Talk Elections

Do you approve or disapprove of Governor John Hickenlooper’s job performance?

Approve................. 54%
Disapprove............ 24%

Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Mark Udall's job performance?

Approve .................45%
Disapprove.............34%

Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Michael Bennet's job performance?

Approve .................44%
Disapprove.............36%

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Ken Buck?

Favorable........................................................ 25%
Unfavorable .................................................... 46%

If you could do last fall’s election for US Senate over again, would you vote for Democrat Michael Bennet or Republican Ken Buck?

Michael Bennet ............................................... 55%
Ken Buck ........................................................ 38%

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

Legal............................................................... 45%
Illegal .............................................................. 45%

Which of the following best describes your opinion on gay marriage: gay couples should be allowed to legally marry, or gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry, or there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship?

Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry .................................................40%
Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not marry ......................31%
There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship ...................27%

If there was an election for Congress today, would you vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate from your district?

Democratic candidate ..................................... 45%
Republican candidate ..................................... 40%

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the Tea Party?

Favorable........................................................ 38%
Unfavorable .................................................... 49%

Do you think prostitution should be legal or illegal?

Legal............................................................... 32%
Illegal .............................................................. 56%

Do you think marijuana usage should be legal or illegal?

Legal............................................................... 51%
Illegal .............................................................. 38%

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Scott McInnis?

Favorable........................................................ 14%
Unfavorable .................................................... 31%

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Tom Tancredo?

Favorable........................................................ 30%
Unfavorable .................................................... 43%

Would you support or oppose raising the income tax in Colorado from 4.63% to 5% and the sales tax from 2.9% to 3.0% in order to increase funding for public education?

Support ........................................................... 45%
Oppose ........................................................... 47%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_CO_0811925.pdf

It really interesting to look at the PPP opinion polls.  Since they have become the in-house pollster for the Daily Kos they have pretty consistently produced poll results more favorable to the Democrats than most other polls.

Take for example their recent poll of Colorado voters.  (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_CO_08101118.pdf)

First, let’s contrast the composition of their respondents with the results of the 2008 Exit poll for Colorado. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=COP00p1)

 Ideology
                                        PPP          Edison
Liberal                            35 %          17 %
Moderate                       27              46
Conservative                 39              36

Second, let’s compare their partisan identification compared to Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/148949/Hawaii-Democratic-Utah-Republican-State.aspx#)

                                        PPP          Gallup
Democrat                        41 %          42 %
Republican                      33              43

Looks like PPP is a R2K reprise.

Here is a gay marriage map of recent state polling by PPP and others:

()

Note:

The NY polls are from Quinnipiac and Marist, both of them showed support for gay marriage above 50%.

The CT poll is from Quinnipiac.

The MD poll is from the Washington Post.

The results of PPP contradict you. They are one of the best out there and got almost all elections right so far this cycle and also within the MoE.

You shouldn't use Gallup to prove variations in samples either, because Gallup wasn't really good in 2008 and they collected the party ID over half a year.

Sorry, but, the further out PPP is from elections, the more left-leaning their polls are.

Zogby has had similiar results, having weird polls far out, and becoming more rational near elections.

Methodological changes do matter.

Next, you can look at the exit polls for partisan identification (favors Republicans in Colorado) ,since you seem to dislike Gallup and be blind to PPP's faults.

Oh, BTW, Gallup and Edison largely agree on the ideological makeup of Colorado voters, while PPP would have us believe they are far more liberal.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122333/political-ideology-conservative-label-prevails-south

No word about Rasmussen ?

Rasmussen also used to be much more Republican early on and then moderate their results closer to election day.

Also, PPP doesn't weight according to party ID, but rely on self-ID (of what the poll respondents actually say).

And because polls are just snapshots in time, who can tell what the turnout might look like right now ?

Example: The current voter registration in Colorado is something like 33% R, 32% D, 35% I.

If the election were to be held today, it could be that of the 33% Republicans only 70% turn out and of Democrats 80% and of Independents lets say 60%.

That CHANGES the composition of the sample so that there are actually MORE Democrats in there than Republicans, even though they have a slight registration advantage.

Who tells us that in Colorado it could not be the case that Democrats are more likely to participate in a phone poll or actually turn out in greater numbers than Republicans ? The Colorado GOP isn't in really good shape either. So PPP's result for this moment could be accurate.

BTW, Democrats have recently caught up to Republicans in Colorado when it comes to registration. The gap was much larger 8 years or 4 years ago and depending on how effective the registration drives are next year, I could see Democrats overtaking Republicans ahead of the 2012 elections.

ROTFLMAO!

Democrats having a significantly higher turnout rate than Republicans in Colorado!?!

Republicans really blew last year's Governor and Senate races in Colorado.

However, they DO control the state legislature and had a pickup in the House.

It was nice to see you acknowledge that in voter registration there are more Republicans in Colorado than Democrats, which both Gallup and Edison results support, and PPP disagrees with!

Hmm.

I didn't say that Democrats have necessarily a significantly higher turnout rate than Republicans in Colorado, but that at the moment it could be this way because the Colorado GOP sucks and because of more and more minorities registering as Democrats in Colorado.

After all there were 5-6% more Democrats turning out last year.

But there´s also the margin of error in the PPP poll (which is 4.5%), so you can also say that the spread between Dems and GOP could be lower. Who knows ?

Well, lets look your assertions.

First, occasionally there are elections when Democrat turnout is higher than Republican turnout, but, those elections are rare (roughly 1 out of 10).

Second, it is true that PPP polls do have unusually high sample size MoE (due to small samples), but that would NOT explain the partisan sample composition distribution.  In the PPP poll you cited, Democrats have an 8 point advantage, whereas in the Edison and Gallup polls (as well as voter registration you cited), they have a 1 point disadvantage.  That's a 9 point spread, which is NOT explained by sample size MoE!

Third, you ignored the other point about the PPP poll being heavily laden with liberals, both compared to the Edison and Gallup polls.

Finally, to me it makes no difference the race/ethnicity of voters as a vote is a vote.  So, would you be pleased to lose two white votes to gain one "minority" vote? 

Colorado is trending Democratic according to the exit polls:

2004 exit poll: R+9
2008 exit poll: R+1
2010 exit poll: D+5/6

Besides that you don't seem to understand what I´m trying to say.

Wow those numbers for marijuana usage are quite impressive. Might want to try a redo of that 2006 referendum.

Those prostitution numbers aren't bad either with the word "prostitution" in there, since for too many that makes them think of also things like pimping and whatnot, I bet you could get a majority saying legal if the question was "Do you think the exchanging of money for sexual services should be legal or illegal?"

One wonders what the prostitution numbers would be had the innovation of female suffrage not been imposed.

Ya'think?

You know it's gotta be pretty bad for the Colorado GOP if polls have to include a question about prostitution.

Just saying.

Awesome CO numbers for marijuana legalization. Nevada has them beat on prostitution though.


Interesting. I bet Delaware would support it at this point too.

Looks like gay marriage is going to come in from the coasts.

I'm calling it:

There will be a court ruling out in favor of gay marriage no later than 2025.

Once stuff like this gains momentum it seldom takes more than 20 years.

Before 2025? Try before 2015. There's already a federal case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v._Schwarzenegger

That case will drag on until 2025.

My favourite part of polling threads are those that quickly jump onto the cross tabs - "TOO MUCH DEMOCRATS AND LIBERALS." lol like, who gives a frick.

PPP did a poll for the Delaware Right to Marry PAC in Feb. 2011. The results were:

48% Favor
47% Oppose

http://www.delawareliberal.net/2011/02/09/large-plurality-of-delaware-supports-marriage-equality

Nice. Time to update the map? I think Iowa, Illinois, and Wisconsin are going to be the next states supporting it. Hawaii might already support it too.

I don't use polls for "Pro Gay Marriage" or "Pro Man/Woman Marriage" groups in my map.

But you can help me look for other polls in states that I have not coloured so far.

That is a good idea. I think you have most of those types of polls covered but I'll post a reply in one of these threads if I catch a new one.

P.S. - Nice work on it. I love state by state maps for anything (gay marriage, governor opinion polling, etc)

First, would you please be so good as to provide the link for your 2010 exit poll?

From what I can see, the Republican U.S. House of Representatioves candidates polled approximately 50% of the vote and the Democrat candidates approximately 45% in 2010 in Colorado.

That's still slightly more Democratic than the country as a whole (51.6R/44.8D).

That's primarily because of third party participation in Colorado:

Party                         Percentage
                            Colorado     Nation
Democrat              45.43          44.76
Republican            50.14          51.50
Libertarian              2.20            1.24
Constitutional         1.56            0.29
Green                      0.17           0.30
Independent           0.51           0.96

First, there was only one Green party candidate on the congressional ballot, which minimally helped the Democrats in Colorado.

Second, there was only one Independent had a much smaller percentage of the vote in Colorado than nationwide, which also slighly helped the percentage for the Democrats.

Third, both the Libertarian and Constitutional party congressional candidates did significantly better in Colorado than nationwide.  This hurt Republican congressional percentage s in Colorado to some small extent.

So, no, Colorado is not leaning toward the Democrats based on this data.

It must be noted that the Colorado Republican party needs to get its house in order (exterminate the McCainiacs).

How will that get the Pubbie numbers up in Colorado again?

If you check the opinion polls, the voters are very irate that the Republicans are rolling over for the Democrats rather than seeking reduction in the scope and scale of the federal budget.

McCain and his acolytes are incessantly trying to "reach across the aisle" to try to implement the liberal Democrat agenda.

Now, if voters believed the Republicans would fight to implement the ideas they say they want (when seeking election), rather than compromising to implement the liberal Democrat agenda, the voters would be more likely to support them.

Why elect a second-rater (RINO) to do what a liberals Democrat will do?

Yes, that was the strategy Barry Goldwater followed in 1964. Maybe you were his campaign manager, and just put down roots thereafter.

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#COS01p1

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#val=COG00p1

The way gay marriage has been making gains, I'd be surprised if it took more than 10.

Thank you.

That's what I thought.

Neither link is to the House races.

In the Governor's race in 2010, the Constitution party candidate outpolled the Republican party nominee.

In the Senate race in 2010, the Republicans nominated a conservative, so the McCainiacs refused to vote in that election.

In short, in those two statewide races in 2010 there was a really bizarre result.

Do you really believe those where typical?!?

What percent of the Colorado electorate are McCainiacs? Do they have much sway in statewide elections? How much voted for Bennet over Buck? Please cite!

They are a relatively small percentage of the voters in Republican party, given their repeated defeats in primaries there.

However, the Democrat Senator was elected (he had been appointed to the office) with less than half the vote case.

"while split on gays"

Funny, considering that Colorado elected, and then reelected, the first openly gay Congressman

Please cite your sources!

For the 2010 General Election results, please see:

http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/electionresults2010/general/ColoradoReport.html

For the 2010 Republican primary results, please see:

http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/electionresults2010/primary/ColoradoReport.html#REP

I'd imagine his district isn't as split :P

Given that Jared Polis would sooner have been dragged behind a pickup truck for ten miles than elected to Congress in some of the state's other districts, yeah, Colorado is definitely pretty split on gays.

