Polls on Same-Sex Marriage State Laws

[CARLHAYDEN]

California 2000 vs California 2008 maybe? I dunno. Avert your eyes if you don't wanna see the "trend".

Let me, the homosexual lobby LOST in 2008 in California.

Interesting trend.

[President Marokai]

California 2000 vs California 2008 maybe? I dunno. Avert your eyes if you don't wanna see the "trend".

Let me, the homosexual lobby LOST in 2008 in California.

Interesting trend.

Do you know what the word "trend" means?

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

CARLHAYDEN and J. J. constantly have times when I can't tell if they're just trolling or are the two densest people on Earth.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Studies indicate that polls significantly overstate public support for 'gay marriage."

http://prospect.org/article/when-can-you-trust-polling-about-ballot-measures

http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4819/egan_marriage_polling.pdf

This is pretty well-known already, but must be a shallow comfort for you folks considering the obvious trend you're working against.

Hmm.

You didn't "know" or acknowledge it when I pointed this out previous.

I'm not sure that's English, but...have I disagreed in the past?  I don't respond to every post you make to indicate my agreement or disagreement.

Oh, and would you please point out where the electorate (as opposed to inaccurate surveys) shows such a "trend"?

Are you claiming that national and state polling that shows a long-term trend toward support of gay marriage increasing is..."inaccurate" because of the gap between it and Election Day results?  Yeah, I'm not sure you know what a "trend" is either.

[krazen1211]

Studies indicate that polls significantly overstate public support for 'gay marriage."

http://prospect.org/article/when-can-you-trust-polling-about-ballot-measures

http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4819/egan_marriage_polling.pdf

Yes, of course. All the polling in the universe does not address or reflect the actual performance of homosexuality at the ballot box.

[The Mikado]

Pennsylvania joins the gay-haters, according to the new PPP poll:

Do you think same-sex marriage should be legal or illegal?

Legal............................................................... 36%
Illegal .............................................................. 52%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_PA_1129513.pdf

Most likely the previous F&M poll was a bad one ...

Worth noting the 12% undecided.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Studies indicate that polls significantly overstate public support for 'gay marriage."

http://prospect.org/article/when-can-you-trust-polling-about-ballot-measures

http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4819/egan_marriage_polling.pdf

Yes, of course. All the polling in the universe does not address or reflect the actual performance of homosexuality at the ballot box.

I don't understand how you guys think about this.  Are you insinuating that the underperformance of gay rights at the ballot box somehow negates the obvious trends we've seen in social science polling (and at the ballot box, really) on this issue over the past decade?

[Stardust]

Studies indicate that polls significantly overstate public support for 'gay marriage."

http://prospect.org/article/when-can-you-trust-polling-about-ballot-measures

http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4819/egan_marriage_polling.pdf

Yes, of course. All the polling in the universe does not address or reflect the actual performance of homosexuality at the ballot box.

I don't understand how you guys think about this.  Are you insinuating that the underperformance of gay rights at the ballot box somehow negates the obvious trends we've seen in social science polling (and at the ballot box, really) on this issue over the past decade?

I believe he's suggesting there exists a sort-of Bradley Effect on the issue.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Studies indicate that polls significantly overstate public support for 'gay marriage."

http://prospect.org/article/when-can-you-trust-polling-about-ballot-measures

http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4819/egan_marriage_polling.pdf

Yes, of course. All the polling in the universe does not address or reflect the actual performance of homosexuality at the ballot box.

I don't understand how you guys think about this.  Are you insinuating that the underperformance of gay rights at the ballot box somehow negates the obvious trends we've seen in social science polling (and at the ballot box, really) on this issue over the past decade?

I believe he's suggesting there exists a sort-of Bradley Effect on the issue.

I get that, but that doesn't mean the polls "don't address" the actual performance, nor does it suggest the trend seen in polling on the issue is false.  It seems like both posters I'm quoting are making additional claims besides a sort of "Bradley Effect" (maybe I'm wrong) but aren't being clear what they mean.

[CARLHAYDEN]

California 2000 vs California 2008 maybe? I dunno. Avert your eyes if you don't wanna see the "trend".

