Majority Opposes Same-Sex Marriage

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103756,00.html

<snip>
According to a FOX News poll conducted in the days following the Supreme Judicial Court ruling in Massachusetts, 66 percent of Americans oppose and 25 percent favor same-sex marriage. These new results are similar to those from August 2003, as well as results from 1996, when 65 percent of the public said they opposed allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Opinion Dynamics Corporation (search ) conducted the national poll Tuesday and Wednesday evenings, November 18 and 19.

Tuesday’s ruling said it was illegal under the Massachusetts Constitution to block gay couples from the "protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex."

Fully 80 percent of Republicans oppose same-sex marriage, as do 66 percent of independents and 55 percent of Democrats. More men than women oppose allowing gays to marry (72 percent and 62 percent respectively), and seniors are more likely than young adults to oppose same-sex marriage (80 percent versus 54 percent).

Just because something is popular doesn't make it correct.

It doesn't keep it from being a losing political issue either. This is an issue I wish we could save for a future time because it is so unpopular, because this election is so important.

real issues like the economy and that will defeat them. With the religious rights ability to focus on one issue only, the Dean group has played right into their area of expertise. I am just disgusted with all of it.

Gay marriage is NOT an issue. How the hell does banning same sex marriages create more jobs and bring American's home, out of harms way? It just doesn't. And that's the issue. If Republicans want to spend so much time and energy on stopping same sex marriages, the Dems should call them onto the carpet for it. We can't keep letting the Republicans set the issues agenda. We need to do it. If this is all they've got. This is their big issue, their secret weapon, then they've got nothing. They can't afford to battle based on the real issues of war, the economy and unemployment. They can't because they are the ones responsible for them. They've failed us in those areas. So now they want to change the subject and change the focus. We can take this issue away from them. We can do it by constantly repeating what the real issues are and how we're going to fix them, and if people would rather keep gays from marrying than go back to work and see their sons and daughters again, well, they can vote Republican. Just stop letting the Republicans set the stage. That's how you stop them.

care deeply enough about this issue to base their vote on it. Other little things like jobs, and our sons and daughters dying in iraq are just a bit more important.

Hey repukes.. you lost this one. GET OVER IT!

Though I am gay, this issue hasn't been my hot-button. It's unfortunate about the timing, but whatya gonna do now? Even if everyone kicked back and stopped all agitation for gay marriage immediately, it would still be used as a campaign issue. And dollars to doughnuts, some fringe group will say something stupid like how much they want to marry their dog or their mother or whatever. I think the best thing we can do now is make a consistent coherent case for it and dodge the brickbats.

For some of us, it's the number one priority, and we're not fading into the woodwork for the sake of politics. Some of us actually care about equality.

It's the courts who made this a necessary fight now, and God Bless 'Em for it.

Those of you for whom this is too hot a potato are simply showing yourselves as civil rights cowards, and something other than friends to the gay community.

:tinfoilhat: :freak:

simple as that

Why do you think they keep pushing it?

Would that be correct?

agrees that lynching is a fine thing.

You DO need to get at least 25-35% of those people who oppose "gay marriage" to vote for you if you expect to be elected President.

..in actually *changing* those hearts and minds, doesn't *deserve* to be President.

Pandering to the bigot vote is a great way to build a Reich, if that's what you're after.

I don't really understand the whole issue because I don't put much thought into it, but it seems that it is far from a settled issue. A person's race is part of what he IS, not part of what he does. Many claim that sexual orientation is exactly the same way, but the scientific evidence is just starting to come in. It's certainly not the same public policy issue. Many on the right are "certain" that "life" begins at conception. And while scientific evidence gets us closer and closer every few years, it certainly isn't at the point where the government should be able to act on that assumption.

I guess the question is whether the government has ANY right to speak to our sexuality (of any type) and how we determine where that line is. If there is no agreement, that 66% is likely to control things for awhile

then there's an easy solution...don't marry someone of the same sex. That same 66%, though, has no right to dictate to others regarding marriage. It's simple...I'm a woman, and married; my husband is a man. We didn't have a shrill bunch of hysterical holier-than-thou morons telling us we couldn't marry. I firmly believe that a union between consenting adults is their business, and nobody elses'.

but if you want to lose elections - openly support gay marriage.
If you truly want to support gay marriage, wait until AFTER you are
elected. These Dem candidates better dummy up.

