Abstract
The debate over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry has become a headline issue over the last 15 years, and the law is rapidly changing. This excellent recent book, Counted Out, by a team of sociologists including Brian Powell, Catherine Bolzendahl, Claudia Geist, and Lala Carr Steelman, is one of the most insightful and readable books to explain the changes in Americans’ views of family that are driving these debates and legal changes. Powell et al. angle their analytical lens to illuminate the borders of Americans’ definition of family and how they set those boundaries that bring same-sex couples in or keep them out.
The book analyzes data from telephone surveys conducted in 2003 and 2006. The core of the authors’ approach involves asking survey respondents whether 11 different kinds of relationship constitute families: married different-sex couples, cohabiting different-sex couples, and cohabiting same-sex female and male couples (all couples with and without children), as well as single men or women with children and two housemates. For most respondents, married couples and adults with children are recognizable family forms. Only 10% see housemates as family, so they are dropped from most of the later analyses.
The authors use a latent class analysis to categorize respondents into several groups, which mainly get at different views on same-sex couples, and then explain what is behind those definitions with a careful analysis of the open-ended responses. The largest group is “exclusionists” (45% of the sample in 2003) who use heterosexuality, tradition, religion, and the law to define family and to box out same-sex couples. “Moderates” (29%) go behind the structure of the family to consider commitment and other expressive and instrumental values, so same-sex couples with children and those who have been together for many years count as family. “Inclusionists” (25%) focus more on love and emotion as well as fulfilling family functions, and this group sees all of the proposed configurations as family. The authors show that these private meanings of family have public consequences: exclusionists strongly oppose, while inclusionists strongly support, giving access to marriage, benefits, and adoption rights to same-sex couples.
Only three years later the proportion of exclusionists had dropped to 38%, while inclusionists went from one-quarter of respondents to almost one-third. Moderates held onto their share. The authors hypothesize that the shift occurred because the 2003 Massachusetts court decision allowing same-sex couples to marry led to many public and private discussions about this issue, generated at least in part by the coming out of many more lesbian and gay people.
In addition to studying public opinion about a debated issue, this book serves as a model of public sociology for other reasons. First, the authors use their analysis of “social cleavages” to make predictions, noting trends that will increase inclusion of same-sex couples, including the rise of supportive younger cohorts that are unlikely to change their opinions, more college graduates applying their inclusive ideas of family and gender roles, and the increasing visibility of and contact with lesbians and gay men. Unless belief in fundamentalist or orthodox religious values significantly increases, the authors see little to stand in the way of greater inclusion for same-sex couples. The treatment of the social cleavage of race missed some opportunities, unfortunately. The authors pay attention to African Americans’ views, but offer no separate consideration of Latinos, whose views may be quite different and are becoming increasingly important politically.
The authors’ second interest in change is much more normative. Throughout their analysis they point out opportunities to rethink the framing of positions in the public debate to better persuade particular sectors of the public. For instance, as a group, men are less likely than women to be inclusionists with respect to same-sex couples. But when men talk about their definitions of family, they focus on family responsibilities and the work that people do in families, providing hints as to effective arguments to use. Likewise, moderates’ acceptance of same-sex couples with children and of long-standing same-sex couples without children point to highlighting markers of commitment.
Counted Out is not a book about theory, but the findings offer lessons for theorists who want to better understand the sources of our ideas about family. The authors document close correlations between definitions of families and respondents’ ideas about sexuality and gender. Respondents who agree with traditional gender roles tend to exclude same-sex couples from family, and this recognition should expand theoretical thinking from a tight focus on sexuality as the key driver of public opinion and voting behavior on same-sex marriage. In addition, respondents who subscribe to the nurture end of the nature–nurture debate about causes of homosexuality are much more reluctant to include same-sex couples in the family. Put another way, the authors find that sociologists’ and feminist scholars’ suspicion of arguments about genetic roots of some characteristics as inherently conservative are contradicted when it comes to ideas about gay families. Finally, the authors note that many respondents with progressive ideas about gay and lesbian families draw on functional definitions of family, even though some theorists see functional definitions as conservative and limiting.
As of 2012, 42% of Americans live in states that allow same-sex couples to seek some form of legal recognition. This book suggests that the remaining states will be filled in as demographic shifts and more visible gay and lesbian families lead to expanded ideas of family.