Posted on 07/20/2010 7:42:40 AM PDT by SmithL
Despite the narrow passage of Proposition 8 in 2008, a slim majority of California registered voters favors allowing same-sex marriage, according to a Field Poll released today.
The poll's results – 51 percent in favor, 42 percent opposed, 7 percent undecided – show big differences among age groups, geography and party affiliation.
The results were close to those the Field Poll found in May 2008, six months before voters banned gay marriage by approving Proposition 8, 52 to 48 percent.
The current survey also found that support for same-sex marriage drops below a majority when voters are given another option – civil unions.
Given that choice, less than half – 44 percent – of those polled said they favored marriage; 34 percent said they favored civil unions or domestic partnership; and 19 percent said they favored no legal recognition for gay couples.
If there is another vote to allow or reaffirm banning same-sex marriage, said Poll Director Mark DiCamillo, the new Field Poll results suggest "there's enough flexibility to move in either direction."
The poll comes as Californians wait for a historic opinion on Proposition 8 from U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco.
Walker will decide if Proposition 8 violates gay residents' federal constitutional right to equal protection. His decision is expected to be appealed.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
They’ve been asking voters about same sex marriage since 1977? But I thought they insist that there is NO homosexual agenda.
I don’t get the legal reasoning in the homosexual marriage court cases.
In Massachusetts, the judge said that the state law is paramount in defining marriage, and that the federal government cannot force a definition of marriage on Mass.
In the California case, the openly homosexual judge will certainly rule that Prop. 8 violated federal law. In that case, he will have to rule that, even though the Calif. Supreme Court ruled that the people had the right to vote and define marriage, that somehow such a vote violated FEDERAL constitutional rights.
So on the one hand, a state can’t define marriage as a man and a woman in violation of federal law, and the federal government can’t define marriage as a man and a woman in violation of state laws.
Does any of this make sense?
Then why did it get voted down?
FACT! Bill and Frank had no babies, Tom and Helen had a bunch......
Living in the era when evil becomes good, dark becomes light
and ignorance becomes wisdom. The Roman Empire crumbled also from corruption like this as well but arrogant progressives, leftists and liberals can’t be bothered with history or moral absolutes.
I don’t believe it. Even in California. The rot is not so far advanced.
Well, apparently the peasants just don't know what's good for them. Best leave those tough decisions to our egghead rulers./sarc
The majority of people also want the McClatchy organization to go away and die.
The CA judge can no longer rule that Prop 8 violated federal law. The fed judge ruled that same sex marriage was a states rights issue(he didn’t just strike down same sex marriage ban, he said that it was up to the states to decide), thus the CA judge now has no leg to stand on since prop 8 is now a CA state constitutional amendment.
Because the poll undercounts hispanic voters.
No surprise.
The relentless drumbeat of the queer juggernaut, the rabid and fervid indoctrination in the tax-funded, union-run government schools, the tireless promotion of the Left on the hypnotic medium of Television, the pervasive and almost unanimous support of the entertainment industry, are all working together to frog march us into a Brave New World, braver and newer and more perverse than even Aldous Huxley could imagine.
> Does any of this make sense?
Yes.
Sodomite “marriage” is going to be shoved down our throats, like it or not, “for our own good”, in spite of the law or common sense or the public health realities.
The law will be perverted, stretched, tortured, deconstructed and reconstructed to assure that sodomite “marriage” becomes the “law of the land”.
Just like abortion is the “law of the land”.
No, that is what was argued in front of the CA Supreme Court, and it was denied. In the Federal case, they are trying to argue discrimination and equal protection violations.
You are right, and Lindsey Graham and the dumb voters in SC are proof of your claim.
The results of the actual plebiscite in 2008 made liars out of the Field Poll then, but here they are, bold as brass, lying their family jewels off again about the results of their latest push-poll.
The homo-agitprop machine needs to be crushed, and their cabal with it.
http://tinyurl.com/2c4k6mw
Open persecution of religious believers is only a generation away, and the feral savagery of Galerius and Decius and the Abbasid caliphs a few generations more.
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.