Poll shows voter-ID, traditional-marriage amendments winning in MN

posted at 10:41 am on September 14, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

For conservatives in Minnesota focused on two big initiatives on the November ballot, the latest Survey USA poll has some very good news.  For those conservatives focused on the races for Senate and the Presidency … not so much.  Barack Obama’s lead grew to 10 points after the conventions, and Amy Klobuchar is sailing to a landslide win over Kurt Bills in her first re-election fight:

8 weeks until votes are counted, Barack Obama leads Mitt Romney 50% to 40% in the battle for Minnesota’s 10 electoral votes, incumbent DFL candidate Amy Klobuchar is materially ahead in her campaign for re-election to the U.S. Senate, and an amendment to define marriage is narrowly favored to pass, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted for KSTP-TV in the Twin Cities.

In this, SurveyUSA’s first poll of Minnesota since the Republican and Democratic conventions, Obama’s lead over Romney has grown from 6 points 6 weeks ago to 10 points today. The 10-point advantage comes largely from women, among whom Obama today leads by 17 points. Romney leads in Southern MN, but Obama leads elsewhere in the state. Obama holds slightly more of the Democratic base than Romney holds of the Republican base, and Independents break ever-so-slightly for Obama. (Among Independents, there has been a 7-point swing to Obama compared to SurveyUSA’s poll 6 weeks ago.) The real tailwind comes from moderates, who break 2:1 for Obama. Romney trails among the rich and the poor, among the educated and the less educated. There is erosion in Romney’s support among middle-income and upper-income voters, compared to 6 weeks ago. …

In the election for U.S. Senator from Minnesota, incumbent DFL candidate Amy Klobuchar remains the overwhelming favorite, leading Republican Kurt Bills 55% to 34%. 6 weeks ago, Klobuchar led by 24 points, today by 21.

Earlier this week, the Bills campaign announced that internal polling had the Republican nominee within 15 points of Klobuchar.  That’s certainly possible, but Survey USA usually does a credible job of polling Minnesota, almost always as a client for KSTP.  There is little evidence of any momentum on the ground here, at least not yet, and the fact that the campaign felt the need to trumpet a double-digit deficit asgood news tells us about the state of the race at the moment.  Bills has almost two months to catch up to Klobuchar, but unless he makes a move soon, he may never really get on the radar of voters outside the core conservative/libertarian base here.

Obama’s lead is also not surprising, except that it’s so weak compared to Klobuchar’s.  It’s interesting that we have some voters who are both Romney and Klobuchar voters.  Obama only beats Romney by three points among independents, and the 10-point lead is predicated on a D+7 sample (37/30/27).  Minnesota didn’t get an exit poll in 2010 for some reason — probably a lack of a Senate race and a competitive three-way race for Governor made exit polling too tricky — but the split in the Democratic wave election of 2008 was D+4, 40/36/25, and Obama won Minnesota by 10.  This looks like a relatively tepid showing, especially with Obama only getting to 50% in a state that hasn’t gone Republican since before Richard Nixon took down his tape recording equipment in the Oval Office.

The news on two initiatives is better.  The voter-ID constitutional amendment leads by a 2-1 margin, 62/31, winning every demo with majorities except Democrats and self-described liberals, which have majorities opposed.  The latest strategy by opponents is to claim that the requirement will escalate costs, but that’s not going to put a dent in this momentum.   Minnesotans are still embarrassed by the 2008 Senate race and want the voting system cleaned up. This one won’t be close.

The other ballot initiative looks more in doubt.  Conservatives won a court fight over the constitutional-amendment question description on the ballot that makes it clear that it doesn’t change the state’s definition of a valid marriage.  It moves the existing statutory language defining marriage as between one man and one woman into the state Constitution to keep activist judges from changing it unilaterally.  Nevertheless, opponents are campaigning against it by saying that voters shouldn’t put limits on marriage, ignoring the fact that the limits are already in place.  The initiative leads by seven points, 50/43, and it leads in every gender and age demo — but narrowly among women (48/43) and the 35-49 and 50-64 age demos (47/45 and 48/47 respectively).  Interestingly, it leads by a substantial amount with the youngest and oldest voters, double digit margins in both cases.

The problem?  For candidates, the winner has to get the majority of ballots with votes cast in their race.  For a constitutional amendment to pass in Minnesota, it has to get a Yes vote in a majority of all ballots cast, not just those ballots with a vote on the initiative.  Abstaining from this question on a valid ballot equals a “no” vote.  If this only has 50% support and a number of people don’t bother to cast the “yes” vote, the initiative is in real danger of failing even if it wins more votes than the “noes.”  The pro-traditional marriage campaign has to push hard to make sure supporters understand this and get out to vote in the election.


