Updated July 17
Yes, this poll showing majority support for anti-gay state marriage amendments and, in general, candidates that support them-including among "soft Democrats"-is from the anti-gay Family Research Council. But it's also largely consistent with other polling. If there are polls showing more optimistic findings, I'd like to see them.
Also, the Washington Blade takes a clear-eyed look at opposition to same-sex marriage and civil unions among a big majority of African Americans. The Blade reports that:
two-thirds of black Americans are against gay marriage. Although the numbers vary by poll, research shows most blacks oppose both gay marriage and civil unions. The findings come as some surveys show a majority of whites have dropped their objections to same-sex unions.
Remember that this is a core Democratic demographic that much LGBT activist propaganda portrays as our steadfast progressive allies in the grand coalition of the left.
Even with an Obama victory, the passage of anti-gay marriage amendments in California and Florida remains frighteningly likely. Yet the overwhelming energy of national LGBT groups seems to be targeted at aiding a Democratic presidential win, not defeating anti-gay amendments, just as it was eight years ago.
More. I'm all for boycotting major donors to the anti-gay marriage drive in California or elsewhere; that's democracy in action. It's what the beltway LGBT groups ought to be doing if they weren't so all consumed by working on behalf of the Obama campaign.
Furthermore. Richard Nixon predicted same-sex marriage by 2000! From a Gail Collins op-ed in the NY Times:
Back in 1970, when Americans were still adjusting to the Supreme Court ruling that people of different races had a constitutional right to wed, someone suggested to President Richard Nixon that same-sex marriages would be next.
"I can't go that far; that's the year 2000," Nixon rejoined.
Collins comments, "Nixon was a little early." And if this November sees passage of anti-marriage amendments in California, Florida, and elsewhere, we may be looking at yet another generation of waiting. That's why defeating these amendment should be the #1 task for gay Americans and their political lobbies. Should be, but isn't. (After all, what mid-level political appointments can national LGBT activist leaders expect by working to defeat state amendments, as opposed to providing their unconditional support to their party's presidential campaign?)
28 Comments for “Marriage Poll Warnings”
posted by queerunity on
i wouldnt take any poll that came from FRC seriously
http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com
posted by ablkafrican on
I agree with Stephen. The Black American opposition to gay marriage and even civil unions is a matter of grave concern. The opposition is primarily due to religious interpretation. I am thinking of starting a conversation on homophobia in the black church within my faith community
posted by Ashpenaz on
This anti-gay backlash is rooted in Stonewall. From from opening doors for gays, Stonewall forever cemented the world of drag as the image of homosexuality in the mind of society. Stonewall led to Pride parades and rallies, which further cemented the image of gays as amoral, hedonisic, and exotic. Because of Stonewall and the Pride aftermath, no one in their right mind would want gays to marry or adopt children. It will take years of hard work by us “normies” to undo the damage of Stonewall and Pride and be able to marry and raise children alongside our straight counterparts.
posted by Jim on
It hardly takes much reflection to question various aspects of this poll.
1. Who knew that over 1/3rd of all Americans are Southerners, there heftiest geographic region?
2. Is the largest age demographic really 55-64 year olds [28% of poll vs. 14% of the voting age population]? No.
3. While the survey does reflect more Democrats than Republicans, it still overweights Republicans according to all high profile surveys of current Party affiliation. What’s more, given reports like ‘Fla. Dems increase registrations 7-1 over GOP’ doesn’t this by itself create serious distrust of this survey’s results?
3. Notice how the only response standard is limited to “much more X” rather than “more” or “a bit more” or “not at all.” Given that the average voter almost certainly would answer “not at all” (that is, ‘same-sex marriage ranks near the bottom of issues that sway my vote’) the conclusion I reach from this survey’s partial response release is that those who strongly oppose marriage equality are demographically larger and more passionate in opposition than those strongly support. [Gays aren’t exactly a large group. When was the last time you heard a non-gay publically railing in FAVOR of same-sex marriage? Again, the Average Joe really doesn’t have a strong opinion about something that doesn’t touch him/her directly.] General elections bring out the ‘shrug’ voters who don’t really care but also wonder what all the outrage is about.
