POLL: Milestone for Gay Marriage - More Than Half of American Say It Should Be Legal

[jefferson_dem]

:applause:

Support for Gay Marriage Reaches a Milestone - More Than Half of Americans Say Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

Post a Comment Analysis by GARY LANGER
March 18, 2011

More than half of Americans say it should be legal for gays and lesbians to marry, a first in nearly a decade of polls by ABC News and The Washington Post.

This milestone result caps a dramatic, long-term shift in public attitudes. From a low of 32 percent in a 2004 survey of registered voters, support for gay marriage has grown to 53 percent today. Forty-four percent are opposed, down 18 points from that 2004 survey.

The issue remains divisive; as many adults "strongly" oppose gay marriage as strongly support it, and opposition rises to more than 2-1 among Republicans and conservatives and 3-1 among evangelical white Protestants, a core conservative group. But opposition to gay marriage has weakened in these groups from its levels a few years ago, and support has grown sharply among others – notably, among Catholics, political moderates, people in their 30s and 40s and men.

The results reflect a changing albeit still polarized climate. Gay marriage has been legalized in five states and the District of Columbia, by court ruling or legislative action, since 2003, while many other states prohibit it. The Obama administration late last month said it would no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law banning federal recognition of gay marriages.

<SNIP>

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/support-gay-marriage-reaches-milestone/story?id=13159608

[vaberella]

1. This is great news.

I give credit to Obama to bringing this topic to the forefront with his news making decision on DOMA. I'm noticing more and more, the feat that I thought would be impossible to achieve, which was the repeal of DOMA, almost a reality with that historic decision and the new talk on DOMA in the news. This is good stuff.

[jefferson_dem]

2. He deserves some credit ... but it's past time to stand strong and proud for gay marriage.

My prediction: In 2012, Obama will be the first major party presidential candidate to take that position (thanks to his "evolving" attitude). :patriot:

[xchrom]

3. evolving is right -- he was for marriage equality when he was a state senator. nt

[vaberella]

5. Marriage equality? I don't think so.

Can you provide me proof of that? As a Senator, if I remember correctly, he was for common law marriages/civil unions for gay couples. As marriage equality---he has stated he's evolving. I personally thought he was pro-gay marriage since the church with the Reverand scandal is very pro-gay couples and gay marriages. However, he's been pretty steadfast and clear about moving towards full marriage equality for gay couples---but he never seemed to be 100% for marriage --as in hetero marriage being equal for the LGBT community.

[xchrom]

6. ...

'As a young candidate for Illinois state Senate representing Chicago's LGBT-friendly Hyde Park, Obama signaled strong support for marriage equality. "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages," he stated in a signed candidate questionnaire in 1996.'

http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201103100012

[vaberella]

20. Thank you for the post. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

9. See, you got the quote, you should consider noting that you were

incorrect and snarky about a hugely important issue. Facts are facts. You can have your own opinion, but you can not have your own facts.

[vaberella]

21. Check yourself.

I asked for proof. When I'm given it I accept it. I'm not someone who goes around ignoring facts. :eyes: As I said before...I've known him to say he supports common law mariages and civil unions--but not in the marriage equality as in church weddings. Although I never saw a real difference between the two. In any event, he's also shown support for marriage equality when he spoke out against the California vote for prop 8 as a candidate and a President.

[ruggerson]

35. Vaberella

he's never said he supports common law anything. His position (today) is very simple: he opposes legalizing same sex marriage (whether it occurs in a church or a civil ceremony) and he supports civil unions. In other words, separate but equal. He has said recently, to his credit, that he struggles with this issue. Let's hope that after the 2012 election, we all can push him further along the road.

[ruggerson]

33. As of today, Obama would be on the wrong side of this issue

If asked the question in the poll, he would say he opposes same sex marriage.

But the LGBT community and their straight allies have pushed him along the road to change before and I trust that will happen again. He is willing to listen and evolve and that is a good trait in a President.

[xchrom]

4. thank you LGBTIQ folk for standing strong and asking for equality.

we're winning this fight on our own.

[karynnj]

7. That is amazing change over a relatively short time frame

A huge change from where this country was 50 years ago.