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

brand new early voting data out of NC

http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html

not a large sample, but outperforming 2008 so far

commodore on September 14, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Fascinates me that people who vote for traditional marriage also vote for Obama.

djl130 on September 14, 2012 at 10:44 AM

I would have liked to have seen what Hegseth could have done against Klobauchar.

Yeah on the amendments as well. The voter ID one is very important and will help with the voter fraud especially in my district.

gophergirl on September 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Obama’s lead is also not surprising, except that it’s so weak compared to Klobuchar’s. It’s interesting that we have some voters who are both Romney and Klobuchar voters.

these are people who truly have no clue.

I honestly believe that the U.S. (as all democracies are) is doomed.

People want their “free” gov’t largess, but think there is some magic bean that will pay for it.

There are simply too many idiots voting for common sense or even math (i.e., you shouldn’t spend money you don’t have; the entitlements are going to explode in the next 20 years) to overcome.

Dems don’t care b/c they’ll just use it to keep socializing everything until we are the USSR, then we’ll eventually collapse and break up into various new countries – probably many of them ruled by Sharia.

But, dems will be happy b/c they cared or something.

Monkeytoe on September 14, 2012 at 10:46 AM

brand new early voting data out of NC

http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html

not a large sample, but outperforming 2008 so far

commodore on September 14, 2012 at 10:43 AM

I don’t understand – can you translate?

djl130 on September 14, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Fascinates me that people who vote for traditional marriage also vote for Obama.

djl130 on September 14, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Fascinates me that people who vote for voter ID also vote for Obama.

Bitter Clinger on September 14, 2012 at 10:48 AM

If Romney is within 10 points in MN, in a poll done in the wake of Abortionpallooza, with a debatable partisan split, that actually looks like a suitably public demonstration for the Death Star.

Second look at MN?

JohnGalt23 on September 14, 2012 at 10:48 AM

That’s pretty close for Minnesota in terms of the Presidential race. If Romney’s that competitive in a state where even Reagan didn’t win in 1984(although he almost did), you figure Wisconsin’s gotta be ripe for the picking. Minnesota would just be gravy in a Romney landslide.

Doughboy on September 14, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Poll shows voter-ID, traditional-marriage amendments winning in MN

OK, now it really is the apocalypse.

War is coming to the Middle East.

SWalker on September 14, 2012 at 10:50 AM

I don’t understand – can you translate?

djl130 on September 14, 2012 at 10:47 AM

It shows the total number of early votes recieved so far by NC. The party breakdown is an improvement over 2008 early voting.

2008:

http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2008.html

commodore on September 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Fascinates me that people who vote for traditional marriage also vote for Obama.

djl130 on September 14, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Lots of Blacks vote in favor of traditional marriage.

Lots of Blacks vote for Obama, for what I consider to be obvious reasons.

About as simple as it gets.

JohnGalt23 on September 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Republican racists at their worst, disenfranchising the illegals. Have you no shame that you pick a fight with a group that can’t even respond in English?

Archivarix on September 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Is it wrong for me to wish for a blast of cold pre-wintry weather for Minnesota on Nov. 6 to challenge the Al Franken base from turning out to vote?

Am I a suppressionist ?

Is that racist?

FlaMurph on September 14, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Lots of Blacks vote in favor of traditional marriage.

Lots of Blacks vote for Obama, for what I consider to be obvious reasons.

About as simple as it gets.

JohnGalt23 on September 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Pretty much. See Prop 8 in California.

Doughboy on September 14, 2012 at 10:54 AM

The “Support Traditional Marriage” signs are all over out here, then again we’re a little island of red surrounded by an ocean of blue.

There is also an entire billboard near the outlet mall, yellow with black letters that says simply “Fire Klobuchar”.

Bishop on September 14, 2012 at 10:55 AM

brand new early voting data out of NC

http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html

not a large sample, but outperforming 2008 so far

commodore on September 14, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Early voting is such a crock. If you can’t be bothered to show up on Election DAY, or mail in an absentee, tough luck. And even with it, only half the country even bothers, so it doesn’t encourage anything.

changer1701 on September 14, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Lots of Blacks vote in favor of traditional marriage.

Lots of Blacks vote for Obama, for what I consider to be obvious reasons.

About as simple as it gets.

JohnGalt23 on September 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM

But lots of Blacks hate voter ID…

sandee on September 14, 2012 at 10:56 AM

If Romney is within 10 points in MN, in a poll done in the wake of Abortionpallooza, with a debatable partisan split, that actually looks like a suitably public demonstration for the Death Star.

Second look at MN?

