Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Most Oppose Gay Marriage; Fewer Back an Amendment
ABC News ^ | June 6, 2006 | GARY LANGER

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Unclassified
KEYWORDS: 109th; digression; distraction; diversion; dodge; dognponyshow; evasion; flimflam; fma; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexuals; manbehindthecurtain; panderbear; polls; razzledazzle; redherring; samesexmarriage; smokescreen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last
To: little jeremiah

"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.


21 posted on 06/05/2006 11:12:32 PM PDT by jwh_Denver (If your ship hasn't come in it's probably because she docked in the Isle of Man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong

Ah...the contortions they must have gone through to write that headline.


22 posted on 06/05/2006 11:16:59 PM PDT by DCPatriot ("It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so" Theodore Sturgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

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.


23 posted on 06/05/2006 11:17:54 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: kcvl; jwh_Denver

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!


24 posted on 06/05/2006 11:29:24 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: suijuris

That's because this is an issue the RINOs hope will catch on to take our eye off the ball on illegal immigration.




truth


25 posted on 06/05/2006 11:42:57 PM PDT by teldon30 (Far right, elitist, sexist, cynical religious bigot and looter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong
A Constitutional Amendment over such a trivial matter is idiocy designed to cater to the religious fundamentalist base.

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.

26 posted on 06/06/2006 12:40:26 AM PDT by FierceDraka ("I am not a number - I am a FREE MAN!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64
I don't like messing with the Constitution. The more you change it, the more it will be changed. Eventually it will become worthless.

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.

27 posted on 06/06/2006 12:47:57 AM PDT by FierceDraka ("I am not a number - I am a FREE MAN!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Nickey

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.


28 posted on 06/06/2006 12:56:24 AM PDT by garylmoore (Faith is the assurance of things unseen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: garylmoore

This issue strengthens the Democrats claim to being the party of Death.They would like to see traditional marriage slowly die.


29 posted on 06/06/2006 3:59:55 AM PDT by ardara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong

They'll support an amendment when the full faith and credit clause is used to shove gay marriage down the nation's throat.


30 posted on 06/06/2006 4:02:01 AM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nickey
...treason against the President

That construction alone is proof that you haven't the foggiest clue. One cannot commit an act of treason against the president.

31 posted on 06/06/2006 5:48:45 AM PDT by Melas (What!? Read or learn something? Why would anyone do that, when they can just go on being stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64; Nickey; weegee
Cobra64: I agree with that. I don't like messing with the Constitution. The more you change it, the more it will be changed. Eventually it will become worthless.

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???

32 posted on 06/06/2006 6:07:44 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood; Nickey; weegee
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.

33 posted on 06/06/2006 9:16:40 AM PDT by Cobra64 (All we get are lame ideas from Republicans and lame criticism from dems about those lame ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong; AFA-Michigan; AggieCPA; Agitate; AliVeritas; AllTheRage; An American In Dairyland; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping!

If you oppose the homosexualization of society
-add yourself to the ping list!

To be included in or removed from the
HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA PING LIST,
please FReepMail either DBeers or DirtyHarryY2k.

Free Republic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword = homosexualagenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

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...

34 posted on 06/06/2006 10:22:34 AM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Melas

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.


35 posted on 06/06/2006 10:32:39 PM PDT by Nickey (Loose Lips Sink Ships.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

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.


36 posted on 06/06/2006 10:38:44 PM PDT by Nickey (Loose Lips Sink Ships.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Nickey

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.


37 posted on 06/07/2006 8:13:47 AM PDT by Melas (What!? Read or learn something? Why would anyone do that, when they can just go on being stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Melas

So these differences are important to you somehow?


38 posted on 06/09/2006 5:43:00 PM PDT by Nickey (Loose Lips Sink Ships.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Melas

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.


39 posted on 06/09/2006 6:11:52 PM PDT by Nickey (Loose Lips Sink Ships.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jwh_Denver
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.

I would almost bet that if you had said yes, they could have construed it as a victory.

40 posted on 06/09/2006 6:23:53 PM PDT by Arrowhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson