Gallup Poll: Majority backs same-sex marriage for the first time

posted at 2:52 pm on May 20, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Not since Gallup started tracking the issue in 1996 has a majority of Americans supported the right of same-sex couples to legally marry — but, according to a poll released today, 53 percent of Americans now say they do.

Just 45 percent of Americans expressed opposition to legal same-sex marriage — also the lowest level of opposition in the history of the poll. The results came from the May 5-8 Gallup Values and Beliefs poll.

Last year, the results were almost exactly the inverse: 53 percent of Americans did not think same-sex marriage should be recognized by the law as valid, while just 44 percent thought it should be recognized as valid. The nine-point increase in support for same-sex marriage is the largest year-to-year shift yet, according to the poll summary.

Go back even further and the contrast is even clearer: In 1996, 68 percent opposed gay marriage and just 27 percent approved it.

More supportive views among younger Americans and the ever-evolving views of Democrats and Independents drove the shift, as Republicans’ views did not change. Nearly 70 percent of Democrats now support same-sex marriage, up from 56 percent last year, while independent support increased by 10 points from 49 percent to 59 percent.

My thoughts: First of all, while unprecedented for Gallup, this cannot come wholly as a surprise. Don’t forget an ABC poll earlier this year already found a majority of Americans support gay marriage. Activism is effective — and on this issue, we’ve seen plenty of it. Parades, protests, petitions, pledges, propositions, etc., etc., etc.

Within the past year, as the poll itself points out, Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” allowing gay and lesbian members of the military to openly reveal their sexual orientation for the first time. The Department of Justice officially decided to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act. President Obama’s official switch can’t be far behind: He says his views, too, are “evolving” on the issue.

But secondly, conservatives and libertarians alike should consider the potential implications of this poll with thoughtful concern. Edward Feser, associate professor of philosophy at Pasadena City College, says it better than I ever could in his essay “What Libertarianism Isn’t.” This excerpt is long, but well-worth the read (as is the full paper, which is some 10 pages):

[W]here traditional moral scruples are concerned, the Hayekian libertarian ought to regard change with as much caution as he would changes to the institutions of property and contract. Nor is it hard to see why this is so, not just at the level of abstract theory, but at the level of the everyday social and political reality. The family, as we’ve said, is one of the main barriers standing between the individual and the state, for it (rather than the state) is the primary focus of a person’s sense of allegiance to something beyond himself, and is also the arena within which a person learns (or should learn) how to become a responsible and self-supporting citizen of the community. When the family is absent in the life of the individual, the state — especially if such other “intermediate institutions” as the church are themselves weakened — tends inevitably to fill the void. Hence the tendency of single mothers, seeking in government assistance a surrogate to absent husbands and fathers, to be among the Democratic Party’s most loyal voters; hence the listlessness and waywardness of so many of the children of those mothers, giving rise to further social problems to which the same party is only too willing to offer state-empowering “solutions”; and hence the self-accelerating cycle of moral decline leading to state intervention leading to dependency and further moral decline which has characterized social life in the Western world since at least the sixties. For such reasons, maintaining the stability and health of the family must be a chief concern of libertarians as much as of conservatives.

But a libertine ethos is manifestly incompatible with this concern. For the health of the family depends essentially on the willingness of its members to make sacrifices for its sake, and this means, first and foremost, a subordination of the fulfillment of the parents’ immediate desires to the long-term project of building a stable and loving home for their children. That, of course, calls for marriage, and also for precisely the opposite of the frivolous attitude with which marriage is currently treated in the Western world — as primarily a vehicle for “personal fulfillment” which one can enter and exit at will. A society in which the family is strong is thus a society in which adultery is abominated (even in presidents) and in which divorce, even if occasionally permitted, is frowned upon. Since so “stringent” (to the modern mind, anyway) a conception of marriage might make it less likely that men especially will enter into it if (as our mothers used to say) they can “get the milk for free without buying the cow,” it follows that taboos against pre-marital sexual relations, pornography, etc., will be almost as strong as the taboos against adultery and divorce in a society in which the family is taken seriously.