[SkyDaddy7]

8. I just hope the Right Wing does not...

Come up with a way to reverse this trend...They do have a way with convincing huge chunks of the public to reverse course on many issues...Hopefully this will not be one of those issues.

This is wonderful news...I have lost so much "faith" in the American People over the past decade & especially over the past two years it is nice to see this!

[karynnj]

10. I looked at the polling years ago and the interesting thing is that age, not politics, explains more

The strongest support is in the youngest age group - the lowest in the oldest age group.

I don't think the right can demonize this as easily, because more and more people know a gay couple, who have been together for years and who are completely out. This was not the case in 1960. This makes it much harder to go backwards.

If you look at the trends, it was only about 6 or 7 years ago that the majority of people accepted civil unions and only a relatively few decades since people accepted homosexual relationships as not illegal.

[SkyDaddy7]

12. Yes, I agree...I just can't help thinking that way.

You are correct about it being personal for many people...However, and I know this is a bit different but I would have thought the Financial Crisis would had been an issue the American People would have stood strong on in terms of increasing regulations & oversight on banks & financial Institutions but the Right Wing via Talk Radio & FOX :News" were able to turn public opinion...The last poll I saw before the election had a slight majority saying the new financial regulations passed by the Democrats was on overreach of power. I was completely dismayed! I thought the new law was watered down! LOL!

But YES I agree this issue is different so I hope the trend continues dispite the efforts that will be done by those on the Right to reverse it. Who knows what disgusting propaganda they might try to use to do so.

[karynnj]

14. I think the difference is that financial issues are much more complicated

One thing the right does well is to create a conventional wisdom - usually totally made up and false - and repeat it until it is seen as reality. The truth often takes paragraphs to explain - versus their few sentences, that are futher reduced to a few words after they become common wisdom.

The financial meltdown and its causes are complicated and the Democrats did a poor job in 2008 even trying to challenge the then embryonic RW myths - now, it is extremely hard to get intelligent people to listen to a more complex analysis - they think they already know - it was Freddie and Fannie - and people getting houses they can't afford. (Don't look at the financial houses speculating with derivatives.)

With gay marriage, it is much more straight forward - and now, we have the easier argument. The couples exist. The question is whether they should be treated as married couples - and it is very hard to make the case that they shouldn't have the same rights. (I thought for a time that the fastest way to get all the rights was with civil unions given federal and state rights - sacrificing just the word - though NOTHING could prevent the couple from sending out wedding invitations or using the word "spouse". But, I now see that with states already marrying gay couples, it leads to a states' rights question - the states have the role of defining marriage and it seems that the federal government treating some MA marriages differently than others is a problem. The people arguing for gay marriage then were right. Things were moving faster than I thought.

[yardwork]

16. The states that passed constitutional amendments against equal marriage also exclude civil rights

It's simply false to say that the people who are against "gay marriage" would allow civil unions. They are careful to ban everything - all rights. In Texas, for instance, it is illegal for a gay couple to even draw up papers that "approximate" civil unions. Same in many other states.

[karynnj]

19. I wasn't saying that

I was admitting that even a small number of years ago, I thought the quicker path to equal rights was to avoid the word "marriage" and was saying I was wrong. At the time (2000 - 2004), if you look at the polling data, over half the country was in favor of civil unions and less than half were in favor of gay marriage. This means that there were some people who were against gay marriage and for civil unions.

Obviously, then and now, there are people against both.

I also realize that this is a state by state issue as the states (until DOMA) defined marriage. Repealing DOMA will not help the states without gay marriage.

My comment is that there has been massive change - obviously more is needed.

[yardwork]

29. I understand. A lot of people thought that simply not using the word marriage would work.

Many homophobic organizations implied that they would be fine with civil unions too, but when it comes down to what they actually do it's always opposing all gay rights, even just civil rights.

I understand that you are fully in support of equal marriage. I appreciate your support!

[SkyDaddy7]

28. YES! YES! YES! You nailed it!

You are so correct when it comes to the Right & how theey manipulate the public! They master the spin, half truths, LIES & they have a media empire & talk radio to REPEAT REPEAT REPEAT all day everyday!

It really does make me sick what they have been able to do to this country! America has very complex problems that, like you said, take people to LISTEN & THINK to understand! Too bad many Americans gravitate to the dumbed down LIES wrapped in religion & fake patriotism!

