A new Associated Press-GfK poll, conducted July 9 to July 13—less than three weeks after the Supreme Court ruled states cannot ban same-sex marriage—showed 42 percent support same-sex marriage, down from the 48 percent who said so in an April poll.
Asked specifically about the Supreme Court ruling, 39 percent said they approve and 41 percent said they disapprove.
The AP reports:
“Overall, if there’s a conflict, a majority of those questioned think religious liberties should win out over gay rights, according to the poll. While 39 percent said it’s more important for the government to protect gay rights, 56 percent said protection of religious liberties should take precedence.”
This is the cultural landscape in which LGBT activist leaders, post-marriage victory, are declaring their number one objective is passage of a comprehensive LGBT civil rights statute that will force service providers with religious objections to perform creative services for same-sex weddings.
Under their progressive leadership, which views state coercion backed by the threat of force and punishment as the prime tool for achieving cultural aims, we might yet see a backlash that turns victory into defeat.
More. Via Walter Olson, whether churches could lose tax-exempt status for not embracing same-sex marriage. There are, fortunately, constitutional barriers, but for some progressives it’s the stuff of their dreams.
Finally, the Cato Institute’s Roger Pilon exlains why “A society that cannot tolerate differing views—and respect the live-and-let-live principle—will not long be free.”
And the Cato Institute’s Emily Ekins further elaborates:
Americans seem inclined to support this nuanced view that businesses should serve all customers regardless of sexual orientation, religion, race, gender, income, national origin, etc.—but that wedding-related businesses requiring owners’ direct participation in the wedding should not be forced to provide service against the owners’ religious beliefs….
Taken together, these polls suggest that a sizeable share of Americans think the state should not prohibit same-sex couples from getting married and that the state should not require wedding-related business owners with religious objections to provide services against their will.
Popular opinion isn’t always right; this time it’s spot on.
21 Comments for “Turning Victory to Defeat”
posted by tom jefferson Iii on
Statesmen- no matter their party, faith, gender or sexuality – would want to protect religious freedom and civil rights.
Politicans only care about one…or only pretend to care about one.
posted by Mark Peterson on
And yet the Gallup Poll, in the field at the same time, shows support for marriage at 58 percent, 16 percent higher than the AP poll (whose numbers in general have been much lower than every other marriage over the past year):
http://www.gallup.com/poll/184217/support-gay-marriage-stable-high-court-ruling.aspx
So if Gallup’s correct, maybe the story is “turning victory into victory”?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I wouldn’t get too worried about a small drop in the polls on same-sex marriage. A similar drop occurred after every major marriage decision, going all the way back to the Massachusetts decision in 2004. The drop is temporary, if past is prolog.
The AP/GfK is, and has been for quite a while, a consistent outlier when it comes to same-sex marriage polling, typically running about 10% below other national polls (e.g. CNN/ORC, NBC/WSJ, CBS/NYT) which have been showing 55-40% support in recent polls. I don’t know enough about the sampling/methodology of the AP/GfK poll to suggest a reason why it consistently differs from other national polls.
The drop isn’t significant. As the article Stephen links points out, “the Associated Press-GfK poll … suggests support for gay unions may be down slightly from earlier this year”, the words may and slightly being operative.
posted by Mark Peterson on
As you point out, lots of reasons to be suspicious of this poll, just like any other poll outlier.
But we all know that if the poll actually had shown 65% support, Stephen’s post would have been exactly the same–except this time he would have framed his demands for allowing businesses owned by anti-gay types to discriminate on grounds of being gracious in victory, given the overwhelming support for the cause.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
But we all know that if the poll actually had shown 65% support, Stephen’s post would have been exactly the same–except this time he would have framed his demands for allowing businesses owned by anti-gay types to discriminate on grounds of being gracious in victory, given the overwhelming support for the cause.
Well, being gracious is one thing. Acquiescing in allowing the government to sanction special, targeted discrimination against gays and lesbians, discrimination not permitted with respect to anyone else, is another.
I just don’t get it. Stephen pushes for a limited, targeted same-sex marriage “religious exemption” for conservative Christian businesses (bakers, florists and photographers) providing “creative” services to the wedding industry. He (and other “libertarians” singing out of the same hymnal) argue that such an exemption is critical for maintaining “freedom” in a broader sense, that we “will not long be free” if we don’t go along and write the exemption into law.