4. Most states have already adopted these measures for themselves. Surveying how respondents feel in these states about such ballot measures in the few remaining states considering such measures is near meaningless unless one believes that these non-adopter states’ non-adoption is random and not purposeful. I don’t; most states who have not yet banned same-sex marriage are unlikely to do so in the future (although its hardly impossible either). Does anyone really care what the people of, say, Alabama think about California’s same-sex policies?
posted by Kevin on
The FRC study purports to be a representative national sample but has a sampling flaw in that it had a disproportionate proportion of respondents from the southern part of the US. Not surprisingly, it shows more support for anti-gay politicians and amendments than other polls have shown.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Fortunately, none of this matters since the vast majority of gays don’t want marriage and the responsibility and monogamy (or vaneer thereof) which goes with it. For proof, note the rushing wave of lifelong, monogamous partners jumping on the first plane to California so they can finally make legal what has always been a traditional relationship. Wait for it–is that crickets instead?
Where are all these gay couples that are “just like straights” in their traditional, but not yet legal, arrangements? I’ve been told, ad nauseum, that normal, traditional gays vastly outnumber the Pride and Stonewall gays. That if people really looked at the gay community, they’d see nothing but lifelong couples adopting childen and volunteering for PTA in their suburban homes, Somewhere That’s Green. Well, marriage is on the books now–where are the lines for the marriage licenses? Did I miss something?
posted by Bobby on
Ashpenaz, same-sex marriage is like getting rid of the ban of gays in the military, only a minority of people will join. It’s not a big deal.
Stonewall was far more important because it got the cops to stop busting gay bars and arresting everyone. And back then you had to go to a gay bar if you wanted to meet gays.
Stonewall is the reason you and I can write on this website and not get arrested.
“This anti-gay backlash is rooted in Stonewall.”
—Most straight people can’t remember stonewall, as for those freaky gays you don’t like, they’re not the problem, most Americans like their drag queens, they love being entertained.
The problem is this, our society is under great moral decay. Heard the story of the school where a bunch of 12 to 14 year old girls wanted to get pregnant? My point is that under all this society problems, we gays are getting the blame. It’s totally unfair, we’re not responsible, Generation Y is doing all kinds of fucked up shit out of their own free will. Instead, we’re being blamed, and the social conservatives are saying that same-sex marriage will simply make things worse.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I’m not convinced that Stonewall is why I can write here and not get arrested, but I do know that Stonewall and its aftermath is why I can’t get married in Nebraska.
And it has never been illegal to be a “confirmed bachelor” who has a “roommate” to help with expenses.
posted by Hank on
Ash I’ve always kind of enjoyed your comments. (Wentworth is the cute one, by the way.)
But your continued bashing of gays for their out of control ways is just silly. Some gay guys are pigs; so are some straight guys.
Time to move on, buddy.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I agree that defeating anti-gay ballot initiatives should be a high priority, which is why I have contributed to the cause and have encouraged others to do so. I also think it’s important to defeat Republicans, something that even many conservatives are saying this year.
African American homophobia, and the gap on this issue between African American voters and, say, the Congressional Black Caucus, demonstrates how much more work we have to do.
posted by Craig2 on
Why not simply repeal any legislative enablement for the ballot initiative process? Or is it sufficiently hardwired into constitutional law to withstand critical scrutiny? Romer v Evans suggests that it might not be.
Populist plebiscites are not real democracy.
Craig2
Wellington, New Zealand
posted by Bobby on
“And it has never been illegal to be a “confirmed bachelor” who has a “roommate” to help with expenses.”
—And I’m sure it must be fun not bringing that roommate to the office Christmas party. One of the things I hate about my life is that every time I go to a breeder event I don’t have a man by my side, so I have to watch the breeders kiss each other and engage in all sorts of heterosexual debauchery while I’m alone.
On the other hand, thanks to Stonewall, my office has an openly gay drag queen, sure, he doesn’t wear drag during office hours, but thanks to the culture of tolerance, he doesn’t have to hide who he is, he even invited his fellow workers to one of his shows. He sent the invitation by e-mail to the entire office.
Without stonewall his ass would have been fired long ago.