Not really. If you followed the 2010 election at all, you'd know that PPP has a slight Republican bias.

We are definitely looking at one state that is not "trending" Republican.

Also, I'm enjoying CARLHAYDEN very much in this thread.

3 more PPP polls about Gay Marriage out today.

Wisconsin: 39% legal, 50% illegal

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_WI_0826.pdf

Iowa: 46% legal, 45% illegal

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_IA_0826.pdf

Ohio: 33% legal, 53% illegal

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_OH_0826.pdf

Map:

()

I thought Wisconsin and Ohio would be better than that. Not even 40% support? Boo. I have a feeling Illinois is going to be more like Iowa/Minnesota and Indiana is more like Wisconsin/Ohio.

Hmm, what has Branstad done to merit a -3 approval rating, I wonder.

I'd like to present to you CARLHAYDEN, since you two obviously never meet before.

Probably people realizing that merely electing a Governor from the 90's won't bring back the 90's.

Kentucky doesn't like the gays either, but we already knew that before:

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

Legal............................................................... 26%
Illegal .............................................................. 62%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_KY_08311118.pdf

()

PA now in favor of gay marriage, says F&M:

CU1. The state legislature is considering several proposals related to gay marriage and civil
unions. Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment that would allow
homosexual couples to get legally married?

50% Support
42% Oppose

CU2. Would you favor or oppose a state law that would allow homosexual couples to legally
form civil unions, giving them some of the legal rights of married couples?

62% Support
34% Oppose

https://edisk.fandm.edu/FLI/keystone/pdf/keyaug11_1.pdf

()

I don't believe it.

Damn 62% opposed. That's Utah territory.


Didn't expect that at all. I am skeptical...

New Jersey (Rutgers):

Support Gay Marriage 52%
Oppose Gay Marriage 32%

Support Civil Union alternative 58%
Oppose Civil Union alternative 26%

http://eagletonpoll.rutgers.edu/polls/release_08-31-11.pdf

()
[/quote]

Damn the Northeast is on fire! I think the Southwest (minus Utah) and the Midwest is going to follow the Northeast and the West Coast soon. Last will be the Southeast. SCOTUS will probably legalize it before they hit majority support.

They are flaming, aren't they?

Fire spreads my friend.

PPP is out with the NC poll on gays and the state is very "special":

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

Legal............................................................... 31%
Illegal .............................................................. 61%

State legislators have proposed an amendment to the North Carolina Constitution that would prohibit the recognition of marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian couples. If the election was held today, would you vote for or against this amendment?

Would vote for it.............................................. 30%
Would vote against it ...................................... 55%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NC_09071217.pdf

()

Interesting. I believe they'd vote against the ban because it's marriage+civil unions/domestic partnerships. It'd probably pass if it just banned marriage.

PPP is out with the SC poll on gay marriage:

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

Legal............................................................... 21%
Illegal .............................................................. 69%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_SC_0907.pdf

Damn, are these the worst numbers we've seen so far?

Until they poll MS or AL, probably yeah.

()

Move over SC, there's a new #1 state in town: West Virginia!

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

Legal............................................................... 19%
Illegal .............................................................. 71%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_WV_0915.pdf

They should have polled incest too.

()

I wonder what percentage a gay, liberal, muslim, black Democrat would get in WV in a 50-50 Presidential year ... ?

:P

Missouri's numbers are out:

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

Legal............................................................... 32%
Illegal .............................................................. 59%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MO_09161118.pdf

Texas numbers are out:

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

Legal............................................................... 29%
Illegal .............................................................. 61%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_TX_0923424.pdf

()

NC amendment still failing:

N.C. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage

September 2011: 56 percent oppose / 39 percent support
February 2011: 56 percent oppose / 38 percent support
March 2009: 50 percent oppose / 43 percent support

The poll, conducted Sept. 25-29, 2011, surveyed 594 North Carolina residents and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.02 percentage points. The sample is of the population in general, with numbers that include both landlines and cellular phones. The Elon University Poll does not restrict respondents by voter eligibility or likelihood of voting.

http://www.elon.edu/e-web/elonpoll/093011.xhtml

The show-me state has shown us that they're not a bellwether.

New Maryland poll:

Poll: Marylanders split on gay marriage, immigrant tuition

By John Wagner

A new poll finds Maryland voters almost evenly divided over the legalization of same-sex marriage and over allowing children of illegal immigrants to receive in-state college tuition rates — two issues that could be decided at the ballot box next year.

Meanwhile, President Obama’s job approval has “dipped considerably,” while Gov. Martin O’Malley’s rating remains “fairly solid,” and Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin appears well-positioned for re-election next year, according to the poll by Gonzales Research & Marketing Strategies.

The poll comes as both sides gear up for another legislative fight next year over same-sex marriage, this time with O’Malley (D) planning to sponsor the bill.

The Gonzales poll found 48 percent of Marylanders who vote regularly favor a law allowing same-sex marriages, while 49 percent of that population are against allowing same-sex marriages.

There is a notable difference based on race. Fifty-one percent of white voters approve, compared to 41 percent of African-American voters. Meanwhile, 46 percent of white voters disapprove, compared to 59 percent of African Americans.

The opinion of voters could become particularly relevant if a same-sex marriage bill passes this session.

Opponents have vowed to take advantage of a provision in the state Constitution that allows citizens to petition just-passed laws to the ballot. With enough signatures, same-sex marriage would be subject to a statewide vote in November 2012.

A law passed this year allowing in-state college tuition rates for certain children of illegal immigrants has already been petitioned to the ballot.

The Gonzales poll found 47 percent of voters support the so-called Dream Act, while 51 percent are opposed.

Voters were asked whether they agree that “children of immigrants who are not in the state legally should be given the opportunity to receive Maryland in-state college tuition rates if they have graduated from a Maryland high school and their parents have filed Maryland tax returns for the past three years.”

The poll also found more voters approve of the way O’Malley is handling his job than the way Obama is handling his.

Voters in heavily Democratic Maryland are now almost evenly split on Obama, with 49 percent saying they approve of the job he is doing as president and 47 percent saying they disapprove.

That is a considerable slide since a January poll, which found 54 percent approved and 40 percent disapproved.

The poll found that 52 percent of Maryland voters approve of the job O’Malley is doing, while 40 percent disapprove — marks Gonzales said are “fairly solid.” O’Malley’s approval rating of 52 percent is higher in all but two of 11 previous Gonzales polls since the governor arrived in office in 2007.

The poll also showed that 63 percent of voters say they either will definitely vote for Cardin (D-Md.) next year or consider voting for him. More than one-third of Republicans even said they would consider voting for Cardin — “not the result a Republican hopeful for the office wants to see,” Gonzales noted.

The telephone poll of 805 registered voters who vote regularly was conducted Sept. 19 to Sept. 27. It was said to have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/maryland-politics/post/poll-marylanders-split-on-gay-marriage-immigrant-tuition/2011/10/03/gIQAFmHuIL_blog.html

()

Nice! Massachusetts is the first state to hit 60% support:

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

Legal............................................................... 60%
Illegal .............................................................. 30%
Not sure ........................................................... 10%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MA_0923.pdf

New Iowa numbers:

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

Legal............................................................... 41%
Illegal .............................................................. 48%
Not sure ........................................................... 11%

Would you vote for or against a constitutional
amendment that says the following: “Marriage
between one man and one woman shall be the
only legal union valid or recognized in this
state"?

Would vote for it..............................................  50%
Would vote against it ......................................  43%
Not sure ..........................................................   8%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_1014.pdf

Also first numbers for Nebraska are out. Not as bad as I was expecting :P:

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

Legal............................................................... 36%
Illegal .............................................................. 54%
Not sure ........................................................... 10%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NE_1013.pdf

No gap?  Bizare.

Update:

()

Hawaii numbers are out:

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

Legal............................................................... 49%
Illegal .............................................................. 40%
Not sure ........................................................... 11%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_HI_10201.pdf

New numbers out for Maine. An improvement compared to 47% support, 46% oppose, 8% not sure from March 2011:

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

Legal............................................................... 51%
Illegal .............................................................. 42%
Not sure ........................................................... 8%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_ME_1102424.pdf

Minnesota likely to ban gay-marriage next year:

"Would you favor or oppose amending the Minnesota constitution to allow marriage only between a man and a woman?"

48% Favor
43% Oppose

http://www.startribune.com/politics/133367088.html

http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/133406223.html

...

Update:

()

Ugh. :(

We've got work to do.

33% of 18-34 year olds? Even with subsample MoE that strikes me as pretty odd.

Minnesota (SurveyUSA):

If an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution were on the ballot, that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, would you vote FOR the amendment? Against the amendment? Or not vote on the measure?

46% For
40% Against

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=98e06008-a002-4bda-b2dc-d5093903734a

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/11/11/st-cloud-state-marriage-poll-split/


lol religion:

Consider retitling this thread? I've been ignoring it for weeks because I assumed it was about referenda in Colorado, and was delighted to see it's tracking SSM sentiment in different states.

Polling in Minnesota this far out doesn't matter to us now. All that matters is that it shows where each side has to work on to win.

Well, despite that 11 point advantage in California, it sounds like there might not be a Proposition to legalize it next year. That's too bad, it would be hilarious to hear about "those activist voters legislating from the ballot box"

Will they still blame Mormons/Blacks if it fails?

Mississippi (PPP):

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

Legal............................................................... 13%
Illegal .............................................................. 78%

Which of the following best describes your opinion on gay marriage: gay couples should be allowed to legally marry, or gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry, or there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship?

10% Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry
28% Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not marry
60% There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship
  2% Not sure

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MS_1118.pdf

()

Here's a comparable map of how the referendums have gone so far (between 1998 and 2008):

()

Incl. NC and MN next year (according to polls now):

()

What exactly makes SD so gay friendly ?

Their 2006 amendment was really restrictive, banning civil unions (like the failing Arizona one) and only passed 52%-48%.

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 ...

()

::)

But remember, we have to "raise the level of debate."

Most of Pennsylvania is Alabama of the North. 

"Philadelphia in the east, Pittsburgh in the west and Alabama in the middle!"

If you, you know, acknowledged that you're not in favor of small government, then we might respect your views slightly more.

Not really. There's Scranton and Erie, and completely ignoring that Alabama gets us nowhere. At a local level, Westmoreland is still pretty even, for instance.

Yeah it definitely stood out.

Any bets on PPP's upcoming numbers for Arizona? Think Arizona will be ahead or behind Pennsylvania? I'm thinking it will be pretty close.

Also it looks like Oregon won't be having that gay marriage ballot measure in 2012: http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/11/basic_rights_oregon_will_not_p.html The organization called it off citing bad/notgoodenough poll numbers. It's definitely a done deal in 2016 but they may attempt it in 2014.

It's also impossible to tell where the state stands.. it's pretty close to evenly split and probably slightly in favor of the amendment overall.. though many polls have also showed a plurality opposing the referendum.

