Poll shows Californians oppose gay marriage ban

[Niels Bohr 72]

Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:56am EDT LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Californians appear poised to support the right to same-sex marriage when they go to the polls on Tuesday but support for a ballot measure to ban the practice has increased in recent weeks, a poll showed on Friday.

The latest Field Poll conducted from October 18 to Tuesday showed the proposed ban on same-sex marriage failing, with 49 percent opposing the ban and 44 supporting it. Opposition to the ban was stronger in September, when 55 percent opposed it and 38 percent supported it.

The poll of 966 likely voters had a margin of error of 3.3 percentage points.

California's Supreme Court recognized same-sex couples' right to marry in a May decision, putting the most populous U.S. state among a handful of U.S. states and mostly European nations that allow it.

Proposition 8 on Tuesday's ballot would change the California Constitution to eliminate the right, limiting marriage to male-female couples.

Since the court decision, tens of millions of dollars have flowed into California as liberals and conservatives wage battle over the ballot issue.

(Reporting by Peter Henderson; Editing by Peter Cooney)

[Peikko 1,575]

Here's hoping Proposition 8 is rejected and Californians can move forward. More than enough time has already been spent on this non issue.

[IAMX 3,055]

Indeed, here is one Californian who can't believe he is actually voting on such a stupid measure, but here we are again..

Hopefully it goes down in respect for the judge's ruling, which obviously the people who brought this up and had it placed on the ballot have no respect for.

It's an obvious "no" for me.

Edited October 31, 2008 by SRVT

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That's encouraging although in a way, if Prop 8 passes, it could be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court and hopefully be ruled unconstitutional, which would then set precedent for all states to follow California.

[IAMX 3,055]

That's encouraging although in a way, if Prop 8 passes, it could be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court and hopefully be ruled unconstitutional, which would then set precedent for all states to follow California.

I'd much rather it be dealt with per district so in this manner the precedent is set as the dominoes start falling.

[Peikko 1,575]

Whatever works to get this behind us would be cool. Prejudice is so lame.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That's encouraging although in a way, if Prop 8 passes, it could be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court and hopefully be ruled unconstitutional, which would then set precedent for all states to follow California.

I'd much rather it be dealt with per district so in this manner the precedent is set as the dominoes start falling.

It won't happen that way...at some point, some state will pass a law banning gay marriage and it will challenged in the courts. The homophobes will fight this all the way to the courts.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't think the label 'homophobe' is very helpful. I do understand why some people get torn up about this issue when they go to church and they are told incessantly that there is something sinful about homosexual sex. I don't think that's a fear of the people who are homosexual so much as a fear that if they don't 'protect' normality they will somehow have failed and will be judged accordingly once they pass on to the next life.

Those responsible are the church leaders who promote this in such a way that those outside of their church are affected by it. That's a very wrong thing to do in my opinion.

Edited October 31, 2008 by Madame Cleo

[jundp 191]

Would it make any difference to those who oppose gay marriage if it was just called "civil union" and gave the same rights to the gay partner as a husband or a wife has (i.e. health benefits, inheritance benefits, next-of-kin etc) ?

I'm wondering.

A while ago we had a discussion about gay marriage in my media classes. Most of the kids (17 and 18 year olds) are in favor of it, but not in favor of calling it "marriage." Some cited their deep faith as the reason for this, but that they didn't feel it was right to keep gays from having the same legal benefits.

In Washington State it's possible to register a "domestic partnership" which gives many of the same rights as a legal marriage/union.

I'm just curious.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't know - I would think that the label is not as important as the legal ramifications. However, in that context, shouldn't all non religious marriages be labeled 'union'? I don't see why there should be one name for one and one name for the other myself.

I think that became muddied.

My point was, that any union that wasn't church sancitifed should surely get the 'legal union' label as apposed to marriage, regardless of the sexual makeup of the couple. To call a male/female union marriage and a male/male or female/female union a legal union would be rather silly in my opinion.

[lucyrich 20]

Would it make any difference to those who oppose gay marriage if it was just called "civil union" and gave the same rights to the gay partner as a husband or a wife has (i.e. health benefits, inheritance benefits, next-of-kin etc) ?

I'm wondering.

A while ago we had a discussion about gay marriage in my media classes. Most of the kids (17 and 18 year olds) are in favor of it, but not in favor of calling it "marriage." Some cited their deep faith as the reason for this, but that they didn't feel it was right to keep gays from having the same legal benefits.

In Washington State it's possible to register a "domestic partnership" which gives many of the same rights as a legal marriage/union.

I'm just curious.

Look at it this way. The Bible condemns homosexuality in Leviticus 20:13. Right next to the part where it says you can't mix linen and woolen fibers in a garment, but it's ok to have sex with a slave (Lev 19:19-20).

But the Bible condemns remarriage after divorce in Jesus' direct words in Matthew 19:6-9.

So obviously any Bible-believing Christian who thinks it's the government's business to forbid gay marriage, in the interests of consistency, ought to rise up against allowing previously divorced people to marry (as well as calling for a constitutional amendment banning the blending of linen and woolen fibers in garments, and allowing sex with slaves, but that's for another day).

Would it be ok if previously divorced people were not allowed to marry, but instead allowed a "civil union", or "domestic partnership"? We ought to reserve the word "marriage" only for those whom Jesus said were eligible to marry, no?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Would it make any difference to those who oppose gay marriage if it was just called "civil union" and gave the same rights to the gay partner as a husband or a wife has (i.e. health benefits, inheritance benefits, next-of-kin etc) ?

I'm wondering.

A while ago we had a discussion about gay marriage in my media classes. Most of the kids (17 and 18 year olds) are in favor of it, but not in favor of calling it "marriage." Some cited their deep faith as the reason for this, but that they didn't feel it was right to keep gays from having the same legal benefits.

In Washington State it's possible to register a "domestic partnership" which gives many of the same rights as a legal marriage/union.

I'm just curious.

Look at it this way. The Bible condemns homosexuality in Leviticus 20:13. Right next to the part where it says you can't mix linen and woolen fibers in a garment, but it's ok to have sex with a slave (Lev 19:19-20).

But the Bible condemns remarriage after divorce in Jesus' direct words in Matthew 19:6-9.

So obviously any Bible-believing Christian who thinks it's the government's business to forbid gay marriage, in the interests of consistency, ought to rise up against allowing previously divorced people to marry (as well as calling for a constitutional amendment banning the blending of linen and woolen fibers in garments, and allowing sex with slaves, but that's for another day).

Would it be ok if previously divorced people were not allowed to marry, but instead allowed a "civil union", or "domestic partnership"? We ought to reserve the word "marriage" only for those whom Jesus said were eligible to marry, no?

Great post!

[IAMX 3,055]

It does matter. People are overlooking the "separate but equal" notion of simply calling it something else.

It is amazing to me people are even thinking of a compromise on this issue. Religious people just need to get over gays and marriage. It's going to happen one way or another. They don't need to be invited to a gay wedding, they don't need to participate. It's just someone's wedding. Not an apocalypse, or a gateway to other things.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yep, something like that. The sillyness goes on...that and the hypocrisy.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Californians are commies.