USA Today poll: Support for legalizing gay marriage hits all-time high after Court rulings

posted at 5:31 pm on July 1, 2013 by Allahpundit

Sometimes the Court helps shape public opinion, other times it gets too aggressive on an issue and there’s a backlash. If USA Today’s right, the DOMA/Prop 8 rulings are a small example of the former rather than the latter.

“Neither one of those decisions is as a legal matter a huge gay rights victory,” says Tom Goldstein, a Harvard Law School professor and publisher of SCOTUSblog, which analyzes the high court. “But it’s the moral message from the court that these unions are entitled to equal respect … that is probably the lasting legacy of the decisions and is probably going to play a significant role in public opinion.”…

By an unprecedented 55%-40%, Americans say marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by law as valid, with the same rights of traditional marriage. That’s the highest level of support since Gallup began asking the question in 1996. Then, fewer than half that number, 27%, backed the idea…

The only major demographic groups in which a majority oppose same-sex marriage are Republicans (68%) and seniors 65 and older (51%). Even in the South, which continues to be the only region that doesn’t show majority support for gay marriage, opposition has slipped below 50%.

Interestingly, support for the Court’s DOMA decision was split almost evenly at just 48/43. I’m not sure Tom Goldstein’s right, then, that the “moral message” from the Court rulings nudged the numbers in favor of SSM up a few point. My hunch is that it was more the aftermath of the rulings, with lots of coverage of jubilant gay-rights supporters, that pushed the approval line upward. Seeing people exuberant over new rights they’ve been granted is apt to tilt a few fencesitters in favor of SSM, and hearing so many gays interviewed in the days after the ruling may have a normalizing effect on skeptics. I’ve seen polls before that show the single greatest factor in changing one’s mind about gay marriage is knowing someone who’s out. A surge in media coverage that gives plenty of airtime to people who are openly gay might have a smaller but similar effect.

I went looking for crosstabs because I’m fascinated by the fact that opposition to gay marriage is down to a bare 51 percent even among the 65+ crowd. I couldn’t find any, but Harry Enten of the Guardian sent me the crosstabs to the last poll on gay marriage that USA Today’s pollster conducted. Back in May, opposition among seniors was at 53 percent, but there was a sharp partisan split: Republican seniors opposed it overwhelmingly, 18/74, while Democratic seniors actually supported it, 47/42. Independent seniors were mildly opposed but otherwise similar to Democrats, 43/47. The subsample of seniors was small in each case, but if the numbers accurate, the percentage of older Republicans who oppose gay marriage is actually greater than the percentage of white evangelicals who do (23/72). Bear that in mind the next time you hear someone in the GOP brain trust say that the party needs to get with the times and capture younger voters by switching to supporting gay marriage. That’s a smart (and inevitable) tactic long-term, but there are an awful lot of seniors in the GOP camp who seem to care a lot about this. Will younger voters replace them completely in 2016?


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

Awesome! First time I’ve ever seen Scalia labelled as such. Methinks that he’d be quite amused with this too…

JohnAGJ on July 1, 2013 at 7:29 PM

As soon as he voted for the state over the individual he’s no longer a conservative but a statist.

Deeds not words…

I’m sure you still think Roberts is a conservative judge too, huh?

Skywise on July 1, 2013 at 7:31 PM

by Breitbart News1 Jul 2013, 11:32 AM PDT7post a comment

The adult film industry took a pragmatic view of the Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this month against the Defense of Marriage Act.

The industry is battling to keep its stars from having to wear condoms during sex scenes, and producers contend the DOMA ruling will help them in that fight.

Porn industry attorneys filed a motion Wednesday in U.S. District Court asking that the AIDS Healthcare Foundation be removed from the industry’s legal battle to repeal the condom requirement that Los Angeles County voters approved last year.

Shortly before the motion was filed, the Supreme Court ruled that a group that had campaigned successfully for Proposition 8, the voter-approved measure banning gay marriage in California, had no legal standing when it came to appealing lower court rulings overturning the law….

