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

Wins every poll, loses every election.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 1, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Will younger voters replace them completely in 2016?

Will the Hispanics replace the Caucasians in 2016 as well?

mrscullen on July 1, 2013 at 5:39 PM

In the only polls that count, voters have rejected anal marriage in a majority of states, and will continue to do so.

devan95 on July 1, 2013 at 5:39 PM

So when the majority polled were opposed to it that meant it was acceptable… Right?

So if the polls go back well all support that?

Somehow I don’t think so…

Except now there’s a real cultural and political rift in the country.

This issue will not end.

Skywise on July 1, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Maybe they should do polls in voting booths..?

d1carter on July 1, 2013 at 5:41 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

News coverage favors gay marriage fans over opponents by 5-to-1: Pew study

When you have a news media that runs a pro-homosexual agenda 24/7, it’s no wonder you get these polling results.

sentinelrules on July 1, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Prohibition was the law of the land and polled high too…

Skywise on July 1, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Reproductive Cul-de-sac for the win.

portlandon on July 1, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Hollywood and leftist college professors have succeeded in indoctrinating the young. However, I wonder if this is the most important issue for these voters. Do they intend to vote against their economic self interest just so a small portion of the country can change the definition of marriage?

Rose on July 1, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Garbage in, Garbage out.

CW on July 1, 2013 at 5:47 PM

GOP support for gay marriage or for amnesty isn’t going to change anyone’s vote. Except maybe the votes of the people who usually vote GOP.

Curtiss on July 1, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Moral decline of America.

BigGator5 on July 1, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Do they intend to vote against their economic self interest just so a small portion of the country can change the definition of marriage?

Rose on July 1, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Why, Yes, YES they DO!!

Scrumpy on July 1, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Pic of the Day: ‘Wake Up, America!’ – Egyptians

Resist We Much on July 1, 2013 at 5:46 PM

O will never see this…

Scrumpy on July 1, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Fabulous!

/

BuckeyeSam on July 1, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Americans love a winner.

Nessuno on July 1, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Inversely proportionate

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Supreme Court Update

Public Approval of Supreme Court Falls to All-Time Low

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2013 at 5:56 PM

I’m still wondering how gay divorce is going to work. Does family court get to decide which partner is more “butch” and make that person responsible for child support? :p

Aitch748 on July 1, 2013 at 5:56 PM

Wins every poll, loses every election.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 1, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Until 2012, when pro-gay marriage forces won in Maine, Maryland, Washington and Minnesota…

cam2 on July 1, 2013 at 5:59 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

You’re wasting your time, just like every libertarian that has tried to make this argument, including Rand Paul, and the libertarian-influence like Ed Morrisey.

Same-sex marriage advocates don’t care the slightest bit about getting the government out of marriage. They want the government involved in marriage. It’s the only way to claim they’re being discriminated against.

If all levels of government were to declare that they no longer took any position or granted any benefits or applied any responsibility or permitted any recognition of marriage, period, at any level — and you would be a fool to think such a thing were even a remote possibility — the same-sex marriage advocates would not be deterred in the slightest.

They want same-sex marriage not for any rational position about benefits, but to make themselves feel equal to the rest of society.

Giving them what they claim to want would not actually give them what they really want, so it’s a complete waste of time.

On the other hand, if you made it illegal for anyone to question or criticize homosexuality, including preachers and Christians, or to suggest in any way that homosexuality was not every bit “as good as” heterosexuality — then you might have something.

It’s never been about marriage. It’s always been about a demand to be considered “equal.”

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 1, 2013 at 6:00 PM

If USA Today’s right, the DOMA/Prop 8 rulings are a small example of the former rather than the latter.

Color me skeptical. In every state where it came to a vote OF THE PEOPLE, it lost.

I’m still laughing at all the interviews where they crow “Now we’re EQUAL!”.

Yeah? Let’s see ya make a baby together.

GarandFan on July 1, 2013 at 6:03 PM

Wins every poll, loses every election.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 1, 2013 at 5:38 PM

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

Wins every poll, loses every election.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 1, 2013 at 5:38 PM

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

Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your view marriage laws and benefits are so interwoven into our laws that it will be very difficult to untangle them.

