesbians and gay men.  This data can help foster a
discussion about messages that will increase tolerance toward lesbians and
gays while refuting arguments that protective legislation is unnecessary.

Methodology
Polling data, focus group tapes, summary analyses and related materials were
gathered and analyzed.  Materials used for this report were provided by:
 Dozens of polling organizations including the Election and Survey Unit of
CBS News, NBC,  the Gallup Organization, Princeton Survey Research
Associates, EDK Associates, Mason-Dixon Political/Media Research, Inc., and
the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. 
 Numerous articles from both national and local newspapers that covered
public opinion studies and/or initiative and referenda campaigns.
 Anti-discrimination organizations including Save Our Communities Political
Action Committee in Oregon, the Human Rights Task Force in Tampa, Florida,
Equality Colorado, Equal Protection Lewiston and Equal Protection/Portland in
Maine, the Empire State Pride Agenda in New York, the Anti-Defamation League
of B'nai B'rith, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and the American
Civil Liberties Union Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.

Findings
 Lesbians and gays face a US. public that mainly sees them, or their
"lifestyle," as unacceptable or immoral.  The high level of national
disapproval chronicled by polling data ranges from 50% to 77%, probably
depending on the poll question's terminology.  
 The high level of national disapproval is accompanied by an equally strong
or even stronger belief that discrimination is wrong.  Approximately
three-quarters of the U.S. public believes that gays and lesbians should have
equal rights in terms of employment opportunities.
 Much of the public holds conflicting beliefs about gays in terms of legality
and morality. "Homosexuality is wrong, but it should be legal."  
 Opinion is split nationally about whether protective legislation for lesbian
and gays is necessary or desirable.
 Gender, age, education level, and acquaintance with lesbians and gays are
all linked to attitudes about discrimination and protective legislation.
 Women, younger adults, people with higher levels of education, and those who
know they have gay friends or family members all tend to oppose
discrimination more strongly and to be more likely to support protective
legislation.
 People are confused about the relationship between anti-discrimination,
protective legislation, affirmative action, employment quotas, preferential
treatment, special rights, and minority status.
 
xMessages about discrimination have been cited most often by voters as the
primary reason for opposing anti-gay measures 
 Messages about special rights, government intrusion, and the perceived
absence of gay disadvantage have been cited most often by voters as critical
in their reason for supporting anti-gay measures. 

Recommendations
In assessing the relationship between public attitudes towards lesbians and
gays and our communities' political strategies,  long and short-term aims and
strategies must be distinguished.  Those organizing against discriminatory
ballot measures should pick short-term strategies looking toward electoral
success that simultaneously build toward long-term goals.

 Discrimination and equal rights -- these are the terms in which we must cast
the debate. The polls indicate that lesbian and gay organizers can appeal to
people's strong beliefs about discrimination and equal rights.
 Overwhelmingly, voters opposition to discrimination has driven them to
oppose anti-gay measures.  The public most strongly objects to housing and
job discrimination.  Fully three-quarters of the U.S. public supports equal
rights in terms of employment opportunities for lesbians and gay men. 

 Organizers must clarify and quantify the real nature and extent of
discrimixnation against lesbians and gay men.  Only then, can voters
understand the need for the remedy.  People abhor discrimination, but, it
appears, that the public, at least when relating to groups about whom they
hold negative opinions, constructs a narrow definition of discrimination that
warrants remedy. Discrimination is redexfined only as unequal treatment in
housing and employment.  Although many people believe gays are discriminated
against in some way, they do not feel that gays face discrimination of a kind
that needs remedy.  A New York State focus group leader read participants
three newspaper stories about job and housing disxcrimination.  Participants
were surprised that such overt discrimination exists and that, absent
protective legislation, it is legal. 

 Short-term victories will more likely result from reinforcing the public's
opposition to discrimination than from trying to change the majority's lack
of acceptance. Conversely, long-term victories will not be won without
increasing public acceptance.  Anti-gay violence, either physical or
emotional, will not successfully be eradicated unless the widespread negative
judgments are reversed.  Polling data identifies the power of the lesbian and
gay community's ongoing encouragement and organizing of individuals coming
out.  Coming out lets more of the public know that they are acquainted with a
lesbian or gay person and polling shows that this personal knowledge makes
people feel more positively toward gays.  Campaigns fighting discriminatory
ballot measures are counterproductive if they accept the public's stated dista
ste for gay visibility and discourage openness about ourselves. 

