Support for Same-Sex Marriage Plummets

[cj234]

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000010272.cfm

Support for Same-Sex Marriage Plummets


by Nima Reza, staff writer
New poll finds only 33 percent of Americans favor, a 9-point drop since April
http://forums.hannity.com/images/09/06-18-09.jpgThe number of Americans who support same-sex marriage has plunged over the last few months, according to a new poll.
The CBS News/New York Times study found that 33 percent of respondents favor same-sex marriage. That represents a 9 percent drop since April.
Everett Rice, legislative coordinator for the California Family Council, said he has a theory about the decrease.
"People really recognize their core and their values, their heritage," he said. "When people want to go in and redefine that, it really goes against everybody's individual cultural understanding."
California has been the site of many protests, some violent, since voters passed Proposition 8 in November. The measure defines marriage in the state Constitution as solely the union of one man and one woman – and has been met with outrage by many gay activists.
Gary Schneeberger, vice president of media and public relations for Focus on the Family Action, said the new poll numbers could very well represent a backlash from Americans who have seen several New England states legalize gay marriage through their legislatures, not the vote of the people.
The poll results also seem to indicate people are not relying solely on the mainstream news media to get their information on the issue of same-sex marriage.
"In reporting the results of its own poll, CBS used the word 'dip' to describe the 9 percent plunge in support for gay marriage," Schneeberger said. "In elections, it's considered a landslide when a candidate wins by 10 points. So to describe this as a 'dip' pretty clearly illustrates where CBS, at least, stands on this issue."

[Justus]

Maybe if they would't act like children when they don't get their way...

[ISYairio]

April Poll:
No Legal Recognition ... 28%
Civil Unions... 25%
Legally Marry... 42%

June Poll:
No Legal Recognition... 32%
Civil Unions... 30%
Legally Marry... 33%

[Miss America]

If that is true, supporters have done it to themselves with their reactions to those with whom the disagree.

[cj234]

If that is true, supporters have done it to themselves with their reactions to those with whom the disagree.


They seem to be the most "intolerant" so called "tolerant" group I know. Well.....:rolleyes: maybe close!!!

[FreeAndClear]

Pllumet? Dip? It was at its highest point last month and it went down:

Most Americans support some legal recognition of a same-sex couple’s relationship. The poll found 33 percent favor marriage for same-sex couples, down somewhat from a high of 42 percent (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4972643.shtml) in April, and another 30 percent support civil unions. A third of Americans think there should be no legal recognition of a same-sex couple’s relationship. Views in this poll are similar to those found back in March (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/03/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4917681.shtml) of this year.



http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5094597.shtml

[Talk2Bill]

still 63% support what amounts to marriage. (only down 4% from April).

And not matter what you call it, it still holds the same legal meaning. So would not take this any anything other than a slight shift in semantics.

[ChaosControl]

No Legal Recognition... 32%
I'm with this group, but I expand this to non-*** couples as well. Government should not be involved in relationship recognition at all.

[PuckHappy]

Well there is a way that gays can get legally married. One partner can get a sex change the way that Chaz Bono did.
Problem solved.

[LibertyinAtl]

i'm with this group, but i expand this to non-*** couples as well. Government should not be involved in relationship recognition at all.
+1

[Getty Girl]

If that is true, supporters have done it to themselves with their reactions to those with whom the disagree.
hell yea

[rodlang]

Perez Hilton and the lectures from the Hollywood liberals is not helping the cause.

[Its any henna]

In the aftermath of the landmark gay marriage case from Massachusetts, there was a backlash of the sort described in the OP. Interestingly, this resembles the backlash that followed the controversial decision to racially desegregate public schools in 1954. For a comparison of the two decisions and the backlash that followed, take a look at the report "The Backlash Thesis and Same-Sex Marriage: Learning from Brown v. Board of Education and its Aftermath" (link here (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=901238), pdf downloadable from SSRN).