In terms of advancing “freedom”, that seems like pretty small potatoes. The list of religious objections to marriages of one sort and another that is not sanctioned by Stephen’s proposal is endless.
What about the “religious freedom” of Catholics who object to remarriage after divorce? What about the “religious freedom” of Christians, Jews and Muslims who object to inter-faith marriages? What about the “religious freedom” of Christians who object to inter-denominational (e.g. Catholic/Baptist) marriages? What about the “religious freedom” of Christians (and there are more than you might think) who object to inter-racial marriage?
And what about the “religious freedom” of vendors providing services to weddings that are not “creative”?
The list of exclusions goes on and on and on. It would seem that Stephen and the other “libertarians” pounding the drum believe in “freedom”, but not much freedom.
Maybe I’m too cynical, but I can’t help but think that this is nothing more or less than a transparent attempt to keep the Republican social conservative/”libertarian” alliance intact long enough to elect a Republican President in the 2016 election. It doesn’t make sense otherwise.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Sigh.
The AP poll has been a consistent laggard in all marriage equality polls for the last few years – but the trend in their polling is solidly toward increased support – and declining support for the license-to-discriminate supported by Stephen.
I know it’s a little much to ask – but this is in the same realm as Maggie Gallagher comparing Gallop results from last year to Reuter results from last month.
posted by Mike in Houston on
I also want to point out that there was a similar dip in polls after the Lawrence ruling.
The “backlash” following Lawrence was entirely manufactured by the radical evangelical (majority?) base – aided and abetted by homocons like Ken Mehlman & the (as Lori aptly puts) useful idiots like LCR, GOProud, etc.
This post (again) lays bare the author’s disdain for civil equality for LGBT citizens – and cognitive disconnect with the previous remarks about ‘real enemies’ abroad who are one in the same.
posted by Lori Heine on
The reason Islamist extremists in the Middle East are more far-out than Christianists here is that We, the People won’t let our homegrown nutcases go to the same extremes. The very same progressives, liberals and libertarians people like Stephen dismiss as being so supposedly wrong are the force that holds Christianist lunacy in check.
I am personally very tired of hearing about the Confederate battle flag. If I hear about it again, I may scream. But though it is an overreaction, the whole ban-the-flag brouhaha does illustrate why the U.S. is a better place for minorities to live than anywhere in the Middle East might be.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’m not sure how the question of the Confederate battle flag showed up in this thread, but I have an observation.
I live in rural Wisconsin. During the Civil War, a prisoner-of-war camp was located about 10-12 miles northwest of where I live. As a result (both of the camp itself and because a number of prisoners chose to remain in the area after the war was finished), we have a number of Confederate veteran graves in local cemeteries.
We honor the graves of those Confederate soldiers as we do the graves of Union soldiers — we decorate the graves on Memorial Day with the national flag under which the soldiers fought, the flag of the United States of America and the Confederate States of America, respectively.
The Confederate battle flag became a symbol of opposition to Civil Rights during the 1950’s and 1960’s, and is no longer a fitting symbol with which to honor the service and sacrifice of Confederate veterans.
posted by Kosh III on
” progressive leadership, which views state coercion backed by the threat of force and punishment as the prime tool for achieving cultural aims”
Funny how we never hear mention of the decades, even centuries when state coercion, force and punishment were used by conservative/righwing/evangelicals to keep gays, women, blacks and “others” oppressed and in the closet with LESSER rights than straight rich white men.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Finally, the Cato Institute’s Roger Pilon ex[p]lains why “A society that cannot tolerate differing views—and respect the live-and-let-live principle—will not long be free.”
The article is worth reading, because it puts the current controversy over “bakers, florists and photographers” into the broader context of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Sherbert, Employment Division and federal and state RFRA laws.
However, as seems to be the case often in the flap over “bakers, florists and photographers”, the article slides over three key issues:
(1) Does the Sherbert test (substantial burden, compelling state interest, narrowly tailored), narrowed by Employment Division, and restored (in theory, anyway) by federal and state RFRA laws, “trump” public accommodations laws?