JohnGalt23 on September 14, 2012 at 10:48 AM

It would help if the Romney campaign would open a freaking office here.

gophergirl on September 14, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Is it wrong for me to wish for a blast of cold pre-wintry weather for Minnesota on Nov. 6 to challenge the Al Franken base from turning out to vote?

FlaMurph on September 14, 2012 at 10:53 AM

The Al Franken base, being mostly cartoon characters and deceased, are not afraid of cold. Moreover, they don’t really have to walk to the polls to vote.

Archivarix on September 14, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Unenlightened racist bitter-clinger capitalist stooges.

Love,
Chris Matthews and the rest of the MSM

Liam on September 14, 2012 at 10:58 AM

these are people who truly have no clue.

Monkeytoe on September 14, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Fascinates me that people who vote for voter ID also vote for Obama.

Bitter Clinger on September 14, 2012 at 10:48 AM

The explanation I’ve been hearing from people who oppose most of Obama’s agenda but are voting for him anyway is “Obama is a disaster, but Romney’s rich. I’m just a poor working stiff and Republicans only care about rich people.”

Yeah, it’s that simplistic.

obladioblada on September 14, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Is it wrong for me to wish for a blast of cold pre-wintry weather for Minnesota on Nov. 6 to challenge the Al Franken base from turning out to vote?

Am I a suppressionist ?

Is that racist?

FlaMurph on September 14, 2012 at 10:53 AM

We do all the time! We need a blizzard up at the iron range and one just in Mpls/St. Paul. That would cover pretty much the liberal strongholds.

gophergirl on September 14, 2012 at 10:58 AM

commodore on September 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM

The data, to save clicks:

NC Early voting stats:

2008:

Dem 51.4%
Rep 30.2%
None 18.5%

2012:

Dem. 42.9%
Rep. 38.5%
None/Oth 18.6%

strictnein on September 14, 2012 at 10:59 AM

There is also an entire billboard near the outlet mall, yellow with black letters that says simply “Fire Klobuchar”.

Bishop on September 14, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Unfortunately I think it’s pretty clear that we’re stuck with her for quite some time. She’s gotten the most positive press I’ve ever seen. Even the Star Trib takes shots at Dayton every once in a while, but her… she’s scrumtrulescent.

strictnein on September 14, 2012 at 11:01 AM

The explanation I’ve been hearing from people who oppose most of Obama’s agenda but are voting for him anyway is “Obama is a disaster, but Romney’s rich. I’m just a poor working stiff and Republicans only care about rich people.”

Yeah, it’s that simplistic.

obladioblada on September 14, 2012 at 10:58 AM

And they wonder why they’re poor working stiffs.

Doughboy on September 14, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Before gumbypoked come to jump up and down about the NYT/CBS poll showing Barry up 3, remember it is a seeBS poll. The party breakdown has not be released yet, they are using what they think is a “probable electoral”. Independents favor Romney by a 6 points margin (50 to 44). Barry holds an advantage of 21 percentage points over Romney among voters whose household income is under $50,000, the likely government dependence group who wants them some ObamaMoney.

bayview on September 14, 2012 at 11:02 AM

It would help if the Romney campaign would open a freaking office here.

gophergirl on September 14, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Lol. Romney is too busy collecting money to actually spend it. Maybe if he ran an ad or two, hired people who wanted to win, opened an office or two, he would see that the American people badly want to vote against Obama.

But yet, being only up by 10 in MN, after the DNC (I am assuming that a large portion of that is the bounce he got), means MN might be in play if resources are diverted there. However, I dont expect Romney’s band of incompetent advisors to understand that. So, 10 points means MN is probably lost.

milcus on September 14, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Dang, so now if you want to vote for Lizard People, you have to have an ID? That’s just racist!

change is for suckers on September 14, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Lots of Blacks vote in favor of traditional marriage.

Lots of Blacks vote for Obama, for what I consider to be obvious reasons.

About as simple as it gets.

JohnGalt23 on September 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM

But lots of Blacks hate voter ID…

sandee on September 14, 2012 at 10:56 AM

But Minnesota is pretty much lily-white. Not as white as Vermont, maybe, but blacks are significantly under-represented there.

obladioblada on September 14, 2012 at 11:04 AM

…p o l e…!!!
gutmeandpokeme ?

KOOLAID2 on September 14, 2012 at 11:05 AM

So this will bring the number of states that ban gay marriage to 29. At what point will those that support gay marriage get over it? Just sayin’…

Theworldisnotenough on September 14, 2012 at 11:07 AM

probably a lack of a Senate race and a competitive three-way race for Governor made exit polling too tricky — but the split in the Democratic wave election of 2008 was D+4, 40/36/25, and Obama won Minnesota by 10. This looks like a relatively tepid showing, especially with Obama only getting to 50% in a state that hasn’t gone Republican since before Richard Nixon took down his tape recording equipment in the Oval Office.

