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

tom on May 20, 2011 at 4:19 PM

I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I understand that you hate gays for some religious reason that happens to hold no water in the modern world…why should I convince you of anything? Best that your kind just die off.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:26 PM

Thanks for clarifying who the real hater is……

tom on May 20, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Schadenfreude on May 20, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Well, why shouldn’t I tell a homophobe to drop dead? They would just as easily tell me to drop dead given the fact that I’m no straight, or that I don’t vote republican. You know just as well as anyone that we don’t pull punches here; metric tons of bile are thrown at liberals and gays here…why shouldn’t the favor be returned?

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:39 PM

The only reason anyone could be against gay marriage is if they have some innate dislike of gays
 
ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:37 PM

 
Nuance.

rogerb on May 20, 2011 at 4:40 PM

I’ll never understand why this is a pet issue for this site.

Poll after poll after poll and thread after thread after thread follow the same well worn pro gay marriage path. Yet the country as a while rejects at the ballot box yet poll, after poll, after poll suggests the exact opposite…

Just sayin’

Theworldisnotenough on May 20, 2011 at 4:40 PM

Good job on the War Powers Act precedent too, btw.

rogerb on May 20, 2011 at 4:28 PM

I’m sorry…which 29 year old stomped all over the War Powers Act. Last I checked, Barack Obama was 49.

It's Vintage, Duh on May 20, 2011 at 4:40 PM

One of my gay friends, Eddie, has really taken a liking to Sarah Palin. His gay friends are infuriated with him.

So much for tolerance.

Lanceman on May 20, 2011 at 4:40 PM

tom on May 20, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Your religion dictates that you deny the gay community the right to form families…why shouldn’t I hate you?

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:40 PM

Well, why shouldn’t I tell a homophobe to drop dead? They would just as easily tell me to drop dead given the fact that I’m no straight, or that I don’t vote republican.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Since you post on this site then you know what you just wrote is a GD lie.

Theworldisnotenough on May 20, 2011 at 4:41 PM

Nuance.

rogerb on May 20, 2011 at 4:40 PM

Do you oppose gay marriage?

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:41 PM

Your religion dictates that you deny the gay community the right to form families…why shouldn’t I hate you?

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:40 PM

Another lie.

Theworldisnotenough on May 20, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Every single person who is against gay marriage, or against the government’s recognitions of gay unions, is a homophobe.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Like I said, you’re a bigoted little creep.

MadisonConservative on May 20, 2011 at 4:42 PM

, Barack Obama was 49.

It’s Vintage, Duh on May 20, 2011 at 4:40 PM

Chronologically, you are correct.

Lanceman on May 20, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Since you post on this site then you know what you just wrote is a GD lie.

Theworldisnotenough on May 20, 2011 at 4:41 PM

Bullsh*t. I’ve been on this site longer than you have. It has always, and will continue, to harbor homophobes and those who speak terribly about democrats,liberals,progressives…what have you. Plenty of death wishes, ill will, and other assorted vitriol is spill daily on this website. Don’t try and tell me that the commenters here aren’t hateful.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Jetboy,
I’m still waiting on an answer to this. It’s tied to this thread, so feel free to answer here:

I don’t understand what you’re asking…but you seem to be saying gays are denigrating society. Meaning, all gays.
 
JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 9:54 AM

 
I don’t understand what you’re asking
 
JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 9:54 AM

 
Fair enough. Heaven knows I’ve misunderstood things. Note that it has nothing to do with teh ghey. Let me re-type it:
 
Apparent attempts at degrading the basis of our representative republic should be opposed even if the action might yield something we want.
 
Yes or no?

 
rogerb on May 11, 2011 at 12:35 PM

 
Yes or no?

rogerb on May 20, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Just disgust. And that goes for two chicks making out as well.

Lanceman on May 20, 2011 at 4:38 PM

I suppose you hate bacon, too.

MadisonConservative on May 20, 2011 at 4:43 PM

That’s not true at all. Every single person who is against gay marriage, or against the government’s recognitions of gay unions, is a homophobe. The only reason anyone could be against gay marriage is if they have some innate dislike of gays, which is of course homophobia.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Well, you’re just a fountain of clarity today, aren’t you?

You think every single person who doesn’t approve of gay marriage is a homophobe. All that really tells me is how little your opinion is worth.

tom on May 20, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Surely you realize that on the heels of claiming conservatism must deal with facts, you entered an opinion that if something or someone exists, it/they must be fit into society?