Let me, the homosexual lobby LOST in 2008 in California.

Interesting trend.

Do you know what the word "trend" means?

Well, lets look at the record.

First, in 2008, due to intensive effort on the left and disgust among voters on the right with the Presidential candidates, the actual voters in the 2008 General Election were farther to the left than in recent elections prior to or subsequent to that election.

Second, California is generally regarded by political observers as being well to the left of the rest of America.

Third, the proponents of homosexual marriage considered putting a new measure on the ballot in 2010 but were advised against doing so by experts who told them (I believe correctly) that the electorate in 2010 would be more unfavorable to them than in 2008.

So, when you cann't win in a left state when the wind is at your back, the 'trend' is against you.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Studies indicate that polls significantly overstate public support for 'gay marriage."

http://prospect.org/article/when-can-you-trust-polling-about-ballot-measures

http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4819/egan_marriage_polling.pdf

This is pretty well-known already, but must be a shallow comfort for you folks considering the obvious trend you're working against.

Hmm.

You didn't "know" or acknowledge it when I pointed this out previous.

I'm not sure that's English, but...have I disagreed in the past?  I don't respond to every post you make to indicate my agreement or disagreement.

Oh, and would you please point out where the electorate (as opposed to inaccurate surveys) shows such a "trend"?

Are you claiming that national and state polling that shows a long-term trend toward support of gay marriage increasing is..."inaccurate" because of the gap between it and Election Day results?  Yeah, I'm not sure you know what a "trend" is either.

Alcon,

You are truly comical.  Yes, there are a lot of things you don't understand.

Did you bother to look at any of the studies for which I provided the url?

Now, yes, some surveys show an increase in support for homosexuality, including 'gay marriage,' but if you look at the election returns on that issue ('gay marriage') you will see that the 'polls' have been pretty consistently overstating such support relative to actual votes.  A most recent example being Maine.

Also, when opponents of 'gay marriage' sought to put the issue on the ballot in Massachusetts the proponents of 'gay marriage' fiercely opposed such a vote.  It would seem to me if they were confident of winning (the proponents of 'gay marriage') in Massachusetts they would welcome such an example of public support. 

[Joe Republic]

Why the apostrophes, CARL?

[Stardust]

It would seem to me if they were confident of winning (the proponents of 'gay marriage') in Massachusetts they would welcome such an example of public support.  

Why? Direct democracy ought to be opposed by anyone who feels strongly on just about any political issue. Nobody should propose holding referenda on any subject they consider important, because the democratic process debases all subjects. I would hope that a conservative like yourself would understand that and share my hostility towards mass politics.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Why the apostrophes, CARL?

There's a a quotation attributed to Abraham Lincoln that asserts that calling a tail a leg is simply false.

'Gay marriage' is a definitional falsity.

[CARLHAYDEN]

It would seem to me if they were confident of winning (the proponents of 'gay marriage') in Massachusetts they would welcome such an example of public support.  

Why? Direct democracy ought to be opposed by anyone who feels strongly on just about any political issue. Nobody should propose holding referenda on any subject they consider important, because the democratic process debases all subjects. I would hope that a conservative like yourself would understand that and share my hostility towards mass politics.

Yours is a legitimate position.

However, this thread is about the inaccuracy of polls on state 'same-sex marriage' laws.

Now, will you in turn admit that if there had been a referendum on the Massachusetts 'gay marriage' law, the voters may have rejected 'gay marriage'?

[Joe Republic]

Why the apostrophes, CARL?

There's a a quotation attributed to Abraham Lincoln that asserts that calling a tail a leg is simply false.

'Gay marriage' is a definitional falsity.

How so?

[Stardust]

Now, will you in turn admit that if there had been a referendum on the Massachusetts 'gay marriage' law, the voters may have rejected 'gay marriage'?

I readily admit that. I'm not sure, however, why I ought to accept the judgment of the voters as a qualitatively valid one.

[danny]

California 2000 vs California 2008 maybe? I dunno. Avert your eyes if you don't wanna see the "trend".

Let me, the homosexual lobby LOST in 2008 in California.

Interesting trend.

