Connect with us

National

Polling unreliable on marriage initiatives: report

Study shows campaigns do little to move voters

Published

on

A new report is shedding light on the effectiveness of statewide campaigns against same-sex marriage, although the findings are raising additional questions.

The report ā€” which examines the trend of public opinion on same-sex marriage in 33 states that have had the issue on the ballot ā€” found efforts during campaign periods had very little impact on moving voters to oppose same-sex marriage bans on Election Day.

Additionally, the report found polling data gathered during campaigns on marriage initiatives is misleading because a greater percentage of people vote in favor of same-sex marriage bans than the percentage who tell pollsters they will support the ban.

Patrick Egan, author of the report and a gay political science professor at New York University, made the findings public Tuesday.

He said that he had limited explanations for what caused this behavior among voters. But at a press event in San Francisco, Egan explained that his report dismisses a number of theories popularly used to explain why polling data for marriage ballot questions doesnā€™t accurately reflect election results.

One theory that Egan advances in his report ā€” but says he finds no evidence to support ā€” is the idea that responders are lying to pollsters when they say theyā€™ll vote against a same-sex marriage ban so that they seem more tolerant.

Such a phenomenon would be similar to the ā€œBradley effect,ā€ a theory that polling participants would lie to pollsters by saying theyā€™ll vote for a non-white person in an election and instead vote for a white candidate at the polls.

Egan dismissed this theory with regard to marriage initiatives after looking at several contexts in which voters may feel more social pressure to vote in opposition to bans on same-sex marriage, such as in states with a greater population of openly gay, lesbian and bisexual people, or polls conducted by live interviewers as opposed to automated pollsters.

In all these contexts, Egan said he could find ā€œno discrepancyā€ in voters being more truthful about what theyā€™re telling pollsters in certain states or in certain situations.

ā€œAll of the findings here just show that voters do not appear to be lying to public opinion pollsters when they are asked about their support for same-sex marriage bans,ā€ Egan said.

Another theory that Egan refutes with regard to the discrepancy between polls and election results is that voters are confused about what a ā€œyesā€ vote and a ā€œnoā€ vote entails on an initiative. Egan said this theory doesnā€™t hold up because polling information is as unreliable at the start of the campaign ā€” before voters have been educated on the subject ā€” as it is closer to Election Day.

ā€œThe gap does not become smaller over the course of the campaigns, so polls are just as accurate on the night before Election Day as they are six months out ā€” just as inaccurate, I should say,ā€ he said.

Egan said this theory is shown to be invalid when comparing polling data and election results from states with more educated voters to states with less educated voters.

ā€œEven in states where voters are informed ā€” that is, we know from other data that state residents tend to be more interested, engaged and informed about politics ā€” we are not seeing that gap become any smaller than in states where voters donā€™t pay too much attention to politics at all,ā€ Egan said.

In an attempt to determine why polling data on the marriage issue is unreliable, Egan said his answer as a political scientist is ā€œmore research is needed,ā€ but also speculated it may relate to how pollsters determine likely voters.

Noting that most of the surveys in his report are of likely voters, Egan said pollsters could be screening out people who would vote for same-sex marriage bans on Election Day.

ā€œThat would help explain the difference we see between polling and election results, and why itā€™s so consistent over time,ā€ he said.

A number of LGBT civil rights leaders at the San Francisco press conference said they intend to use the report to guide strategy for future ballot initiatives on marriage. Activists in California, where Proposition 8 ended gay nuptials in 2008, are looking to bring the issue of same-sex marriage back to the ballot to reverse the initiative in 2012.

Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, said the findings show voters are ā€œat their least persuadableā€ during the course of a campaign.

ā€œBut when we look over the last decade at the amazing movement weā€™ve seen on what is one of the most challenging social issues to move people on, weā€™ve seen that the movement happens not during the campaign, but away from the campaign,ā€ Kors said.

He noted that California in 2000 passed Prop 22, a statutory ban on same-sex marriage by 23 points, and in 2008 passed Prop 8, the constitutional ban, by four points.

ā€œAll that movement happened not in the couple months before Prop 8, but in the years between those elections,ā€ he said.

Kors said the process is continuing in California with recent public polls showing a 50 percent or majority support for same-sex marriage.

Kate Kendell, executive director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, also said the study demonstrates efforts to change the hearts and minds of voters must be made before a campaign begins.

