About that Washington Post/ABC News poll on same-sex “marriage”

posted at 8:41 am on March 6, 2014 by Dustin Siggins

Yesterday, Allahpundit looked at the Washington Post/ABC News poll that shows 59 percent of the American public supports same-sex “marriage.” It’s a devastating number, but no real surprise, since the numbers have been trending that way for years.

Far more interesting than the support for same-sex “marriage,” however, is the way the poll reveals the real intent behind its creation: to create a narrative, not actually get the public’s opinion on the matters referenced in the poll.

First, the poll asks what people think about giving “gays and lesbians the legal right to marry.” This is the wrong question for three reasons:

A. Homosexuals cannot “marry” each other. Marriage is between heterosexuals. A secular government cannot change what “marriage” is, no matter how much it may want to.

B. Gay and lesbian Americans already have the legal right to marry. They can marry someone of the opposite sex.

C. Lastly, the poll should be asking what people think about gay and lesbian American couples having the right to participate in a marriage-like ceremony. Again, homosexuals can already legally marry.

Second, the poll asks if respondants “think businesses should or should not be allowed to refuse service to gays and lesbians”? Again, this is the wrong question. Businesses – or, rather, their owners – are not refusing to serve homosexuals. They are refusing to participate in helping homosexuals commit sin.

The difference is critical. From Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic, discussing the now-famous New Mexico photography case:

Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin lost a case before the New Mexico Supreme Court, and have now appealed the ruling. As noted in their petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Huguenins’ photography business does serve gay and lesbian clients, just not same-sex weddings. Insofar as a photographer can distinguish between discriminating against a class of client and a type of event—there is, perhaps, a limit—their business does so: “The Huguenins gladly serve gays and lesbians—by, for example, providing them with portrait photography—whenever doing so would not require them to create expression conveying messages that conflict with their religious beliefs.”

The photography business has also turned down clients other than gay and lesbian couples while citing religious objections. “They have declined requests for nude maternity pictures,” their petition states, “and photographs portraying violence.”

Finally, it isn’t just same-sex weddings they’d be uncomfortable photographing: their petition states that they’d also refuse business capturing a polygamous marriage.

A restaurant owner who provides a meal to a homosexual is not helping that person commit sin, and in fact by not serving that person would probably do more harm than good to the cause of evangelization. Similarly, a doctor who saves the life of a gay person is not an accomplice to that person’s immoral actions later on in life, in the same way that doctor is not responsible for the immoral sexual activities of a heterosexual person who sleeps around.

However, a Catholic restaurant owner who provides a wedding reception for a homosexual couple would be participating in sin.

 The poll also asks the following:

Do you think businesses should or should not be allowed to refuse service to gays and lesbians? (If should NOT,) What if the business says homosexuality violates their owners’ religious beliefs?

In American culture, “homosexuality” generally means someone has homosexual attractions (though many theologians and other intellectuals in religious circles would define “homosexual” as an act, not a person). Business owners aren’t asking people for their gay identification cards, or putting up gaydars on their front doors. Even the allegedly hateful Catholic Church distinctly separates homosexual attractions from homosexual acts.

It is the acts that are the issue, not the attractions, when it comes to service – something both ABC and the Post know, but choose to ignore in order to get the results they want.

Interestingly, the Post/ABC poll comes less than a month after the Public Religion Research Institute published a survey of 4,500 adults about various religious issues. While 53 percent of respondents supported same-sex “marriage,” 51 percent believe “sex  between  two  adults  of  the  same  gender” is immoral. (54 percent of respondants said abortion is morally wrong, and 65 percent believe pornography is morally wrong. So maybe there’s hope for American culture, after all.)

I’ll pull an Allahpundit and ask two exit questions: First, will the same people up in arms over Arizona Senate Bill 1062 (which is a surprisingly short read, and unsurprisingly is not “anti-gay”) be as angry if an unmarried heterosexual couple is turned down by an inn owner because they want one room, not two? And where’s the public flaying of the gay hairdresser who refused to serve the governor of New Mexico because of the latter’s opposition to same-sex “marriage”?

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 4 5 6 7 8 11

Good lord. This comment section is a Democrat’s campaign wet dream.

By all means, lets go with the “immoral homosexuality” approach. So the GOP can avoid any and all national electoral victories for the foreseeable future.

If you people think this is a winning argument, you are fooling yourselves on an EPIC scale.

Oh and congrats to Dustin for being the controversial hit generator he was hired to be. All the so-cons shouting into the echo chamber probably feel so much better now.

deadrody on March 6, 2014 at 2:04 PM

If anyone want’s to chime in here with something different, please do.

JetBoy on March 6, 2014 at 12:38 PM

The natural order. Homosexuality is a perversion of the natural order. We Christians might appeal to the Bible as a standard but also as it informs our understanding of what the natural order is.

The secularist or the atheist can appeal to nothing beyond currently fashionable sentiments to argue their case. Witness the posts by one, M J Brutus, who appeals to a growing consensus amongst the population as HIS standard. Such a standard is malleable and subject to cultural whims and is no standard at all.