The answer to that question is not yet final, but so far courts confronting the question have concluded that public accommodations laws do not impose a “substantial burden” upon a business owner subject to the laws, and, as a result, the Sherbert test does not “trump” public accommdations laws.
(2) Given that the Sherbert test (embodied in federal and state RFRA laws) does not “trump” public accommodations laws, are specific, targeted laws going to be needed to exempt “bakers, florists and photographers” from having to provide services (“creative” or otherwise) to weddings on the basis of religious objection?
The answer to that question would appear to be “Yes”.
(3) If targeted laws are going to be needed, should the laws granting a “religious freedom” exemption to public accommodations laws for “bakers, florists and photographers” meet the “equal means equal” test (religion-neutral, issue-neutral and class-neutral) or should the laws be specifically targeted at same-sex weddings, giving government sanction to special discrimination against gays and lesbians, but no one else covered by public accommodations laws?
The answer to that question, in my mind, is that any targeted laws that are enacted must meet the “equal means equal” test, both because laws that fail to meet the test are unlikely to survive constitutional scrutiny, and for obvious and compelling public policy reasons. If a targeted law addresses religious objections to weddings, it seems to me, it must permit religious exemptions to any and all weddings (same-sex, inter-racial, inter-religious, inter-denominational, remarriage after divorce) to which religious objection might apply. To do otherwise creates a situation in which one protected class is the subject of special discrimination, and one form of religious objection is favored over others.
However, to date, I have yet to read a “libertarian” argument in favor of targeted laws that addresses this question, let alone answers it.
It is not enough to espouse broad principles like “A society that cannot tolerate differing views — and respect the live-and-let-live principle — will not long be free.” without addressing those basic questions. Unless the questions are addressed in the public policy debate surrounding the so-called “religious freedom” exemptions, we cannot have a reasoned discussion of the role of religious exemptions to public accommodations laws.
Mark my words — the questions are basic and will be addressed, sooner or later, in the courts if nowhere else.
posted by Houndentenor on
Congratulations. You found a blogger no one’s ever heard of before with a ridiculous and unconstitutional idea of stripping churches of their tax exempt status for not supporting marriage for gay couples. If that were possible they’d have done the same thing years ago to churches that don’t ordain women in their clergy. But they didn’t and they aren’t going to. It’s an absurd proposal and to even pretend that anyone beyond a tiny fringe takes that proposal seriously is absurd. it will, of course, be used to fuel right wing hysteria on this issue so thanks for pouring fuel on the fire, Stephen.
posted by Lori Heine on
This is an old ploy, used frequently by both left and right. It’s used frequently on Joe My God, a site I visit several times a week but never comment on, because their commenters are far less civil than the ones here.
The ploy works like this: look under every slimy rock for weirdos who say crazy stuff, then represent it as the mainstream of the opposing side. When IGF does this, it’s no different than when lefties try to portray those who advocate shooting us in the head as mainstream conservatives.
Houndentenor, you are right. This does nothing but pour fuel on the fire.
posted by Houndentenor on
Agreed. Like the Republican anti-gay bill that is being proposed right now. I doubt that will even get out of committee much less get passed. It’s just red meat for the right wing. It’s revolting and serves to remind me of what bigots the GOP is made of, but it’s not something to get to worked up about. There are actual issues and actual bills that will come up for a vote that should be getting our attention. Everything else is a distraction.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
The Confederate flag should not be endorsed by a State government, which is about all the government itself can do with the flag. Its a First Amendment issue when a private citizen or group wants to display the flag, and its a historical issue when we talk about a historical exhibit.
The Confederate flag has always been something of an emotional and “sore point” with Southerns (regardless of party affiliation).
Some white people really think that the flag is just a symbol of friendly, Southern “good old boys”, Southern slang, Southern cooking and Southern folksyways. I think that they are incredible foolish and ignorant, but this is why the flag still pops up in popular culture depictions of the South (i.e. like the original Dukes T.V. show)
Most of the black Southerners — and most of the Jewish Southerns — that I have met understand the racist underpinnings of the Confederate flag, and welcome the fact that it is no longer flying over certain State capital buildings.
The problem has always been the fact that the Confederate flag is popular among hardcore, KKK racists as well as among white Southerners who would reject any suggestion that they were remotely racist.