I would like to point out as a Minnesotan 2 mistakes Ed makes here. First, in statistics and in life things like voting for a Democrat for President since 1972 go the same way till they don’t. See Indiana or North Carolina in 2008. There is some fatalism here that the failures of Obama haven’t swayed minds that voted against him in 2010 in MN obviously. The only 2010 democrat winner in 2010 was Dayton with 42% of the vote. The most statistically UNLIKELY loss according to one analysis in the USA was The loss in district 7 or (8). That says a lot about how people are starting to feel about Democrats here in MN. I think Ed is way too pessimistic about MN. The Democrat Presidential voting pattern is fading in the shadow of Humphrey and Mondale and was revived by Obama temporarily. The state isn’t happy with progressivism and doesn’t have a lockstep minority vote to float bad policy anymore.

So Ed you think the Hope in Change 40/36/25 turnout will be the same this time? Another bad assumption. Knowing Minnesotans they we had MORE than our share of people who voted for Obama that have regrets now.

I am not saying we are going to be the EV votes that get 270 but if the country goes for Romney by margins he MN will fall into the Romney column.

Conan on September 14, 2012 at 11:11 AM

If Minnesota goes for 0bama and Romney wins, I fully support trading Minnesota to Canada in exchange for Alberta.

Minn. women with their heads that far up you know who’s butt can bite me.

Oh wait – they can’t.

cane_loader on September 14, 2012 at 11:11 AM

And they wonder why they’re poor working stiffs.

Doughboy on September 14, 2012 at 11:02 AM

They’re the part of the population who whine a lot about the unfairness of life, but don’t do anything to improve their situation. It never occurs to them that they’re stuck in a $25,000 union job because the union they love so dearly sees to it that they can never advance and earn more than their pay grades. And it never occurs to them to look elsewhere for employment or to further their own education or training, because they’re too in love with the union that’s holding them down and they’re too insecure and apathetic to take action.

In the meantime, they resent those who had enough sense to get out and take charge of their own lives. Yeah, I have a bunch of friends and relatives like that and the sob stories are nauseating. You can’t even share good personal news with them because they resent your success.

obladioblada on September 14, 2012 at 11:12 AM

There is also an entire billboard near the outlet mall, yellow with black letters that says simply “Fire Klobuchar”.

Bishop on September 14, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Same place where the Reagan billboard was?

gophergirl on September 14, 2012 at 11:12 AM

At what point will those that support gay marriage get over it? Just sayin’…

Theworldisnotenough on September 14, 2012 at 11:07 AM

As soon as those 29 states admit that they are homophobes and that taking it up the ole poop chute is the bestest way to live.

SWalker on September 14, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Fascinates me that people who vote for voter ID also vote for Obama.
Bitter Clinger on September 14, 2012 at 10:48 AM

It doesn’t surprise me. If especially in MN the average Demcrat voter is disconnected to the cheating that goes on for Democrats and just as a side note their REAL objection to voter ID is that it screws up their GOTV. The Democrats can round up the homeless and the SEIU rounds up the Nursing home people but BOTH of those groups can’t get ID at the last second that PROVES they are in the right district. Voter ID screws up the “voucher” system where the bus driver or SEIU health worker “vouches” for the whole bus being from the district and that prevents any election judge challenge that they are not eligible to vote at THAT location.

Conan on September 14, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Want credible polls? Check about 2-3 weeks before the election,these pollsters will want it known that they were the most accurate.

ohiobabe on September 14, 2012 at 11:22 AM

You’ll get a MN majority NOT in favor of Obamacare, but they’ll vote for Little Amy because “she’s a nice person; I like her” even though she voted for Obamacare, the crippling Obama economic policies, and wants to “use the Courts to get things done.”

Apparently, the elections are just another episode of “American Idol.” Makes me crazy.

RobertMN on September 14, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Photo ID will cruise to a 65-35 win. The marriage amendment will pass too, but it will be closer to 53-47.

O & K will win easily, as will Bachmann.

Cravaak should hold in the 8th, but it will be razor thin again.

Hoping that either Walz or Peterson are upset, but not betting the farm on either.

Bruno Strozek on September 14, 2012 at 11:23 AM

I’m still baffled why anyone wants or even cares about which two consenting adults constitute a “marriage”. Gays getting “married” shouldn’t affect any hetero marriage at all. All this pushing for exclusivity by the *far right* SoCons is ridiculous.