In ruling on gay marriage, the Supreme Court said a private group has never been granted the standing to defend a state law in court when local officials decline to do so.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/07/01/porn-industry-doma-condoms

melle1228 on July 1, 2013 at 7:32 PM

It will only end when government is out of marriage altogether.

Skywise on July 1, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Not sure that this is even entirely feasible, but something worthy to consider as long as it includes ALL marriages and not just those you disfavor. Since I prefer smaller government I’m open to the possibility of this but am not yet convinced that it can or even should be done.

JohnAGJ on July 1, 2013 at 7:34 PM

meh, read some comments, maine maryland and washington did…we didn’t and neither did California

DanMan on July 1, 2013 at 7:35 PM

I’m sure you still think Roberts is a conservative judge too, huh?

Skywise on July 1, 2013 at 7:31 PM

That would depend upon whether my opinion could be considered a “tax” or not I suppose…

JohnAGJ on July 1, 2013 at 7:36 PM

It’s time for the government to get out of marriage.

Civil union contracts for everyone, straight,gay,polygamous, polyamourus and everything in between.

It’s a civil contract.

Marriage becomes the domain of the church: they marry or don’t marry whoever they want without government interference or civil court retribution.

Bruno Strozek on July 1, 2013 at 5:42 PM

That’s fine.

But does this include marriage license requirements of the state?

JetBoy on July 1, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Seriously? Ok, if that helps soothe the loss then go with it I suppose. Tell you what, nail the IRS officials for breaking the law and work for a rematch. Want to place bets on how successful you’ll be at the polls if this were to happen?

I’m game. Let’s see how well your side does just in the arena of ideas.

You all will actually have to debate. Not calling one a bigot, homphobe, blah, blah for disagreeing with you. But defend your homosexual movement alone without stealing from the civil rights movement.

b1jetmech on July 1, 2013 at 7:39 PM

Not sure that this is even entirely feasible, but something worthy to consider as long as it includes ALL marriages and not just those you disfavor. Since I prefer smaller government I’m open to the possibility of this but am not yet convinced that it can or even should be done.

JohnAGJ on July 1, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Why is it not feasible? If marriage is no longer about children, but only a financial contract between two people having sex; there is absolutely NO reason for the state to sanction it–no benefit either other than to make lawyers rich. Let people pay to get private civil partner contract, and committment ceremonies in private. THen we will see how ‘small’ government some of you people really are.

melle1228 on July 1, 2013 at 7:40 PM

That’s fine.

But does this include marriage license requirements of the state?

JetBoy on July 1, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Don’t need it. Pull the tax laws for marriage (which is an antiquated notion anyway) and have one contract for next of kin/power of attorney. Doesn’t even have to be someone you’re “married” to.

Skywise on July 1, 2013 at 7:42 PM

People have been voting against gay marriage in the states for years… only to see it struck down by judges. And now.. the Supreme Judges struck down once again the will of the people… but we’re suppose to believe everybody really loves homosexual marriage.

Yeah.. everybody all of a sudden just loves what the homosexual activists empowered by courts are doing to marriage… after everybody has been voting against homosexual marriage for years. People just love to see their votes struck down by judges and activists. Things like that always spark love and warm fuzzy feelings. The country is filled with warmth and love right now for all things gay… because courts forced us here with by the power of law.

Hey…. the next time someone tells you you’re a bigot for not supporting gay marriage.. task them if all the Muslims are bigots too. Tell them they should post that on facebook.. you know.. that they think Islam and Muslims are all bigots. Maybe we could get Rachel Maddow and Chris Mathews to proclaim on national television that Islam is a religion of bigotry.

JellyToast on July 1, 2013 at 7:54 PM

Obama is likely evolving on polygamy in Africa at this very moment and will probably begin to put out feelers on when to begin to advocate it after he returns.

It doesn’t matter who you love, ~or how many…”

Why shouldn’t three, or seventeen, people ‘marry’?

