Poll: 51% approve of Obama’s gay marriage “evolution” — but 23% now less likely to vote for him

posted at 4:54 pm on May 11, 2012 by Allahpundit

Fascinating numbers which I think bear out one of my points in this post last night about why the states keep banning gay marriage when national polls show a majority in favor. When asked whether they approve of O’s new stance on SSM, 51 percent say yes versus just 45 percent who say no. (Among independents, it’s 53/44.) Good news for O, right? Not quite:

How can he have lost a net 13 points overall and a net 12 among indies in this metric when a majority say they support his position? Simple: There’s an enthusiasm disparity between the two sides. The side that supports gay marriage is, I think, a coalition of two groups — the passionate gay-rights supporters who see it as an issue of equality and civil rights and then a whole swath of people who take a MYOB “I don’t care what gays do” approach to the matter. The latter group may prefer O’s new stance but they’re not animated by this subject; they view SSM the way they do because of a basic libertarian live-and-let-live impulse, not some feeling that it’s a grand cause. Opponents of gay marriage are more focused, I suspect: Whether religious or not, they think this is uncharted territory for society and worry about unintended consequences from mainstreaming “alternative lifestyles.” If you believe that it could have significant consequences for the culture, then it stands to reason that your interest in this subject will be more than casual. So when O comes out in favor of SSM, three things happen: The ardent gay-rights supporters cheer and find themselves more likely to vote for him, the gay-marriage supporters boo and find themselves less likely, and the libertarian supporters shrug and say it makes no difference. That’s how you get those imbalanced numbers.

For your viewing pleasure, via CNS, here’s Pelosi explaining how her Catholic faith “compels” her to support gay marriage. Forgive the resident atheist a possibly stupid question, but isn’t it the Pope and bishops who decide for the faithful what their faith compels them to believe? They seem … pretty clear on this subject.

Update: One further note on the Gallup poll. Although the independent numbers are worrisome for O, the 13-point tilt overall towards those who say they’re now less likely to vote for him is being driven mostly by the overwhelming GOP response. Which is to say, just because people insist they’re now less likely to vote for him, that doesn’t mean they were on the fence in the first place. Per the Republican numbers, most of them weren’t. It’s the independents who are.


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

Tom Bradley effect.

CrazyGene on May 11, 2012 at 4:56 PM

The power of liberalism compels her!

The power of liberalism compels her!

THE POWER OF LIBERALISM COMPELS HER!

Reno_Dave on May 11, 2012 at 4:58 PM

The independents are interesting.. He gets a net loss from then.

melle1228 on May 11, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Oh oh O!

KOOLAID2 on May 11, 2012 at 4:58 PM

uncharted territory for society

Not society—millennias of civilization.

INC on May 11, 2012 at 4:59 PM

LOL, as Rush Limbaugh calls it “Obama’s evolution to let the states decide”

Marcus on May 11, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Obama’s evolution: http://youtu.be/oYxn48u1BoI

ModernConservative on May 11, 2012 at 4:59 PM

It’s a net loser for Obama. Sure, there are some who will be more motivated to get out the vote for the guy in November. But seriously, how big of a voting bloc are gays and the folks who have same sex marriage at or near the top of their list of most important issues?

Now social conservatives on the other hand are a HUGE bloc of voters. And while many were already predisposed to not support Barry, they were also still lukewarm to Romney’s candidacy for a variety of reasons. Not anymore. This will galvanize them and ensure they get their asses to the polls.

It’s gonna increase GOP support for Romney and push more independents into his camp. Which is why I don’t think today’s Rasmussen poll is a fluke(no, not that Fluke).

Doughboy on May 11, 2012 at 5:00 PM

I honestly did not understand a thing she said in that clip. There’s a great business opportunity out there for whoever comes up with “closed captioning for the liberal impaired” which can translate her babble into an approximation of human thought.

JeremiahJohnson on May 11, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Tom Bradley effect.

I think there may be a Bradley effect for live polling on gay marriage… but automated polls do much better.

I still don’t believe these gay marriage polls. Tom Jensen of PPP tweeted after the NC vote that he put support nationally for gay marriage at 42%.

ninjapirate on May 11, 2012 at 5:01 PM

If Pelosi’s faith compels her to support gay marriage, I wonder if her liberalism compels her to take money from the offering plate when it passes by her on Sundays.

Bitter Clinger on May 11, 2012 at 5:03 PM

D’oh! Did these moonbat fools think Barry’s gay marriage “evolution” would help them win? They are acutely aware of poll numbers, and surely they knew public opinion and past election results for gay marriage.

Keep up the good work, Dems.

Philly on May 11, 2012 at 5:03 PM

I’m still cracking up at the often asked “Why does SSM poll so well but lose every time its voted on” conundrum.

51%-23% = the number who will vote for Obama no matter what.

DanMan on May 11, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Tom Jensen of PPP tweeted after the NC vote that he put support nationally for gay marriage at 42%.