Inheritance laws, tax laws, visitation laws, estate planning, SS benefits, disability, veterans benefits, housing benefits….on and on and on.

They’re everywhere. Federal, state and local.

All of those would be wiped clean?

SteveMG on July 1, 2013 at 6:06 PM

But, but THE BIBLE!

Mmm...Burritos on July 1, 2013 at 6:08 PM

All of those would be wiped clean?

SteveMG on July 1, 2013 at 6:06 PM

It will never happen. Which is why libertarians are sort of out of luck with this “get the state out of marriage” thing. It is something they invented only to oppose same-sex marriage and everyone sort of sees it for what it is.

libfreeordie on July 1, 2013 at 6:08 PM

I keep getting a script error on HA. Every page.

Anyone else?

SteveMG on July 1, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Color me skeptical. In every state where it came to a vote OF THE PEOPLE, it lost.
GarandFan on July 1, 2013 at 6:03 PM

Jesus, another one. OK, seriously. Is the new hotness to pretend that 2012 election never happened?

libfreeordie on July 1, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Yeah? Let’s see ya make a baby together.

So men are not equal to women?

Mmm...Burritos on July 1, 2013 at 6:09 PM

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

And those of us against it will just not vote. We’re so small in number, our votes and $$$ won’t be missed, anyway.

ROCnPhilly on July 1, 2013 at 6:09 PM

“We are gathered here before God”……. and we’re gonna do it anyway…. I now pronounce you … what?

sandee on July 1, 2013 at 6:09 PM

hey invented only to oppose same-sex marriage and everyone sort of sees it for what it is.

I disagree with the broad brush. Many libertarians just want the state to be out of all of these matters. Let people make private contracts.

But sure, some are driven by an animus.

SteveMG on July 1, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Mr. Obama came out for SSM after the election not before.

So, pointing to that election as a sign favorable to SSM is a reach.

SteveMG on July 1, 2013 at 6:12 PM

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

If the facts don’t fit the personal narrative that I’m most comfortable with and that best supports my point then the facts are wrong and will be ignored. Duh. Where have you been?

alchemist19 on July 1, 2013 at 6:15 PM

It’s a dead end.

faraway on July 1, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Yeah.. and if the court had struck down gay marriage.. most people would have supported banning it. And it truth.. they still do.

JellyToast on July 1, 2013 at 6:17 PM

“We are gathered here before God”……. and we’re gonna do it anyway…. I now pronounce you … what?

sandee on July 1, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Whatever they checked off on the marriage certificate. I’m sure that’s been worked out before the ceremony. Evidently in the UK, “husband”, “wife”, “man”, “woman” are becoming recognized as gender neutral, so one can go anyway one wants to. Here, too, I would imagine.

hawkeye54 on July 1, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Huh, that’s funny:

The U.S. Supreme Court finished its term with big decisions on voting rights, affirmative action and same-sex marriage. Following those rulings, public approval of the court has fallen to the lowest level ever recorded in more than nine years of polling.

Link: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/supreme_court_update

You can find a poll to back up anything you want.

stenwin77 on July 1, 2013 at 6:17 PM

This reminds me so much of the tracking of Roe v. Wade. The pro-aborts did a terrific job with their propaganda swaying SCOTUS into making that reprehensible decision that swept aside state laws. For a while the pro-aborts were able to fool the public to the extent that we saw the murder of millions and the searing of the consciences of even more millions.

Then after a while consequences began to be realized in the broken lives and broken bodies of women who knew the emotional and physical aftermath of abortion. Men were haunted by the children they had lost. Science stepped in and opened a window on the womb and more and more people realized that they had been had. Slowly the tide began to turn.

We were left, however, with the irreparable loss of millions of little ones, and with spiritual, physical and economical gaping holes in our nation.

Once again the Left’s propaganda has been out in full force working to destroy the family. Once again those who will pay the steepest price will be the little ones.

Reality has the final vote. We reap what we sow.

INC on July 1, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Not hard to “shape” public opinions when you says only bigots and haters disagree with the consensus. I had a friend tell me just that today. He said he was sure, unlike me that he could look his homosexual friends in the eye knowing their ” happiness wasn’t offensive to him.”