 xIn both the short and the long-term, organizers must educate about equal
rights and civil rights.  The concept of special rights is the strongest
weapon of opponents of equal rights.  The discussion of equality and rights
takes place in the language of scarcity, in which assistance to one group
means diminished oppor-tunities for another.  The public objects to
discrimination but also rejects granting preference to others.  In the short
run, organizers must clarify that protection against discrimination is not a
special right.  In the long run, the larger questions must be addressed.  Why
do so many people confuse the concepts of protection against discrimination,
affirmative action, quotas, preferential treatment, special rights, and
minority status?  Perhaps lesbian and gay organizers should join with other
minorities to launch an educaxtion project that will untangle the concepts of
civil rights and tackle the fears and prejudices related to race, class,
gender and sexual orientation embedded in the confusion. 
xINTRODUCTION

This document is an examination of the attitudes of voters toward
anti-discrimination protections for lesbian and gay people.  Pollsters, focus
group leaders, campaign organizers, and prior campaigns, whether focused
around a ballot measure or a piece of legislation or a lesbian or gay
candidate, can tell us a great deal about the public image of lesbians and
gays and about attitudes toward civil rights legislation and protective
legislation in general.  All of this information poses serious questions for
the lesbian, gay, and bisexual communities about how to break down
stereotypes and combat prejudice and discrimination.

Measuring attitudes towards lesbians and gays in the United States has been
greatly assisted by a plethora of public opinion of polls.  From the national
magazine Newsweek to Equal Protection Lewiston, a local group in Maine,
organizations and the media have asked North Americans many questions about
homosexuality.  The data gleaned from these questions is at once upsetting,
comforting, and fascinating.  However to make use of all of this data to
shape educational and organizing projects requires an analysis that goes
beyond an emotional response.

Proceed with Caution
In looking at the data presented here and in using materials and analyses
from past campaigns, proceed with caution.  First, remember that a poll
reflects attitudes and opinions at a given moment.  Although polls are
discussed here as if they have a longer term meaning, polls are most useful
when analyzed as a series of snapshots.  
Second, when making comparisons, remember differences in political and
demographic terrain.  For example Oregon voters in 1992, already were exposed
to the lesbian and gay communities' opponents, the OCA and Lon Mabon.  A
majority of  Oregonians had a negative impression of OCA, based in part on
the anti-gay Measure 8 campaign of 1988 in which the Governor's executive
order banning discrimination in state employment was revoked.  Messages that
worked in Oregon that drew on the state's history and predispositions may not
work in states in which this discussion has only just begun. 

In the following pages, data has been collated that was gathered from a vast
number of different polls conducted among various constituencies in different
geographic areas.  Polls that are national and some that are local are
included in this study -- those conducted in Oregon and Colorado being the
most relevant.  Questions which address similar attitudes and convictions are
clustered.  Much more data exists.  We have not yet exhausted the voter
research supplied by local organizations that have already faced initiative
or referenda campaigns.  Likewise, we have not attempted to address the
wealth of message material that exists -- radio ads, TV spots, direct mail,
and slogans.   NGLTF's Fight the Right Project will continue to produce
materials helping us to sift through the data available.   

Method
To prepare this report, we first studied polls and specific questions that
seek to elicit people's views about lesbians and gays in general.  We then
examined those queries which reveal attitudes about discrimination.  After
laying out the data collected on these two broad topics,  we moved to the
information available on the more subtle aspects of  attitudes towards
lesbians and gays and on discrimination.  How do these opinions translate
into stances on civil rights protections?  How do they translate into
specific situations?  How do these attitudes vary according to demographics
or specific factors in people's lives? 

While the process of reviewing the data from several years of polling is
daunting, it has also been satisfying.  Despite the concern about the
veracity of polls or the practical applications of the information, the
results bear up.  New surveys confirm the results of previous polls. As well,
poll results confirm some of the most basic but untested, long-standing
assumptions of lesbian and gay organizing.  For example, despite the adage
"familiarity breeds contempt," coming out has always been viewed as a central
element of combating homophobia.  And indeed polling data shows that personal
acquaintance gay people fuels acceptance.  Rather than being faced with too
many numbers that point in too many directions, these polling results, taken
as a whole, help us map out a road to successful organizing.

POLLING DATA

At least half of the people polled consider the gay and lesbian lifestyle
immoral, unacceptable, not O.K. ...
In three national telephone polls last year (2/93, 6/93, and 8/93) over 50%
of the respondents (55%, 51% and 59% respectively) agreed that homosexuality
is immoral.1  Oregon's benchmark poll (i.e. early in-depth survey that serves
as a data level comparison point for later "tracking" polls), conducted in
February of 1992, demonstrated a slightly higher level of acceptance.  43% of
Oregonians polled said "Homosexuality is morally wrong and should not be
condoned or protected by any law." 47% disagreed. [See Table I]  
 
In the February '93 CBS News/New York Times national poll, nine percent said
that homosexual relations between adults are O.K. and 33% said they didn't
care either way.  In the June and August polls, 43% and 34% said they
disagreed -- homosexuality is immoral.