I don't need to run my views by you to have them stamped for approval and then be told I "hate" a certain group of people if they don't meet your approval.

Gay marriage is an uncomfortable issue for Phil. Should it be made legal in either his state or Ohio, he will certainly feel societal pressure to get married to his one true love, Naso.

As the law currently stands, he can enjoy some level of safety in knowing that their relationship cannot progress beyond the simple "bromance" stage. It is that safety which he cherishes, and it is that safety that drives his opinion.

Be brave, Phil. You do not need the safety. Embrace your feelings!

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.

Arizona numbers are out:

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

Legal............................................................... 44%
Illegal .............................................................. 45%
Not sure .......................................................... 12%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_AZ_1130424.pdf

Not bad...

That's pretty good concidering Arizona is basiclly "The Mississippi Desert"

Considering that we are the only state to EVER defeat a marriage amendment (2006), I don't know why this should be all that surprising.  AZ is NOT Jesus country.   Since the Dems have already capitulated on guns, if they could find a way to get immigration off the table, this state would be a toss-up/barely lean red.  If I were going to imagine what "The Mississippi Desert" would look like, especially regarding gay rights,  I would basiclly tend to imagine a larger state with an even dumber governor. 

Hmm.

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

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

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?

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.

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.


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.

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

Worth noting the 12% undecided.

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.

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.

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. 

Why the apostrophes, CARL?

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.

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.

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'?

How so?

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

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.

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

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.  

This isn't a very conservative concept. In fact, it's a radical innovation, more radical by far than homosexual marriage. The true conservatives of the ancien regime would have wanted you lynched.

More to the point, it's not how marriage law operates now in the U.S. If CARL tried to legislate this distinction or put it up to a vote, it would lose by a landslide. When this interpretation crimps the rights of heterosexuals to marry (imagine any marriage post-menopause), it is soundly defeated.

This concept has been brought up in pretty much every same-sex marriage court case and defeated by the mountain of evidence citing that procreation is not a requirement for opposite-sex couples, and also that many same-sex couples are raising children of their own (adoption or biological, whichever; the court doesn't deem adopted children as less worthy of protection) who merit that environment offered by the shelter of the laws.

CARL's either going to get this or he'll choose not to, that's fine. I'm not going to waste time rehashing arguments the rest of the country already had over the past ten years about how laws are passed, why courts exist, the fact that marriage doesn't adhere to the strictures needed to exclude same-sex couples, etc. It's enough to know that he's losing this in the long run and condescending loudly to people on a web site isn't going to change that.

Memphis,

I am sure there are a lot of things you can't "figure out."

But, no matter how much evidence and logic one might apply, you seem to assume that anyone who disagrees with you does so "out of spite."

LOL.

Oh, certainly true. We remember that every time tax time comes around.

I'm confident the feds will start recognizing Mass. marriages sometime soon. The court cases couldn't be any clearer and they're well on their way. But we're not there yet.

Why do you think I'm joking? You have just radically altered the definition of an institution.

Please do drop you posts if you are unable to answer any of my points.

Replying to a silly post of another poster is simply laughable.

Oh, and you keep making false assumptions.  Adoption if a legal process.  The courts require evidence of provision for such adoptees.  Marriage provides for such legal protections.

Funny how the proponents of homosexuality on this board can not cite even one election in which the public has endorsed 'gay marriage' but blithely assert they will prevail based on surveys which have proven to be inaccurate.

You assertion is laughable, to I laugh at it.

Comparing Proposition 22 and Proposition 8 is laughable.

Proposition 8 was a Constitutional Amendment, Proposition 22 was not. The two propositions were worded differently as well.

Apples and oranges.

Oh and "social 'science'" is not a science at all.

You clearly need to study some authentically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_de_Maistre) conservative thinkers.

You suggested a fertility test for marriage. That would be a very strange situation indeed. Especially as fertility is not always binary. A forty something woman might be able to get pregnant, but it'd be a lot harder than in her college (or even high school) days. Men usually don't have a problem with age, except for what I'll delicately call the Viagara situation.
And do you have to be fertile only to initiate marriage or do you need all your organs in functioning order to remain married. Seems strange to deny a marriage license to a woman a month after the onset of menopause, when she could have gotten grandfathered in with the same man just the year before. Then you'd need regular checkups to ensure people are still fertile. Once a woman goes through the change of life, you'd need to annul the marriage. Should all women be forced to send the state their medical records at that point so that they can have their marriages cancelled?  Because that's the logical conclusion of your fertility argument.

The social conservative butthurt on this issue is hilarious. I only wish we had more issues like this to piss them off

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx

()

Way to go, Carl.


Whether or not you can accept it, this is not a matter of your opinion, this is an empirical, checkable thing. Look at the Gallup graph above, alone. Support for gay marriage has practically doubled since the mid-90s. Look at every polling company ever and their data on this issue over a decade, and support for gay marriage increases regularly. It's increased even faster than usual in the last few years.

Carl already pointed that polling on this issue is misleading.

1. Polling companies routinely "cook the books" either deliberately or through the way in which they word their questions.

2. Individuals often do not give accurate information to pollsters.

3. There is a marked difference between the national polls on this issue, and individual State polls. If the national polls like the Gallup garbage are correct, then Pennsylvania shouldn't have a 20+ point gap against homosexual 'marriage'.

So either Gallup is wrong, PPP is wrong, or something else is going on.

4. Polling companies changed the wording of the way that they asked the question. This means that any polls before/after that change cannot be compared.

5. A recent national poll using different wording found 62% opposition to changing the definition of marriage. (This would be more in line with the 20 point gap found in Pennsylvania).

There are some problems with "inquiry" methods of ascertaining information. You're right that how a question is worded is hugely important. When gathering public opinion, you don't want to push people with weasel words. "Should so and so be recognized" sounds pretty neutral to me. "Should we change the definition of marriage" is clearly pushing a conservative stance. It encourages the appeal to tradition fallacy. 
In the above Gallup graph, the wording has remained consistent except for one change in 2005. And there wasn't a lot of change around 2005. If it bother you that much you could just break the graph into two sections and see that there was a great deal of change from 1996-2005 and then also from 2006-2011.
Also, suggesting that the sea change of opinion in the graph is about people suddenly deciding to lie to pollsters when they weren't lying just a few years back doesn't sound like a strong position to me. If you want to assert that public opinion on this issue hasn't changed, you need some evidence to back that up. Polling, from a reputable firm, over several years, with a consistent phrasing. Happy searching!

The Gallup question has been remarkably consistent for years, as far as I know.

Beyond that, unsure what you mean by "cook the books."  Are you alleging the trend on the gay marriage issue is a mass fabrication?


Again, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.  There's certainly a phenomenon where gay rights issues modestly overpoll on average.  But are you suggesting that the trend is instead just a massive increase in misrepresentation of opinion?  That doesn't even square with election results.


And then there are results like Arizona.  Have you added this up?  I'd be interested in what you got.


Ehh, you can compare dissimilar things.  It just introduces a degree of subjectivity.  And again...you think this explains the shift in the Gallup Poll?  I'm just not quite sure what specific claim you're making, sorry.


Would you mind linking to this?

The stuff you think is important, isn't important. The points you raise have been raised a zillion times already by people and been shot down. I would direct you to the Goodridge decision if you were genuinely interested in hearing a different point of view, but you've never shown any interest in that.

I mean, I know this is how your brain works, and it makes sense to you, and it's why most people don't try to engage you. I understand how deeply frustrating it must be for you to see hypocrisy and dishonesty everywhere you go and to see yourself as the only person who is an honest straight shooter, and how much patience it requires for you to respond to us, even if you can barely disguise your anger and disgust, and if you're not capable of empathy. I get it. It's a common affliction to people whose love of data will draw them to a site like this. I just don't know what to do with it when it reaches a certain level of intensity, and it's sad.

You don't think my marriage is a marriage because a) we can't procreate, b) we didn't get the support of 50% of the people in our state in a referendum, and c) various personal reasons we've never gotten into. I don't care about any of those reasons, none of them matter to me. They are not part of my personal reality and they are fading as a part of my legal reality. They don't matter to a growing number of Americans. If putting me down makes you feel better about who you are, then I welcome your condescension and outrage. My life is pretty good, and if this is the role you need me to play for you to be happy, then I will shoulder the burden.

It's interesting to think that to CARL, what I wrote below reads exactly as a CARLHAYDEN post reads to anyone else, and will probably get the same response.

Life is weird.

It could be a combination of things. First, you're comparing one state poll out of a whole series (most of which are not as lopsided as PA) to a long series of polls by Gallup. It would be perfectly kosher to say, hey, PPP's one poll of PA is wrong.

Beyond that, the difference could come down to question structure. Also, PA has one of the highest median ages in the country.

We all know gay marriage overpolls in most cases by a few points, there's no doubt about that. And different polling firms will come to slightly different conclusions and there are always outliers. But this isn't some recent trend. This is something we've been seeing over the course of two decades and continuing, which has manifested itself not only in public opinion but also in election results, and in entertainment, in pop culture. Gays are becoming an accepted group in all respects, including in the political realm.

Faced with that fact, there are only two possible responses you could possibly give: Polling companies are wildly off, all of them, every time, or this is some sort of mass conspiracy perpetrated by multiple polling firms and organizations for the purpose of.. something I don't quite understand yet. If you believe the former, you're wrong, (since that doesn't square with recent referendum results, losses or no), and if you believe the latter, you are impossible to reason with on any level.

I think another thing that might contribute to the difference is polls of adults in general vs polls of registered voters.

A huge chunk of eligible voters (over 20% at least) aren't even registered to vote: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

Pennsylvania is a swing state with a left lean. Hence, if the national polls indicated a 53%-44% split in favor of redefining marriage, Pennsylvania should be somewhat close to that number, not 20 points in the opposite direction.

When you consider the other PPP polls (OH, MI, MN, ect...) you don't get numbers IN SWING STATES which would support what the Gallup polls are showing.

When you add in the numbers in places like MARYLAND (about as far left as you can get) then something is wrong with the way Gallup is conducting the poll.

Oh, and changing ONE WORD in a polling question can drastically change the results.

Hence, social "science" is not science at all.

Self-reporting surveys are inherently flawed, especially on hot button issues in the face of propaganda and violence from those pushing an agenda on the issue. (White powder sent to mormon temples, assaults, death threats, boycotts, fines, ect...)

This is not just Gallup's result.  It's been echoed by Pew and others.  Gay marriage also relatively lags in the Midwest compared to New England and the West, so a simple adjustment of the Pennsylvania results may be insufficient.

Have you done a statistical analysis to try to demonstrate whether the state and national polls are incompatible?  It may seem that way facially, but by contrast, Arizona's -1 would suggest that a national +3 (or whatever) is more than plausible.  If all of this oddness adds up to the difference of only a few points, claiming it throws the trend towards gay rights support into question is an absurd conclusion.

Moreover, since multiple national polls echo this result, and because it's not like state and national polling have immensely different methodologies, I'm not exactly sure what you're suggesting explains the discrepancy you're sensing.