The implication being anti-homosexual people were only bothered by homosexuals being happy. I told him he was an Ass.

njrob on July 1, 2013 at 6:18 PM

So when do the polygamy polls start?

Axeman on July 1, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Yeah.. and if the court had struck down gay marriage.. most people would have supported banning it. And it truth.. they still do.

JellyToast on July 1, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Well then, “most people” will need a little sensitivity training and encouraged to get on board with SSM, before acceptance becomes legally mandatory.

/SARC

hawkeye54 on July 1, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Jesus: Go forth and sin no more

The Left: Go forth and sin forevermore

faraway on July 1, 2013 at 6:20 PM

The implication being anti-homosexual people were only bothered by homosexuals being happy. I told him he was an Ass.

njrob on July 1, 2013 at 6:18 PM

And I thought witty people said they have just as much a right to be miserable as the rest of us. So are we recognizing their opportunity “to be happy” or their right to be equally miserable?

Axeman on July 1, 2013 at 6:21 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

Significant margins?

Looks like homosexual marriage were barely approved in Heavy Democrat states.

sentinelrules on July 1, 2013 at 6:22 PM

So when do the polygamy polls start?

Axeman on July 1, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Hmmm, before, after or coinciding with the campaign to lower the age of consent to 14?

Soon, I suppose, after all the celebration of SSM rites quiets down a bit.

Perspective polygamists are sure to demand their rights to multiple marriage partners all too soon, and a young age should be no barrier.

hawkeye54 on July 1, 2013 at 6:23 PM

And I thought witty people said they have just as much a right to be miserable as the rest of us. So are we recognizing their opportunity “to be happy” or their right to be equally miserable?

Axeman on July 1, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Both, I think. I think of it as a right to grow to slowly hate and resent everything about another person over the course of your one life on Earth.

alchemist19 on July 1, 2013 at 6:25 PM

I’m wondering if God is influenced by this poll.

JellyToast on July 1, 2013 at 6:25 PM

And I thought witty people said they have just as much a right to be miserable as the rest of us. So are we recognizing their opportunity “to be happy” or their right to be equally miserable?

Axeman on July 1, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Neither. Just the right to attack Christians.

njrob on July 1, 2013 at 6:25 PM

It’s never been about marriage. It’s always been about a demand to be considered “equal.”

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 1, 2013 at 6:00 PM

So what?

A gay dollar spends equal to mine, a gay vote equally cancels mine, a gay speeding ticket is subject to the same fine as mine, and on and on.

What’s the big deal if a gay civil union contract is equal to a straight civil union contract in court?

Equal protection under the law works fine for me.

Are you saying that it doesn’t work fine for you?

Bruno Strozek on July 1, 2013 at 6:28 PM

“We are gathered here before God”……. and we’re gonna do it anyway…. I now pronounce you … what?

sandee on July 1, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Well, I imagine that the exact wording varies, depending on the church. In the Episcopal Church, it goes like this:

Inasmuch as N. and N. have exchanged vows of love and fidelity
in the presence of God and the Church,
I now pronounce that they are bound to one another
in a holy covenant,
as long as they both shall live. Amen.

https://www.churchpublishing.org/media/869869/IWillBlessYouandYouWillBeaBlessingEXTRACT.pdf

cam2 on July 1, 2013 at 6:29 PM

So when do the polygamy polls start?

Axeman on July 1, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Hmmm, before, after or coinciding with the campaign to lower the age of consent to 14?

Soon, I suppose, after all the celebration of SSM rites quiets down a bit.

Perspective polygamists are sure to demand their rights to multiple marriage partners all too soon, and a young age should be no barrier.

hawkeye54 on July 1, 2013

Polygamy?
Lower age of consent?
I thought maybe beastiality was next…?

ROCnPhilly on July 1, 2013 at 6:29 PM

You cannot define procreation.
You can define benefits and law.
You cannot define nature. That is God’s Domain.
You can accept behavior for what it is; Abortion, life has no meaning.
You cannot define life other than the methods defined by God no matter the science of test tubes. You still define the same flaws. How can you define perfection? Not possible in a imperfect world. We are just forgiven junk. What does that say?

