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

Now social conservatives on the other hand are a HUGE bloc of voters… This will galvanize them and ensure they get their asses to the polls.

Doughboy on May 11, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Awesome! But more importantly, this election will be all about money. We expect most conservatives to at least make it to the polls and vote against O. But will they be galvanized enough to donate? $$$ are the key to victory.

People need to see this as a life or death important struggle, that though Romney be imperfect, we need to donate, often. Our job here is not so much to give money but to spread the word about how important it is to give money. Donate$.

anotherJoe on May 11, 2012 at 7:34 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

From Loving v. Virginia, the unanimous Supreme Court decision striking down miscegenation laws: “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival….”

urban elitist on May 11, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Another post on same-sex marriage. Yay.

Hey, here’s a thought: if the polls consistently show majority support for same-sex marriage while elections continually show broad rejection of it, then the polls must be wrong. And if the polls are wrong, the only question left is “why are the polls wrong?” Not, “why doesn’t it ever win elections?”

tom on May 11, 2012 at 7:54 PM

From Loving v. Virginia, the unanimous Supreme Court decision striking down miscegenation laws: “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival….”

urban elitist on May 11, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Good to know ANYONE can get married.

CW on May 11, 2012 at 8:17 PM

From Loving v. Virginia, the unanimous Supreme Court decision striking down miscegenation laws: “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival….”

urban elitist on May 11, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Now, the big question is what the Justices in that decision thought was the definition of marriage.

Here’s the full quote, which indicates that the Justices might consider restriction of marriage on bases other than race.

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

If your positing of said right is absolute, beyond race, then what is to stop two five year olds from marrying, or an adult marrying a prepubescent child, or (putting things in heterosexual terms) two men marrying the same woman, or two women marrying the same man, or five men as a group marrying five women as a group….

What restrictions should be put on marriage by the state? If we are going to go merely by adult consent, then polygamy seems just as reasonable an arrangement as a marriage between two men or two women….

unclesmrgol on May 11, 2012 at 8:21 PM

From Loving v. Virginia, the unanimous Supreme Court decision striking down miscegenation laws: “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival….”

urban elitist on May 11, 2012 at 7:48 PM

I’m not sure how homosexual marriage contributes to “our very existence and survival”. It would seem to be limited to to one generation. From this quote one can infer that the Supreme Court didn’t have homosexual marriage in mind when considering the “basic civil rights of man”.

Besides which, what about the basic civil rights of “womyn”. Sexist to be sure.

Mason on May 11, 2012 at 8:27 PM

“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival….”

urban elitist on May 11, 2012 at 7:48 PM

It’s STILL not in the Constitution, and I’d like to see your pretzel logic in arguing that gay marriage contributes to our existence or survival.

John the Libertarian on May 11, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Part of the reason for the disparity between support for gay marriage and the actual support for Obama may well be a result of the intended ‘redefinition’ of terms related to marriage being planned by attorney working for gay rights groups in relation to the California case.

I’ve read that, due to legal terminology and contract law, these particular attorneys have been drafting new terms for ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ in the event that gay marriage is fully legalized. Since contract law, in so far as marriage is concerned, does not recognize two wives or two husbands in any given marriage, these attorneys wish to do away with the terms, husband and wife, altogether and replace them with ‘partner of a marriage’. This is only one of the changes being proposed.

The fact is that being a husband or a wife is an honorable state. In my own opinion, there are many people who would object to being classed as merely a ‘partner of a marriage’ after having been either a husband or a wife for several years, in many cases, their entire adult lives. There may also be many people who would object to the new classification who have yet to marry, having anticipated being a husband or a wife.

If one look up ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ in the dictionary, one finds that these are specific terms with specific meanings. Honorable and responsible and, often cherished by those who enter into this particular social and civic contract. These terms have a very long history and consistency of meaning, cultural and societal, as well as civil. To see these terms abrogated in order to accommodate gays who wish to marry may seem to many as a step too far and constitute an erosion of the relationship intrinsic to, and vital to, a marriage.

Personally, I’ve always been a ‘live and let live’ type, however, both sides in this debate should be able to ‘live and let live’ at the end of the day. Perhaps civil unions, the state granting the rights of that particular contract to gay couples, should be the compromise upon which we settle, since the problems with the contract law, the realm of the state, seem to demand the changes that would essentially negate the traditional, respected and regarded, roles of husband and wife, along with their meaning. traditional marriage, with its traditional roles, must be preserved.

thatsafactjack on May 11, 2012 at 8:51 PM

the only question left is “why are the polls wrong?”

tom on May 11, 2012 at 7:54 PM

I believe it is something akin to the Bradley effect.

