Maine split on gay marriage question (48% for,48% against,%5 undecided)

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com ^ | October 20, 2009 | www.publicpolicypolling.com

[Maelstorm]

Raleigh, N.C. – Two weeks out from election day Maine voters are divided right down the middle when it comes to whether they will reject the state’s law allowing same sex couples to marry. 48% say they will vote to over turn the law while 48% say they will vote to keep it with only 4% of the electorate still undecided. Opinion on the issue predictably breaks heavily along party lines. 74% of Republicans are planning to vote yes while only 25% of Democrats are. Independents may end up deciding which way it goes- presently 50% of them support rejecting the law with 44% in opposition. Older voters are strongest in their support of cutting off gay marriage. 54% are in support with 40% opposed. Senior citizens can often dominate the electorate in low turnout elections so the ultimate fate of this measure may lie in how many younger people get out to the polls and vote. There is a strong gender gap on the issue with 53% of men but only 43% of women wanting to reject the law. It’s also interesting to note that while white voters oppose undoing the law by a thin 47-45 margin, nonwhite voters in the state support rejection by a 55-35 margin, creating the overall tie. “The fate of Question 1 is going to be decided by which side does a better job of mobilizing their supporters to get out and vote,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “Voters in the state know where they stand on the issue and now it’s just an issue of who shows up.” PPP surveyed 1,130 likely voters from October 16th to 19th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-2.9%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify. Complete results are attached and can be found at www.publicpolicypolling.com.

[Waryone]

As for your friends who think people like you should pay 70%, tell them to give up 70% of their income and see how much incentive they have to get out of bed. As your friends irk you with their ideas, those who want to take from everyone else bother me. All the news media, Hollywood, sports stars make more than enough money to qualify for that 70% give away. Why don’t they just voluntarily give their money away. These same people who are so worried about the poor give less than everyday working people who want to keep their money for themselves and not give it to the govt. Don’t let them guilt you into doing what they won’t even do themselves.

There are world views at battle here. Those who believe the earth has a limited store of goods and that man is frittering it all away and unless we “conserve” the earth is incapable of replenishing itself. To them Man is the cause of all evil and at the same time the only hope for salvation. Is contrasted with those who believe God created the earth and man to be its steward. God is the one who determines how much resource exists and we are allowed to use it. We don’t have to worry about global warming because God regulates the earth. Droughts and famines will come, but if we are wise with our provisions in times of plenty, we will be all right. We also know from Whom salvation comes and it is not man. It is our Lord, Jesus Christ.

I don’t believe law suits should be between Christians, we should be able to settle things amicably. But the case you cite where the man was fired because he believes in Christianity and a gay manager from another store decided to harass him does not count as Christians suing one another. Even the Apostle Paul claimed the rights of Roman citizenship, so I do believe that we can use the law when our rights are infringed upon.

As far as being worried about what will be used on us, the other side has no such qualms. They use whatever means they have at hand to achieve what they want. Because for them the ends justify the means. They try to force us to abide by rules they imagine we should play by, while they play by no rules at all. We should do as the Bible says, not as they says. They could not interpret the Bible if they wanted to, because the Holy Spirit does not renew their minds. So I rarely worry about what they think I should do or how they imagine I should react as a Christian. Before I became a Christian, I also imagined things that were wrong about Christians. Now I know better and I also know the only person whose opinion really matters is the Lord’s. So I don’t worry about what they think. Oh and I homeschooled my son, so not only don’t I worry about what they think, I don’t bother with their teaching as well.

I believe in freedoms to, to a point. People who walk into stores with foul language written on their t shirts are people I will speak to. People who swear and curse and take the Lord’s name in vain I will speak to as well. They may have the legal right to say most of that but I have the legal right to tell them what I think of their choice of expression. I won’t be violent but I will state my case. Usually the Lord gives them the sense to stop. It may come about that some day I will have to pay for my beliefs, but if I am punished for doing right then all the better.

As much as I may dislike certain groups as long as they are willing to abide by the laws and have not been established to subvert the law, I don’t have a problem with them. NAMBLA for example I have a big problem with because they exist to promote the commission of a crime, the violation of young boys. I don’t understand why they are allowed to exist and I don’t think it is a matter of freedom of speech in their case.

[DesScorp]

"It specifically, to-the-point without exception or any wiggle room says that Sodom was destroyed because she didn't share her wealth."

That was only one in an abundance of sins. I'm not disputing that they were greedy. But my point is that modern activists want to eliminate a primary cause of God's displeasure at those cities: vice and immorality.

"You will bear the consequences of your lewdness and your detestable practices, declares the LORD. " Ezekial 16:58

Last time I looked, lewdness was a sin of sexual immorality. Sodomy, after all, was so named in "honor" of the city of Sodom and it's sexual habits.

[WallStreetCapitalist]

Oh, I agree with you there. I think this movement to say the only sin of Sodom was a "lack of hospitality" is utterly stupid. The only way someone could believe that is if they wanted to mold it to their own agenda.

(Random, interesting side note from a comparative religion course I took in college: the term "sodomy" actually included oral sex up until a few decades ago, even among married heterosexual couples because the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas had the church convinced for almost its entire history that all non-procreative sex was lewdness in the mold of Sodom, hence the term. In a lot of states, sodomy still referred to oral sex in the legal sense and was struck down in Lawrence v. Texas. It is interesting to me that our ancestors actually considered married couples sodomites despite the Bible not saying anything about sex between husband and wife. That's how powerful Aquinas's teachings were even among certain segments of society up through the 20th century.)