WOW! Support for gay marriage takes dramatic leap in California, new poll shows

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 29, 2012 2:33 PM GMT
    http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/29/4299164/support-for-gay-marriage-takes.html

    Golden State registered voters now favor same-sex unions by 59 percent to 34 percent, a 25-point gap that is the largest margin of support for the issue in the three-plus decades the Field Poll has been asking the question.





    Me guesses that voters finally saw themselves as the assholes they were/are.icon_wink.gif But there are still the:

    "Honestly, what offends me is a group of minorities are trying to impose their non-religious views upon religious groups," the 35-year-old Madera Republican said. "As a voting Christian, I find it offensive that they would attack the religious act of marriage."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 29, 2012 2:51 PM GMT
    TropicalMark saidhttp://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/29/4299164/support-for-gay-marriage-takes.html

    Golden State registered voters now favor same-sex unions by 59 percent to 34 percent, a 25-point gap that is the largest margin of support for the issue in the three-plus decades the Field Poll has been asking the question.

    Me guesses that voters finally saw themselves as the assholes they were/are.icon_wink.gif But there are still the:

    "Honestly, what offends me is a group of minorities are trying to impose their non-religious views upon religious groups," the 35-year-old Madera Republican said. "As a voting Christian, I find it offensive that they would attack the religious act of marriage."

    That's the falsehood that the churches keep spreading: that the institution of marriage belongs solely to them, to be interpreted, defined, granted or limited as they alone choose.

    While the truth is that EVERY legal marriage in the US is a civil marriage, conferred by the state. Any church marriage ceremony is merely a religious blessing and approval of a civil act. And a minister who marries someone is exercising the delegated civil authority of the state, designated to do so like a Justice of the Peace.

    Yet churches have succeeded in getting the public to believe that marriage is the exclusive property of religious groups. But ask some minister whether he or she can legally marry someone without a marriage license issued by civil government. And who gave them the authority to preside over a state-sanctioned wedding, and to sign and certify the marriage license as having been performed. I doubt they can honestly answer it was God.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 29, 2012 2:55 PM GMT
    Its amazing how polls will change when mormons arent flooding the airwaves with lies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 29, 2012 2:57 PM GMT
    That reverse victimhood is getting old. You see it in the comments in every news story on the subject. They can never articulate HOW other people, whom they do not even know, getting married has any effect whatsoever on their lives, but somehow they are being oppressed if they're not allowed to control the affairs of state according to their religious views.

    Meanwhile, what about the churches (like mine) who have been lobbying FOR marriage equality? What about OUR religious freedom? All six of our bishops in California are in favor of it. Our church has given clergy permission to have a "broad pastoral response" to civil marriage where it is allowed, which in many cases means either performing these services or blessing the relationship afterwards.

    religious%2Bfreedom%2Bcartoon.jpg
  • maxferguson

    Posts: 321

    Feb 29, 2012 3:02 PM GMT
    While I'm thrilled at those numbers (despite that they don't directly affect me), I have to say that it's a shame that any numbers are needed. Any numbers beyond the group itself that are needed to secure that group's constitutional rights say one thing: slow and repressive government.

    Ted Olson, the lawyer who fought against prop 8 speaks at the CATO institute about equality and rights. The CATO institute backs these rights the to the fullest, and on grounds that everyone can relate to, not just LGBT and Allies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWp79jvy9aA&feature=plcp&context=C316e668UDOEgsToPDskKlswnQ4czlk1lEYZYlpaq-
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 29, 2012 3:07 PM GMT
    I think there's a few significant factors with this. One is that society is becoming more educated that same sex relationships are neither threatening nor costly to anyone more than a 'traditional' relationship. Another is that the affiliation to a 'church' by the general population is fallen dramatically. This shows the power of religion on society. Finally, the country is focused on more pressing matters such as the economy, ending some wars and getting jobs started here and saving homes. Same sex marriage between to people you don't know just doesn't seem quite as significant in the overall picture when people are out of work, losing homes and working jobs below their skill level.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 29, 2012 3:28 PM GMT
    njmeanwhile said...Meanwhile, what about the churches (like mine) who have been lobbying FOR marriage equality? What about OUR religious freedom? All six of our bishops in California are in favor of it. Our church has given clergy permission to have a "broad pastoral response" to civil marriage where it is allowed, which in many cases means either performing these services or blessing the relationship afterwards.