And why can’t adults ‘marry’ children?

If it was good enough for the Prophet Mohammad to wed a 6 year old, it should be good enough for the infidel dogs in America.

“Marriage” is dead, ~long live polymorphous perversity!

profitsbeard on July 1, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Congratulations, same sex marriage lobby. You just handed the family court arm of the judicial branch more lives to ruin and property to steal. Your own.

S. D. on July 1, 2013 at 8:21 PM

Wins every poll, loses every election.

Except in 2012, when gay marriage won and constitutional bans on same sex marriage lost in every state either question was on the ballot. Is the new social con tactic pretending that the 2012 election didn’t happen?

libfreeordie on July 1, 2013 at 6:03 PM

And by significant margins:
In Maryland, gay marriage won 52-48
In Msine, gay marriage won 53-47
In Washington, gay marriage won 53-47
In Minnesota a ban on gay marriage lost 48-51

libfreeordie on July 1, 2013 at 6:05 PM

….keep talking to yourself?

KOOLAID2 on July 1, 2013 at 8:24 PM

I’m game. Let’s see how well your side does just in the arena of ideas.

You all will actually have to debate. Not calling one a bigot, homphobe, blah, blah for disagreeing with you. But defend your homosexual movement alone without stealing from the civil rights movement.

b1jetmech on July 1, 2013 at 7:39 PM

Certainly. Of course by the same token your side has to refrain from name-calling and innuendo (psst! Call Bryan Fischer, Matt Staver, Matt Barber, Pete LaBabs, etc. before you agree so they’re all on the same page), likewise stealing from the civil rights movement (or other movements), using religion or tradition as the basis of your argument, etc. I’m quite confident SSM will win in the long-run so this is all fine by me.

JohnAGJ on July 1, 2013 at 8:26 PM

Since GOP support is inevitable, I am more than happy to let the GOP oppose gay marriage in 2014 through 2020. Not every injustice has to be solved immediately. Gay marriage (either for or against) should not be a major issue next election, though I fear it will be.

thuja on July 1, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Why is it not feasible? If marriage is no longer about children, but only a financial contract between two people having sex; there is absolutely NO reason for the state to sanction it–no benefit either other than to make lawyers rich. Let people pay to get private civil partner contract, and committment ceremonies in private. THen we will see how ‘small’ government some of you people really are.

melle1228 on July 1, 2013 at 7:40 PM

If you’re talking about removing all government bennies at every level along with licenses, okay I’m game for the discussion. I still don’t see how the government cannot be involved to an extent given that some marriages do lead to children, some marriages will dissolve quite acrimoniously, etc. However, decreasing government reach into everyone’s personal life is something I’m always willing to consider. Yet until the day this happens, the march for civil SSM goes on.

JohnAGJ on July 1, 2013 at 8:30 PM

Since GOP support is inevitable, I am more than happy to let the GOP oppose gay marriage in 2014 through 2020. Not every injustice has to be solved immediately. Gay marriage (either for or against) should not be a major issue next election, though I fear it will be.

thuja on July 1, 2013 at 8:29 PM

I’d rather it didn’t, not just because I support SSM but also because I’d like to see a stronger opposition to the party currently in power on so many other issues.

JohnAGJ on July 1, 2013 at 8:34 PM

I think that those supposed victories were won because liberals threw everything they had at them. They had to win somewhere and all the stops were pulled to get that victory including vastly outspending the pro-marriage forces AND drumming up every low information voter they could find to vote for their Obama phone “oh yeah and by the way on that initiative be sure to vote for x”

The real facts and issues behind gay marriage are rendered meaningless in the face of simple empty-headed Madison Avenue created memes like “marriage equality”, Hollywood efforts like Modern Family which is about as unreal as it gets, and commercials of nice little smiling gay couples. Its all emotion and no reason. And it worked. The pro-SSM lobby literally threw every weapon at these states and with a higher democratic turn-out for the election suddenly, you had some victories. Its BS and it never would have happened in an off election year with a level playing field.

