Posted on 04/29/2015 8:24:49 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Finally, an answer to the most important question of the 2016 election.
Kidding aside, though, this is a bit surprising.
The question of whether or not a candidate would attend the gay wedding of a loved one has become an increasingly common litmus test for candidates on the issue…
The poll showed 56 percent of Republicans would attend the gay wedding of a loved one if invited. That compares with 80 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of independents, who said they would go.
Overall, 68 percent of Americans would attend, the poll showed, while 19 percent would not and 13 percent were unsure…
Though a right-leaning, anti-marriage position may appeal to important conservative voters in states with early nominating contests such as Iowa and New Hampshire, that stand could hurt an eventual nominee in the general election, in which cross-party appeal and independents play a larger role.
Most polls show GOP support for legalizing gay marriage somewhere between 30 and 40 percent, so apparently there’s a chunk of 20 percent or so that would show up for a gay family member’s wedding even though they … don’t think it should be legally recognized. That’s an odd position but I think it may end up being the majority position of the Republican presidential field: Rubio, Rick Perry, and Jeb Bush all oppose legalizing SSM, last I checked, and all of them have said they’d attend a gay wedding if invited. (“Claro que si” said Jeb when asked yesterday in Puerto Rico.) In fact, Ted Cruz ducked the question when Hugh Hewitt put it to him instead of replying with a flat “no.” You can see why this stance might appeal to a socially conservative pol hoping to face the national electorate next November, though. Being anti-SSM but pro-attendance is a way in theory to show righties you’re on their side of the legal debate while showing swing voters you’re not the “hater” Democrats accuse you of being.
Surely these numbers shift, though, when you look specifically at Republican primary voters, right? It stands to reason that the GOPers most motivated to vote are more likely to be members of the base, which usually means they’re more conservative than Republicans generally. And as it turns out, the numbers do shift — but not as much as you might expect. Using Reuters’s nifty crosstabs tool to refine the data so that it shows only GOP primary voters, we find that 49 percent would attend versus just 35 percent who wouldn’t, suggesting that the Rubio/Bush/Perry position is a winner in the primaries too — at least if you’re competing for center-righties, as each of them is. Surprisingly, the numbers are even better among older (i.e. age 60 or over) Republicans, 56 percent of whom say they’d attend. Women are also noticeably more supportive of attending than men are, with just 51 percent of Republican men saying they’d attend versus 62 percent of Republican women. Among the broader population, 61 percent of men would attend versus 75 percent of women. Maybe that has less to do with women being more pro-gay than men than women being more pro-wedding? You tell me.
Exit question: Is the fact that this was an online poll, not a phone poll, significant?
And 92% would attend if it was two good-looking women getting married. Go figure.
People had better pay a little more attention to Romans 1:32. Just sayin’...
Define love. As I see it, love does not give aid and comfort to bad behavior.
Isn't attending the "wedding" kind of flying in the face of that? What else are you doing but celebrating the sin itself?
Yeah, but would they bake the cake?
Yes
What’s conservative about Jenner
He likes lower taxes?
Yep, conservatism will be defined down as “Approving Gay Marriage, but not Pedophilia.”
I would. As long as the marriage didn’t represent an apostasy. But I would never attend an apostate’s marriage, anyway. How many people wouldn’t go to a wedding of someone who was outspokenly avoiding children?
Bingo! the only thing this question proves is most Republicans are not full of hate and bigots.
The homosexual agenda:
Sexually-perverted, mentally-deranged, pitiable people forcing society to play pretend with them. And a large segment of society, including many in positions of power, to their own destruction, going along with them because of their own lack of understanding of natural and spiritual reality.
I’d attend a circus as well. But not if it was advertised as a worship service to celebrate a Holy Matrimony.
I have attended one, and I can tell you simply put, the entire thing was a political event there was nothing about the “ceremony” that was not political in nature, then on to the reception which. If you want to watch a bunch of guys grabbing each others asses for a few hours, go for it. Literally every homosexual there made a point to grab the asses of the people who got “married”.
If anything the event proved exactly how they are not like everyone else, I can’t imagine attending a real wedding where everyone was grabbing the brides ass all night, but that’s exactly what it was.
Folks are free to live their lives, regardless if I agree with them or not, but I’ve done this thing so I can tell you don’t remotely try to tell me these folks are just like everyone else, they are most certainly not.
Exit question: Is the fact that this was an online poll, not a phone poll, significant?.
If it’s on the internet it must be true.
/S
This made me think of something. Your rural church is an exception to this, but there are too many churches in America. We have gone to Independent Baptist churches for about 14 years. There is another church almost exactly like mine 12 minutes away from my church, another one 20 minutes away, one 5 minutes from my house, and who knows how many others. In the city I’m from, I can quickly think of 8 Independent Baptist churches. They have the same doctrine, same polity, same service style, and most the staff went to the same bible college. My point is they could easily consolidate their efforts and do more for Christ.
It would almost be nice to be untethered from the government. It would allow preachers to say, “the Democrat Party is trait out of the pits of Hell!” And it would be true/biblical. They can’t say that now. They can talk about abortion, homosexuality, communism, rebellion against parents and authority, but they can’t name the organization that’s pushing these abominations on the country.
Would you attend your loved one’s abortion?
RE: I have attended one, and I can tell you simply put, the entire thing was a political event there was nothing about the “ceremony” that was not political in nature, then on to the reception
What could have induced you to attend it? Was it curiosity?
Next question — are these couple still “married” today?
“but not Pedophilia.” It’s only a matter of time. The framework is already being built with allowing children to choose their gender. If a child can make a decision that huge, consenting to sex is actually a step back.
O.K....so what?
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.