In six other national polls conducted between 6/92 and 9/93, 50%-63% of the
respondents said that the homosexual "lifestyle" was not acceptable.
Conversely, 30-43% said that homosexuality is an acceptable "lifestyle."
 Again, Oregon's benchmark poll showed slightly greater acceptance, probably
because of greater public debate on gay issues.  45% of those polled in
Oregon said that homosexuality was acceptable compared to 43% who disagreed. 
Some studies indicate stronger opposition.  The National Opinion Research
Center's General Social Survey has for the last twenty years shown a
depressingly constant 73-77% of the American public hold the belief that
homosexuality is "always wrong."  The discrepancy between these figures and
those above is probably accounted for by the question's alternate language.
 Perhaps wrong is a lesser charge, one that people feel freer in
acknowledging.2  

The time sequence of the poll questions does not indicate a national trend
toward greater or less acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle.  In other
words, there does not seem to be a pattern of shifting sentiment in the last
year. 
  
1.  Please note that the language used throughout this document is often
dictated by the polls  studied.  Exact wording of the poll questions can be
seen in Table I.  I attempt to match the language of the poll questions.
 When I refer to the "homosexual lifestyle,"  for example, that is not
because I consider it the term of choice, but rather because it is the phrase
responded to by those polled.  In addition, I cannot comment on differences
between attitudes toward lesbians, gay men and bisexuals.  The polls examined
did not make such distinctions or ask those questions.
2.  Kenneth Sherrill and Douglas Strand, Electoral Bugaboos? The Impact of
Attitudes Towards Gay Rights and Feminist on the 1992 Presidential Vote, p.
5, paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science
Association, Washington, D.C., 9/93.
xBut most people also believe that lesbians and gays are discriminated
against or at least that there exists differential treatment.  In a national
telephone poll conducted in May of 1992, 93% of respondents said that
homosexuals face discrimination and prejudice.  The majority (52%) felt that
homosexuals face "a lot of discrimination and prejudice," 21% said "a
tremendous amount", 14% said "some", and six percent said "a little."  Only
four percent said none.

In New York State in 1993, the Empire State Pride Agenda, a statewide
political organization working on lesbian and gay issues, conducted a voter
research project in eight Republican State Senate districts.  A minimum of
two-thirds of voters in all eight districts, of every age group, political
party, ideology and gender, answered yes when asked if gays and lesbians face
discrimination.

And that discrimination is wrong.

In the Equal Protection Campaign of Colorado (EPOC), Miller Research Group,
Inc. asked in their benchmark poll  whether "An employer should have the
right to fire a person because he or she is homosexual."  19% agreed that an
employer should have that right, but 75% disagreed.  Oregon's poll found
similar opposition to discrimination.  When told that Ballot Measure 9
"...would legalize discrimination against homosexuals," 75% said that would
make them less likely to vote for the measure.  Only 17% said that it would
make them more likely.

The national polls replicate the findings of Oregon and Colorado. [See Table
II]  The CBS News/NYT poll of 1,154 adults conducted nationwide in February
of 1993 found that 3 out of 4 respondents stated that homosexuals should have
equal rights in terms of job opportunities.  In six national polls conducted
between June of '92 and February of '94, no less than 74% of those polled
agreed that homosexuals should have equal rights in terms of job
opportunities.  And no more than 19% said that there should not be equal
rights for gays in terms of job opportunities.  

Attitudes shift noticeably, however, when the discussion of jobs and the role
of gays becomes
more specific.  Few respondents objected to homosexuals as airline pilots
(11%) or to gay accountants (15%) or to gay salespersons (11%).  Just over a
third objected to having a 
homosexual as their representative in Congress (38%).  A higher number
objected to homosexuals being hired as doctors, 42% in a June 1992 poll and
49% in a February '94 poll.  Exactly half (50%) said homosexuals should not
be hired as clergy.  But a whopping 55% objected to the idea of their child
having a homosexual elementary school teacher.  This number drops to 46% in
the February '94 poll, however, the meaning remains clear -- people object to
job discrimination in general, but the combination of homosexuals and
children dulls the objection.3  

Oregon's benchmark poll results consistently remain more liberal than the
national surveys.  39% of respondents agreed to the statement:  "I oppose
allowing known homosexuals to teach children in the public schools."  51%
disagreed.  Ten percent said they did not know.  And in Colorado, 54%
disagreed with the statement, "I oppose allowing known homosexuals to have
jobs that deal with children."  But still 38% agreed, much higher that the
13-19% nationally that admitted they did not think homosexuals should have
equal rights in terms of jobs generally.