In the end, regardless of what happens in the legal battle, gay marriage will always remain a question of morality in the etymological sense — a question of particular behaviors and of how we interpret the significance of those behaviors. The case against gay marriage will remain extremely hard to make as long as we interpret the meaning of sex as no more than pleasure, self-fulfillment and a sense of unity between romantic partners and of marriage as no more than increased social status, legal benefits and a barrier to being alone.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

oh noes!!!

Pablo Honey on May 20, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Shouldn’t be any objections to putting it on the ballot then, eh?

Bruno Strozek on May 20, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Why should straight people have a monopoly on misery?

Wander on May 20, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Let’s see a demographic breakdown by age.

If I’m right, then I think Bruno’s suggestion to put it on the ballot would end up with it being rejected yet again even in the most leftist states like Cali and Oregon.

teke184 on May 20, 2011 at 2:56 PM

With all our problems….

Memo to Tina….nobody really gives a S%*#t!!!

PatriotRider on May 20, 2011 at 3:00 PM

72% of Conservatives are against it, so if we cared about gays feelings, we would go to Huffington Post.

Keep pushing you homosexual agenda on us, the MAJORITY of CONSERVATIVES, and I hope this site gets what it wants.

Salem Communications knows how to pick them.

First they became teachers, taught your kids about my two dads, then they became judges, OK’d gay marriage, then they took over Conservative sites.

Hmmmm, wonder why the poll has its results.

WoosterOh on May 20, 2011 at 3:00 PM

I’m just glad my generation has some sense and supports marriage equality.

It's Vintage, Duh on May 20, 2011 at 3:00 PM

Shouldn’t be any objections to putting it on the ballot then, eh?

Bruno Strozek on May 20, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Exactly. I’m sure it will just sail right on through now wherever it’s voted on.

Why should straight people have a monopoly on misery?

Wander on May 20, 2011 at 2:56 PM

lol

Kataklysmic on May 20, 2011 at 3:00 PM

The result of indoctrination in colleges.

Rose on May 20, 2011 at 3:00 PM

I’m sorry…

… but aren’t “Civil Unions” already legal domestic contracts for homosexuals?

/

Seven Percent Solution on May 20, 2011 at 3:01 PM

I don’t think so…

deedtrader on May 20, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Did Newt recommend this topic?

faraway on May 20, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Oh goody, new writer is just as tedious as other writers.

Branch Rickey on May 20, 2011 at 3:01 PM

“Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, having an unlisted landline number, and being cell phone mostly). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2010 Current Population Survey figures for the age 18+ non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.”

Note what demographic component — the one most strongly correlated to opinion on gay marriage (other than actually BEING gay) — is missing in the weight analysis?

Which means not only are you prevented from saying “hey, their D/R/I weighting was fair/unfair/rational/ridiculous” — but you have NO IDEA what the political demographic breakdown was — they didn’t even TABULATE it, as far as I can tell. For all we know, they managed to use the same ridiculous demographic sample that last week’s poll reporting Obama’s approval at 60%.

cwilson on May 20, 2011 at 3:02 PM

Food for thought: Gay marriage legal/Divorce, illegal. Oh the humanity.

BKeyser on May 20, 2011 at 3:02 PM

It defies all logic that 9% of Americans suddenly, in the past year, just up and changed their minds about a major issue.

It just doesn’t happen.

TheBlueSite on May 20, 2011 at 3:03 PM

When pollsters include the option of civil unions, it’s still 60-40 against SSM.

CBS poll from August 2010:

Gay marriage: 40%
Civil unions: 30%
No legal recognition: 25%

Jon0815 on May 20, 2011 at 3:05 PM

The Department of Justice officially decided to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act. President Obama’s official switch can’t be far behind: He says his views, too, are “evolving” on the issue.