Cleombrotus on March 6, 2014 at 12:50 PM

I’m going to reach back to the first page at this point for a comment germane to this:

Yeah, no one makes the distinction between religious “marriage” and legal “marriage” anymore. I agree as far as I think that they should have always been separate, but this whole post just comes off as you desperately trying to spin something to make yourself feel better because you can’t handle the reality that the nation is moving away from ultra-religious, SoCon beliefs.

At least most people still hate late term abortion though. As they should.

Cyhort on March 6, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Am I the only one who doesn’t see marriage as an ultra religious socon belief? In engineering and several other fields the word marriage describes things that were made to fit together to form a single entity. Fasteners, brackets, etc., as such, marriage describes the naturally occurring union of 2 people of different sexes. I’m on the very fringe of religiosity and don’t consider my views to be informed by Christianity or any other. Just because the bulk of people who believe something are religious it doesn’t make their beliefs inherently religious. The joining of 2 heterosexual humans is defined as marriage and has been since the dawn of time. It’s illogical and downright weird to want to change that.

preallocated on March 6, 2014 at 9:48 AM

The thing that’s kinda cool about the religious argument against SSM is that it’s also based on the natural argument. That is, we’re talking about what was said by Jesus Christ Himself on this subject.

Matthew 19:4-5 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

The religious argument for the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman is that God ordained it as part of the creation. That is, we were made that way. Even if you don’t accept that God is the Creator, we’re still made that way.

In spite of all the religious teaching about marriage, it was not defined as part of any religion. Not even as a part of Judaism, which actually was a theocracy.

Marriage — the male-female dichotomy itself — is baked into our DNA. Literally.

This is also why Romans 1 describes homosexual acts as “against nature.”

Interestingly enough, we all used to read Romans 1 and see the pagan world of the past, in the rear view mirror if you will. Now, that pagan world is right in front of us — through the windshield, and coming up fast.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 6, 2014 at 2:04 PM

Siggins hates gay people. Got it.

Is this a site for conservatives or for hardcore religious fanatics?

ModerateMan on March 6, 2014 at 1:52 PM

Please point the elements of hate in Mr. Siggins article? If anyone is exhibiting hate it is you by implying that he is spouting hate and is a hard core religious fanatic. Hate… project much?

Neitherleftorright on March 6, 2014 at 2:06 PM

Of course there is, i’m not gay so i have no interest in marrying a guy which means the restrictions have no meaning to me what so ever, but to a gay guy they mean everything.

clearbluesky on March 6, 2014 at 2:02 PM

Please cite the box on the marriage license where the state cares about who you love?

I have no interest marrying my brother, but that doesn’t change the nature of the restriction. I have no interest marrying two people, but that doesn’t change that the restriction is UNIVERSAL.

melle1228 on March 6, 2014 at 2:12 PM

But nature also created homosexuality as well as the proclivity…
MJBrutus on March 6, 2014 at 1:29 PM

Nature did not create homosexuality. There is no genetic marker for homosexuality. When animals engage in a same sex frenzy it is a frenzy driven by an uncontrollable sexual urge. Once that urge is satisfied it does not manifest itself as a continued practice or “lifestyle.” Only humans have this desire to create a “lifestyle.” Since there is no possibility of homosexual genes to be passed on through normal procreation how has this continued?

Neitherleftorright on March 6, 2014 at 1:50 PM

Nicely put. For humans, the analog would be prison rape. Sort of a “homosexuality of opportunity.”

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 6, 2014 at 2:12 PM

Oh and congrats to Dustin for being the controversial hit generator he was hired to be. All the so-cons shouting into the echo chamber probably feel so much better now.
s
deadrody on March 6, 2014 at 2:04 PM

You mean like the anti-theist’s echo chamber in the religious thread or the militant “libertarian” or progressive echo chambers in these threads?

melle1228 on March 6, 2014 at 2:14 PM

Man, the ol’ Dust-Bag can sure attract the hate.

And the comments!

Lanceman on March 6, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Good lord. This comment section is a Democrat’s campaign wet dream.

By all means, lets go with the “immoral homosexuality” approach. So the GOP can avoid any and all national electoral victories for the foreseeable future.

If you people think this is a winning argument, you are fooling yourselves on an EPIC scale.

Oh and congrats to Dustin for being the controversial hit generator he was hired to be. All the so-cons shouting into the echo chamber probably feel so much better now.

deadrody on March 6, 2014 at 2:04 PM

Tell you what: find a GOP willing to stand up for anything, and we can start talking about winning. So far, they all seem concerned about making it clear that “this is not the hill to die on.”

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 6, 2014 at 2:16 PM

All the so-cons shouting into the echo chamber probably feel so much better now.

deadrody on March 6, 2014 at 2:04 PM

Conservatives taking a conservative position on a conservative blog? Some things are almost too shocking to believe.

