Gay Marriage Poll: (longwinded explanation of why i posted this)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

During the last presidential elections, i will admit that my belief in the American people and their intelligence, plummeted. Some of my views as to what is a viable candidate also changed. I loved Kerry (one bad vote does not cancel 30 years of solid public service). I for the life of me could not understand how people voted for Bush over Kerry.

But what was worse, was how gay marriage was used in the election, and almost all places that had a anti-gay marriage measure passed.

This made me form my current opinion that anyone who supports gay marriage (not civil unions) is not a viable presidential candidate. However i have asked some LGBT people i consider rational/intelligent/wise and they disagree with me.

So i am reconsidering my decision. Maybe i am underestimating the American people. Anyhow this is a poll to determine how people in GD feel about the viability of a candidate who supports marriage equality.

[BlackHawk706867]

1. When are people going to realize that Gay & Lesbian's are

every bit entitled to the same standards that so called hetorsexuals are?

ww

[La Lioness Priyanka]

3. i dont know, hence my question

i personally would really like to marry my gf.

[GliderGuider]

7. Come to Canada

:grouphug:

edit to add:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0327,conaway,45231,1.html

Yes, you can get married in Canada without being a resident, though you do have to live there to file for divorce, Buckel explained. When you come home, you will be as married as anyone who ever married there, be they lifelong Torontonians or New Yorkers hitched in a Niagara Falls rent-a-chapel. No, the United States will not recognize your marriage, and what exactly that means when you apply for a mortgage or file a tax return is anyone's guess.

:party:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

8. we might.

thanks.

[rox63]

43. Join us here in Massachusetts

Where same-sex marriage is legal. Our newly-elected governor supports marriage-equality, and was very open about that throughout his campaign.

Sometimes marriage-equality supporters can get elected. I suspect it will be a while before this is true of the presidency. But it will happen eventually.

[Madspirit]

9. What is a "so called heterosexual"?...

I appreciate the support; I just don't know what that means.

I absolutely want to marry the woman I have spent 15 years of my life with.
Lee

[Bucky]

28. There is no proper answer to your so called question.

But I am happy for you and the woman you have loved for these past so called 15 years. You don't "deserve" equal rights, you actually have equal rights--rights that are simply being denieed by our government.
.

[Madspirit]

39. Well, you have to read the post I'm answering

The poster referred to "so called heterosexuals". I was just wondering what that means.
Lee

[Bucky]

47. No, I read it. I was just making fun how people use "so called" for things they don't like

It was my idea of a so called joke.
.

[Madspirit]

49. I Get It

I was actually feeling the same way. I didn't know why they were referring to straight people as "so called heterosexuals". It just seemed odd. All my straight friends are Real Heterosexuals...<g>
Lee

[hfojvt]

52. I believe the poster was suggesting

that all people are really bisexual, whether they admit it or not, or that there is some sort of spectrum of sexuality instead of a sharp division between heterosexual and homosexual.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. hmmm

I support a lot of things like abolition of the death penalty, gay marriage, decriminalization of prostitution and marijuana, but I'm under no illusion someone who shares my views could ever be elected president..

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. yup.

i would like that too.

[RufusTFirefly]

11. Why? Do you doubt the humanity of your fellow Americans?

I'm tired of hearing over and over again that certain candidates are unelectable and that certain issues are guaranteed to sabotage a candidate's bid for the presidency.

Who says so?

Those homophobic initiatives that were passed during the last presidential election were the result of ignorance, superstition, and fear.

Are we going to succumb to our country's baser instincts? Are we resigned to be enslaved by our lizard brain?

Is not the solution to provide information for the ignorant and reassurance for the fearful?

I believe that if we do so that the country can embrace what Lincoln once called "the better angels of our nature."

[La Lioness Priyanka]

13. because these measure were passed is why i doubt the humanity of my fellow americans.

however i am not a liberal for nothing, i willing to admit if/when i am wrong.

and in this particular case, i really really hope i am so very wrong.

[mondo joe]

14. Indeed. The fact that we still DON'T have equal rights is cause enough to doubt the

humanity of our fellow citizens -- enough of them, anyway.

[Colobo]

5. This country is still too backwards when it comes to social issues

[La Lioness Priyanka]

6. thats my conflict. i believe this but maybe i am underestimation Americans

[Madspirit]

10. I am afraid you are right

...but I hope you are wrong being as our two front running contenders for president are a black man and a woman. I really don't want another Republican president.
Lee

[NMMNG]

12. This ought to bring out the usual suspects

:popcorn:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. so far zero votes on "i oppose gay marriage" though

[NMMNG]

33. I'm still waiting for the "Do you want to lose the election?!?" brigade

They're here somewhere.