Texene on July 1, 2013 at 9:17 PM

But does this include marriage license requirements of the state?

JetBoy on July 1, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Whatever details need to be worked out, work them out.

Just make it happen to letter and to the intent.

Bruno Strozek on July 1, 2013 at 9:17 PM

Sometimes the Court helps shape public opinion, other times it gets too aggressive on an issue and there’s a backlash. If USA Today’s right, the DOMA/Prop 8 rulings are a small example of the former rather than the latter.

Then the Court failed in it’s essential role.

The Court is not supposed to sway public opinion. It is supposed to rule on the legality/Constitutionality of legislation. Period.

The Legislature is where public opinion is considered, where it is swayed or holds sway.

Seems to me in essentially deciding that voter referendums can be ignored by the states’ executives when said executives don’t “agree” with them, that kinda craps all over public opinion, doesn’t it?

The fact that these issues are being decided in court tells me how “popular” they really are.

Saltyron on July 1, 2013 at 9:22 PM

What is being demanded is that homosexual relationships be treated as equivalent to marriage, which arrogates to the government the right to decide what marriage is.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 1, 2013 at 6:45 PM

The guvmint decides the speed limit, the rate of my property tax and what precinct I vote in.

Again, so what?

Civil unions are a civil contract.

The guvmint is there to assure contracts are adhered to, through the court.

My church says “fine” to gay marriage. If I don’t like it, I can leave. The guvmint has no right to tell Bob’s First Church of the Holy Rollers that they have to marry a gay couple. I stand with Bob and his flock on that.

I just don’t get the big deal as long as gocmint stays out of the marriage biz.

Bruno Strozek on July 1, 2013 at 9:28 PM

I still don’t see how the government cannot be involved to an extent given that some marriages do lead to children, some marriages will dissolve quite acrimoniously, etc.

JohnAGJ on July 1, 2013 at 8:30 PM

As has been told to me time and time again on here, marriage has nothing to do with procreation and so you adjust the law accordingly.

It really is true in a strict legal sense, Children have no parents – they have appointed guardians.

Skywise on July 1, 2013 at 9:33 PM

Bullying works. You may find it reprehensible. You may never dream of using it yourself. But you can never deny its effectiveness.

CurtZHP on July 1, 2013 at 9:44 PM

Why is it not feasible? If marriage is no longer about children, but only a financial contract between two people having sex; there is absolutely NO reason for the state to sanction it–no benefit either other than to make lawyers rich. Let people pay to get private civil partner contract, and committment ceremonies in private. THen we will see how ‘small’ government some of you people really are.

melle1228 on July 1, 2013 at 7:40 PM

This.

b1jetmech on July 1, 2013 at 9:49 PM

Um no. What same-sex marriage advocates in that state are saying is that Proposition 8 violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. In a too-cute move the state executives chose not to oppose their claims and the Supreme Court decided to remember that never once in the history of the Court had they acknowledged the standing of a group of private citizens defending laws under the jurisdiction of the state’s executives.

libfreeordie on July 1, 2013 at 6:55 PM

And yet the Court never before considered a penalty so minor as to be a tax, but that didn’t stop Roberts in the “Obamacare” decision, did it? They’ll spin the law however they have to to get the desired result. Please spare me any tripe about it being about “constitutional analysis” or “justice”.

And the standing of private citizens would not be necessary if the executives of the state DID. THEIR. JOBS. They didn’t, because they were biased. Even a Writ of Mandamus would just force the executive to do their job half-assed. In that case, the private party should have standing, if for no other reason than to keep the executive honest.

Saltyron on July 1, 2013 at 9:52 PM

Why is it not feasible? If marriage is no longer about children, but only a financial contract between two people having sex; there is absolutely NO reason for the state to sanction it–no benefit either other than to make lawyers rich. Let people pay to get private civil partner contract, and committment ceremonies in private. THen we will see how ‘small’ government some of you people really are.

melle1228 on July 1, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Yep. It becomes just another civil contract about the purchase and sale of widgets. No need for the state to take any interest at all.

