Poll: Majority of Americans Oppose Gay Marriage

[bytor2112]

A new USA Today/Gallup poll shows that 57 percent of Americans oppose legalizing same-sex marriage while 40 percent are in favor.

More here.

[Elena_Villanueva]

You know i think marriage should be kept between a man and a woman. I have nothing against homosexuals they can live however they want. It is still kind of sad how many things are now becoming acceptable, it just leaves us to ask what next?

[a-train]

What is next is that not only will you be forced to pay for other people's abortions, but their homosexual lifestyle as well. Because they have a right to your earnings and your approval not only socially, but financially and legally as well.

What? Your rights to your own property and your own social ideas? No, you have no such thing, the politcally favored have all the rights to that.

-a-train

[omega0401]

You know i think marriage should be kept between a man and a woman. I have nothing against homosexuals they can live however they want. It is still kind of sad how many things are now becoming acceptable, it just leaves us to ask what next?

I believe that marriage has always been between a man and a woman and I hope society keeps it that way.

If others want to live a homosexual lifestyle then why would anyone else want to interfere with that? We have come to this mortal life to make choices. It's their choice but please give us the choice to leave the definition of marriage the way it is. It seems like a compromise to me.

[Heavenguard]

The movement for same-sex marriage is that they claim that gays and lesbians have every right to enjoy the security and legal stability brought about by marriage. Fine, get a civil union, then. Just don't call it marriage.

[ernie1241]

Actually the polling on this matter is quite contradictory. A lot seems to depend upon what precise question is asked.

However, one thing is consistent in ALL the polls which I have seen. Opposition to gay marriage is predominantly among older Americans. Younger Americans (e.g. under 35 years of age) have no problem with the idea. This has also been proven by election statistics -- including here in California with respect to Proposition 8. Younger voters produced the highest percentage of support for gay marriage.

Therefore, one could logically conclude that sometime during the next 10-20 years this generational issue will be resolved in favor of gay marriage.

On a personal note, I recall that when I was in my 20's (1960's) I saw a newspaper article which reported that for the first time in American history the majority of our population was under 35 years of age. The reason that struck me then as important was because of the huge cultural and political battles during the 1960's over everything from music to recreational drugs to sexual behavior to anti-Vietnam war sentiments.

I thought then (as now) that a generational shift was taking place which would produce profound changes in our attitudes about nasty political problems. This, of course, always happens as one generation replaces another as the predominant decision-makers.

[Hemidakota]

Polls? Another animal of deceit. Can be bended in any form as you wish.

[Elphaba]

The movement for same-sex marriage is that they claim that gays and lesbians have every right to enjoy the security and legal stability brought about by marriage. Fine, get a civil union, then. Just don't call it marriage.

Civil unions do not and will never duplicate the same security and legal stability brought about by marriage.

For example, civil unions are not recognized by the federal government--they are even considered as “unmarried” when the Census is taken. While “unmarried” is technically correct, it does not adequately describe the relationship.

There is an argument to be made that there are committed straight couples who are not married and thus are also classified as "unmarried" in the Census. Personally, I see both as an issue, and think some sort of committed relationship should be included in the Census, barring any procedural reason not to.

However, there is a difference between gay and straight committed couples. The straight couples do have the choice to marry, or not, and thus the Census is correct when it counts them as unmarried. Gay couples do not have that choice; thus the Census is incorrect when it comes to an accurate sampling. It makes it look like they are all single, when they're really not.

Additionally, if the Census did count them, it would give people accurate, and probably surprising, information about the number of committed gay couples. Right now, most people only see those on the fringe.

If all of the benefits of a legal marriage had been included in civil unions, many of the gay activists I’ve followed on the net would have been fine with it. That is no longer the case BECAUSE the benefits of civil unions are so sparse compared to marriages, and they know if this is not going to change.

According to a Legal Marriage Alliance article, http://www.lmaw.org/why.htm article, same-sex couples face challenges unknown to married opposite-sex couples. For instance, visiting a loved one in the hospital, applying for immigration and residency for partners from another country, and having joint parenting, adoption, foster care, custody, and visitation, etc., are all concerns for many gay and lesbian families.

These are only a few of the issues gay couples face on a daily basis.

So, no, civil unions do not provide all of the benefits of marriage, and gay activists know this; thus, most of them are no longer willing to settle. I don’t blame them.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

More here.

Do Gay Americans Now Favor Marriage?

On May 1, 2009, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found 49 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage while just 46 percent oppose it. In August 2004, prior to the presidential election, the same poll found 62 percent of those polled against gay marriage while only 32 percent were in favor of it.