Kini on July 1, 2013 at 6:29 PM

Jesus: Go forth and sin no more

The Left: Go forth and sin forevermore

faraway on July 1, 2013 at 6:20 PM

And they’re so lovable, too.

SailorMark on July 1, 2013 at 6:30 PM

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

And yet the Supreme Court has polled at an all time low. Coincidence? I think not.

Let the states decide for themselves and then the decent and good can move where they can raise their families in wholesome settings and morally corrupt people can congregate in their states of immorality. It’s a big country. There’s room for everyone.

HotAirian on July 1, 2013 at 6:35 PM

Polygamy?
Lower age of consent?
I thought maybe beastiality was next…?

ROCnPhilly on July 1, 2013 at 6:29 PM

Ya know, I forgot all about bestiality. It’ll be in the mix somewhere, if PETA doesn’t object, and they’ll be clamoring for legalizing marriage with plants if one can legally marry an animal.

No limits, no boundaries, no morals, no judging.

Anything goes, or it should. Just be happy.

/SARC

hawkeye54 on July 1, 2013 at 6:38 PM

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

Who gets the kids when they divorce? If gay men marry, have a kid, divorce, and one wants to marry a woman who wants to adopt the kid, does the other dad have the right to stop it? There are so many ways the government intersects with the family, entirely apart from economic activity. You take government out of marriage, and you get what you’ve got for the welfare community: complete eradication of marriage.

alwaysfiredup on July 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Let the states decide for themselves and then the decent and good can move where they can raise their families in wholesome settings and morally corrupt people can congregate in their states of immorality. It’s a big country. There’s room for everyone.

HotAirian on July 1, 2013 at 6:35 PM

I agree. But that would not make the immoral happy. They will live the way they wish regardless. Their happiness only comes by forcing others to “act in an accepting manner” toward their behaviors. It’s the larger part of the illness.

ROCnPhilly on July 1, 2013 at 6:44 PM

It’s never been about marriage. It’s always been about a demand to be considered “equal.”

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 1, 2013 at 6:00 PM

So what?

A gay dollar spends equal to mine, a gay vote equally cancels mine, a gay speeding ticket is subject to the same fine as mine, and on and on.

What’s the big deal if a gay civil union contract is equal to a straight civil union contract in court?

Equal protection under the law works fine for me.

Are you saying that it doesn’t work fine for you?

Bruno Strozek on July 1, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Two things:

First of all, I’m saying that “getting the government out of marriage” would not end the same-sex marriage debate, because SSM advocates would not settle for the government merely being neutral on the subject.

So if you’re pretending that this is some solution, you’re foolish.

This is the point I made in the first place, that your reply did not address in the slightest.

Second, an equality issue would be if homosexuals were somehow prohibited from marriage. There is not a state in the union that prohibits a marriage because the man or the woman is homosexual.

So it has nothing to do with a homosexual being less than a heterosexual. Both are treated equally under the law.

What is being demanded is not that homosexuals be treated the same as heterosexuals, which is a rational position of non-discrimination. 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.

Therefore, any one who claims that same-sex marriage is a small-government position is either a fool or a liar. Only government activism can create a nominal same-sex marriage.

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

Jesus, another one. OK, seriously. Is the new hotness to pretend that 2012 election never happened?

libfreeordie on July 1, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Why not? Liberals keep pretending that the people of California didn’t vote to amend their constitution in 2008

Ditkaca on July 1, 2013 at 6:50 PM

So many fools hopping on the bandwagon. Kind of depressing.

Count to 10 on July 1, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Why not? Liberals keep pretending that the people of California didn’t vote to amend their constitution in 2008

Ditkaca on July 1, 2013 at 6:50 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

Jesus, another one. OK, seriously. Is the new hotness to pretend that 2012 election never happened?

libfreeordie on July 1, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Given that the evidence points to the election being stolen by the Democrats, why not?

Count to 10 on July 1, 2013 at 6:55 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

In other words, pretending it didn’t happen.

Count to 10 on July 1, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Jesus, another one. OK, seriously. Is the new hotness to pretend that 2012 election never happened?

libfreeordie on July 1, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Why not? Liberals keep pretending that the people of California didn’t vote to amend their constitution in 2008

Ditkaca on July 1, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Free and fair elections are the most important thing. Once you learn to control and manipulate those, you’ve got it made.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 1, 2013 at 6:56 PM

My rage at this is almost exclusively at the process, not the outcome.

