Poll: Over Sixty Percent Of Americans Support Gay Marriage

Wedding_cake_with_pillar_supports,_2009There is good news for those of us who support same-sex marriage (as well as an indication in the remarkable turnaround in public attitude in a relatively short time). According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, 6 out of 10 Americans now support same-sex marriage and believe that states should not be allowed to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. That is a record showing for same-sex marriage.

The poll was clearly timed for oral arguments next week on whether state restrictions on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. I believe that there is likely a fifth vote with Justice Anthony Kennedy to support a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. Indeed, it will be interesting to watch Chief Justice John Roberts on this issue. Roberts has shown a strong institutional sensitivity and many be the most likely of the remaining justices to feel the pull of history on the issue.

Not surprisingly, the greatest gains have been seen in those under age 30 where support has grown since 2005 from 57 percent to 78 percent. However, even among the historically least supportive group (those 65 and over) support is now at 46 percent (from just 18 percent).

Republicans still oppose at a rate of 6 to 10, however. This creates an interesting dynamic for the Republican primary where some candidates have already shown movement toward greater acceptance. The trend appears in that direction. Moreover, GOP candidates face the classic dilemma of fighting to secure the nomination from the most conservative members of the party while being able to run nationally to appeal to independents and democrats. The social agenda of conservative Republicans has never appealed to as much to independents and libertarians in the general election.

Source: Washington Post

325 thoughts on “Poll: Over Sixty Percent Of Americans Support Gay Marriage”

  1. David,

    Our government should be free from religion. It should be based on the laws created by the people, all the people, without any special interest groups. Big oil, big religion, big guns, or any other group that demand that civil interests and human rights be seen through their glass, darkly.

    1. Isaac wrote: “Our government should be free from religion… [free from] special interest groups, big religion, big guns, or any other group…”

      Not only is this a BAD premise, it is an impossible one.

      Government derives its just powers (it’s authority) from the consent of the governed. As long as the people being governed include religious people, people in special interest groups, people in big religion, people in the oil industry, people with guns, etc. then government will never be free from any of these things, nor should it be.

  2. davidm:

    The word “secular” has in recent years been adopted by religious conservatives to attack those who object to theocracy. A perfect example is John Smith’s diatribe above, in which he rejects the Enlightenment in its entirety, a position which the Founders would have found ludicrous.

    My Webster’s Collegiate defines “secular” to mean “1. a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal (concerns) b: not overtly or specifically religious c: not ecclesiastical or clerical.”

    No one has ever argued that our government was created on the basis of Secular Humanism (a system which did not even exist as a distinct philosophy at the time). Instead, the most influential of the Founders were freethinkers. The phrase “secular government” is a legal term of art. Thus Black’s Law Dictionary defines “secular” as “Not spiritual; not ecclesiastical; relating to affairs of the present world.” In the old Sunday laws the word was used to describe the conduct of trade or commerce, and nothing more.

    I also take issue with your comments on adultery as a crime. Religious doctrines traditionally regarded homosexuality (and adultery and many other acts) as sins. The definition and prosecution of crimes is a function of the legislature and the courts. The case law striking down most laws prohibiting sexual activity between consenting adults did not strictly “legalize” such activity; it determined that individual freedom and privacy rendered certain types of human interaction beyond the constitutional authority of the legislature to prohibit. Christian fundamentalists, however, argue that any actions regarded as sinful in the Bible (and more specifically in their interpretation of those books which they deem to represent the only authentic canon of the Bible), ought to be subject to criminalization under positive law. That view virtually defines theocracy, and that is the rub.

    1. Mike Appleton wrote: “The word “secular” has in recent years been adopted by religious conservatives to attack those who object to theocracy.”

      I certainly realize that, but I wonder if you recognize that the term secular also has been adopted by secular humanists to define their ideal government and society as being free from religion?