_____________________________________________________________________________
3.  There are dozens and dozens of questions in national polls conducted in
1993 and 1994 about gays in the armed services.  I chose not to examine this
issue as a question of job opportunity/job discrimination, for numerous
reasons.  I did, however, use data from polls about gays in the military to
uncover overall attitudes toward gays.
x
Although three-quarters of the U.S. public supports equal rights in terms of
job opportunities for gays, a majority or close to a majority do not want
gays intimately relating to them or to their children -- not as doctors,
clergy or as teachers.  But even when surveyed about gays and young people,
an issue that troubles many,  most people are not willing to condone job
discrimination.  Two Princeton Survey Research Associates polls, conducted in
May/June of 1992 and in May of 1993, demonstrate that a majority of
respondents will not accept job discrimination even if it involves homosexual
teachers.

"School boards ought to have the right to fire teachers who are known
homosexuals." 
Date of Poll Complete Agree Mostly Agree Total Agree Mostly Disagree Complete
Disagree Total Disagree Don't Know
5,6/92 24% 16% 40% 27% 28% 55% 5%
5/93 17% 17% 34% 34% 26% 60% 6%

No on Nine and EPOC asked a related question in their benchmark polls.  Those
polled were asked to react to an instance of housing discrimination. 
"A landlord should have the right to refuse to rent to a homosexual."
Poll Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Total Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly
  Disagree Total Disagree Don't Know
Oregon 25% 10% 35% 13% 48% 61% 5%
Colorado 22% 10% 32% 16% 45% 61% 7%

Ciruli Associates' February/March 1993 Statewide Colorado Poll of Registered
Voters demonstrated the morality/legality conflict that people feel about
gays.  While 71% of Colorado voters believe "homosexual relations between two
consenting adults in the privacy of their own home should be legal,"4  and
majorities of those polled do not condone overt discrimination whether in
housing or discrimination, a majority also believe homosexual behavior is
morally wrong, always.  This same poll found that 55% of those who believe it
is always immoral also believe it should be legal.

Oregon's Save Our Communities Political Action Committee (SOC PAC)
commissioned two focus groups in May of 1993, one in Grants Pass and one in
Hillsboro. These focus groups examined attitudes towards local OCA-sponsored
ballot measures.  Most of the Grants Pass participants said they voted
against Measure 9 because it was too extreme and it promoted discrimination.
 The focus group analysis describes the nature of the discussion about
discrimination and the boundaries of tolerance.  The description fit many of
the focus group tapes I
 
4.  This 71% is compared to 46% in the nationwide CBS/New York Times.  50% of
Coloradans approved of gays in the military compared to 43% nationally.
Comparing the 9-News/Rocky Mountain News poll with the CBS/New York Times
poll which came out, one could conclude that Coloradans, those who passed the
first anti-gay constitutional amendment in the country, are more tolerant of
lesbians and gays than are other Americans.
x
have reviewed from other parts of the country and it helps explore the
discrepancy between acceptance levels, opposition to employment
discrimination, and support for protective legislation. 
This passage from the focus group analysis is revealing:

 Asked to describe what Measure 9 was about, one man says, "It's about gay
rights. I disagree with proposition 9 for the simple fact that even gays have
a right, as we do, to be able to go up to a place and work and be able to
support themselves.  I think proposition 9 was going even further in that, if
an employer found out a person was gay, they had the right to fire him.  They
more or less wanted to run gays out of the state of Oregon."
 While that statement amounts to something less than an acceptance of
homosexuality the statement does begin to define what Grants Pass voters
consider 'discrimination.'  That same participant continues his statement
saying, " I don't think being gay is right.  It's immoral.  It's against all
religious beliefs.  I don't agree with gays at all, but I don't think they
should be discriminated against."5 

The type of anti-gay discrimination that the largest number of people oppose
is in employment and/or housing.  

The extent to which one thinks discrimination against gays and lesbians is
wrong is linked to gender, age, education level, and personal acquaintance
with gays and lesbians.  Opinions about gays vary significantly between
groups.  Gender, age, and education are all relevant factors in predicting
attitudes towards gays and lesbians.  

Females, younger adults, and those with higher levels of education tend to be
more accepting of gay people overall and to more strongly oppose
discrimination. [See Table III]

Region and geography are also critical.  National polls uncover some
geographical differences in attitudes.  For example, Southerners express
least acceptance of gays and lesbians.  But only local polling and
geographically specific targeting can help identify the links between
geography and attitudes.  
  
Acceptance is also fostered by personal contact and knowledge.  Those who
know that they have lesbian/gay family or friends are generally more
supportive.  And in the U.S., those who are younger and better educated are
more likely to know that they have gay family members or friends.  The CBS
News/New York Times poll of February 1993 indicated that 22% of the national
public know that they have a close friend or family member who is gay or
lesbian.  This figure rises to 40% in liberal New York City areas like the
Upper West Side, the Village and Chelsea. And a 1993 national poll done for
NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, found that when the wording was
broader, "Do you personally know anyone who is gay or lesbian?,"  the
affirmative response rose to 61% nationally. 