Thanks...I nice to hear from people that think like you do!

[calimary]

38. EXACTLY. It's all in the spin. Example - what was one of the first things muammar walker did

after that fake koch phone call started making news? He had a private meeting with frank luntz. frank luntz is the guy who tells republi-CONS what to say and how to say it. With all his little loaded thumb-on-the-scale focus groups.

[SkyDaddy7]

39. The damage Frank Luntz has done to this country is...

enormous in my opinion! He is the propaganda master for the Right Wing in America!

[calimary]

42. Yes. He has singlehandedly done more to hurt America than few others who come to mind.

There's just a handful of them:

kkkarl rove, lee atwater, roger ailes, ralph reed, grover norquist, dick cheney, bill kristol, newt gingrich, and frank luntz. I can think of a few more, but these are the big ones - who've done more to damage and lethally compromise what America is all about. Traitors ALL. Tempts you to suspect they're working for al Qaeda or something. Or the koch brothers and friends, whoever comes first.

[yardwork]

15. 50 years ago was probably the lowest point in U.S. history for gay rights.

Being gay was made into a pathology in the 1950s. It was actually written into the diagnostic manual of mental illnesses. Being gay was defined as a mental illness for the first time in the 1950s. It wasn't until the 1970s that this was reversed.

The homophobia of the 1950s was closely linked to McCarthyism and eugenics.

This is why so many older people in the U.S. are deeply homophobic. They were taught horrific lies about gay people. It's been a long slow recovery, and many religious organizations would like to set the clock back.

[boppers]

31. A timeline of the 2004-2011 cultural shift:

2001-2011: Huge trilogy of films (LoTR) comes out with an openly gay man in top billing, and he goes on to become a staple of the X-Men movies as well.
2002-2011: American Idol became a national sensation, with numerous GLB contestants
2003-2011: Anderson Cooper rises to top billing on CNN
2003-2011: Ellen got her own daytime talk show
2004: Queer Eye for the straight guy became a hit
2006-2008: Rosie goes on to The View
2010: Ricky Martin came out.

I think it was Ricky Martin that put the whole thing over the top.

[ruggerson]

36. You used

"top" and "ricky martin" in the same sentence.

[Tesha]

43. Re: 2010...

> 2010: Ricky Martin came out.

Well, every movement has its little setbacks.

Tesha

[ruggerson]

45. ...

lol

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Now the water is safe for the fearful Obama to flop his flip back

to his early days of being in favor of equal rights for all, as opposed to his current opposition to equal rights. More than half, perhaps the President can cease his 'grappling' with the 'issue' of other people's business. I do not understand that form of 'faith' that is all about busibody, meddling into other people's private lives. I have never seen a Scripture that suggests that a person's righteousness is judged by the way they smirk at others, in fact I've seen many that simply say no one should ever dare to judge another person. But the Obama faith involves lots of 'look over there, look at the sin' sort of whiney, outward focus that suggests a lack of committed personal practice on the part of the man and his wife.
Perhaps now it will be 'moderate' enough for the bravely brave Obama to sally forth and take up the position he took before he changed positions!
At the very least, perhaps we can do an election without hate preachers actually slandering the minorities they don't like at Democratic events. That would be a good step for the Obamas, simply backing away from those who use violent rhetoric. Even if they are too scared to support, they could just stop with the roadblocks.

[jefferson_dem]

13. Oh, Bluenorthwest... Bless your heart.

I hope you are not saying that ... even if if Obama does the right thing ... it still won't be good enough.

[xchrom]

17. bless your heart -- i hope you're not saying flip flopping through my civil rights

for the sake of obama's political career is good enough?

[jefferson_dem]

22. I'm saying when someone does the right thing, we should applaud it...

It's the policy we want changed anyway. Or...perhaps it's smears and character assasination that you're after? Can't you stand success?

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ReggieVeggie]

41. You act as if Obama made this happen

what utter nonsense

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Right is always right. On time is another thing.

