Posted on 02/28/2014 2:22:12 PM PST by SeekAndFind
WASHINGTON — A majority of same-sex marriage supporters now want the federal government to decide whether or not to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples for all states while opponents of SSM would prefer to leave the issue to each state. This is the opposite of where each side of the debate stood seven years ago, according to research conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute.
Fifty-four percent of SSM supporters now say the federal government should decide the issue of SSM, compared to only 42 percent who said the same in 2006. Forty-four percent of SSM supporters want the issue decided by each state today, compared to 54 percent who wanted states to decide the issue in 2006.
SSM opponents, on the other hand, flipped in the opposite direction. In 2006, 56 percent wanted the issue decided at the federal level, while only 39 percent wanted states to decide. Today, 60 percent of SSM opponents want states to decide whether to allow SSM and only 32 percent would prefer a federal policy on SSM.
This inconsistency is not unusual, Clyde Wilcox, professor of government at Georgetown University, explained at a Wednesday panel discussion in Washington, D.C., introducing the report by PRRI, a liberal, nonpartisan research organization that focuses on issues related to religion and public life.
"This is not the only example where the public is inconsistent," Wilcox said. "If your side can win at the national level you like it better and if your side can win at the state level you like it better."
The change in positions on the issue indicates, though, how rapidly public opinion has changed on the issue of SSM, Wilcox added.
"Think about how the debate has changed from 2005 to today," he said. "In 2005, the debate was, how can we stop a few progressive states from allowing [same-sex] marriage. So the assumption would be if we had a national law it would be 'no' [to SSM]. Today, progressives are saying, 'boy, we've got majorities in an awful lot of states, the Supreme Court could just take care of this forever. Mississippi is not going to pass a law for a long long time.' So now [SSM supporters are] thinking the national government could say 'yes.'"
Jonathan Capehart, an opinion writer for The Washington Post and an MSNBC contributor, added that he has "long been a proponent of having the courts take care of this."
"As a descendent of the Civil Rights generation," he said, "when the courts had to come in and make states act right, I'm all for making the states act right by the Supreme Court [on] the issue of marriage equality. What we're seeing now is a two-pronged fight that's happening. ... At the state level and at the federal level, what you're seeing is a really rapid advancing of marriage equality."
The report's recent poll of 4,509 adults was conducted Nov. 12 through Dec. 18. The margin of error for the full sample is 1.7 percentage points.
Because Bush was the feds in 2006. While now the feds are Bathhouse Barry & Co. Sort of like judge shopping. Nothing else.
A national divorce is about 6-20 years too late, in my opinion. Lets figure out which states go where, who gets which nuclear weapons, etc., etc.
As federal and state judges keep striking down state marriage laws, the issue is quickly becoming moot. SSM will become the law of the land in the next two years everywhere in the country unless the Supreme Court weighs in.
RE: unless the Supreme Court weighs in.
Let’s see what we have...
SURE TO DECIDE IN FAVOR OF FEDERALIZING SAME SEX MARRIAGE: Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsberg, Breyer
SURE TO DECIDE IN FAVOR OF STATE RIGHTS: Scalia, Thomas, Alito
WILDCARDS: Kennedy, Roberts
NOTE: Some FReepers have doubts about the sexuality of Roberts and Kagan ( which means if true, fairness dictates that they should recuse themselves.... )
Marriage is not an enumerated power of the Feds. They should butt out. The only issue for SCOTUS is one of “full faith and credit”.
Marriage “licenses” we’re unheard of up until less than 100 years ago. In. Y opinion all levels of government should keep their noses out of how consenting adults chose to order thier lives.
Government "of", "for" & "by" the people has now been fully converted perverted to government "of", "for" & "by" the Marxist ruling class..
Absolute, total nonsense, Thomas Jefferson had a marriage license, George Washington paid for his nephews, licenses go back to the 1300s, and Banns before that.
Here is Jefferson’s license.
Bond for Marriage License
[23 December 1771]
Know all men by these presents that we Thomas Jefferson and Francis Eppes are held and firmly bound to our sovereign lord the king his heirs and successors in the sum of fifty pounds current money of Virginia, to the paiment of which, well and truly to be made we bind ourselves jointly and severally, our joint and several heirs executors and administrators in witness whereof we have hereto set our hands and seals this twenty third day of December in the year of our lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy one.
The condition of the above obligation is such that if there be no lawful cause to obstruct a marriage intended to be had and solemnized between the abovebound Thomas Jefferson and Martha Skelton of the county of Charles city, Widow,1 for which a license is desired, then this obligation is to be null and void; otherwise to remain in full force.
th: jefferson
francis eppes
Marriage is not a civil-right issue any more then a obtaining a driving license is a civil-rights’ issue. One does need to ask permission of the State and obtain a license to exercise a right.
Accordingly, it’s not a civil-rights issue, not a 14th issue and not under the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
No one’s marriage has to be legal, that option is there only if they desire it.
Federal court did rule anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.