BTW, that’s only if the only other option is no rights for gays whatsoever. Gay marriage only has support in the high 20s if you add in civil unions/partnerships… but support for civil unions/partnerships + gay marriage is in the high 60s.

ninjapirate on May 11, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Those 23% probably gave Obama a collective eye-roll after his epic evolution.

RedRedRice on May 11, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Forgive the resident atheist a possibly stupid question, but isn’t it the Pope and bishops who decide for the faithful what their faith compels them to believe? They seem … pretty clear on this subject.

Indeed. For further reading on the Catholic Church’s feelings on this subject, see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England

Lawdawg86 on May 11, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Just more proof of how scary smart 0bama is. If this hadn’t come up then people would be talking about the 500,000 that left the work force Or worse, the 324,000 women out.

Wyle E. 0bama
Super Genius

jukin3 on May 11, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Tom Bradley effect.

CrazyGene on May 11, 2012 at 4:56 PM

I’ll settle for the 2011 Tom Brady effect.

portlandon on May 11, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Gee that didn’t work out so well for the Won.

Forgive the resident atheist a possibly stupid question, but isn’t it the Pope and bishops who decide for the faithful what their faith compels them to believe?

You are correct. BTW, a brilliant guy I once worked for taught me that the only stupid questions are the ones we do not ask.

dogsoldier on May 11, 2012 at 5:05 PM

So, when does Obama endorse plural marriage?

Oil Can on May 11, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Fascinating numbers which I think bear out one of my points in this post last night about why the states keep banning gay marriage when national polls show a majority in favor.

Sigh.

Once again; people who don’t vote, don’t count. This is a poll of Americans, not registered or likely voters. We can’t take away any useful information from this poll because it includes people who don’t vote. Thus the more or less likely numbers are total garbage when it includes people who don’t vote.

NotCoach on May 11, 2012 at 5:06 PM

The evolution has turned a great many people into racists. Unexpectedly.

Greek Fire on May 11, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Thanks, Uncle Joe! Wear a hat as those tires can really hurt the head.

Did the Dems hire Schmidt/Wallace and not tell anyone?

kim roy on May 11, 2012 at 5:08 PM

78% of American’s proclaim that they’re Christians.
31 states have proclaimed by popular vote that marriage is “one man and one woman”.
NC’s votes was 61% to 39%.
Who are these polls sampling? The NE Corridor?

kingsjester on May 11, 2012 at 5:09 PM

The ardent gay-rights supporters cheer and find themselves more likely to vote for him, the gay-marriage supporters boo and find themselves less likely, and the libertarian supporters shrug and say it makes no difference. That’s how you get those imbalanced numbers.

AP, don’t you mean “opponents” here?

TXUS on May 11, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Thanks, Uncle Joe! Wear a hat as those tires can really hurt the head.

Did the Dems hire Schmidt/Wallace and not tell anyone?

kim roy on May 11, 2012 at 5:08 PM

________________________________________________

Odoofus is gonna back that Greyhound bus over Poor Uncle Joe – twice.

Thanks for your “service” Joe – you’re a regular nostradumbass

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on May 11, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Just more proof of how scary smart 0bama is. If this hadn’t come up then people would be talking about the 500,000 that left the work force Or worse, the 324,000 women out.

Wyle E. 0bama
Super Genius

jukin3 on May 11, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Let’s hope A.C.M.E. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bain Capital.

Lily on May 11, 2012 at 5:12 PM

The 10% less likely by Democrats is the more significant number in my opinion.

ButterflyDragon on May 11, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Fascinating numbers which I think bear out one of my points in this post last night about why the states keep banning gay marriage when national polls show a majority in favor.

Sigh.
Once again; people who don’t vote, don’t count. This is a poll of Americans, not registered or likely voters. We can’t take away any useful information from this poll because it includes people who don’t vote. Thus the more or less likely numbers are total garbage when it includes people who don’t vote.
NotCoach on May 11, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Excellent points. I believe AP is trying to make some sense of this via reading in some of his own prejudice on the issue instead of looking at who was polled. This poll is pretty much meaningless for any Presidential election analysis.

whatcat on May 11, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Opponents of gay marriage are more focused, I suspect: Whether religious or not, they think this is uncharted territory for society and worry about unintended consequences from mainstreaming “alternative lifestyles.” If you believe that it could have significant consequences for the culture, then it stands to reason that your interest in this subject will be more than casual.

Which is a long way of saying that the time isn’t right for same-sex marriage. When the issue has gone to public referendum the sodomites have a zero percent success rate. 32 states including California. And, unlike a social issue like segregation, opposition to same sex marriage cuts across society in some very odd ways.

I do think there is some truth that this is a generational thing but, if so, then same sex marriage will ultimately be accepted. Continuing with in-your-face demands of acceptance now accomplishes little because those who oppose do indeed take more than a passing interest in the subject.

Happy Nomad on May 11, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Tom Bradley effect.

CrazyGene on May 11, 2012 at 4:56 PM

No kidding. With the tone how it is right now, people are just telling them what they want to hear or to get them out of their faces.

