Polls on Same-Sex Marriage State Laws

[IceSpear]

PPP is not infallible.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_christie_vs_clinton-3766.html

Which of these is not like the others?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If we're going to start cherry-picking polls based on our own opinions  then what's the point of this thread?   

We already cherry-pick to an extent by not including blatantly partisan polls that don't release their methodology or demographics.  F&M's results are so consistently different from what other pollsters are finding from Pennsylvania I think it is relevant to consider whether there is a problem.

Taking a look at their demographics, I see they are severely underpolling non-whites with them being only 9% of the sample, yet they make up 18% of Pennsylvania's population according to the 2010 census.  It also appears they are underpolling Protestants.  On the other hand, their sample is significantly skewed towards older respondents.  I see no reason to have confidence in F&M's polling.  However, they are also the only ones to have polled  the state since the Windsor decision, so I have no problem for waiting till a poll from another pollster comes along to bring the result to something closer to reality than F&M appears to able to do.

PPP is not infallible.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_christie_vs_clinton-3766.html

Which of these is not like the others?

My choice of using PPP for the the comparison was mainly that they are the only other group to have polled Pennsylvania on this issue fairly regularly.  Note I never said that the actual result for Pennsylvania is 47-45 only that I thought PPP would likely give that result if they polled the state today.  I never said they were infalliable, and any pollster is on occasion going to have flubs.  It's when time after time that a pollster is out of sync with others that one needs to wonder what is going on.  F&M is consistently showing greater support for SSM in Pennsylvania than any other pollster.

[Alcon]

Taking a look at their demographics, I see they are severely underpolling non-whites with them being only 9% of the sample, yet they make up 18% of Pennsylvania's population according to the 2010 census.  It also appears they are underpolling Protestants.  On the other hand, their sample is significantly skewed towards older respondents.

18% of Pennsylvania's registered voters, voting-eligible population, voting-age population, or population?  And was this a poll of likely 2014 voters, all voters, adults, or what?  Depending on the answers to those two questions, we could easily be within the MoE here.  And even if this sub-sample misses the MoE, that's a sign that they're not weighting well, not necessarily that their sampling is bad.  It takes more than one MoE miss to justify assuming bad sampling.

(They may suck -- uni polls often do -- I'm just explaining that we need soldier evidence than just this.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

18% of population.  The poll was of all respondents, with some questions restricted to registered voters.  The SSM question was asked twice in the poll, once as a general question asked of everyone and once as a question of do you want the Pennsylvania legislature to recognize SSM which was asked of registered voters.  It's fairly clear they need to do weighting, but less clear they did it.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Kentucky ban on gay marriages from other states struck down

This ruling does not require Kentucky to perform marriages in the state.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As I pointed out in that thread, its a horrible decision solely because it ignores all precedent concerning the scope of the full faith and credit clause.  There's no constitutional justification for forcing Kentucky to recognize SSMs done in other states without simultaneously forcing Kentucky to recognize SSMs done in Kentucky.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

2/13/14 - Virginia is for lovers.

For support and legality of same-sex marriage.

White -- same-sex marriage legal or has at the least been enacted. No further distinction.

Green -- same-sex marriage not legal, but more popular than unpopular or plurality support for legalization of SSM

65% or higher -- deep green (90% saturation)
60.0 - 64.9%  -- dark green  (70% saturation)
55.0 - 59.9%  -- medium green (50% saturation)
50.0 - 54.9% --  light green (30% saturation)
below 50% but positive -- aqua (20% saturation)

tie -- yellow

above 45.0% but negative -- hot pink (30% saturation)
40.0 - 44.9% -- medium red (50% saturation)
35.0 - 39.9%  -- red (60% saturation)
30.0 - 34.9%  -- maroon (70% saturation)
under 30% -- deep red  (90% saturation)

[pbrower2a]

As I pointed out in that thread, its a horrible decision solely because it ignores all precedent concerning the scope of the full faith and credit clause.  There's no constitutional justification for forcing Kentucky to recognize SSMs done in other states without simultaneously forcing Kentucky to recognize SSMs done in Kentucky.

Judicial decisions are usually made on the narrowest of issues. Broad issues are matters for legislation. A state could prohibit same-sex marriage within its boundaries but recognizing lawful marriages from other states. Where states get fussy is on taxes.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As I pointed out in that thread, its a horrible decision solely because it ignores all precedent concerning the scope of the full faith and credit clause.  There's no constitutional justification for forcing Kentucky to recognize SSMs done in other states without simultaneously forcing Kentucky to recognize SSMs done in Kentucky.

Judicial decisions are usually made on the narrowest of issues. Broad issues are matters for legislation. A state could prohibit same-sex marriage within its boundaries but recognizing lawful marriages from other states. Where states get fussy is on taxes.

Kentucky was already recognizing lawful marriages from other states, but it was doing so based on what was lawful in Kentucky, not what was lawful in those other states. Allowing one state to impose its laws on other states is not a good idea, no matter what the field of discourse is.  The problem is that judges are ignoring the impact beyond SSM of their rulings in an attempt to be gradualist moderate heroes rather than dismantling the bans outright all at once.  While somewhat smart politically to do it that way, it's creating bad precedents for other areas of the law.  At this point the demise of all bans on SSM in the US is inevitable within a few years at most, so I am far more worried about the lingering impact of these atrocious decisions that will continue on for decades after this issue is resolved than I am about either being gradualist or temporarily denying couples recognition of their SSM conducted elsewhere.

[Miles]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

2/13/14 - Virginia is for lovers.

For support and legality of same-sex marriage.

White -- same-sex marriage legal or has at the least been enacted. No further distinction.

