The Myth of Gay Affluence Why does the world think we’re so well off? And how is it hurting us that they do? by John W. Stiles

Case number one: On a July night in 1994, high school football star DeMarco McCullum and three friends left their Aldine subdivision and drove south to Montrose. They were out to have some fun and maybe rob some gays. Gays were targeted, according to McCullum, because "they always carry a lot of cash." Before the night was out, Michael J. Burzinski would be dead from a gunshot wound to the back of the head and DeMarco would take his first tentative steps toward Texas’ Death Row.

Case number two: Law professor Joseph Broadus, in testimony before Congress that helped defeat the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, identified homosexual households as "elite" and "not...in need of special civil rights legislation." The average gay household, according to Professor Broadus, earns twice as much as the national average.

Case number three: In 1992, the State of Colorado amended their constitution to prevent state and local governments from extending civil rights protections specifically to gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals. Four years later, the state’s ban was challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court. Clemson University professor James Woodard, appearing for the State of Colorado, testified median annual household income for gays and lesbians exceeded $50,000, 40 percent higher than heterosexual households. Therefore, he argued, gays and lesbians need no special protection because their wealth protects them. The Colorado Amendment was overturned by the Supreme Court. The vote, however, was not unanimous. In an ominous dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas, Anton Scalia cited Woodard’s testimony as evidence that gays’ "disproportionate political power," achieved as a result of their higher incomes, entitled the nongay voters of Colorado to rein in that power through legislation.

Case Number Four: The testimony Professor Broadus gave before Congress about the affluent gay community helped defeat the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and contributed to a climate that allowed the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA prevents Houstonian Janet Langham from enjoying the generous benefit package of her partner, a successful U.S. attorney. As a "domestic partner," Janet is ineligible. Diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, she was too sick to drive the few miles to attend classes at a local university–classes she took solely to qualify for the meager insurance plan she qualified for as a student. AssistHers, the Houston lesbian support organization, provided transportation to and from campus for Janet. Janet is now president of AssistHers and speaks passionately on the subject of the domestic partner benefits denied to her, benefits denied her, in part, because of the "disproportionate political power" she enjoys as a wealthy member of the GLBT community.

DeMarco McCullum, professors Broadus and Woodard, and Justice Scalia all share a common belief–the GLBT community is blessed with more than its fair share of cash. But is it true? Why do so many believe it to be fact?

The myth may have been started within our own community, or at least perpetuated. Everyone likes to think of themselves as suave and well-heeled–why not let the outside world think being gay is one never-ending Noel Coward party? Indeed, as Houston City Councilwoman Annise Parker remarks: "[It’s] an internally promoted myth. It pleases us and is affirming."

To buttress this impression, in 1989, the Rivendell Marketing Company, a firm specializing in helping advertising agencies "reach the gay market," commissioned the Simmons Market Research Bureau to conduct a survey of gays and lesbians. That survey, along with one conducted by the National Gay Newspaper Guild (a guild that has since merged with Rivendell), reported individual incomes of gay and lesbian respondents as substantially higher than the national average. Rivendell’s survey interviewed subscribers to gay and lesbian publications, which the guild’s survey was taken from people who filled out sign-up sheets for the 1993 March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights. Another Simmons survey, conducted in 1996, used lists of names from mail-order and credit card companies. In 2001, the National Gay Newspaper Guild website reports their average reader earns $41,300 and their average reader’s household income as $63,700, while the national averages are less than half this. Clearly, these marketing surveys would appear to confirm the belief that gays and lesbians make more money. The subjects of these surveys, however, are subscribers to or readers of gay newspapers and magazines. Do they represent an accurate sampling of gays and lesbians?

In fact, surveys of newspaper and magazine subscribers are particularly misleading with regard to income levels. For example, male readers of USA Today earn $5,000 more than the national average. Male readers of the Wall Street Journal average $18,000 more. Still more strikingly, from the Simmons Bureau’s own files, we learn African-American readers of Jet and Ebony magazines earn nearly 60 percent more than the average African-American.