Not to mention, the definition of “marriage” has changed many times over the years. Brides were considered property of their male mates, and they better be virgins on their wedding day or they’ll be dodging stones thrown at their heads.

If you don’t approve of gay marriage, don’t get one.

JetBoy on September 14, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Am I a suppressionist ?

FlaMurph on September 14, 2012 at 10:53 AM

I like that. Yes, I’m a suppressionist. I want to supress all the stupid vote. If you’re too stupid to figure out how to get an I.D., you shouldn’t be voting.

Mitoch55 on September 14, 2012 at 11:34 AM

I’m still baffled why anyone wants or even cares about which two consenting adults constitute a “marriage”. Gays getting “married” shouldn’t affect any hetero marriage at all. All this pushing for exclusivity by the *far right* SoCons is ridiculous.
Not to mention, the definition of “marriage” has changed many times over the years. Brides were considered property of their male mates, and they better be virgins on their wedding day or they’ll be dodging stones thrown at their heads.
If you don’t approve of gay marriage, don’t get one.
JetBoy on September 14, 2012 at 11:28 AM

If marriage doesn’t affect gay relationships why do we have to stick a fork in the definition? I laugh when supporters say gays are so in love and so happy but they need a marriage certificate to be happy.

Which is it? Are they waiting for gay marriage to be happy.

The truth is gay marriage is just to push a stick in the eye of religion and has NOTHING to do with making gays happier.

Conan on September 14, 2012 at 11:36 AM

I’m still baffled why anyone wants or even cares about which two consenting adults constitute a “marriage”. Gays getting “married” shouldn’t affect any hetero marriage at all. All this pushing for exclusivity by the *far right* SoCons is ridiculous.

If you don’t approve of gay marriage, don’t get one.

JetBoy on September 14, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Still can’t figure out the slippery slope argument? Can a brother marry his brother? How about sisters? How about a father and son? Or daughter? Where do you draw the line? And why do you draw it at two single, unrelated men (or women)?

Mitoch55 on September 14, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Gays getting “married” shouldn’t affect any hetero marriage at all. All this pushing for exclusivity by the *far right* SoCons is ridiculous.

Umm no the pushing is coming from gay marriage proponents. Gay marriage wasn’t legal before socons began fighting it. “Socons” reaction is in because gay marriage proponents won’t stop pushing especially thru the judiciary.

And I think it is cute that you think that socons are that large a group. Hint: it isn’t just the dreaded socons voting against gay marriage.

I’m still baffled why anyone wants or even cares about which two consenting adults constitute a “marriage”. Gays getting “married” shouldn’t affect any hetero marriage at all

And yet it it HAS affected private businesses and parental rights.

melle1228 on September 14, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Mitoch55 on September 14, 2012 at 11:34 AM

My mother was a Head Election judge for decades. See my above post why they don’t want Voter ID.

It screws up the voucher system and same day registration that they have used for decades. Voter ID would make them vote legally at the location on the ID.

Provisional ballots would go into the garbage because none in this group would follow up with them. That is why they don’t accept that part of the amendment either.

Conan on September 14, 2012 at 11:42 AM

So this will bring the number of states that ban gay marriage to 29. At what point will those that support gay marriage get over it? Just sayin’…

Theworldisnotenough on September 14, 2012 at 11:07 AM

The Iowa Constitution still has marriage as only between a man and a woman, it has not been removed.
The activist judges on the Iowa SC decided that the Iowa Constitution’s amendment stating that Marriage is only between a man and a woman is unconstitutional.
In 2010 3 of those judges were voted off the Iowa SC for making law from their bench. We have another judge that we can vote off in 2012.
The people of Iowa did NOT vote or nor did our elected representatives for that Amendment to change.
It is still a Amendment in our Constitution.

IowaWoman on September 14, 2012 at 11:42 AM

I guess my point is (Theworldisnotenough) good luck with those 29 states. It seems activist judges can go against the will of the people.

IowaWoman on September 14, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Still can’t figure out the slippery slope argument? Can a brother marry his brother? How about sisters? How about a father and son? Or daughter? Where do you draw the line? And why do you draw it at two single, unrelated men (or women)?

Mitoch55 on September 14, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Strawman.

And yet it it HAS affected private businesses and parental rights.

melle1228 on September 14, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Who? Where? Allowing gays to marry didn’t adversely affect anyone.

The truth is gay marriage is just to push a stick in the eye of religion and has NOTHING to do with making gays happier.

Conan on September 14, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Gays want legalized marriage…FROM THE STATE…for the same reasons a man marries a woman. The government also provides financial and other benefits to married hetero couples.

This has nothing to do with religion one bit, no matter how many times you keep saying it.