DrMagnolias on May 20, 2011 at 4:22 PM

I’m delighted to get intelligent criticism! Let me think about how to respond to you and get back to you.

thuja on May 20, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Because not all people against gay marriage are homophobes, you bigoted little creep. MadisonConservative on May 20, 2011 at 4:36 PM

And you can tell which ones are the haters and which ones aren’t.

Interesting…

Akzed on May 20, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Your religion dictates that you deny the gay community the right to form families…why shouldn’t I hate you?

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:40 PM

Now, I do not like attacking you, ernesto, but where have I read that ‘hate is not a family value’?

Certainly not from the right.

Lanceman on May 20, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Do you oppose gay marriage?
 
ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:41 PM

 
Federal level- Yes.
 
State level- No

rogerb on May 20, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Another lie.

Theworldisnotenough on May 20, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Explain yourself. What about that was a lie?

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:45 PM

I suppose you hate bacon, too.

MadisonConservative on May 20, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Mmmm! Bacon!

Lanceman on May 20, 2011 at 4:45 PM

The only reason anyone could be against gay marriage is if they have some innate dislike of gays

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Plenty of gays oppose homosexual marriage also.

Where does that put them?

Rebar on May 20, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Yes or no?

rogerb on May 20, 2011 at 4:43 PM

If you actually believe gay marriage would “denigrate” the nation, that’s enough said right there.

JetBoy on May 20, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Your religion dictates that you deny the gay community the right to form families…why shouldn’t I hate you?
ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:40 PM

Families!?

Two guys bolwing one another is not a basis for a family.

Akzed on May 20, 2011 at 4:47 PM

You think every single person who doesn’t approve of gay marriage is a homophobe. All that really tells me is how little your opinion is worth.

tom on May 20, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Every single person who disapproves of gay marriage is a homophobe. There is no way one cannot consider a gay person worthy of forming a family unless one inherently dislikes that gay person. How the hell do you square defense of “traditional” marriage with loving gays? You don’t. If you wish to deny gays the right to marry, its because you hate gays, end of story. Just try and explain otherwise.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:47 PM

I love when they take their polls in the San Fran Castro district…

magic kingdom on May 20, 2011 at 4:47 PM

I’m sorry…which 29 year old stomped all over the War Powers Act. Last I checked, Barack Obama was 49.
 
It’s Vintage, Duh on May 20, 2011 at 4:40 PM

 
A representative republic.

rogerb on May 20, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Oops, sorry rogerb…that was about DADT repeal. So I still don’t know what you’re getting at.

JetBoy on May 20, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Two guys bolwing one another is not a basis for a family.

Akzed on May 20, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Why not? Because they cannot produce children? Why not???

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Ernesto..tell me you are being sarcastic and screwing with us? Nobody is so stupid as to REALLY think people who are against gay marriage hate gays. Nobody except the biggest libtard morons out there.

magic kingdom on May 20, 2011 at 4:48 PM

If you actually believe gay marriage would “denigrate” the nation, that’s enough said right there.
 
JetBoy on May 20, 2011 at 4:46 PM

 
Which I don’t. Please reread and answer the question asked.

rogerb on May 20, 2011 at 4:49 PM

tom on May 20, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Your religion dictates that you deny the gay community the right to form families…why shouldn’t I hate you?

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:40 PM

I think basic biology already takes care of that. But then, you’ve dismissed me as a homophobe, so I suppose you can also blame me for biology.

Why don’t you go start a petition against Mother Nature demanding equal rights to sexual reproduction gays? Let me know how that goes.

If you get stuck, you can always commission a few more polls.

tom on May 20, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Ernesto…how is that gay anal sex thing anyway? I’m sure that is something my kids really need to hear about.

magic kingdom on May 20, 2011 at 4:49 PM

I love when they take their polls in the San Fran Castro district…

magic kingdom on May 20, 2011 at 4:47 PM

San Fran Sicko?

Lanceman on May 20, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Plenty of gays oppose homosexual marriage also.

Where does that put them?