And if you really want the state “out of” your marriage, don’t go to court when you divorce the wife and she won’t return your baseball card collection. Because the first thing the court will have to do to enforce the contract if to determine if your marriage contract really is a marriage contract, i.e. they will have to define your marriage based on objective criteria that the sate sets. Just like now.

Saltyron on July 1, 2013 at 9:56 PM

“When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing; they believe in ANYTHING” G.K. Chesterton

Cleombrotus on July 1, 2013 at 10:14 PM

I just don’t get the big deal as long as gocmint stays out of the marriage biz.

Bruno Strozek on July 1, 2013 at 9:28 PM

That’s probably due to your limited perspective. Reality doesn’t start and end with early 21st century America, you know.

Cleombrotus on July 1, 2013 at 10:16 PM

That’s probably due to your limited perspective. Reality doesn’t start and end with early 21st century America, you know.

Cleombrotus on July 1, 2013 at 10:16 PM

Do you believe in equal protection under the law or not?

If you do, what’s the problem with civil unions for the state and marriage for the church, particularly if there is no penalty of=r coercion to the church?

Marriage stays marriage. Both your nose and my nose stay unskinned.

Bruno Strozek on July 1, 2013 at 10:21 PM

Important reading. This is what leaders intent on upholding their oath to protect and defend the Constitution should be doing.

Abraham Lincoln, the Supreme Court, and the Defense of Marriage Act

Just as Lincoln rejected the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the Dred Scott decision, so too conservative leaders need to reject the Court’s faulty reasoning about DOMA. Anti-democratic judicial activism has become habitual only because our elected leaders have declined to respond to it with Lincoln’s clarity and firmness….

For the most important clue, we need look no further than the reactions of leading Republican statesmen to United States v. Windsor. Generally they express “disappointment” in the Windsor ruling, but then concede implicitly that it’s the last word on the subject. The fight to define marriage will continue in the states, they say, thus surrendering in the face of the Supreme Court’s claim that the American people have no right to define marriage according to their own judgment for the purposes of their own government, the federal government.

Lincoln’s rejection of the Dred Scott decision’s account of congressional authority was not intended as a mere theoretical exercise. His aim was not to see his counter-argument published in a learned journal. Rather, he made this rejection the basis of proposed political resistance to the Court’s overreaching.

When his great rival, Stephen Douglas, criticized him for refusing to accept the Court’s word as final on this question, Lincoln replied that each branch of the government has a right to its own interpretation of its own powers. He made this argument as a public man who was clearly aspiring to elected office. In other words, Lincoln’s critique of the Dred Scott decision was intended to signal that if he were elected to the Senate, he would vote for the restoration of the Missouri Compromise, regardless of what the Supreme Court had said about its constitutionality.

INC on July 1, 2013 at 10:47 PM

Cleombrotus on July 1, 2013 at 10:14 PM

“Fallacy does not cease to be fallacy because it becomes fashion.” That G.K. had such a way of saying it like it is.

pannw on July 1, 2013 at 11:02 PM

Majority support gutting the First Amendment. Awesome… Romans 1.

How long, Lord?

pannw on July 1, 2013 at 11:16 PM

On getting the government out of marriage, is not going to happen. As others have already said, the Left wants to use government as a club.

It’s also not feasible. This is from chapter three, “The State and Marriage,” in What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert George.

Notice the third and fourth paragraphs especially. Here they are talking about marriage as a common good. Strong marriages build a strong society. Here they’re obviously talking about real marriage with its objective structure.

…Abolishing civil marriage is practically impossible. Strike the word ‘marriage’ from the law, and the state will still license, and attach duties and benefits to, certain bonds. Abolish these forward-looking forms of regulation, and they will only be replaced by messier, retroactive regulation — of disputes over property, custody, visitation, and child support. What the state once did by efficient legal presumptions, it will then do by burdensome case-by-case assignments of parental (especially paternal) responsibilities.