The topic aside, Justice and Obama are supposed to oblige by the Constitution. If they don’t like a law, they can propagandize to change it.

On topic, by simply featuring it, the young lady has officially been welcome into the HA editorial fold.

Also on topic, who are the mother- and father-in-laws in the case of gay marriages?

On a more serious note, Rome keeps on burning but the parties are great.

Rapture to begin tomorrow. Postpone your tax-paying.

Schadenfreude on May 20, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Do people who support gay marriage support polygamy? If not, why not?

I know, old question, but I still see no logical reason to support gay marriage but deny polygamy.

TheBlueSite on May 20, 2011 at 3:05 PM

I would guess that the public in favor of this has not thought through the implications and consequences, but as they did to the siren song of hope and change, they are swaying to the strongest wind of propaganda.

INC on May 20, 2011 at 3:06 PM

With all our problems….

Memo to Tina….nobody really gives a S%*#t!!!

PatriotRider on May 20, 2011 at 3:00 PM

Hardly. And short-sighted.

I agree it shouldn’t be the focus but that in no way diminishes the concern as valid.

MikeknaJ on May 20, 2011 at 3:07 PM

WoosterOh on May 20, 2011 at 3:00 PM

Yes, let’s ignore a poll by the most recognized name in polling in the country because we don’t like the results. How dare they even bring it up here? Don’t they know this is a conservative site! We should only discuss pro-conservative news here!

Seriously, what is your problem with discussing this? Did you even read what she wrote about it? Her final point is spot on:

The case against gay marriage will remain extremely hard to make as long as we interpret the meaning of sex as no more than pleasure, self-fulfillment and a sense of unity between romantic partners and of marriage as no more than increased social status, legal benefits and a barrier to being alone.

That’s an excellent point. If marriage isn’t anything special, and sex is nothing important, then who cares who gets married? But the social conservative point is that those are special and important.

strictnein on May 20, 2011 at 3:07 PM

Shouldn’t be any objections to putting it on the ballot then, eh?

Bruno Strozek on May 20, 2011 at 2:55 PM

I ready to vote on it, and confident on the outcome. Bring it on!

Tommy_G on May 20, 2011 at 3:07 PM

Jon0815 on May 20, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Silly if you ask me…civil unions ARE gay marriage. It’s just a different word. I think civil unions are what cowards support, because they really support gay marriage but lack the cajones to admit it.

TheBlueSite on May 20, 2011 at 3:08 PM

It defies all logic that 9% of Americans suddenly, in the past year, just up and changed their minds about a major issue.

It just doesn’t happen.

What’s really happening here is that people don’t want to give a stranger on the phone a response that could get them labeled anti-gay, so they go with the safe, PC choice.

Jon0815 on May 20, 2011 at 3:08 PM

TheBlueSite on May 20, 2011 at 3:08 PM

I agree.

INC on May 20, 2011 at 3:09 PM

Why is government involved in marriage anyway?

John Deaux on May 20, 2011 at 3:09 PM

Memo to Ed: Let Tina write an un-massaged “Hi Everybody” message to the HotAir audience that allows her to tell people who she is, why she wanted to be here, and what issues in particular motivate or concern her. We’re getting a little too much of the “staff writer for the Heritage Foundation,” not that there is anything wrong with that credential as far as things go.

Memo to Tine: Please do not write that conservatives/HotAir readers/whomever SHOULD do anything, or use the word “we” to describe your audience. It’s amateurish.

DaydreamBeliever on May 20, 2011 at 3:10 PM

TheBlueSite on May 20, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Kind of like calling illegal aliens non documented workers.

Tommy_G on May 20, 2011 at 3:10 PM

Put it on the ballot! I’m not scared. Let’s do this! I’m pretty sure of it’s outcome and it darn sure won’t look like this poll.

gator70 on May 20, 2011 at 3:10 PM

Those who are clamoring for it, do not want it on a national ballot. They know what the results would be. They was an executive order or legal decree.

kingsjester on May 20, 2011 at 3:10 PM

PatriotRider on May 20, 2011 at 3:00 PM

I totally disagree. Gay marriage is one tool in the liberal’s tool box used to dismantle the family, which is the bedrock of our society. You slowly destroy society by continually attacking each of its most valued institutions one by one. The sexual revolution, abortion, promiscuity, they’re all in the same tool box as gay marriage.