JD, I come onto this thread of good news, and before I can say 'yippee' I read that the credit goes to Obama, and I read posters rewrting the history we are still living. The credit, when it comes time to bestow that stuff, goes to the brave GLBT people who have fought for our rights for decades, and to some really great straight allies who have stood with us strong and long. Not at times and with reservations.
Your personal comments here have been cool. But I will always provide balance to those who want to take the kudos from heroes and hand them to the opposition. While he still oppposes.
And let me note, I say what I mean. Read what I said. 'I hope you are not saying'. Well did I? No. If you need clarification, just ask. No need to rewrite for me, to put your own inferrences to the status of implications.
I live in the now, JD. Right now, Obama is still on the wrong side of the issue. The wrong side of right. When the future comes, I will be in that moment. This is far too important to play around with. This is not about Obama. It is about justice. The battle for this justice goes back to before Obama was in politics. To make it about him is just naff, and pushing to credit a guy who is currently opposed to equal rights for making equal rights before the rights are made equal is just not cool at all. The day we have equality, dude, you can have all the poetics for your politicians I can deliver. Until then, my focus is on the well being of my family. Not the well being of a wealthy man who is oppose to my family being treated equally at this time. This is about my loved ones surviving if I were to die. Understand that, and we will really be on the same sidewalk. I am the head of a household the Fed says is not a household, not a family. We just want equity, justice. This is so very much not theoretical, so very much about the current moment, not some possible future.
If I drop dead today, while Obama is 'grappling' with our human rights, people I love will not get what straight people would get when their partner dies. Penniless, the people I love the most. So to what extent do you feel I should make this about Obama, not about my family?

[jefferson_dem]

23. Points well taken.

Thanks for sharing them.

[Arugula Latte]

25. To be frank, a lot of the "antis" are old and they just keep croaking.

[jefferson_dem]

27. That is the reality, isn't it.

More bigots and haters leave us every day. In terms of tolerance and equality, this generation of young people are the most progressive ever. It's a beautiful thing...

[xchrom]

26. Judge asks why Obama admin. seeking unusually tough charges against GetEqual DADT protesters, invoke

http://gay.americablog.com/2011/03/judge-questions-harsher-charges-against.html?utm_content=backtype-tweetcount&utm_medium=bt.io-twitter&utm_source=twitter.com

Just got a report from Paul Yandura who is at the Federal Court House where the arraignment is for the 13 DADT protesters. As reported yesterday, the protesters, who were arrested on November 15, 2010 in front of the White House, are facing tougher charges than usual for cases like this. The government's lawyers intend to prosecute the 13 defendants for "violating the orders of a federal law enforcement officer," which could result in jail time. This is the first time DADT protesters have been in federal court. The other defendants were processed for minor misdemeanors in DC's court system.

At today's arraignment, Mark Goldstone, the lawyer for the 13 protesters, explained to Federal Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola that the statute under which the defendants are being charged was unusual. He noted that it had not been used in recent past against people engaging in civil disobedience at the White House. For whatever reason, the government has decided to pursue the more serious criminal charges.

What happened next was surprising to those in the Courtroom. Judge Facciola got up out of his chair, while pacing, gave a speech about the history of the civil rights movement in the United States. He intimated that there were trumped up charges back in the 50s and 60s, too. And, he evoked the Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham case, Martin Luther King's "letters from the Birmingham jail" and how civil rights protesters were often brought to court to face stricter charges. The judge clearly linked the protest over Don't Ask, Don't Tell to those earlier civil rights protests.

[boppers]

30. Hm...

"The other defendants were processed for minor misdemeanors in DC's court system."

Are the remaining 13 the people who actually handcuffed themselves to the White House fence? From what it sounds, the judge is on their side.

[Exilednight]

32. Everyone chill the fuck out, the Judge has this! Because Obama certainly does not. n/t

[ruggerson]

34. Once it becomes a big news story

Obama will instruct the DOJ to dial it back. There is a pattern here.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ReggieVeggie]

40. So Obama's in the minority on this one.

Great.

[Hippo_Tron]

44. Obama is a politician

And only a politician could be against gay marriage while simultaneously opposing Prop 8 in California and instruct the Justice Department to not defend DOMA. Barack Obama I'm pretty certain has no problem with gay marriage. President Obama's official stance is, unfortunately, still against it, though. I have a feeling that will change before the 2012 election, though.