Rebar on May 20, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Plenty? Hardly. A handful, sure, but that’s only because they are under the misguided belief that the christian church will somehow accept them if they agree not to get married.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Funny that ever person in the history of the planet for thousands of years were ” homophobes ” according the radical gay lobby crowd. After all, gay marriage has only been here for a very, very short amount of time.

magic kingdom on May 20, 2011 at 4:50 PM

And can we be honest…gays want to get married for the money and benefits..not for love or a family. Why lie?

magic kingdom on May 20, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Ernesto..tell me you are being sarcastic and screwing with us? Nobody is so stupid as to REALLY think people who are against gay marriage hate gays. Nobody except the biggest libtard morons out there.

magic kingdom on May 20, 2011 at 4:48 PM

No, I’m dead serious. If you oppose gay marriage, its because you wish there were no gays in the world at all. Anyone who would deny a gay couple the right to start a family in the eyes of the law MUST hate gays, as there is not a single justification for the denial of marriage rights outside of “I dont like gays”

Ernesto…how is that gay anal sex thing anyway? I’m sure that is something my kids really need to hear about.

magic kingdom on May 20, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Your kids will probably have anal sex whether gays tell them about it or not. What’s your point?

tom on May 20, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Be sure to tell all the infertile straight people that they can’t get married either!

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:52 PM

And you can tell which ones are the haters and which ones aren’t.

Interesting…

Akzed on May 20, 2011 at 4:44 PM

You’re one of the few haters here, pal. The only others who use the kind of childish anti-gay rhetoric you do are sufficiently illiterate that they’re dismissed more handily.

MadisonConservative on May 20, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Why not? Because they cannot produce children? Why not??? ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Wow Che, I had no idea that you were so strongly convinced that two guys bowling one another is a basis for marriage.

Che, because God made them male and female, and the two shall be one flesh.

Because two guys bowling one another is condemned by God, so that societies that prmote it will be destroyed, a la Europe.

Have a nice rest o’ the day.

Akzed on May 20, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Jetboy, I’m going to pause in posting for a while. We’re stepping on each other and getting crossed up.
 
The question is sort of an any-means-necessary one. Should one support the sanctity of our system (elections, legislation, voting, etc.) even if it defeats a desired outcome, or just the pursuit of the goal?

rogerb on May 20, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Funny that ever person in the history of the planet for thousands of years were ” homophobes ” according the radical gay lobby crowd. After all, gay marriage has only been here for a very, very short amount of time.

magic kingdom on May 20, 2011 at 4:50 PM

You’re absolutely right. Homophobe was the default position for thousands of years, and now its finally over, similar to the way that the default western position used to be pro slavery, before we progressed beyond that. Funny, how society works? Constantly progressing beyond base hatred…

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Akzed on May 20, 2011 at 4:53 PM

But god didn’t make anything, so go f*ck yourself with that nonsense.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:54 PM

Every single person who disapproves of gay marriage is a homophobe. There is no way one cannot consider a gay person worthy of forming a family unless one inherently dislikes that gay person. How the hell do you square defense of “traditional” marriage with loving gays? You don’t. If you wish to deny gays the right to marry, its because you hate gays, end of story. Just try and explain otherwise.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Complete straw man. Nothing prevents a gay man from marrying a woman. He may not be interested in sex with her, but he can have all the other benefits of marriage. He can have his family. Gay men have done it in the past. There is no discrimination there.

The demand is that a gay man marry another man. Sorry, but that would require the redefinition of marriage to include something it’s never meant before.

Refusing to overthrow the basic building block of society to appease some special interest group does not constitute hatred, no matter how much you stomp your feet and call names.

tom on May 20, 2011 at 4:54 PM

You’re absolutely right. Homophobe was the default position for thousands of years, and now its finally over, similar to the way that the default western position used to be pro slavery, before we progressed beyond that. Funny, how society works? Constantly progressing beyond base hatred…

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:53 PM

I didn’t know we had a celebrity posting on our blog.

Ms. Allred, could you please let us know what the current disposition is of your lawsuit against Roger McDowell of the Atlanta Braves?

teke184 on May 20, 2011 at 4:55 PM

MadisonConservative on May 20, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Hey, if Bill Buckley could call Gore Vidal a “qeuer” and threaten to punch him in the nose on TV, then I ain’t so worried about your sniveling concern about my disposition towards dudes who bolw one another and think they’re in love.

¡Hasta la vista, baby!

Akzed on May 20, 2011 at 4:55 PM

At the end of the day, liberals have nothing left but name-calling. Arguments and straw men debunked…let’s call someone a racist or a homophobe.

search4truth on May 20, 2011 at 4:55 PM

Constantly progressing beyond base hatred…

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Oooooooooooookay.