(lol some turd was dragged out just now from the audience where Ryan is speaking)

JetBoy on September 14, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Marriage is a rite of the church. Civil unions are the right of the state. Call my civic marriage certificate a civil union certificate – fine by me. Don’t force the fundamentalist, evangelical church’s to violate theology by marrying gay couples.

Pretty simple.

Never happen.

Bruno Strozek on September 14, 2012 at 11:57 AM

And yet it it HAS affected private businesses and parental rights.

melle1228 on September 14, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Who? Where? Allowing gays to marry didn’t adversely affect anyone.

Private business owners: Photographer, baker.

Parents in Massachusetts who were told by a judge that they couldn’t opt out of their six year old learning about gay relationships in the name of diversity.

Parents in California that can’t bring their children to a mental health professional for orientation because it is outlawed.

The slippery slope is here jetboy..

Take a look at gawker, the case coming out of canada, and brazil’s newest threesome who got married.

melle1228 on September 14, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Strawman.

JetBoy on September 14, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Speaking of straw men, your side has zero credibility. We were assured, absolutely assured during the late 80′s / early 90′s when civil unions and recognition of such were being sought that the gay community had no intention of seeking recognition of gay marriage. Oh, no, no, no, not at all, all they wanted was legal recognition of civil unions, that was it. Back in the late 70′s, early 80′s, we were all assured that the only thing being sought was recognition of this alternate lifestyle and not to be denigrated because of it.

So, forgive us if we don’t buy into the next step of this incremental tearing down of traditional morals.

AZfederalist on September 14, 2012 at 12:00 PM

This has nothing to do with religion one bit, no matter how many times you keep saying it.
(lol some turd was dragged out just now from the audience where Ryan is speaking)
JetBoy on September 14, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Listen JetBoy you are on a board where people have insight into WHAT the other side says when they think no one is reading it and we KNOW that gays HATE religion because they don’t recognize gay marriage in the eyes of God and that they trot out your arguments so they can win the argument without revealing the truth that they think by stealing the definition of marriage they can mainstream gay relationships to the point people will turn their back on their religious beliefs.

Sorry but you friggin SAYING it ain’t about acceptance doesn’t erase what I have heard FROM GAYS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS when civil unions were discussed starting in the 1990’s. It is about defeating the religious view of marriage and relationships and you don’t think it is you are one iof their DUPES my friend who doesn’t see their agenda. Or did you think they would broadcast that unpopular sentiment as their mainstream argument?

Conan on September 14, 2012 at 12:01 PM

AZfederalist on September 14, 2012 at 12:00 PM
Conan on September 14, 2012 at 12:01 PM

You don’t even have to look to the 80′s and 90′s to know that incrementalism is what they are after. Look to DADT. They swore up and down that it wasn’t about gay marriage. THE DAY it was overturned gays military members filed suit. Look to the judge in Massachusetts who just ordered that the transgender serving life for murder inmate could get a sex change on the public dime because he/she had a “serious medical need.”

melle1228 on September 14, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Parents in California that can’t bring their children to a mental health professional for orientation because it is outlawed.

I’m sorry, but regardless of what you might think, you cannot “pray the gay away”. Trying to change someone’s sexual orientation does not work (As many studies have demonstrated), and conversion therapy can actually end up doing mental and psychological harm to the patient, especially in the case of minors.

theoddmanout on September 14, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Whatever the polls say regarding preserving traditional marriage, you can add at least 5-6 points to it because the media has made this the “test” to see if you’re a homophobe. I see this easily passing, and it will also drive turnout from conservatives through the roof.

It’s probably a good idea for Romney to pursue other states though, Minnesota is just a tough nut to crack, but I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if the final vote has Romney within 3-4 points.

Better to go after the lower hanging fruit of swing states like Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada etc. that have traditionally been more hospitable to Republicans. Minnesota hasn’t gone “red” since Nixon.

BradTank on September 14, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Ed: You should know this by now. (Note I am from MN…) NEVER, EVER, EVER give MN attention nationally. The state sucks up all the oxygen in the room and tries to crow louder than everyone else just for media attention…’WHERE IS THE CAMERA???’ They crow…then the libs take over and crowd out the good, solid people. Then the slime that worries about image bows down and votes D. It is a sickness. We got Franken this way, we got Jesse Ventura. Mitt, if you are listening, don’t spend too much energy here. Look what the Ron Paul people did here to the R party…destroyed it. Instead of being rational and working together, they sabotoged it. The locals are going to have to learn from their own experience that 4.00 gas, business’ closing shops left and right, and an unstable job market is a dead end. Attention here makes the wrong people feel important and ruins it for everyone else.

nebraski on September 14, 2012 at 12:13 PM

melle1228 on September 14, 2012 at 12:05 PM

The principle of incrementalism could be expanded to all the interest groups on the left. They promise the “moderates” that “You give us this and we go away” Funny but then you see the moderates give into them thinking this can end it and you go to their message boards and the whole thing is about winning this battle and that the war goes on and what they said was off the table is now on the table next.