    Which church?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 29, 2012 3:39 PM GMT
    njmeanwhile saidThat reverse victimhood is getting old. You see it in the comments in every news story on the subject. They can never articulate HOW other people, whom they do not even know, getting married has any effect whatsoever on their lives, but somehow they are being oppressed if they're not allowed to control the affairs of state according to their religious views.

    Meanwhile, what about the churches (like mine) who have been lobbying FOR marriage equality? What about OUR religious freedom? All six of our bishops in California are in favor of it. Our church has given clergy permission to have a "broad pastoral response" to civil marriage where it is allowed, which in many cases means either performing these services or blessing the relationship afterwards.

    religious%2Bfreedom%2Bcartoon.jpg
    YOUR's doesn't count.. no one else's counts unless you're a straight, white, protestant republican. Those are the only "religious freedoms" that actually count.. C'mon! You should know that by now!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 29, 2012 3:42 PM GMT
    TropicalMark saidhttp://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/29/4299164/support-for-gay-marriage-takes.html

    Golden State registered voters now favor same-sex unions by 59 percent to 34 percent, a 25-point gap that is the largest margin of support for the issue in the three-plus decades the Field Poll has been asking the question.

    EXCEPT, the polling numbers before Prop 8 looked good, too. So good that California's LGBT leaders became complacent, as they later admitted after defeat.

    Then came the flood of religious and right-wing money, from the Mormons and the Catholics, and shadowy organizations with misleading names. Suddenly the polls in support of retaining gay marriage began to sink, and the ultimate loss was by a mere 2%.

    A simple majority to take away human rights that our US founding documents tell us are "inalienable". An example of the "tyranny of the majority" of which Thomas Jefferson warned, that was a risk in attempting to establish a democratic republic, to replace a monarchy.

    So while the current poll numbers are encouraging, watch them fade if gay marriage appears again on the California ballot. Minds will change when money flows. And our right-wing US Supreme Court has ensured that the flow of money can be limitless.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 29, 2012 3:45 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    TropicalMark saidhttp://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/29/4299164/support-for-gay-marriage-takes.html

    Golden State registered voters now favor same-sex unions by 59 percent to 34 percent, a 25-point gap that is the largest margin of support for the issue in the three-plus decades the Field Poll has been asking the question.

    EXCEPT, the polling numbers before Prop 8 looked good, too. So good that California's LGBT leaders became complacent, as they later admitted after defeat.

    Then came the flood of religious and right-wing money, from the Mormons and the Catholics, and shadowy organizations with misleading names. Suddenly the polls in support of retaining gay marriage began to sink, and the ultimate loss was by a mere 2%.

    A simple majority to take away human rights that our US founding documents tell us are "inalienable". An example of the "tyranny of the majority" of which Thomas Jefferson warned, that was a risk in attempting to establish a democratic republic, to replace a monarchy.

    So while the current poll numbers are encouraging, watch them fade if gay marriage appears again on the California ballot. Minds will change when money flows. And our right-wing US Supreme Court has ensured that the flow of money can be limitless.
    Actually Art, we ( the gay community) didnt become 'complacent'.. we played 'cowardly'.. when the oppostion was plastering all those filthy untruths, we just sat there and said 'oh thats nice, can I offer you some tea?'

    When ugly get played, you play back UGLIER!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 29, 2012 3:54 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    Art_Deco said
    TropicalMark saidhttp://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/29/4299164/support-for-gay-marriage-takes.html

    Golden State registered voters now favor same-sex unions by 59 percent to 34 percent, a 25-point gap that is the largest margin of support for the issue in the three-plus decades the Field Poll has been asking the question.

    EXCEPT, the polling numbers before Prop 8 looked good, too. So good that California's LGBT leaders became complacent, as they later admitted after defeat.

    Then came the flood of religious and right-wing money, from the Mormons and the Catholics, and shadowy organizations with misleading names. Suddenly the polls in support of retaining gay marriage began to sink, and the ultimate loss was by a mere 2%.

    A simple majority to take away human rights that our US founding documents tell us are "inalienable". An example of the "tyranny of the majority" of which Thomas Jefferson warned, that was a risk in attempting to establish a democratic republic, to replace a monarchy.

    So while the current poll numbers are encouraging, watch them fade if gay marriage appears again on the California ballot. Minds will change when money flows. And our right-wing US Supreme Court has ensured that the flow of money can be limitless.
    Actually Art, we ( the gay community) didnt become 'complacent'.. we played 'cowardly'.. when the oppostion was plastering all those filthy untruths, we just sat there and said 'oh thats nice, can I offer you some tea?'