The Rivendell and Guild surveys were intended to provide marketing information to advertisers; they never pretended to be statistically sound samplings of the entire GLBT community. Likewise, sign-up sheets for political marches may describe the earning power of gays and lesbians well-heeled enough to afford a week off work to march on Washington. They should not be used, though, as comprehensive indicators of a diverse community’s financial condition. Used to "prove" the "disproportionate political power" or special income status of the GLBT community, such misrepresentations serve political agendas and not the truth.

What is the true picture of the gay community’s levels of wealth? Economics professor M.V. Lee Badgett attempts to answer this question in a 1998 study by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s Policy Institute titled Income Inflation: The Myth of Affluence Among Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Americans. Drawing upon a variety of sources, Badgett uncovers some surprising information about income levels in the GLBT community.

Across the board, each of the surveys reported income for gay men as less than heterosexual men. On average, they reported gay men earned seven percent less. When Badgett moves from "raw" survey numbers and takes into account job type, education, and geographic location, gay men appear to earn as much as 25 percent less than heterosexual men. Why so much less? Badgett suggests the gap may be owing to workplace discrimination.

However, the picture is partially reversed for women. Two of the three surveys reported lesbian income as higher and the third as lower than heterosexual women.

In getting information that was more generally applicable than the marketing surveys, Badgett first looked to the U.S. Census, thanks to their new category in 1990 of "unmarried partner." Next, she examined the Yankelovich Monitor, an annual study of attitudes and demographics and perhaps the most widely used commercial source of demographic data. Third, she included the National Opinion Research Center, which began including sexual partner questions in their annual General Social Survey (GSS) in 1988; a highly regarded tool in use by social scientists throughout the world, the GSS survey is an in-depth 90-minute questionnaire of 3,000 randomly selected and varying individuals. And finally, she looked to exit polls conducted at 300 polling stations on election day in 1992 and 1996, in which the Voter News Service (a service jointly owned by the major television networks) queried thousands of voters on a variety of topics including sexual orientation and familial status. She used these four sources primarily, and then three others to validate her conclusions.

As far as household income (as opposed to individual income), the 1990 census and the Yankelovich Monitor reveal an average difference of just over four percent between gay or lesbian and heterosexual household incomes, with the average gay and lesbian household at $44,000 and heterosexual households at $42,000.

What about disposable income? Even if all incomes were equal, as they appear to be, wouldn’t gay and lesbian households have more disposable income since, by and large, they have fewer children to provide for?

Turns out, once you look at the numbers, the free-wheeling DINK (Double Income No Kids) reputation of gay households is not so clear-cut. Straight men are only about twice as likely to have kids at home as gay men (15 percent of gay men and 28 percent of heterosexual men have children under 18 at home, as measured by the Yankelovich Monitor). And with women, the difference between gay and straight is really pretty close. (31 percent of lesbians versus 37 percent of heterosexual women have children under 18 at home, according to the voting exit polls.)

So while gay men overall may indeed have somewhat more money than straight men to fling around, due to not having kids, they also earn significantly less–so for now, it really does seem that rumors and stereotypes about the "affluent gay community" are not, alas, true. So we get all of the harm of appearing wealthy, without any of the fun (or security) of actually having the money in our pockets and bank accounts.

Houston City Council Member Annise Parker was particularly struck by Justice Scalia’s reference to "disproportionate political power" of the GLBT community. "With still less than 200 openly gay elected officials in the history of the United States out of the hundreds of thousands of elected officials around the country, I have to laugh at the myth of disproportionate political power." She is dedicated, with the support of Mayor Lee Brown, to extending domestic partner benefits to city employees. The issue will come before council within the next two years. Hearings will be held. Testimony will likely be heard. Testimony that gays and lesbians need no special treatment because of their affluent status. A status that, in 1994, attracted DeMarco McCullum and his friends to Montrose in search of some of their share. Which all goes to show that this myth of gay affluence is one fairy tale that cannot be permitted to live "happily ever after."

When John isn't writing for OutSmart he keeps himself busy writing film reviews and essays for his website, www.johnwstiles.com.