Pew poll: 61% of Republicans under age 30 support legalizing gay marriage

posted at 4:41 pm on March 11, 2014 by Allahpundit

In case you were wondering why CPAC was so light on traditional-marriage rhetoric from the podium, here’s why. An event populated mainly by young conservatives and libertarians isn’t a good venue for that anymore.

You’ll hear more of it, I’m sure, at the convention two years from now. But at the rate we’re going, probably not too much more. Where will the 30-49 group be in 2016?

ssm

The most striking numbers there, actually, are how small the differences are between various Democratic age groups. It’s an astounding consensus to have 18-year-old and 65-year-old Dems both above 60 percent support and within 15 points of each other on a practice that was barely on the cultural radar 20 years ago. Makes me wonder how many senior-citizen votes the GOP picked up over the last decade as the 65+ demographic sorted itself out. And how many younger votes it lost.

Pew’s not the only pollster lately showing majority support for gay marriage among young GOPers, either. A few weeks ago, the NYT/CBS poll found 56 percent of Republicans under the age of 45 in favor of legalized SSM. (Just 29 percent of Republicans age 45 or older agreed.) That’s a rare case of sharp disagreement on an issue among different conservative age demographics. The same poll found the two groups within five points of each other on guns, abortion, the minimum wage, and ObamaCare, The only other prominent outlier was — ta da — marijuana legalization, where 43 percent of younger Republicans support legalization versus only 28 percent of older ones.

Exit question: Given Republican sensitivity to changing demographics and the fact that millennials might be more gettable next time than last, is there a single major 2016 candidate who’s likely to spend much time on gay marriage on the stump? The only one I can think of is Huckabee, who may calculate that his only path to victory is consolidating social conservatives. Everyone else, including social cons like Cruz and Rubio, will probably take a federalist approach to traditional marriage.


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 6 7 8

Weird headline. Most young people are liberal. Then they grow up.

virgo on March 14, 2014 at 12:57 AM

Doesn’t the bible say a man should ONLY marry a Virgin? De 22:13-21 and Heb 13:4

JustTheFacts on March 13, 2014 at 10:00 PM

.
Nope. Neither of those scripture passages even imply that.
.

The bible does “NOT” allow marriages with non Christians or non Catholics etc.? De 7:1-4

JustTheFacts on March 13, 2014 at 10:00 PMPM

.
Nope. The Bible warns against it, but has no hard rule (that I’m aware of) against it.
.

This is an example of “government mandated, societal acceptance of ADULTERY, as a valid, legitimate, alternate state of ‘normal’”?

Must we criminalize adultery?

… and deny marriages to those that have committed adultery?

JustTheFacts on March 13, 2014 at 10:00

.
Nope, nope, and nope.

Worth noting; there was a time that some localities did, in fact “criminalize” adultery. Some local municipalities may still have adultery on the books as “criminalized”, but I doubt it’s enforced.
.

Must we also deny marriages with those that are not true and accurate believers of, (insert religion here)_______________.

Why are the above sins ok to some denominations but not others?

Which denomination gets to decide the laws?

JustTheFacts on March 13, 2014 at 10:00 PM

.
Everything within those last three lines of yours is, I believe, covered in I Corinthians, chapter 7 (entire chapter is about marriage, including ‘mixed’ marriages).
.

Or do we have to have to have a holy war = crusade = Christian jihad to find out which denomination gets to decide the law?

JustTheFacts on March 13, 2014 at 10:00 PM

.
We’ve gone 200+ years without the various denominations trying to turn our country into something resembling “northern Ireland”, 30 years ago. I believe that will continue.

* BTW, I believe northern Ireland has come out from under that situation, since.

listens2glenn on March 14, 2014 at 1:00 AM

I was curious to find out if they did in fact really mean what the term “civil war” would commonly be associated with in this country, and if so what would provoke them to follow the sad and sorry course of that group of traitorous losers who killed a bunch of brave American soldiers 150 years ago.

alchemist19 on March 13, 2014 at 9:39 PM

.
I think he was very clear about a civil between the federal government and some organized religious groups that want to start a Holy War = Crusade = Christian Jihad in order to overthrow the current government and install a theocracy.

The question you should be asking him is which denominations will join in this holy war and which denominations will decide the laws of the new theocracy.

Will the call go out around the world for the Catholics & etc. to travel to America and join in this Holy War = Crusade = Christian Jihad?

Will these religious groups also start a Holy War = Crusade = Christian Jihad against the Christian denominations that don’t want a theocracy?

What will happen to the Hindus, Seeks, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Native Americans and ect. that live in this country?

Must they also except this new theocracy and or religion or be imprisoned or killed?

JustTheFacts on March 13, 2014 at 10:44 PM

.
There is NO attempt at establishing any “theocracy”, as I define it.

A “theocracy” as you define it, I can’t speak towards.

listens2glenn on March 14, 2014 at 1:04 AM

I’m leaving to spend time with wife, but I will come back tomorrow, even if this thread is off the main-page.

listens2glenn on March 14, 2014 at 1:06 AM

I think the whole basis of the Left’s rabid support for gay marriage is that in undermines the Judeo-Christian basis of our society and the moral authority of the churches with the public. Do most gays want equal rights? Sure. Do some gays want to play dress up and have marriage ceremonies? Sure. Neither is the reason the Left pushes this issue. It’s all about undermining the moral basis of society in order to enhance their power.

claudius on March 14, 2014 at 9:21 AM

“Marriage” is NOT a ‘civil right’.

It was instituted by an ‘authority’ who pre-dates the governments of mankind.

listens2glenn on March 13, 2014 at 11:46 PM

According to who, the Japanese Shintos, or historians, anthropologists, atheists, Native Americans…who?

Many Native American tribes had unions and divorces amongst gays for thousands of years and they are not the only ones.

The oldest documented civil unions predate the writing of bible. Also the bible’s own story, regarding man, only goes back 6,000 years.

Is there any tangible and empirical evidence that shows marriages were preformed by people who believed in your exact religion and not by polytheists or atheists or civil unions?

JustTheFacts on March 14, 2014 at 4:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8