In the Oregon Post Election Survey, almost three out of every four voters
said they knew someone gay or lesbian.  46% said that this made no difference
in how they voted on Ballot Measure Nine.  However, 16% said it made them
less likely to vote for the measure.  EPOC's benchmark poll showed 64%
personally know someone who is homosexual.  Among college graduates, 18-54
year olds, high income and liberals, and residents of the 1st and 2nd
Congressional Districts, the figure is much higher.
__________________________________________________________________________
5.  Evans/McDonough Company, Inc., SOC PAC, Grants Pass Focus Group Analysis,
May 1993,  p. 3.
x 
Tolerance correlates highly with a belief that gays are born not made.  When
the CBS News/New York Times poll asked, "Do you think being homosexual is
something people choose to be, or do you think it is something they cannot
change?", 44% answered "choose to be" and 43% said "something they cannot
change."  Two 1993 Gallup polls show the same division in opinion with the
additional insight that although almost equal percentages believe that
homosexuality is a birth characteristic as believe it is a choice, some 14 -
15% think homosexuality develops because of the way people are brought up.
 The CBS News/New York Times analysis goes on to say that the answer to this
question affects many other attitudes.  When people view gayness as a life
choice, they are much less tolerant.
  
The relationship between race or ethnicity and attitudes toward gays and
lesbians needs further examination.  Although Colorado's polls [See Table II]
show race as a strong predictor of support for Amendment 2, the sample size
of African Americans and Latinos was too small to be reliable.6  

Acceptance levels and attitudes toward discrimination closely relate to
support for extending civil rights protections.  Although more than half the
respondents stated a belief that homosexuality is immoral in the 1993
national polls, 42%-53% said that civil rights protections for other
minorities (racial and religious; some polls included women) should be
extended to include gay men and lesbians.

In August, 1992, 44% of the respondents in a national telephone poll,
conducted by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman for Time and CNN, indicated that laws
which protect the civil rights of racial or religious minorities should be
used to protect the rights of homosexuals. 47% did not. Nine percent were
unsure.

In January, 1993, 48% of respondents, in a similar poll with a larger sample
population, said the laws which protect the civil rights of racial or
religious minorities should protect the rights of homosexuals. 43% did not.
An identical 9% were not sure. One month later, a CBS/NYT poll showed 50% of
respondents felt that passing laws to make sure homosexuals have equal rights
was not necessary, but 42% felt that it was necessary.

In April, 1993, the Gallup Organization conducted a national poll for CNN and
USA Today.  46% of the respondents said they would favor "extending civil
rights laws for blacks, other minorities and women to include homosexuals."
 48% said that they would oppose extending civil rights laws to protect gays
and lesbians.

6.  The national polls should have data on African Americans that is
statistically significant, but I have not yet been able to get the necessary
cross tabs.  The 1994 Human Rights Campaign Fund national poll conducted by
Melman, Lazarus and Lake coupled with Michigan and Florida focus groups,
should provide substantial new data.  For more information about this data,
contact the Human Rights Campaign Fund.
The Human Rights Task Force in Florida commissioned a survey in January of
1993 of Hillsborough County registered voters on their views about Tampa's
human rights ordinance campaign, a county human rights ordinance, and gay
rights in general.  In its analysis, the Hermitage Research Institute finds
that African Americans respond slightly more negatively than the overall
population to the statement, "Do you think that gay people, like religious or
racial groups, constitute a legitimate minority?".  In addition, their
analysis states that Latinos polled were more sympathetic than both African
Americans and than the overall population to the label "legitimate minority."
 Here again, however, the sample size was small.  
xIn May of 1993, Princeton Survey Research Associates conducted a national
poll for Times Mirror. In response to the question, "Is...protecting the
rights of gays and lesbians...a critical issue, very important or somewhat
important?" 56% said somewhat important (the least positive choice offered),
18% said very important and 9% said critical. An unusually high percentage of
those surveyed (17%) volunteered that they did not know.

Opinion is split.
In February of this year, Princeton Survey Research Associates conducted a
national poll for Newsweek.  This most recent study corroborates the findings
of the surveys cited above -- the country is split on whether or not there
should be "special legislation" to guarantee equal rights for gays.
48% said there should be special legislation to guarantee equal rights for
gays.
46% said there should not.

EPOC's benchmark indicated a higher support for civil rights protections.
61% disagreed with the statement that "Homosexuals should not have the same
kind of civil rights protections that are given to Blacks or other true
minorities."
 33% agreed.

