AP Poll: Support for SSM closely divided; majority prioritize religious freedom
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 04:50:18 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  AP Poll: Support for SSM closely divided; majority prioritize religious freedom
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: AP Poll: Support for SSM closely divided; majority prioritize religious freedom  (Read 1829 times)
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 20, 2015, 11:35:33 AM »

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a688e500e35e4cd0a7f927e02c33b8ea/ap-poll-sharp-divisions-after-high-court-backs-gay-marriage
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2015, 11:44:00 AM »

Which contradicts virtually all other polls on the matter.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,580
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2015, 11:58:52 AM »

Which contradicts virtually all other polls on the matter.

This is the first poll taken post Obergfell v. Hodges though.
Logged
Mehmentum
Icefire9
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,594
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 20, 2015, 12:15:03 PM »

Not buying it.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 20, 2015, 12:24:40 PM »

Which contradicts virtually all other polls on the matter.

This is the first poll taken post Obergfell v. Hodges though.

Yes, we can expect there might well be an impact.  The last poll in April from Ap-GfK had a 12 point gap in favor - I think that was not too far off from other polls at the time - as opposed to a 2 now point in favor now.  Admittedly, I'm not aware of what GfK's track record is on polling.  Here's (.pdf) the detailed results for any who want to investigate this poll. 
The results from the religious liberty questions were within the general range of what I've seen elsewhere.
Logged
Mehmentum
Icefire9
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,594
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2015, 12:27:37 PM »
« Edited: July 20, 2015, 12:37:51 PM by Mehmentum »

It's not the only poll since the ruling, though.
Gallup: U.S. Support for Gay Marriage Stable After High Court Ruling
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2015, 02:37:17 PM »
« Edited: July 20, 2015, 02:38:54 PM by King »

It's all about the spin. 47% saying someone with religious objections should be required to perform an SSM is shockingly high IMO.

But yea, AP's poll looks to be behind others anyway if it was only at 48% support SSM prior to the ruling. Gallup shows the support at 58-40 right now.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 20, 2015, 02:50:57 PM »

It's all about the spin. 47% saying someone with religious objections should be required to perform an SSM is shockingly high IMO.

But yea, AP's poll looks to be behind others anyway if it was only at 48% support SSM prior to the ruling. Gallup shows the support at 58-40 right now.

I'm not sure what you mean by spin here, if you look at how the questions were worded. When lawmakers in various states have tried to say that local officials did not have to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they had a religious objection, it was considered extreme and many Republicans even would not have any part of it.

Gallup poll it is clear pushes leaners a great deal more than GfK does.  I've seen some numbers that suggest those who don't have a strong opinion tend to go in the direction of supporting SSM when pushed to come down one way or another.
Logged
Mehmentum
Icefire9
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,594
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 20, 2015, 03:18:19 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay this poll is just ridiculous.  The result is within the margin of error from the result in January.  So saying there's been a 'sea change' is ridiculous.  Anyway, its clear this poll has been doing something different from basically every other polling outfit out there, because its results from prior to the ruling are way off from everything else.

Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 20, 2015, 03:31:57 PM »

It's all about the spin. 47% saying someone with religious objections should be required to perform an SSM is shockingly high IMO.
I wouldn't consider issuing a license to be equivalent to officiating at the ceremony. Also, that particular question wasn't about generic somebodies, but about government employees. I say that as one who thinks those clerks ought to find another job if it offends them to issue licenses for SSMs, yet think private individuals shouldn't be forced to provide goods or services intended for use in an SSM ceremony.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2015, 03:50:57 PM »

I wouldn't consider issuing a license to be equivalent to officiating at the ceremony.

This.

Especially if your job is to issue licenses to people according to the law of the land, as opposed to performing marriages according to the doctrines of your church. People keep trying to elide these two.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2015, 04:26:01 PM »

I wouldn't consider issuing a license to be equivalent to officiating at the ceremony.

This.

Especially if your job is to issue licenses to people according to the law of the land, as opposed to performing marriages according to the doctrines of your church. People keep trying to elide these two.