Marriage has a religious connotation...use Civil Union and ask the same question??? Seems fair to me???

the idea of civil union/contracts, and I think there would be a lot more folks that would consider that as well. I am in what you would call a common-law marriage (13 years). We each have been through the marriage/divorce deal. Big tax hit for one, and this whole marriage thing has been corrupted by the states in one way or another, too easy to divorce, common law 50/50 split, insurance coverage, death taxes, marriage penalty tax etc. I am not against marriage, it's just not for me at this time in my life.

The Pastor's take was:
Marriage in the biblical context is between a man and a women according to Genesis, so he did not feel he could perform a gay marriage. (Of couse by the same token he already considered us as married) He was for the Blessing of same sex unions. And while there is much debate in the church body as a whole on that issue, he felt that there should be just as much debate with regards to the state laws to afford same-sex couples all the benefits of married couples.

We're all aware that the language you use means something (we want to call it "pro-choice" THEY want to say "pro-death" or "anti-life" - yu say tomato I say... well, you know).

The problem here is that the issue is sparked by a state Supreme Court ruling that specifically says "marriage" (at least that's what I've read). So they don't ahve to "spin" to use the word and we can't support the decision without coming out in favor of "gay marriage". Also, I didn't get a "civil union" liscense when I got married... it's a "non-religious" term as well.

It's a losing issue (at least for the next 20 years or so).

from the religious one. Make civil unions a contract between two unrelated adult humans with all the same benefits as 'marriage'. In fact, CHUCK the word 'marriage' as it relates to the law and make them ALL civil unions under the law. Churches may still use the term 'marriage', but EVERYONE would legally be under a civil union.

What is the problem here? This is a solution that would surely satisfy most of those against gay marriage.

You would never win another election just by taking the position.

And you would never be able to influence the debate without winning an election.

Now you aren't looking to give someone a "special right" (whatever THAT means). You're looking to take away something they already have. They'll love it.

with a high 60/low 40 split in favor of gay marriage.
I don't think either audience is truly indicative of the entire population. These certainly are not scientific polls, just more media BS to "shape" the publics thinking.

if a majority doesnt support it and its still in the news, it will be an issue in '04. I personally couldnt care less about it, I will leave it to the interested parties. I think its a trivial issue but im sure that if it goes the way i think it will go, it will be an issue in 04 and considerations need to made. Ignoring the majority is not going to work

you stand up and fight, itll never change any other way.

"A million penguins doing a silly thing doesn't make it any less silly."

And I can't help but agree.

The question I want to ask that supposed majority is this.
"What does it hurt and how would it effect you in any way shape or form?"

It ain't like these homophobes will suddenly be innundated with *PROPOSALS FOR MARRIAGE* from same sex folk!
lol

Mojo

racism, and warz

though I believe that same sax contractual unions should be allowed, I think Clinton with his don't ask and don't tell, and the pukes using the right of a civil union in Dean's state as a rally around the flag for the resident.

the huge, and i mean HUGE gap between seniors and young adults on the gay marriage issue. it tells me we're likely to get there, even if we can't yet.

but here's another side... i don't think the proponents of an anti-gay marriage amendment are necessarily considering it in this way, but if they manage to pass one now, or soon, it will create a huge obstacle we'll have to hurdle someday when the population at large is more amenable gay marriage. (that is, after most of the "seniors" die. isn't that how society always moves on?)

so perhaps our tactic, for now, should be to stall. we don't have the votes to make gay marriage happen right now, but i think we will in time. for now, we need *first* to make sure we can kill any amendment the bastards try to foist on us, fucking us over long after the bigoted old assholes are happily dead. *maybe* we could even accept lesser, more easily overturned legislation to let them think they've solved their imagined problem. for now. let 'em throw us into the briar patch. whatever. maybe.

Our Constitution would then be invalid and chaos would ultimately ensue….but then, that’s immaterial to the stupid folk out there…

We should turn the debate around and say we are pro-marriage instead of being pro-gay marriage. Sort of like being pro-choice instead of pro-abortion.

Some Democrats could attack this issue by saying - "Look, gay marriage may not be right for me, but the point is, I don't think the government should be able to tell someone who is homosexual who they can spend their life with."