ā€œIn the midst of a campaign, voters are perhaps least likely to have their views changed ā€” particularly on an issue like marriage, an issue they feel like they understand and know,ā€ she said.

Kendell said ā€œitā€™s absolutely clearā€ in the fight for same-sex marriage that conversations ā€œneed to happen now about who we are, our lives, our families, our children, our hopes and dreams.ā€

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

Federal workers, trans service members cope with Trump attacks

ā€˜We could very easily be entering a Lavender Scare 2.0ā€™

Published

on

ā€˜Any policy that excludes a class of individuals is inherently damaging to national security,ā€™ said Col. Bree Fram. (Photo courtesy SPARTA)

Since President Trump signed a series of executive orders rolling back federal worker protections, advocacy groups are ringing alarm bells signaling this could disproportionately impact more than 300,000 LGBTQ federal workers. 

Trump has so far signed 65 executive orders, most of which attempt to shrink the size of the federal government and restructure how it works to better suit his interests. Of those 65 executive orders passed, at least six directly target LGBTQ people, one outright bans transgender people from serving in the military, and another ends all government efforts at promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

A study conducted in January by the Williams Institute, a research center that focuses on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy, showed that ā€œone in ten LGBTQ adults are employed by the public sector,ā€ with higher numbers of LGBTQ people working in federal government bureaus, the USPS, and as government contractors. This means that Trump’s orders could be particularly dangerous for LGBTQ Americans, potentially displacing hundreds of thousands of queer federal workers. 

The Blade spoke with an LGBTQ executive branch employee who works directly with one of the resource groups targeted by the Trump administration to understand how these orders are being implemented internally. The source, fearing retaliation, requested anonymity.

ā€œWe had established lots of different things that were positive for LGBTQI+ employees to make sure that our identities were respected,ā€ the source said. ā€œWhat some folks may see as a simple thing like the allowance for pronouns in email signatures and the use of inclusive language, all those kinds of things are kind of in limbo right now. It’s fully expected to be said [by the Trump administration] that these things canā€™t be utilized anymore.ā€  

The source noted that the public often misunderstands the role of these resource groups, making it harder to justify the need for such positions. A common misconception is that groups promoting DEI exist solely to hire minorities. Although part of their mission involves reaching historically underrepresented communities, their work extends far beyond recruitment, playing a crucial role in fostering inclusive workplace cultures and supporting employees.

ā€œIt’s just about creating that level playing field environment to make sure that you are doing the best for your organization to attract the best talent, and then the knowledge that it’s not just any one demographic that is best suited for a certain role,ā€ they said. ā€œLet me be very clear: It’s not about quotas, it’s not about checking boxes. It’s not about hiring one person on anything other than qualification over another. It’s about making sure that we’re looking at places where we may be missing opportunities for not just qualified candidates, but the best and brightest. And sometimes that means adjusting your recruitment style.ā€

This ongoing attack on DEI, as well as other efforts to promote inclusivity and fairness within the government by the twice-impeached president is a borrowed tactic from another infamous Republican who weaponized demagoguery to consolidate power ā€” Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

ā€œWe could very easily be entering a Lavender Scare 2.0,ā€ the source continued. ā€œI mean, when you’re asking employees to rat on each other, basically, for anybody who might be involved in anything surrounding this work, it’s not unknown that a majority of folks who do diversity, equity, and inclusion work are members of minority, marginalized communities. It just painted a big target on the back of all those people.ā€

When asked to speculate on what they think this could mean for the roughly three million federal workers, the source said it could lead to a chilling effect where LGBTQ employees either face direct removal or feel compelled to leave due to a hostile work environment.

ā€œI see an exodus coming ā€” whether it is forced or voluntary,ā€ said the source. ā€œI don’t see with all the progress that’s been made over the last two decades people willing to stay working for an organization where they don’t feel like they’re safe. If you feel like you don’t have the psychological safety to do your job, and you’re worried about whether you’re gonna get fired, it kind of kills your psychological availability to do your job. People are not engaged.ā€

Colonel Bree Fram, the highest-ranking out transgender officer in the Department of Defense, who spoke to the Blade in her personal capacity and does not speak on behalf of the U.S. government or military, agreed with the sourceā€™s thoughts on inclusive spaces being critical for the success of government work and safety.   

