Poll: Few Favor Same-Sex Marriage

[rodbarnett]

(CBS) Americans continue to oppose the idea of same-sex marriage and would support a constitutional amendment to ban it. Yet most do not feel that the issue should be part of the 2004 Election campaign, or that it is important enough to warrant the effort to change the Constitution – though opponents of same-sex marriage believe that it is.

In fact, opponents are much more likely to view same-sex marriage as an issue that will make a critical difference in how they vote in November, and that group currently supports George W. Bush.

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

A constitutional amendment that would allow marriage only between a man and a woman has the support of nearly six in ten Americans. 35% oppose such an amendment. In December 55% favored changing the Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages.

77% of Republicans favor a Constitutional ban, while Democrats are more divided on the issue, with 52% in favor and 44% opposed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/15/opinion/polls/main606453.shtml

[FlashHarry]

1. I find this very hard to believe.

52% of Democrats favor a constitutional ban? This is sick. Do they realize they're favoring amending the Constitution--a document that has only been amended 17 times since the Bill of Rights--to specifically deny civil rights to a segment of the population?

Again, I refuse to believe this.

[gasperc]

7. fear that there kids may "consider" being Gay

this is very real, my wife is a die hard DEM but is TOTALLY against gay marriage. Even though she is accepting of gays and has gay friends. She'll vote Kerry no matter what but this is a touchy subject, my mother-in-law thinks it is a red herring issue. I think it needs to be handled deftly, namely focus on the baking discrimination into the constitution "except for homos" meme.
Anyway, yes I told my wife I am against the amendment and don't care if gays get married and she is all pissed off at me about it.

[Skittles]

8. sorry, you cannot be a "die hard DEM"

and promote bigotry.

[Terran]

22. That's too simplistic a view

There are liberals out there for whom gay marriage is too radical a step. This is happening very suddenly and rapidly, and many people aren't prepared for it. Thye might be supportive of civil unions and equal economic rights, but they can't yet get used to idea of same-sex marriage being co-equal with heterosexual marriage. These are, after all, two different things. And these people are not bigots, nor do they support bigotry.

I work for a very progressive and liberal citizens' advocacy organization, and the board voted this past Saturday to oppose constitotuinal amendments to define marriage both federally and on the state level. But even so, one board member quit over the issue because of her religious beliefs (I have no sympathy for that, by the way), and another expressed that he didn't view denying marriage to gays and lesbians as discrimination, even though he voted for the board's resolution.

[Skittles]

28. I didn't say you could not be a DEM

you cannot be a DIE HARD DEM and support bigotry. PERIOD.

[Terran]

31. That's my point, Skittles

These people are all "die hard" Dems and progressives...and yet a few of them are not entirely on board with gay marriage. Trust me on this. So this is an indication, to me anyway, why so many otherwise reasonable people say they are agaonst gay marriage in opinion polls. Not all progressives and Liberals are at a point yet where they understand the issues involved.

[Skittles]

34. people against gay marriage are bigots

BIGOTS. It's disgusting that a Democrat could not see that.

[fujiyama]

54. .

[Freddie Stubbs]

69. You do not have the authority to define what is a die hard Democrat

The Party is big, and is has a lot of ideological diversity. The platform has never advocated gay marriage, and I doubt that it will change this year.

[Chicago Democrat]

25. Women can be more Anti-Gay than men.

I think some women are mad at us for the competition.

[GinaMaria]

40. What competition?

I don't think one gender over another has a monopoly on Bigotry.

[He loved Big Brother]

55. You know what? Growing up with a gay aunt-

that I was very close to, I'll admit, it opened my eyes to the idea that maybe making out with another chick might be pretty fun.

SO WHAT.

I'm still hetero, I'm still not having any kids (ever), and I've still going to have more hot times with other women that will enriched my sex life in ways that aren't any homophobe's business.

And I *thank* my aunt, for not being a wussy and hiding who she really was from me as I was growing up just because it might give me the idea that two people of the same sex loving each other might bring the four horsemen galloping into my life.