DrMagnolias on March 6, 2014 at 2:19 PM

nonpartisan

hawkdriver on March 6, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Yep. Try telling that to Lanceman. He is in love with the Childs hair. ; )

Bmore on March 6, 2014 at 2:19 PM

That’s not my approach or my goals. The quoted sentence comes from northdallasthirty’s blog.

He implies that being gay is a choice, but can’t heal himself. He argued for gay marriage at his blog but against it here. He constantly smears the gay and lesbian community of which he is a member.

Isn’t it ironic, don’t you think?

RJ MacReady on March 6, 2014 at 1:28 PM

Oh, so that’s where you pulled that from.

Well, go ahead and link it again, and then people can look at the context.

Meanwhile, I’m not. You get kicked out of the gay and lesbian community if you disagree with them or their methods or vote for anyone other than Obama.

northdallasthirty on March 6, 2014 at 2:19 PM

Tell you what: find a GOP willing to stand up for anything, and we can start talking about winning. So far, they all seem concerned about making it clear that “this is not the hill to die on.”

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 6, 2014 at 2:16 PM

They think if the GOP just rolls over on the gay marriage thing; we would be winning in droves. They don’t get that if the GOP rolls on social issues; they have no problem and HAVE rolled on fiscal and defense issues as well.

BTW, still waiting the wonderful reception that Portman got when he evolved, or Jan Brewer got when she vetoed the bill in all the Jim Crow hysteria.

melle1228 on March 6, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Conservatives taking a conservative position on a conservative blog? Some things are almost too shocking to believe.

DrMagnolias on March 6, 2014 at 2:19

This ^^^ They act like they just stumbled on to open registration one day, and had never read the comments here.

melle1228 on March 6, 2014 at 2:21 PM

deadrody on March 6, 2014 at 2:04 PM

You do know that you are on hotair.com, right? …A website founded by a Reagan Conservative? You know, one of us “SoCons”?

kingsjester on March 6, 2014 at 2:21 PM

spanner.

HonestLib on March 6, 2014 at 1:07 PM

Limey?

Bmore on March 6, 2014 at 2:22 PM

All the so-cons shouting into the echo chamber probably feel so much better now.

deadrody on March 6, 2014 at 2:04 PM

Good luck winning elections without us.

cptacek on March 6, 2014 at 2:24 PM

bazil9 on March 6, 2014 at 12:17 PM

XO

Bmore on March 6, 2014 at 2:26 PM

Siggins is really grasping at straws here, it’s very funny how he just can’t admit that he, not the gays, is the one with fringe beliefs.

Federati on March 6, 2014 at 2:27 PM

Federati on March 6, 2014 at 2:27 PM

Please elaborate.

I haven’t had a good laugh for a while.

kingsjester on March 6, 2014 at 2:28 PM

Good lord. This comment section is a Democrat’s campaign wet dream.

By all means, lets go with the “immoral homosexuality” approach. So the GOP can avoid any and all national electoral victories for the foreseeable future.

If you people think this is a winning argument, you are fooling yourselves on an EPIC scale.

Oh and congrats to Dustin for being the controversial hit generator he was hired to be. All the so-cons shouting into the echo chamber probably feel so much better now.

deadrody on March 6, 2014 at 2:04 PM

Yup. I agree 100%.

DisneyFan on March 6, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Siggins is really grasping at straws here, it’s very funny how he just can’t admit that he, not the gays, is the one with fringe beliefs.

Federati on March 6, 2014 at 2:27 PM

Redefinition of ‘fringe beliefs’ to accompany redefinition of marriage.

Check.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 6, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Hold it.

I’M a socon!

Lanceman on March 6, 2014 at 2:30 PM

Good lord. This comment section is a Democrat’s campaign wet dream.

By all means, lets go with the “immoral homosexuality” approach. So the GOP can avoid any and all national electoral victories for the foreseeable future.

If you people think this is a winning argument, you are fooling yourselves on an EPIC scale.

Oh and congrats to Dustin for being the controversial hit generator he was hired to be. All the so-cons shouting into the echo chamber probably feel so much better now.

deadrody on March 6, 2014 at 2:04 PM

Yup. I agree 100%.

DisneyFan on March 6, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Look on the bright side. I’m sure once you’ve purged the Republican party of all the filthy socons, you’ll start winning elections!

And that’s all you care about, right?

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 6, 2014 at 2:31 PM

Removing homosexuality from the DSM was a grave mistake.

Murphy9 on March 6, 2014 at 2:31 PM

DisneyFan on March 6, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Walt Disney was a SoCon.

kingsjester on March 6, 2014 at 2:32 PM

Tell you what: find a GOP willing to stand up for anything, and we can start talking about winning. So far, they all seem concerned about making it clear that “this is not the hill to die on.”

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 6, 2014 at 2:16 PM

I sense the GOP will live a long, long time.

*thumps crystal ball*

Yes. A long, long time. :)

All the so-cons shouting into the echo chamber probably feel so much better now.

deadrody on March 6, 2014 at 2:04 PM

I find it all pretty stressing.

