Poll: Calif. voters support abortion rights, oppose gay marriage

[JI7]

interesting that majority of republicans, bush supporters, and catholics all support abortion rights in california. while there is majority opposition to gay marriage, it isn't much and the gap should close in a few years hopefully. also, while there is opposition to same sex marriage, there is also opposition to a constitutional ban on it.

<SAN FRANCISCO - A strong majority of California voters support a woman's right to an abortion, while a slimmer majority oppose same-sex marriage, a new poll found.

The latest installment found that 71 percent of voters supported abortion rights while about 22 percent favored more restrictions on abortion. Those figures are roughly consistent with what the survey has found since 1991.

Support for abortion rights cut across party lines, ages, sexes and regions of the state. A strong majority of Democrats and backers of the party's presumptive presidential candidate, John Kerry, said they support a woman's right to abortion, while a narrower majority of Republicans and supporters of President Bush also said they favored abortion rights.

Among religious groups, only evangelical Christians said they supported further restrictions on abortion - and then only by a small plurality, 49 percent to 42 percent. A majority of Catholics, Protestants and members of other religious groups said they supported abortion rights.

A majority of voters - 53 percent to 43 percent - said they oppose legalizing same-sex marriage. Those numbers have remained about the same for the past year, even as Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage and the city of San Francisco granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples.>

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/8838478.htm

[Not Me]

1. With all the * lies,

and lost lives in his little war, and the loss of allies' respect in the world, and the fact that he has made the world more dangerous--rather than safer...I think they are going to be hard pressed to give the antigay plank much of a run in November.

Further, I think if they try, Kerry can appeal strongly to Americans sense of fairness and decency.

My $.02, with everything else going on, it's not the issue they hoped for.

[Bill McBlueState]

2. I agree, there's not much to worry about

Numbers like 53-43 opposed hardly pave the way for gay marriage to be used as a wedge issue. It would be different if it were even 60-40.

[Kadie]

3. Look at the Sacramento Bee's spin - Survey points to Bush edge

Survey points to Bush edge

State's voters oppose gay marrige -- a possible selling point for the president.

By Clea Benson -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 2:15 am PDT Friday, June 4, 2004

President Bush's opposition to same-sex marriage could help him make up ground against John Kerry in California, according to statewide survey results released Thursday.

Bush has steadfastly opposed gay marriage and has proposed a constitutional amendment defining matrimony as a union between a man and a woman. Democratic presidential contender Kerry has taken a more nuanced position, saying he opposes gay marriage but favors same-sex civil unions.

A nonpartisan Field Poll found that both undecided voters and voters overall in California were against same-sex marriages by a margin of 5-to-4.

snip...
"It could be significant in certain markets where they're trying to get swing voters," DiCamillo said. "This poll shows that even in California, (the same-sex marriage issue) has the potential of adding some support to the president."

snip...
And results of the same poll showed Californians were less and less inclined to re-elect Bush because their dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq was increasing. Overall, the poll found Kerry leading Bush 51 percent to 39 percent in California in a three-way race including independent Ralph Nader, with Nader drawing 4 percent support and 6 percent undecided.

more... http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/ca/election/polls/story/9530448...

[AP]

4. They also oppose an amendment banning same-sex marriage 5-4.

But I don't see these articles highlighting that fact.

[jobycom]

5. I wonder if Kerry's strategy is right on this after all, then

Kerry has said he supports some form of civil union, but not the use of the term "marriage." However, he has said that he hopes America will eventually evolve (I'm paraphrasing) to accepting the term "marriage," but that they are not ready yet. Basically, Kerry is saying he supports gay marriage but for political reasons can't call it that, and feels that a gradual approach will work. Kerry is big on gradual, as you've all noticed.

I don't like having to hold back, having to play semantic games just to win, because sometimes the games themselves strengthen opposition, making it seem that even supporters are hesitant to completely embrace a position. But this poll indicates Kerry may be right, that we may just need to give America time to adjust to the full concept. There is not the complete outrage and irrationality we see on other fronts, such as the Pledge issue.

On the other hand, this is California, not Kansas or the South.

[AP]

6. It's not a semantic game. It gets to the core of the legal issue.

What is religion? It's about your spiritual relationship with god. What's government? It's about your legal relationships with one another. It's about mediationg your rights, obligations and duties with your community.

Marriage is about spirituality and religion. What's the government's interest? Well, it's not in spirituatl relationships. It's about legal relationhships. It's about how much tax you pay, who has the right to speak for you when you're incappacitated, who gets to inherit your estate tax free, etc.

Kerry (and Edwards) have said that there are something like 300 rights, duties, and obligations the Federal government recognizes for people who are married. They have said that regardless of what you call the relationship between two people, the federal government shouldn't be in the business of denying people those legal rights (and imposing legal burdens that stem from the rights).

They say, if you want to call it marriage, well that's for your church to decide. But the legal rights are the business of the federal government.

I don't know how anyone can deny that this is the core of the issue and that Kerry has it exactly right.

[jobycom]

7. Good enough

Well said, and I get that point (I've argued it less eloquently myself before).

But there is an equality message. If we say that opposite-gendered couples are married, but same-gendered couples are only part of civil unions, we create two classes, and it's obvious which class is considered second. If we say that marriages are only church structures, and that government no longer calls these arrangements "marriage," the Repubs will scream that the Democrats are outlawing marriage, and we may as well disband.

I agree that our government's definition of marriage should not depend on the church's definition, but I'm afraid that if we don't use the word, there won't be an equality. Some people think "semantic" means "pedantic," too, but I don't. The language is very important. We have to promote social equality, not just financial and legal equality, otherwise any changes will be temporary and dependent on the goodwill of society, rather than an accepted right.

Frankly, I already agreed with Kerry, I was just using this poll to present his case, short term and long term.