      Mike Appleton wrote: “A perfect example is John Smith’s diatribe above, in which he rejects the Enlightenment in its entirety, a position which the Founders would have found ludicrous.”

      The founders certainly would object because their culture was very different from our present one. Today we are basically testing whether or not their Enlightenment principles created a good foundation for us. If their principles have led us to the deconstruction of the institution of marriage and a government antagonistic toward the religious as second class citizens, then perhaps we should conclude that Enlightenment principles have led us astray. I think the jury is still out on this question.

      Mike Appleton wrote: “I also take issue with your comments on adultery as a crime.”

      I’m not sure what you take issue with. If civil government prescribes penalties for adultery, then it is a crime. If civil government does not prescribe penalties for adultery, then it is not a crime. I think at present, the legislature of only 23 States define it as a crime. Since we enacted separation of Church and State principles, religious institutions do not define crimes because they are in the business of persuading citizens regarding morality. That is why they use the word sin in regards to immoral behavior, and instead of penalties they preach or write literature. Civil government, on the other hand, is in the business of forcing morality upon society by punishing immoral behavior. That is why civil government defines crimes and mandates fines and imprisonment for behavior harmful towards others.

      I hear your concerns about a theocracy, but our government is not a theocracy. If there are religious fundamentalists who want to criminalize any immoral behavior defined as such according to their sacred texts, they would first have to fundamentally change our Constitution. Even with all the talk about Sharia law coming to our nation, I don’t see that as a serious threat at this time.

  3. Pogo said: “The left’s deconstruction of marriage is no different than Isis smashing and cutting the heads off of ancient artifacts….Both are destroying the institutions of civilization.”

    Bravo! Exactly correct. Both are iconoclasts. Both are puritannical and intolerant. Both are ardent revolutionary creeds.

    The anti-democratic imposition of gay-marriage on Americans by judicial fiat– who supposedly are now getting sufficiently brainwashed by a couple of nonstop decades of mass media and political correctness into supposedly “accepting it–” and the population understanding that regardless of democratic laws, judicial activism will impose it on them anyways— and as they saw in Indiana, not only judges will ram it down their throats, but big business now carries the torch of homo-liberation; but understand, whether it’s ethnic communitarianism, religious involvement in public life, respect for life, traditional marriage and gender identity, whatever it is— today’s totalitarian fundamentalism in the service of the false gods of liberalism will tolerate no other rivals…..

    Christians need to understand this. Especially Roman Catholics who are among the few sects of Christianity that still seem to take themselves seriously and have not degenerated into social clubs: this is an attack on your faith. It will not stop until you are hiding your crucifixes just as much as they used to do in the Soviet Union. That’s where this ends.

    Right now I applaud the sharpening of this debate. In all seriousness, I think it’s time for Roman Catholics to come out and lead and reject secularism and embrace the confessional state. Just flat out reject the Enlightenment and all its false pretenses and lies.

    The big lie is that secularism is the only hospitable environment for tolerance. That’s false. There is plenty of tolerance in many confessional states of different faiths around the world. Tolerance in the end has little to do with religious creed. There have been intolerant Christian regimes at times, and there have been tolerant ones. There are intolerant Muslims ones today, but there have been tolerant Muslim regimes in the past. There have been tolerant liberal regimes, and America is increasingly an intolerant one. So the Enlightenment notion that tolerance is a function of the state’s ideological commitment to secularism: that is just a pure total phony lie.

    Today, what places recognize Catholicism as state religion? They still exist. Argentina, Costa Rica, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, & the Vatican. States which offer it constitutional privilege: Andorra, Dominican, El Salvador, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland & Spain.

  4. Marriage is between two bumps on a log. If you don’t believe me or think that his is just some dumb analogy of a dog then look at some logs in your stack of firewood. Find a log with two bumps. Often the bumps are similar. In fact, if you dig deeper in the log you will find that the two bumps are attached by threads of wood beneath the surface. Two bumps on a log are not dumb either. One sees a chance to gain some money and the other a chance for a role in the hay. One log rolling around in the hay is boring to watch. So are two humans doing the same.

