53% of Voters Say They Back Va. Same-Sex Marriage Ban

[onehandle]

A majority of Virginians support a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, although voters split on the measure when presented with interpretations of its potential impact, according to a new Washington Post poll.

Fifty-three percent of likely voters said they would vote for the amendment, and 43 percent would oppose it, the poll found, indicating that three weeks before Election Day opponents still have a long way to go to make Virginia the first state in the country to defeat a same-sex marriage amendment.

The only part of the state to oppose the measure was Northern Virginia, where voters rejected it 55 percent to 42 percent, further evidence that the Washington suburbs have become a political and social world apart from the rest of Virginia. Respondents in the rest of the state backed the measure 58 percent to 38 percent, according to the survey, conducted over three days last week.

Despite the overall results, the poll provided some hope for opponents of the measure. Their chief argument is that the language of the amendment is too broad and would endanger contracts between unwed heterosexual couples. Supporters contend that the measure is limited to declaring that same-sex marriages would never be approved or recognized in Virginia.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/16/AR2006101601438.html

I was in Northern Virginia recently and saw lots of Webb signs. A huge one on the way up to the Skyline Drive. I was encouraged. However, with a gay marriage ban amendment on the ballot, he hasn't got a chance. The GOP sure knows how to time their bigotry.

[ScreamingMeemie]

1. 53% of the people they chose to poll?

:shrug:


It is sickening how they plan these little acts of hatred. That even have some Dems willing to through their fellow citizens under the bus.

[fedupinBushcountry]

7. Exactly

I never got polled. But boy are those marriage signs going up all over the place right next to Allen and Drake signs.

Yesterday I got another hate flier in the mail from the RNC against Kellam who is running against Drake. This particular flier is just pure ugly, on the front it has the word HYPOCRITE, then the way it is pronounced and the meaning, then you turn it over and it is just another lie about Kellam.

I mean for chrissake even some Repugs should be sick and tired of these slimey name calling attacks. :shrug:

[virgdem]

15. I got the same mailer in the mail yesterday...

I promptly tore it up into tiny little pieces and threw it in the garbage where it so deservedly belongs. If you notice, Drake has no positive commercials about herself and what she has "accomplished" simply because she has no accomplishments to tout. She has been a pure rubber stamp for * all the way. To say that I detest her is the understatment of the year.

[Hav]

2. .

Yeah, when will this shit ever stop?
If elections are close, they can always include amendment about abortion or gays.

[vi5]

3. This is also the same state...

..that sits on the edge of having a majority of their voters elect an unapologetic racist to the United States senate. And we're surprised by a possible gay marriage ban?

[theHandpuppet]

6. Exactly

This comes as no surprise to me.

[Lindacooks]

16. And what percentage of people in that state opposed

civil rights? I'd bet it was more than 53%.

[brentspeak]

26. If you read the article

you would have discovered that one of the groups most in favor of the gay marriage ban are black residents of Virginia. The gay marriage issue is not useful in forming conclusions about racial attitudes.

[vi5]

28. I read it and am not disputing that...

My point is that a majority of the state's voters be they black, white, red, grey, green or yellow, appear to be mired in a time warp on a number of issues. If blacks in Virginia can't see the correlation between the two things as civil rights issues, that doesn't make one right and one wrong. It makes both of them wrong. And clearly there may not be enough forward thinking people registered and motivated to vote in that state to counteract the voting majority.

I sincerely hope to be proven wrong on both counts by the good people of Virginia. But if I'm not, I'm not going to pretend that it's something that it's not.

[izzie]

4. Off the top of my head I would say people would vote for this.

People like to think that marriage is always good and must be between male and female, plus we should make it a US law. I am willing to bet they would also say that it would make the country and people better. Why this is so I do not know and think it is silly, but I believe it will pass where it is on the list to vote for. It is one of those things people believe, like we have the best health care, educational, and the greatest country in the world. If you say any thing other they think you are crazy. If you point out any faults your a Commie. Sure it is nuts but it seems to be what so many think.

[woodsprite]

5. I was part of a project to get the word out to the people

who have been more resistant in Virginia and who really don't realize how this law can possibly affect them. Here is the article about the project. I didn't realize the article had been posted to the net.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=3&q=http://www.styleweekly.com/article.asp%3Fidarticle%3D13019&e=9797&sig=__Rg_BzZM44MwQf682BacEmrjJknU=

[Felix Mala]

8. In 1948, when the Supreme Court ruled against laws banning interracial

marriage, more than 80% of the public opposed such unions. It might have been 1949...

[LostinVA]

11. That was 1970 -- Loving vs. Virginia

[underpants]

9. Wow 53% is lower than I would have expected

[LostinVA]

10. Me too -- also, it's gonna be challenged quickly

It's too strict re: domestic abuse and not allowing corporations to give DP benefits.

I know of people who are planning to test it very quickly.

[underpants]

12. LTTE just today shows the problem with this proposal

Well written (the second one is the one I meant but on second reading the first one is really good)

Editor, Times-Dispatch: So far as our government is concerned, marriage is and can only be a purely legal contract -- not a religious one. As such, the contract of marriage must be available and applied equally to all citizens in our increasingly diverse society. Data do not support the fallacy that the state benefits from restricting the secular protections of marriage to heterosexual couples and their children.

Religious institutions are fully capable, for good or ill, of restricting marriage within their membership in whatever way they feel led; they don't need additional collusion, and they should not be permitted to dictate the civil rights of non-members. For government to institutionalize such homophobic prejudice is to take a long step toward repressive theocracy.