ā€œAny policy that excludes a class of individuals is inherently damaging to national security, because if those individuals can meet the standards of the service, if they can accomplish the mission that they’ve been given, they are participating in a way that makes us stronger,ā€ Fram said. ā€œWe create better solutions from a diverse set of perspectives that allows us to accomplish the mission in ways that support national security objectives. So if there is a transgender service member out there excluded merely for who they are, rather than their ability to complete their mission itā€™s an issue for our national security today and far into the future, because we have thousands of transgender service members actively accomplishing the mission today. They are doing so in a way that meets, or, in most cases, exceeds the standards, because they are highly capable, competent warriors that have learned their skill set and mastered their craft over decades, they are crushing it on behalf of the United States and in upholding their oath to the Constitution.ā€

The executive branch source echoed that sentiment. Both sources agree that the removal of these policies has the real potential to harm the governmentā€™s ability to function as a resource for its people. 

ā€œIt takes a special type of person to work for the government,ā€ the source said. ā€œYou’re not going to get rich. You’re not going to make as much money, generally. In the private sector you would, especially for folks who work in some of these specialized areas. Why would you want to work somewhere that you’re going to go nowhere, and no matter how hard you work, you’re not going to get anything?ā€

Not only do government employees feel they can’t perform at a professional level with these executive orders, some have expressed that they fear for the personal lives of LGBTQ staff members now too. 

ā€œPeople are concerned,ā€ Fram said. ā€œPeople are worried about what will happen to people that they work with. When any leader sees someone in their organization having a difficult time or having something outside of what they need to focus on to accomplish their duties, it is our responsibility as a leader to help that person through those issues. That is what leaders within the military, I believe, are seeing right now. They see members of their military family hurting and concerned about what their future may be. As a leader, we want to take care of people so that they can take care of the mission and having to spend resources to take care of people when they are hurt is very important, but it is also time consuming, and takes us away from things that we do need to be focused on.ā€

To find ā€œthings that we need to focus on,ā€ is easier said than done. Fram said that for LGBTQ members of the federal workforce, specifically trans members of the military, itā€™s not only the fight against unjust actions and rhetoric from Trump, but also internally within the service members themselves.  

ā€œThe challenge all of us face is, how do we determine and know our own self worth?ā€ Fram asked. ā€œDo we let an outside source define who we are? For transgender people, that is a deep strength of ours. ā€¦ We know what to focus on. We know that we are who we are. We exist, and it is our deep duty and responsibility to care about future generations and protecting and defending our freedoms.ā€

When asked how to support people in these groups as workplace inclusion shifts away from being a standard part of their professional environment, Fram had a simple answer: listen to those who are being excluded.

ā€œI believe the most powerful thing any of us have is our story,ā€ Fram said. ā€œOur story of courage and commitment and development and capability, how we serve, how we accomplish the missions that we’ve been given. So the best thing people can possibly do right now is share our stories, connect with our humanity, understand who we are in reality, not the rhetoric being used to demonize us. Trans people are a small portion of the population, so it’s easy to hate who you don’t know or don’t understand or have never met. So meet a trans person, read their story, share their story, and your perceptions may change.ā€

The Blade reached out to the Trump-Vance administration for comment but did not receive a response. 

In the long run, Fram explained, vilifying and marginalizing people for who they are ultimately harms the cohesive team dynamics essential to achieving a common goal ā€” whether on the battlefield or in the boardroom.

ā€œWhat we’ve learned from countless examples through history, for trans people, for lesbians, gays, and bisexuals, and for other groups, anyone really who had to hide a piece of their identity in order to serve,ā€ Fram said. ā€œYou cannot be as effective as you can be when you are spending energy hiding who you are. That’s a concern I have as more people pull back and have to hide a portion of who they are. We lose some of that cohesion within teams, because that energy that you have to spend on protecting yourself could be dedicated to building the cohesive relationships around you that foster teams that become incredibly successful. That’s one of the things where people being authentic serves the purposes of the military. It builds those strong bonds that allow teams to function effectively and accomplish their wartime mission.ā€

Continue Reading

National

Federal judge blocks Trump’s order restricting gender-affirming care for youth

Seven families with transgender, nonbinary children challenged directive

Published

on

President Donald Trump (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A federal judge on Thursday issued a temporary restraining order that blocks President Donald Trump’s Jan. 29 executive order restricting access to gender-affirming health care for transgender people under age 19.