They'll try to tell you how tolerant they are of gays on one hand, but when presented with a real equality issue, their true colors show. Just admit it, homophobes, you hate gays. You really don't think they should have the rights of "normal" people, and you wish they'd all go away...or better yet, just change that "lifestyle choice" back over to the right side. (SFX: tobacco hitting spitoon)

Supposedly from some guy to Dr. Laura.... it's probably bogus, but it made me giggle anyway... Here it is:

Recently, Dr. Laura Schlessinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew,
homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot
be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to
Dr. Laura penned by a US resident which was posted on the Internet.


Dear Dr. Laura:


Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have
learned a great deal from your show and try to share that knowledge with
as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly
states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from
you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow
them:


1. When I burn a bull on the altar of sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord?Lev. 1:19. The problem is my neighbors. They
claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?


2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for
her?


3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness?Lev. 15:19-24. The problem is, how do I
tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.


4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of
mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you
clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?


5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill
him myself?


6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination?Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
don't agree. Can you settle this?


7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?


8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?


9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?


10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to
curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the
trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?Lev. 24:10-16?
Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do
with people who sleep with their in-laws?Lev. 20:14?


I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you
can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and
unchanging.


Your devoted fan

there is so much going on with people killing each other and people killing children and bombs going off all over that I could care less about this superficial issue. Who cares? Let the law take over and let the law reflect and defend the minority from the tyranny of the majority--otherwise, there is nothiing here as important as the US invading, attacking and obliterating , killing children and old men, and other small countries because the US wants their stuff.

Tough luck. We're supposed to accept 2nd class citizenship for your convenience?

There is *no* issue more important to me, and I'm not going to shut up about it, just 'cause some of you think the bigot-vote is crucial. You clearly don't care about our rights any more than the repugs do.

I actually think it is none of the government's business who you choose to marry. I also think the government has no business looking into the relationships of consenting adults and their sexual activities regardless of gender make up. Marriage licenses should be as easy to get as fishing licenses.

All of that being aside, I would like to focus on getting our government to stop killing people first. Next would perhaps come feeding the hungry. Perhaps next would be treating the profoundly mentally ill rather than shoving them out on the street to fend for themselves. Housing the homeless, protecting abused children, finding a treatment for AIDS,....

…
DEAN: We have civil unions, which gives equal rights -- doesn't give marriage, but it gives equal rights in terms of insurance, employment rights, inheritance rights, hospital visitation, to every single Vermonter, no matter who they are.

You know, interestingly enough, Dick Cheney took a position in 2000 in the debates that is not very different than mine. He said, this is not a federal issue. I really am inclined to leave this matter to the states, and I think we ought to let states figure out how to give equal rights to everybody in the way that they do it. So I think this is kind of a political issue at the federal level, but the power to decide these things really belongs to the state level.

KING: All right. On your own state level, if it were a referendum, would you vote for gay marriage?

DEAN: If what were -- we don't have a referendum in my state, and we have civil unions, and we deliberate chose civil unions, because we didn't think marriage was necessary in order to give equal rights to all people.

Marriage is a religious institution, the way I see it. And we're not in the business of telling churches who they can and cannot marry. But in terms of civil rights and equal rights under the law for all Americans, that is the state's business, and that's why we started civil unions.

KING: So you would be opposed to a gay marriage?

DEAN: If other states want to do it, that's their business. We didn't choose to do that in our state.
…
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/04/lkl.00.html
http://www.howarddean.tv/

...on this issue.

Try telling all the athiests who are married that they're in a *RELIGIOUS* institution. Civil marriage is a secular business.

Dean is simply pandering to bigots--just like most of the straight Democrats are willing to do, unfortunately.

If real marriage isn't necessary for equality of relationships, let's see Dean propose eliminating civil marriage altogether. No marriage certificates from the states at all. Yeah, right.

Is a religious institution. The issuance of a civil marriage license is not a religious statement. You are correct, it takes no proof of religious belief to obtain this license.

Again, this is why I feel that the government has no essential business here.

so what is your point?

Most rational people accept homosexuality as a fact of life and want people to be happy.

*cough**

Uh. sorry. PollyAnna doesn't live here. Wrong number.

;)