[AP]

9. "married" shouldn't be a class recognized by the gov't. By church, yes.

It's not an equality issue, so far as married vs unmarried goes.

It is a gender discrimination issue insofar as your legal rights goes, and you don't need to have the label "married" to get all the 300 or so legal rights married people get.

Also, I place the separation of church and state issue much higher than the "equality" issues to which this question gives rise.

It's more important that the government stays out of people spiritual lives (ie, defines what marriage should mean) than it is for people to be able to say that their spiritual relationships are called the same religious term than other people's spiritual relationships are called. Go to your church if you want that right. And go to the government if you want to talk about the tax code, the laws of intestate succession, and employment benefits.

I also think people need to see their government in terms of the legal rights and burdens it confers more than in terms of it getting involved in what you beleive about religion. If people start separting these things out in the context of marriage, I think it will help society redefine the government's role in all different areas where the government crosses the line from mediating people's legal rights with others into the area of trying to tell people what to believe. The death penalty, I think is one of those areas. Making decisions about life and death isn't an appropriate role for the government, I believe. That's a role for god. I'm all for the government cutting people off from society if they can interact reasonably in society. But killing them? Uh, uh.

Marriage. Death. Let's get the government out of that business. Let's let the government mediate the legal relationships between individuals in society, and leave it at that. What do you say?

[jobycom]

12. I say we're arguing about semantics again

I agree with every point you make except the use of the word. You believe "marriage" is the exclusive grounds of religion. I say that since the government (mostly states) have used that word to establish legal property rights, etc, then the word should continue to be used by the government. Abandoning it just because religions also use it seems to be catering to religions, not ignoring them.

Aside from the use of the word, we're arguing the exact same thing. Government has no right to establish terms of marriage based on any spiritual or emotional definitions, or gender distinctions (and not just gender-- the invasive examinations immigrant/citizen couples have to go through to prove a "real" marriage is just sick.)

But I don't see a problem with using the term "marriage." (Marriage began as a civil union in western society, anyway, and was later usurped by the Church and turned into a Sacrament.) To me, that even helps reinforce the point that our government is separate from religion. Government should ignore religion, not try to avoid conflicting with it.

I might quibble with your putting separation of religion and government above "equality," since I do believe that government's primary role is to gaurantee the rights and freedoms of its citizens, and "inequality" of any basic sort is a violation of rights-- ie it uses the strength of government (or the collective society) to favor one group over another. To me, it's the exact same issue. But I think my disagreement there is still based on the words being used-- you believe the word "marriage" is automatically religion-related, and I don't.

I guess I've been an atheist so long that religion just seems like an outside entity to me, like the Lion's Club or the Boy Scouts. It's just a club you choose to join, or else it is not a part of your life. How churches choose to describe anything has no relevance to me.

[AP]

13. The governemnt doesn't guarantee equal treatment across the board.

You have to fall into a protected category. Race is the one category in which NO distinctions can be made, and the constitution even says that this can't happen in private relantionships (gender doesn't get that level of protection).

Gender, religion and disability are other categories that get protected to varrying degrees.

Separation of church and state is an across-the-board protection. Unlike equal rights, there are no categories with differing levels of protection.

Believe me, I find the EP clauses of the 14th Amend and other EP rights very compelling, but, neither I nor the constitution believe that all categorizations of people deserve the highest protection of the courts. So I don't think being denied by the government your right to call yourself married is a very compelling EP categorization.

If the gov't is going to give you all the federal rights it give to people who call themselves 'married' then I think we've made a huge, socially manageable step in the right direction.

And I'm warry of any other approach which tries to expand the definition of the most conservative institution in our society (along with the military) -- marriage -- to include more categories of people. I'd rather see the notion of marriage shrink to include only spiritual relatiohships, and then have people think more about the legal rights the government confers on people.

By the way, if you don't think "marriage" is very personal and spiritual term, answer the question I asked in my last post.

Write "Marrigage" on the top of a piece of paper. Make two collumns: "spiritual beliefs" and "legal rights." Write down everything you think marriage means and put them in the appropriate columns.

When your done ask yourself if you really think your government should be trying to mediate the relationships between people that relate to anything you've written down on that piece of paper that isn't under the column "legal rights."

Obvioulsy "marriage" covers a large territory, and the government should only conceren itself with a subset of that territorry. I don't think it helps anyone for the government to be interested in anything more than that subset of issues, and it doesn't help to call that subset "marriage."

[truthspeaker]

8. Marriage is NOT about spirituality and religion!

It was a government matter before it was religious and it was a family matter before that. I refuse to let organized religion co-opt another aspect of society!

Marriage is a civil institution.

Because it has additional religious meaning to some, clergy in the US are granted the privilege of issuing marriage licenses.

Sorry for all the boldface, I just get really mad when people are willing to cede yet another secular concept to the realm of faith.

[AP]

10. The legal rights and obiligations between two people who chose to form

permanent ties is a civil matter.

Marriage, as the church defines, or as agnostics conceive of it, beyond the pure legal implications, is a spiritual matter.

[AP]

11. To illustrate my point above, ask yourself what marriage means to you.

Does it mean two people should love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together and should emotionally support each other alwasy?

Well, every part of your definition of married that has nothing to do with, say, taxes and inheritance and the right to make medical decisions, and employment benefits is a SPIRITUAL definition of marriage.

In fact, your own government probably disagrees with many of your definitions of marrriage because, for example, it lets you get divorced, and after you're divorced, it lets you testify against your spouse in a court of law if you chose to.

Well, all those spiritual notions about marriage are none of the government's business. What is it's business? It's business is deterimining peoples' legal rights and relationships with each other and with government.

If it doesn't have to do with a legal relationship with someone else, it shouldn't be the government's business.