Majority of Americans Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage

Source: Gallup

No change in support from last year
by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' views on same-sex marriage have essentially stayed the same in the past year, with a majority of 57% opposed to granting such marriages legal status and 40% in favor of doing so. Though support for legal same-sex marriage is significantly higher now than when Gallup first asked about it in 1996, in recent years support has appeared to stall, peaking at 46% in 2007.



The lack of change in public opinion on same-sex marriage seen in the new USA Today/Gallup poll occurs in an environment in which an increasing number of states have taken steps to legalize such unions. Same-sex marriages are now legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, and Iowa, and will be legal in Vermont in September.

On Tuesday, California's Supreme Court refused to add that state to the list, by upholding the Proposition 8 referendum, approved by voters, that banned same-sex marriage in the state. The referendum was put on the November 2008 ballot in response to an earlier court decision that allowed same-sex couples to legally marry in California.

Among major demographic or attitudinal subgroups, self-identified liberals show the greatest support for legal gay marriage at 75% in the May 7-10 poll. By contrast, only 19% of conservatives think same-sex marriages should be legally valid.

Read more: http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/Majority-Americans-Continue-Oppose-Gay-Marriage.aspx

---

Just like President Obama.

:puke:

:freak:

eom

He backed up his assertions, which I think are rather well known anyway.

It's hardly hate to state the truth as one sees it.

because 52% (that's right, 52%) in ONE poll seem to be against it.

It's ugly.

:shrug:

to die.

Maybe less.

But it's true.

It'll take just a tad longer.

Gallup uses old demographic data in choosing its sampling and its polls reflect that bias.

support for gay marriage.

Back when they kept telling us how beloved George Bush was is when I lost faith in their "polls".

Religious views and bigotry are not viable reasons for denying rights to America's citizens. Has history taught us nothing?

Is it cowardice or political self-preservation that prevents more of America's power brokers from speaking out against the inherent bigoted motivations behind the anti-gay marriage viewpoint?

These are people that PRIDE themselves on living in an alternate reality. NOTHING they do surprises me anymore.

I bet these are the same people who support torture as well. Perhaps a correlation exists there? I hope some enterprising young scientist is studying that as we speak. I bet it's there.

doesn't mean we shouldn't have them. Equal rights are not voted on by the electorate. You are born with them. Everyone is born with them. Where in the constitution does it say that states can vote to lessen the rights of some groups? Like it or not, EVERYONE has the same rights (or should). A ballot proposition that denies equal rights is unconstitutional imo. We all have biases and prejudices that could be used to 'vote' people out of their rights. Who's next? This isn't the first time a majority of Americans have had their heads up their asses. How the hell did * get a second term?

there was a guy on cnn who was a pastor i guess... he was saying that the majority of america has voted to protect marriage. now, my thought was that this guy was black. did he not see that the same arguments that he and other anti gay marriage folks were using were the same arguments used to discriminate against blacks with separate but equal and all that. and there was a woman on there saying how she wanted her kids to know that marriage was between one man and one woman because that's where children come from and it would be too confusing. no it wouldn't! wtf!! if there were a majority rule vote on slavery, we would still have slavery. if there were a majority rule vote on women's right to vote, we women would not be voting. funny thing being that women couldn't have voted to give themselves the vote. are people brain dead!! wtf!! these things were done in spite of what the majority of the country wanted. should we have done it by a damned vote!!! grr! i am so mad. i just don't get it.

Of course they would use a homophobic black preacher. The whole point is to tear apart the coalition that got Obama elected so the Repiggies can get back into power.

How many people supported slavery? How popular was the civil rights movement in the 1960's?

I could be wrong, but I thought the Constitution was supposed to protect the freedoms of the unpopular as well. </sarcasm>

As per Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

-------------
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
-------------

It took the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to give blacks full Constitutional rights.

In fact, I'd like to think that as a society we'd have learned from the mistakes of the past, but apparently the slight and shrinking majority have not evolved.

to correct those mistakes.

Just like it's taking all this time to give the GLBT community the full rights they deserve. The fact that the country already went through this with ethnic minorities and women doesn't mean that it's easier.

Back before the abolishment of slavery, there were actual arguments in favor of slavery and denying rights to blacks. The arguments were financial, social, moral, and religious.

The same thing is being done now with gay marriage. Those opposed are trying to trump up financial, social, moral, and religious arguments against it.

Just because society corrected itself with respect to one or two demographics doesn't necessarily mean it will think that way correctly and initially about another.

Even giving blacks the right to vote by the 15th Amendment didn't do anything for women in this country. Women still weren't allowed to vote until the 19th Amendment. So, there was a time where black males had more rights than women.

Thus now, with the GLBT demographic, the country is split on whether gay marriage should be mandated federally. I think it should, but those opposed are equally vocal as the GLBT community. Once again, they try to bring up any argument to deny GLBT rights. Just because those arguments are pretty much the same ones used to try to deny blacks, ethnic minorities, and women full rights, and were already invalidated doesn't prevent them from being used again. From the hate spewed by those opposed to the GLBT community, they actually seem to think it works, regardless of history.

