Gay Money: A Poverty Of Riches

When gays and lesbians are featured in popular culture, what do we see? White, wealthy women who host talk shows or affluent men doting on their kids -- like Mitchell and Cameron from "Modern Family." So it’s no wonder that the conventional wisdom is that gay people in America have tons of money and fewer economic struggles than the rest of the population.
But the truth is significantly different.“I think people are surprised there are any poor gay people,” says M.V. Lee Badgett, professor of economics and research director for The Williams Institute, a national think tank at UCLA Law School researches sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy. “This ‘myth of gay affluence’ has been around for a long time. It gets in the way of people even imagining that LGBT people can be poor.”
On Monday, the Williams Institute will release a detailed study about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people and their real economic status. Drawing on recent data from four different sources, the report finds a sexual orientation “poverty gap”: LGBT Americans are more likely to be poor than heterosexuals, with African-Americans and women particularly vulnerable.
Badgett spoke with NBC News about the results of the study, "The Gay Affluence Myth: New Research on LGBT Poverty."

NBC News.
The article includes an interview with Badgett on The Gay Affluence Myth.
Though with all the work done on debunking this myth - see Gay Money: The truth about lesbian and gay economics - it's depressing this would still be news to anyone.
And surely the main propagators of the gay=rich myth have been, not popular culture, but the US evangelical right, and the gay media* and gay marketeers? 

* For one ludicrous recent example see 8 Ways Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Is Good For The Economy on Huff Post Gay.
Includes the classic correction: "An earlier version of this post incorrectly stated that legalizing same-sex marriage would boost California's economy by $123 billion over three years. It would boost it by $123 million, according to a 2005 Stanford study."
The second figure's just as spurious, but Oops!