That doesn't really follow.  There's a use of scientific methodology; there is just subjectivity involved in finding a representative sample and in finding the right question to gauge an abstract concept.  The fact that people respond differently to different phrasing shows that oftentimes people aren't even sure of their real opinion.  There's no perfect phrasing anyway -- After all, ballot measures themselves have varying language.

Even in hard science, complete control for variables oftentimes is impossible.  The presence of subjectivity in science is not alone enough to make it "unscientific"; it certainly isn't enough to make information inherently useless.


There may well be pressures that cause people to self-report inaccurately -- Social desirability, fear, anxiety about being challenge, plenty of things enter the equation.  You can establish a gap between the polling on the issue and the actual results.  That's actually relatively easy to do, even if you can never tell how big the gap really is.  But we agree with you that the gap exists, and it tends to overestimate gay rights support modestly.  Are you trying to make a further point?

It is actually rather refreshing to see CARL taking the radically reactionary position on an issue other than immigration for once.


Still waiting for an answer to this.  How is the term 'gay marriage' invalid, CARL?

I think Marriage certificates should be given to pregnant women in order to compel their Male Lovers to provide child support. 

In any other instance of marriage besides pregnancy, is a superficial and unnecessary government intrusion meant to prevent men from screwing around and protect outdated monogamy. 

As a general health issue, anal intercourse is dangerous and has higher rates of HIV and STD transmission.  If the government should regulate anything, it should outlaw anal intercourse and place anal intercourse as sodomy. 

You want to force people into marriage? Just FYI, if two people are married, then there's typically no need for child support. It's when they're not married that you typically see court orders forcing men (and very rarely women) to pay child support.
While we're dictating our desires for legalities and parenthood, I very much want to see a mandatory DNA test before any man can be listed as a father on a birth certificate. I don't care if the couple is married or not. Men have a right to know, and having to ask for such a delicate thing is an undue burden.

I'm sure there are financial benefits to legalized gay unions, but I don't know them right now?
Basically, marriage is a financial contract between the 2 spouses, and in the event of a divorce the richer spouse pays alimony to the poorer spouse. 
Personally, I think freedom is being able to do whatever you want away from government regulation, that can be screwing many women or screwing as many men as you want.
However, marriage becomes a convenient government contract when it comes to regulating the responsibilities for biological children.  The traditional reasoning for a marriage contract was financial arrangement and a sexual arrangement, leading to the birth of biological offspring, which the birth parents are legally bound to care and provide for.  I don't really care if straight or gay couples want to live in monogamy, with or without government oversight.  But I do want to legally strengthen the laws regarding biological parenthood and responsibility.  For instance, in the black community, black fathers don't take financial responsibility for their children and have many children out of wedlock.  This is perhaps freedom at its finest display. 
However, the government has a legal interest and legal authority to make sure every child is financially provided for.  It might not change anything in black culture, but I would like to see a marriage certificate as a default obligation to common-law marriages with children. 

What I find most amusing of CARL's denial of the trend here is he once tried to argue there was a "trend" toward the Republicans in a congressional special election because the Republican candidate got more votes than a Republican did in the previous election...where the Republicans received zero votes because there was no Republican candidate.

Married couples are taxed preferentially to unmarried couples in the income tax, particularly if they have disparate incomes (if one is a stay-at-home parent). Additionally, married couples are entitled to increases in certain child support and other family government credits (generally also in their tax payments/refunds). Additionally, there are no estate taxes on transfers between spouses (only applicable to about 0.1% of the population, but still), and no gift taxes on transfers within the marital unit, taxes that unmarried couples must pay.

Furthermore, there are a raft of other, less tangibly economic benefits like hospital visitation rights that are extended to spouses and not to unmarried couples.

Obama has been several points less popular than gay marriage for months now.

Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, the War in Afghanistan, the Tea Party, and Occupy Wall Street are all less popular than gay marriage.

I suppose its okay for gay couples to use the government marriage licenses for financial gain and personal gain, even though I don't see the point of gay marriage oversight.  The reason those marriage laws and marriage benefits exist are to protect the rights of unemployed housewives.  In theory, both gay spouses have the ability to work if they don't have children.  Even if gay spouses have children, the biological parents must pay child support under federal laws.  I don't think gay couples should get tax breaks and skip out of federal and state taxes when those taxes are needed to actually help biological families with biological children for things such as public schools. 

The purpose of these marriage laws are to benefit families with children, and to help households financially support and physically care for underage children.  There is no logical reasoning for gay couples to use government loopholes to cheat the government out of tax dollars and sap financial support to biological families that actually benefit from tax breaks. 

This isn't true. Households in which both spouses work receive equal benefits.


This is also true of straight spouses.


This is false. Biological parents do not have to pay child support, and very few same-sex couples with children receive any kind of child support from biological parents. Most same-sex couples with children either adopted those child or had them through surrogates, where child support is not an issue. Among those few who did not, almost none receive child support.


If the point is to subsidize schools, couples without children should pay more taxes regardless of marital status or orientation. That would be arguable (probably idiotic as policy, but internally consistent), but it is not the current system, nor remotely resembling it.

Furthermore, many of the policies I cited, like the estate tax and gift tax, are benefits designed for internal support between spouses rather than support of children. Federal law treats married couples as a single legal unit, regardless of whether they have children or not. The support of children is not even a factor in gift or estate tax. Gifts to children are tax-free regardless as they are considered "support", so no gift tax between spouses provides no benefit at all to children. Additionally, children inheriting are subject to estate tax, regardless of where the money is coming from, so the exemption again is clearly to benefit the spouse and not the children.


As above, if this were the case, marriage tax breaks would only benefit families with children. It does not. Even if it did, it would not be an argument against gay couples with children from having marriage benefits. Therefore, either the purpose is not to benefit families with children, in which case your premise is false, and therefore nothing follows from it, or gay couples with children should be allowed to marry while straight couples without children should not be allowed to marry, in which case your premise is true but your conclusion is false.

Milhouse, do you know there are same-sex couples who have adopted children together or where the biological parent is out of the picture (because of surrogacy or life events)? Do you not see adopted children as getting the same right as biological children?

The hospital policies regarding spouses is a private medical issue dealing directly with the Hospital.  If a hospital wanted to allow visitation to a person's lawyer or power of attorney, you can sue to allow your gay spouse to receive that permission. 

My general feeling is that marriage is pointless.  Some people want a marriage license as a legal protection forcing shared property assets, lifetime financial support, alimony, and forced sexual monogamy.

The marriage laws were written to protect women, who took many months or years out of the work force as a result of pregnancy or child-rearing.  Marriage was a legal entity to force financial protection for the women and force their husbands to stick around, instead of leaving town for the women to raise the children alone and in poverty.  Marriage licenses have always been meant to protect the rights of women in biological child-rearing. 

Unmarried Biological parents DO have to pay child support, if the woman asks the court to force the biological father to pay for the child.  I wonder what the lowest monthly payment per child is in the United States?  Even, if the father gives up the parental rights to the child, he may be compelled to pay child support if the child's needs are not met.  In some countries, sperm donors are forced to pay child support to lesbian families. 

The issue of gay adoption and surrogacy is pointless, because a gay couple should adopt children only if they can afford to support them.  In that sense, adopting children is a financial choice, so gay couples should bear full financial responsibility without government support. 

Marriage Licenses are seen as a government regulation of biological reproduction in order to legally protect the rights of mothers and their biological children.  The government has an interest in protecting the rights of biological children, who may or may not have been born out of wedlock, and to ensure that the biological parents fulfill their legal responsibilities. 

I don't condone these tax breaks for the estate tax and the gift tax if childless straight or gay couples are merely seeking to not pay taxes.  Its an American right to pay taxes, and if gay or straight couples are abusing these loopholes, then these tax loopholes should be closed.  Why would a childless spouse want to hide assets from govt taxes?

No, they aren't. That's why there is no procreative test for marriage and why plenty of couples that are incapable of having children are happily wedded every year. This argument has been used every time there's a court case about same-sex marriage and it always falters on the fact that loads of senior citizens and infertile people get married and that is cause for celebration, and also that same-sex couples have kids.

Fail.

Baker v. Nelson recognized the procreative nature of marriage, and like it or not, Baker v. Nelson is the LAW OF THE LAND. (Dismissal for want of a substantial federal question constitutes a decision on the merits, which binds lower courts on the issues presented in the jurisdictional statement.)

Second, other decisions such as Anderson v. King County and Hernandez v. Robles recognized the procreative nature of marriage as a legitimate reason for ensuring that it was not redefined by homosexuals.

Your assertion is a lie.

Oh, hey, I genuinely didn't know about that court case from 1970. I've only thought about recent litigation, but something that predates Bowers by 15 years and even the vaguest possibility of same-sex marriage by 25 to 30 is going to look like a museum piece and have dated arguments, even if it is the federal precedent because SCOTUS hasn't ruled on SSM yet.

You are correct, some state court judges haven't thrown out the argument, but it's shot full of holes for the reasons I mentioned. Those judges generally have to shut their minds to the fact that many same-sex couples raise children, and also that no marriage law today in the U.S. tests procreation or excludes obviously infertile couples. How do you address that inconsistency.

Adoptive parents and legal guardians do have rights over their legally adopted children.

My point as I've stated again is that a Marriage License is pointless if you take away the issue of biological procreation.  Then the marriage issue becomes a financial issue and property rights.  If your objective is to promote tax evasion for gay couples, social security scamming, health insurance scamming.  Essentially marriage licenses are a scam if used in that regard, and gay marriage becomes a scam if used for financial security. 

Here is a common question posed to women:  How does a woman grow her investment portfolio?
Answer: Marry a rich man.

Marriage has been used in the past and in the present as a financial investment for women.  Marriage is a pointless ceremony that has become outdated and unnecessary.  It is a tool used by weak women to climb out of poverty when they can't do it themselves.

This post is sad.

I doubt marriage was ever intended for the protection of women, given that women were expected to summit to their husbands, and if/when they chose careers, they were taken less seriously than men.

This brings back to my issue and focus on child support and child care.  Marriage was one of the effective legal methods to compel a husband to stay with a woman and their children.
For instance, how is a pregnant woman supposed to work full time?  In the US, women are given at least 6 months of paid maternity leave, but is 6 months of wages enough for a single mom? 

Are you familiar with the term Bastard Children?  Which means that they are fatherless children. 

Its unfortunate, but there are men and fathers who run away from their families and their responsibilities to provide and care for their biological children. 

Instead of focusing on marriage licenses to gay couples, the marriage rate will still decline and in the next decade there will be far less married people, the government should focus on improving child support to bastard children. 

Hrm? Many do work full time until the last month.

Serious question: Have you ever met an adult human female?

What about child care?  Is anyone going to stay home to watch infants?  The issue of gay marriage is a red herring, gay marriage is a non-issue that affects nothing consequential, except for the previously mentioned tax evasion scams, social security scams, health insurance scams.  Society will not be better or worse in legalizing gay marriage, except for the tax evasion and increase in risky anal intercourse for infectious diseases. 