I suspect the trajectory of public opinion will show a long-term (i.e., over the next 40 years) trend towards acceptance of gay marriage in a similar fashion to interracial marriage. Back in 1967, when Loving v. Virginia was decided, support for interracial marriage was very much a minority view, enjoying only about a 20% support level, according to Gallup (link here (http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/most-americans-approve-interracial-marriages.aspx)):
http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr070816i.gif
But then a generation died off and so did the old views. I was unable to find public opinion data on school desegregation, but I imagine it showed a similar trajectory.

[Iggy]

I'm guessing the all-out attack on Miss California opened a lot of people's eyes to just what a bunch of thugs the gay rights movement has become.

[animalnut]

April Poll:
No Legal Recognition ... 28%
Civil Unions... 25%
Legally Marry... 42%

June Poll:
No Legal Recognition... 32%
Civil Unions... 30%
Legally Marry... 33%

Wow - the No Legal Recognition shocked me. I am against gay marriage, but I do think if someone has lived with/loved someone for a long time, they should be by their partner's side in the hospital, etc. I also have no problem with civil unions.

[ArmyMAJretired]

I'm guessing the all-out attack on Miss California opened a lot of people's eyes to just what a bunch of thugs the gay rights movement has become.

Yeah, their "tolerance" of others was really exposed.

Not hte best way to make friends and influence people.

Meow, saucer of milk?

[animalnut]

I'm with this group, but I expand this to non-*** couples as well. Government should not be involved in relationship recognition at all.

That would really mess up Social Security, licensing, contracts, etc. Some of the licensing is through the state - (couples owning businesses together, etc.). - How would that be handled legally?

[ddye]

In the aftermath of the landmark gay marriage case from Massachusetts, there was a backlash of the sort described in the OP. Interestingly, this resembles the backlash that followed the controversial decision to racially desegregate public schools in 1954. For a comparison of the two decisions and the backlash that followed, take a look at the report "The Backlash Thesis and Same-Sex Marriage: Learning from Brown v. Board of Education and its Aftermath" (link here (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=901238), pdf downloadable from SSRN).

I suspect the trajectory of public opinion will show a long-term (i.e., over the next 40 years) trend towards acceptance of gay marriage in a similar fashion to interracial marriage. Back in 1967, when Loving v. Virginia was decided, support for interracial marriage was very much a minority view, enjoying only about a 20% support level, according to Gallup (link here (http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/most-americans-approve-interracial-marriages.aspx)):
http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr070816i.gif
But then a generation died off and so did the old views. I was unable to find public opinion data on school desegregation, but I imagine it showed a similar trajectory.
Amazing, thanks for the link. Only 4% approved of interracial marriage in 1958. 77% today, and that still strikes me as low.

Although people will say that homosexuality and race aren't similar, I think that PREJUDICES against gays and blacks are indeed similar. I think we will see a similar rise in approval of gay marriage in the future.

Doug

[Its any henna]

Amazing, thanks for the link. Only 4% approved of interracial marriage in 1958. 77% today, and that still strikes me as low.

Although people will say that homosexuality and race aren't similar, I think that PREJUDICES against gays and blacks are indeed similar. I think we will see a similar rise in approval of gay marriage in the future.

Doug
I too thought 77% sounded low. I'm a white guy married to a black woman and, having spent several years living in a rural town in Virginia, we never once came across anything indicating people cared one way or another about us being together. I do wonder, though, whether opposition to interracial couples varies depending on the gender-race mix. I say this because friends of ours living in the same region said they'd get the occasional dirty look, but there the couple was a black guy and a white woman. Or maybe the 23% who are opposed to it are mostly elderly or super-rural and so are less noticeable, while the remainder have learned to conceal their views to avoid being stigmatized?

[ChaosControl]

That would really mess up Social Security, licensing, contracts, etc. Some of the licensing is through the state - (couples owning businesses together, etc.). - How would that be handled legally?

Social Security should be done away with.
You can own a business together without being married.
You can sign a contract with someone without being married.

I'm specifically only talking about relationships in regards to romance/love/lust/etc, not a relationship as in partners in a business. The enforcement of contracts is I feel a legitimate aspect of government, one of the few. For things like hospital visitation, I see no reason why someone could not sign a contract to grant another that right.