Who wants to be called a bigot or a racist or whatever just by answering a question. Plus, nowadays, the extra added bonus is that you might just get on Obama’s “list”. Easier just to give the party line answer and do what you must in the booth.

Reason # 15,637,606,256 to vote ABO:

hit list

“Here’s what happens when the president of the United States publicly targets a private citizen for the crime of supporting his opponent.”

kim roy on May 11, 2012 at 5:14 PM

ALSO uncalculated in this — and all — polling results is a measure of liabilities with “‘gay’ marriage” or “Same Sex Marriage” (“SSM”).

Youth, younger adults, are mostly now keener on the idea of SSM **BUT** it’s also an indication of their youth, naivete and need to opine in polar opposite to those who are older than they are, or, rather, to “do something new” without too much understanding of just what they’re keen on.

“Youth” is presented with this concept of SSM in the lone and isolated context of “what’s fair” and “not being unfair” and the meaningless and incorrect, “everyone’s equal” strategy. None of that is true, accurate nor actual but those are the elementary-school level “standards” that our present “youth” voter has grown up being indoctrinated with: “don’t be unfair,” “everyone’s equal,” “everyone gets their fair share, it’s all the same, no one gets more or less than you do”…

This is ALSO why Obama continues to use this language in so many of his speeches, especially predictably when he’s speaking to younger audiences or about “youth-oriented” issues: “fair share,” “fair shot,” “get your fair share,” “your fair shot,” etc. He is again agitating, except that the youth audience isn’t wise enough YET to know they’re being indoctrinated.

So one could sell this audience on anything that would fit into that indoctrination model, that propaganda: “what’s fair” and “everyone’s the same” and yadda yadda yadda….in there goes “marriage” which is then demanded of them to be viewed as a commodity that “everyone” “should” “be able to have” (because it’s “fair”, and eliminate gender because that, too is “flexible” “by choice” as the youth of today has been indoctrinated with).

When we’re young, we’re mostly influenced by social/peer conditions, not by values or specifically by religious beliefs as they influence values. With more experience in life, most of us come to more profound understandings of what is what and why.

Obama, unfortunately, is a practiced Pied Piper with “youth” and other more needy individuals (the poor, socio-political activists, etc.). Without stable influences on youth by good parenting, an ongoing relationship there with at least one sound parent, most youth if not generally all youth are mostly at the mercy of what their peers are doing and what they think.

Lourdes on May 11, 2012 at 5:15 PM

You are correct. BTW, a brilliant guy I once worked for taught me that the only stupid questions are the ones we do not ask.

dogsoldier on May 11, 2012 at 5:05 PM

It’s a rhetorical question. You-know-who had, at a minimum, 12 years of Catholic education.

Blake on May 11, 2012 at 5:16 PM

ALSO uncalculated in this — and all — polling results is a measure of liabilities with “‘gay’ marriage” or “Same Sex Marriage” (“SSM”).

Youth, younger adults, are mostly now keener on the idea of SSM **BUT** it’s also an indication of their youth, naivete and need to opine in polar opposite to those who are older than they are, or, rather, to “do something new” without too much understanding of just what they’re keen on.

“Youth” is presented with this concept of SSM in the lone and isolated context of “what’s fair” and “not being unfair” and the meaningless and incorrect, “everyone’s equal” strategy. None of that is true, accurate nor actual but those are the elementary-school level “standards” that our present “youth” voter has grown up being indoctrinated with: “don’t be unfair,” “everyone’s equal,” “everyone gets their fair share, it’s all the same, no one gets more or less than you do”…

This is ALSO why Obama continues to use this language in so many of his speeches, especially predictably when he’s speaking to younger audiences or about “youth-oriented” issues: “fair share,” “get your fair share,” etc. He is again agitating, except that the youth audience isn’t wise enough YET to know they’re being indoctrinated.

So one could sell this audience on anything that would fit into that indoctrination model, that propaganda: “what’s fair” and “everyone’s the same” and yadda yadda yadda….in there goes “marriage” which is then demanded of them to be viewed as a commodity that “everyone” “should” “be able to have” (because it’s “fair”, and eliminate gender because that, too is “flexible” “by choice” as the youth of today has been indoctrinated with).

When we’re young, we’re mostly influenced by social/peer conditions, not by values or specifically by religious beliefs as they influence values. With more experience in life, most of us come to more profound understandings of what is what and why.

Obama, unfortunately, is a practiced Pied Piper with “youth” and other more needy individuals (the poor, socio-political activists, etc.). Without stable influences on youth by good parenting, an ongoing relationship there with at least one sound parent, most youth if not generally all youth are mostly at the mercy of what their peers are doing and what they think.

Lourdes on May 11, 2012 at 5:16 PM

The ardent gay-rights supporters cheer and find themselves more likely to vote for him, the gay-marriage supporters boo and find themselves less likely, and the libertarian supporters shrug and say it makes no difference. That’s how you get those imbalanced numbers.

AP, don’t you mean “opponents” here?