Lanceman on May 20, 2011 at 4:56 PM

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:54 PM

So you’re not just a bigot on political matters, but on religion, too?

Shocka. You really should just go back to calling people shrivs so that no doubt is left about your bigotry.

MadisonConservative on May 20, 2011 at 4:56 PM

Do you oppose gay marriage?
 
ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:41 PM

 
Federal level- Yes.
 
State level- No
 
rogerb on May 20, 2011 at 4:44 PM

 
Ernesto, how does my response prove I “have some innate dislike of gays” as you’d said?

rogerb on May 20, 2011 at 4:56 PM

Ernesto..you are the type of sick loser who is killing the gay movement. You come off like some prancing, limp wristed little bitc-h who is going to hold your breath until everyone is all gay all the time and loving it.

Fact is…people could give a rip who is gay or not gay. We DONT CARE…but we are not about to have radical moron like you shove your new version of marriage down our throat either.

Win a few ballot measures or shut the fuc% up.

magic kingdom on May 20, 2011 at 4:56 PM

The demand is that a gay man marry another man. Sorry, but that would require the redefinition of marriage to include something it’s never meant before.

tom on May 20, 2011 at 4:54 PM

So what? Pre-Christianity, the “definition” of marriage was never implicitly monogamous, at least not for the husband. Society changed that definition, at least here in the west, to mean only one man and one woman. Since one man and many women was the original definition, who is to say that we cannot change it further?

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:58 PM

I’ve been on this site longer than you have. It has always, and will continue, to harbor homophobes and those who speak terribly about democrats,liberals,progressives…what have you. Plenty of death wishes, ill will, and other assorted vitriol is spill daily on this website. Don’t try and tell me that the commenters here aren’t hateful.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:43 PM

The way you’re going today, it may be your last …… I sense a ban hammer coming down on your hateful azz.

Keep it up, you’re doing great !!!

Jerome Horwitz on May 20, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Akzed on May 20, 2011 at 4:55 PM

Buckley got in Vidal’s face because he called him a crypto-nazi. He did not start out the debate by referring to him as a “sex pervert” or anything of the sort. Please stop insulting him by drawing comparisons with yourself.

MadisonConservative on May 20, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Fact is…people could give a rip who is gay or not gay. We DONT CARE…but we are not about to have radical moron like you shove your new version of marriage down our throat either.

magic kingdom on May 20, 2011 at 4:56 PM

Oh, we’ll shove that radical notion down your throat good, and you’ll like it. Marriage as an institution will include gay families and there is not a damn thing you can do about it. Enjoy it while it lasts, homophobe.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:59 PM

Ernesto, how does my response prove I “have some innate dislike of gays” as you’d said?

rogerb on May 20, 2011 at 4:56 PM

It doesn’t. You support gay marriage. Good for you!

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:00 PM

So what? Pre-Christianity, the “definition” of marriage was never implicitly monogamous, at least not for the husband. Society changed that definition, at least here in the west, to mean only one man and one woman. Since one man and many women was the original definition, who is to say that we cannot change it further?

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Why do you bother? Ignoring the assumption that polygamy predates monogamy, the example doesn’t even pertain to the discussion. Polygamy was not one marriage between a man and many women, but many marriages, each between a man and a woman. Each marriage was begun independently of the other marriages, and could end independently through divorce or death.

If a Muslim man with 3 wives decides he doesn’t like one, he tells her, “I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee” and the marriage is over — with her. The marriages with the other two women are not affected.

There is no change in kind of marriage as your argument attempts to claim.

tom on May 20, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Ernesto..calling people homophobe might impress your dumb shitt pals at your gay porn sites..but here it just makes you another fool who is not smart enough to understand the issue.

You have the same rights as me when it comes to marriage. I know…it sucks huh? Maybe you can get people to support you at the ballot box for once in your life instead of acting like a brain dead libtard who was taugh to say ” homophobe ” as your ” argument. Now get that butt plug out of your ass and get back to pushing socialism.

magic kingdom on May 20, 2011 at 5:04 PM

Force society into accepting deviant behavior and your own deviance will seem much less shameful.
Guess I cannot argue that considering my many fornications.