The real issue will how to care for bastard children trough socialized child care, when men no longer accept their ethical responsibilities as fathers.  Liberals and Feminists seem to forget about the importance of fatherhood, in their quest to break down traditional society. 

Feminists can in theory take care of themselves as single mothers, right?

Parse error, I think you're trying to subtly imply that my revulsion at your understanding of gender relations entails a rejection of the idea that marriages should be stable and are the best environment for raising children (which, by the way, is part of why the institution should be extended to gay couples, who are going to be raising children regardless), but I'm not certain.

This isn't a debate thread about same-sex marriage, to be honest. I expect new polls whenever I see there's a new post, not stupid arguments against the issue.

Montana: 37-51 against

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/montana-miscellaneous-poll.html (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/montana-miscellaneous-poll.html)

Doing slightly better in Montana than in Pennsylvania.

()

Damn look at the age cross-tab:

18-45 (I assume they meant 18-29): 69% legal, 24% illegal, 6% not sure
30-45: 40% legal, 49% illegal, 11% not sure
45-65: 34% legal, 52% illegal, 13% not sure
>65: 26% legal, 61% illegal, 13% not sure

It's only a matter of time Montana!

I want to see Idaho's numbers now

I am starting to realize that the correlation between age and views on this issue is even stronger than partisan affiliation and views on this issue.  Can we say so with confidence, though?

Maybe. I don't think 69% of Montanans <29 years old are Democratic, or Democratic-leaning.

Obama won 61% of them, so not quite.

North Carolina still hatin:

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

Legal............................................................... 30%
Illegal .............................................................. 57%
Not sure .......................................................... 13%

Would you vote for or against a constitutional
amendment to provide that marriage between
one man and one woman is the only domestic
legal union that shall be valid or recognized in
this State? (Asked of 688 likely primary voters)

Would vote for it - 57%
Would vote against it - 32%
Not sure - 9%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NC_12091118.pdf

Colorado 47-43 in favor of gay marriage according to PPP.

New Colorado numbers are out:

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

Legal............................................................... 47%
Illegal .............................................................. 43%
Not sure .......................................................... 10%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_CO_12091205.pdf

An improvement compared to 45% legal, 45% illegal, 10% not sure from August 2011.

That's a big shift for 4 months.

Not really; the margin of error is +/-3.5%.

We really need more polls to accurately see the trend. I'd love to see polls for each state every 6 months on a variety of issues. Before PPP got involved we had even less.

(CO & NC)

()

New New Mexico numbers are out:

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

Legal............................................................... 45%
Illegal .............................................................. 43%
Not sure .......................................................... 12%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NM_1219424.pdf

Last NM results from June 2011: 42% legal, 48% illegal, 10% not sure.

()

I'm just anti-marriage for anyone and everyone.  Men and women and men can co-habitate and raise children together.  Men can adopt non-biological children and have parental rights and guardianship rights.  But the way I look at it, it can be very easy to scam the system to get benefits.  For instance, I would marry a gay millionaire who is very old, just so I could get half his property and inheritance upon his death or divorce. 

As a man, the only way I am going to decide to financially support a wife and children if I know for sure the child is my biological child, and it will take a court-order for government to force me to marry the woman or pay child support. 

An yes, married men pay child support in the form of giving up half their property rights and savings account to feed, house, and clothe his wife and child. 

So, I do support gay marriage, even though I think it is completely stupid and illogical for gay men or anyone else to get married when they are not being forced by the government to financially support their biological children.  I'm also against anal intercourse because I think its dangerous, unhealthy, unlubricated, and spreads stds.

Political Debate is 5 boards down. Please utilize it.

New Mexico numbers look better than I thought. 45 is probably the ceiling at the moment, though.

Those NM numbers from Putrid Propaganda Polling only were achieved after PPP deliberately stacked the poll to get the numbers that they wanted.

Of course, the lefties here don't care about that reality.

Agreed, there must be a conspiracy.

Not a conspiracy, just PPP producing numbers its clients like:

Well, let’s compare the PPP numbers for New Mexico with those from other sources.
PPP asserts that 30% of their respondents are liberals, 30% Moderates and 39% conservatives (Q. 16) 

Here’s what Edison (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/) had to say on voter Ideology in New Mexico in 2008:

Liberal               22%
Moderate          44
Conservative    34

According to Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/125066/State-States.aspx) the breakdown is:

Liberal             21.0%
Moderate        34.3
Conservative  41.2

Here’s the ratio of conservatives to liberals according to the three polls:

PPP                  1.3
Edison             1.5
Gallup              2.0

Oh, and let’s  look at some national polls the PPP does for the Daily Kos and SEIU, and their idea of the partisan breakout:

Some PPP polls showing Democrats with a nine point advantage (or more) over Republicans this year include:

10/27-30/11
7/21-24/11
5/12-15/11
5/5-8/11
4/7-10/11

The largest Democrat advantage in recent years (going back to 2004) was 7 points in 2008 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p1) and zero points in 2010 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p1)

Whatever makes you sleep at night.

Although I recommend learning how to lucid dream so you can have a baku come and eat the gay Mexican night terrors. I think we'd all be happier that way, including you.

Given these three data points, it looks like Gallup, not PPP, is the outlier.

Gallup also compiles their state data over the course of 1 friggin year.

I wouldn't trust a polling company that collects data by interviewing 1 person from NM each day.

If you want to support Anal intercourse, then that is your decision.  Ask any woman on the street if they enjoy anal intercourse.  You may think its normal and safe to have anal intercourse but there are some things that the human body can't handle. 

Another important thing that you seem to be forgetting is that it is harder to validate and confirm that a gay marriage is legit.  Scammers will use gay marriage to get whatever they can get from the government including green cards. 

Usually, a marriage clerk can determine if a marriage is legitimate if the woman ends up pregnant with the man's child.  That's why women want to be married, because they need a man to help them support a child.  Now, if there is a childless straight couple, government officials will wonder if this is a real marriage or a fake marriage for money or whatever.  Its justifiable for men to get divorced or annulled based on fraud.

Do we really need to be wasting govt dollars in determining whether gay couples are legit or fraudulent?

rofl. Are you for real?

Ahhh... I love reminiscing about the halcyon days of my youth.  Despite my rants about the adolescents that populate this forum I do actually enjoy experiencing the quaint naivete from time to time.  FYI young buck the way I roll its the women I've dated that have requested anal intercourse.  And yes some of them were very far right wing.  Once you put away the porn and get out into the real world you are going to get eaten alive.  To this day every time I meet a new woman I have no idea what to expect.  It's wild.

When your dad is hitting the Schlitz at the dinner table and regurgitating what Rush Limbaugh told him to say it's okay to put him on ignore every once in awhile.

Actually I have no specific opinion of anal sex one way or another, and my opinion of sex in general is much more negative than you might think.

The rest of your post is, of course, hilarious.

Do tell.

I don't like it, and I intellectually understand but am viscerally baffled by why other people do so much. I think there are all sorts of really creepy power dynamics bound up in it and I have serious concerns about the philosophical possibility of respecting the agency of a sexual partner.

I am equal-opportunity about all of this with regards to gender.

The virginity on this page is killing me.

You don't like it personally or you don't like the idea that other people are doing it? In either case, why?


Power dynamics like what? People of different ages or positions of authority (boss-employee, teacher-student, etc)?


? What, like you're not sure it would actually be consenting? Not sure I understand.

Both. In order, because I don't swing that (i.e. any) way and for reasons below.

It should be mentioned that I am attracted to girls (or people whose gender peformativity is female) aesthetically and in terms of relationships; it's just  my interest in some parts of their anatomy that's lacking.


The creation of a power tension between different people in general. I actually have a somewhat more positive attitude towards BDSM because I feel it's more honest about this. There are philosophical reasons for this that might take a little while to explain; some of the reasons are, in my case, religious, but they don't necessarily have to be religious to make sense (since I've elucidated them in my Philosophy Club to not entirely negative or confused response and I'm my Philosophy Club's token religious-in-a-remotely-conventional-way person). So I guess my explanation to you would depend on the extent to which you're interested in my interpretation of what power is and how it works in this case.


I'm not sure consent is entirely possible on the most basic level, but it is for all practical intents and purposes, so my main concern actually has to do with 'mak[ing] the loved person an Object of appetite' (quoting Immanuel Kant here). Obviously there are ways to ameliorate this. I'm not one of those crazies who insists that anybody who has non-procreative sex is automatically evil. But my understanding of sexuality does come from both a kind of baffled and a kind of unnerved place.

I'm willing to read your interpretation.


Googles (http://books.google.com/books?id=4HdpN1xnl5EC&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=%27making+the+loved+person+an+Object+of+appetite%27&source=bl&ots=vDWZOMgnx7&sig=3bMJZyKqrGSzqAdXYy30tuQ_azI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AcLyTofqAqWUiQLZ6tSGDg&sqi=2&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%27making%20the%20loved%20person%20an%20Object%20of%20appetite%27&f=false)

So basically sex is wrong because people do it out of physical appetite and this appetite disregards the nonphysical aspect of a person (just having sex with a body) so that you're just having sex with a thing/object?

Meh, that seems pretty weird. There is obviously a person inside the body which is why you can rape a person but not rape a sex doll and I'm sure plenty of people have sex with not just the intention of making themselves feel good, but making their partner feel good too.

Even then, I don't see why wanting to do something purely for physical reasons is wrong. So what if you and the person you're having sex with are just using your bodies as a thing to make yourselves feel good?

I have a written essay on this subject, but be warned, it also touches on...several other issues, including gender identity, faith and how it's distinct from religion, Marxist analysis of religion, and the concept of 'alterity' in extremely dense (and condensed) philosophese  (for example, I define atheism as 'the faith that the first apparent character of the world within the confines of logical perception persists beyond those confines'). I'll see if I can go through it and take out excerpts to maybe make a thread on the Religion & Philosophy board. I'm actually reasonably proud of the essay, for what it is.


That's exactly the sort of thing that I was referring to when I said that there are ways to ameliorate it and that I'm not a crazy person about this belief. Kant's more hardline on this than I am even though theoretically there's not all that much daylight between me and him.


This is a function of one's fundamental view of what the physical universe is here for and I suspect probably isn't the sort of thing that can carry over from one view on that to another. The best I can give you is that my view of the physical universe is intensively symbolic, if that makes any sense (again, this sort of view doesn't necessarily have to be religious symbolism per se, even though a lot of it is in my case).

I ask women on the street if they enjoy anal intercourse all the time.  Most of the time they say no... but every once in a great while, you'll get one who says yes.  And that's when you realize you've just experienced something very special.

But... seriously?  I actually find the completely hardwired misogyny in this guy to be fascinating.  I mean... either he's a very accomplished and subtle troll... or he really believes this crap.

And if he'd spend more time asking women if they enjoyed anal intercourse and less time thinking *for* them... he might actually learn a thing or two.

The highly formal and ideologically-charged discussion of anal sex in this thread is relevant to my sense of humor.

But isn't the fact that you find these power dynamics to be 'creepy' the heart of your objection?  I mean, you may or may not have a point about the dynamics, but your value judgment regarding them is purely arbitrary.