TXUS on May 11, 2012 at 5:11 PM

In addition, I think he is referring to “ardent gay-rightspriveledge supporters. No need to forget that the word “right” actually has a definition which doesn’t fit in this context.

CapnObvious on May 11, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Once again; people who don’t vote, don’t count.

NotCoach on May 11, 2012 at 5:06 PM

I gotta disagree with you slightly. They do count in the census. Their very residence affects the boundaries or very existence of Congressional districts.

Happy Nomad on May 11, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Just wait until whatever happens with Obamacare and the reaction to the result. Every poll up until that moment will be null and void.

tjexcite on May 11, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Sorry for the double-post above. I thought the first version with the “fair shot” quote of Obama’s repeated phraseology was moderated-out, so I removed it in the second repost…and now see the first one did, in fact, post with that phrase.

Thus, double post.

Lourdes on May 11, 2012 at 5:19 PM

It’s gonna increase GOP support for Romney and push more independents into his camp. Which is why I don’t think today’s Rasmussen poll is a fluke(no, not that Fluke).

Doughboy on May 11, 2012 at 5:00 PM

..mightn’t this be a good time to have Sanctum warming up in the bull pen? He said he wanted to help!

The War Planner on May 11, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Once again; people who don’t vote, don’t count.

NotCoach on May 11, 2012 at 5:06 PM

I gotta disagree with you slightly. They do count in the census. Their very residence affects the boundaries or very existence of Congressional districts.

Happy Nomad on May 11, 2012 at 5:18 PM

I believe NotCoach was addressing the context here – in an election.

whatcat on May 11, 2012 at 5:20 PM

So where is the moron that said Obama won’t lose votes over this?

The Notorious G.O.P on May 11, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Once again; people who don’t vote, don’t count.

NotCoach on May 11, 2012 at 5:06 PM

..er, would you be referring to HG’s own FloatingRock and SteveAngell?

The War Planner on May 11, 2012 at 5:22 PM

I gotta disagree with you slightly. They do count in the census. Their very residence affects the boundaries or very existence of Congressional districts.

Happy Nomad on May 11, 2012 at 5:18 PM

That is true, but of little to no value in guesstimating election results.

NotCoach on May 11, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Thus, double post.

Lourdes on May 11, 2012 at 5:19 PM

..no problem. Your stuff is worth re-reading!

:-D

The War Planner on May 11, 2012 at 5:23 PM

What actually counts as to this issue of the imposition on marriage and what it is, how it’s defined and by whom, is what the states’ populations determine for themselves all that means.

I still reel about the offensive rejection of Prop. 8 by Judge Walker in CA — despite it being a voter decision not once but twice, state wide, that marriage is to be defined as being between one man and one woman, the voters’ decision has been trashed by one or a few people in the judiciary.

We have to allow the decision by voters to stand — our Constitution deems us, the voters, the citizens, as being able to do that, to self determine the government we want, and without respect for voter decisions on this as with other issues, we have a government that isn’t what the Constitution says we’re able to have.

Lourdes on May 11, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Approving of the pro gay marriage position, but being less likely to vote for Obama after this flip-flop is not necessarily inconsistent.

People may be less likely to vote for him because they just don’t like being lied to, or they don’t like transparently cynical political bullcrap.

forest on May 11, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Thus, double post.

Lourdes on May 11, 2012 at 5:19 PM

..no problem. Your stuff is worth re-reading!

:-D

The War Planner on May 11, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Oh, thanks so much. Very nice of you to say that.

Lourdes on May 11, 2012 at 5:24 PM

feh!

ted c on May 11, 2012 at 5:28 PM

We have to allow the decision by voters to stand

Lourdes on May 11, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Unless it’s deemed unConstitutional. Now personally I can’t see a single stitch of the Constitution that defines marriage as a “right.” If that were the case, the government would have to start supplying us with spouses.

John the Libertarian on May 11, 2012 at 5:29 PM

There is simply no way that obama’s ‘LIE evolving to PANDER’ will garner him any additional votes. Everyone, EVERYONE, has known all along that obama supports gay marriage and that he has simply been waiting to use this issue during his re-election attempt, to raise cash. This election cycle ‘surprise’ has much greater potential to damage his turnout in November, than it does to improve it.

Pork-Chop on May 11, 2012 at 5:32 PM

The 10% less likely by Democrats is the more significant number in my opinion.

ButterflyDragon on May 11, 2012 at 5:12 PM

I suspect those 10% won’t really make much difference. It’s not terribly likely that those are voters for whom SSM is their one issue. They may be less likely to vote for His Royal Genius, but this isn’t enough to push them to vote for Romney. They’ll end up back in His Royal Genius’ corner, just not as enthusiatically.

gravityman on May 11, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Approving of the pro gay marriage position, but being less likely to vote for Obama after this flip-flop is not necessarily inconsistent.