History is rife with examples of the tragic results when relatively small, autocratic regimes have infected entire populations with their misanthropic visions of the ideal society. The Inquisition in Spain, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the secular vision of Hitler's Nazi Party in Germany spring quickly to mind: Is that what we want in this land of the free?

In the name of sanity and simple justice, let's defeat this heinous marriage amendment in November. Jean Jones Andersen. richmond.

. . .

Editor, Times-Dispatch: Too often the full text of the proposed constitutional amendment regarding marriage is not included. The full text is:

"That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.

"This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."

I have no problem with the first sentence. Marriage is a religious institution.

However, the proposed amendment goes way beyond defining marriage for the protection of the family or the common good. It proposes to instill in the Commonwealth's Constitution an inherent right to discriminate against one group of people. So the first state with a Bill of Rights, Virginia, will now violate that Bill of Rights.

While it is not the amendment's original intention, the amendment will bind the courts to override existing laws that are not in the Constitution for some purpose we cannot even imagine now. At that point our General Assembly and the public will find they have been duped into adopting bad law. Jeff Trollinger. gum spring.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&%09s=1045855935005&c=MGArticle&cid=1149191189142&path=%21editorials%21letters

[LostinVA]

13. Good letter -- my points exactly with what is wrong with it

I KNOW the whole damn idea and intent of the law is wrong, but you know what I mean.

VERY interesting to me it's only 53%. I was betting 65-70%... because the RWers know using the term "marriage" pushes all kinds of buttons in otherwise apathetic or tolerant folks.

[katamaran]

18. It was in the 70's during the spring and summer

I saw some polls earlier in the year that had the numbers in the 70%+ range. It's good to know that the numbers have tilted quite a bit, even if they aren't enough to defeat it. There are a lot of legal and social experts coming out now against it...saying that it will have unexpected effects on unmarried hetero couples.

[LostinVA]

22. It'll be overturned in court pretty soon, I'm betting n/t

[slackmaster]

21. Same here - California Proposition 22 passed with about 61%

What are those sneaky pollsters trying to pull this time?

:hide:

[ContraBass Black]

14. They won't when they find out how it hurts straight people.

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. This'll put Allen over-the-top

Which is, of course, why it's on the ballot.

[katamaran]

19. Yep. That's what I'm afraid of.

And if Allen wins by a landslide, no amount of evidence of voter fraud will matter. Every "expert" will come out and say that the amendment polarized the Repug base, and that the bible thumpers prevailed.

[Marie26]

34. 2004 election all over

When they exit polled the 2004 voters, 22% said that "moral values" was the most important issue facing the US. "Moral values" was the number one issue, outscoring Iraq, terrorism, the economy, etc. Who thinks like that? Christian fundamentalists. Rove used "culture war" issues like gay marriage to pull in the fundies, and he's doing it again.

[brentspeak]

20. When was this proposed amendment added to the ballot?

I couldn't find that information in the article.

[lynne]

23. OREGON & 19 Other States MORE Homophobic Than Virginia ?? -

Check out page 2 of the article linked by the OP, quoted below. Oregon passed a similar amendment with 57% support. 19 other states passed similar amendments with higher levels of support. At 53% polled support, Virginia is statistically MORE friendly towards gay marriage than the 40% of states that have voted on a similar amendment thus far.

For those who want to call Virginia backwards, bigots, homophobic and rednecks - I suggest you first look at those 20 other states. Compared to them, Virginia is polling damn near liberal.

"Twenty states have passed similar measures since 1998, many with about 75 percent support. The lowest level of support an amendment received was 57 percent in Oregon in 2004."

For the poster that asked, this amendment has been bantered about for at least one year. The final language was drawn up in May. It's nothing new.

[brentspeak]

25. Thanks for pointing that out

The gay marriage issue is not popular in any state in the union.

[Tesha]

29. Actually, Massachusetts is tolerating it pretty well.

> The gay marriage issue is not popular in any state in the union.

Actually, Massachusetts is tolerating it pretty well. Those plagues
of locusts, frogs, the Charles River running red with blood, they
all haven't really dampened the enthusiasm for gay marriage very much.

And it still looks quite likely that the effort to ban gay marriage
via a (state) constitutional change won't succeed as well; at least
one of the big proponents of the change got bumped off in the primaries.

Tesha

[LostinVA]

32. The VA law will pass, but will be overturned in court

It cant stand the way it's written... and it can't stand if they have to rewrite it.

[LostinVA]

31. Exactly what many of us VA DUers say

SW Virginia is very red, alot of the Eastern Shore is, parts of the Tidewater (heavily military).... but NOVA isn't, Charlottesville isn't, Richmond isn't, etc.

And, how they frame the question is why it'll pass. If they took the word "marriage" out and used "civil unions," it would fail big time. Most people have no idea what "marriage" really means.

[JoFerret]

24. Pretty good news really

If you were to ask the question: Do you support the notion that gay and lesbian people should be treated with respect under the law? then you would see a different set of numbers. (i.e reframe the question.)

[MrScorpio]

27. I'm voting against it, of course

Who's with me?

[Az_lefty]

30. "Virginia is for Lovers"

or maybe not, guess I'll have to get rid of that old bumper sticker.

[Marie26]

33. How convenient that this

gay-marriage ban is on the Va. ballot at the same time as a hotly-contested Senate election. The Republicans did the same thing in the 2004 election, putting "Defense of Marriage" initiatives on the ballot in key swing states like Ohio. It's all about turning out the fundies, who will show up in droves, poor things, never realizing that Republicans are exploiting their homophobia to pursue their own agenda. Republicans are so predictable.