Basically, whenever liberals want something, they go to the Courts to get it. The other branches of government have become irrelevant.

Has a single state ever granted gay marriage via popular vote?

BradTank on July 1, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Mr. Obama came out for SSM after the election not before.

So, pointing to that election as a sign favorable to SSM is a reach.

SteveMG on July 1, 2013 at 6:12 PM

There’s so much to criticize this president for, including his “evolved” stance on gay rights I suppose if you are inclined to oppose them, but you statement here is wrong.

“It is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama said in an interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts. – 9 May 2012
http://tinyurl.com/ksvg4gt

Voters also knew long before the 2012 election that the president refused the defend DOMA:

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination. – 23 February 2011 USDOJ Statement from AG Eric Holder
http://tinyurl.com/4z5engk

You can’t honestly say that the people didn’t know what President Obama’s views were on the subject when they went to the polls last November, because they were widely reported on at the time. I’m of course happy with DADT repeal and the end of at least Section 3 of DOMA, but am amazed that he was reelected given how terrible his overall record has been but a majority of the electorate felt otherwise.

JohnAGJ on July 1, 2013 at 6:59 PM

The U.S. Supreme Court finished its term with big decisions on voting rights, affirmative action and same-sex marriage. Following those rulings, public approval of the court has fallen to the lowest level ever recorded in more than nine years of polling.

Link: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/supreme_court_update

You can find a poll to back up anything you want.

stenwin77 on July 1, 2013 at 6:17 PM

You do realize that despite everyone’s excitement about the DOMA ruling. The Court ruled in favor of employer’s seeking to avoid liability for work harassment and discrimination, twice. They voted to gut the Voting Rights Act, and believe you me, Democrats and black voters in particular noted that. So the Court’s low standing has as much to do with its conservative rulings this term as it does for its one move towards progress in terms of same-sex marriage. Yes, SSM got the most media attention, but the other decisions have been discussed as well.

libfreeordie on July 1, 2013 at 7:00 PM

My rage at this is almost exclusively at the process, not the outcome.

Basically, whenever liberals want something, they go to the Courts to get it. The other branches of government have become irrelevant.

You mean like the Voting Rights Act which SCOTUS essentially neutered a day before their SSM rulings? I agreed with that ruling as well yet didn’t see too many people on the Right complain about process then given how an overwhelmingly bipartisan VRA was each time it was renewed in Congress.

Has a single state ever granted gay marriage via popular vote?

BradTank on July 1, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Maine, Maryland and Washington. Expect to see more added to this list soon.

JohnAGJ on July 1, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Has a single state ever granted gay marriage via popular vote?

BradTank on July 1, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Good God almighty. ANOTHER ONE. OK honestly, some of you took acid before the 2012 elections right? And just can’t remember that night?

Basically, whenever liberals want something, they go to the Courts to get it. The other branches of government have become irrelevant.

Really? Because Conservatives seem intent on defying the legislative process. Gay marriage was approved via legislative process in Washington and conservatives forced it onto the ballot. Christie’s veto is the only thing that blocked gay marriage in New Jersey and he wants it on the ballot. And, AGAIN, gay marriage won three ballot initiatives in the 2012 election.

libfreeordie on July 1, 2013 at 7:03 PM

libfreeordie on July 1, 2013 at 7:03 PM

What about the Constitutional Rights of the American citizenry to vote , perfesser. The Supreme Court just disenfranchised the entire state of California, to use a favorite Liberal term.

kingsjester on July 1, 2013 at 7:06 PM

Count to 10 on July 1, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Oh so same sex marriage is only OK unless the legislature votes on it, until it passes and then it can only be legit if it wins on popular vote, but then it isn’t legit because any election where same sex marriage wins is a stolen election. Is that about where we are?

libfreeordie on July 1, 2013 at 7:06 PM

t is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama said in an interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts. – 9 May 2012

Thanks, I stand corrected.