Green -- same-sex marriage not legal, but more popular than unpopular or plurality support for legalization of SSM

65% or higher -- deep green (90% saturation)
60.0 - 64.9%  -- dark green  (70% saturation)
55.0 - 59.9%  -- medium green (50% saturation)
50.0 - 54.9% --  light green (30% saturation)
below 50% but positive -- aqua (20% saturation)

tie -- yellow

above 45.0% but negative -- hot pink (30% saturation)
40.0 - 44.9% -- medium red (50% saturation)
35.0 - 39.9%  -- red (60% saturation)
30.0 - 34.9%  -- maroon (70% saturation)
under 30% -- deep red  (90% saturation)

Ahem, since the decision was stayed pending appeal, until the stay is lifted, which might be soon if there is no appeal, Virginia should have remained as it was on the map.  I understand the excitement.  It certainly is appropriate, but SSM is not yet being performed in Virgina.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Does the judge set the deadline for when the decision can no longer be appealed?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Does the judge set the deadline for when the decision can no longer be appealed?

The judge can certainly set a deadline for when an appeal must be filed or he will lift his stay.  I'm not certain, but I think it is up to the 4th Circuit to determine when an appeal must be filed with them in order for them to hear it regardless of whether a stay in force or not.

[Smash255]

Does the judge set the deadline for when the decision can no longer be appealed?

The judge can certainly set a deadline for when an appeal must be filed or he will lift his stay.  I'm not certain, but I think it is up to the 4th Circuit to determine when an appeal must be filed with them in order for them to hear it regardless of whether a stay in force or not.

Can anyone other than Herring (who obviously won't) appeal?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Does the judge set the deadline for when the decision can no longer be appealed?

The judge can certainly set a deadline for when an appeal must be filed or he will lift his stay.  I'm not certain, but I think it is up to the 4th Circuit to determine when an appeal must be filed with them in order for them to hear it regardless of whether a stay in force or not.

Can anyone other than Herring (who obviously won't) appeal?

That depends on whether Virginia law explicitly provides for that.  If not, then the Perry case made it clear that one cannot defend a State law in Federal court without the State specifying that you can defend that law.  I note that the clerk who had refused to issue the marriage license had his own attorney there at the case presenting an argument, so I think it likely that the clerk can appeal the decision that he must issue the license even if state officials decline to help him do so.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I didn't want to make a new thread about this since we have enough about gay marriage already, but Jay Nixon has came out in favor of gay marriage.

[pbrower2a]

I'm still going on this.

For support and legality of same-sex marriage.

White -- same-sex marriage legal or has at the least been enacted. No further distinction.

Green -- same-sex marriage not legal, but more popular than unpopular or plurality support for legalization of SSM

65% or higher -- deep green (90% saturation)
60.0 - 64.9%  -- dark green  (70% saturation)
55.0 - 59.9%  -- medium green (50% saturation)
50.0 - 54.6% --  light green (30% saturation)
below 50% but positive -- aqua (20% saturation)

tie -- yellow

above 45.0% but negative -- hot pink (30% saturation)
40.0 - 44.9% -- medium red (50% saturation)
35.0 - 39.9%  -- red (60% saturation)
30.0 - 34.9%  -- maroon (70% saturation)
under 30% -- deep red  (90% saturation)

...

White may indicate that even temporarily that SSM is being permitted in the state, let alone that it is permitted as the result of legislation or some court dicision that existing laws do not prohibit SSM.

I will put Virginia in white when (1) same-sex marriage is permitted by legislation or initiative/referendum,  (2)  the state government loses its appeal of a court decision, (3) state government affirms the ruling without appeal, or (4) the state allows the 'opportunity' for an appeal to expire.

I doubt that much time will be necessary for Virginia to endorse SSM. Virginia is now more liberal than the US as a whole.   

[ZonedOut]

Unfortunately, the thaw in Kentucky's attitudes hasn't spread to its southern neighbor, as Tennessee opposes gay marriage 26-64.  Ouch.

mtsusurveygroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MTSU-POLL-Spring-2014-legislative-issues-roundup-F.pdf

If a governor decides to "stand in the doorway" on this issue, it's not hard to figure what part of the country that it will be in.  It's going to make all these looming lawsuits in those states even more interesting.

[Miles]

SMM is at 28/62 in LA. Even with Democrats, it only at 33/55.

[Nhoj]

SMM is at 28/62 in LA. Even with Democrats, it only at 33/55.

But with people who voted for obama its 46/44.

[Miles]

Democratic poll finds that in Oregon, voters want the SSM ban repealed by 55-41.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm not updating the map for any poll that was commissioned by a party or interest group, but that number is pretty low for Oregon, especially since Democrats ordered it.

[Gass3268]

I'm not updating the map for any poll that was commissioned by a party or interest group, but that number is pretty low for Oregon, especially since Democrats ordered it.

I saw somewhere that is actually a decent increase from a poll from last year.

[greenforest32]

It's really just a question of method now in Oregon. The group working to put a measure on the 2014 ballot has gathered 160k signatures for the initiative as of this month (probably already enough to qualify for the ballot) and the signature deadline isn't until July but it's possible that the state's ban on same-sex marriage will be struck down by a federal judge before then like what happened in UT/OK/VA so they said they might not even want to put a legalization measure on the ballot at that point.

Of course the federal decision could be stayed and the language of the previous ban would still be in the state constitution so who knows? I doubt the initiative would fail at the ballot but I also kind of doubt it would get 55% or more. It is a mid-term electorate after all.

[Bojack Horseman]

The federal trial in Detroit could bring marriage equality to Michigan as early as tomorrow. Crossing my fingers.