[Its any henna]

...For things like hospital visitation, I see no reason why someone could not sign a contract to grant another that right.
They might be in a coma.

[ChaosControl]

They might be in a coma.

So you met someone who was in a coma and wanted visitation rights with them?
You never met them when they were conscious and could sign such a contract?

[Getty Girl]

I'm guessing the all-out attack on Miss California opened a lot of people's eyes to just what a bunch of thugs the gay rights movement has become.
yes it was counterproductive. several friends who were on the fence over the subject are now against for this very reason.

[ArmyMAJretired]

I think we will see a similar rise in approval of gay marriage in the future.

Doug

If years of gay propoganda in schools continues.

Maybe there is a reason that Prince and Prince and other Gay classes are being shoved down a captive audiences throat.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080523/calif-schools-indoctrinate-children-with-pro-gay-messages-claims-resolution/index.html



http://www.mfc.org/contents/article.cfm?id=1345

[pottebaum]

Yeah, their "tolerance" of others was really exposed.

Not hte best way to make friends and influence people.


Excuse them for not tolerating intolerance.

[Its any henna]

So you met someone who was in a coma and wanted visitation rights with them?
You never met them when they were conscious and could sign such a contract?
When I said this I was assuming that an advance directive would be able to do what you suggest: contract around the default rules limiting visitation rights to spouses and immediate family. Looks like I was wrong: I don't think a contract would have been able to give Janice Langbehn the right to visit her dying, comatose same-sex partner, Marie Pond since Langbehn was already her power of attorney (link here (http://www.miamiherald.com/277/story/892447.html)). So apparently not even a contract can cure this problem.

[ArmyMAJretired]

Excuse them for not tolerating intolerance.

Or opposing opinion.

So according to you, if someone holds a deeply religious opinion against gay marraige they are intolerant?

By your definition then gays are intolerant of people opposing gay marraige.

[ChaosControl]

When I said this I was assuming that an advance directive would be able to do what you suggest: contract around the default rules limiting visitation rights to spouses and immediate family. Looks like I was wrong: I don't think a contract would have been able to give Janice Langbehn the right to visit her dying, comatose same-sex partner, Marie Pond since Langbehn was already her power of attorney (link here (http://www.miamiherald.com/277/story/892447.html)). So apparently not even a contract can cure this problem.

It could if our government wasn't a sack of ****.
If you can "Marry" and gain rights, you should be able to gain any single one of these rights through a standard contract. Instead of wanting more government intervention and saying who we can and cant be with and who they will and will not recognize, how about we tell the government to **** off, and instead grant us more abilities in terms of what contractual rights we can grant one another?

[pottebaum]

Or opposing opinion.

So according to you, if someone holds a deeply religious opinion against gay marraige they are intolerant?

By your definition then gays are intolerant of people opposing gay marraige.

People can believe whatever they want. I can understand where they are coming from, but I am not going to tolerate them infringing upon the rights and dignity of others.

[Hellsbane]

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000010272.cfm

Support for Same-Sex Marriage Plummets


by Nima Reza, staff writer
New poll finds only 33 percent of Americans favor, a 9-point drop since April
http://forums.hannity.com/images/09/06-18-09.jpgThe number of Americans who support same-sex marriage has plunged over the last few months, according to a new poll.
The CBS News/New York Times study found that 33 percent of respondents favor same-sex marriage. That represents a 9 percent drop since April.
Everett Rice, legislative coordinator for the California Family Council, said he has a theory about the decrease.
"People really recognize their core and their values, their heritage," he said. "When people want to go in and redefine that, it really goes against everybody's individual cultural understanding."
California has been the site of many protests, some violent, since voters passed Proposition 8 in November. The measure defines marriage in the state Constitution as solely the union of one man and one woman – and has been met with outrage by many gay activists.
Gary Schneeberger, vice president of media and public relations for Focus on the Family Action, said the new poll numbers could very well represent a backlash from Americans who have seen several New England states legalize gay marriage through their legislatures, not the vote of the people.
The poll results also seem to indicate people are not relying solely on the mainstream news media to get their information on the issue of same-sex marriage.
"In reporting the results of its own poll, CBS used the word 'dip' to describe the 9 percent plunge in support for gay marriage," Schneeberger said. "In elections, it's considered a landslide when a candidate wins by 10 points. So to describe this as a 'dip' pretty clearly illustrates where CBS, at least, stands on this issue."