People may be less likely to vote for him because they just don’t like being lied to, or they don’t like transparently cynical political bullcrap.

forest on May 11, 2012 at 5:23 PM

yeah that’s what i was going to say. there are people who support gay marriage and so they agree with obama’s “evolution” but they are mad because they know he’s a pandering flip-flopper… haha

Sachiko on May 11, 2012 at 5:32 PM

“Youth” is presented with this concept of SSM in the lone and isolated context of “what’s fair” and “not being unfair” and the meaningless and incorrect, “everyone’s equal” strategy. None of that is true, accurate nor actual but those are the elementary-school level “standards” that our present “youth” voter has grown up being indoctrinated with: “don’t be unfair,” “everyone’s equal,” “everyone gets their fair share, it’s all the same, no one gets more or less than you do”…

Exactly life is not fair does not necessarily mean equal protection.. Equal protection was meant to ensure equal opportunity not equal outcome.

melle1228 on May 11, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Let me get this straight.
Bill Clinton was “the first black president” … does this make Barrack Hussein Obama the first gay president?

kregg on May 11, 2012 at 5:33 PM

I still don’t believe these gay marriage polls. Tom Jensen of PPP tweeted after the NC vote that he put support nationally for gay marriage at 42%.

ninjapirate on May 11, 2012 at 5:01 PM

I tend to agree with you on a purely intuitive level, seconded by one from reason.

The nation is by majority a Christian one. More people believe in Christ and identify as Christian than those who don’t identify as having any religious beliefs/associations and/or those who identify as another religion other than Christianity.

And AS one is Christian and NOT of the Obama-kind-of-play-at-being-one type of Christian, then the definition of marriage is well established and explained as to why it is in the Bible, in Christian theology.

We can reason marriage as “non religious” and “only law and not in the realm of religion” but that only goes so far. With people of religious belief as Christians, it’s a non-argument because the issue is already defined and understood by the values authored by the religion, and then applied outwardly as respect for the law in keeping with the religious understanding for the most part with just about everyone (when the specifics are discussed).

So I think, simply because the majority in our nation are Christian, that the issue of marriage will remain and continues to be recognized as being defined by “one man and one woman.”

It’s also mostly the outliers to that majority who are both pushing this “same sex marriage” thing and who support it.

Lourdes on May 11, 2012 at 5:33 PM

I think Allah is right when he says that, aside from a tiny percentage of gay activists, most so-called “supporters” of SSM “just don’t care” about gay marriage one way or the other. Or, to the extent that they do care about it, it remains a very minor concern.

That actually describes my position. If some omniscient pollster were totaling up stats on gay marriage, I would technically be listed as a “supporter” — I did vote against Prop 8, after all. But on the scale of priorities in my life and in my view of society, the existence or non-existence of gay marriage is about 459th on my List of Things Worth Having an Opinion About, falling somewhere between “Whole wheat pasta isn’t so bad once you get used to it” and “We shouldn’t allow unicycles on the freeway.”

And the secret truth is, most gays don’t really care either. This fact is borne out by the gay marriage statistics in states where it is now allowed. The proportion of same-sex marriages to the total number of gay adults is quite small, when compared to the number of traditional marriages among the straight population. In other words, even after winning the epic fight and getting the right to marry, the vast majority of gays completely ignore that right and never get married anyway.

I’m reminded of a two-year throwing a tantrum and insisting on having a certain toy, getting into tug-of-wars with siblings over it, crying and smashing things up. And then when they are finally given it — they toss it aside and move on to something new.

Zombie on May 11, 2012 at 5:34 PM

I do think there is some truth that this is a generational thing but, if so, then same sex marriage will ultimately be accepted. Continuing with in-your-face demands of acceptance now accomplishes little because those who oppose do indeed take more than a passing interest in the subject.

Happy Nomad on May 11, 2012 at 5:14 PM

I suspect that’s true. I suspect it will come someday, but the referendums on the subject continually show that its day is not today.

gravityman on May 11, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Only a week or so ago Gallup was pimping a 51 per cent approval for some other issue for their candidate. They’ve become the spineless weatherman who always predicts 50% chance of rain tomorrow to see if the public will buy it before having to try pimping something else.

viking01 on May 11, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Independent voters may think: I agree with him (weakly) to some extent on gay marriage, but maybe he is a manipulative electioneering deceiver.

Or worse, they think: I agree on the gay thing, but this somehow seems to point to a bigger issue, maybe O is extreme.

Make a meme out of it. The O admin is made up of radicals that have stewed in socialist or socially degenerate dogma. At its core, and throughout, O’s admin is extreme and radical. Like Van Jones. Not good.

Banner Ad campaign: Radicals at the Helm.

anotherJoe on May 11, 2012 at 5:35 PM

does this make Barrack Hussein Obama the first gay president?

kregg on May 11, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Yes, though there are some who claim that Lincoln was involved in homosexuality. I dunno, I wasn’t there, so have no opinion about Lincoln’s intimate behaviors.

But with Obama, I’m relatively confident that he is or has been involved in quite a bit of excessiveness that the public would find offensive from anyone in the Presidency.

Lourdes on May 11, 2012 at 5:36 PM

This is going to backfire hard on the progressive homosexual agenda, and quite possibly leading to a constitutional amendment banning same sex “marriage” and civil unions altogether.