SteveMG on July 1, 2013 at 7:06 PM

What about the Constitutional Rights of the American citizenry to vote , perfesser. The Supreme Court just disenfranchised the entire state of California, to use a favorite Liberal term.

kingsjester on July 1, 2013 at 7:06 PM

The Supreme Court recognized that they had never once allowed private citizens to act as defendants in the place of absent state executives. It was, in every sense, a conservative ruling. It relied on previous precedence and did not create any new terrain within the law. You should be please if you weren’t massively hypocritical.

libfreeordie on July 1, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Really? Because Conservatives seem intent on defying the legislative process. Gay marriage was approved via legislative process in Washington and conservatives forced it onto the ballot. Christie’s veto is the only thing that blocked gay marriage in New Jersey and he wants it on the ballot. And, AGAIN, gay marriage won three ballot initiatives in the 2012 election.

libfreeordie on July 1, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Wow.

California voters approved the ban on SSM TWICE and liberals being the sore losers they are when to the sympathetic judge to overturn the ban.

As for the 2012 approval of SSM in maine, mayrland and Washington. The IRS played a big role in preventing pro family groups from getting their message out…hint, hint.

Don’t forget the voter fraud too.

b1jetmech on July 1, 2013 at 7:11 PM

Until 2012, when pro-gay marriage forces won in Maine, Maryland, Washington and Minnesota…

cam2 on July 1, 2013 at 5:59 PM

By a hair. Given Obama won by huge margins in those same states but gay marriage barely squeaked by, even so,e democrats are against it.

jawkneemusic on July 1, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Wow.

California voters Congressional majorities approved the ban on SSM TWICE VRA for 40 years and liberals conservatives being the sore losers they are when to the sympathetic judge to overturn the ban.

Fixed that for you.

libfreeordie on July 1, 2013 at 7:13 PM

libfreeordie on July 1, 2013 at 7:08 PM

YOU call me a hypocrite? Oh, now that’s funny!

kingsjester on July 1, 2013 at 7:14 PM

The Supreme Court recognized that they had never once allowed private citizens to act as defendants in the place of absent state executives. It was, in every sense, a conservative ruling. It relied on previous precedence and did not create any new terrain within the law. You should be please if you weren’t massively hypocritical.

libfreeordie on July 1, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Power to the people? Duuuuh.

What gives SCOTUS any constitutional right to rule over the citizens? Sounds like a major usurp of power.

b1jetmech on July 1, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Fixed that for you.

libfreeordie on July 1, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Were not discussing VRA aren’t we.

b1jetmech on July 1, 2013 at 7:16 PM

The Supreme Court recognized that they had never once allowed private citizens to act as defendants in the place of absent state executives. It was, in every sense, a conservative ruling. It relied on previous precedence and did not create any new terrain within the law. You should be please if you weren’t massively hypocritical.

libfreeordie on July 1, 2013 at 7:08 PM

that’s a load of baloney and you know it.

the court has NEVER encountered this situation before and only ruled so as to grant homosexuals special rights.

It was a progressive that destroyed constitutinoal voting powers of the individual in favor of the golden child du jour.

Skywise on July 1, 2013 at 7:16 PM

By a hair. Given Obama won by huge margins in those same states but gay marriage barely squeaked by, even so,e democrats are against it.

jawkneemusic on July 1, 2013 at 7:13 PM

And yet they won. Good luck trying to reverse those wins at the polls now because I seriously doubt it will happen in any of these States. Public opinion is changing rapidly on SSM and in a few more years the number of States legalizing it will be a majority of them.

JohnAGJ on July 1, 2013 at 7:16 PM

libfreeordie on July 1, 2013 at 7:13 PM

The VRA originally had a five year limit on it.

In other news, the Obama administration supports Voter ID laws for Kenyans.

Resist We Much on July 1, 2013 at 7:17 PM

It was a progressive that destroyed constitutinoal voting powers of the individual in favor of the golden child du jour.

Skywise on July 1, 2013 at 7:16 PM

A progressive like Scalia?

JohnAGJ on July 1, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Wow.

California voters Congressional majorities approved the ban on SSM TWICE VRA for 40 years and liberals conservatives being the sore losers they are when to the sympathetic judge to overturn the ban.

Fixed that for you.