[FreeState]

40. Give them time - they always do show up (edit)

But then again they never answer this either:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/40/wedge-issues-on-the-ball

(I know I already posted that below but it shows proof it does not lose elections for candidates)

(edit look they are here now :/ )

[mudesi]

15. Leadership, Leadership, Leadership

50% of Americans do not even bother to vote.

It is those Americans that the Democrats can capture if they show some real leadership on this issue. Gay marriage for all. No "Civil Union" compromise. I truly believe that there is a vast majority of liberals and progressives out there that are not being represented by any party.

[0rganism]

16. someday

I agree we're stupid, but I do maintain a degree of hope. There was a time when it would be unthinkable for a racial minority or a woman to become president, and now it's a real possibility. I really do believe that someday, maybe even in my lifetime, we'll be able to have a president with a truly egalitarian social outlook, perhaps an openly gay president, or even an atheist president.

Someday.

But not today.

"Waitin' for the one day
Are we waitin' for the one day?"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. I think the (EEEK!) "Gay Marriage" bogeyman has run out of steam.

I could be wrong, but I believe that the whole "Family Values" theme has worn itself thin and is low on the priorities of most voters.

Of course, I live in a Blue State, in which "Civil Unions" legislation recently became law guaranteeing similar rights to homosexuals as married couples.

[Bucky]

31. Maybe you're tired of it. But I'll bet it still packs weight in rural Ohio & Pennsylvania

Remember that they don't use that one issue alone. It's part of a full menu of wedge issues to scare people away from ever voting Democratic. They live and rule by fear. Reality is their kryptonite.

[FreeState]

18. Gay marriage is NOT a wedge issue

I keep seeing people say that Gay Marriage is a wedge issue that is used by the Republicans to win elections. This is not true.

For this to be true one would have to prove that:

When a vote on Marriage Equality is taking place people switch parties. There is no evidence of this.

What there is evidence of is that when Marriage Equality is voted on gays lose usually (Arizona being the only state not passing the bigoted amendment). As we saw in the last election Democrats, even some that support Marriage Equality, were elected (Yeah Dennis!).

So how bout we quit blaming GLBT people for loosing elections and place the blame were it belongs - with the Republicans that only come out and vote when bigotry is placed on the ballot.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

20. i am not blaming GLBT people. i am blaming bigots and idiots for losing elections

[FreeState]

22. Sorry I should have been more clear

Sorry I should have been more clear, I was not referring to you, but rather some of the people in threads related to this in the last few days.

[karlrschneider]

30. Yes but that is a big part of the problem. There are republicans

(and even some democrats) who only come out to vote when bigotry is on the ballot. For every Log Cabin Republican, there's a homophobic Democrat out there somewhere.

[FreeState]

32. But do they switch parties when they vote?

A Democrat is going to vote for a Democrat over a Republican 99% of the time even if the candidate does not support all their issues 100%. Same goes for Republicans. Independents generally could care less about gay marriage (as do most Americans in general - they will vote no on the ballot but in general the vast majority say they do not think its a pressing issue, but if asked to vote they will.)


Edit to add link: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/40/wedge-issues-on-the-ballot

[karlrschneider]

45. Probably not but if you are talking about ballot measures like "defense of marriage"

or whatever states choose to call them, they are separate from partisan candidates. I thought that was what you meant...there are probably a -lot- fewer people who decide on a certain candidate based on -only- this issue.

[Bucky]

34. Sorry, but yes Gay marriage is a wedge issue. If you prefer, the fear of it is the wedge.

Marriage equality is not the point. The point is Gay marriage. Or more properly "Oh my God, Gay Perverted Marriage! Hide the china, Marge, they're putting a leather bar in next to the church and the Supreme Court is letting 'em!" is the divisive issue.

If you want to understand what drives Republican victories, you've got to quit being so damn rational. Marriage Equality by itself is no one else's business. Gay marriage and the resulting destruction of all we hold near and dear to us is the wedge. If they quit using hysterical terms, the whole problem goes away. So don't expect a reasonable argument from unreasonable people.
.

[FreeState]

35. So how does placing it on the ballot get dems to vote republican ? N/T

[La Lioness Priyanka]

36. there are bigoted dems?

[FreeState]

38. So they switch parties over it? No

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/40/wedge-issues-on-the-ballot

[hfojvt]

53. they don't have to switch parties

it could be a question of voter turnout. How many Dems vs. how many Republicans turn out. Plus, I am not sure how many people vote 'party'. As a registered Democrat, I can, and have voted for Republican candidates and still stayed registered as a Democrat. If there is a moderate Republican running against a left-wing loon, then alot of conservative Democrats might vote for the Republican, especially if that Republican is an incumbent. If a moderate Republican is running against a DINO, again, it may be a matter of six of one and half a dozen of another. Whoever performs better in a debate may win the day. With a DINO vs. a rightwing loon, alot of Republicans will vote for the DINO. At least that is the great DLC hope, and it certainly worked in 1964.