The article “Changing Views on Gay Marriage . . .” states:

Polarization is especially broad along political, ideological and religious lines. Seventy-five percent of evangelical white Protestants say gay marriage should be illegal, and 68 percent feel that way strongly. Similarly, 83 percent of conservative Republicans are opposed, 73 percent strongly. Among all conservatives regardless of political affiliation, 66 percent are opposed.

Across the spectrum, 75 percent of secular Americans favor gay marriage, 55 percent strongly; so do 71 percent of liberal Democrats, 57 percent strongly; and 71 percent of all liberals, 54 percent strongly. Among all Democrats, 62 percent are in favor; among all Republicans, 74 percent are opposed.

　

The middle makes a significant difference: Fifty-four percent of moderates and 52 percent of independents now favor gay marriage, up from 38 and 44 percent, respectively, in 2006. But the single biggest shift has come among moderate and conservative Democrats: in 2006, just 30 percent in this group said gay marriage should be legal. Today it's 57 percent.

One other very pronounced difference is by age: Sixty-six percent of adults under age 30 support gay marriage. That drops to 48 percent of adults age 30 to 64 – and plummets to just 28 percent among senior citizens.

As I’ve said before, (as did Ernie above), the next generations is fine with same-sex marriage, including young Republicans. A significant number of these Republicans don‘t want opposition to gay marriage as part of their platform. When these future generations come into power, same-sex marriage will be legalized.

　

Elphaba　

[prisonchaplain]

I've said this before, all the arguments in favor of gay marriage are even stronger for polygamous ones. After all, they have historic precedent. So, what will happen next...that's it. If we're okay with that, my guess is we will eventually see the state getting out of the marriage business altogether, and instead formalizing group living arrangements. IMHO, societies do have the right to limit marriage, and this is not a matter of basic human rights.

[talisyn]

Do Gay Americans Now Favor Marriage?

On May 1, 2009, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found 49 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage while just 46 percent oppose it. In August 2004, prior to the presidential election, the same poll found 62 percent of those polled against gay marriage while only 32 percent were in favor of it.

The article “Changing Views on Gay Marriage . . .” states:

As I’ve said before, (as did Ernie above), the next generations is fine with same-sex marriage, including young Republicans. A significant number of these Republicans don‘t want opposition to gay marriage as part of their platform. When these future generations come into power, same-sex marriage will be legalized.

　

Elphaba　

I have to disagree to a point. How many former hippies are insurance analysts? How many draft dodgers are now proud members of the NRA? You can't take the political views of the rising generation for granted.

[ernie1241]

Questions for Prisonchaplain:

In the countries which have legalized gay marriage, have they experienced any subsequent demands for legalization of polygamous marriage between men and women ---that have been given serious consideration?

Or, for that matter, demands for any OTHER types of marriage -- such as between brother/sister OR grandparent and grandson/granddaughter, OR uncle/niece OR aunt/nephew OR same-sex marriages involving 3 or more men or women etc?

In other words, when we debate controversial public policy issues, what should be our focus in terms of the intellectual energy we expend upon the debate?

Should we focus on:

(1) the most extreme and most improbable scenarios -- which hypothetically might occur (and if they did, it would involve infinitesmal numbers of people) OR

(2) the most probable situations which are NOT hypothetical -- and which we know will produce the overwhelming majority of likely situations (98% or more)??

Let me put this in another context:

Suppose YOU organize a lobbying group to request that your state representatives support some piece of legislation which you and your group favor.

Suppose, further, that you arrange an appointment with your state representatives to present your case for the proposed legislation.

When you actually sit down with your state legislator, would you expect to present your best case based upon the available facts of the situation which triggered your interest in that legislation ---- OR ---- would you expect to spend hour after hour addressing every conceivable objection or permutation that pertains to your proposed legislation?

I've said this before, all the arguments in favor of gay marriage are even stronger for polygamous ones. After all, they have historic precedent. So, what will happen next...that's it. If we're okay with that, my guess is we will eventually see the state getting out of the marriage business altogether, and instead formalizing group living arrangements. IMHO, societies do have the right to limit marriage, and this is not a matter of basic human rights.

Edited June 5, 2009 by ernie1241

[Kawazu]

Hi,

I would say religious groups lost their definition of marriage as soon as the ceremony became a contract with the State. Though I may be incorrect, did not "marriage licenses" originate as a way to regulate interracial marriages?

Thank you for your consideration.

Regards,

Kawazu

[Aesa]

I've said this before, all the arguments in favor of gay marriage are even stronger for polygamous ones. After all, they have historic precedent.

I agree, and I think it should be allowed (polygamy, homosexual marriage, the lot).

I think that the family should be allowed to be whatever people want it to be, and not defined by government at all. It's only in recent human history that we've found it necesary to engage in such nonsense.

Marriage should not be restricted at all.

