Posted on 03/04/2005 11:06:22 AM PST by Aetius
Friday, March 4, 2005 9:43 a.m. EST Poll: New Yorkers Want Gay Marriage
A majority of New York City voters would support a law allowing gay marriage, according to a poll released Thursday.
But by a slim margin, they also back Mayor Michael Bloomberg's decision to appeal a recent court ruling supporting same-sex unions, the Quinnipiac University Poll found.
In the poll, 51 percent of respondents said they favored legalizing gay marriage, while 40 percent were opposed. White voters were much more likely to back the law than black voters _ 61 percent of whites wanted the law, compared with just 36 percent of blacks.
"There's a big split between black and white voters over gay marriage," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
By a margin of 49 to 44 percent, voters said they agreed with Bloomberg's strategy of appealing a state Supreme Court decision last month that the state's refusal to grant marriage licenses to gays was unconstitutional.
Bloomberg has said he personally supports gay marriage but wants to test the court ruling to avoid the "chaos" San Francisco experienced last year when it issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The marriages were later ruled invalid.
The poll surveyed 1,435 New York City registered voters between February 22 and March 1. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points.
© 2005, The Associated Press
This bare-majority support for gay marriage in NY (and no doubt overwhelming support for at least civil unions) is probably indicative of public opinion over much of the Northeast and a few other places. But as actual votes have shown, when people get a chance to actually have a direct say then they have taken every state-wide chance to ban gay marriage, and in most cases also ban civil unions. This includes blue states like Oregon, California, and Michigan. In fact, Michigan was one of the states to ban both gay marriage and civil unions.
So my point is to pose the question: which parts of the country do you think the Sup Court will look to when trying to find 'an emerging public consensus' to justify their inevitable imposition of gay marriage or civil unions? Something tells me it won't be the South, or Rocky Mtn West, or Sunbelt, or Midwest.
Since GOP Presidents and Congresses have shown they have no stomach to challenge the self-granted supremacy of the Supreme Court when it makes clearly unconstitutional decisions, perhaps the defenders of traditional marriage should consider offering up an alternative Amendment to the one that failed last year.
Instead of an Amendment that bans gay marriage, perhaps they should instead offer up one that simply states that with regards to marriage and the legal incidents thereof, state legislatures and/or popular bodies shall make policy for their own purposes, while Congress shall set federal policy, and that neither is subject to any judicial review.
This would have the benefit of making law the precise views put forth by many in Congress who voted against the Amendment by saying that while they opposed gay marriage, they nonetheless also opposed a Federal Amendment, preferring to leave it to the states. For some this is no doubt a genuine belief, though for others it is certainly a thinly-veiled attempt to run out the clock and wait for what they consider to be an inevitable Sup Court imposition of gay marriage/civil unions; which is what they want all along. Such an alternative Amendment would call the bluffs of such people, while putting to the fire the feet of those who probably genuinely favor a states rights solution, like McCain.
That this would admit defeat in certain states is true, but its also true that the currently proposed Amendment allows for states to democratically implement civil unions, and consistency says that it makes no sence to oppose gay marriage yet support civil unions (though millions clearly do). So if states are allowed to voluntarily adopt civil unions, then it is no different than allowing them to voluntarily adopt gay marriage and actually be honest about the nomenclature. So really, isn't it better to defend the groud that can be held, and protect the majority of states who population emphatically rejects any marriage-like legal recognition of same-sex unions from the Sup Court, and the Executive and Legislative branches that bows down to the Sup Court?
If not, then one of two things will happen; The Sup Court will impose gay marriage and call it by that name, or play to the public's confusion and instead impose the institution of gay marriage but call it by one of the various euphemisms.
I question this poll, it seems like a clear contradiction to me. Another hatchett poll done by the left again.
There's a problem with this poll.
It seems skewed.
No-one in my immediate area is for gay marraige.
Then have a vote.
It's not a contradiction. Not appealing the ruling would leave the status of marriage unclear. By appealing, Bloomberg is sending the case on its way to resolution one way or the other.
Regardless, this is a state issue.
This NYC resident does not support gay marriage.
Does a fish want water?
Any POLL by Quinnipiac Polling is mostly paid for by HILLARY.
This is how she gets her platform for the Senate and PRESIDENT !!
NY city folks are not in favor of anything that actually makes sense...
They are also in favor of anything which is not conservative..
The formula for NYC is:
1. It must not make sense
2. It must cost the rest of the state wads of cash
3. If has even a hint of upright morality, it must be opposed
4. If the ideology behind it is conservative, then not only does one have the obligation to oppose, but also get one's friends and neibors active in opposition
5. Anthing but republican (RINO is tolerable)..
6. It has to use other people's money...
The thing is if most people in New York truly wanted SSM then it would not make any sense for them to support the mayor's idea of appealing the judge's ruling.
Seems New Yorkers not only put their collective finger on something they desire, but want to also put their members in the same place their collective heads have been for a long time.
HA!!
OK, so not only can that *place* lay claim to being the largest open sewer on earth, but now may claim one more distinction.
...the whole lot of 'em are schizophrenic.
Remember folks, that New York has the largest Gay population, in terms of actual numbers, in the Western Hemisphere. This should NOT surprise anyone.
It seems New York has learned nothing from 9-11.
How the times are a changin'.
It is my understanding, and of course there is a high probability that I am wrong, that there are many states that already have laws on the books that make same sex marriage illegal. I understand reciprocity, but I do not think that every law receives it. As an example, it is legal to openly carry firearms in Virginia. It is illegal here in Kansas. That means that a Virginian would not be allowed to carry in Kansas. Couldn't the same be applied to gay marriage?
What does 9/11 have to do with Gay marriage?
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.