    When ugly get played, you play back UGLIER!


    Very true. It was misread and mishandled. They should have pressured Obama more. they should have spent more on advertising. They sat back thinking CA would never do what they did. Big mistake obviously.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 29, 2012 3:56 PM GMT
    Dallasfan824 said
    TropicalMark said
    Art_Deco said
    TropicalMark saidhttp://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/29/4299164/support-for-gay-marriage-takes.html

    Golden State registered voters now favor same-sex unions by 59 percent to 34 percent, a 25-point gap that is the largest margin of support for the issue in the three-plus decades the Field Poll has been asking the question.

    EXCEPT, the polling numbers before Prop 8 looked good, too. So good that California's LGBT leaders became complacent, as they later admitted after defeat.

    Then came the flood of religious and right-wing money, from the Mormons and the Catholics, and shadowy organizations with misleading names. Suddenly the polls in support of retaining gay marriage began to sink, and the ultimate loss was by a mere 2%.

    A simple majority to take away human rights that our US founding documents tell us are "inalienable". An example of the "tyranny of the majority" of which Thomas Jefferson warned, that was a risk in attempting to establish a democratic republic, to replace a monarchy.

    So while the current poll numbers are encouraging, watch them fade if gay marriage appears again on the California ballot. Minds will change when money flows. And our right-wing US Supreme Court has ensured that the flow of money can be limitless.
    Actually Art, we ( the gay community) didnt become 'complacent'.. we played 'cowardly'.. when the oppostion was plastering all those filthy untruths, we just sat there and said 'oh thats nice, can I offer you some tea?'

    When ugly get played, you play back UGLIER!


    Very true. It was misread and mishandled. They should have pressured Obama more. they should have spent more on advertising. They sat back thinking CA would never do what they did. Big mistake obviously.
    I learned years ago that you did NOT win the war unless you're standing on the dirt you fought for. Not only is that true for combat, but true in every other type of struggle.
    We were too weak to 'own' the dirt. We let them stand on it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 29, 2012 4:05 PM GMT
    We'll see!
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Feb 29, 2012 4:09 PM GMT
    Meanwhile, what about the churches (like mine) who have been lobbying FOR marriage equality? What about OUR religious freedom? All six of our bishops in California are in favor of it. Our church has given clergy permission to have a "broad pastoral response" to civil marriage where it is allowed, which in many cases means either performing these services or blessing the relationship afterwards.

    Both Episcopal bishops of Washington have made strong statements in favor of same-sex marriage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 29, 2012 4:12 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    Dallasfan824 said
    TropicalMark said
    Art_Deco said
    TropicalMark saidhttp://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/29/4299164/support-for-gay-marriage-takes.html

    Golden State registered voters now favor same-sex unions by 59 percent to 34 percent, a 25-point gap that is the largest margin of support for the issue in the three-plus decades the Field Poll has been asking the question.

    EXCEPT, the polling numbers before Prop 8 looked good, too. So good that California's LGBT leaders became complacent, as they later admitted after defeat.

    Then came the flood of religious and right-wing money, from the Mormons and the Catholics, and shadowy organizations with misleading names. Suddenly the polls in support of retaining gay marriage began to sink, and the ultimate loss was by a mere 2%.

    A simple majority to take away human rights that our US founding documents tell us are "inalienable". An example of the "tyranny of the majority" of which Thomas Jefferson warned, that was a risk in attempting to establish a democratic republic, to replace a monarchy.

    So while the current poll numbers are encouraging, watch them fade if gay marriage appears again on the California ballot. Minds will change when money flows. And our right-wing US Supreme Court has ensured that the flow of money can be limitless.
    Actually Art, we ( the gay community) didnt become 'complacent'.. we played 'cowardly'.. when the oppostion was plastering all those filthy untruths, we just sat there and said 'oh thats nice, can I offer you some tea?'

    When ugly get played, you play back UGLIER!


    Very true. It was misread and mishandled. They should have pressured Obama more. they should have spent more on advertising. They sat back thinking CA would never do what they did. Big mistake obviously.
    I learned years ago that you did NOT win the war unless you're standing on the dirt you fought for. Not only is that true for combat, but true in every other type of struggle.
    We were too weak to 'own' the dirt. We let them stand on it.