Do you know what the word "trend" means?

Well, lets look at the record.

First, in 2008, due to intensive effort on the left and disgust among voters on the right with the Presidential candidates, the actual voters in the 2008 General Election were farther to the left than in recent elections prior to or subsequent to that election.

Second, California is generally regarded by political observers as being well to the left of the rest of America.

Third, the proponents of homosexual marriage considered putting a new measure on the ballot in 2010 but were advised against doing so by experts who told them (I believe correctly) that the electorate in 2010 would be more unfavorable to them than in 2008.

So, when you cann't win in a left state when the wind is at your back, the 'trend' is against you.

Proposition 22 (2000):
yes 61.40%
no 38.60%
margin 22.8

Proposition 8 (2008):
yes 52.47%
no 47.76%
margin 4.71

That's a difference of 18 in 8 years or about 2.25 per year, if a similar trend were to continue until 2012 the results would be 4.3% in favour of gay marriage.

[President Marokai]

California 2000 vs California 2008 maybe? I dunno. Avert your eyes if you don't wanna see the "trend".

Let me, the homosexual lobby LOST in 2008 in California.

Interesting trend.

Do you know what the word "trend" means?

Well, lets look at the record.

Yes, let's 'look' at the 'record' then, 'Carl.'

It's not even that complicated, you only have to just look at a wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

In the mid-90s, support for gay marriage was in the mid-high 20's. Throughout the early 2000's, support nudged upward through the 30s. In the last 3-4 years, support for gay marriage as evolved rapidly. This isn't a matter of opinion, the country is coming around to supporting gay marriage and it will happen whether you like it or not, sooner or later. There has been an undeniable upward tend in support for gay marriage in the last 15 years.

As the poster previous to me just mentioned, there's been an 18% swing in favor of gay marriage from 2000 to 2008. Since 2008, the national opinion of gay marriage has swung even more in favor of gay marriage.

This is what trend means, Carl:

trend (plural trends)
    An inclination in a particular direction

[CARLHAYDEN]

California 2000 vs California 2008 maybe? I dunno. Avert your eyes if you don't wanna see the "trend".

Let me, the homosexual lobby LOST in 2008 in California.

Interesting trend.

Do you know what the word "trend" means?

Well, lets look at the record.

First, in 2008, due to intensive effort on the left and disgust among voters on the right with the Presidential candidates, the actual voters in the 2008 General Election were farther to the left than in recent elections prior to or subsequent to that election.

Second, California is generally regarded by political observers as being well to the left of the rest of America.

Third, the proponents of homosexual marriage considered putting a new measure on the ballot in 2010 but were advised against doing so by experts who told them (I believe correctly) that the electorate in 2010 would be more unfavorable to them than in 2008.

So, when you cann't win in a left state when the wind is at your back, the 'trend' is against you.

Proposition 22 (2000):
yes 61.40%
no 38.60%
margin 22.8

Proposition 8 (2008):
yes 52.47%
no 47.76%
margin 4.71

That's a difference of 18 in 8 years or about 2.25 per year, if a similar trend were to continue until 2012 the results would be 4.3% in favour of gay marriage.

I tried to be clear about this, but apparently not clear enough for you.

In 2008, the Democrats achieved a remarkable increase in support at the polls in California while Republicans suffered a significant increase, both relative to 2000.

Now support for 'gay marriage' is significantly greater among Democrats than Republicans in California (and probably most states), so 2008 was a particularly good year for the proponents of 'gay marriage' in California, and they still lost. According to Edison, 85 % of those who voted no on Proposition 8 voted for Obama, whereas 61 % of those who voted for Proposition 8 voted for McCain.  http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAP00p7


Here are some numbers from Dave Leip on the partisan Presidential vote in California in 2000 and 2008, as well as changes and proportions.

So, it would appear that of the change in the vote was the result of the Democrat surge in 2008.

Party                    2000          2008          Change

Democrat            53.45          60.94          1.14
Republican          41.65          36.91          0.89
Proportion            1.28            1.65          1.28

[CARLHAYDEN]

California 2000 vs California 2008 maybe? I dunno. Avert your eyes if you don't wanna see the "trend".