Axe on March 6, 2014 at 2:32 PM

The government has every right to decide what it recognizes as a legal marriage.

beverlyfreaks on March 6, 2014 at 10:39 AM

The government of most states already has determined what is a legal marriage. Either laws or constitutional amendments have been passed in many states emphatically stating that the definition of a legal marriage does not include two men or two women.

I doubt that is what you meant…

cptacek on March 6, 2014 at 2:32 PM

deadrody on March 6, 2014 at 2:04 PM

GEE, I wonder what YOU think a “winning” strategy might be on this subject. /

Cleombrotus on March 6, 2014 at 2:33 PM

Nature, and the natural order, contains all manner of anomalies. That doesn’t make them “perversions”, when they exist within it.

JetBoy on March 6, 2014 at 1:05 PM

How bold of you, JetBoy. By your logic, pedophilia, bestiality, etc., are not perversions, but simply elements of “the natural order.”

Do you believe pedophilia or bestiality or any other non-perversion should be permitted by the state?

Or do you believe those things to be “wrong,” as defined by you?

If it’s the latter, who are you to dictate your morality on others — particularly when these are surely not choices but simply part of others’ natural makeup? They can’t help it; they’re born that way.

Right?

Dion on March 6, 2014 at 2:33 PM

melle1228 on March 6, 2014 at 2:21 PM

And return, and return, and return…

DrMagnolias on March 6, 2014 at 2:33 PM

Good lord. This comment section is a Democrat’s campaign wet dream.

By all means, lets go with the “immoral homosexuality” approach. So the GOP can avoid any and all national electoral victories for the foreseeable future.

If you people think this is a winning argument, you are fooling yourselves on an EPIC scale.

Oh and congrats to Dustin for being the controversial hit generator he was hired to be. All the so-cons shouting into the echo chamber probably feel so much better now.

deadrody on March 6, 2014 at 2:04 PM

What I can’t figure out is why establishment “Republicans” like yourself cower and snivel before the Obama Party when you can not only easily point out that Barack Obama’s own gay cronies call for terrorism and violence against Christians and conservatives, but that Obama supporters actually call for gays to be stripped of their right to vote and kill themselves if they don’t support Obama.

Why won’t you use that against the Obama Party? Why won’t you hold the Obama Party and the gay and lesbian community responsible for this violence and hatred?

Answer: Because you’re not a conservative; you’re an Obama puppet.

northdallasthirty on March 6, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Do you think Mary Cheney and her partner have any respect for Liz Cheney’s husband, the natural father of their 5 children?
monalisa on March 6, 2014 at 1:26 PM

Absolutely. What evidence is there that they don’t?

MinnesotaSlinger on March 6, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Hold it.

I’M a socon!

Lanceman on March 6, 2014 at 2:30 PM

Well that means you are a bigot, homophobe, anti-religious nut who hates blacks and women..

melle1228 on March 6, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Cleombrotus on March 6, 2014 at 2:33 PM

I believe it includes the phrase “Just shut up.”

DrMagnolias on March 6, 2014 at 2:34 PM

How about we remove marriage from government purview altogether?

NativeTexan on March 6, 2014 at 2:35 PM

Tell you what: find a GOP willing to stand up for anything, and we can start talking about winning. So far, they all seem concerned about making it clear that “this is not the hill to die on.”

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 6, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Just to name a few, when Odumbo first took office they stood firm on cap-and-tax and on card check and got them both passed and they did everything they could to stop passage of Obamacare because that was a hill to die on. In contrast, an issue where a clear majority of the American people are against the GOP position, more and more turn against that position each day and the deck is stacked against the GOP at the Supreme Court, well, that doesn’t seem like it’s a politically intelligent place to make a stand.

alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:35 PM

How about we remove marriage from government purview altogether?

NativeTexan on March 6, 2014 at 2:35 PM

Alright. Let’s do that. What happens when a baker refuses to bake a cake for a civil ceremony between two men?

cptacek on March 6, 2014 at 2:36 PM

alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:35 PM

Again, show me the hero worship of Jan Brewer and Rob Portman when they both became gay friendly. You can’t, because the GOP will always be the homophobic party because that is the narrative that the Dems, Media, and their allies in the GOP have written.

melle1228 on March 6, 2014 at 2:36 PM

alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:35 PM

So, you are using as your frame of reference “stacked” polls, such as this one?

kingsjester on March 6, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Well that means you are a bigot, homophobe, anti-religious nut who hates blacks and women..

melle1228 on March 6, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Well, I,…..Yep. That sounds like me, alright…

Lanceman on March 6, 2014 at 2:37 PM

Well, I,…..Yep. That sounds like me, alright…

Lanceman on March 6, 2014 at 2:37 PM

:)

melle1228 on March 6, 2014 at 2:38 PM

cptacek on March 6, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Nothing. He is a private business owner who can refuse service if he chooses.

NativeTexan on March 6, 2014 at 2:38 PM

Nothing. He is a private business owner who can refuse service if he chooses.