I think you are somewhat mixed up due to the notion of 'love', which should rightly have nothing to do with sex.  Think of sex not so much as a highly specific desire for a particular person or objectification of that person, but rather as a casual and anonymous though very necessary and important personal service - like massage, chiropractic, or dentistry.

It's not arbitrary in the context of my other beliefs, which find other-than-explicit, other-than-broadly-social individual power tensions between people (which aren't necessarily the same thing as hierarchy, though obviously they tend to intersect) inherently problematic. I'm sure you can to an extent empathize with this, since you see better than most (even if you're a little...odd in your approach to it) the way civilization as it presently exists is made mostly or entirely of exploitative power dynamics. Imagine the problems with that transferred to a relationship between two (or slightly more) individuals and you have roughly how I look at sexuality, or at least, the way sexuality is done in most of our society.


If you please, I'd rather not, since that makes the problem worse, not better, in my thinking (as in, thinking of sex that way makes me almost entirely unable to understand why it's a thing, rather than able with some difficulty since I don't personally swing any way worth mentioning). I...to a great extent I think there's inherently something serious and personal about union of bodies on that level. Being very physically receptive with unfamiliar people unnerves me, personally, even in non-sexual contexts, and in the case of sex that enervation gets to the point of actually having normative ethical beliefs about the matter, since it plays back into the power dynamics and since even a non-loved person is still a person. So even if it's not highly specific or unique to one or even a few people it is still what it is. The goal should be to cultivate love (of whatever kind) wherever possible and the role of sex in that is, as you admit, limited; I happen to think that's more prejudicial to the position of sex than to that of love.

New Virginia numbers:

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

Legal............................................................... 34%
Illegal .............................................................. 53%
Not sure .......................................................... 13%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_VA_1222.pdf

Last VA PPP results from July 2011: 35% legal, 52% illegal, 14% not sure

()

No change.

New Pennsylvania numbers:

Asked of any woman on the street: Do you enjoy anal intercourse?

Yes .......................................................... 2%
No ........................................................... 5%
Get the hell away from me, you creep .... 93%

Adding this to the map we can see that there is still a clear national trend toward "get the hell away from me, you creep." Bad news for President Obama.

()

Jersey should be much lighter. :P

Ask any woman on the street if she supports same-sex marriage...

There are worse places than Alabama or Mississippi for gays though:

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

Legal............................................................... 45%
Illegal .............................................................. 45%"

Wow.

Um, details? Link?

<Assumes Moderator Voice>

AHEM!

In case I wasn't crystal clear before, I meant it that we need to take a break from the discussion of milhouse's expounding on marriage and sex. I assumed it was equally clear this applied to those commenting on milhousems views in addition to the M man himself.

Kindly give it a couple weeks break or start a separate thread in the Off-Topic board. Otherwise this thread may require being locked again. Thank you.

EDIT: I just noticed the new thread started by milhouse. Thank you! That should end further off topic discourse in this thread for the short term at least.

I just split the two threads. Keep this one about same-sex marriage polling and state laws; the other one can be used to continue the discussion about the merits of whether gay marriage is equal, lesser, or a sham. Thanks.

This is a good solution.  A polling thread and a separate discussion thread makes a lot of sense.

Yeah, i realized that when I opened that thread afterwards. Thanks, partner!

Why wasn't I surpised Milhouse didn't do something so rational? But I digress.....

dude's usin' an awful lot of thinkpower to keep up his smart gay-marriage-is-tax-fraud argument, and as a result, a lot of his other faculties are diminished. we don't want him spreading himself too thin -- he needs to put his thinkin' where his thinkin' can get its best use: on Internet.

More North Carolina numbers :P

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

Legal............................................................... 32%
Illegal .............................................................. 57%
Not sure .......................................................... 12%

Would you vote for or against a constitutional
amendment to provide that marriage between
one man and one woman is the only domestic
legal union that shall be valid or recognized in
this State?

Would vote for it - 56%
Would vote against it - 34%
Not sure - 10%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NC_011212.pdf

NC PPP results from December 2011: 30% legal, 57% illegal, 13% not sure
NC PPP results from late October 2011: 31% legal, 59% illegal, 10% not sure
NC PPP results from early October 2011: 30% legal, 63% illegal, 8% not sure
NC PPP results from September 2011: 31% legal, 61% illegal, 8% not sure

()

It's being threatened in NH. (http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2012/01/new-hampshire-legislature-expected-to-vote-on-repealing-gay-marriage-law/)

France:

63% support

http://www.leparisien.fr/societe/les-francais-favorables-au-mariage-gay-14-01-2012-1811697.php

Is it legal in France?

I think it's Civil Unions in France, but with almost all the rights like what a Marriage has. It's just not called marriage. But somewhere I have read that these Civil Union laws are so liked that even heteros want to register their relationships in these Civil Unions because they don't want it to be a Marriage ... :P

Maybe one of the French posters know more.

New Jersey (Quinnipiac):

New Jersey voters support 52 - 42 percent allowing same-sex couples to marry, the first time support tops 50 percent.

On related issues, New Jersey voter opinions are:

    65 - 32 percent that same-sex marriage is not a threat to traditional marriage;
    53 - 45 percent that denying same-sex marriage is discrimination;
    69 - 26 percent support for New Jersey's same-sex civil union law;
    66 - 29 percent support allowing same-sex couples to adopt children.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/new-jersey/release-detail?ReleaseID=1693

...

Maryland (Gonzales Research):

Maryland voters remain divided on the issue of same-sex marriage. Statewide, 49% favor a law allowing same-sex couples to marry (34% “strongly” favor and 15% “somewhat” favor), while 47% oppose same-sex marriage (38% “strongly” oppose and 9% “somewhat” oppose).

62% of Democrats support same-sex marriage, as do 56% of independents. Among Republicans, 76% are opposed to same-sex marriage.

Whites: 55-43 support
Blacks: 33-60 oppose

http://www.gonzalesresearch.com/polls/Maryland%20Poll%20January%202012.pdf

Washington (SurveyUSA):

A new KING 5 poll finds Washington state voters are very divided on the issue of gay marriage.

In a poll of 617 registered voters statewide on landlines and cell phones, KING 5 and SurveyUSA asked specifically, “If the legislature were to approve marriage for same-sex couples, and you were asked to approve or reject the law, how would you vote?”

In our poll, 47% said they would approve the law, while 46% said they would reject it; 7% said they weren’t sure.  The poll has a margin of +/-4%.

Gay marriage supporters are trying to pass a bill through the legislature during this session, but have not secured enough votes in the state senate.  Opponents say if the legislature were to pass a bill, they would collect signatures to force a referendum on the issue.

In the poll, younger voters were far more likely to support gay marriage with 50% saying they’d approve a measure, compared to 39% support among voters over age 65.  While voters in the King, Pierce and Snohomish County region voiced 50% support for a bill, voters in eastern Washington rejected the idea 54% to 38%.

The poll also found women voters more inclined to approve gay marriage (52% to 41% reject) than men (43% to 52% reject).

http://www.king5.com/news/local/KING-5-poll-State-divided-over-gay-marriage-137689348.html

That would be cool if it was passed/upheld in WA, NJ, MD, and ME this year.

P.S. - What about the map?

If the polls are this close and it comes to a referendum in WA, MD and ME - it will probably not pass. Because gay marriage has in history always overpolled. Could pass in NJ though, but even there I'm not sure.


()

The problem in New Jersey is that even though support may finally be there in the State Senate -- there are a few Republicans now signed on to support marriage equality -- it still needs to get past Christie's desk. And Christie is a "no" on gay marriage. Maybe (http://www.towleroad.com/2012/01/christieveto.html).

The Star Ledger suggested (http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2012/01/gay_marriage_in_nj_could_succe.html) a better road may be to just take it to the voters via constitutional amendment since it's clear a majority of the state supports it. The idea really intrigues me, since it's the usual weapon of the "homosexual marriage haters."

More prove that women are more progressive then men when it comes to political ideology. I'm guessing most of the male vote are in the 40's-64 and 64-older demographics, though I can't deny that teenage boys still love making politically incorrect statements about referring to one of their dislike as "gay".

2/3 is also, of course, veto-proof.

So we will almost certainly have WA and MD pass it this year.  Then I wonder who is next?  DE or RI could try.  I'd imagine Hickenlooper will try to pass it in CO in 2013 if the State House falls back under D control.  Same with OR where Kitzhaber is one seat away from a trifecta. 

I think it's probably more likely to be sustained in NJ than in WA or MD, though I'm actually pretty optimistic about all three.

I think it's pretty likely Democrats will break the tie in the OR state house and win the state legislature in 2012 but our situation is a little different than Washington's as our ban on gay marriage is constitutional while Washington's is statutory (probably due to the fact that WA doesn't allow for constitutional initiatives[1] and Democrats controlled one/both chambers of the state legislature and never pushed for a constitutional ban like Republicans are doing in MN/NC after finally winning those state legislatures after decades of split control at the best).

That means their state legislature can legalize it on its own, while in Oregon, any change to the state constitution requires a public referendum which means the only way to legalize it is for an initiative (which groups have said they will push for in 2014 after deciding against it in 2012) or the legislature to vote to refer a repeal.

Anyway, it's probably going to pass here in 2013/2014, especially with the momentum of it passing in Washington. I think Illinois and Hawaii will be considering it soon too even though they just recently passed civil unions but that's what you get when you opt for the half-way measure when the issue is progressing so quickly.

[1]:
()

edit: never mind about the odd-numbered year thing. I'm thinking of some bill that never passed and looking back we've had plenty of measures in odd-numbered years :P

Hopefully these polls will be moot once Perry v Schwarzenegger (Brown) hits the SCOTUS and hopefully passes. :)

California, at the ballot box.

New Texas numbers:

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

Legal............................................................... 29%
Illegal .............................................................. 57%
Not sure .......................................................... 14%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_TX_0125.pdf

TX PPP results from September 2011: 29% legal, 61% illegal, 10% not sure

New Minnesota numbers:

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

Legal............................................................... 43%
Illegal .............................................................. 47%
Not sure .......................................................... 10%

Should the Minnesota Constitution be
amended to provide that only a union of one
man and one woman shall be valid or
recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?

Yes - 48%
No - 44%
Not sure - 8%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MN_012712.pdf

MN PPP results from May 2011: 46% legal, 45% illegal, 9% not sure

()

edit: whoops, typo :P

I always thought Minnesota was more progressive on these issues ... :(

The Midwest has some considerable cultural traditionalism going, for better or worse.

Just write up a repeal of marriage licensing in your state and let churches take it over.  You can get married at the First Fabulous Church of His Lord in your area.

???

Maryland now favors it by a 50-44 margin, according to a new Washington Post poll:

()

Those are comparatively very good numbers for African-American Democrats.

Wow, that's a sea-change since 2004.

I wonder how it is doing in Deleware and Illinois.