[dolstein]

17. You need to get out more

Unfortunately, most DU'ers believe that their political views are representative of the country's as a whole. Even I know that my views on most issues are well to the left of most Americans', and I'm considered the right-winger around here.

[Mike Daniels]

65. I don't think it's that hard to belive

A good number of members of sub-groups that make up a strong portion of the Democratic constituency (blacks, latinos, other racial minorities, Jewish individual) have strong anti-gay views.

Depending on the sample that identified itself as Dem for the purpose of the survey, the results could be pretty accurate.

Just because someone votes Dem in elections doesn't mean that they aren't bigots. I suspect that very few people who identify with a political party subscribe to every principle the party stands for.

[Snivi Yllom]

74. face it, most of the nation is completely unenlightened and uneducated.

[ClintonTyree]

2. Pure.............

unadulterated bullshit. I find these numbers VERY suspect. Other polls show that the issue of same sex marriage is not even on the scale of issues that will affect the outcome of the election.
I don't think that many people really care (excluding fundies).

[CO Liberal]

3. Like I Said on Local Talk Radio.....

...if you're opposed to same-sex marriage, then don't marry someone who's the same sex as you. But DON'T go around telling other people what THEY should do.

[Frodo]

6. "DON'T go around telling other people what THEY should do."

My brain is now locked in a dizzying spin.

[CO Liberal]

23. That IS Kinda Contradictory, Isn't It???

:-)

[laylah]

45. Ding! Ding! Ding!

Give the wo/man a ceeeeegar! You hit the nail on the head there, CoDem...

Jenn

[no one in particular]

4. What I get from people

The people who know me consider me a pretty level-headed guy and will often listen when I talk politics, but not on this issue.

I tend get a blank look, a "Why can't they be happy just to be left alone?" or a "Why are you defending them?". My father even asked me point blank: "Is there something I should know about you?", as if a straight person couldn't possibly be on this side of the issue.

[leQ]

5. does anybody wonder why the issue has lost its luster?

seems the gay-marriage had this big bang with major legs when headlines were dominating other more important issues, but now hardly a word any more about it.

could it be because (a) the creators weren't getting the results they expected or (b) that it just wasn't worth continuing the heavy rotation it was getting? i.e., gays shouldn't get too much attention.

[kayell]

18. "Gays shouldn't get too much attention."

Would you please explain what you mean by this? Is this meaning the same kind of thing that saying "Blacks shouldn't get too much attention" would mean?

[lazarus]

20. seems obvious from the context

is the concept that "gays shouldn't get too much attention" part of the mentality that has led to the problem?

[kayell]

24. I'm hearing "Back in the closet with you people who aren't

fit to associate with us normals" and I'm kinda wondering how anyone manages to have this kind of attitude and consider themselves a progressive person.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what the poster is meaning?

Poster, is this your attitude, or what you think the media is doing? Please clarify?

[lazarus]

27. the media

Again, that seems obvious (to me, at least) that this is the poster's intent. That the media is thinking that.

[kayell]

39. Sorry I misunderstood you

I'm feeling a mite defensive lately. I'll try working on that reading comprehension thing.

[JusticeForAll]

53. It's OK Kayell

I'm still on edge about comments that appear offensive after the CivilRightsNow incident....

:)

[Blue_Roses]

9. What's up with these "CBS" polls lately

One last night had John Kerry trailing Bush while all the others have him ahead. I don't trust these numbers and wonder just exactly "who" are they polling...something stinks here.

[stepnw1f]

11. CBS is crap

I'm am suspect of their polling as well.

[Cooley Hurd]

13. ding ding ding we have a winner...

CBS is owned by Viacom, the very same Viacom that's been at the center of the censorship firestorm (w/ Janet's breast exposure & more recently, Howard Stern's woes).

Could this be payback to get the Bush admin off its back? :shrug:

[Blue_Roses]

15. I thought the same thing

but surely they aren't that *weak* to give in to bogus, outlandish bullying;)

[elizsan]

61. CBS pollsh-t

Wasn't it CBS that had that poll that 57% of Iraqi's are happier now with their country, now that Saddam is gone? Maybe they just polled the Kurds...