TheBlueSite on May 20, 2011 at 3:11 PM

Dems illegally left it off the ballot in Mass. because they knew they’d lose. They used their favorite non-democratic method to win. The courts.

Little Boomer on May 20, 2011 at 3:11 PM

Shouldn’t be any objections to putting it on the ballot then, eh?

Bruno Strozek on May 20, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Ask the folks in Massachusetts-the pro gay marriage people there couldn’t achieve their goal democratically, so they went to some Activist Judges and now gay marriage in that “state” is legal.

Del Dolemonte on May 20, 2011 at 3:11 PM

Dems illegally left it off the ballot in Mass. because they knew they’d lose. They used their favorite non-democratic method to win. The courts.

Little Boomer on May 20, 2011 at 3:11 PM

“There’s no such thing as an Activist Democrat Judge”

/crr6

Del Dolemonte on May 20, 2011 at 3:12 PM

I don’t believe any polls anymore. Most polls have a ridiculous sampling and can’t be used as anything more than propaganda.

search4truth on May 20, 2011 at 3:12 PM

gay marriage will always remain a question of morality in the etymological sense — a question of particular behaviors and of how we interpret the significance of those behaviors. The case against gay marriage will remain extremely hard to make as long as we interpret the meaning of sex as no more than pleasure, self-fulfillment and a sense of unity between romantic partners and of marriage as no more than increased social status, legal benefits and a barrier to being alone.

Huh?????

and by what Standard is Gay marriage Moral?

The gradual move to accept perversions as ‘moral goods’, has to do with America becoming more and more Humanistic

jp on May 20, 2011 at 3:12 PM

The pro-life movement relentlessly promotes single motherhood by teenage girls, and our “social conservatives” worry about the implications of gay marriage to the family?

Anyway, I found nothing profound or even conservative about Fesser’s ideas. Any Conservatism worthy of consideration deals with facts. Gay people exists and thus there is a Conservative need to fit them into non-state institutions. It’s not just gay marriage that is needed but greater incorporation of gays into religion. Luckily that is also happening.

thuja on May 20, 2011 at 3:13 PM

The case against gay marriage will remain extremely hard to make as long as we interpret the meaning of sex as no more than pleasure, self-fulfillment and a sense of unity between romantic partners and of marriage as no more than increased social status, legal benefits and a barrier to being alone.

Who the heck is “we”? I’m not in that group I can assure you. You may view marriage as per your definition but I can assure you many of us do not and take our vows seriously.

gator70 on May 20, 2011 at 3:14 PM

WoosterOh on May 20, 2011 at 3:00 PM

We’re all crying rivers for you not having the echo chamber you wish you had.

Sorry if the community enjoys arguing both sides, to better understand the issue. Head over to RedState, where they have the kind of intolerance of differing opinion that you clearly prefer.

MadisonConservative on May 20, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Oh goody, new writer is just as tedious as other writers.

Branch Rickey on May 20, 2011 at 3:01 PM

And yet you still come back…?

changer1701 on May 20, 2011 at 3:14 PM

The pro-life movement relentlessly promotes single motherhood by teenage girls, and our “social conservatives” worry about the implications of gay marriage to the family?…

thuja on May 20, 2011 at 3:13 PM

What an incredible straw man–total misrepresentation!

INC on May 20, 2011 at 3:15 PM

I do agree with a lot of my fellow commenters here, though, and think that if this is such a winning issue…put it on the ballot!

search4truth on May 20, 2011 at 3:15 PM

You know who this benefits?

Divorce lawyers.

trigon on May 20, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Shouldn’t be any objections to putting it on the ballot then, eh?