Arguments about the use of the flag — as well as public schools and roads being named after Confederate war heroes have taken place, but rarely done much good in terms of removing the flag or changing a name. It seems to me that most Southern civil right groups have tended to focus on other issues, because that was the political reality.
posted by JohnInCA on
“Live and let live”? I’ve been seeing this bandied about a lot lately and frankly it’s confusing.
Mostly because it only works if you have both “sides” trying, in good faith, to “live and let live”. But the “live and let live” demand is only being asked of one side. And funny enough, it’s not being asked of the side that fought to keep our lives by-and-large illegal.
The people that opposed Clinton’s executive order allowing gay people to have security clearances? No one is telling them to “live and let live”.
The people that argued in court that we should continue to criminalize gay sex? No one is telling them to “live and let live”.
The people that opposed civil unions, domestic partnerships, and marriage? No one is telling them to “live and let live”.
The people that have opposed hospital visitation rights, funeral rights, the rights to have our own wills respected? No one is telling them to “live and let live”.
The people that are already protected from discrimination by federal law? No one is telling them to “live and let live”.
No. It’s the people that can be married on Sunday, fired on Monday, and evicted on Tuesday that are being told to “live and let live”.
No… claims for “live and let live”, right now, are really “hurt them where we can”. It’s disingenuous and dishonest.
posted by Lori Heine on
I just read a wonderful essay in “The Freeman” that I think captures the conflict now brewing in the libertarian movement. It addresses the growing divide between what its author, Jeffrey Tucker, calls the “humanitarians” and the “brutalists.” And it may shed some light on a subject that’s confusing to many non-libertarians.
As a “humanitarian” libertarian, I am repulsed by the growing brutalism of those who scream “religious liberty” while defiling it. I don’t think that makes me a dangerous radical by libertarian standards. It does show that libertarian philosophy is becoming more complex and harder to summarize. The Libertarian Party and magazines like “Reason” tend to ignore that divide, but it is very real. It would make Ayn Rand’s head explode.
Here’s that link:
http://fee.org/freeman/detail/against-libertarian-brutalism
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
(sigh) American politics has becoming increasing driven by spreading hate and fear.
Instead of protecting religious freedom and civil rights, we get lawsuits and fear mongeribg and hysteria.
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
The Costa Rica libertarian party is an interesting case study
The party won some seats in the 1990s and started to get noticed.
With the taste of power, the party suddenly took right wing positions on social issues, especially LGBT rights.
A elected legislstor tried to ban gay people from adopting children, and the party backed off from earlier support of “equal means equal”.
Now the party is libertarian in name only.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
And the Cato Institute’s Emily Ekins further elaborates [discussing the AP/GfK poll]: “Taken together, these polls suggest that a sizeable share of Americans think the state should not prohibit same-sex couples from getting married and that the state should not require wedding-related business owners with religious objections to provide services against their will.” Stephen observes: “Popular opinion isn’t always right; this time it’s spot on.”
I would be more likely to take the pile-on of “libertarians” pounding the drum for a religious objection exemption to public accommodations laws in the case of same-sex marriages seriously, if the “libertarians” would discuss religious objections to inter-racial marriage, inter-religious marriage, inter-denominational marriage, and remarriage after divorce, comparing and constrasting the situations, and explaining why religious objection to same-sex marriage deserves an exemption to public accommodations laws but none of the other cases do.
Supporting the bias de jure among the American populace from time to time is not sufficient reason for the government to sanction special discrimination against a class of citizens or for the government to deem a particular religious objection worthy of government protection while deeming other, substantially similar, religious objections unworthy of government protection.
posted by Jorge on
I would be more likely to take the pile-on of “libertarians” pounding the drum for a religious objection exemption to public accommodations laws in the case of same-sex marriages seriously, if the “libertarians” would discuss religious objections to inter-racial marriage, inter-religious marriage, inter-denominational marriage, and remarriage after divorce, comparing and constrasting the situations, and explaining why religious objection to same-sex marriage deserves an exemption to public accommodations laws but none of the other cases do.
You always ask this question, but it’s been answered in the past. The only problem is only the smartest libertarians can do so competently.
It’s kind of like asking why people don’t want to ban alcohol if marijuana is worse.
We do want to ban alcohol. It’ll just never happen.