[elizsan]

62. to clarify

I didn't mean they wouldn't be happy Saddam was gone, just with the trade-off that they have with the destruction from our heavy footwork.

[cetasika]

10. civil rights should not be influenced by popular opinion

I thought that was why we have a constitution, to protect the minority.

[Frodo]

12. Sure. The problem is...

The definition of "civil rights" should not be owned soley by the people who WANT whatever right is in question.

I know the right owns the "pedophillia" arguments or "incest" argument, but it's true enough that if I love two women (On the off chance my wife reads this - I DON'T :eyes:), society still has some say on whether or not marrying both of them should be legal. I can't say it's a "right" because I believe strongly that it is or because I want it to be.

The question is whether enough people have now been convinced that it is a right even if they don't understand it.

[LynneSin]

14. 50 years ago few whites wanted to use the same water fountain....

....that black folks used.

It was a radical idea to fight for a change but we did. And over time we have the majority of folks on our side. Hate groups are the very very small minority in this country.

[Frodo]

16. Not a few African Americans disagree with that comparisson.

We could lose more votes than we gain.

[kayell]

19. And of course, civil rights are all about winning or losing votes

:eyes:

[no one in particular]

21. This is a tough one.

While I believe this truly is a civil rights issue, if it causes us to lose too many votes, not only will we not get this passed, but we won't have the power to change anything else.

I don't have an answer, but I hope someone does.

[Roaming]

33. Most blacks are against homosexual marriage, and heavily resent

it being compared to the Civil Rights issues of the 1960s, etc. I can't say I blame them for this--no one is treating gay people anywhere near as bad as blacks were treated during that time. Most people would prefer to live and let live. Another reason black people have objections to the marriage issue is for religious reasons. However, I doubt any of this will cause them to vote differently.

[kayell]

38. Yeah, it really is totally different because gays have never

been killed for who they are.....oh, wait.
been beaten or injured for who they are.....oh, wait.
been denied employment or fired for who they are.....oh, wait.
been denied civil rights that the rest of the citizens of this country enjoy......oh, wait, never mind.

[Frodo]

41. Been enslaved as a group? Oh wait

I guess they never HAVE been hearded onto boats and taken away from their countries and forced to serve as slaves because of an external physical trait.

But maybe the level of suffering is somehow comparable... nahh.

It it NOTHING even CLOSE to being the same thing. Pretending it is doesn't get us anywhere except turning off one segment of voters who is predisposed to vote for us to win another segment of voter who is ALSO already prone to vote for us.

I'm part Italian, Part Irish, and Part Jewish/Polish (with a touch of American Indian). MY ancestors were scr@wed over too. And yes, some of the were killed, or fired or beaten, etc etc etc. But NONE of it (with the exception of the concentration camps) is like what the African American had to go through here.

Not being able to put a name you want onto a relationship is really not in the same leasgue

[kayell]

47. So if gays suffering is not exactly equal to black suffering then they are

entitled to nothing? By that logic, let's take the vote away from women, because maybe their suffering wasn't as bad as black suffering. And let's ignore anyone who can not prove that their pain is EXACTLY like the pain that the most oppressed person or group has suffered.

Believe it or not, civil rights is not a contest. It is about securing equal rights for all.

Why do you care if gays want to be able to marry using the same term that the rest of the citizens of this country are entitled to?

[Frodo]

49. Did I say that? No, I don't believe I did.

I wasn't the one trying to make a ridiculous connection.

It's also interesting that people would support "no discrimination" on the basis of sexual identity for jobs, housing, protection against crime and support some sort of civil union but not support actually commandeering the term "marriage"... and you equate that to "so they are entitled to nothing?"

Somehow "not giving me every little thing I want" has become "discrimination" and "biggotry". And people who would otherwise be supprtive are being turned off.

A great way to win elections. Good thing Kerry isn't paying attention to it.