But as long as girls are giving it away for free…

Lanceman on May 20, 2011 at 5:05 PM

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:00 PM

So Mickey about that nagging question…

CWforFreedom on May 20, 2011 at 5:05 PM

The only reason anyone could be against gay marriage is if they have some innate dislike of gays
 
ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:37 PM

 
Ernesto, how does my response prove I “have some innate dislike of gays” as you’d said?
 
rogerb on May 20, 2011 at 4:56 PM

 
It doesn’t. You support gay marriage. Good for you!
 
ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:00 PM

 
Reread my answer. I support localized government.
 
You said “only”. Are you admitting that was wrongheaded?

rogerb on May 20, 2011 at 5:05 PM

I am sure this has been driven by the number of people “edjewkated” in “publik skuls” during the past 20 years.

bw222 on May 20, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Ernie when you become the perfect person then you should start judging others here. Now why don’t you go ask forgiveness of your sexual partners who you have not told that you are bisexual.

CWforFreedom on May 20, 2011 at 5:11 PM

why shouldn’t the favor be returned?

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:39 PM

I don’t recall any wishing you “death”. You may behave as you please. You won’t win arguments. Your fury might give you a heart attack.

Schadenfreude on May 20, 2011 at 5:13 PM

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

WTF? SCREW 2,00O YEARS OF DOCTRINE???

YOU WILL BE INDOCTRINATED OR ELSE GET TO THE GULAG?

WTF? WONDER WHY THE KNICKNAME IS GAYSTAPO? LOOK NO FURTHER!

BYE BYE FREEDOM

Branch Rickey on May 20, 2011 at 5:15 PM

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.

Which is part of why marriage equality is so important. Gays don’t deserve to be arbitrarily shut out from the all the positive things marriage offers. Without gay marriage, gays can’t participate in one of the foundational institutions of a stable society, which not only harms them by its deprivation, but harms us all.

RightOFLeft on May 20, 2011 at 5:16 PM

I think most people are just done with the politics of this issue. I used to care about the same-sex marriage debate… but now, if I were polled, I wouldn’t really give a s*it either way.

that’s where people are coming from

Opinionnation on May 20, 2011 at 5:18 PM

When did homosexuality become normal.

Paul-Cincy on May 20, 2011 at 3:52 PM

Well, I’m thinking it got “mainstreamed” via things like “Will & Grace” and Ellen DeGeneres and such.

DaydreamBeliever on May 20, 2011 at 4:02 PM

It developed as a punch line, then after awhile they said, “we were only kidding about it being a joke — we were serious, like a heart attack”. And now a sexual attraction to the same sex is like becoming an opera singer — you might have been born into it, bred to do it, or maybe you just love it, we don’t care. It’s a fine and perfectly acceptable thing to do.

It still seems abnormal to me. The homosexuality. Opera singers, I’m not really into it. Whatever.

Paul-Cincy on May 20, 2011 at 5:23 PM

It’s funny, but ernesto is demonstrating exactly why public opinion on this question is changing. There is a large group of people who believe that anyone who does not support gay marriage (and only the word “marriage” will do) is a homophobe. No one likes to be called a hater. So if the lobby throws a big enough tantrum the dial will move. But that’s all it is, a tantrum over the word “marriage” couched in verbiage from the civil rights era.

alwaysfiredup on May 20, 2011 at 5:24 PM

Without gay marriage, gays can’t participate in one of the foundational institutions of a stable society, which not only harms them by its deprivation, but harms us all.

RightOFLeft on May 20, 2011 at 5:16 PM

That’s not true at all. In countries who have adopted gay marriage, few gays actually choose to get married and the divorce and out-of-wedlock births continue apace. It neither harms nor benefits society. It benefits individuals to an extent but those same benefits could be obtained with the title “civil union” without deliberately antagonizing and ostracizing religious people.

alwaysfiredup on May 20, 2011 at 5:27 PM

No one likes to be called a hater. So if the lobby throws a big enough tantrum the dial will move.

The dial may move slightly, but the people who don’t flip sides will galvanize because it pisses people off to be attacked instead of convinced to change their mind.

teke184 on May 20, 2011 at 5:28 PM

Ernie when you become the perfect person then you should start judging others here. Now why don’t you go ask forgiveness of your sexual partners who you have not told that you are bisexual.