Let me, the homosexual lobby LOST in 2008 in California.

Interesting trend.

Do you know what the word "trend" means?

Well, lets look at the record.

Yes, let's 'look' at the 'record' then, 'Carl.'

It's not even that complicated, you only have to just look at a wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

In the mid-90s, support for gay marriage was in the mid-high 20's. Throughout the early 2000's, support nudged upward through the 30s. In the last 3-4 years, support for gay marriage as evolved rapidly. This isn't a matter of opinion, the country is coming around to supporting gay marriage and it will happen whether you like it or not, sooner or later. There has been an undeniable upward tend in support for gay marriage in the last 15 years.

As the poster previous to me just mentioned, there's been an 18% swing in favor of gay marriage from 2000 to 2008. Since 2008, the national opinion of gay marriage has swung even more in favor of gay marriage.

This is what trend means, Carl:

trend (plural trends)
    An inclination in a particular direction

Morakai,

Please pay attention to what I posted.

Yes, several surveys are showing increased support for homosexuality, and 'gay marriage,' but the elections have shown those polls to be highly suspect (to put it mildly).

That's not just my opinion, but that of a number of expert analysts (I cited url's).

[Gravis Marketing]

Why the apostrophes, CARL?

There's a a quotation attributed to Abraham Lincoln that asserts that calling a tail a leg is simply false.

'Gay marriage' is a definitional falsity.

I'm married. It's a reality, legally and socially. Your opinion doesn't matter to me. If I lived in some other state, it would for legal reasons. But the trend for the future is clear.

[Gravis Marketing]

I mean, I'm not offended, but the whole point of this thread is to show that your opinion doesn't really matter. You and lots of old people don't recognize same-sex marriage, that's fine. Young people overwhelmingly do. The laws will change to reflect that, the process has already started. No one disputes that more people oppose same-sex marriage that the polling booth than in polls, but even then it will fall below 50%, and before that point, it will be resolved in legislatures and courts elsewhere. All the apostrophes in the world won't win this battle for you, any more than you've singlehandedly blocked the border with a wall of flaming outrage.

[memphis]

Why the apostrophes, CARL?

There's a a quotation attributed to Abraham Lincoln that asserts that calling a tail a leg is simply false.

'Gay marriage' is a definitional falsity.

I'm married. It's a reality, legally and socially. Your opinion doesn't matter to me. If I lived in some other state, it would for legal reasons. But the trend for the future is clear.

Brittain, I support your marriage. I can't figure out why anybody wouldn't. Out of spite, I suppose. Need I remind you, however, Massachusetts recognizes your marriage, but the federal government does not. You're still not all the way there legally.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Why the apostrophes, CARL?

There's a a quotation attributed to Abraham Lincoln that asserts that calling a tail a leg is simply false.

'Gay marriage' is a definitional falsity.

I'm married. It's a reality, legally and socially. Your opinion doesn't matter to me. If I lived in some other state, it would for legal reasons. But the trend for the future is clear.

First, it would seem that you are asserting that you are a homosexual (otherwise you assertion about being married would have no relevance).

Second, it wound be interesting to know the state where you marriage occurred, as not a single state has had 'gay marriage' instituted as a result of a vote of the people.  Some states have had 'gay marriage' imposed on them by black robed superlegislators, while a very few others have seen real legislators betray the explicit promises to the voters to oppose "gay marriage' (New York is the supreme example of the latter).

Third, I really don't have any idea of what you mean by "socially," as this thread has been devoted to the legal institution of marriage and surveys with respect to extending marriage to homosexuals.

Fourth you assertion that "the trend is clear," is simply a gratuitous assertion, without evidence (which I have supplied in my posts).

Fifth, your assertion that "(if I lived in some other state, it would for legal reasons," doesn't make any sense to me.  Please be so good to expand.

Finally, as I have (on other threads at this forum in days past) noted that the central purpose of marriage (as opposed to civil unions) is to provide for the rights of minors 'ensuing' from the marriage.  As such, it seems to me that persons incapable of procreating should be given civil unions and marriages reserved for those capable of procreating with their legal partner.