Yes, "we" as a country have made lots of progress in the last 150 years in civil rights, but that doesn't mean we are done. Not by a long shot. The main reason is that most of the people alive today haven't experienced civil rights struggles like our predecessors did. So, the life experience just isn't there to learn from history.

Nevertheless, full GLBT rights are coming, but may not be as quickly and easily as most (me too) think it should. There's a lot of ignorance out there that needs to be enlightened.

I don't remember the exact term, but part of a judge's decision can be based on whether or not the citizenry in general has come to accept some precept.

but basic rights should not be reliant on the rule of the mob/majority. Period. Would you allow the persecution of a minority religion or atheism by a majority one? of course not. No judge would allow it either.

EDIT:
and although 'marriage' is not specifically delineated in the Constitution as a 'right' the way religion and speech are, I would argue that unequal treatment and unequal state protections are specifically listed, as is the not denying rights not enumerated within the Constitution.




I fail to see why people continue to argue that inequality is American.

until a majority felt they "deserved" civil rights, we'd still be in the worst heat of that struggle as well.

Civil rights are inherent in our Constitution - they should never, ever, be up for a majority vote.

As you say, doesn't matter if the polls say 90% are opposed; civil rights exist - and they need to be recognized, legally.

Over half the people are wrong, afraid of change and hold bigoted views.

And certainly aren't militantly against it. I think when asked a lot of people just default to the pre-programmed, expected "Christian" response. Because whether you really believe or not, if you attended a House of Jesus at least once in your childhood or go every year at Yule...I'm sorry, Christmas time, then you can wear your cross on your sleeve and WHAMMO! You're in the happy majority who is always right. And who doesn't like to be on the winning team. :eyes:

Just like President Obama.

If one is against Gay Marriage, one is bigoted and hateful..

Ergo, President Obama is bigotted and hateful since he is againsty Gay Marriage.

Is that what your trying to say?

But I think there is another reason that someone might SAY they are against Gay Marriage.

Obama is a politician. He did what he had to do to get elected and now must live with his statements. I personally believe he would be for gay marriage and would back it in a perfect world (without Republicans). Yes there is something cowardly about not standing up against the crowd and declaring yourself as supporting the minority position, especially if you really do support them. But it's politics. I'm sure many in the gay community feels that the gay marriage issue is the biggest concern facing the nation, but unfortunately for them, the President sees it differently. Obama is not a saint, or any kind of morality king. Obama may also secretly want more gun controls, but he'll never go down that road either. Is it fair? No. But it's reality. The Repukes will jump on any wedge they can and stomp it in deeper.

If I am right then President Obama is lying to himself as well as others in order to facilitate his re-election. Is that honest? No. But its politics. As another example I can accept things like his inviting Warren to his inauguration, even though I can't stand the guy.

I think Obama sees that the Gay Marriage movement is unstoppable with or without his help. I certainly believe that. Now think if he suddenly went on the airwaves and started sloganeering support for every left issue we want him to. Pro-choice, Gay Marriage, Gun Controls, Single Payer Medicare (without Insurance companies - a truely socialist system), banning the Death Penalty etc..what would happen? President Newt Gingrich, in 2012, with his majority of Repukes in both houses, would amend the constitution to declare man/woman marriage as the only legitimate version.

What Obama is doing is simply holding the fort, not going on the offensive, until enough States see the light and there is no longer any political will to change the constitution in such a negative way.

"wrong" does not necessarily mean "bigoted and hateful."

from reading threads here, ANY person who is against Gay Marriage is BY DEFINITION a hateful bigot.
So I am wondering if the shoe fits the President. Obviously he is getting a "pass" because of
"politics". I guess its great the be the King eh?

For the record I dont believe the President is a bigot, he is only acting like one so he and his party can stay in power. I would bet in his heart he is ok with it,but he cant be what he really is as he and the Dems would get their ass handed to them in the next election. How pragmatic.

:sarcasm:

:)

That needs to be the debate people are having about this. People need to forget about "love" or "religion" or any of that other bullshit.

This is a legal entity, that combines assets and liability. It is very similar to a corporation, except that it is only between two people and finite in its length. It changes asset ownership, entitlement distribution, and legal protections of those under it. It has nothing to do, as far as the state is concerned, with morality, religion, love, etc.

ANY two people (lovers or simply best friends alike) living together and contributing together on a single household (who aren't breaking a law like incest) should have access to forming this legal entity, regardless of religion, race, creed, or religion. If they want to have a ceremony and frolic naked to consummate it, thats up to them and whoever they do it with. The state should only be concerned with the paperwork and tax/legal implications.

There are two different "marriages" here. Civil Unions (legal structure) and religious ceremony (symbolic ceremony). Unfortunately, most people participating in this debate don't understand that fundamental distinction.