    So true. Dont even get me started.
  • maxferguson

    Posts: 321

    Feb 29, 2012 4:12 PM GMT
    tazzari saidMeanwhile, what about the churches (like mine) who have been lobbying FOR marriage equality? What about OUR religious freedom? All six of our bishops in California are in favor of it. Our church has given clergy permission to have a "broad pastoral response" to civil marriage where it is allowed, which in many cases means either performing these services or blessing the relationship afterwards.

    Both Episcopal bishops of Washington have made strong statements in favor of same-sex marriage.


    Not that the support doesn't help sway people, but why should the opinions of religious leaders influence the granting/removal of any one group's rights in a country that has separation of church and state? Why should anyone's rights be subject to polling? Who cares what the support levels are (in terms of advancing rights) when all that matters is whether or not you have those rights?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 29, 2012 4:12 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    njmeanwhile said...Meanwhile, what about the churches (like mine) who have been lobbying FOR marriage equality? What about OUR religious freedom? All six of our bishops in California are in favor of it. Our church has given clergy permission to have a "broad pastoral response" to civil marriage where it is allowed, which in many cases means either performing these services or blessing the relationship afterwards.

    Which church?


    Episcopal, and the same is true of the United Church of Christ. If anything they are ahead of us, with 1,000 congregations nationwide self-identified as "welcoming and affirming".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 29, 2012 4:24 PM GMT
    maxferguson said... it's a shame that any numbers are needed. Any numbers beyond the group itself that are needed to secure that group's constitutional rights say one thing: slow and repressive government...


    Precisely right. The population has a lot of fucking nerve to think it gets to vote on our civil rights. This ought to be a matter for federal courts, not states' politicians. And the courts should have endowed us with our civil rights the day the American professional psychological & psychiatric associations finally figured out that being gay is normal.

    Slow? They are about 40 years slow.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 29, 2012 4:25 PM GMT
    maxferguson said
    tazzari saidMeanwhile, what about the churches (like mine) who have been lobbying FOR marriage equality? What about OUR religious freedom? All six of our bishops in California are in favor of it. Our church has given clergy permission to have a "broad pastoral response" to civil marriage where it is allowed, which in many cases means either performing these services or blessing the relationship afterwards.

    Both Episcopal bishops of Washington have made strong statements in favor of same-sex marriage.


    Not that the support doesn't help sway people, but why should the opinions of religious leaders influence the granting/removal of any one group's rights in a country that has separation of church and state? Why should anyone's rights be subject to polling? Who cares what the support levels are (in terms of advancing rights) when all that matters is whether or not you have those rights?


    Well I think the benefit of having religious people speak out in favor of it is that politicians use their "Faith" as their excuse for being against it, and these quasi-religious groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council claim they have a "biblical" understanding on the issues. When you have other religious leaders (who are by and large far more educated on theology) saying "Hey, we read the Bible, too, and that's not what it says to us at all," it can help voters who identify as Christian understand that their faith does not obligate them to vote against their conscience.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 29, 2012 5:00 PM GMT
    it's only a sample of 515 voters, don't get too excited
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Feb 29, 2012 5:00 PM GMT
    actually, if memory serves right, a significant majority supported it the summer before prop 8 passed... the NO on 8 or whatever campaign that was soliciting donations got incredibly cocky and lazy with those figures and by the time they started to counteract the aggressive campaign for prop 8, it was too late
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 29, 2012 5:09 PM GMT
    I remember hearing that the phrasing of the ballot initiative was also (deliberately?) confusing so that some people weren't sure if they voting for or against.
  • maxferguson

    Posts: 321

    Feb 29, 2012 5:33 PM GMT
    njmeanwhile said
    maxferguson said
    tazzari said

    Well I think the benefit of having religious people speak out in favor of it is that politicians use their "Faith" as their excuse for being against it, and these quasi-religious groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council claim they have a "biblical" understanding on the issues. When you have other religious leaders (who are by and large far more educated on theology) saying "Hey, we read the Bible, too, and that's not what it says to us at all," it can help voters who identify as Christian understand that their faith does not obligate them to vote against their conscience.


    You're describing reality, and I'm describing the dream icon_smile.gif. In Canada, there are special rules for signing any contract with your lawyer, teacher, doctor or pastor (or equivalent) because they can influence your decisions. Having people who are looked up to for guidance speak on the matter is always beneficial.