As for you getting married in Nebraska, that’s going to take 10 or 20 more years. Don’t tell me you’re like those gays that want everything today?
posted by Pat on
but I do know that Stonewall and its aftermath is why I can’t get married in Nebraska.
Since Stonewall cannot be undone, we’ll never know for sure. But I highly doubt it. Unless, that is, Nebraska has gotten rid of marriage entirely because of Mardi Gras and the aftermath that occurs every year.
And it has never been illegal to be a “confirmed bachelor” who has a “roommate” to help with expenses.
Even after Stonewall? Pretty big aspiration there to be a euphemism.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I still haven’t seen that tsunami of those millions of lifelong, monogamous couples which so vastly outnumber the 50 or so flamboyant gays who jump from parade to parade, obscuring the truth about the bedrock traditional values of the gay community. Is the press just not covering the lines that go on, block after block, in every courthouse in California? Did I miss something?
Or is the gay community simply like a child who throws a tantrum until he gets something, only to realize that he doesn’t want it, and the only reason he thought he wanted it was because he didn’t have it?
(I think you have more of a chance with Wentworth, though I think that there’s something going on between him and Sucre. I have to admit, I haven’t been watching lately, my attention having been drawn to reruns of the obscure John Doe on SciFi. Plus, there’s all those Jason Statham movies out there–he’s one of the suspiciously single.)
posted by Pat on
Or is the gay community simply like a child who throws a tantrum until he gets something, only to realize that he doesn’t want it, and the only reason he thought he wanted it was because he didn’t have it?
Or could it be it doesn’t have to be one or the other? Many support getting rid of DADT for good reason. This doesn’t mean that every gay person is going to enlist in the military.
Same with marriage. Sure, there are some people who want it simply to show up some other group who thinks we shouldn’t get it. But there are good reasons to support it. This doesn’t mean that every gay person should get married right away, or ever get married.
So why isn’t everyone going to California to get married? Could be lots of reasons. Some aren’t coupled right now. Some are, but aren’t at the point to be married. Some don’t feel that gay people should get married, and don’t out of principal. Some pathetically, preferred to referred as a “confirmed bachelor” and only have a “roommate” to help with expenses. Ashpenaz, tell us how your marriage went in California, or is there a good reason why you aren’t married yet?
posted by DUMP on
Ashpenaz, tell us how your marriage went in California, or is there a good reason why you aren’t married yet?
It would be hard for James to get married…in his many decades on earth, he’s never had a relationship. He is alone, angry and bitter. Let him stew in his own miserable juices and rant on the internet…he’s harmless that way.
posted by hank on
Have to agree with you on Jason Statham….
Ash my partner and I are monogamous, out to some of the people in my conservative suburban neighborhood, but we’re not headed to California. We’ll wait awhile till marriage comes to Georgia, which may take even longer than Nebraska.
But that doesn’t mean we’re not committed to each other.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Alone, angry, bitter–please–no more comparisons to Kathy Griffin!
Actually, it’s interesting to me how many gay people there are in Central Nebraska. I’ve met one or two at church. And I haven’t even had to go up to them secretly and say, “Hey, diva girlfriend, are you family?” It’s just part of the basic getting to know people process.
I suspect that many people like Hank and the Huskers described above are waiting for the marriage wave to reach their state. But I’m still perplexed–after all those Pride parades all over California with their “We Are Everywhere” banners, you’d think there’d be more couples walking up the courthouse steps. Apparently, those bright, rainbow-colored banners were meant to say “We Are Everywhere Except In The Courthouse Vowing Lifelong Monogamy.”
posted by DUMP on
You are single, correct? That means you are alone.
Your posts here are consistently angry. That means you are angry.
Your posts here are EXCEPTIONALLY bitter. You are bitter.
Perhaps a good therapist could help you with these problems (and they are problems).
posted by Richard on
I suspect that their is plently of racism — among white gay men and women — just as their is plently of homophobia/seixsm among black men and or women. Much of the problem, in terms of African Americans, is basically two issues.
* First off all, fewer African Americans come out, compared to gay people of other racial/ethnic groups. At least in my exprience. Just as it is a bit easier for a gay Republican to debunk homophobia among Republicans, it is also a bit easier for LGBT African Americans to debunk homophobia within the black community.