All or nothing is how they’re playing this, now they could very well be looking at nothing.

Rebar on May 11, 2012 at 5:37 PM

I’ve asked before but either didn’t get an answer or couldn’t find it in all the comments. But are we sure that support for gay marriage is even all that high in the gay community? I suspect there are many who claim to support it (especially next to their partner) but privately do not. Just as when it was legalized in some cities, it lead to a lot of gay break ups as only 1/2 of the couple thought that it would mean THEY would get married. So I’m not sure the dynamic is as liberals would like to believe. They just want to push gay marriage to get their tolerance merit badges more than even gay people want marriage.

MechanicalBill on May 11, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Although the independent numbers are worrisome for O, the 13-point tilt overall towards those who say they’re now less likely to vote for him is being driven mostly by the overwhelming GOP response.

Well, yes and no. Treating the poll as Gospel, what it tells me is: (1) He alienated 10% of his own party, while picking up the votes of… Democrats who were going to vote for him anyway; (2) The spread between Independent pickup and Independent loss is 11 – 23 = -12, so he alienated about the same proportion of the Independents, which he absolutely MUST win; and (3) he took a measly 2% of Romney’s vote away, and that’s also probably a 2% consisting of true RINOs which was planning to vote for Obama anyway. Obama better hope the shift REALLY revives his fundraising, because he seems to have created new ground to make up.

Zumkopf on May 11, 2012 at 5:38 PM

I would LOVE to see polls that include Governor Gary Johnson, the current Libertarian candidate for POTUS that also supports Gay Marriage. That would give us all a feel on how the issue resonates.

DannoJyd on May 11, 2012 at 5:38 PM

I don’t believe the polls anymore

Kini on May 11, 2012 at 5:39 PM

kregg on May 11, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Lourdes on May 11, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Story I referred to as to President Lincoln was that he was known to have another man — an underling, employee, helper, keeper, etc. — sleep in his bed at night with him, so that’s been grabbed by homosexual-activists and run with as to him “being ‘gay’”…

WHILE it’s most likely from history I’ve read that the practice was due to security for the then-President (who served/lived during a time when there were not all the staff and gizmo advantages of today’s conditions as to security) .

Lincoln also rode his own horse alone through the country to and from his speaking engagements as President, so that shows the level of “absent security” or even awareness of the need for it during his time. And, obviously, his awful demise showed just what the conditions of his time were.

Lourdes on May 11, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Remember what happened on the Left Coast where the activist California judge had to cancel proposition election outcome because it didn’t end up going as he would have liked.

viking01 on May 11, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Unless it’s deemed unConstitutional. Now personally I can’t see a single stitch of the Constitution that defines marriage as a “right.” If that were the case, the government would have to start supplying us with spouses.

John the Libertarian on May 11, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Very true. Which makes me wonder why the federal government would have anything to do with defining it at all, or with identifying benefits/restrictions/legalities based on the marriage status. If any part of government should be allowed to define it, it should be the states (via the voters, who have roundly rejected it so far), and only the states should assign legal benefits based on it.

gravityman on May 11, 2012 at 5:43 PM

I don’t believe the polls anymore

Kini on May 11, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Yeah, and if one tunes into MSNBC/NBC, CNN, ABC or CBS any night of the week, one can hear and see the “environment” that suggests or outright declares that “everyone” supports “‘gay’ marriage” and all that agenda.

I don’t know, but as I earlier explained, I think from the sheer fact that the Left media is so opinionated “for” this as with other issues, and inevitably it ‘s found later that it was unfounded and merely their propaganda, that the issue of marriage if the voters’ decisions are upheld, is sound as it is defined by one man and one woman.

Lourdes on May 11, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Next moral glass floor to break ?? The age of consent of course.
Who doesn’t think the next big legal case will be the age in which
a child can make legal decisions which will dovetail nicely with lib agenda.

rik on May 11, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Approving of the pro gay marriage position, but being less likely to vote for Obama after this flip-flop is not necessarily inconsistent.

People may be less likely to vote for him because they just don’t like being lied to, or they don’t like transparently cynical political bullcrap.

forest on May 11, 2012 at 5:23 PM

-
Agreed… For some indies and non-committed dems this may be a major ‘OMG’ he’s just tryin to play us moment…
-

RalphyBoy on May 11, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Unless it’s deemed unConstitutional. Now personally I can’t see a single stitch of the Constitution that defines marriage as a “right.” If that were the case, the government would have to start supplying us with spouses.

John the Libertarian on May 11, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Yes, agreed.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve written that — “marriage isn’t a ‘right’” — that Leftwingers chime in, “yes, it is a right” and I respond, “no, it isn’t a ‘right”" and then on and on and on…

The Left is convinced that marriage is “a right” while there’s nothing to support that it is, specifically, any more than any contract is “a right”…it’s not a guaranteed privilege or benefit, in other words. The Left won’t accept that even when they have nothing to prove their insistence.