CWforFreedom on May 20, 2011 at 5:11 PM

I’ve never misled any of my partners, CW. They all knew what the deal was. I can’t for the life of me understand why you keep pushing that point, as if anyone I’ve been with didn’t already know. You must just hate gays.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:33 PM

rogerb on May 20, 2011 at 5:05 PM

You don’t oppose gay marriage, in fact you support it, explicitly even.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:34 PM

thuja on May 20, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Incidentally, I tend to agree with your statement about what has happened within the pro-life movement vis-a-vis unwed motherhood. There is great fear–not entirely off-base–that denouncing single-motherhood might persuade some women to abort their children. Many pro-lifers have difficulty publicly disapproving of both–it isn’t that they want single-motherhood, they just seem to believe a more positive approach will discourage abortion. I realize this is not a popular view here, but there you have it–I’ve spoken unpopular views before. :)

DrMagnolias on May 20, 2011 at 5:34 PM

Your religion dictates that you deny the gay community the right to form families…why shouldn’t I hate you?

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 4:40 PM

*snort*

You call your vain relationships a family?

Stay far away from children. Please. You have no right to rob a child of a mother or a father just because you want to be called a family.

An intact family has a mother and father married to each other, and children. Everything else is a standard the government cannot endorse and should not subsidize. This arrangement is the singular variant of an institution that wards off dependency on the state while being self-replicating, and equally beneficial to all partners.

I’m not sorry if this cold, blunt reality offends you ernie. After all, you did wish death upon someone else.

BKennedy on May 20, 2011 at 5:34 PM

tom on May 20, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Polygamy predates monogamous marriage, period, end of story. What I don’t understand is why marriage can only be redefined once. If we can define marriage as monogamous, even when tradition insists it isn’t, why can’t we include same sex couples? The only reason is that you dislike same sex couples, because you are a homophobe.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:36 PM

It’s funny, but ernesto is demonstrating exactly why public opinion on this question is changing. There is a large group of people who believe that anyone who does not support gay marriage (and only the word “marriage” will do) is a homophobe. No one likes to be called a hater.

alwaysfiredup on May 20, 2011 at 5:24 PM

I agree. With little knowledge, people embrace gay marriage so they aren’t called a hater. In the name of tolerance, acceptance, and love.

Paul-Cincy on May 20, 2011 at 5:36 PM

BKennedy on May 20, 2011 at 5:34 PM

If you really feel the way you do, then you ought to advocate a ban on divorce, and a ban on single mothers bearing children. Will you explicitly state right now that the law should ban single mothers from bearing children?

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:37 PM

’ve never misled any of my partners, CW. They all knew what the deal was. I can’t for the life of me understand why you keep pushing that point, as if anyone I’ve been with didn’t already know. You must just hate gays.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Actually you have. You told me so in the past. So you lied to your partners then and you lie on HA now. Seriously you’re pathetic. So no I don’t hate gays. I just think your lack of character needs to be shared with everyone. So quit lying.

CWforFreedom on May 20, 2011 at 5:37 PM

Polygamy predates monogamous marriage, period, end of story. What I don’t understand is why marriage can only be redefined once. If we can define marriage as monogamous, even when tradition insists it isn’t, why can’t we include same sex couples? The only reason is that you dislike same sex couples, because you are a homophobe.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:36 PM

Because polygamy is a remnant of a time when women were property and men could accumulate as many as they like. Once women had full contract rights polygamy went away. Would you care to show me where gays are denied liberty of contract?

alwaysfiredup on May 20, 2011 at 5:38 PM

The question is sort of an any-means-necessary one. Should one support the sanctity of our system (elections, legislation, voting, etc.) even if it defeats a desired outcome, or just the pursuit of the goal?

rogerb on May 20, 2011 at 4:53 PM

rogerb…I honestly don’t know what you’re asking me. I want to give you an answer, but…and I’m not the sharpest tool in s=the shed all the time…in order for me to give you an honest answer, I need to understand what you’re asking.

JetBoy on May 20, 2011 at 5:38 PM

The dial may move slightly, but the people who don’t flip sides will galvanize because it pisses people off to be attacked instead of convinced to change their mind.

teke184 on May 20, 2011 at 5:28 PM

You hate gays; why should anyone waste their time convincing you not to hate gays?