Then there are the registered independents. Which way will they tip? That can swing the election.

[xchrom]

19. the only reason an issue like gay marriage or marriage equality can't

win is because of the kind of visible support it does or doesn't receive.

it's about having a vigorous and muscular defense of your beliefs.

not scraping the bottom of the barrel for a vote -- or a buck, for that matter.

people can literally smell it when ANY candidate is not being authentic -- and again and again i'll say it -- the problem with liberals and progressives in the political sphere is appearing inauthentic and pandering to voters.

stand the fuck up -- period.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

21. best response yet. thanks.

[Solon]

23. The biggest problem, in my view, is the bullshit put out by the other side on gay marriage...

the lies end up overpowering the truth in regards to this civil rights issue. Because of this, people who would otherwise either not care one way or the other about gay marriage, or may actually support it, vote to oppose it because they believe the lies. The biggest lie is that if gay marriage was legally recognized, churches would HAVE to perform them. This is bullshit, of course, the government recognizes interfaith and interracial marriages, yet churches are under no obligation to perform either. Anyone who has ever been married in a church, especially a Christian church, know all about some of the obligations, such as having at least one person be a member in good standing, or requiring religious classes before the marriage is performed, etc. Churches are exempt from all equal rights laws, and can restrict membership and services performed in the same way. If a church refuses to perform a marriage, that is their right, under the first amendment, and that wouldn't be changed if homosexual marriages are legally recognized.

[johnnie]

24. I'm all for gay marriages

Personally, I have no problem with people getting married. I would probably never do it myself (get married), but that doesn't mean that others shouldn't.

I know we go over and over the marriage versus union thing here and I completely understand why many people want marriage instead of union, but from my discussions with many people about it has basically told me that marriage is a long way off. Many people I have talked to tell me they completely support gay unions, but they think marriage is a sacred blah blah blah blah.... Of course I tell them I disagree, but who am I to try to change someone's spiritual beliefs?

I'm not saying that people should just settle for the union thing and call it a day, I just think that the struggle for gay marriages to be accepted and "lawful" will just be a hard road. To me, I have no personal "gain" out of this except that I believe in equality for all people and I think it is wrong that people aren't able to marry the person they choose to be with. I will continue to support the people who want to be able to marry the person they love.

[Madspirit]

29. We're not stealing anyone's Holy Thing...

We've already got it. That's one of the many ways SOME straights can be so...not the sharpest knives in the drawer. We already have the Spiritual Hocus Pocus of Marriage, if we choose. All we have to do is find a gay church or a gay-friendly church and there you have it. ...married according to your mythology of choice.

What we DEMAND is the legal aspect of marriage. ...and if it's all going to be rolled into one for heterosexuals...because the pastors of the churches fill out all the documents and so do the bride and groom, we want that when we get married in a church too. It doesn't really happen with Hocus Pocus and God reaches down and blesses The Mighty Het. Union. It happens because the pastor and the people have filled out legal documents.

So, we want our civil commitments to mean every bit as much as a straight person's civil commitments and we want it called "marriage" if that's what it's legally called for straights. ...AND for those among us who do believe in Something and have their ceremony in a church, we DEMAND it confer the same legal rights as straights get.

I'm not Kinda Almost Human. I'm not giving my vote to anyone who supports less than what I demand. I don't care anymore. I used to hate third party voters but none of these candidates give a flying shit about the things I think are important...health care, gay equality, choice, funding the mentally ill, helping the homeless, poverty, getting rid of the death penalty, funding for AIDS, etc...so I'm going to start giving them every bit as much as I'm getting from them.

Lee

[johnnie]

37. You don't have to tell me

I understand what you want. I was just saying that it is trying to get others to understand that is the problem. Judging by many other issues that concern equal rights, it just may take quite a long time before people start to understand these things.

It's one thing to talk about it on a "progressive" website, but not all voters are here reading what people have to say. In my opinion, it won't be until there are some major changes in the government of this country before the things that are important to *me* start being dealt with. For example, Kucinich mentions peace in the world and people on all sides thinks he is a freaking goof ball. If something as "simple" as the idea of world peace is looked at as some kind of unrealistic thought, then that puts a hell of a lot of other issues down the toilet.

As I said, I understand where you are coming from and I support you on that, but I don't know how to go beyond my support at this time.

[Lilith Velkor]

26. I'm a marriage abolitionist, and agree with you i/r/t candidates

Not sure where I fit in this poll, if at all.