The order by Judge Brendan Hurson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, came in response to a request from the plaintiffs in a lawsuit, filed on Feb. 4, against Trump’s directive.

The plaintiffs are seven families with trans or nonbinary children. They are represented by PFLAG National, GMLA, Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Maryland, and the law firms Hogan Lovells and Jenner & Block.

Hurson’s temporary restraining order will halt enforcement of Trump’s order for 14 days, but it can be extended. This means health care providers and medical institutions can provide gender-affirming care to minor patients without the risk of losing federal funding.

Families in the lawsuit say their appointments were cancelled shortly after the executive order was issued. Hospitals in Colorado, Virginia, and D.C. stopped providing prescriptions for puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and other interventions for trans patients as they evaluated Trump’s directive.

The harms associated with suddenly withholding access to medical care for these patients were a major focus of Thursday’s hearing on the plaintiffs’ request for the temporary restraining order.

The president’s ā€œorder seems to deny that this population even exists, or deserves to exist,ā€ Hurson said, noting the elevated risk of suicide, poverty, addiction, and other hardships among trans people.

Continue Reading

National

Trumpā€™s trans erasure arrives at National Park Service

Fate of major 2016 LGBTQ Theme Study unclear

Published

on

NYC Pride participants in front of the Stonewall Inn in 2019. (File photo by Andrew Nasonov)

President Trumpā€™s efforts at erasing trans identity intensified this week as employees at the National Park Service were instructed to remove the ā€œTā€ and ā€œQā€ from ā€œLGBTQā€ from all internal and external communications.

The change was first noticed on the website of the Stonewall National Monument; trans people of color were integral to the events at Stonewall, which is widely viewed as the kickoff of the modern LGBTQ rights movement. The Stonewall National Monument is the first U.S. national monument dedicated to LGBTQ rights and history.

Reaction to that move was swift. New York City Council member Erik Bottcher wrote, ā€œThe Trump administration has erased transgender people from the Stonewall National Monument website. We will not allow them to erase the very existence of our siblings. We are one community!!ā€

But what most didnā€™t realize is that the removal of the ā€œTā€ and ā€œQā€ (for transgender and queer) extends to all National Park Service and Interior Department communications, raising concerns that the move could jeopardize future LGBTQ monuments and project work.

The Blade reached out to the National Park Service for comment on the trans erasure and received a curt response that the agency is implementing Trumpā€™s executive order ā€œDefending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Governmentā€ as well as agency directives to end all DEI initiatives.

The question being debated internally now, according to a knowledgable source, is what to do with a massive LGBTQ Theme Study, which as of Feb. 14 was still available on the NPS website. In 2014, the Gill Foundation recognized an omission of historic LGBTQ sites in the nationā€™s records, and the organization made a grant to the National Park Service to commission a first-of-its-kind LGBTQ Theme Study, which was published in 2016. It was a landmark project that represented major progress for the LGBTQ community in having our contributions included in the broader American story, something that is becoming increasingly difficult given efforts like ā€œDonā€™t Say Gayā€ laws that ban the teaching of LGBTQ topics in schools.

A source told the Blade that National Park Service communications staff suggested that removing chapters of the 2016 Theme Study that pertain to transgender people might placate anti-trans political appointees. But one employee pushed back on that, suggesting instead that the entire Theme Study be removed. Editing the document to remove one communityā€™s contributions and perspective violates the academic intent of the project, according to the source. A final decision on how to proceed is expected soon. 

Meanwhile, a protest is planned for Friday, Feb. 14 at noon at Christopher Park in New York City (7th Ave. S. and Christopher Street). The protest is being planned by staff at the Stonewall Inn. 

ā€œThe Stonewall Inn and The Stonewall Inn Gives Back Initiative are outraged and appalled by the recent removal of the word ā€˜transgenderā€™ from the Stonewall National Monument page on the National Park Service website,ā€ the groups said in a statement. ā€œLet us be clear: Stonewall is transgender history. Marsha P. Johnson, Sylvia Rivera, and countless other trans and gender-nonconforming individuals fought bravely, and often at great personal risk, to push back against oppressive systems. Their courage, sacrifice, and leadership were central to the resistance we now celebrate as the foundation of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement.ā€

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular