Posted on 06/05/2006 9:54:35 PM PDT by Sunsong
An ABC News poll finds that most Americans oppose gay marriage but markedly fewer — especially those outside George W. Bush's core supporters — would amend the U.S. Constitution to ban it.
Opponents, however, are far more likely to call it a make-or-break issue in their vote for Congress — a finding that explains Bush's renewed push for a gay marriage ban.
Among all Americans, 58 percent say gay marriage should be illegal, but fewer, 42 percent, say it rises to the level of amending the U.S. Constitution. Among conservative Republicans and evangelical white Protestants, though, opposition to gay marriage soars more than 85 percent, and two-thirds support a constitutional amendment to ban it, a sharp contrast to views in the political center, as well as on the left. The intensity of these views adds to the political calculation: People who "strongly" oppose gay marriage — 51 percent of the public — outnumber strong supporters by 2-1. And those strong opponents are nearly three times as likely as other Americans to say they would vote only for a candidate who shares their view on the issue.
Similarly, among people who support a gay marriage amendment, 63 percent say they could vote only for a candidate who agrees with them; among those who oppose an amendment, just 24 percent say the same...
Fifty-one percent in this poll say that instead of a constitutional amendment, states should make their own laws on gay marriage; this too is down slightly, from 56 percent in spring 2005 and back near its 2004 levels...
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
"There were not only double negatives, but triple, quadruple, and probably more than that negatives."
Yeah we had something like that many years ago on a gay issue. The way they worded it a "no" vote was really voting for it.
Ah...the contortions they must have gone through to write that headline.
That's because they can only win by cheating, as usual. They need to confuse people in order to get what they want. They can't tell the truth or they would always lose.
I'm still kicking myself for voting what I think was the wrong way. Now that I remember it, I think I went back AGAIN and told the old lady I need to fix it for a third time. And I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I'm far from illiterate!
That's because this is an issue the RINOs hope will catch on to take our eye off the ball on illegal immigration.
According to federalism, such a matter is best left to the states. I'm sure some legal "scholar" will figure out some legal trickery to justify this under the thrice-damned Interstate Commerce Clause.
We're fighting a war against Islamic terrorism, we're losing our property rights to eminent domain, are we're being invaded by Mexican criminal aliens who demand their "right" to vote in OUR elections, and El Presidente Jorge is pushing for this?!?
And to think that I was a partisan stalwart in 2000 and 2004, getting right in the Leftists' smug little faces and threatening to stomp them with my boots to defend the President... I feel betrayed.
Isn't it already?
10th Amendment - killed by FDR and his cabal of Socialists.
5th Amendment - done for by eminent domain decision and DUI "exceptions".
4th Amendment - done.
2nd Amendment - pretty much gutted.
1st Amendment - McCain-Feingold, anyone?
It has been said that fascism will come to America in the form of the Cross wrapped in the American flag. Looks like we're already here.
It is time to start putting American Values BACK INTO the Constitution when anti-Americans take them out. Sick perversion of marriage is as bad as treason against the President, and the Liberal agenda goes on. Let them change the Constitution?
I agree and so do the majority, it's a showdown of the good vs the evil and I prefer to believe that the majority is good.
This issue strengthens the Democrats claim to being the party of Death.They would like to see traditional marriage slowly die.
They'll support an amendment when the full faith and credit clause is used to shove gay marriage down the nation's throat.
That construction alone is proof that you haven't the foggiest clue. One cannot commit an act of treason against the president.
Cobra64 must already think it is worthless... this is what it says:
Article. V.The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,...
How can passing an Amendment be un-constitutional???
I don't have a clue what you are talking about. No one said passing an amendment was un-constitutional.
An ABC News poll finds...
WHY this poll published now??? Why posted on FR now???
ROTFLMAO
- Reality finds this non-issue being debated in the Senate... Who determines issues, the politically impotent OR the politically empowered? Harry Reid & Nancy Pelosi would agree with the enraged minority that sits on the sidelines whining incessantly about this "non-issue" -a few of which post such nonsense on FR, the vast majority of which post such nonsense on DU...
Thank you for advice. I am sad not to have the foggiest clue. So if the Commander-in-Chief gives a lawful order for the troops to obey, but they disobey the order and give aid and comfort to the enemy, maybe this is free speech, you say? Please help me as I do not have the intelligence to understand how this world works, having very simple Conservative mind. I thought the President was Commander-in-Chief of Army. Sorry.
I do not understand how Amendment is unconstitutional? I Am not a constitution scholar.
If sick perversion of marriage does not belong in America, it must say so in the law. If the law cannot be passed without Amendment, then the Amendment is needed.
I am not very refined thinking about these things. I do belive in the law and the Constitution.
Disobeying a lawful order is insubordination, not treason. You have your terms all mixed up. As for the original point, it was against your notion that treason could be committed against the president. It cannot. Treason can only be levied against the United States, not it's leader.
So these differences are important to you somehow?
Thank you for helpful reply but I read it two times and it still is no help.
Are you saying that a man can be a traitor but not commit treason? or that a man can commit treason but is not a traitor?
This is too hard for me! LOL! Are you a lawyer? Do you work for ACLU? LOL Just Kidding.
I would almost bet that if you had said yes, they could have construed it as a victory.
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.