Clearly.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,678


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 20, 2015, 05:34:40 PM »


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, we know what this means. 42-40 means that they don't push leaners at all, if 18% of the public doesn't answer. What that means is that the poll is showing 42% more or less solid support of SSM, 40% opposition, and 18% wavering. This is totally believable to me, working under the assumption that, when push comes to shove the 18% will go "meh" and walk away rather than passionately oppose it. Post-Obgerfell, apathy is de facto support of SSM, much like pre-Obgerfell, apathy was de facto opposition to SSM: status quo is the result of apathy and national SSM is the status quo now.

40% of the population strongly opposing SSM makes sense alongside earlier polls.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 20, 2015, 06:44:42 PM »


Good, because they're not selling it.  They're just pollsters.

What you have to remember is that polls are just polls.  They write certain questions and go out and ask them.  "Do you think two men have the right to get married?"  Well, uh, okay, sure, why not? 

"Okay, then, do you think public employees have the right to refuse to engage practices that violate their deeply-held religious beliefs?"  Well, uh, okay, sure, why not?

This result is not hard to understand.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 20, 2015, 08:29:04 PM »
« Edited: July 20, 2015, 08:31:53 PM by shua »


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, we know what this means. 42-40 means that they don't push leaners at all, if 18% of the public doesn't answer. What that means is that the poll is showing 42% more or less solid support of SSM, 40% opposition, and 18% wavering. This is totally believable to me, working under the assumption that, when push comes to shove the 18% will go "meh" and walk away rather than passionately oppose it. Post-Obgerfell, apathy is de facto support of SSM, much like pre-Obgerfell, apathy was de facto opposition to SSM: status quo is the result of apathy and national SSM is the status quo now.

40% of the population strongly opposing SSM makes sense alongside earlier polls.

If you compare the polls, the trend for leaners, when pushed, to support it, has been there for a year or more.  It's not a post-Obgerfell phenom.

The poll in April had opposition in the mid-30s, so this poll is a return to the results they found in January.


I wouldn't consider issuing a license to be equivalent to officiating at the ceremony.

This.

Especially if your job is to issue licenses to people according to the law of the land, as opposed to performing marriages according to the doctrines of your church. People keep trying to elide these two.

Who is trying to elide these two?
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,600
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 20, 2015, 08:44:11 PM »

I wouldn't consider issuing a license to be equivalent to officiating at the ceremony.

This.

Especially if your job is to issue licenses to people according to the law of the land, as opposed to performing marriages according to the doctrines of your church. People keep trying to elide these two.

Some county clerks, saying they now refuse to grant marriage certificates, since that implies giving certificates to gay couples.
Who is trying to elide these two?
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 21, 2015, 08:47:55 AM »

Who is trying to elide these two?

Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, for one. He's the first one who comes to mind encouraging county officials to have a religious opt-out from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ken-paxton-texas-official-says-state-clerks-can-deny-gay-marriage-licences-1.3131422

Let me state now, I fully understand the discomfort of county clerks in conservative areas who have objections to same-sex marriage and who never expected this to be part of their jobs. But I suggest that the onus is on them to find a way to reconcile their beliefs with their job responsibilities, either by finding a viable alternate channel for people to get the license as easily as an opposite-sex couple would, or if they absolutely can't work it out, to step aside for someone who can actually do the job they've been hired to do.
Logged
Mercenary
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,575


Political Matrix
E: -3.94, S: -2.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 22, 2015, 12:37:23 AM »

It is a government job, issuing licenses is a requirement of the job so I am not sure how they could really make an exception for religious freedom in this particular matter.

It is different, in my opinion, if it is a government job or a non government job. It is also different if it is an essential task of the job or not. I am actually surprised that many people say it is okay for an official to refuse to issue a license. I mean sure, if someone objects to SSM in marriage I could see them saying it for that, but I find it a bit odd for someone to support SSM but think they should be able to withhold issuing a license.

It isn't like a minister being required to officiate a wedding, heck it isn't even like a baker being required to bake a cake for a wedding.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.048 seconds with 12 queries.