NativeTexan on March 6, 2014 at 2:38 PM

Have you been living under a rock?

cptacek on March 6, 2014 at 2:39 PM

I’m against same sex marriage – because it devalues motherhood and fatherhood. If you are for gay marriage and believe that it is equal to “opposite sex” marriage in every way then you must believe that mothers and fathers don’t matter in their children lives since two gay guys or two gay gals are just as good parents.

Do you think Mary Cheney and her partner have any respect for Liz Cheney’s husband, the natural father of their 5 children?

monalisa on March 6, 2014 at 1:26 PM

You’re conflating marriage and parenthood and those are separate issues but since you asked, mothers and fathers matter but not so much in their roles as men and women. All other things being equal, two mothers or two fathers do as good a job raising a child as one mother and one father do.

I can’t speak for Mary Cheney but I don’t see why she wouldn’t, or at least wouldn’t before Liz’s rather curious attempted Senate adventure.

alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:39 PM

In contrast, an issue where a clear majority of the American people are against the GOP position, more and more turn against that position each day and the deck is stacked against the GOP at the Supreme Court, well, that doesn’t seem like it’s a politically intelligent place to make a stand.
 
alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:35 PM

 
They need the courts to intercede because the voting public keeps supporting it?

rogerb on March 6, 2014 at 2:40 PM

rogerb on March 6, 2014 at 2:40 PM

I think he is getting the words “majority” and “minority” confused.

kingsjester on March 6, 2014 at 2:40 PM

Well, I,…..Yep. That sounds like me, alright…

Lanceman on March 6, 2014 at 2:37 PM

Everyone hates you for keeping the GOP from winning elections. :)

Without you, the GOP would be super cool and not so uptight, and the chidren would love them and vote for them instead of the DNC, because — underpants gnomes.

Axe on March 6, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Look on the bright side. I’m sure once you’ve purged the Republican party of all the filthy socons, you’ll start winning elections!

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 6, 2014 at 2:31 PM

I’ve heard this argument from time to time, and I’m always interested to find out who will be putting boots on the ground in GOTV if they purge SoCons. SoCons are by far more passionate about topics than FiCons. SoCons are far more willing to invest the time, energy, and effort.

lineholder on March 6, 2014 at 2:42 PM

Everyone hates you for keeping the GOP from winning elections. :)

Without you, the GOP would be super cool and not so uptight, and the chidren would love them and vote for them instead of the DNC, because — underpants gnomes.

Axe on March 6, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Dude. I just want the 70s back. Tricky Dick. Disco. SonofSam. The Brady Bunch. The good times.

Lanceman on March 6, 2014 at 2:42 PM

cptacek on March 6, 2014 at 2:39 PM

Nope.

Why should he be forced to perform for someone? It’s a free (or used to be) country. He runs a business. He can make money or not make money, his choice.

Would it be ok to hand a card to your newly minted civil union gay couple and tell them that they can only patronize these gay owned or gay friendly businesses?

Why is someone suddenly removed of their freedom of choice because two dudes decided to get married?

NativeTexan on March 6, 2014 at 2:44 PM

DrMagnolias on March 6, 2014 at 2:34 PM

and something about “wacko-birds”.

Cleombrotus on March 6, 2014 at 2:44 PM

They need the courts to intercede because the voting public keeps supporting it?

rogerb on March 6, 2014 at 2:40 PM

The courts should intercede because people’s Constitutional rights are being violated. The rights of any minority should never be left to the whims of the majority; the sad and tragic way African-Americans used to be treated in this country speaks to this fact.

alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:45 PM

kingsjester on March 6, 2014 at 2:28 PM

Elaborate on what? Survey after survey shows that Americans reject most principles of social conservatism, from pornography to birth control to gay marriage. And this percentage is increasing every year, until eventually (on some issues/among some demographics/in some parts of the country this is already the case) social conservatism will be as fringe in the present as social liberalism was in the 40s and 50s.

Federati on March 6, 2014 at 2:45 PM

I think he is getting the words “majority” and “minority” confused.

kingsjester on March 6, 2014 at 2:40 PM

Did I misread this and all the other recent polling that says over 50% of the American people support same-sex marriage? Or do these polls need to be unskewed?

alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:47 PM

NativeTexan on March 6, 2014 at 2:44 PM

I agree that is how it should be. The recent events show the LBGT advocates don’t agree and will sue over anything. Taking marriage out of the purview of the government won’t fix this latest mess.

cptacek on March 6, 2014 at 2:47 PM

Just to name a few, when Odumbo first took office they stood firm on cap-and-tax and on card check and got them both passed and they did everything they could to stop passage of Obamacare because that was a hill to die on. In contrast, an issue where a clear majority of the American people are against the GOP position, more and more turn against that position each day and the deck is stacked against the GOP at the Supreme Court, well, that doesn’t seem like it’s a politically intelligent place to make a stand.

alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:35 PM

The funny part is that so-called “conservatives” like alchemist19 will vote in favor of cap-and-tax and card check and Obamacare so that they can punish churches and force Christians to participate in gay-sex marriages.