The state will only discharge these tasks more or less efficiently — that is, less or more intrusively. It can’t escape them. Why not? Because the public functions of marriage — both to require and to empower parents (especially fathers) to care for their children and each other — require a society-wide coordination. It is not enough if, say, a particular religion presumes a man’s paternity of his wife’s children, or recognizes his rights and duties toward their mother; or if the man and his wife contract to carry out certain tasks. For private institutions can bind only their own; private contracts bind only those who are party to them. A major function of marriage law is to bind all third parties (schools, adoption agencies, summer camps, hospitals; friends, relatives, and strangers) presumptively to treat a man as father of his wife’s children, husbands and wives as entitled to certain privileges and sexually off-limits, and so on. This only the state can do with any consistency.

But more than inevitable or necessary, it is fitting that the state should do this. Consider a comparison. Why don’t even the strictest libertarians decry traffic laws? Firstly, orderly traffic protects health and promotes efficiency, two great goods. Second, these goods are common in two senses: private efforts cannot adequately secure them, and yet failure to secure them has very public consequences. It is not as if we would have had the same (or even just slightly less) safety and efficiency of travel if people just did as they pleased, some stopping only at red lights and others only at green. Nor would damage from the resulting accidents (and slower shipments, etc.) be limited to those responsible for causing it. To ensure safe and efficient travel at all, and to limit harm to third parties, we need legal coordination. Indeed, it is no stretch to say that the state owes its citizens to keep minimum security and order: to these we have a right. Finally, unlike private associations, the state can secure these goods, without intolerable side effects. All this makes it appropriate for the state to set our traffic laws.

In an essay solely on political theory, we might argue the details, but here we can extract from this example a widely acceptable rule: If something would serve an important good, if people have a right to it, if private groups cannot secure it well, everyone suffers if it is lost, and the state can secure it without undue cost, then the state may step in — and should.

All these conditions are met in the case of marriage.

INC on July 1, 2013 at 11:17 PM

pannw on July 1, 2013 at 11:02 PM

Chesterton is good!

INC on July 1, 2013 at 11:17 PM

Bullhead on July 2, 2013 at 12:30 AM

That’s a good summary. The authors took that article published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, and expanded it into the book, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, that I quoted above.

http://whatismarriagebook.com/

It’s an excellent book that I highly recommend.

INC on July 2, 2013 at 12:55 AM

Here are links to the article in three different formats. The first one is the one given at the theosophical blog.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49512761/What-is-Marriage-by-Robert-George

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0139.htm

INC on July 2, 2013 at 12:58 AM

I just don’t get the big deal as long as gocmint stays out of the marriage biz.

Bruno Strozek on July 1, 2013 at 9:28 PM

If the government were “staying out of the marriage biz,” we wouldn’t be having a discussion about taking something that has never been considered a marriage before and declaring it a marriage by government force.

All you people pretending to be small-government libertarians while pushing same-sex marriage are hypocrites.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 2, 2013 at 3:15 AM

If you guys truly want to keep your definition of marriage, why not come out in support of civil unions and support legislation which would give gays/lesbians the same societal benefits, both tax and corporate, as straights? If you did that and didn’t shun GOP candidates in support of civil unions, then I think you guys would be seen as tolerant and actually attract younger voters to the tent.

Frank T.J Mackey on July 2, 2013 at 8:33 AM

All you people pretending to be small-government libertarians while pushing same-sex marriage are hypocrites.

I believe libertarians are arguing against gay marriage and straight marriage, and feel that people should be simply signing government and corporate contracts.