“In a 2010 paper, for instance, the New York University political scientist Patrick J. Egan compared polling in advance of state same-sex marriage referendums to the actual results, and found that the share of voters in pre-election surveys saying that they will vote to ban same-sex marriage is typically seven percentage points lower than the actual vote on election day.

That seven-point gap between appearances and reality may help explain why same-sex marriage supporters lost referendums they expected to win in liberal states like Maine and California. And it explains why a savvy White House might take polls suggesting that the issue is a political winner with a very large helping of salt.”

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/obamas-marriage-maneuvers/

http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/view_online.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.haasjr.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FMarriage%2520Polling.pdf

Resist We Much on May 11, 2012 at 8:53 PM

“Put simply, the issue of gay marriage remains highly contentious in a number of swing states: a majority of voters in North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Florida continue to be against same sex marriage.

The state-by-state data from polling conducted by Public Policy Polling show that a majority of voters in key swing-states like Virginia (53%-34%), Florida (53%-37%), North Carolina (61%-31%), Wisconsin (50%-30%) and Ohio (52%-32%) oppose the legalization of gay marriage.

And according to a recent Pew poll, one in three Southern swing voters are strongly opposed to gay marriage.

All of this in light of the fact that ballot measures to legalize gay marriage have been rejected by voters nearly every time over the course of fifteen years by voters in more than 30 states — often by large margins.

Among the 30 states that have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriages are key battleground swing-states like Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and North Carolina. These states have a combined 114 electoral votes up for grabs.

In light of these numbers, while yesterday’s move may be a political winner for President Obama among his progressive base, it may very well cost him the support of swing voters whose vote will be central to his success in winning reelection.”

http://douglasschoen.com/why-obamas-gay-marriage-endorsement-could-ultimately-be-more-harmful-than-helpful/

Resist We Much on May 11, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Marriage – a Primer

Q. Is marriage a religious institution?

A. Yes. The only thing required to be married is conformance with your sincerely held beliefs that have done what is necessary to be married and that you are married. In this case, your perception is your reality.

Q. Why is government involved in marriage, doesn’t the first amendment prohibit it?

A. Government is not involved in marriage, but marriage licenses. A license governs the public interaction with something according to legal standards. Those licenses and standards are not relevant to purely private practices or beliefs, but protect the rights of others from interference by your public beliefs and practices. A license is not required for you to be married, it is only a tool to compel those in public or government to recognize such, as opposed to voluntarily doing so. For example, a driver’s license has standards which you must meet to drive a vehicle on public roads. Failing to meet the standards of the driver’s licensing exam has no impact on your ability to drive on private property, or your own right to believe in your own mind that you are an adequately safe driver. Your buddy might voluntarily agree you’re a safe driver on the dirt track, but thankfully your insanity on the road may not be inflicted upon the rest of us until you meet the licensing standards of safety.

Q. Why did governments start licensing marriage?

A. Before the advent of DNA testing, governments needed a simple solution to settle matters of inheritance from males to their successors. In the absence of a will, a man’s estate would be passed by default to the progeny produced within wedlock. Officially tracking wedlock helped prevent a lot of courtroom gridlock. Applying for a license is essentially signing a contract that you agree to be bound by the terms of that contract in terms of property rights, legal obligations to spouse and dependents, etc. Understanding exactly how many legal rights and freedoms are surrendered by licensing your marriage can help explain why many feel it justified to compensate such persons via tax policy or otherwise.

Q. That sounds old-fashioned, why is government still so invested in licensing marriage?

A. Many reasons. Some politicians have found that they can garner favors by giving handouts to special interest groups, like bigger child credits for illegal aliens, or special tax rates for married couples. Others sincerely believe that, because children of married households are statistically better adjusted (crime rates, drug rates, education levels) it is a necessary and proper role of government to incentivize marriage to ensure the continuance of the nation through demography. That is, to ensure the nation tends towards civilization rather than anarchy. But it makes no sense to change the standards for licenses only to award them to people who can not possibly further the purpose of the license’s intent, and openly admit they are only interested in those incentives. For example, if you offer ice-cream to hard working “A” students, it is counter-productive to give all students “A”‘s merely because they whine about wanting ice-cream. Talk to your Congressmen and local representatives about your reasons and theirs for keeping the government involved in licensing marriages or not… just keep in mind it’s not the only issue they represent you on, and you’re not the only voter they must represent.

Q. Is marriage a right?

A. Yes, like any other private belief, practice, or contractual agreement, the government may not infringe upon it without due process or constitutional imperative.