The American National Election Study's findings on public support for gays
and gay rights  demonstrate a movement over the last four years.  Professors
Strand and Sherrill compared the 1988 and 1992 responses. When asked in 1988
"Should there be laws protecting homosexuals against job discrimination?"7 a
majority of the electorate responded that they did support such
anti-discrimination laws for lesbians and gays, but the difference between
support and opposition was only a small margin.  By 1992, voters demonstrated
greater support for gay anti-discrimination legislation.

Voters acknowledge discrimination against lesbians and gays, but the majority
do not  recognizing the need for protective legislation.  
Many people believe discrimination exists and are willing to separate moral
qualms from legal beliefs, however many still do not think that protective
legislation is necessary.  This breakdown in support needs further
examination.  Some people make a distinction between being discriminated
against and being "disadvantaged."  Others frame the issue as "gays and
lesbians are not a minority."   

In Oregon, a state in which an anti-gay ballot initiative was defeated in
1992 by 57%-43% , 31% of those polled in a post election survey said that
they would support a Colorado-style measure, i.e. one that banned state and
local governments from passing homosexual rights laws. 43% of those who would
support this type of measure volunteered that their position was based on the
fact that homosexuals are not a minority.   

In November of 1992, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith (ADL) hired
Marttila and Kiley, Inc. to conduct a national poll on racial attitudes in
America.  The survey indicated that 83% of African Americans believe that a
white person is more likely than an equally qualified African American person
to be hired for any given job.  43% of whites agreed.  Further differences in
perspective emerged -- 71% of African Americans believe that they did not
receive equal pay for equal work. 63% of whites disagreed.
7.  Kenneth Sherrill and Douglas Strand, Electoral Bugaboos? The Impact of
Attitudes Towards Gay Rights and Feminism on the 1992 Presidential Vote, p.
5, paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science
Association, Washington, D.C., 9/93. p.8
x
A majority (65%) of those polled nationwide say, in general, that they
support affirmative action programs -- 83% of African Americans, 72% of
college-educated, 72% of white-collar, and 70% of Jewish respondents.  But
white Americans oppose increasing job opportunities to African Americans to
compensate for past discrimination by a margin of 73% to 21%.  African 
Americans, however, support this proposition by a 65% to 28% margin.8
 Clearly no multi-racial consensus exists on "special consideration" accorded
an oppressed group.  But equally important to the question's response is the
question itself.  The survey's framers themselves reflect what appears to be
a widely held notion -- that while equal rights are to be supported, the
less-supported concepts of "preferential treatment" and "special
consideration" are linked in many Americans' minds to equal rights.  This
study, as do others, seems to highlight a general confusion and lack of
understanding and information about the realities of and the relationships
between protective legislation, affirmative action, "reverse discrimination"
and quotas.  

The ADL survey also indicates that 43% of whites say affirmative action has
hurt whites either a great deal or a fair amount.  70% of African Americans
believe that affirmative action has had little or no harmful effect on
whites.  

Many people link the issues of protective legislation with minority status,
civil rights legislation, affirmative action, preferential treatment,
employment quotas, and special rights.
In the April, 1993, national poll for CNN and USA Today, respondents were
asked which statement their views were closer to:

38%  Homosexual groups are asking for special rights for homosexuals which
other people do not have. 
53%   Homosexuals are asking only for the same rights for homosexuals that
other people have.  

The 9-News/Rocky Mountain News Colorado Voter Poll found that people who say
they oppose the general concept of affirmative action support the ban on gay
rights by a large 60%-38% margin.  

In New York, focus groups conducted by EDK Associates for the Empire State
Pride Agenda, showed how civil rights and protective legislation often was
intertwined and confused in people's minds with "affirmative action" and
"special rights."  And different people responded to this equation from
different vantage points.  In a focus group of African Americans and Latinos,
participants clearly framed their feelings about treatment of gays as a
question of relative treatment.  When asked if they supported statewide civil
rights legislation for lesbians and gays, many responded negatively because
they did not see any efforts on their own behalf.  One 
participant said, "Gays should not be treated differently.  We are all
treated like dogs."  Another participant said, "Why are they different from
us?  Minorities and women are discriminated against. Why should they get this
priority?"  Like the discussion of race-based programs above, the terms of
debate about  lesbian and gay rights are terms of scarcity, i.e. doing more
for one group means doing less for another.  Clearly factual information had
not been adequately 
___________________________________________________________________________
8. Highlights from an Anti-Defamation League Survey on Racial Attitudes,
Marttila & Kiley, November 1992, p. 64.x
conveyed to participants and, most likely, to voters at large. The gay civil
rights legislation was, in fact, merely the addition of sexual orientation to
a broad list of classifications that are already legally protected from
discrimination.