It just seems to immature to waste our time worrying about who should be marrying whom, when 50% of the worlds population has less than 2$ a day, 34,000 children die daily from poverty and preventable diseases...

[omega0401]

Marriage should not be restricted at all.

You are entitled to your beliefs but you do realize that our LDS faith totally disagrees with that statement?

Marriage was ordained of God not by man, the government, or the courts. I prefer to leave to God what was God's in the first place. Adam and Eve did not need a marriage certificate.

If same-sex couples want a union and all the legal rights that marriage brings that should be allowed. It's their agency. But let's leave marriage to God.

For more information on our beliefs on marriage from our church, you may want to read this link...

LDS.org - The Family:A Proclamation to the World

Edited June 5, 2009 by omega0401

[FunkyTown]

I would ask the question:

Who did they ask? Was it an online poll? If so, I would suggest from their advertisement for the 'Obama bin Lyin' card decks that the people who read this website might be a tad skewed.

Plus, they can't spell, since it would be 'Obama has been lying', unless they're saying that Barack Obama is like Obama Bin Ladin, in which case I would think the editor of that webpage probably needs to ask his parents why they're also brother and sister.

[Aesa]

You are entitled to your beliefs but you do realize that our LDS faith totally disagrees with that statement?

Marriage was ordained of God not by man, the government, or the courts. I prefer to leave to God what was God's in the first place. Adam and Eve did not need a marriage certificate.

If same-sex couples want a union and all the legal rights that marriage brings that should be allowed. It's their agency. But let's leave marriage to God.

For more information on our beliefs on marriage from our church, you may want to read this link...

LDS.org - The Family:A Proclamation to the World

I think the term Marriage and Union are absolutely synonymous. I think the term you should probably be referring to here is Marriage (secular) and Celestial Marriage (LDS faith). I'm quite aware of the LDS beliefs on marriage.

What I'm actually saying is that the government should step out of marriage altogether and leave society (meaning, each individual person) to it's own devices to define what marriage, and thus the family is.

This would include a religious groups right to say "No thankyou, we don't ordain that within our beleif."

[omega0401]

I think the term Marriage and Union are absolutely synonymous. I think the term you should probably be referring to here is Marriage (secular) and Celestial Marriage (LDS faith). I'm quite aware of the LDS beliefs on marriage.

What I'm actually saying is that the government should step out of marriage altogether and leave society (meaning, each individual person) to it's own devices to define what marriage, and thus the family is.

This would include a religious groups right to say "No thankyou, we don't ordain that within our beleif."

I believe marriage is with opposite sexes and a union is with the same sex so I don't call it synonymous.

I wish it were that simple to take the govt out of marriage and leave it to society but unfortunately there is more to it than that. There are legal rights that society needs the government for like equality rights, discrimination problems, hate crimes, etc. Even then laws get broken.

[omega0401]

Here is Lowell C Brown reaction to the Gallup Poll. He is the co-author of Article VI Blog, found at http://www.article6blog.com

Here is his article...

Meridian Magazine:: Family Leader Network: So What Does the Public Really Think about Same-sex Marriage?

[prisonchaplain]

Questions for Prisonchaplain:

In the countries which have legalized gay marriage, have they experienced any subsequent demands for legalization of polygamous marriage between men and women ---that have been given serious consideration?

Not yet. However, we are a nation of immigrants, with high respect for our many cultures, and one that is one of the larger Muslim nations, according to our President. So, if some of them organized, along with other polygamous groups, what would be the opposing argument? Polygamy has millenia of historic precendent, and appears in many religions' Scriptures. How do you say yes to gay marriage, a mostly 3rd-millenium innovation, and no to polygamists? How do you do that? If I were the judge, we'd have polygamy, if we had same-sex marriage.

Or, for that matter, demands for any OTHER types of marriage -- such as between brother/sister OR grandparent and grandson/granddaughter, OR uncle/niece OR aunt/nephew OR same-sex marriages involving 3 or more men or women etc?

Well, here you have no historic precedent, there are medical and abuse issues. So, don't try to lump my suggestion of polygamy in with these straw men proposals.

Should we focus on:

(1) the most extreme and most improbable scenarios -- which hypothetically might occur (and if they did, it would involve infinitesmal numbers of people)

How can you possibly dismiss the polygamy issue as such? Again, it has historic precedent, there are at least 4 million, and could be as many as 10 million Muslims in our land, and there are indeed other small sects that would argue for this as well. Your effort to lump polygamy in with the ridiculous scenario of grandparents and grandchildren is silly, and does not diminish the very real likelihood that in our litigious land, same-sex marriage will set the stage of polygamy.

OR

(2) the most probable situations which are NOT hypothetical -- and which we know will produce the overwhelming majority of likely situations (98% or more)??

