Polls on Same-Sex Marriage State Laws

[Brittain33]

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.

[Brittain33]

Why the apostrophes, CARL?

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

'Gay marriage' is a definitional falsity.

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

[Brittain33]

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.

[Brittain33]

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.

[Brittain33]

Why the apostrophes, CARL?

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

'Gay marriage' is a definitional falsity.

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

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

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.

[Brittain33]

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

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.

[Brittain33]

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.

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

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.

[Brittain33]

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

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.

[Brittain33]

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?

[Brittain33]

Marriage Licenses are seen as a government regulation of biological reproduction in order to legally protect the rights of mothers and their biological children. 

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.

[Brittain33]

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.

[Brittain33]

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.

[Brittain33]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Brittain33]

NJ now strongly in favor:

52-34

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

Congratulations, Phil!

[Brittain33]

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.

[Brittain33]

Ditto in Massachusetts, where the senate leadership was the main pro-gay force in the constitutional conventions and the main conservative forces were Tom Finneran, the House Republican caucus, and various conservative Dems.

[Brittain33]

Gay Marriage heading for a blow-out victory in Maine:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/king-by-less_-obama-by-more_2012-09-29.html

I will believe it when I see it... let's hope that happens on Election Day after the NOMmers run their ads with little children coming home and telling their parents they learned about sodomy in school and want to become gay.

[Brittain33]

When has Civil Unions exclusively been on the ballot box?

Washington 2009.

Colorado had a referendum in 2006, but it was the year of Ted Haggard, and scandals about gays bring down gay rights referenda even if they're about hypocrites.

[Brittain33]

NJ (Quinnipiac):

Would you support or oppose a law that would allow same-sex couples to get married?

64-30 support

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-centers/polling-institute/new-jersey/release-detail?ReleaseID=1872

In January 2012, Quinnipiac found 52%-42%.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/01/poll_majority_of_nj_voters_sup_1.html

[Brittain33]

Is SUSA robocalling cell phones or only landlines? I remember then skewing old.

[Brittain33]

Atlanta Metropolitan Area.

The conservatives in surrounding counties, even if they are dyed-in-the-wool racists, find themselves having to deal with gays and lesbians in certain settings of business.   

Look at the results on NC's DOMA amendment in Charlotte... lots of Romney/No precincts. Much of Atlanta's suburbs may act and vote like Dallas suburbs, but other areas will vote like Charlotte's.