Why do fewer African American LGBT people come out? Part of it is basic economics. People (seperate from race) higher up the socio-economic ladder are more likely to come out, and their is still a relationship in America between race and class mobility.
The Second issue is the role of the black church within the black community. It is largely a positive institutional role, and has been one of the few stable and “independent” institutions throughout black history.
Religion can be a positive or negative role in people’s lives and if more gay African Americans come out, faith based issue will be a major focus.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Wow–single means alone–that’s really, really condescending and stereotypical. No one can possibly lead any kind of fulfilling life without having to lean on a partner. Good thing I have Mrs. Whiskerpuff to curl up with me.
Angry–anger at the gay community doesn’t mean anger at everything else. I like, you know, snowflakes, chamomile tea, and reruns of the Gilmore Girls.
Bitter–I’d rather say I have a dry wit, like, say Fran Lebowitz. But since bitter can mean my favorite things–espresso or gin, say–I’ll accept being bitter.
posted by Pat on
But I’m still perplexed–after all those Pride parades all over California with their “We Are Everywhere” banners, you’d think there’d be more couples walking up the courthouse steps.
I gave some reasons before here’s some more.
1. One or both are still trying to find the perfect, fabulous wedding dress/gown for the wedding.
2. The couple is fighting over euphemisms, i.e., who should be called “confirmed bachelor” and who should be called “the funny uncle.”
Seriously, Ashpenaz, don’t wait for the gay community to change for you as an excuse.
Wow–single means alone–that’s really, really condescending and stereotypical. No one can possibly lead any kind of fulfilling life without having to lean on a partner.
I agree there is nothing wrong for being single. I was for 20 out of 25 years of my adult life. But I have to say I really enjoyed it when I stopped blaming the gay community or anyone else for my own problems. (Of course, this doesn’t mean that others shouldn’t be criticized. We just shouldn’t have our happiness dependent on what others do, or having a community shaped to our complete liking).
posted by Bobby on
Richard, there’s more homophobia in the black community, period. It’s a cultural thing. When a white says something homophobic, other liberal whites condemn it. But when blacks do it, liberal whites ignore it, excuse it, or offer a timid condemnation.
posted by Ashpenaz on
To clarify–I’m not blaming the gay community for any of my problems. I am criticizing the gay community for what I see it doing. Not blaming–being honest. Gosh, this is just like arguing with my mother.
posted by Pat on
To clarify–I’m not blaming the gay community for any of my problems. I am criticizing the gay community for what I see it doing. Not blaming–being honest.
Fair enough. I’ll take you at your word.
Gosh, this is just like arguing with my mother.
So now you know the problem in conveying your argument may not be your mother. 😉
posted by Drew on
This is proof again that the GLBT needs to start locally in supporting gay rights.
posted by Timothy on
I guess Ashpenaz hasn’t caught the news, but there HAVE been lines to get married. Not millions, yet, but definitely tens of thousands.
Perhaps its perspective or geography. When you live in California you have a better idea of what is happening in California. And here in my home state, gay couples are getting married.
And, even more importantly, the culture within the community has shifted. There is an expectation of the possibility of marriage and marriage is part of the discussion that daters have.
posted by Timothy on
As the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding.
Poll results that report obviously incorrect information can be dismissed outright as propaganda. And this one is clearly bogus.
It reports that the Pacific region split 54 – 33 to favor presidential candidates that endorse gay bans. It doesn’t take a political scientist to know that CA, OR and WA are among the most pro-gay parts of the country. To claim 33% is pure and utter nonsense.
The latest Field Poll found that Californians oppose the current ban by 51% to 42% (virtually unchanged since May).
Oregon voters in 2004 approved their ban 57% to 43%. All tracking on this issue shows significant improvement since 2004.
Washington anti-gays couldn’t get enough signatures to put an anti-marriage amendment on the ballot.
And yet the FRC wants us to believe that only 33% of Pacific voters would be less likely to support a candidate that endorses anti-gay marriage propositions.
If you believe that, I’ve got some swamp land.. uh, I mean prime real estate… to sell you.