Bruno Strozek on May 20, 2011 at 2:55 PM

These days, it isn’t the outcome of an election that determines law, but the court challenge to the election’s outcome. It matters not what the electorate approves, it matters whether a judge approves of the electorate’s choice.

juanito on May 20, 2011 at 3:16 PM

It defies all logic that 9% of Americans suddenly, in the past year, just up and changed their minds about a major issue.

It just doesn’t happen.

TheBlueSite on May 20, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Oh, of course. Americans never change their mind on issues in a year, much less…a month…or…a week…or…a day.

You know, you’ve always demonstrated what a narcissistic elitist you are, but now you merely demonstrate that you don’t seem to come into contact with Americans, ever.

MadisonConservative on May 20, 2011 at 3:16 PM

The pro-life movement relentlessly promotes single motherhood by teenage girls, and our “social conservatives” worry about the implications of gay marriage to the family?…

thuja on May 20, 2011 at 3:13 PM

No, the Pro-Life Movement relentlessly promotes the idea that EVERY life is important. Even the unborn. Period. Not that difficult to grasp, really.

search4truth on May 20, 2011 at 3:17 PM

Oh goody, new writerwhiny commenter is just as tedious as other writerswhiny commenters.

Branch Rickey on May 20, 2011 at 3:01 PM

MadisonConservative on May 20, 2011 at 3:17 PM

Could care less about what polls say…I’m still and always will be against it…let the pollsters call me…

Ltlgeneral64 on May 20, 2011 at 3:17 PM

If this is true, why has same sex marriage failed whenever the people actually get to vote on it?

CatoRenasci on May 20, 2011 at 3:17 PM

Another easily solved “problem” by getting government out of the way. Just go back to before 1865, when marriages came under state control to prohibit newly freed slaves from marrying white women. Only marriage that counts is a church wedding. Being Catholic, gays can’t marry in my church. Let them find one that will. As far as government goes, my marital status is none of their business anyway.

“The Government that governs best, governs least”…Thomas Jefferson….

Get “RACE” off of all government forms as well. That would only matter to a government that wants to raid the treasury and rig the system for certain minorities anyway. I don’t care if the government hasn’t a clue to my race. It’s once again my business….Sorry for my Libertarian rant…

adamsmith on May 20, 2011 at 3:18 PM

Why should straight people have a monopoly on misery?

Wander on May 20, 2011 at 2:56 PM

ROFLMAO!!!

Gallup eh? Well, since I have nothing positive to add as far as Gallup, I’ll leave it at that.

capejasmine on May 20, 2011 at 3:18 PM

about time

mythicknight on May 20, 2011 at 3:18 PM

It’s really too bad that sex feels good. If it was a tedious chore then only the people who really wanted children would have it.

And yes, before you say it, I’m sure sex is tedious for some of you.. blah blah blah..

GoodBoy on May 20, 2011 at 3:18 PM

No need to use judges or the courts, a vote should settle this quickly…

right2bright on May 20, 2011 at 3:19 PM

In the end, regardless of what happens in the legal battle, gay marriage will always remain a question of morality in the etymological sense — a question of particular behaviors and of how we interpret the significance of those behaviors. The case against gay marriage will remain extremely hard to make as long as we interpret the meaning of sex as no more than pleasure, self-fulfillment and a sense of unity between romantic partners and of marriage as no more than increased social status, legal benefits and a barrier to being alone.

What? You’re scuttling morality to a “etymological sense”?? That sounds very intellectual and high-minded, but you are forgetting that marriage is the most ancient, solemn and important covenant between a man and a woman throughout the history of mankind.

The family is the building block of people; hence, of society. Conveniently ignored is research on child development.

INC on May 20, 2011 at 3:19 PM

The case against gay marriage will remain extremely hard to make as long as we interpret the meaning of sex as no more than pleasure, self-fulfillment and a sense of unity between romantic partners and of marriage as no more than increased social status, legal benefits and a barrier to being alone.