Why do YOU care what the term is? And there is more than one gay person in the country that doesn't WANT the term. "fitting in" to this society's idea of "normal" is not a real big part of the culture.

[kayell]

51. Why do I care? For one thing, because I'm a big fan of the Constitution

and personally think the 14th amendment is one of the better amendments. That equal protection clause is a thing of beauty. (Added: Check it out in my sig line if you haven't read it recently)
I have a serious aversion to the notion of seperate but equal.

I don't give a crap if some gays don't want to marry. So long as ONE gay couple in this country wants to marry (maybe you could get a better estimate from the SF crowds), they should have the right to MARRY.

As for ""fitting in" to this society's idea of "normal" is not a real big part of the culture" the mind just reels. There is no one "homosexual culture". That is just as much a myth as a putative "heterosexual culture" would be. Where do you get these ideas - propaganda films of the most flaming parts of queer pride parades? Yeah, we ALL dress the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, hang out in bars ALL day, and are unfathomably promiscuous. :eyes:

This is not about my or any other gay pouting because heterosexuals are "not giving me every little thing I want". This is about our right to the same rights and responsibilities that every other citizen of this country is entitled to. This is about our civil rights.

[megatherium]

71. It was a crime to be gay until LAST YEAR

in certain states (that is, a crime to actually make love with your same-sex partner). Gay people have been imprisoned, tortured by psychiatrists (aversion therapy, electroshock), denied all kinds of basic rights. I want to tell you something: you do not want to be a grade school or high school student and be identified as gay in most places.

Gay people are still not allowed to serve openly in the military. I know a gay physician who was named as a homosexual during a witch hunt in the Navy, back in the 1980s. He almost got the Big Chicken Dinner (Bad Conduct Discharge). African Americans had the honor of serving in the Civil War. The military was integrated in 1948. Again: Gay people still cannot serve openly.

Most gay people didn't expect gay marriage to be the issue this year. The next logical step for gay people would be something simple and doable, like the ENDA (employment non-discrimination act). I understand the argument that gay marriage is a political liability that might prevent a democratic win in November. But why oh why are we comparing the sufferings of two groups of people? Both blacks and gays have suffered terribly. The suffering of gay people isn't as visible, but it is very very real.

[Fovea]

42. To paraphrase Bumpy Johnson

that all they have to do is stay queer and die.

It is an issue progressives must target and support, but not in 2004. We are being asked to fight Karl Rove's fight. Let's kick his spotty fat ass out of government and into prison, then let's worry about who is and who is not marriable.

For the record, I think we need to commit to this issue as part of a broad platform of domestic human rights issues, universal healthcare and the end of profiling being more important, IMO at the moment.

I remember them making me stand up as a kid and say 'With liberty and justice for all.'

Now by gods, it is time to make them mean it.

[gator_in_Ontario]

48. Two words

Matthew Shepard

[xchrom]

26. equal protection under the law{marriage equality}

is not about how many think it's a good idea vs bad idea.
and george should be run out of town on rail for bringing this to the court of the lowest common denominator -- i.e. the public.

[Roaming]

36. "The lowest common denominator -- the public?"

Are you serious about this? Is public opinion only OK if you agree with it? If the public stops having a say in our government, then we're in really big trouble.

And wasn't it the democratic side that argued the public should have decided the 2000 election, not the electoral college? Let's just have some consistency here!

[laylah]

46. If I may respectfully

respond...for ME public opinion means freakin' nothing when it comes to whom I CHOOSE to spend my life with (or anything else in my life, actually)...and I am hetero. My gay brothers and sisters deserve the same courtesy...to fall in love, be married, and live their lives however THEY choose! Not you, not me, not that usurper in MY house...absolutely NO ONE has the right to dictate a person's choice for a life's partner.

That said...welcome to DU.

Jenn

[Roaming]

58. Yes, however, live and let live; that's what most people would

agree should be the case; however, in this case we are talking about a change in the law, which is different than social opinions. If the law in the US is going to be changed, the public should have a say in it.