MESSAGE

Discrimination, special rights, government intrusion, danger, hate, promoting
the gay "lifestyle." These are the words flying back and forth.

"Discrimination" was the primary reason (49%) cited for opposing Measure 9 in
Oregon.  Voters perceived the measure as discriminatory, anti-equal rights
and anti-civil rights. The next two most common reasons for opposition were
that Measure 9 "Promotes hate and bigotry" (8%) and that the measure is
unconstitutional.  The Post Election Survey found that two-thirds of the voter
s agreed with three out of four No on Nine campaign themes. Voters agree
that:
 x  "Measure 9 contributed to a climate of hate and fear in Oregon."
 x  "Measure 9 would have discriminated against homosexuals."
 x  "Measure 9 was a danger to us all."

No on Nine's fourth campaign theme was the economic argument that "Measure 9
would have cost Oregon millions of dollars in tourism and convention
business."  The Post Election Survey found that 51% agreed and 31% disagreed.

Campaign for a Hate Free Oregon's Post Election Survey found that support for
Ballot Measure 9 was led by people who said they were opposed to giving
special rights to homosexuals and by those who were concerned about the
influence homosexuality could have on schools.  Almost one-third of those who
had supported the ballot measure (32%) identified the major reason for voting
for the measure as: "Don't want gays to have special rights/minority status."
 Of all those polled in the survey, 36% agreed and 52% disagreed that
homosexuals don't want equal rights but want special rights.  This marks a
decline in agreement of 10% from the benchmark polling done eight months
earlier indicating that although special rights still remained a critical
factor, opponents of the measure had been effective in reducing adherence to
this position.

The Post Election Survey showed exactly one-quarter of the measure's
supporters citing not wanting open gays in schools nor the teaching/promoting
of gayness as the major reason for their support.  Significantly smaller
percentages cited religious beliefs and morals (9%), gay visibility (7%),
 unacceptable "lifestyle" (8%), AIDS (1%) or that government should not
condone homosexuality (1%) as the major reason for their support.

In Lewiston, Maine the religious right in November of 1993 waged a successful
campaign to repeal an existing civil rights protection that included sexual
orientation.  The measure passed 68%-32%.  In September, 1993, Equal
Protection Lewiston (EPL) commissioned a poll of 406 registered Lewiston
voters.  Pollsters found 34% supported repeal, 34% were against the repeal
and 32% were undecided.  Taking into account the strength of support and
opposition, pollsters predicted that 40-30-30 was a more accurate description
of sentiment.  In addition to this worrisome news, EPL's pollsters found that
most of the anti-repeal arguments did not function as converters on
significant numbers of voters. Only the "gays deserve the same rights as all"
and "it's wrong to discriminate for any reason" proved effective.  Pollsters
concluded that it is vital to show real discrimination. "The 'no' vote ...
must successfully make the case that there is real discrimination in Lewiston
and that Lewiston does need to take corrective action..."  At the time, the
poll indicated that a majority did not believe that widespread anti-gay
discrimination existed in Lewiston.

The summary from the SOC PAC focus group conducted in Hillsboro, Oregon
demonstrates that many may not be aware of the depth and reality of
discrimination.
The idea that homosexuality gets promoted is challenged briefly by one
participant who asks, 'How do you promote that lifestyle? [Do you say,] 'This
is great.  Get into this.  Your parents are going to get called names.  You
may get beat up.  You'll never be able to bring any friends home.  This is
great'?
 
This focus group participant was partially successful in moving other
participants.  This indicates that the other participants, and probably
people in general, have not really heard or understood the frequency and
seriousness of anti-gay violence.

In Portland, Maine in a November 1992 election, voters retained a gay rights
law in a 57%-43% vote.  Equal Protection/Portland commissioned Caron
Associates to conduct a post-election poll and focus group to test the
effectiveness of messages each side used during the campaign.

The study indicates that the strongest arguments used by opponents of
protective legislation were:
a  Intrusion: "...these ordinances are simply another way in which government
is intruding into our lives and forcing us to accept values that we disagree
with." 35% agreed/24.0% agreed strongly.

c  Special Rights: "...these ordinances amount to special rights for gays and
lesbians." 31.7% agreed/20.7% strongly.

e  Evidence:  "...there is no evidence that gays and lesbians are actually
discriminated against."  24% agreed/13.0% strongly.

In addition, Equal Protection Portland's analysis showed that the weakest
arguments of opponents to the rights law were those that were most extreme.
 Among undecided voters -- persuadable groups -- extreme arguments elicited a
negative response.  For example, although 21.6% agreed that "these ordinances
are part of a radical gay agenda," 69.3% disagreed.  And while 18.3% agreed
that "these ordinances will lead to gay teachers promoting a gay lifestyle in
schools," 76.3% disagreed.