Frank T.J Mackey on July 2, 2013 at 8:46 AM

Frank T.J Mackey on July 2, 2013 at 8:33 AM

Because civil union laws create the same problems for Catholic/other Christian organizations/people that homosexual ‘marriage’ laws do. Have you not read about the photographer who was sued for not wanting to photograph a ‘civil union’? It wasn’t even a ‘marriage’, and she was sued and fined. Homosexuals and their henchmen are not content with government tax benefits; they’re goal is to destroy religious exercise and to force believers back into the catacombs. It is sad to see the self-proclaiming ‘Christians’ join in the modern day Nero movement. And Libertarians who will not defend the First Amendment by fighting against them are guilty as well. Nothing small government about anyone who wishes to destroy the very first amendment. Free exercise thereof…

pannw on July 2, 2013 at 9:29 AM

If you guys truly want to keep your definition of marriage, why not come out in support of civil unions and support legislation which would give gays/lesbians the same societal benefits, both tax and corporate, as straights? If you did that and didn’t shun GOP candidates in support of civil unions, then I think you guys would be seen as tolerant and actually attract younger voters to the tent.

Frank T.J Mackey on July 2, 2013 at 8:33 AM

Why just gay and lesbians? Why not family members who want to form civil partnerships? Why is the qualifying “two” adults who are having a sexual relationship? Why don’t we give out bennies to EVERYONE until they all dry up? There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for the state to sanction and license a private sexual relationship. There is absolutely no reason to offer benefits to a private sexual relationship.

melle1228 on July 2, 2013 at 10:08 AM

then I think you guys would be seen as tolerant and actually attract younger voters to the tent.

Frank T.J Mackey on July 2, 2013 at 8:33 AM

/facepalm.. Yeah its intolerant to have frickin common sense and to note that the ONLY reason the state has a compelling reason to involve themselves in a private sexual relationship is because BIOLOGICAL children result from it, and the state protects the children’s interest. Anybody who has worked five minutes in family law and seen how divorces work knows that.

melle1228 on July 2, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Why just gay and lesbians?

Because there are people within our society who are attracted to the same sex and want to form a life-long bond, and potentially raise children someday.

Since straights are afforded X benefits, like sharing corporate money, tax deductions, social security benefits, there’s no why we can’t extend those benefits as well to people who choose to love the same, rather than different sex. It’s all part of the concept of fairness.

Why not family members who want to form civil partnerships?

I am not exactly sure what you’re referring to. Are you talking about a father marrying his son? Benefits between family members can be situated through contracts to this day.

Why is the qualifying “two” adults who are having a sexual relationship? Why don’t we give out bennies to EVERYONE until they all dry up? There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for the state to sanction and license a private sexual relationship. There is absolutely no reason to offer benefits to a private sexual relationship.

If this your argument, then you might as well argue against gay marriage and straight marriage.

Frank T.J Mackey on July 2, 2013 at 10:44 AM

yeah its intolerant to have frickin common sense and to note that the ONLY reason the state has a compelling reason to involve themselves in a private sexual relationship is because BIOLOGICAL children result from it, and the state protects the children’s interest.

This argument doesn’t make much sense at all. There are couples out there who are infertile. There are couples of there who get married in their 40s to 90s. Children can result after a marriage, but there’s no contractual obligation to have kids after a marriage. And if there’s this “children thing” attached to marriage, why can somebody have Children out of wedlock?

But to a bigger point: Why do you care if Joe and Lance get to share social security benefits and share their health insurance? Why do you care that they get to share property and financial money? All what gays and lesbians want to do is get treated the same as straight couples?

Frank T.J Mackey on July 2, 2013 at 10:52 AM

they’re goal is to destroy religious exercise and to force believers back into the catacombs

This is yet another bogus argument here. Allowing somebody to have a civil union or a marriage, does not in fact infringe on your religious freedoms. I am sorry, but gays and lesbians get a private ceremony for their wedding, not a church. They do not actively sue churches they don’t like.

When a couple says I do to each other, is not the day you officially become married in the eyes of the law. It is the day you sign a marriage license. Your practice of religious marriage is not effected, because it is not sponsored by the government. We’re talking about government recognition of marriage and civil unions.