[Solon]

29. I will say this....

Apathy will kill the conservative argument. I find the poll suspect, but even it mentions that MOST people don't think the issue will affect their vote. Most people in this country do have an opinion about this, but this issue is overshadowed by other pressing problems like the war or the economy. The only people who will vote based on this issue are the base that GWB depends on. We aren't courting that voting block, all 30% of them. So why worry?

[HuckleB]

30. This is most disheartening.

Why can't my fellow citizens see beyond their blinders and use a little logic for once in their lives?

:eyes:

[Snivi Yllom]

32. the most depressing number is the 22% who support gay marriage

The US is such a backwards ass nation.

[Chelzek]

35. I think these might be lazy people numbers

making them very unimportant.

For example - if I was asked "Do you support the US using solar power as much as possible?" I would say YES.

However, I don't vote on that issue. Nor do I really *do* anything torwards that goal. I think it would be nice, but one way or the other I'm not really going to get emotional about it.

Likewise, I find it difficult to believe most of the people in this poll are very passionate one way or the other. (don't expect to see them at any protests one way or the other)

[Roaming]

37. Most people are probably not passionate about it simply because

it does not affect them directly. No one knows the real numbers but estimates of 1-5% of the population is homosexual...unless you or a family member is also, or you have deep religious convictions, it's a general non-issue with most.

[Fovea]

43. I thought it was more like

10-15 %

while it may be a non issue for most, this was a way for Karl to energize the base, while he flounders around looking for some traction with the independents and NASCAR dads.

[Roaming]

44. The 10% figure actually was recently changed based on a legal brief

filed by a group of homosexual advocacy groups, including the Nat'l Gay and Lesbian task force, Amicus Curiae in support of petitioners. Lawrence and Garner v. State of Texas, No. 02-102 (U.S. March 26, 2003), 16, which stated "2.8 percent of the male, and 1.4 percent of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual."

[Sterling]

50. link?

nt

[Roaming]

56. Here is the link to the legal brief quoting percentage of homosexuals

It was filed in Lawrence v. Texas:

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-102/02-102.mer.ami.hrc.pdf

It's on page 16, footnote 42, referencing a study on the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS), which found that 2.8% of male and 1.4% of female population identify themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual.

[Fovea]

52. I find the standards applied for the definition

rather artificial and steep, for example, if you change the term Homosexual with Republican and apply a similar test, you would only be identifying voters who registered Republican for their first election and voted exclusively Republican for every candidate in every election.

The brief states 'self-identified' which suggests that either there are no gays, lesbians or bi's in the closet anymore, or that they somehow do not count. Just as there are only two classes of adults, masturbaters and liars, I wonder how we would ever get such a census with correct numbers. Here the Copenhagen interpretation seems to have jumped from physics to the social sciences.

Even Kinsey only said that exclusively homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual from first experience on comprised around 4%. That seems right for 'true republican men' in our above sample as well, even without the stigma of AIDS, for example.

From the brief
<snip>
The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8 percent of the male, and 1.4 percent of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Laumann, et al., The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994). This amounts to nearly 4 million openly gay men and 2 million women who identify as lesbian.<8>

</snip>

You might find the updated Kinsey institute data to be helpful.
Depending on the restrictiveness of the definition and the method of sampling, you can get a 30 point spread on male homosexuality.

http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/resources/bib-homoprev.html

Further, the only groups that seem committed to those figures for the general populace as accurate measurements of homosexual behavior tend to be folks like the Traditional Values Coalition and Family Research Council, whose agendas I do not trust all that much as they argue for scarcity as a cause for the diminution of human rights. The writers of the brief used government figures, for the sake of a numeric figure, without any additional argument for accuracy that I saw.

The point is that they did not have to establish a given percentage to validate the rights of individuals, from Madison on, rights have not been dependent on numeric tests. Indeed, the only laws I can think of that did were all overturned to achieve racial integration in the 1960's. I believe I am 1/16 Cherokee, but I have the same rights as someone who is 100% Irish American, not because there are fewer Cherokee than Irish, but because Citizenship is not divisible.