I have learned that from observing them over a long period of time that only fools fall for this trap.

Conan on September 14, 2012 at 12:13 PM

I’m sorry, but regardless of what you might think, you cannot “pray the gay away”. Trying to change someone’s sexual orientation does not work (As many studies have demonstrated), and conversion therapy can actually end up doing mental and psychological harm to the patient, especially in the case of minors.

theoddmanout on September 14, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Funny how self-described socially liberal Republicans are all for the government taking away rights when it benefits them.

See how you are no better than the socons you bash..

BTW, theo it doesn’t matter as a parent I have that right..I wouldn’t personally do it because I believe it is bunk also, but the government should not be interfering-PERIOD..

melle1228 on September 14, 2012 at 12:17 PM

The truth is gay marriage is just to push a stick in the eye of religion and has NOTHING to do with making gays happier.

Conan on September 14, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Religions have their own standards for marriage. State marriage will tend to be broader than any individual religion’s qualifications for marriage.

dedalus on September 14, 2012 at 12:18 PM

and conversion therapy can actually end up doing mental and psychological harm to the patient, especially in the case of minors.

theoddmanout on September 14, 2012 at 12:09 PM

BTW, divorce and growing up without a father can actually end up doing mental and psychological harm. Will you outlaw divorce and single parenthood?

melle1228 on September 14, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Still can’t figure out the slippery slope argument? Can a brother marry his brother? How about sisters? How about a father and son? Or daughter? Where do you draw the line? And why do you draw it at two single, unrelated men (or women)?
Mitoch55 on September 14, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Strawman.
JetBoy on September 14, 2012 at 11:49 AM

I left the following URLs clear because the titles say it all:

http://townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/2012/09/14/incest_and_pedophilia_the_new_frontier

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/09/14/rick_santorum_was_right_about_incest_and_the_slippery_slope

It there are examples to support an argument, then it is not about strawmen.

AesopFan on September 14, 2012 at 12:24 PM

BTW, divorce and growing up without a father can actually end up doing mental and psychological harm. Will you outlaw divorce and single parenthood?

melle1228 on September 14, 2012 at 12:20 PM

No, and that is a blatant false comparison. Conversion therapy has been proven not to work, has been proven to cause mental harm, and any parent or parents that would want to put their child through it anyways are ignoring reality and knowingly causing mental abuse to their child. As far as divorce goes, if the child’s father is constantly hitting, abusing, and beating the child’s mother, would the child be better off if their parents stayed together, or if they decided to get a divorce?

theoddmanout on September 14, 2012 at 12:29 PM

So the people of MN are for traditional marriage and voter ID but also voting for the party that is steadfastly against these two initiatives.

WTF is in the water in that state?

jnelchef on September 14, 2012 at 12:29 PM

No, and that is a blatant false comparison.

Conversion therapy Single parenthood has been proven not to work,has been proven to cause mental harm, and any parent or parents that would want to put their child through it anyways are ignoring reality and knowingly causing mental abuse to their child.

As far as divorce goes, if the child’s father is constantly hitting, abusing, and beating the child’s mother, would the child be better off if their parents stayed together, or if they decided to get a divorce?

theoddmanout on September 14, 2012 at 12:29 PM

So make divorce illegal unless it includes proven abuse. Most divorces are for the parents and not the children…

And they are apt comparisons. They are personal decisions by the parents that cause harm to the child. YOU are bias and can’t see past the gay aspect of the law.

melle1228 on September 14, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Where do you draw the line? And why do you draw it at two single, unrelated men (or women)?

Mitoch55 on September 14, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Strawman.

JetBoy on September 14, 2012 at 11:49 AM

And yet, you never answer the question. Where do you draw the line? And why do you draw it there? After all, we’re talking about Marriage Equality, aren’t we?

Mitoch55 on September 14, 2012 at 12:39 PM

And yet, you never answer the question. Where do you draw the line? And why do you draw it there? After all, we’re talking about Marriage Equality, aren’t we?

