Majority in poll rejects gay marriage ban

[maddezmom]

Source: SacBee

A slight majority of California voters oppose a measure on the Nov. 4 ballot that would impose a constitutional ban on gay marriage, according to the first Field Poll on the measure.

The findings released Thursday are consistent with a May poll on the issue before Proposition 8 qualified for the ballot. The issue has received heightened attention since the state Supreme Court in May struck down a law approved by voters in 2000 that banned gay marriages.

This time, Californians likely to vote in the Nov. 4 election were asked specifically about Proposition 8, which would enshrine in the state constitution that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Fifty-one percent of respondents said they oppose the proposed ban; 42 percent support it; and 7 percent are undecided.



Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1091832.html

[LynnTheDem]

1. 51% actually believe in "EQUAL rights".

:applause: for the enlightened 51%.

[slackmaster]

2. As with most polls, the wording in this one seems to be flawed

The ballot measure will not contain the word "ban". I don't have the exact wording handy, but it would compel the state to recognize only marriages consisting of one genetic male and one genetic female. Ban is a nasty word with all kinds of bad connotations. People don't like having choices reduced, and that's what bans ultimately do.

Proponents of the measure will play up the semantics heavily. They will deny that it bans anything. The measure would not criminalize same-sex couples engaging in marriage ceremonies. They may even still be allowed to pay the fee and get marriage licenses (it does not specifically state otherwise AFAIK), but those marriages would not be recognized by the state for purposes of tax law, etc. etc.

ETA here is the exact wording of the initiative:

LIMIT ON MARRIAGE. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state. (Initiative 07-0068.)

[gratuitous]

3. And watch how quickly the haters pivot

A few years ago, when the "defense" of marriage forces were passing ballot measures and constitutional amendments, their talking points all focused on "the will of the people." Now, as the will of the people turns against them, they will begin yammering about their inalienable right to be bigots, and how oppressed they are.

The poor dears will deserve the best horse laugh we can muster.

[ronnykmarshall]

4. Please, please, please!

Let this thing go down in flames!

[AlbertCat]

5. Who are the 7%

Undecided? C'mon!

Would you like cheese with that?






Cheese?





Any time now? Make up your mind.

Anyway, I hope the "separate but equal" phrase comes up a lot. Not to mention the fact that since same sex marriages have been going on, the sky has not fallen.

[BadgerKid]

6. Article: Defining male and female

...

Yet, many laws -- including U.S. marriage laws -- assume that everyone is clearly male or female, a concept known in legal circles as sexual dimorphism, or binary law, legal expert Susan Becker of the Cleveland State University explained at the AAAS Meeting. At the same time, children with ambiguous genitalia continue to undergo surgical sex assignment. Baby girls with a condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), for example, may undergo clitoroplasty to reduce male-looking anatomy, as well as vaginoplasty if the labia are fused together.

"The U.S. Constitution promises equality, rights and benefits for all citizens," Becker noted. "But, as the Constitution is structured and interpreted, individuals who do not meet the binary definition for male versus female don't have the same benefits and aren't completely protected from discrimination."

...

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/dnnl-dma020305.php