Frank T.J Mackey on July 2, 2013 at 10:59 AM

I am not exactly sure what you’re referring to. Are you talking about a father marrying his son? Benefits between family members can be situated through contracts to this day.

So can any gay relationship. There is no compelling reason to sanction a private sexual relationship.

This argument doesn’t make much sense at all. There are couples out there who are infertile. There are couples of there who get married in their 40s to 90s. Children can result after a marriage, but there’s no contractual obligation to have kids after a marriage. And if there’s this “children thing” attached to marriage, why can somebody have Children out of wedlock?

Infetility diagnoses are largely unreliable. Furthermore, most married couples do not know they are infertile until AFTER they marry. And all those that do not want to have children can go get a private civil partnership contract. Like I said, if you have worked five minutes in the family court system, you can see the difference in the way the state treats a marriage with children and a marriage without. The state could care less about the marriage that doesn’t involve children especially since alimony and permanent alimony these days is rare. You can sign all your rights away in an uncontested divorce and the court will sign it meh! What you can’t do is sign away support etc. in divorce involving children because the CHILDREN have a vested interest and the state has a compelling interest in protecting those children.

Again, state is completely involved in out-of-wedlock children. So even if you have them out of wedlock, the state protects them.

There is no compelling interest in protecting a union that just involves a private sexual relationship.

But to a bigger point: Why do you care if Joe and Lance get to share social security benefits and share their health insurance? Why do you care that they get to share property and financial money? All what gays and lesbians want to do is get treated the same as straight couples?

Frank T.J Mackey on July 2, 2013 at 10:52 AM

I care because those bennies have no state interest. Furthermore, why should Lance and Joe get those bennies, and not Marge and Cindy who are adult daughter and Mother? Why does someone having sex deserve extra protection? Why is a sexual relationship given added state protection for no compelling reason. I care also because Joe and Lance’s relationship is being used as a hammer in the court of law to supercede both biological parental rights and religious freedom.

melle1228 on July 2, 2013 at 11:20 AM

So can any gay relationship. There is no compelling reason to sanction a private sexual relationship…why should Lance and Joe get those bennies, and not Marge and Cindy who are adult daughter and Mother?

A gay relationship does not have a direct family link, until they tie the knot.

Infetility diagnoses are largely unreliable. Furthermore, most married couples do not know they are infertile until AFTER they marry. And all those that do not want to have children can go get a private civil partnership contract.

Are you arguing for a change in marriage laws, where a couple must procreate in order to get married? If not, then your argument for marriage being about procreation doesn’t hold water.

Why is a sexual relationship given added state protection for no compelling reason.

There’s a compelling reason: equal treatment under the law, and promoting commitment in society.

Joe and Lance’s relationship is being used as a hammer in the court of law to supercede both biological parental rights and religious freedom.

Joe and Lance simply want to share benefits, and don’t go around time suing people. Sorry, but your argument makes absolutely no sense at all.

If government marriage is all about raising children, then the couple has to procreate for the next generation or else they get benefits taken away. But of course, nobody is proposing this.

Frank T.J Mackey on July 2, 2013 at 12:28 PM

A gay relationship does not have a direct family link, until they tie the knot.

There’s a compelling reason: equal treatment under the law, and promoting commitment in society

First off, why isn’t it against equal protection to deny incestuous pairings a marriage license? Second, the law stopped “promoting commitment” years ago when it passed no-fault divorce laws and welfare laws.

Joe and Lance simply want to share benefits, and don’t go around time suing people. Sorry, but your argument makes absolutely no sense at all.

\

Bu!!shit. See all the cases in Massachusetts of bio parents rights, religious right etc. being taken away because of gay marriage.

If government marriage is all about raising children, then the couple has to procreate for the next generation or else they get benefits taken away. But of course, nobody is proposing this.

Frank T.J Mackey on July 2, 2013 at 12:28 PM

I am completely FINE with this, but people like you would scream “equal protection, we want our bennies.”

melle1228 on July 2, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 2