Q. Is a marriage license a right?

A. No, like any other license you must meet its standards. It is only illegal to infringe upon your equal-protection right to APPLY for that license, or to be denied a license only due to an explicitly unconstitutional category of discrimination, such as race. For example, a blind man has a right to apply for a driver’s license, but no right to be issued one. A perfectly capable illegal alien driver may apply for one, and be denied because of his residency status, not his race, before being reported to ICE and summarily deported because of his residency status, not his race.

Q. Why do these licenses have standards, and who sets them?

A. Licenses are merely a statement that standards have been met; Licenses IMPLY standards. The standards are set by legislation, or a bureaucracy empowered to do so by legislation, usually in such a way that a rational person would conclude furthers the purpose of the license’s existence. “But other people get them too” is not a sufficient reason to subvert the standards of the licensing procedure. For example, licensing a vehicle for street use often depends upon standards of the vehicle’s safety, and not the vehicle’s color. The licensing exists to promote public safety, therefore the standards conform toward that end. Just because someone else’s car is street legal does not mean your top-fuel funny car should be exempt from the same standards, and it does not in any form imply the rainbow paint-job on your funny car is being unfairly discriminated against.

Q. What are the standards for a marriage license?

A. These may vary in some states, but in general any adult not currently so licensed may receive a license to marry any unlicensed adult of the complementary gender. This simple non-discriminatory standard is applied equally to all applicants regardless of their race, exact age, gender, class, or other constitutionally protected distinctions. In fact, it also applies equally to all persons regardless of their sexual preferences, even though such a distinction is not in fact constitutionally protected from discrimination. This standard conforms with a purpose of maximizing the number of children who will be conceived in the most ideal circumstances, without infringing freedoms as would occur by compelling either the circumstances or the conception.

Q. What happens when people disagree with these standards?

A. Because they are set by legislation, the remedies can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In general, people have the right to petition their government for a change. This does not imply they have a right to be guaranteed the change they desire. For example, some moped owners may believe that their preferred mode of conveyance is suitable for highway use, and would like the relevant agencies to redefine the word “motorcycle” to include mopeds. Motorcycle owners have a right to honestly disagree that mopeds qualify as motorcycles without being accused of moped-hatred or mopephobia. Mopeds not meeting highway safety standards is not a qualitative judgment as to whether they are “better” or “worse” than motorcycles, simply that they do not currently, in fact, qualify as motorcycles for the purpose of the license.

Q. When do the standards get changed?

A. Standards are a form of consensus which follow the “rational person” legal test. At some time, a rational person may decide that a situation does not meet the standards, yet at a different time, the societal definitions of those words may have changed to the point where a rational person may come to the opposite conclusion. Neither rational person is “wrong”, it is merely an apples and oranges comparison. For example, we see a distinction between cats and dogs, and as such do not issue dog licenses to cats. To do otherwise would be a huge waste of resources and defeat the purpose of the license. But at some other point in time the general consensus may be that the word “dog” merely means “any 4 legged pet with a tail,” at which time a dog license would be still only be appropriate for dogs, but the actual animals covered would change. If the rational person determines that licensing all dogs no longer serves its intended purpose, then the standards might be changed to license only dogs with non-retractable claws.

Q. Huh? I’m really confused by that last example… when a dog is a cat but not a dog then huh?

A. The bottom line is that all laws are driven by language. Language only has meaning if the definitions of words are consistent. Sometimes definitions change, but this happens naturally through consensus, not by a minority forcing its preferred definition onto others because it is convenient to that group’s aims. For example law enforcement agents can sometimes carry weapons onto planes. The definition of law enforcement may change over time by consensus… like including “air marshal”, a term unheard of 100 years ago. However Al-Qaeda should not attempt to legally change the definition of “law enforcement” to include “terrorist” and then expect to waltz “law enforcement agents” onto planes with AK-47′s the next day. When it comes to language, we must respect our fellow citizens’ common sense.

Q. I don’t like common sense. Why can’t I just have my way now and have the government force everyone else to agree with me?

A. Because hippie, despite your bad hair, poor judgment, and similar level of respect for the intelligence of the gay people, this is not Iran and you are not Ayatollah Khomeini.

CapnObvious on May 11, 2012 at 8:58 PM

ROFLMAO … And most Americans agree we should eat dogs as well.

tarpon on May 11, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Im glad that Obama supported SSM for more than one reason. The first being that I agree with it. Much in the MYOB way that the post talked about.

The second being that this could cost him the election. We are already seeing the fallout of this decision.

In the end 2012 will still be about Jobs but this will help the GOP in crucial states like North Carolina. As long as the message this right this is going to be a big winner for the GOP this year.