Guess what? The majority of Americans do not have such a shallow definition.

Again, let’s have a nationwide vote.

kingsjester on May 20, 2011 at 3:20 PM

MadisonConservative go stick it up your rear, wait, you already do that.

WoosterOh on May 20, 2011 at 3:21 PM

The pro-life movement relentlessly promotes single motherhood by teenage girls
thuja on May 20, 2011 at 3:13 PM

You are as usual just a dishonest punk.Why ?

I know those abortions you are responsible bother you but please don’t try to absolve yourself by lying about prolifers.

CWforFreedom on May 20, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Not credible. An exact reversal from last years poll on the same subject? LOL

Thanks Gallup. You’re not known for BS polls, so I won’t pay any attention to this one either.

JimP on May 20, 2011 at 3:21 PM

The real problem with Gay Marriage isn’t morality it’s standards. Once the standards are lowered and homosexuals are allowed to be married, then the floodgates will be open. The argument will then switch to such topics as; why can’t I have more than one spouse, why can’t I marry a goat or my sister or a tree or a car or a child. Once you lower a standard, the only way it can go is down.

Tommy_G on May 20, 2011 at 3:21 PM

What’s really happening here is that people don’t want to give a stranger on the phone a response that could get them labeled anti-gay, so they go with the safe, PC choice.

Jon0815 on May 20, 2011 at 3:08 PM

When people give an answer on a subject, they begin to believe in what they say, even if they came to the conclusion reluctantly. In two or three years, those who want to be safe in public will be voting pro-gay marriage in secret ballots.

thuja on May 20, 2011 at 3:21 PM

No, the Pro-Life Movement relentlessly promotes the idea that EVERY life is important. Even the unborn. Period. Not that difficult to grasp, really.

search4truth on May 20, 2011 at 3:17 PM

HUH??
thuja on May 20, 2011 at 3:19 PM

right2bright on May 20, 2011 at 3:21 PM

I miss Brian.

Rose on May 20, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Correction: I meant Gallop IS known for BS polls.

JimP on May 20, 2011 at 3:22 PM

What happened to HotAir?

faraway on May 20, 2011 at 3:22 PM

No doubt a lot of folks answered this poll question with “If it’ll shut you up, then YES!!” in the back of their minds. The problem is, it won’t. There’s always some other leftist, progressive, anarchist, amoral, anti-Western civilization, you-name-it idea on the horizon.

ncborn on May 20, 2011 at 3:23 PM

faraway on May 20, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Good question.

kingsjester on May 20, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Thuja also nice work with the strawman.

CWforFreedom on May 20, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Not me. Sending a shout out to my State Senator, Betty Little. Vote no!

Connie on May 20, 2011 at 3:24 PM

Its just equality, people. Relax. There is NO agenda here. It isn’t like they’ll start teaching kids about fisting or anything.

spec_ops_mateo on May 20, 2011 at 3:24 PM

Don’t forget an ABC poll earlier this year already found a majority of Americans support gay marriage.

Ok, we won’t forget, but did you forget those in all states that have voted on “gay marriage” it has never won?

Within the past year, as the poll itself points out, Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” allowing gay and lesbian members of the military to openly reveal their sexual orientation for the first time. The Department of Justice officially decided to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act. President Obama’s official switch can’t be far behind: He says his views, too, are “evolving” on the issue.

Is this supposed to represent progress towards “gay marriage”? This is just Democrat pandering and social engineering.

???

Akzed on May 20, 2011 at 3:24 PM

When people give an answer on a subject, they begin to believe in what they say, even if they came to the conclusion reluctantly. In two or three years, those who want to be safe in public will be voting pro-gay marriage in secret ballots.

thuja on May 20, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Total projection and stupidity. That is one of the most absurd things I have ever read.

You really are one of the most pathetic dishonest posters .