Lourdes on May 11, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Remember what happened on the Left Coast where the activist California judge had to cancel proposition election outcome because it didn’t end up going as he would have liked.

viking01 on May 11, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Judge Walker. Wretched man.

Lourdes on May 11, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Yes, agreed.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve written that — “marriage isn’t a ‘right’” — that Leftwingers chime in, “yes, it is a right” and I respond, “no, it isn’t a ‘right”” and then on and on and on…

The Left is convinced that marriage is “a right” while there’s nothing to support that it is, specifically, any more than any contract is “a right”…it’s not a guaranteed privilege or benefit, in other words. The Left won’t accept that even when they have nothing to prove their insistence.

Lourdes on May 11, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Even if it was deemed a right; it isn’t a natural right. It requires the state to bestow the privilege on you which means the state can take it away, regulate and restrict it.

melle1228 on May 11, 2012 at 5:50 PM

This is going to backfire hard on the progressive homosexual agenda, and quite possibly leading to a constitutional amendment banning same sex “marriage” and civil unions altogether.

All or nothing is how they’re playing this, now they could very well be looking at nothing.

Rebar on May 11, 2012 at 5:37 PM

I don’t know that we often agree, but you are 100% correct on this one. This is a sleeping dog better left to lay. It should be obvious that the country is not quite ready for SSM yet, even if the trend line is moving in that direction… it just isn’t there yet. If they keep pushing this hard on the issue, the more likely response would be for the anti-SSM crowd to end up with some sort of marriage amendment, and that would be a far harder thing to reverse in the future.

gravityman on May 11, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Next moral glass floor to break ?? The age of consent of course.

rik on May 11, 2012 at 5:45 PM

I disagree, the first will be polygamy. Think of all the muslem immigrants, and their “rights” under sharia law.

Age of consent will be the next after that, for sure though.

Rebar on May 11, 2012 at 5:52 PM

So where is the moron that said Obama won’t lose votes over this?

The Notorious G.O.P on May 11, 2012 at 5:21 PM

UpperYeastside is getting some camping supplies for his weekend Cub Scouts trip…

hillsoftx on May 11, 2012 at 5:54 PM

The liberals and the liberal media try to tell us that a majority of people support gay marriage, yet when it is put up for a vote gay marriage is overwhelmingly rejected by the people, 30 states have now rejected it and/or banned it. I believe the true support for gay marriage is really only about 20 something percent, much lower that what the liberals and the liberal media attempts to indoctrinate people with. But to liberals and their media whores the truth does not matter, the only thing that matters is forwarding the liberal agenda.

Beastdogs on May 11, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Next moral glass floor to break ?? The age of consent of course.

rik on May 11, 2012 at 5:45 PM

I disagree, the first will be polygamy. Think of all the muslem immigrants, and their “rights” under sharia law.

Age of consent will be the next after that, for sure though.

Rebar on May 11, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Well, actually, there IS that penchant for boys by Muslim adult males. So I think that’s a challenge that is, indeed, on the horizon along with polygamy, the age-of-consent issue.

Lourdes on May 11, 2012 at 5:54 PM

When someone calls you in a poll, they know your number and, ostensibly, your name. The polls are not anonymous, no matter what the pollsters would have us believe.

Now, the only people who would be calling and asking your opinion on whether gay marriage is acceptable or not would be the “pro” side.

Given how you’ve seen the pro side act — and this stuff was on national news after the passage of Prop 8 here in California — do you really want your business boycotted, your house and church picketed? And, in the case of California, if you are a landlord, do you really want recorded proof that you harbor “prejudice” against a protected class of people?

There is no longer freedom of association in a large number of situations here, so it’s best to give an answer consistent with State law if you are going to give any answer at all — and that’s true regardless of what you believe.

As for me, I screen all my calls, and nobody I don’t know gets a pickup. The rest can talk to the answering machine, and if I think their reason for talking to me is good enough, I’ll call back.

unclesmrgol on May 11, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Lourdes on May 11, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Even if it was deemed a right; it isn’t a natural right. It requires the state to bestow the privilege on you which means the state can take it away, regulate and restrict it.

melle1228 on May 11, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Yes, I agree, when marriage is considered as a contract only (when all other considerations about it are removed and it’s viewed as “contract” or “regulated condition only” meaning, “by the state” as you point out there).

BUT there are already amplifications to the contract nature of marriage required by states: age, health, sincerity of identity and relationship to the other involved, capacity to engage in the contract, etc.

Regulating contracts…this quickly rises above my knowledge level here but I agree with your point about government involvement and the liabilities involved when taken to possible extremes.

Lourdes on May 11, 2012 at 5:59 PM

If Pelosi’s faith compels her to support gay marriage, I wonder if her liberalism compels her to take money from the offering plate when it passes by her on Sundays.

Bitter Clinger on May 11, 2012 at 5:03 PM

I don’t think she goes to mass much. The other parishioners complain about the sulfur smell. Well, that and the full depends smell.

Aviator on May 11, 2012 at 6:02 PM

the passionate gay-rights supporters who see it as an issue of equality and civil rights

These myopic idiots frame EVERYTHING in this manner. For them, nothing else exists. For some reason, they believe the world revolves around them.