That’s because to gay-sex bigots like alchemist19, punishing Christians and forcing them to participate in gay-sex marriages matters more than anything else.

northdallasthirty on March 6, 2014 at 2:47 PM

Did I misread this and all the other recent polling that says over 50% of the American people support same-sex marriage? Or do these polls need to be unskewed?

alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:47 PM

Votes on constitutional amendments and other laws voted on by the public have been overwhelmingly for upholding the traditional definition of marriage.

cptacek on March 6, 2014 at 2:48 PM

Bryan Preston, who used to be one of the writers at this site, pretty much nailed it last month (someone referenced this in another thread — sorry that I can’t remember who it was to give credit where it’s due):

Social conservatives should just accept the wisdom of coastal, unchurched 18 year olds and surrender our core beliefs. Surrender on marriage, and allow it to be redefined by people who harbor nothing but contempt for the institution. It’s a recurring theme among a certain set within the larger conservative-libertarian movement. Shut up and surrender, they explain.

Where do the surrenders end? Those who share the shut-up sentiment never say. They just tell social conservatives to shut up already and give up on the issues that for many are the very reason that they got into politics in the first place. So we surrender on marriage, then we give up on life, and pretty soon, they’ll be telling us to give up on the Second Amendment, then the First, then something else. Always retreat, ever surrender, because they say so, never offering a glimpse of what might be the end game. …

That’s one reason that the GOP is struggling. Elements within it keep telling its base that it does not want us. They keep acting like we’re an embarrassment.

A few million more of us take heed and disengage. Then what are the libertarians gonna do? If you think you can hold back the leftist tide without the bulwark of a strong social conservative movement animated by more than the ephemeral issues of the moment, if you think the coastal teens will save the day, you’re in for a very rude surprise. The Libertarian Party itself can’t decide if it’s an actual political party or a tool of the Left to divide the Right. …

Mark my words: Without the core organization, finances, manpower and ideological support that social conservatives provide to the broadly defined Right, support which the libertarians can never provide just because the numbers aren’t there, what’s left of the Right will end up as gravel embedded in the road to serfdom. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

As Limbaugh would say, rightonrightonrighton…

ddrintn on March 6, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Votes on constitutional amendments and other laws voted on by the public have been overwhelmingly for upholding the traditional definition of marriage.

cptacek on March 6, 2014 at 2:48 PM

So?

alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:51 PM

Federati on March 6, 2014 at 2:45 PM

Please cite your sources. or you’re simply b.s’ing.

kingsjester on March 6, 2014 at 2:51 PM

You can’t, because the GOP will always be the homophobic party because that is the narrative that the Dems, Media, and their allies in the GOP have written.

melle1228 on March 6, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Seems to me that the “narrative” was written by Siggins himself. Lol.

mazer9 on March 6, 2014 at 2:51 PM

alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:47 PM

The point of Dustin’s post completely scaed you, didn’t it?

I’m shocked.

kingsjester on March 6, 2014 at 2:51 PM

kingsjester on March 6, 2014 at 2:51 PM

Please be specific.

Federati on March 6, 2014 at 2:51 PM

Elaborate on what? Survey after survey shows that Americans reject most principles of social conservatism, from pornography to birth control to gay marriage. And this percentage is increasing every year, until eventually (on some issues/among some demographics/in some parts of the country this is already the case) social conservatism will be as fringe in the present as social liberalism was in the 40s and 50s.

Federati on March 6, 2014 at 2:45 PM

Sweet. Good luck to you winning without us.

cptacek on March 6, 2014 at 2:52 PM

“escaped”

kingsjester on March 6, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Votes on constitutional amendments and other laws voted on by the public have been overwhelmingly for upholding the traditional definition of marriage.

cptacek on March 6, 2014 at 2:48 PM

So?

alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:51 PM

So where is that broad public support for gay marriage if its proponents always have to rely on the courts?

ddrintn on March 6, 2014 at 2:52 PM

The courts should intercede because people’s Constitutional rights are being violated. The rights of any minority should never be left to the whims of the majority; the sad and tragic way African-Americans used to be treated in this country speaks to this fact.

alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:45 PM

Because everyone knows that conscience protections that would be sacrificed due to the approach currently being pursued by the LGBT community have no part to play in our form of government, maintaining the stability of our society as a whole…and even if they did, the rights of the majority on this matter carry no weight. Is that what you mean?

lineholder on March 6, 2014 at 2:53 PM

So?

alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:51 PM

When someone asks a question on the phone, the answer is one way. When people actually vote, the answer is the other.

cptacek on March 6, 2014 at 2:53 PM

I tell you what. This time warp thing makes it almost impossible to keep up to date on a thread.

cptacek on March 6, 2014 at 2:53 PM

cptacek on March 6, 2014 at 2:47 PM

Let them start losing lawsuits, and having to pay for court costs for the entire proceeding when they lose, and they’ll stop suing.