This is what I assume at this point-

red- favor gay marriage
blue- oppose gay marriage
dark blue- majority antiabortion
90% blue- a personhood amendment might have enough votes
yellow- favor gay marriage, majority antiabortion




Though what's interesting is that support for gay marriage is now more or less as prevalent as antiabortion sentiment. And though there has been uptick of this Conservative Humanist (basically Huckabee if he wasn't a closet case)  view of being pro-gay and antiabortion, its still the norm to just accept that the law is the law.

()

If Cook County really has real liberals in it, support for gay marriage now surpassed 270 EVs.

NJ now strongly in favor:

52-34

http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/84/159/2147483694/37459b64-548b-4dd0-8ccf-7985264ef9d5.pdf

Congratulations, Phil!

Phil and Naso will be very happy together.

Didn't Washington make it legal?

Yeah but there hasn't been any new polls for them yet. I do expect this year's events will shift Washington more in favor.

New Washington numbers:

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

Legal...............................................................49%
Illegal ..............................................................44%
Not sure ..........................................................7%

If there was a referendum on the new law
legalizing same-sex marriage, would you vote
to uphold the law, or would you vote to repeal
it?

Would vote to uphold the law..........................50%
Would vote to repeal it ....................................46%
Not sure .........................................................4%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_WA_222.pdf

WA PPP results from May 2011: 46% legal, 44% illegal, 10% not sure

()

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/29/4299164/support-for-gay-marriage-takes.html


()

Those colored bars are of...interesting relative lengths.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/new-jersey/release-detail?ReleaseID=1712



()

Iowa (Selzer):

A majority of Iowans oppose passage of a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, a new Des Moines Register Iowa Poll shows.

The poll found that 38 percent favor a legislative initiative to pass a constitutional amendment, while 56 percent are against. Six percent aren’t sure.

The findings show little movement on the issue from February 2011, when 40 percent of those surveyed supported passing an amendment, while 54 percent were opposed.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120227/NEWS09/302270022/-1/SPORTS12/Iowa-Poll-Majority-opposes-ban-same-sex-marriage

I wonder if this issue is sufficiently polarized that the Iowa question might function as a decent proxy for gauging support of legal SSM.

In other words, I'm wondering if we should put it on the map.

While there is a significant "Bradley effect" in gay marriage polling (like I pointed out earlier), I wonder if gay marriage opponents might have to switch their strategy in blue states to ballot measures which simultaneously legalize civil unions and ban gay marriage.

That would have the added incidental benefit of providing Romer fodder for the idea that gay marriage opponents have nothing better to do than just pick over semantics to create artificial hierarchies for no rational reason.

New Maine numbers:

In general, do you think same-sex marriage should be legal or illegal?

Legal...............................................................54%
Illegal ..............................................................41%
Not sure ..........................................................5%

Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses
for same-sex couples that protects religious
freedom by ensuring no religion or clergy be
required to perform such a marriage in violation
of their religious beliefs?

Yes - 47%
No - 32%
Not sure - 21%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_ME_0307.pdf

ME PPP results from October 2011: 51% legal, 42% illegal, 8% not sure
ME PPP results from March 2011: 47% legal, 45% illegal, 8% not sure

()

It appears that the following states haven't passed gay marriage or banned it by constitutional amendment:

Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Delaware
West Virginia
Illinois
Indiana
New Mexico
Wyoming

Any particular reason why these states haven't acted on it.

NC and MN have a ban on the ballot this year.
NJ legislature passed gay marriage, but was vetoed.

Delaware and Illinois legalized civil unions recently.

West Virginia and New Mexico are probably examples of Democratic controlled legislatures stalling, but not trying to pass anything for fear of voter retaliation (WV) or divided party control (NM).

PA is probably just an issue of a divided electorate and maybe it's difficult to do initiatives there?

RI is in the process of legalizing same-sex marriage, but the Senate president or House president keeps blocking it.

Wyoming tried to pass an amendment to ban it, but it failed somewhere in the legislature.

No idea what's going on in Indiana.

I highly doubt gay marriage would pass in WV even if legislators voted their conscience.

Maryland (PPP):

52-44 for gay marriage in a Nov. referendum

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/blog/bal-poll-shows-slim-support-for-gay-marriage-20120308,0,3650775.story?track=rss

LOL!!!

Push poll commissioned by homosexual activists. Even the far-left Post says its the "rosiest" picture yet, as normal polls have this 50-50.

OF COURSE ITS ROSY! It's a push poll.

Got to love that spin. Goes to show that PPP is nothing more than a propaganda outfit.

How did they word the push questions?

Wow.

NC (Elon):

Would you [support or oppose] an amendment to the North Carolina constitution that would prevent any same sex marriages?

38% Support
54% Oppose

http://www.elon.edu/docs/e-web/elonpoll/030912_Methodology.pdf

PPP notes that this poll is useless, because it doesn't use the correct ballot language.

The PPP poll for NC that's currently in the field shows a result that is different by 50 points !

March 2012 Massachusetts numbers:

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

Legal............................................................... 58%
Illegal .............................................................. 31%
Not sure .......................................................... 11%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MA_322121.pdf

MA PPP results from September 2011: 60% legal, 30% illegal, 10% not sure
MA PPP results from June 2011: 59% legal, 33% illegal, 8% not sure

()

Come on, somebody get to those 15 unpolled states :P

Im sure PPP is on it :P [in fact since they just polled LA, I bet its likely we get one there.]

I do wonder why no one has polled Illinois on this one, considering there is legislative movement towards legalizing it in the state and I would think its electorate would be one of the most supportive in the midwest.

April 2012 Colorado numbers:

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

Legal............................................................... 53%
Illegal .............................................................. 40%
Not sure .......................................................... 7%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_CO_041312.pdf

CO PPP results from December 2011: 47% legal, 43% illegal, 10% not sure
CO PPP results from August 2011: 45% legal, 45% illegal, 10% not sure

()

Damn look at that age gap:

18-29 y/o - 77% legal, 23% illegal, 0% not sure
30-45 y/o - 52% legal, 40% illegal, 7% not sure
46-65 y/o - 58% legal, 35% illegal, 7% not sure
65+ y/o - 28% legal, 59% illegal, 13% not sure

New NC referendum numbers show a narrower margin, actually the narrowest ever:

Would you vote for or against a constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State?

Would vote for it.............................................. 54%
Would vote against it ...................................... 40%
Not sure .......................................................... 6%

Do you think that a 'yes' vote on Amendment One bans just gay marriage, bans both gay
marriage and civil unions, legalizes gay marriage, or are you not sure?

Bans just gay marriage ................................... 26%
Bans both gay marriage and civil unions ........ 36%
Legalizes gay marriage................................... 10%
Not sure .......................................................... 27%

If you knew that Amendment One banned both gay marriage and civil unions, would you vote
'yes' or 'no'?

Would vote 'yes'.............................................. 38%
Would vote 'no' ............................................... 46%
Not sure .......................................................... 16%

Which of the following best describes your opinion on gay marriage: gay couples should be allowed to legally marry, or gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry, or there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship?

Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry ..................................................28%
Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not marry ......................25%
There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship ...................44%
Not sure ... 3%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NC_424.pdf

April 2012 Virginia numbers:

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

Legal............................................................... 41%
Illegal .............................................................. 50%
Not sure .......................................................... 9%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_VA_050412.pdf

VA PPP results from December 2011: 34% legal, 53% illegal, 13% not sure
VA PPP results from July 2011: 35% legal, 52% illegal, 14% not sure

So what are the odds that all of MA, MD, ME, and CA (if it's on the ballot in CA) vote for gay marriage this year?

I'd say they all end up in favour of it.

In order of likelihood for least likely to most likely - Maryland, Maine, California and Massachusetts.

Well you have one age group that grew up during a time when gays were persecuted and torched, and you have one that grew up thinking homosexuality is normal, innate, and saw/heard homosexuals on TV and radio all the time.

Damn.

Who said that the it would legalize gay marriage? I think they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Agreed. No seriously, I'm tired of the obviously ignorant being allowed any say in things.

Agreed in sentiment, not in actuality.

I meant Washington and not Massachusetts. Maine will have a proposition to legalize gay marriage on the ballot. There's still a chance that California will too. Maryland and Washington will  likely have challenges to gay marriage on the ballot.

Well Washington replaces Massachusetts as the most likely then.

California a little way behind due to the high minority population.

So let's see here. You don't see a problem with Maine voting even more strongly against gay marriage because most of the voters there were white? Only if minorities cause something you favor to fail you see a problem with it? It always seems like the California results seem to piss off people more than all the other states where whites voted against gay marriage (btw whites voted 49-51 for prop 8, only 7 points away from the result). Minorities shouldn't have a say, right? Maybe the no on 8 campaign could have done a better job communicating with minorities, but no, they should just fall in line on their own. And if they don't, ridicule them. And if lobster fisherman in Maine don't vote for gay marriage, well at least they were white and have a right to be heard, yeah?

I mean let's ignore other variables such as say religiousness, class backgrounds and professions of the voters and let's focus on the melanin content!

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

Legal............................................................... 34%
Illegal .............................................................. 57%
Not sure .......................................................... 9%

Would you vote for or against a constitutional
amendment to provide that marriage between
one man and one woman is the only domestic
legal union that shall be valid or recognized in
this State?

Would vote for it - 55%
Would vote against it - 39%
Not sure - 6%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NC_506.pdf

NC PPP results from January 2012: 32% legal, 57% illegal, 12% not sure
NC PPP results from December 2011: 30% legal, 57% illegal, 13% not sure
NC PPP results from late October 2011: 31% legal, 59% illegal, 10% not sure
NC PPP results from early October 2011: 30% legal, 63% illegal, 8% not sure
NC PPP results from September 2011: 31% legal, 61% illegal, 8% not sure

I still don't understand how anyone ever had any hope of that amendment failing. It's North Carolina.

This.

Here's the actual results

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

100 of 100 Counties Reporting

        Percent                  Votes

For           61.04%              1,303,876
Against    38.96%                 832,219
            

May 2012 Ohio numbers:

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

Legal............................................................... 35%
Illegal .............................................................. 52%
Not sure .......................................................... 13%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_OH_050912.pdf

OH PPP results from October 2011: 32% legal, 55% illegal, 13% not sure
OH PPP results from August 2011: 33% legal, 53% illegal, 14% not sure

April 2012 Montana numbers:

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

Legal............................................................... 41%
Illegal .............................................................. 48%
Not sure .......................................................... 11%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MT_050412.pdf

MT PPP results from November 2011: 37% legal, 51% illegal, 12% not sure

May 2012 New Hampshire numbers:

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

Legal............................................................... 57%
Illegal .............................................................. 35%
Not sure .......................................................... 8%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NH_051612.pdf

NH PPP results from July 2011: 51% legal, 38% illegal, 11% not sure

()

Surprisingly not-completely-awful Montana numbers.

It doesn't actually surprise me much that most of the mountain West should be better than most of the Rust Belt.

North Carolina is the new Florida, that's why.

May 2012 North Carolina poll #2:

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

Legal............................................................... 34%
Illegal .............................................................. 58%
Not sure .......................................................... 8%

Do you think being gay should be a felony, or
not?