Mitoch55 on September 14, 2012 at 12:39 PM

You aren’t going to get an answer because legally if “marriage equality’ consists of who people who love each other then legally you can not exclude incestuous couple or polygamy. If the state cannot restrict marriage then it cannot legally exclude those unions. It is the logical and constitutional conclusion. It doesn’t really matter to them. It really is about me, me and what big government can do for me.

melle1228 on September 14, 2012 at 12:49 PM

I have info on the marriage vote from another source too that says the marriage amendment is doing well and not in doubt, and I think that it will be impossible to read the polls in that state; but also, I am wondering if Paul Ryan campaigns in the state if it will have some effect, especially where discouraged conservatives who do not know Romney very well, voted for Santorum and Ron Paul in huge numbers. They may not be facing reality yet.

Fleuries on September 14, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Sample of the respondants in the survey:

Respondents not reachable on a home telephone (23% of likely voters) were shown a questionnaire on their smartphone, tablet or other electronic device. Obama leads by 4 points among voters interviewed on their home phone. Obama leads by 25 points among voters not reachable on a home telephone.

I am not sure that smartphone/tablet and electronic device are really an inclusive representation of cell phone users, most cell phone users still only make calls and send text messages, this could be a survey of Early Adapters, who tend to be upper income people.

Fleuries on September 14, 2012 at 1:43 PM

And yet, you never answer the question. Where do you draw the line? And why do you draw it there? After all, we’re talking about Marriage Equality, aren’t we?

Mitoch55 on September 14, 2012 at 12:39 PM

You’re lumping gay marriage in with any other marriage possibilities as you see them…some imaginary fight of polygamists for legal recognition, those who want to marry their pets, or their pillows, the list goes on as far as your imagination will take it.

You aren’t doing the conservative cause any help with this kind of ridiculousness. If polygamists want to marry 5 wives, then they should petition for it. The people who want to legally marry their car? Petition for it. Just like I support and petition for gay marriage equality.

You and others like you, although we’d most likely agree on any other social or fiscal conservative issues aside from gay marriage, just don’t care much for gays in general. So you stereotype all gays as wanting to tear down Christianity and destroy Western Civilization as we know it. I really wish you could truly see how idiotic that belief is. I’m not calling you or anyone else and idiot, just describing the statements.

If we’re going to be drawing lines…where do you draw the line on the “definition” of “traditional marriage”? Back to when women were stoned for not being virgin when they marry? Back to when some US states banned interracial marriage? And what about different religious faiths? Or is it only Christian versions of traditional marriage?

I’m a Catholic who goes to Sunday mass every week, say prayers, believe in the Trinity and that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. Why would I want to “destroy” that?

JetBoy on September 14, 2012 at 2:45 PM

You aren’t doing the conservative cause any help with this kind of ridiculousness. If polygamists want to marry 5 wives, then they should petition for it. The people who want to legally marry their car? Petition for it. Just like I support and petition for gay marriage equality.

In 29 states either the legislatures or through public referendum have addressed homosexual marriage and set the definition of marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. Deal with it.

You and others like you, although we’d most likely agree on any other social or fiscal conservative issues aside from gay marriage, just don’t care much for gays in general. So you stereotype all gays as wanting to tear down Christianity and destroy Western Civilization as we know it. I really wish you could truly see how idiotic that belief is. I’m not calling you or anyone else and idiot, just describing the statements.

And there we have it. I don’t think as you do, so therefore you make assumptions about me and ascribe motivations you know nothing about to me. You know nothing about me other than I am opposed to homosexual marriage. You don’t know why or where I’ve come to my opinions. Yet I’m looked at as an intolerant bigot. Who’s the one who stereotypes?

If we’re going to be drawing lines…where do you draw the line on the “definition” of “traditional marriage”?

JetBoy on September 14, 2012 at 2:45 PM

I draw it as between 1 man and 1 woman. If that marriage ends due to divorce or death, then the next marriage is again between 1 woman and 1 man. Ideally, government has no place in the business of marriage.

I don’t believe homosexual marriage can do as much damage as the “no fault” divorce laws have. But the creeping incrementalism (or slippery slope) arising from it will.

Mitoch55 on September 14, 2012 at 3:26 PM

<blockquote>Ideally, government has no place in the business of marriage.
I don’t believe homosexual marriage can do as much damage as the “no fault” divorce laws have. But the creeping incrementalism (or slippery slope) arising from it will.

Mitoch55 on September 14, 2012 at 3:26 PM

+1000

I’m a Catholic who goes to Sunday mass every week, say prayers, believe in the Trinity and that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. Why would I want to “destroy” that?

JetBoy on September 14, 2012 at 2:45 PM

I support states deciding on gay marriage IF the judiciary doesn’t get involved and other states are not forced to recognize it. I have no problem with homosexuals at all. I believe I have told you that if the “political pushers” were all like you; I wouldn’t have a problem at all. The problem is they aren’t.

melle1228 on September 14, 2012 at 4:20 PM