Activist government and activist judges are the problem, not the general attitude of the population.

Personally, I don’t care who you sleep with. In fact, I don’t want to know.

NativeTexan on March 6, 2014 at 2:53 PM

The courts should intercede because people’s Constitutional rights are being violated. The rights of any minority should never be left to the whims of the majority; the sad and tragic way African-Americans used to be treated in this country speaks to this fact.

alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:45 PM

What amendment in the Bill of Rights is the Amendment allowing homosexuals to call their sexual activities “marriage”?

kingsjester on March 6, 2014 at 2:53 PM

Yeah Yeah Yeahs – Heads Will Roll

Good luck and Have Fun!

Murphy9 on March 6, 2014 at 2:55 PM

When someone asks a question on the phone, the answer is one way. When people actually vote, the answer is the other.

cptacek on March 6, 2014 at 2:53 PM

You’re mainly talking about votes taken about a decade ago when the polling was the reverse of what it is now. The last three times the issue was voted on your side didn’t win.

alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:55 PM

In contrast, an issue where a clear majority of the American people are against the GOP position, more and more turn against that position each day and the deck is stacked against the GOP at the Supreme Court, well, that doesn’t seem like it’s a politically intelligent place to make a stand.
 
alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:35 PM

 
They need the courts to intercede because the voting public keeps supporting it?
 
rogerb on March 6, 2014 at 2:40 PM

 
The courts should intercede because people’s Constitutional rights are being violated. The rights of any minority should never be left to the whims of the majority
 
alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:45 PM

 
Ah, thanks. At first I thought you meant it was an issue where a clear majority of the American people are against the GOP position.
 
Glad you cleared that up for us.

rogerb on March 6, 2014 at 2:55 PM

The surveys have been worded so as to skew the results in favor of depravity based marriage. The strange idea of a person somehow becoming permanently homosexual didn’t even exist 150 years ago. It’s new idea based on fantasy, not reality. Check out pfox.org (Parents and friends of X-Gay’s) if you think there’s real permanence to the notion. People leave the homosexual lifestyle every day and it’s their right to do so. Depravity based marriage is an aberration. The question is how deep both state and federal governments are going to dig themselves into this aberration and how difficult it will be to reverse it all after the citizens finally realize that nobody was ever “born that way” and it that it’s unrelated to human rights. Science needs to prevail on this issue. Thanks to the Human Genome Project, we now know there’s no gay gene and that depravity has nothing to do with genetics.

Val on March 6, 2014 at 2:56 PM

What amendment in the Bill of Rights is the Amendment allowing homosexuals to call their sexual activities “marriage”?

kingsjester on March 6, 2014 at 2:53 PM

Do you not understand how the Equal Protection Clause works? Did the Supreme Court get in wrong in 1967 when they “found” something about marriage in the Fourteenth Amendment and struck down Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage?

alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:56 PM

The rights of any minority should never be left to the whims of the majority…

alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:45 PM

Ah, thanks. At first I thought you meant it was an issue where a clear majority of the American people are against the GOP position.

Glad you cleared that up for us.

rogerb on March 6, 2014 at 2:55 PM

LOL…

ddrintn on March 6, 2014 at 2:57 PM

alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:55 PM

So, in one sentance you are saying…

The rights of any minority should never be left to the whims of the majority.

And then, you are saying…

You’re mainly talking about votes taken about a decade ago when the polling was the reverse of what it is now. The last three times the issue was voted on your side didn’t win.

So, if all of us who vated against homosexual marriange are now a minority, aren’t you violating our Constitutional Rights by nullifying our popular votes?

Hypocrite or just b.s.er?

kingsjester on March 6, 2014 at 2:57 PM

alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:56 PM

Homosexuality is not a race.

kingsjester on March 6, 2014 at 2:58 PM

Do you not understand how the Equal Protection Clause works? Did the Supreme Court get in wrong in 1967 when they “found” something about marriage in the Fourteenth Amendment and struck down Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage?

alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:56 PM

So….what is there to stop polygamy/polyandry/incestuous/bestial marriages? Or should it be stopped?

ddrintn on March 6, 2014 at 2:58 PM

rogerb on March 6, 2014 at 2:55 PM

Shut up, rogerb! You’re confusing him!

Lanceman on March 6, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Of course I’m taking the GOP position to be against same-sex marriage and, yes, a clear majority of Americans today do not support the position of the GOP. Do you disagree with that?

alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Put it up for a national vote and let’s see.

ddrintn on March 6, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Ah, thanks. At first I thought you meant it was an issue where a clear majority of the American people are against the GOP position.

Glad you cleared that up for us.

rogerb on March 6, 2014 at 2:55 PM

Of course I’m taking the GOP position to be against same-sex marriage and, yes, a clear majority of Americans today do not support the position of the GOP. Do you disagree with that?

alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Any other sane conservatives reading this thread with their jaw on the floor? Knowing this this unhinged orthodoxy will ensure Democrat supremacy for years to come. You will NEVER win another election with this rhetoric.