I also tend to display similar skepticism about drug use figures for many of the same reasons. I self identify as a left hander, but would not self identify as a law breaker, as the constitution does not require me to. Indeed, I will only go so far as to say that I am sexual. How I am sexual is between me and my partner, nor would I be inclined to officially state such a thing, even if I actually could say 100% for certain. If asked coercively, I might glibly lie, particularly if the truth were criminal as was an admission of homosexual sexual activity in the past.

Thanks for the chance to do a bit of light reading. I do believe my thinking has indeed been clarified by your post, and for that I am genuinely thankful.

I now say that my opinion on gay marriage is that all Americans have the right to have the state of marriage- at least those that have non consanguinal or non consensual issues-- prohibiting them to be protected at a federal level. While that may offer further challenges regarding monogamy, the debate on marriage needs to find its level of political discourse, and I believe that the constitution seems to place it somewhere in the same realm as interstate commerce and the full faith clause.

[Roaming]

57. Here are some other studies

USA:

Bell/Weinberg 1970 – < 2% total M and F (ratings of siblings)
Cameron/Ross 1975-78 – 3.1% M, 3.9% F
FRI 1983 – 5.4% M, 3.6% F (4,340 respondents)
Trocki 1988-89 – 3% M, 2% F
NCHS 1988-91 – ² 3.5% M (over 50,000 respondents)
Catania/NABS 1992 – 2% M, 2% F (4% in urban areas; 10,600 respondents)
Billy/Battelle 1993 – ³ 1.1% M

Denmark
Schmidt 1987 – 0.6% M

Canada
MacDonald 1988 – 2% total M and F (> 5,500 college student respondents)

Median of studies listed above: 2% M, 2% F
Upper Quartile: 3.3% M, 3.7% F

[Fovea]

59. Ok, thanks.

John Stuart Mill's comments about the tyranny of the majority seem unaffected by these numbers, however. James Madison's Federalist warnings still ring true.

I don't have a dog in this fight, save that as a priest I would be called upon to perform homosexual weddings, just as I have already done with non-officially recognized commitment ceremonies.

I would do so happily, not being in a religion with a book like Deuteronomy in it.
Marriage, it's a sacrament, eh?

True committed love is sacred-- love that gives,
supports, and affirms. Hollow
convenient, superficial love, no matter how well sanctioned,
is an offense against that which is sacred in love-- comprised as it is of both the joy of shared pleasure, and the equanimity of shared pain.

I performed a hand-fasting for a gay couple many years ago, and one member of the couple stuck by his mate while he died from AIDS. In contrast, there is Newt Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich dishonored the sanctity of his Marriage, by serving his grievously ill wife with divorce papers while in the hospital, in my opinion, and my friend elevated it to its true worth by supporting his lover in his last moments.

Perhaps you feel differently, I do not know. I have to go with what my best instincts tell me about this, to do else would be false, both to my gods and myself.

[Roaming]

63. Well, I guess we diverge in opinion in that the "sacramental" part of

a marriage is what God ordains, not man.

[Fovea]

64. And that is the consequence that all people of faith

must face. We all decide the true meaning of what holy men and women have told us about the divine.

God may ordain marriage, but man tells us *how* they think God ordains it. When I listen and pray, I distinctly hear something different than what documents like the old testiment of Monotheism consecrates.

Consider that when you wear a cotton polyester tee shirt, you violate the same book of the Bible. If you believe the Bible is the literal, unerring word of God, this is not a small problem, as is eating shell fish, and the other dietary laws.

Why is it that some many who are disturbed how God will react to gays being married are so unfazed by the breaking of other Deuteronomic laws?

How can the Bible be the literal word of God here, and outmoded and archaic in other passages in the same book?

I am not saying this to attack you, as it is not my business to question your practice of your faith. That is, in the end, between you and God. My faith is a different one than yours. Ostensibly we live in a pluralist, secular society. Indeed, the seperation of church and state makes using the Bible to legally define marriage problematic at best.

I will meditate on this over my next cheeseburger.