Being gay should be a felony ..........................   8%
It should not ....................................................  85%
Not sure ..........................................................   6%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_miscellaneousNC_051712.pdf

NC PPP results from May 2012: 34% legal, 57% illegal, 9% not sure
NC PPP results from January 2012: 32% legal, 57% illegal, 12% not sure
NC PPP results from December 2011: 30% legal, 57% illegal, 13% not sure
NC PPP results from late October 2011: 31% legal, 59% illegal, 10% not sure
NC PPP results from early October 2011: 30% legal, 63% illegal, 8% not sure
NC PPP results from September 2011: 31% legal, 61% illegal, 8% not sure

May 2012 Iowa poll:

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

Legal............................................................... 44%
Illegal .............................................................. 45%
Not sure .......................................................... 11%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_051712.pdf

IA PPP results from Ocotober 2011: 41% legal, 48% illegal, 11% not sure
IA PPP results from August 2011: 46% legal, 45% illegal, 9% not sure

May 2012 New Jersey poll:



http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/new-jersey/release-detail?ReleaseID=1750

()

Homo-marriage now leads by 14:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/22/11812596-nbcwsj-poll-obamas-gay-marriage-announcement-a-draw?lite

It would be nice to see the breakdown in support/opposition, based on partisan identification.

So far, I have learned that this poll is very skewed in partisan identification:

ID          NBC     Likely 2012     Difference

D            29            36                     7
R            22            34                   12
O             4              2                    -2
I            45            28                  -17
T          100          100

May 2012 Pennsylvania poll:

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

Legal............................................................... 39%
Illegal .............................................................. 48%
Not sure .......................................................... 13%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_PA_052312.pdf

PA PPP results from November 2011 - 36% legal, 52% illegal, 12% not sure
PA PPP results from July 2011 - 38% legal, 51% illegal, 11% not sure

()

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/05/maryland-polling-memo.html


My favorite cross-tabs from the poll:

()

()

May 2012 Michigan poll:

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

Legal............................................................... 41%
Illegal .............................................................. 45%
Not sure .......................................................... 14%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MiscellaneousMI_053112.pdf

MI PPP results from July 2011: 33% legal, 53% illegal, 14% not sure

May 2012 Missouri poll:

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

Legal............................................................... 36%
Illegal .............................................................. 52%
Not sure .......................................................... 12%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MO_060112.pdf

MO PPP results from September 2011: 32% legal, 59% illegal, 9% not sure

()

Pretty good jumps for both states. Oh, what a little Presidential support can do for a cause.

Late May/early June 2012 Minnesota poll:

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

Legal ............................................................... 47%
Illegal .............................................................. 42%
Not sure .......................................................... 11%

Should the Minnesota Constitution be
amended to provide that only a union of one
man and one woman shall be valid or
recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?

Yes - 43%
No - 49%
Not sure - 7%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MiscellaneousMN_060512.pdf

MN PPP results from January 2012: 43% legal, 47% illegal, 10% not sure
MN PPP results from May 2011: 46% legal, 45% illegal, 9% not sure

()

I'm surprised there's nothing out of Illinois yet.  Dem-controlled legislature, Dem governor who has already endorsed it... it'd be nice to see if the people would okay it too.

Don't know why, but IL seems reluctant on gay rights these days. Civil unions were a real struggle to pass.

My understanding is that there's a not-so-insignificant portion of conservative democrats from southern Illinois currently serving. With Dems maximizing their gains around the Chicago suburbs via redistricting, 2013 may be better timing.

Sure, but that still doesn't explain the lack of polling.

Late May/early June 2012 Florida poll:

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

Legal ............................................................... 42%
Illegal .............................................................. 45%
Not sure .......................................................... 13%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MiscellaneousFL_060812.pdf

FL PPP results from June 2011: 37% legal, 53% illegal, 10% not sure

()

In case it hasn't been said enough: thank you Barack Obama.  :!

I don't think Florida is that close. The large population of the elderly will be a conservative anchor on gay marriage in Florida.

I hate the "legal/illegal" question. I feel it increases the Bradley effect IMO because it probably confuses some people who disagree with gay marriage but don't think people should be thrown in jail for having a private ceremony. JMO. It's probably the most favorable wording you could come up with for same-sex marriage.

My mouth would dropped all the way to the floor and myself shock in joy if same sex marriage is legalized in Florida.

Unfortunately, we're very far off from overturning thr constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. But a decent number of Florida cities are creating domestic partnerships and I feel like we're progressing.

Constitutional amendments in Florida need 60% to pass, so I believe(?) it would need that much to overturn it. I could be wrong but if I'm right we're a long way from that.

PPP (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NV_615.pdf)

Interesting, indeed.

I love PPP.

I wonder how Nevada Republicans feel about homosexual brothels.

"BAN THEM!"

It would be interesting to see cities polled.

http://www.wbur.org/2012/06/18/wbur-maine-poll

55% Support
36% Oppose

()

http://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/214734857002164225


Yeah, 2012 looks pretty good. The Maine/Maryland/Washington initiatives are favored to win and it's very possible Minnesota will reject the constitutional ban.

As far as new states passing constitutional bans, there's really only four possibilities left: Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

()

None of these four states allow for citizen initiatives that amend the state constitution so it's been up to the state legislatures to refer a ban.

Indiana/Pennsylvania - I think split control in the state legislature has prevented referring a constitutional ban in these two previously, but Republicans won both these state legislatures in 2010. I was expecting them to pass bans in 2011 that were referred to the 2012 ballot like NC/MN Republicans did but it turns out these two states require a constitutional amendment to pass in two consecutive legislative sessions before it is referred to the ballot. It might fail if Democrats win control of one of the chambers of the state legislatures in the Nov. 2012 elections or if Republicans opt for amendments that ban both gay marriage and civil unions. I could see the bans failing in 2016 but sadly I think they'd have a high chance of passing in 2013/2014.

West Virginia - WV Democrats haven't passed a state constitutional ban and I think they only would in response to the state supreme court overturning the statutory ban. Of course there's also the possibility Republicans will win the state legislature sometime this decade.

Wyoming - No idea why Republicans haven't referred a ban here. They've controlled the state legislature for 30+ years and it would probably pass with 60%+ of the vote.

It's going to look pretty weird to look back and see 30+ state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage/civil unions pass from 1998 to 2014/16 :P

Constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage have continuously failed in the Wyoming Republican legislature. They're an interesting bunch. I don't think one would ever pass the legislature there.

I think Wyoming is one of those states where odd, libertarianish Republicans dominate the party base.

This could be part of it now that I think about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

Maybe, but I don't think it plays that big a part.

They don't need it as a wedge issue and they likely have no fear that the Wyoming Supreme Court will overturn the legislative ban.

June 2012 Washington poll:

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

Legal ............................................................... 51%
Illegal .............................................................. 42%
Not sure .......................................................... 7%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_WA_619.pdf

WA PPP results from February 2012: 49% legal, 44% illegal, 7% not sure
WA PPP results from May 2011: 46% legal, 44% illegal, 10% not sure

()

Will constitutional amendments be overturned if a Roe v Wade-esque decision is passed?

Yes, the federal constitution overrides any state constitutions

June 2012 Massachusetts poll:

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

Legal ............................................................... 62%
Illegal .............................................................. 30%
Not sure .......................................................... 8%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MA_062812.pdf

MA PPP results from March 2012: 58% legal, 31% illegal, 11% not sure
MA PPP results from September 2011: 60% legal, 30% illegal, 10% not sure
MA PPP results from June 2011: 59% legal, 33% illegal, 8% not sure

June 2012 Ohio poll:

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

Legal ............................................................... 37%
Illegal .............................................................. 50%
Not sure .......................................................... 14%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_Miscellaneous_OH_062812.pdf

OH PPP results from May 2012: 35% legal, 52% illegal, 13% not sure
OH PPP results from October 2011: 32% legal, 55% illegal, 13% not sure
OH PPP results from August 2011: 33% legal, 53% illegal, 14% not sure

June 2012 Oregon poll:

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

Legal ............................................................... 46%
Illegal .............................................................. 45%
Not sure .......................................................... 9%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_OR_070512.pdf

OR PPP results from June 2011: 48% legal, 42% illegal, 11% not sure

()

Still much work to be done.

Poor numbers from Oregon.

We've seen a few polls (Iowa and Minnesota I think?) slip back a few points within the margin of error, but I agree. Though this is the poll that has Obama down by 22 points against Romney with OR independents.

It looks like holding off at the 2012 measure was a good idea. There will probably be some peer pressure encouraging a 2014 push provided Washington upholds it this year and California's lawsuit ends with the Supreme Court refusing to hear the appeal and thus legalization in 2013.

Worst case scenario, it will be held off until 2016.

Where are the polls out of Georgia?

Minnesota is now very, very unlikely to approve SSM in November, says a new SurveyUSA poll:

52% for the man/woman marriage amendment
37% against
  5% won't vote
  6% not sure

GOP: 75-12 support
DEM: 54-38 oppose
IND: 48-42 support

http://kstp.com/news/stories/S2698095.shtml?cat=1

Washington is a different story though, also by SurveyUSA:

"A new law passed by the legislature would allow same-sex couples to marry in Washington state. Should this law be approved? Or rejected?"

50% Approve
43% Rejected

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=2786ebbd-3348-4795-b0a8-0ee124a9707d

Pretty close in Washington, but then again, seems like it'll be close either way, huh? SUSA was good in Washington for R-74 two years ago, though. I feel like R-74 will need about a 10 point lead in the polls to win "comfortably".

Ha. That debunks PPP's gutter trash poll from about a month ago.

One poll debunking another poll from over a month ago. Thanks for you valuable contribution to this thread.

Trying to ban gay marriage would cost the GOP support in Wyoming, as it did in Idaho six years ago (if you don't believe me, look at how badly it fared in Boise's recently developed neighborhoods and suburbs). The amount of ire the all-important libertarian-esque independents have towards the fundamentalist brand of social conservative is surprising.

Who knew there were so many DINOs in MN?

SUSA is notoriously bad at polling MN but the lack of support among Democrats for gay marriage has been a recurring theme of this debate. It's why Aroostook County was the bastion against it in Maine.

Aroostook county is "Democratic" (rather, it seems more Republican than the state average more often than not) for different reasons than areas in Minnesota, though. Comparing them is silly.

Sure but it shares more than a few similarities with the Iron Range and the fact that a swing county would vote so strongly against the state average illustrates my point. I should have just noted how poorly the "No" side fared in the strip of the Iron Range that extends into Wisconsin. It performed on par with the state average there.

Why do you care?

Mr. Nathan, sir, there is something to be said about the merit of discrediting pollsters that have an obvious dubious agenda and that do not seek to represent the people.

I mean about this issue, not about PPP. For that matter, why are 'the people' terribly relevant to you on those issues and seemingly only on those issues in which the most superficially populist argument is one that happens to support the right-wing position?

These are, you'll understand, rhetorical questions. I, at least, know exactly why you care, and exactly why you think 'the people' have a moral leg to stand on here.