    Over time property laws will change. Pension inheritance will not be limited to a marriage between two nitwits or two bumps on a log. Already you can file a deed which makes any person you choose be a fifty percent owner of real estate. You can make any person your co owner of your bank account or stock plan. You can name any person in your Will. If you have children with someone you are not married to then the name game becomes an issue. That can be resolved. Who supports a child does not really matter. Many American children are supported by all taxpayers. Michael Brown for example could be named Michael F.S. Brown and his mom could be named Live Off The Chumps. She did not need to marry the father or the step father. Burn This Bitch Down can be said by anyone.

    America has changed a lot since the advent of food stamps and aid to dependent children. To get either it is better for a woman not to be married. To hide from owing child support it is better for a man not to be married to the mom. A kid would be better off if there was a male around to tell him to not strong arm rob a convenience store. But stores are there for matters of convenience. For males who are bent it means that one gives and one receives and roles can be reversed, it is just the reverse side that takes it. A rear end collision is not what it used to be. Condoms are not needed. That saves money. A quarter can go into the soda pop machine. I do not know why the generation which is called millenials is called that name. I can not even spull it. Baby Boomer was a dumb name. Depression babies seemed depressed. The bent thing may help in population control. Smoking will no longer be necessary to keep the numbers down. It is a good thing though because calling someone a dumb smoker is an oxymoron. A married couple is kinda like calling someone a couple of morons.

    I am not in favor of bent marriage. I am not in favor of any marriage. Government policy is against it. Look at the food stamp and aid to dependent children regulations and laws. I say: pork em if ya gottem. Hump em if you are a dog. We have a dog here at the marina who wishes to chime in on this topic and his name is HumpinDog.

  5. When your best representative against SSM is a serial raping pastor…
    … You know you’re scraping the barrel.

    Eureka Springs pastor in Repeal 2223 video is a convicted serial rapist
    http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2015/04/20/eureka-spring-pastor-in-repeal-2223-ad-is-a-convicted-serial-rapist

    Acra Lee Turner, 60, currently serves as a pastor of Penn Memorial Baptist Church in Eureka Springs. In an interview with the Times, he confirmed that he is the same Acra Lee Turner who, as a 22-year-old man, was convicted of three counts of rape in Stephens County near Lawton, Okla. In April 1977, he was sent to prison for three concurrent sentences of 30 to 60 years for those crimes, including — according to this story from an Oklahoma newspaper — the rape of an 80-year old woman who was beaten so badly that she was almost unrecognizable.

    Turner was released in August 2000. According to reports in The Oklahoman and Tulsa World newspapers, the victims and their relatives repeatedly petitioned the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board to keep him in prison.
    (continued)

    He appear at 1:41

  6. In the conservative mind, when a judge rules in their favor, it’s a good judge.
    When the Judge rules against the conservative, they cry, “Activist Judge!”.

  7. Squeeky
    I don’t agree with that.
    = = =
    Which part? The part where your bigotry is directed at the LGBT community or the part where I drew the comparison for you? Oh, it’s not when you do it???

    As noted Squeeky, we rarely agree. Especially on this subject…

  8. Squeeky
    Just because I don’t answer your beck and call like your slave boy, should not indicate that: A) I agree with you, B) You are correct, and C) I care what you say.

  9. @Max-1

    I don’t agree with that. But tell me honestly that it isn’t what you really think. Where else would all the “conservatives are racists!” crap come from.

    Please note that I explained why I think the Gaystapo will go there in the future. You did not answer my question about the “Q”, sooo I guess you agree with me.,

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  10. Squeeky
    I know that the LGBTQ community does not currently support NAMBLA.
    = = =
    I know the straight white community does not currently support the KKK.
    But I suspect that it eventually will.

    Like THAT?

Comments are closed.