Portland's research indicates that supporters' extreme arguments also
backfired. 48.0% agreed that rights "opponents were religious zealots trying
to impose their views on the rest of us," but 41.3% disagreed.  Extreme
statements from either side fail to persuade voters.

Messengers
Campaigns fighting anti-gay initiatives must not only craft a message that
shifts undecided voters and woos soft opponents, but they must also select
effective messengers.  

EPOC's benchmark poll tested the believability of public figures.  In other
words, who would be most effective at carrying the message? Respondents who
supported the anti-gay Amendment 2 awarded the highest credibility ratings to
ministers, U.S. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and the League of Women
Voters, in that order.  Parents of gay people ranked seventh of eleven
choices.  This suggested to EPOC who they should use as message conveyers to
"peel off" soft Amendment 2 supporters.

New York focus groups uncovered a related, interesting lesson.  Although gay
community organizers had prominently placed religious leaders and religious
institutions on endorsement lists on literature supporting the gay
anti-discrimination legislation, focus group participants did not believe
that the endorsements were accurate.  When trading in stereotypes, selective
perception is common. "People often perceive the world selectively, attending
to information that supports their stereotypes and ignoring information that
contradicts them."9   It is not enough, therefore, to simply state support
that contradicts common assumptions.  Lesbian and gay organizers must visibly
and repeatedly demonstrate the full breadth of support for
anti-discrimination protections.  

Lesbians and gay men, themselves, are the most crucial messengers and ones
that are not always used.  The public's antipathy toward gay visibility, the
fact that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy actually captures the mindset of
many toward gays, has led some anti-discrimination campaign organizers to
view straight people as the community's best spokespeople.  The irony of this
choice is that while many people may not positively value gay visibility, it
is that visibility which generates acquaintance with gays and that, in turn
is a linchpin for changing attitudes.
9.  Gregory Herek, "Prejudice Toward Gay People,"  Gays and the Military:
 Joseph Steffan versus the United States, ed. Marc Wolinsky and Kenneth
Sherrill, p. 125.

x
CONCLUSION

Consistently more than half of the US. public view homosexuality negatively.
 At the same time, closer to 75% are opposed to discrimination.  And the
country is split on the need for protective legislation.

The national and local polling data available on attitudes toward lesbians
and gays is a useful guide for organizers fighting anti-gay ballot measures
or for promoting protective legislation.
Goals must be divided into long and short-term strategies.  Increasing public
acceptance is an important goal. Some polls show negative attitudes are held
by as much as three-quarters of the public and in the long run we will not
successfully eradicate anti-gay violence, either physical or emotional,
unless we reverse these judgments.  Polling data can aid this effort by
helping to 
identify factors associated with negative and positive attitudes.  For
instance, one of the lesbian 
and gay community's strongest weapons has been ongoing encouragement and
organizing of coming out.  Coming out lets more of the public know that they
are acquainted with a lesbian or gay person and polling shows that this
personal knowledge makes people more positive toward gays.  Increasing
knowledge or any method that targets personal opinions about gays and
lesbians alone will not win ballot initiative fights in the 1990s.

The polls indicate that lesbian and gay organizers can appeal to people's
strong beliefs about discrimination and equal rights.  Fully three-quarters
of the U.S. public supports equal rights in terms of employment opportunities
for lesbians and gay men. Overwhelmingly, voters abhorrence or fear of
discrimination has driven them to oppose anti-gay measures.  Discrimination
and equal rights -- these are the terms in which we must cast the debate.  

The concept of special rights, however, is the strongest weapon of opponents
of equal rights. For just as people abhor discrimination, so do they feel
diminished by granting preference to others. And, it appears, that the
public, at least when relating to groups about whom they hold negative
opinions,  constructs a narrow definition of discrimination and will place
the discussion of equality in the context of scarcity, where aid for one
group may mean fewer opportunities for another. Discrimination is redefined
only as unequal treatment in housing and employment and not bias-related
violence.  First, organizers must clarify the real nature and extent of
discrimination against lesbians and gay men.  Only then, can voters
understand the need for the remedy.

The intersection and conflation of  the concepts of discrimination,
affirmative action, quotas, preferential treatment, special rights, and
minority status need particular attention.  Does the strength of the right
wing's special rights argument indicate a growing willingness to dismantle
civil rights programs in general?  Do the initiative battles serve as markers
about our current political climate that reflect overall attitudes toward
out-groups (meaning on the outs not out and proud),  not just lesbians and
gays?  Is it not much more than a coincidence that civil rights as a whole
have been under sharp attack not just lesbian and gay rights?  The ways in
which we answer these questions and respond to the collected opinion data
will shape the upcoming anti-discrimination campaigns and the long-term
struggle for equality and respect.