    What I don't understand is how someone can oppose gay marriage for religious reasons, but not be equally ardent about amending the constitution so as to do away with freedom of religion. There are churches out there who approve and bless gay marriages (United Church I believe?) on their own free will. To ban it nationwide (as Romney would) would undermine that religious group's belief that it is allowed. Then the government would have to tell the United Church that they were wrong and not allowed. Thus, they've violated their freedom of religion.

    Then we open up a new can of worms: We can be selective about which religions are right and when, we have to have a maxim or simply choose one religion. How would we choose? You'd probably need a qualified majority (50%+1vote minimum) otherwise more than half the people are going to try kick your ass. I don't think there is any one religion that fits that. Some might say Christianity, but then you get into the degree of specificity to which they are allowed to express their sects idiosyncrasies.

    Solution: Privatize it. Personally, I don't see any religious sanctity in my future marriage -- I see a promise to the one I love (which I can do anyway) and tax benefits. Why can't my marriage contract be like any other legally binding contract??

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 29, 2012 5:37 PM GMT
    calibro saidactually, if memory serves right, a significant majority supported it the summer before prop 8 passed... the NO on 8 or whatever campaign that was soliciting donations got incredibly cocky and lazy with those figures and by the time they started to counteract the aggressive campaign for prop 8, it was too late

    Yes, that's how I remember it, and I why I used the word "complacent" in a post above.

    And I also agree with Dallasfan, that the response was muted & lame. The community should have punched back hard, on each false point the right-wingers spammed all over California.

    I perfectly understand TropicalMark's military analogies as well. We both would have run the Prop 8 opposition like a military campaign. Instead, the Prop 8 opponents stood there like silent targets, and let their enemy pound them without firing back.

    I remember the attitude of: "Oh, those anti-gay claims are too stupid, no one will believe that, they don't deserve a reply." But enough voters DID believe the lies, the critical 2+% that carried the day.

    And so again, though the polls in California look good today, they have before, too, and look at the election results we got. And what if Republicans take the White House this Fall, and Congress, and carry forward their anti-gay legislation they've promised, and spread their anti-gay propaganda? Another reason those gay-favorable poll numbers may be ethereal. Better they be good than bad, but I wouldn't count on results at the polls from them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 29, 2012 5:41 PM GMT
    maxferguson said
    njmeanwhile said
    maxferguson said
    tazzari said

    Well I think the benefit of having religious people speak out in favor of it is that politicians use their "Faith" as their excuse for being against it, and these quasi-religious groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council claim they have a "biblical" understanding on the issues. When you have other religious leaders (who are by and large far more educated on theology) saying "Hey, we read the Bible, too, and that's not what it says to us at all," it can help voters who identify as Christian understand that their faith does not obligate them to vote against their conscience.


    You're describing reality, and I'm describing the dream icon_smile.gif. In Canada, there are special rules for signing any contract with your lawyer, teacher, doctor or pastor (or equivalent) because they can influence your decisions. Having people who are looked up to for guidance speak on the matter is always beneficial.

    What I don't understand is how someone can oppose gay marriage for religious reasons, but not be equally ardent about amending the constitution so as to do away with freedom of religion. There are churches out there who approve and bless gay marriages (United Church I believe?) on their own free will. To ban it nationwide (as Romney would) would undermine that religious group's belief that it is allowed. Then the government would have to tell the United Church that they were wrong and not allowed. Thus, they've violated their freedom of religion.

    Then we open up a new can of worms: We can be selective about which religions are right and when, we have to have a maxim or simply choose one religion. How would we choose? You'd probably need a qualified majority (50%+1vote minimum) otherwise more than half the people are going to try kick your ass. I don't think there is any one religion that fits that. Some might say Christianity, but then you get into the degree of specificity to which they are allowed to express their sects idiosyncrasies.

    Solution: Privatize it. Personally, I don't see any religious sanctity in my future marriage -- I see a promise to the one I love (which I can do anyway) and tax benefits. Why can't my marriage contract be like any other legally binding contract??



    Exactly... within Christianity, even within individual denominations, people are all over the map on their acceptance level. Catholics poll ahead of the general population in favor of marriage equality, and yet their leadership is among the most vocal forces against it, and groups like the Knights of Columbus, which do not even represent the majority of Catholics, contribute money against it.

    It would be great if the civil and religious were disconnected for everybody, gay and straight. That way the civil part would be a legal contract only, and it will be up to individual religious groups if they want to include same-sex couples or not. But as long as there is money to be made in acting as an agent of the state, I don't bet you'll see Big Religion letting go of that one either.