Blu3Yeti on May 11, 2012 at 10:18 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.

AP, you aren’t the stupid one – the heretic Catholic from San Francisco is.

The day that the Catholic Church forcibly expels the entire Pelosi family – all of them – for Nancy’s evil misdeeds will be a welcome one.

Myron Falwell on May 11, 2012 at 10:59 PM

I don’t believe the polls anymore

Kini on May 11, 2012 at 5:39 PM

All of the polls, until the ones 2 weeks out from voting day, should be taken with a grain of salt since the people paid to produce them try to give the buyers the results they want.

I like Rasmussen but even his polls don’t make sense some days.

DannoJyd on May 11, 2012 at 11:08 PM

Personally, I’ve always been a ‘live and let live’ type, however, both sides in this debate should be able to ‘live and let live’ at the end of the day. Perhaps civil unions, the state granting the rights of that particular contract to gay couples, should be the compromise upon which we settle, since the problems with the contract law, the realm of the state, seem to demand the changes that would essentially negate the traditional, respected and regarded, roles of husband and wife, along with their meaning. traditional marriage, with its traditional roles, must be preserved.

thatsafactjack on May 11, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Unfortunately, the LGBT community is not interested in compromise. This is not about civil rights and those who believe it is are being used, in one way or another, to help the ardent gay community toward their desired objectives. An individual gay couple probably does see it as a matter of equal rights but not to the entrenched progressives. They will not be satisfied until they have destroyed our cherished traditions and institutions. They will not rest until the Supreme Court forces all states and all religious institutions to recognize same-sex marriage.

HoosierStateofMind on May 11, 2012 at 11:31 PM

From Loving v. Virginia, the unanimous Supreme Court decision striking down miscegenation laws: “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival….”

urban elitist on May 11, 2012 at 7:48 PM

And the very same SCOTUS agreed that this did not apply to same sex marriage see Baker v. Nelson. Marriage is only fundamental to the very existence of our survival if it actually means we survive. That means procreation…

State recognized marriage including same sex is not a natural right. It cannot occur independent of the state and the state must bestow the “right” on to you thus enabling the state to regulate or restrict that right. Although one could argue that a natural bond is formed when a biological child is born automatically making the parents more than friends with bennies- this does not constitute a “state recognized” union.

The fall back is then equal protection under the law. I won’t even discuss levels of scrutiny and how sexuality falls under the lowest level of scrutiny. Equal protection guarantees equal opportunity not equal outcome. Marriage licenses are not granted based on sexuality therefore there is no specifically exclusion of any sexuality . Homosexuals can apply and do receive marriage certificates. Marriage licenses are based on regulations decided by the individual states. Marriage laws are not based on love or attraction.

Everyone has the right to marry one person from the opposite gender within that state’s marriage regulations (opportunity) . Everyone does not always have the right to marry who they love or are attracted to i.e., incest, polygamy, age of consent, species, same gender(outcome). These restrictions effect people of all sexuality.

Even interracial bans were exclusionary. The interracial ban applied to ONE race: whites. Minorities could intermarry . No sexuality can marry the same gender. Interracial bans would be an apt comparison if heterosexuals could marry same gender, but same sex could not.

You can argue that this isn’t fair, but that doesn’t suddenly make marriage regulations unconstitutional.

melle1228 on May 11, 2012 at 11:41 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

It wasn’t just a proposition, it was a constitutional amendment. There had been a previous proposition (22, I think) to ban gay marriage, it was struck down by some liberal judge as unconstitutional, so it was passed again (prop 8) as a constitutional amendment. So the judge ruled in a 100-page legal opinion, “screw you breeders!” and struck the constitution down as unconstitutional just because “i said so”.

joe_doufu on May 11, 2012 at 11:54 PM

This is one memo circulating among higher ups in the GOP:

In view of this week’s news on the same sex marriage issue, here is a summary of recent survey findings on same sex marriage:

1. Support for same sex marriage has been growing and in the last few years support has grown at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down. A review of public polling shows that up to 2009 support for gay marriage increased at a rate of 1% a year. Starting in 2010 the change in the level of support accelerated to 5% a year. The most recent public polling shows supporters of gay marriage outnumber opponents by a margin of roughly 10% (for instance: NBC / WSJ poll in February / March: support 49%, oppose 40%).

2. The increase in support is taking place among all partisan groups. While more Democrats support gay marriage than Republicans, support levels among Republicans are increasing over time. The same is true of age: younger people support same sex marriage more often than older people, but the trends show that all age groups are rethinking their position.