CWforFreedom on May 20, 2011 at 3:25 PM

The case against Child Pedophilia, Polygamy or Beastiality gay marriage will remain extremely hard to make as long as we interpret the meaning of sex as no more than pleasure, self-fulfillment and a sense of unity between romantic partners and of marriage as no more than increased social status, legal benefits and a barrier to being alone.

Fixed for Logical conclusions to be drawn.

jp on May 20, 2011 at 3:25 PM

HUH??
thuja on May 20, 2011 at 3:19 PM

right2bright on May 20, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Not too bright

CWforFreedom on May 20, 2011 at 3:26 PM

The meme that gay marriage is a popular issue and is inevitable, is propaganda of the most naked variety.

The democrat party has pandered to the progressive homosexual lobby for decades, yet when the had huge majorities in congress and the most left wing president ever – they did nothing. Even to repeal DADT, they waited until the middle of the night during a lame duck session, when they wouldn’t have to face the consequences of their vote.

Why? Because despite push polls and stacked samples, they know this is deeply unpopular with the American people.

As a switch in tactics, progressive stealth groups like GOProud and individual Mobys are trying to paint their radical progressive homosexual agenda as – a conservative issue. Once again, showing the left’s contempt for conservatives as stupid rubes easily fooled.

But we’re not fooled.

Rebar on May 20, 2011 at 3:26 PM

Oh goody, we’re prompted to talke about gay marriage again. Can our next topic be abortion, please? And perhaps after that, we can once again tackle Darwin vs God.

PS. I’m with those who say great, let’s get it back on the ballot.

SukieTawdry on May 20, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Correction: I meant Gallop IS known for BS polls.

JimP on May 20, 2011 at 3:22 PM

What is so sad is that until about 10 or so years ago they were considered the Gold Standard of US polling. They’ve been in business since the 1930s.

What happened to ruin them? They partnered with CNN, who later jilted them to instead use a “pollster” who was at the time better known for his Bill and Hillary suck up skills than his “polling”.

CNN is toxic.

Del Dolemonte on May 20, 2011 at 3:27 PM

The slippery slope is coated with ky jelly.

spec_ops_mateo on May 20, 2011 at 3:27 PM

jp on May 20, 2011 at 3:25 PM

+1

gator70 on May 20, 2011 at 3:27 PM

I miss Brian.

Rose on May 20, 2011 at 3:21 PM

My first thought after reading this liberal piece of trash posting.

jp on May 20, 2011 at 3:27 PM

MadisonConservative go stick it up your rear, wait, you already do that.

WoosterOh on May 20, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Classy. The good ol’ “if you don’t think the same as I do about homosexuality, that means you’re gay” bulls**t. Just as fallacious and idiotic as the “if you disapprove of homosexuality, you’re just a closeted homosexual yourself” garbage.

MadisonConservative on May 20, 2011 at 3:28 PM

To support this, those people would also have to accept any relationship between any two people. If you believe this will help the family unit and society, then you’re for gay marriage.

Libs want to dilute marriage down enough to make it absolutely meaningless.

Dongemaharu on May 20, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Why is government involved in marriage anyway?

John Deaux on May 20, 2011 at 3:09 PM

This

What happened to HotAir?

faraway on May 20, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Nothing at all

Schadenfreude on May 20, 2011 at 3:29 PM

My first thought after reading this liberal piece of trash posting. jp on May 20, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Hey give her a break, she’s just a girl.

Akzed on May 20, 2011 at 3:29 PM

I miss Brian.

Rose on May 20, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Bryan Preston!!!

Schadenfreude on May 20, 2011 at 3:29 PM

My first thought after reading this liberal piece of trash posting.

jp on May 20, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Good grief. I’ve got my concerns about the sudden hiring of Korbe, but give me a f**king break. Amazing how gay marriage is an instant litmus test with so many people who then say that gay marriage is a trifling issue. Interesting contradiction.