Same sex attraction involves 1-4% of the population, whereas Muslims involve 1-4% of the population, so uh, huh???

BTW, who'd a thunk it...but looks like in Canada it may be the feminists that help decriminalize polygamy: Catholic Insight : Family : Polygamy: does the Supreme Court have its limits?

Edited June 5, 2009 by prisonchaplain

[Elphaba]

How many former hippies are insurance analysts? How many draft dodgers are now proud members of the NRA?

I have no idea, though I’m sure there are many. I wouldn’t say they are statistically significant though without seeing the numbers.

You can't take the political views of the rising generation for granted.

True, but there is a difference between your examples and same-sex marriage. From what I’ve read, these young people do see it as a civil rights issue, just as the young people of the ‘60s saw racial discrimination as a civil rights issue. No one is denied the right to become an insurance salesman or a member of the NRA based solely on who, or what, s/he is.

Even those young Republicans who don’t view it as a civil rights issue believe the opposition to gay marriage is tearing the party apart, and they want it gone from the platform.

But you do raise a good point; unfortunately, I’ll probably be dead before you can say “I told you so.” :)

Elphaba

[Just_A_Guy]

Even those young Republicans who don’t view it as a civil rights issue believe the opposition to gay marriage is tearing the party apart, and they want it gone from the platform.

I don't want to be Pollyanna-ish or pretend that the Republican party doesn't have issues at present; but it strikes me that this talk about the party being "torn apart" by its socially conservative platform is far more smoke than fire--perpetuated, in large part, by people who threw their lot in with some other party years or even decades ago.

I remember a very liberal (lesbian, in point of fact) Civil Procedure professor of mine who, way back in 2005, lamented the chaotic state of the Democratic party and expressed her resigned opinion that the Neocons would be carrying the day for the foreseeable future.

A change in ideology isn't what brought the Democrats of the wilderness. I doubt such a move would do much for the Republicans, either.

Edited June 5, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[ernie1241]

I "lumped" polygamy in with other types of "non-traditional" marriages because the basic principle or question remains the same regardless of which "type" you want to discuss. It is NOT a straw-man argument.

In short: has there been ANY evidence that once a society legalizes NON-traditional forms of marriage, that it then leads down a "slippery slope" so that bizarre requests are made to legalize other types of "marriages"?

Let's say for sake of argument that we postpone our decision until we can review the actual history of countries which have legalized gay marriage but we wait until we have a body of evidence where it has been legal for at least 20-25 years.

IF it should turn out that after that 20-25 year period there has been NO request for legalization of other types of marriage ---- could we THEN conclude that legalizing gay marriage is NOT a "slippery slope" to recognizing other non-traditional forms of marriage?

Not yet. However, we are a nation of immigrants, with high respect for our many cultures, and one that is one of the larger Muslim nations, according to our President. So, if some of them organized, along with other polygamous groups, what would be the opposing argument? Polygamy has millenia of historic precendent, and appears in many religions' Scriptures. How do you say yes to gay marriage, a mostly 3rd-millenium innovation, and no to polygamists? How do you do that? If I were the judge, we'd have polygamy, if we had same-sex marriage.

Well, here you have no historic precedent, there are medical and abuse issues. So, don't try to lump my suggestion of polygamy in with these straw men proposals.

How can you possibly dismiss the polygamy issue as such? Again, it has historic precedent, there are at least 4 million, and could be as many as 10 million Muslims in our land, and there are indeed other small sects that would argue for this as well. Your effort to lump polygamy in with the ridiculous scenario of grandparents and grandchildren is silly, and does not diminish the very real likelihood that in our litigious land, same-sex marriage will set the stage of polygamy.

OR

Same sex attraction involves 1-4% of the population, whereas Muslims involve 1-4% of the population, so uh, huh???

BTW, who'd a thunk it...but looks like in Canada it may be the feminists that help decriminalize polygamy: Catholic Insight : Family : Polygamy: does the Supreme Court have its limits?

[Maya]

In Norway the same sex married pay less taxes than opposite sex married.

There has been about polygamy in the radio and how it is practiced even today under cover. Hey the wife he dont live with gets a LOT of financial help from the state!

[Maya]

"In short: has there been ANY evidence that once a society legalizes NON-traditional forms of marriage, that it then leads down a "slippery slope" so that bizarre requests are made to legalize other types of "marriages"?

Let's say for sake of argument that we postpone our decision until we can review the actual history of countries which have legalized gay marriage but we wait until we have a body of evidence where it has been legal for at least 20-25 years."

Get real ernie... 20-25 years!! It wont take 5 years polygamy is coming strong! And here the gaymarriages are a fact.. been a year now... NOW they are waking up and asking to delete the decition!!!

Some people in Sturtinget= senate here already have been looking in to taking the gaymarriage up again and deny it!