[Roaming]

66. But not all the Deuteronomic law applies...

The New Covenant under Christ did away with the the old SOCIAL laws under Moses. This is made clear in Acts, when Peter is told by the Holy Spirit that all food made by God is good to eat (Acts 10:11). And Paul, guided by the Spirit, taught believers that circumcision is no longer a requirement. However, the MORAL laws of Moses still apply (i.e., the Ten Commandments), and even homosexuality is addressed in the New Testament as immoral (Romans 1), as well as all sexual immorality (Acts 15:20).

Another example of New Covenant thinking is worship in a temple--our bodies are now the temple of the Holy Spirit. There are many other examples, these are just a few.

I certainly do not consider this an attack! I always marvel that some people consider debate and examination of evidence as an attack on a religion. I truly enjoy opportunities to exchange ideas with kind people as yourself, and it additionally helps me to understand my own faith better.

God doesn't want blind faith from us--he really, truly wants us to examine the evidence first, then believe.

And I do believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. I've reached this conclusion based on factual, historical, and even prophetic evidence. It boils down to -- what is the truth? What can we believe and use to measure truth? Is it man's opinion of the day or the Word of God?

Blessings to you -- enjoy that cheeseburger ;-)

[union_maid]

60. Most of my gay friends believe this poll

And always did. They're activists and very, very political, but they tend to be middle-aged, like me. Maybe that makes the difference. They've been at this for a long, long time. Some of them consider themselves married and have entered into civil unions. They celebrated the Texas decision. They didn't want to see this pushed at this time. They felt the country would be a lot more likely to accept gay marriage if it were given some time to get used the idea of civil unions.

[Undemcided]

67. This is a bridge too far at the moment

Best to try for civil unions.

[Rockholm]

68. That Is Why The Courts Should Have Their Rulings Enforced.

Tyranny of the Majority.
I have many comments on a bunch of the posts above, but I just want to add a new wrinkle. What enrages me in this argument may offend some people, but here goes. I am gay (always have been) and look forward to getting married in May or June of this year (unless Romney blocks it). Anyway, I get upset that people want to have a say in who I love. The thing that gets me the most however is that an immigrant couple from ANYWHERE can move to the US and immediately have MORE rights, tax benefits, etc, than I do. I was born here and my family has been in this country since the Mayflower. My ancestors have fought in every battle from before the Revolutionary War through Iraq to keep this country free. These folks who are recent immigrants have MORE RIGHTS THAN I DO when it comes to marriage. Recently, at the Massachusetts State House, while I was singing patriotic songs for 15 hours across from the House Chamber, the anti-marriage forces were chanting their chants against my civil rights. One particular group was Hispanic. They were praying in Spanish, chanting in Spanish and cursing me in Spanish. I found it quite ironic that here I am singing the Star Spangled Banner with the line "land where my fathers died" and these people, who speak no English, who have no concept of American liberties and freedoms (yet), want to VOTE on MY rights. Chances are, many of them do not even know any of the words of American patriotic songs.
Sorry if this is a rant against immigrants and I don't mean it to be. Many (if not most) immigrants that come to the USA are here for a better life and contribute to make all of our lives better and enrich the fabric of our Nation. This one view that I have really pisses me off and I had to get it off of my chest.
I would not want there to ever be any popular vote against any group regarding civil rights.
I realize that much of this arguement revolves around religion. Maybe we should start voting on the tax status of religious organizations, especially if they are going to be lobbyists.
End of rant (flames expected).

[LoneStarLiberal]

70. Remember the difference in support for marriage vs. amendment

Remember that opposition to same-sex marriage is not the same as support for amending the Constitution to ban it.

That's the mistake that got the Republicans to step into the middle of this social quagmire. They thought opposition to marriage meant carte blanche to add the Hate Amendment to the Constitution.

The difference in support for same-sex marriage and the Hate Amendment is still there.

[polazarus]

72. Man!

These neo-cons are trying to take over the world. This makes me so angry.

[RoadRunner]

73. Hi polazarus, Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[polazarus]

75. Thank you

for your kindness.