Also,

The great Eric Holder who best know for Fast & Furious was using VRA against states who were attempting to better their voting system and that’s why it went to court.

b1jetmech on July 1, 2013 at 7:18 PM

A progressive like Scalia?

JohnAGJ on July 1, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Yup.

Skywise on July 1, 2013 at 7:19 PM

And yet they won. Good luck trying to reverse those wins at the polls now because I seriously doubt it will happen in any of these States. Public opinion is changing rapidly on SSM and in a few more years the number of States legalizing it will be a majority of them.

JohnAGJ on July 1, 2013 at 7:16 PM

Yeah yeah and as I pointed out before, Prohibition was a constitutional amendment.

The wheel turns.

Skywise on July 1, 2013 at 7:20 PM

And yet they won. Good luck trying to reverse those wins at the polls now because I seriously doubt it will happen in any of these States. Public opinion is changing rapidly on SSM and in a few more years the number of States legalizing it will be a majority of them.

JohnAGJ on July 1, 2013 at 7:16 PM

They won because the IRS stepped in against pro family groups as to prevent them from getting their message out.

Your SSM is only gaining traction mainly from the courts. Not by legislatures or citizen vote.

b1jetmech on July 1, 2013 at 7:20 PM

The VRA originally had a five year limit on it.

Which every Congress and president since then have chosen to renew with huge bipartisan support. Until SCOTUS essentially gutted VRA, correctly IMO, thanks to opposition by some conservatives who chose to exploit “activist” judges over the will of the people expressed through their elected representatives. Funny how this charge can be bantered back and forth when convenient, dontcha think?

In other news, the Obama administration supports Voter ID laws for Kenyans.

Resist We Much on July 1, 2013 at 7:17 PM

And what, you’re surprised by yet another display of such blatant hypocrisy by this administration?

JohnAGJ on July 1, 2013 at 7:21 PM

They won because the IRS stepped in against pro family groups as to prevent them from getting their message out.

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?

Your SSM is only gaining traction mainly from the courts. Not by legislatures or citizen vote.

b1jetmech on July 1, 2013 at 7:20 PM

Keep telling yourself that. Please. Your side consistently underestimates public support for SSM and overestimates its own base. Our side is growing each year that goes by while yours is shrinking more and more and more.

JohnAGJ on July 1, 2013 at 7:25 PM

JohnAGJ on July 1, 2013 at 7:21 PM

I think you’re misrepresenting history.

Laws were put into place to try to protect the quality of the vote by validating using picture IDs.

The progressives then took it to court to stop the laws because they infringed on the VRA.

Now what we’re we supposed to do… Just ignore the appeal like California?

Would the Supreme Court have decided that an individual had standing to appeal IN THAT CASE?

Skywise on July 1, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Yeah yeah and as I pointed out before, Prohibition was a constitutional amendment.

The wheel turns.

Skywise on July 1, 2013 at 7:20 PM

Indeed it does. If you want to believe these two things are comparable, be my guest. Invest all your hopes and dreams into this fantasy if you like. Meanwhile SSM keeps gaining traction more and more and more. Steal a page from Jesse if you like and “keep hope alive!”.

JohnAGJ on July 1, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Keep telling yourself that. Please. Your side consistently underestimates public support for SSM and overestimates its own base. Our side is growing each year that goes by while yours is shrinking more and more and more.

JohnAGJ on July 1, 2013 at 7:25 PM

And still haven’t returned to their high point of the Grecian Empire…

Skywise on July 1, 2013 at 7:28 PM

A progressive like Scalia?

JohnAGJ on July 1, 2013 at 7:17 PM
Yup.

Skywise on July 1, 2013 at 7:19 PM

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

haven’t read all the comments but can somebody remind me how many states that have voted for gay marriage have approved it? I don’t recall any but maybe there is one

last count I had was 32/0 against but I lose track of these close ones

DanMan on July 1, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Indeed it does. If you want to believe these two things are comparable, be my guest. Invest all your hopes and dreams into this fantasy if you like. Meanwhile SSM keeps gaining traction more and more and more. Steal a page from Jesse if you like and “keep hope alive!”.

JohnAGJ on July 1, 2013 at 7:28 PM

They are VERY alike… Faddish populace strung along by busy bodies…

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

Skywise on July 1, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2