Either people need to advocate that anyone should have access to this legal entity, or rather, we amend the constitution to remove any language suggesting that all men are created equal and discrimination is prohibited.

Now Gallup would have us believe there has been no change. Color me skeptical.

Note the sig line pic- a blue dog.

The OP is not our friend.

Are we supposed to bury our heads in the sand and ignore news that we don't like? Are we only supposed to mention polls whose results we like? I don't think so. I for one was interested to know the results of that poll. It doesn't mean that I like it but like they always say, "knowledge is power."

posted it and hasn't replied to any comments. He wasn't looking for discussion or to share knowledge. He did it in a desperate attempt to be antagonistic. It is rather comical.

But these polls are meaningless. A majority favored laws against interracial marriage forty years ago, but our USSC declared all anti-miscegenation statutes unconstitutional. Our U.S. Constitution already demands gay and lesbian couples full equality under the law because of the underlying principles that are not subject to majority approval. And this too will ultimately be recognized by the US Supreme Court. So this whole back and forth on public sentiment regarding same-sex marriage is trivial in the long run.

Gallup may be using it because it's the way they've been polling it all along but it still introduces a bias which leads the respondent to weigh tradition more heavily in his/her answer rather than focusing solely on the concept of extending marriage rights to same sex couples.

I'd bet the house that if I pretested the question with Gallup's wording and with alternate wording that phrased it in terms of civil rights the latter would poll a higher approval rating for gay marriage.

18-29 years

Yes: 59
No: 37

30-49 years

Yes: 50
No: 57

50-64 years

Yes: 37
No: 61

65 years+

Yes: 32
No: 66

Things may get much easier in the coming years.

...but there's not a whole lot of difference between the over-65s and the 50-64 (my demographic, I'm ashamed to admit) on the matter. While those under 50 seem better, it will take a while for us "boomers" (which, you have to remember, is a very large demographic) to pass through the pipeline. Also, keep in mind that people tend to get at least somewhat more conservative as they get older, so those gaudy 18-29 results may not be quite so nice once they've aged a decade or two.

How much more needs to be said?

That was not a moral justification for denying the Constitutional rights of people who wanted to marry someone of a different skin color.

Neither is the result of this poll a justification for denying the Constitutional rights of people who want to marry other consenting adults of the same gender.

As always, the one right consistently upheld in every forum since the GOPpies seized power is the right that is not enshrined in the Constitution: the right to be an asshole.

That's all the citizen referendum movement really is. Since the right to be an asshole was inexplicably left out of the Constitution, assholes need "citizen referenda" to get their petty, whiney, selfish, asshole agendas imposed by a system that used to occasionally exert a flabby, diffident hand to wave at the idea of equity before the law.

Hate paying taxes? Let's have a "Proposition" so you won't have to have your property taxes increased anymore. Hell with the kids who need schools, the libraries, the public services supported by property taxes.

Don't want the scary gay folks to be doing things that make you faint to even begin thinking about? Let's have a "Proposition" so you can impose your Divinely Sanctioned Will on your fellow-citizens to deny them their civil rights.

Yep. The right to be an asshole is alive and well in America. It may be the last actual right we got...

sadly,
Bright

From my memory of the times, I'd bet that even after 1967, in the wake of "Loving v. Virginia," large majorities of voters would still have maintained that people should only be allowed to marry "their own kind" (or, if they were allowed to marry, have it only be under the condition that they not have "mulatto" children). I think tolerance of interracial marriage probably didn't reach the tipping point until the mid-'70s at the earliest.

Polls like this are a great illustration of why minority rights are always in danger when put to a popular vote. I'm sure interracial marriage would have lost if put to a popular vote in 1967, and might even lose today in some places. That is why courts have a distinct duty to uphold equal protection under the law, a duty the California Supreme Court abdicated.

Take a second and check out this feature on California's outrage at the State's upholding of Prop 8.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0nGQ6C4wEc&fmt=22

thanks for the link!

but I really do not trust Gallop.

for those who think any President going along with a majority in the case of a civil liberties,you may want to rethink this. If we listened to the majority in regards to other's civil liberties and whether they deserve those rights where would we be?

Conservatives think that's a good thing, but then again the same conservative didn't think women had the right to vote, blacks didn't have the right to full citizenship, interracial marriages should remain illegal, etc.

"just like ..." :eyes:

What on earth makes you think equal rights are a priority for him or other DLCers?

(Not meaning to be nasty, but really. His sig pic is, in itself, a 'tell'.)

and should be a federal one.

:headbang:
rocktivity

Would we take it away?

"Majority rules" does not imply that minorities have no rights, however much the repukes might wish that it did.

back in the day? thats right, a majority opposed black and white people getting married back in the 60s. did that make it right? fuck no.
the point is, who gives a fuck how many people oppose it. it has nothing to do with civil rights.

Whether they are Democrats or not.

I consistently hear on NPR that the majority think it is just fine. No link. Sorry.
I'm just telling you what I hear ALL THE TIME.