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:39 PM

’ve never misled any of my partners, CW. They all knew what the deal was. I can’t for the life of me understand why you keep pushing that point, as if anyone I’ve been with didn’t already know. You must just hate gays.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Yes you have. You know it and you told me so several years ago. How did I know you were bi ? You’re sick and a liar.
Funny how my rightful attack on your integrity means I hate gays. Hmmm you’re not gay … you are bi.

CWforFreedom on May 20, 2011 at 5:40 PM

This the same polling firm that found 60% support for gay marriage in California the day before it lost in an election? Seems like they never did have any explanation for their attempt to shape reality with that fraudulent poll.

Freddy on May 20, 2011 at 5:40 PM

You hate gays; why should anyone waste their time convincing you not to hate gays?

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:39 PM

You are a one-note song, why should anyone waste their time engaging with you at all?

alwaysfiredup on May 20, 2011 at 5:40 PM

alwaysfiredup on May 20, 2011 at 5:38 PM

Gays cannot, in the eyes of the law, form unions worthy of dual tax filing, nor are they guaranteed the right of visitation in the event one partner winds up in the hospital. This is what we want changed. I personally don’t care for the word marriage, but if a familial union is offered federal benefits, so too must a familial union involving 2 members of the same sex. If you disagree, it’s because you dislike gay people, end of story.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:41 PM

rogerb….Perhaps you’re asking should I support the system, even tho it may not always benefit my own personal desires/beliefs/etc…Then yes, I do. It’s what’s applied to the system, or some part of that system, that is up for debate. I even support candidates who are against gay marriage, and even gay civil unions like Mitch Daniels.

JetBoy on May 20, 2011 at 5:41 PM

You hate gays; why should anyone waste their time convincing you not to hate gays?

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:39 PM

Just keep saying it. You are changing minds left and right YOU LIAR. Remember you told me you don’t always tell your partners. That is a fact. You know in the age of aids at least tell your female partners. The male ones know what they are getting into.

CWforFreedom on May 20, 2011 at 5:41 PM

CWforFreedom on May 20, 2011 at 5:40 PM

All of my partners know, period, end of story. They all know. What now, CW?

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:42 PM

FACT: There is not “right” to homo marriage.

rbendana on May 20, 2011 at 5:42 PM

If you disagree, it’s because you dislike gay people, end of story.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:41 PM

Oh is it dislike or hate? You’re seriously pathetic you liar. YOu and I both know you are liar but keep denying it if it makes your feel better. It is not like you have a rep to uphold.

CWforFreedom on May 20, 2011 at 5:43 PM

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:37 PM

As I recall, it was your side that created the rubber-stamp divorce, which was opposed by my side.

Nice try to rewrite history, once again.

Rebar on May 20, 2011 at 5:43 PM

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:41 PM

My problem with the whole issue of gay marriage opponents is that their argument is hypocritical…they claim gays are trying to foist their views on them, when in fact it’s the opponents forcing THEIR views on others, when in reality, they lose nothing by allowing gays to marry. Nothing. Not one thing.

JetBoy on May 20, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Civil unions for legal reasons…OK with me. Marriage-not.

Anyway, if the gays get this it will always be something else. They’ve long ago been supported by Hollywood and the MSM to normalize their deviancy. We (or future generations) will not only be forced to accept them, but to hold them in higher regard than heterosexuals who will then be the new deviants (or at least the very “un-cool” to deride and tsk tsk about).

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 20, 2011 at 5:44 PM

All of my partners know, period, end of story. They all know. What now, CW?

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Actually you have not always been truthful. That is a fact.

CWforFreedom on May 20, 2011 at 5:45 PM

when in reality, they lose nothing by allowing gays to marry. Nothing. Not one thing.

JetBoy on May 20, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Which is why anyone who opposes gay marriage does so simply because they dislike gay people. People like you, JetBoy. They dislike YOU.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:45 PM

Ernesto so tell me why did you say the opposite several years ago? Were you lying to me then? Or are you lying now?

CWforFreedom on May 20, 2011 at 5:45 PM

Actually you have not always been truthful. That is a fact.

CWforFreedom on May 20, 2011 at 5:45 PM

They all know, CW. Every single one knows. You have nothing left to argue.

ernesto on May 20, 2011 at 5:46 PM

Ernesto – I find it interesting that up until today you would not answer my charge. I think you finally realized that you would have to either man up and admit the creep you are or lie your way out. Well we both know which choice you made.

CWforFreedom on May 20, 2011 at 5:46 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4