GarandFan on May 11, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Rebar on May 11, 2012 at 5:52 PM
Try thinking about it in this vein. This all about increasing the pool of sexual persuasion. Polygamy doesn’t get you there. 15 does.

rik on May 11, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Unless it’s deemed unConstitutional. Now personally I can’t see a single stitch of the Constitution that defines marriage as a “right.” If that were the case, the government would have to start supplying us with spouses.

John the Libertarian on May 11, 2012 at 5:29 PM

I agree, marriage isn’t a right. But there are numerous federal and state laws that benefit married people over single people.

In my opinion, that is the problem.

ButterflyDragon on May 11, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Rebar on May 11, 2012 at 5:52 PM
Try thinking about it in this vein. This all about increasing the pool of sexual persuasion. Polygamy doesn’t get you there. 15 does.

rik on May 11, 2012 at 6:09 PM

I think it is also about increasing state power. Heterosexuals have always been able to naturally legally pair bond through the biological children even if the didn’t marry. Unless the couple interjects the state into custody etc; the state need never become involved in their union and they have an automatic legal connection.

The same can not be said for homosexual unions. They will always require and be dependent on the state for those legal ties. Even if they “raise” children together independent of marriage they require the state to sort out legal custody from the third party donor, and the non-biological parent must adopt the child.

It is just a way of making another minority group beholden to the state and the benefits they bestow on said group..

melle1228 on May 11, 2012 at 6:14 PM

If Pelosi’s faith compels her to support gay marriage, I wonder if her liberalism compels her to take money from the offering plate when it passes by her on Sundays.

Bitter Clinger on May 11, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Compels her hell, not only is it an entitlement, it’s her job.

antipc on May 11, 2012 at 6:15 PM

It,s so strange that these polls always say more than half of the people support same sex marriage but when it come to a vote it never wins.

logman1 on May 11, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Every thing I witness the Obama campaign doing is so cynically calculated to raise campaign donations. The Obama campaign isn’t being very subtle about playing on different demographics issues.

Obama stated he supports same sex marriage so what it doesn’t change the status quo.

He also said, that he believes it’s up to states to decide if they are going to recognize same sex marriages – it’s a nothing burger – for Ghey people, it’s a wish sandwich, you have two slices of bread and you wish you had some meat LOL!

Dr Evil on May 11, 2012 at 6:16 PM

I don’t believe this poll whatsoever. No one, no one, is going to change their minds about voting for Obama based on SSM. NO ONE. I don’t care what the polls say. This move was to try to rev up the base & get the LGBT community & Hollywood opening their checkbooks again. It got lost in the hysteria over the “Romney was a bully 50 years ago” hackery, but prior to Obama’s historic evolution, the Clooney dinner was only expected to raise $12 million; after the announcement it ended up being a “record-breaking $16 million.”

Do the math.

Dark Star on May 11, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Let me get this straight.

Bill Clinton was “the first black president” … does this make Barrack Hussein Obama the first gay president?

kregg on May 11, 2012 at 5:33 PM

“Hell, my Father is Gay!”

Noted porn star George “Buck Naked” Costanza

Del Dolemonte on May 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM

the gay-marriage supporters boo

That should be “the gay-marriage opponents boo”

mydh12 on May 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Uh,oh! In today’s Pat/Hat poll 45% of likely voters- when granted anonymity – stated that they would rather have an highly inflamed anal fistula lanced without anesthesia on national television than vote for Mr. Obama. An additional 45% said the same except they’d opt for privacy during the procedure. 10% said that while it’s a very close call, they’d probably stick with Mr. Obama – with anesthesia- owing to his stance on homosexual marriage. One such supporter said, “The anal part really caught my eye until I saw what it was all about”.

Mason on May 11, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Oh oh O!

KOOLAID2 on May 11, 2012 at 4:58 PM

it’s magic, you know, never believe it’s not so”:

kscheuller on May 11, 2012 at 6:35 PM

This is a poll of “adults,” not RVs or LVs. Also 60% support Obama. How is that a meaningful poll?

str8tface on May 11, 2012 at 6:37 PM

“The bed, is on, my foot. The bed, is on, my foot”.

2Tru2Tru on May 11, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Boom! taste my nightstick

Conservative4ev on May 11, 2012 at 7:14 PM

BTW, that’s only if the only other option is no rights for gays whatsoever.

ninjabuttpirate on May 11, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Ninja Butt-Pirate calls for separate water fountains for gays and a poll-tax requiring homosexuals to pop wood while looking at Kim Kardashian up-skirt photos in order to vote!

Spare us your drama, Queenie.

Jaibones on May 11, 2012 at 7:14 PM

down twinkles…

crash72 on May 11, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Forgive the resident atheist a possibly stupid question, but isn’t it the Pope and bishops who decide for the faithful what their faith compels them to believe?

*applause for the “resident atheist” who understands Catholicism better than the nominally-Catholic Nan*

Mr. Prodigy on May 11, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2