Mitochondrion on March 6, 2014 at 3:00 PM

You’re mainly talking about votes taken about a decade ago when the polling was the reverse of what it is now. The last three times the issue was voted on your side didn’t win.

alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:55 PM

Then we should vote again.

cptacek on March 6, 2014 at 3:00 PM

So where is that broad public support for gay marriage if its proponents always have to rely on the courts?

ddrintn on March 6, 2014 at 2:52 PM

It isn’t true at all to say they “always have to rely on the courts”. It’s won at both legislatures and at ballot boxes in recent years.

DisneyFan on March 6, 2014 at 3:01 PM

Put it up for a national vote and let’s see.

ddrintn on March 6, 2014 at 2:59 PM

State by state, please.

cptacek on March 6, 2014 at 3:01 PM

So….what is there to stop polygamy/polyandry/incestuous/bestial marriages? Or should it be stopped?

ddrintn on March 6, 2014 at 2:58 PM

Ah, the good ol’ slippery slope!

Is there a rational basis for not recognizing those types of marriages?

alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 3:01 PM

The distinction between the activity and a customer’s gayness or lack thereof may be a fine one, but it is an important one. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says businesses cannot discriminate against customers based on various innate or unchangeable characteristics. Significantly, the characteristic of being gay is not among them. Which means that theoretically businesses have the right to discriminate against gays or 22 year olds or journalists with no threat of government sanction. Nonetheless, most Americans oppose discriminating against people for their sexual orientation and the businesses in question were not doing so. (Similarly, 85% of Americans believe service providers should be allowed to decline to participate in gay weddings.) They were simply declining to participate in an activity that their faith says is sinful.

Gay Wedding Cakes, Religious Freedom and the Return of Slavery in America

http://www.Imperfectamerica.com

imperfectamerica on March 6, 2014 at 3:01 PM

Do you not understand how the Equal Protection Clause works? Did the Supreme Court get in wrong in 1967 when they “found” something about marriage in the Fourteenth Amendment and struck down Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage?

alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:56 PM

The reason it should have been struck down was due to the “ban” equaling jailing.

And no, there is no “right” to marriage, but there is also no right that you may be jailed for having one.

nobar on March 6, 2014 at 3:01 PM

Any other sane conservatives reading this thread with their jaw on the floor? Knowing this this unhinged orthodoxy will ensure Democrat supremacy for years to come. You will NEVER win another election with this rhetoric.

Mitochondrion on March 6, 2014 at 3:00 PM

Nope. We sure won’t. 2010 will never happen again. I guess you can go home and never post again. Your statement is conclusionary. (I just made that word up)

Lanceman on March 6, 2014 at 3:02 PM

Homosexuality is not a race.

kingsjester on March 6, 2014 at 2:58 PM

You didn’t answer the question.

alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 3:02 PM

Any other sane conservatives reading this thread with their jaw on the floor? Knowing this this unhinged orthodoxy will ensure Democrat supremacy for years to come. You will NEVER win another election with this rhetoric.

Mitochondrion on March 6, 2014 at 3:00 PM

Sweet. Good luck winning without us.

cptacek on March 6, 2014 at 3:02 PM

Any other sane conservatives reading this thread with their jaw on the floor? Knowing this this unhinged orthodoxy will ensure Democrat supremacy for years to come. You will NEVER win another election with this rhetoric.

Mitochondrion on March 6, 2014 at 3:00 PM

Good for you. Enjoy democrat hegemony and realize you wanted it to appease 1% of the population that doesn’t abide by normal biology. Seems like a queer hill to choose to die on, but that’s all you.

Murphy9 on March 6, 2014 at 3:02 PM

DisneyFan on March 6, 2014 at 3:01 PM

The majority of states still voted against it.

kingsjester on March 6, 2014 at 3:03 PM

Glad you cleared that up for us.
 
rogerb on March 6, 2014 at 2:55 PM

 
Of course I’m taking the GOP position to be against same-sex marriage and, yes, a clear majority of Americans today do not support the position of the GOP. Do you disagree with that?
 
alchemist19 on March 6, 2014 at 2:59 PM

 
I agree with alchemist19. Maybe you should talk to him.

rogerb on March 6, 2014 at 3:03 PM

You will NEVER win another election with this rhetoric.

Mitochondrion on March 6, 2014 at 3:00 PM

Sweet. Good luck winning without us.

cptacek on March 6, 2014 at 3:02 PM

No, cpt. He’s a democrat. He’s come to ‘help’ us win elections by providing advice because he feels sorry for Republicans.

Lanceman on March 6, 2014 at 3:03 PM

The point of Dustin’s post completely scaed you, didn’t it?

I’m shocked.

kingsjester on March 6, 2014 at 2:51 PM

To tell the truth, this post shocked the hell out of me. :) And the guy made my arguments. Which is why I’ve been compelled to defend them all morning. It’s past bedtime. :)

. . . getting a little Lourdes up in here.

Axe on March 6, 2014 at 3:04 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7 8 11