[Bucky]

27. Marriage equality, by itself, won't cost us votes. People are more anti war than anti gay. BUT....

The Republicans aren't just going to calmly discuss the pros and con of extending marriage benefits like Democrats do. They will use fear and terror and tie it to actual terrorism and the collapse of our way of life and the buggery of your children by atheistic flag burning pro-union teachers while they're at school. Gay marriage will destroy our civilization.

You'll tear your hair out in frustration before this election is over with. Gay marriage is all they have left. You damn well better believe they'll use it up to the hilt.
.

[enigmatic]

41. I want to abolish marriage as a legally binding institution altogether

Have civil unions for everybody, no matter who they want to join into that union with. Have "marriage" be a purely ceremonial act w/ no legally binding rights.

I know this will never happen, but I think it's the best way.

[stirlingsliver]

42. Exactly Right!

Have civil unions for everybody, no matter who or how many they want to join that union with.

If someone wants to stage a big "show" -- aka a "wedding" -- let them do it. But they get no rights that anyone else doesn't have.

[taterguy]

44. Might as well try it, who knows why people vote the way they do

It's my suspicion that people lie to pollsters:
Family values are important, unless a Repuke with multiple wives is running against a Dem whose been married to the same person 40 years.

No one approves of pornography, but nevertheless it's a multi-billion dollar industry.

Military service matters, unless a war hero runs against a draft dodger

Yadda, yadda, yadda

Just go for it and see what happens

[La Lioness Priyanka]

55. well that is true enough

[SarahB]

46. I most definitely think a candidate can win who supports gay marriage.

This country is made up of far more social liberals and libertarians than conservative fundies.

We just have to have to guts not to continue to let the conservative fundies in the minority continue to dictate our policies and platforms!

[yardwork]

48. Kerry won the election.

[cboy4]

50. Don't forget they said the New Jersey decision was going to cost us

the 2006 election.

And we found out what a crock that was.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

54. i think the jersey ruling was very diffferent, the jersey rulings came from the court

and also isnt marriage.

[riona]

51. I think it's possible

but I also think the candidate would have to be a strong one - a person who could inspire large numbers of people to GET OUT AND VOTE!

[jpgray]

56. You never give up what's right, you just avoid spotlighting the issue when it's unpopular

A good example might be FDR subtly working integration into the New Deal work programs, despite his presidency and certainly his party's Congressional supremacy being extremely dependent on the racist "Solid South." The reason this didn't sink him is because the issue just seemed too peripheral to most people, and wasn't spotlighted in the political debate. So there is one instance of being able to do what's right even when it is unpopular.

The reason of course that gay marriage is spotlighted now isn't because it affects many people or that it is extremely important to politicians. Mostly it is just a way for religious conservatives to get votes and rally the troops--witness the marriage ballot initiatives concurrent with the '06 and '04 elections. The problem isn't deciding whether or not to sell out on equal rights--that should never be the choice. Rather it's about deciding how to preempt the issue by avoiding the attempt of conservatives to push it to the forefront of national debate, so that its apparent unpopularity isn't a liability.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

57. so what is the solution. electing people who support equality but not vocally?

(not snarky..serious question)

[jpgray]

59. There's no worthier cause than equal rights--any decent candidate should support it

However, there should be ways to take the spotlight off it, so that while the same number of voters may be opposed to it, it isn't a deal-breaker issue for them. I don't think I explained myself well above--I don't mean that gay marriage isn't a worthy issue of political discussion or that we should be ashamed of talking about our stances on it. But it only has the prominence it has now not because people are really concerned about denying gay people rights, but because conservatives know they can leech voters off Democrats using it. The answer then isn't to give up on gay marriage or forge some sort of wishy-washy alternate path like civil unions, but to make other issues so important that gay marriage support won't make or break a candidate electorally.

In other words it isn't the support of the issue that kills a candidate--doing what's right never should. It's the way conservatives turn it into a deal-breaker issue for too many selfish-minded people looking for a way to express their casual bigotry.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. I think, particularly if it was framed in the context of a broad and consistent socially libertarian

agenda (knowing full well how much the "l" word causes some folks around here hives) then absolutely YES it could be a big winner.

I think that candidate could win, because I believe that the American People are far more socially libertarian than the corporate punditocracy and conventional wisdom waterheads want us to believe.

But it needs to be framed as an across-the-board personal freedom stay-the-fuck-out-of-my-shit platform. End the war on drugs, stop the "wars" on consenting adult porn and consenting adult prostitution, stand up for reproductive choice; say flat out that what a person wants to do with his or her own body, as long as he or she isn't harming or endangering anyone else, is that citizen's business. Stand up for the right of the terminally ill to a pain-free exit if they so choose. Support the separation of church and state. And absolutely stand up for the right of our gay and lesbian citizens to live, work, and marry as they so choose.

I think there is a solid "mind your own business" streak in the American electorate that neither party is adequately addressing right now.