An astonishing poll on gay marriage from Massachusetts

[dsc]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/11/23/50_in_poll_back_sjc_ruling_on_gay_marriage/

The poll of 400 people, the first survey of Bay State residents since the court's historic ruling, indicated that 50 percent agreed with the justices' decision, and 38 percent opposed it. Eleven percent expressed no opinion.

The poll also indicated that a majority opposed efforts by the Legislature, Governor Mitt Romney, and Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly to block same-sex marriages and allow civil unions instead.

A majority, 53 percent, also opposed a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would ban same-sex marriages by defining marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. Thirty-six percent supported the amendment.

end of quote.

This is nothing short of astonishing. Not only is gay marriage leading by double digits but it is over 50%. Once an issue like this gets over 50% it become a matter of turnout. The people who decided in favor of gay marriage are highly unlikely to change their minds. I admit, I have stated repeatedly that we would lose this. I was flat out gold carat wrong if this poll is correct. I have never been so glad to be flat out gold carat wrong. Nice job Massachusetts.

One little caveat. This is one poll and within the MOE in regards to having majority support. But if this poll is accurate this is awesome news.

[jsw_81]

1. Yes, it's good news

But remember that this is liberal Massachusetts we're talking about.

[dsc]

3. I am certainly not claiming that

gay marriage is popular nationally but the fact it looks like it will win at the ballot box in any state is great.

[jsw_81]

6. Remember

Even if the "defense of marriage" amendment fails in Mass., a federal amendment is almost certain to pass.

[w4rma]

7. I don't think Congress will amend the U.S. Constitution.

Folks don't like to change the Constitution of the United States very often and especially not to *remove* civil rights.

[dsc]

8. I have to disagree here

though this poll makes me feel a little better. This would need 2/3 of both Houses which seems like a slam dunk and then 3/4 of the states. That would be 38 meaning we need 13 no states. I can see all of the following as probably to definite nos. MA, NH, ME, VT, RI, CT, NJ, NY, IL, CA, HI. That leaves us two short. There are possibilities out there but I am by no means certain that we would get them. We have shots at MD, DE, NV, MI, MN, and WA. None of those are by any means a sure thing.

[w4rma]

10. It sounds like you are agreeing that there will be no fed amendment (n/t)

[dsc]

12. Not really

I don't have any confidence we will get two of those states. WA would need a Democratic legislature which it currently doesn't have. Michigan and Minnesotta are in the same place. I don't know alot about Deleware. Maryland is very good on gay rights but I have no idea how much of that was Parris Glendenning's doing. He had a gay brother and worked his ass off to pass a gay rights bill. To the extent that not passing this would depend on that kind of leadership we are sunk there too. We would have to get 1/3 of that iffy list and that may well be the odds of getting any one state in that list. Nevada is on the list due to a libertarian streak they apparently have.

[Leovigild]

13. Yes they will

Yes they will if it means heading off a wave of cultural left judicial activism. A constitutional amendment takes the entire issue out of the courts and puts it into the political arena.

The public want to decide this issue, not to leave it to courts.

[david_vincent]

2. I'm really peeved about this at the moment

I've just been watching Stephanopoulos, Will, and Musgrave talking this over with Barney Frank and someone whose last name I didn't catch (Andrew something). These people - Will, Musgrave, and their ilk - simply don't have a leg to stand on. They refuse to admit that in order to oppose gay marriage, they have to make flaming hypocrites of themselves. Isn't the Republican party the one that supposedly champions states' rights? Here's this Musgrave woman telling Barney Frank that the rest of the country should have a right to tell the people of Massachusetts what they can or can't do. This issue potentially touches on the very nature of America as a political entity. All of a sudden, these people are proposing that states' rights are meaningless and should be quashed using a federal approach.
Sorry for the rant, but these idiots really have me steamed. One interesting thing that comes to mind is this: when Barney Frank was explaining the court decision to Will, he said that their reasoning was that since gay people pay taxes, then they're entitled to enjoy the full benefits of citizenship. So, the speculation comes to mind: if these gay-hating "Christian" types are sufficiently opposed to gay marriage to concoct some sort of legal apparatus to prevent it, wouldn't that then exempt gay people from paying taxes? Since they're being denied the full benefits of citizenship, they shouldn't have to pay taxes. What would happen if all gay people no longer had to pay taxes? Now that's something to ponder!
Actually, I think if I'd been in Barney Frank's shoes I would have just told Musgrave to her face that it's *none of her business* what the people of Massachusetts do.

[dsc]

4. actually one great thing happened

The author of the amendment is on record as saying it doesn't apply to civil unions. If it passes, that should be exhibit A in the case upholding Vermont's system not withstanding her amendment.

[Paschall]

5. Andrew Sullivan?

Despicable winger, but he's always supported gay marriage. (Don't know how he keeps his head from imploding.)

[northzax]

9. er, the argument against it

frankly, the Supreme Court has quite frequently upheld the right of the consistitution to deny certain rights to certain people. Look at the District of Columbia, for instance, 600,000 people, more than three states, but no congressional delegation. we still pay federal taxes, in fact we have more federal laws than any other citizens, and the Courts have consistently ruled that we can still be forced to pay federal taxes. it's an interesting idea, but it doesn't hgold water, I'm afraid.

[lastliberalintexas]

11. Yes, but

we wouldn't want all those Black folks to have full voting rights, now would we? And to actually matter in the election of the president- heaven forbid! Actual, real Senators and a Congressperson who would most certainly be liberal Dems? Can't have that! ;-)

What's happened with the move for DC statehood or full voting rights lately? In the 90s, it seemed like it was gaining ground, and then it disappeared. I know we have other very important issues to deal with right now, but the right to vote- and for it to actually matter- should ALWAYS be considered important.

Didn't mean to hijack the thread though!

[LizW]

15. I watched that discussion this morning

I thought it was fabulous. Barney Frank destroyed George Will and that poor Musgrave woman came off looking like a pathetic idiot. I loved it when Frank finally told her either she didn't understand the amendment she was proposing or she was just being dishonest about what it says.

You can tell a right winger position doesn't have a leg to stand on when the best George Will can come up with is the slippery slope argument. Frank just slammed Will when he brought up the "well, why not polygamy, then?" argument.

[GOPBasher]

14. Good news, but that's Mass

That's one of the most liberal states in the country, if not THE most liberal. If gay marriage had support even close to that nationwide, it'd be great, but unfortunately it doesn't.

[Lexingtonian]

16. Sometimes they're great

My state's citizens, that is.

As I understand it, the anti-marriage side is actually in a lot more of quandry than folks on DU seem to realize.

The Republicans can't afford to fracture their base- at all. But this matter splits people in both major parties; they, however, can't afford the gamble if you look at the numbers. So the federal amendment is in my opinion all smoke and noise until next November.

So the attempt will be made to try to squelch gay marriage inside Massachusetts state government. But it's hard to get amendments to state constitutions through when more than 30% of voters are against one. That's the meaning of this poll- the state legislators, and Romney, are risking their careers on this one. The smartest thing for all the players to do would be to abstain en masse from the bill needed, but for one vote.

[dsc]

17. That would be an interesting idea

I presume you have one person in each house that be able to vote for the bill due to living in a gay district.