Some survey group has been hitting the crack pipe a bit too much. Gay marriage has never enjoyed 40% support.

[ArmyMAJretired]

People can believe whatever they want. I can understand where they are coming from, but I am not going to tolerate them infringing upon the rights and dignity of others.

That just about sums up the intolerance that has cost this movement support.

[pottebaum]

Some survey group has been hitting the crack pipe a bit too much. Gay marriage has never enjoyed 40% support.

According to NYT/CBS polls, yes it has--in April.

[Its any henna]

It could if our government wasn't a sack of ****.
If you can "Marry" and gain rights, you should be able to gain any single one of these rights through a standard contract. Instead of wanting more government intervention and saying who we can and cant be with and who they will and will not recognize, how about we tell the government to **** off, and instead grant us more abilities in terms of what contractual rights we can grant one another?
I hear what you're saying, but I think there's often good reason for the government to get involved in family law. First, it's been part of the English tradition for over 600 years. Of course, laws need to change to adapt to changing times, but I'm not sure it would be wise for the government to completely abandon intervention in family law altogether.

Second, people often fail to make contracts, or fail to make the contracts sufficiently clear. Therefore, there needs to be a default set of rules to look to when the parties are silent. For example, people sometimes die without making a will. I think it is appropriate for the state to create rules explaining which family members get what when there is no will. This provides a more orderly and predictable procedure for distributing property in what is often a hotly contested scenario.

Third, I think, in some situations, it is appropriate for the government to place some limits on what contracts will be enforced. For example, I generally think it's a good idea that contracts with people <18 years old are not enforced. Same thing goes for contracts made with drunk people. Same thing goes for contracts to sell babies. These may seem like obvious examples, but I use them to illustrate that it's not really a solution to tell the state to get out of the way and just be an enforcer of contracts. The state still needs to decide which contracts it deems appropriate to enforce.

[pottebaum]

That just about sums up the intolerance that has cost this movement support.

Four states have legalized gay marriage this year, and three of the states did it through their legislatures. That's pretty remarkable.

I think the two of us have differing definitions of tolerance, or perhaps we just practice it in different ways. I will not -tolerate- something when it negatively impacts the rights and dignity of another person. I will attempt to understand where the offending party is coming from, but I am not going to be silent as I watch them harm others.

[Miss America]

this isn't going to make gays too happy...from my all too liberal homeland:

Not in my classroom: Dutch schools may ban gay teachers

http://www.nrc.nl/international/Features/article2267200.ece

[LibertyinAtl]

this isn't going to make gays too happy...from my all too liberal homeland:

Not in my classroom: Dutch schools may ban gay teachers

http://www.nrc.nl/international/Features/article2267200.ece
Your Dutch?
How tall are you...
The tallest people I know are Dutch or descendants.

[Miss America]

Your Dutch?
How tall are you...
The tallest people I know are Dutch or descendants.

haha...well I have 9 tall brothers...but, I was cheated...only 5'3"

[ArmyMAJretired]

Your Dutch?
How tall are you...
The tallest people I know are Dutch or descendants.

What did Austin Powers dad say?

There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch

[cj234]

Four states have legalized gay marriage this year, and three of the states did it through their legislatures. That's pretty remarkable.

I think the two of us have differing definitions of tolerance, or perhaps we just practice it in different ways. I will not -tolerate- something when it negatively impacts the rights and dignity of another person. I will attempt to understand where the offending party is coming from, but I am not going to be silent as I watch them harm others.


How many was put on a ballot for the people to chose (living people)?

[LibertyinAtl]

haha...well I have 9 tall brothers...but, I was cheated...only 5'3"
Your still Miss America in my book....