MadisonConservative on May 20, 2011 at 3:31 PM

Let’s see how people feel about it when the real face of gay marriage comes forward, the shrill, hateful and bigoted face that only political junkies have so far seen. Most people think gay marriage is Ellen and Will and Grace, but go on any liberal blog when gay marriage is being discussed and you’ll see just how ugly and filled with hate they really are.

clearbluesky on May 20, 2011 at 3:31 PM

Bryan Preston!!! Schadenfreude on May 20, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Is he still being yelled at by Laura Ingraham?

Akzed on May 20, 2011 at 3:31 PM

teke184 on May 20, 2011 at 2:56 PM

What’s YOUR problem w/ gay marriage.

Vyce on May 20, 2011 at 3:31 PM

Government shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all.

If a man and man or woman and woman can find a priest to marry them in a “church” let them face the wrath of god, the rest of you, it’s none of your damn business.

That said, the homo-agenda is a strong far-left agenda that should be beaten down at the ballot box every time it comes up.

MadDogF on May 20, 2011 at 3:32 PM

Amazing how gay marriage is an instant litmus test with so many people who then say that gay marriage is a trifling issue. Interesting contradiction.

MadisonConservative on May 20, 2011 at 3:31 PM

We could care less about gay marriage. That’s the point.

Of all the issues to choose from for Tina’s first post, “gay marriage” is what was missing from HotAir?

faraway on May 20, 2011 at 3:32 PM

To support this, those people would also have to accept any relationship between any two people. If you believe this will help the family unit and society, then you’re for gay marriage.

Libs want to dilute marriage down enough to make it absolutely meaningless.

Dongemaharu on May 20, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Libs won’t ever be satisfied, no matter how much society is forced to “tolerate” every deviant human behavior. As soon as same sex “marriage” is nationwide, the move will be on to redefine “Consenting” and “Adult.” They also won’t want to stop at adult humans either.

Thank God I’m closer to the grave than the cradle.

TugboatPhil on May 20, 2011 at 3:32 PM

Hardly. And short-sighted.

I agree it shouldn’t be the focus but that in no way diminishes the concern as valid.

MikeknaJ on May 20, 2011 at 3:07 PM

You are right….it’s a valid concern…but on my list of 100 important issues it ranks about 99th (least important)

PatriotRider on May 20, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Well, Tina, here’s your first real introduction to Hot Air. If you’re not violently opposed to gay marriage, don your asbestos suit.

MadisonConservative on May 20, 2011 at 3:33 PM

To support this, those people would also have to accept any relationship between any two people.

Dongemaharu on May 20, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Why just two?

Islam lets a man marry four women, are you some kind of bigot? Of course that’s sexist, so we’ll have to let a woman marry four guys. But what if she “loves” five guys, that’s not fair. So we’ll let anyone marry anyone else, in any numbers they like, including close relatives, because hey “love” is blind and that’s the new driving principle.

And it all will happen if gay marriage is legalized, guaranteed.

Rebar on May 20, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Of all the issues to choose from for Tina’s first post, “gay marriage” is what was missing from HotAir? faraway on May 20, 2011 at 3:32 PM

This ain’t her first post.

Try to keep up.

Akzed on May 20, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Of all the issues to choose from for Tina’s first post, “gay marriage” is what was missing from HotAir?

faraway on May 20, 2011 at 3:32 PM

She’s been posting for days, genius.

MadisonConservative on May 20, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Its just equality, people. Relax. There is NO agenda here. It isn’t like they’ll start teaching kids about fisting or anything.

spec_ops_mateo on May 20, 2011 at 3:24 PM

Let’s not forget the kindergarten gay pride pageant that some gay couple will demand so that tolerance is taught at the earliest age.

Tommy to Mom and Dad: “Who is Kevin Jennings? And why did my kindergarten teacher tell me I have a choice of wearing a sailor’s outfit or a cowboy’s outfit? And why do I have to learn some songs by a group called The Village People? I’d rather have an extra hour of recess or handpainting.”

BuckeyeSam on May 20, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4