3. Polling conducted among Republicans show that majorities of Republicans and Republican leaning voters support extending basic legal protections to gays and lesbians. These include majority Republican support for:

a. Protecting gays and lesbians against being fired for reasons of sexual orientation
b. Protections against bullying and harassment
c. Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
d. Right to visit partners in hospitals
e. Protecting partners against loss of home in case of severe medical emergencies or death
f. Legal protection in some form for gay couples whether it be same sex marriage or domestic partnership (only 29% of Republicans oppose legal recognition in any form).

Recommendation: A statement reflecting recent developments on this issue along the following lines:

“People who believe in equality under the law as a fundamental principle, as I do, will agree that this principle extends to gay and lesbian couples; gay and lesbian couples should not face discrimination and their relationship should be protected under the law. People who disagree on the fundamental nature of marriage can agree, at the same time, that gays and lesbians should receive essential rights and protections such as hospital visitation, adoption rights, and health and death benefits.”

Other thoughts / Q&A: Follow up to questions about affirmative action:

“This is not about giving anyone extra protections or privileges, this is about making sure that everyone – regardless of sexual orientation – is provided the same protections against discrimination that you and I enjoy.”

Why public attitudes might be changing:

“As more people have become aware of friends and family members who are gay, attitudes have begun to shift at an accelerated pace. This is not about a generational shift in attitudes, this is about people changing their thinking as they recognize their friends and family members who are gay or lesbian.”

Conservative fundamentals:

“As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.

lexhamfox on May 12, 2012 at 12:30 AM

lexhamfox on May 12, 2012 at 12:30 AM

The whole memo is a bunch of trite buzzwords about equality. Many things are not fair or equal in life. That does not mean it is unconstitutional. See my post above..melle1228 on May 11, 2012 at 11:41 PM. As been frequently discussed in the last few days, polls and “support” say one thing; votes say another.

As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.

This again is a laughable trite idiotic quote..

Currently every consensual adult can enter into any relationship of their choosing. And how do you stop excessive interference from the government when you are begging for government endosement? How is wanting a government to endorse your relationship and provide benefits for said relationship small government?

Would love to see where this memo is circulating in the GOP…and would love to see the GOP try to endorse gay marriage and this memo. See how far that will get with it.

melle1228 on May 12, 2012 at 4:06 AM

Would love to see where this memo is circulating in the GOP…and would love to see the GOP try to endorse gay marriage and this memo. See how far that will get with it.

melle1228 on May 12, 2012 at 4:06 AM

Never mind, found it.. The stats are from a Bush pollster who was conducted to do a poll for same sex-supporters. You mean a poll found stats that matched their clients-LOL

“Support for gay marriage increased at an accelerated rate over the past two years, according to a new bipartisan report released Wednesday. The study, commissioned by gay-rights group Freedom to Marry, was conducted by two top pollsters—Dr. Jan van Lohuizen of Voter Consumer Research, who worked for President George W. Bush’s presidential campaigns, and Joel Benenson of Benenson Strategy Group, who worked for President Barack Obama’s.”

melle1228 on May 12, 2012 at 4:15 AM

lexhamfox on May 12, 2012 at 12:30 AM

One last post and I am off to bed:

Today’s polls on controversial issues are meant as soft intimidation and are used to sway public opinion not report it. It is to show people that disagree with said conclusion that they are hicks who are not “evolving” with everyone, so they had better get on board. A lot of polls were done at the same time as this one. The Harris poll which cited 53% supported same sex oversampled homosexuals (14%). Alliance Defense Fund commissioned one as well. Their results found that 62% of people supported traditional marriage. Of course it did. The polls were meant to please the client. That poll also found it was directly correlated to how you asked the question. Ask people if they want equality for homosexuals and a majority always say “yeah equality, rah, rah, rah. Ask people if this means we change the definition of marriage for homosexuals, and the answer is no.

melle1228 on May 12, 2012 at 5:07 AM

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

Marcus on May 11, 2012 at 4:59 PM

I hadn’t heard that one … funny and ironic that a party filled with it’s and idiots flop for State’s rights whenever convenient.

I still think that all “marriages” conducted outside traditional venues, such as justice of the piece, mail order ministries, Vegas chapels, Scientology, and the like, should always be called civil unions. And that contracts should be drawn up to define the terms.

A sad and despicable situation arose in my family when my parents (who enthusiastically supported my late brother’s gay marriage/civil union enough to hold it at their house) fought with his partner over his remains and property. Their “evolution” dissolved quicker than Al Sharpton can pull out the race card.

kregg on May 12, 2012 at 7:42 AM

Comment pages: 1 2