[Its any henna]

this isn't going to make gays too happy...from my all too liberal homeland:

Not in my classroom: Dutch schools may ban gay teachers

http://www.nrc.nl/international/Features/article2267200.ece
Thanks for the link - very interesting article. It's still hard for me to wrap my mind around European societies' state-sanctioned religions. Chalk it up to being brainwashed by the 1st Amendment. Anyway, it's interesting to see the issues that arise when states run religious schools. Fascinating.

[Miss America]

Your still Miss America in my book....

You're sweet...

[mitgrad]

Well there is a way that gays can get legally married. One partner can get a sex change the way that Chaz Bono did.
Problem solved.

Actually, there is another way. Gays can get married the conventional way and still collect marital benefits. Picture two gay couples, each married in name only to the opposite gender of their co-conspirators, and playing house with their sexual partner. While this arrangement is not really kosher, it just shows how man-to-woman marriages aren't necessarily as traditional as they appear to be.

This happens much more often than people realize.

[WorldWatcher]

Some survey group has been hitting the crack pipe a bit too much. Gay marriage has never enjoyed 40% support.


48% voted to defeat Prop 8 which won by only 2%.


>>>>

[Miss America]

48% voted to defeat Prop 8 which won by only 2%.


>>>>

yeah...but...that is California, hardly a model for most of the country.

[WorldWatcher]

yeah...but...that is California, hardly a model for most of the country.



:Shrug: - And yet they are part of the country last I checked.


I was responding to Hellsbane and his claim that Same-sex marriage has never had 40% support.



1. Prop 8% was almost defeated because 48% of the people voted against it.

2. The same polling organization cited in the OP (for the period 4/22-4/26 2009) had 42% of the population supporting Same-sex marriage.

3. A CNN Poll from 2009 showed 45% of the respondents supporting Same-sex marriage.

4. 2009 USA/Gallup Polls show 40% support for Same-sex couples being recognized under the law as married the same as Different-sex couples.

5. 2009 ABC News polls showed 49% of respondents supported legal recognition of Same-sex Marriages.

6. 2008 Time poll showed 47% of respondents supported legal recognition of Same-sex Marriages.


>>>>

[Its any henna]

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000010272.cfm

Support for Same-Sex Marriage Plummets

by Nima Reza, staff writer
New poll finds only 33 percent of Americans favor, a 9-point drop since April

The number of Americans who support same-sex marriage has plunged over the last few months, according to a new poll. The CBS News/New York Times study found that 33 percent of respondents favor same-sex marriage. That represents a 9 percent drop since April. Everett Rice, legislative coordinator for the California Family Council, said he has a theory about the decrease.

"People really recognize their core and their values, their heritage," he said. "When people want to go in and redefine that, it really goes against everybody's individual cultural understanding."

California has been the site of many protests, some violent, since voters passed Proposition 8 in November. The measure defines marriage in the state Constitution as solely the union of one man and one woman – and has been met with outrage by many gay activists. Gary Schneeberger, vice president of media and public relations for Focus on the Family Action, said the new poll numbers could very well represent a backlash from Americans who have seen several New England states legalize gay marriage through their legislatures, not the vote of the people. The poll results also seem to indicate people are not relying solely on the mainstream news media to get their information on the issue of same-sex marriage.

"In reporting the results of its own poll, CBS used the word 'dip' to describe the 9 percent plunge in support for gay marriage," Schneeberger said. "In elections, it's considered a landslide when a candidate wins by 10 points. So to describe this as a 'dip' pretty clearly illustrates where CBS, at least, stands on this issue."
Ted Olson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Olson), who was Bush's solicitor general and won the Bush v. Gore case in 2000, has decided to back gay marriage (link here (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/us/19olson.html?ref=us&pagewanted=all)). He is filing briefs in a lawsuit he plans to take to the Supreme Court to make gay marriage a constitutional right. He has argued 55 times before the Supreme Court and won 44 of those times. Since he is a conservative, his support for gay marriage comes as a shock to many of his Republican colleagues.

[ThrowCop]

I'm with this group, but I expand this to non-*** couples as well. Government should not be involved in relationship recognition at all.^ That

[old guy]

Well there is a way that gays can get legally married. One partner can get a sex change the way that Chaz Bono did.
Problem solved.

i actually know someone that did that