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?
Liberals are going to try to force churches to treat all equally.
Until they start accepting parishioners who are divorced which they don’t then I think they can still say no to gays. Oh and get rid of all that tax break nonsense. That is one reason why they are in the mess they are in. The Government doesn’t do anything for free. Get churches out of the tax break business. That would help them a ton if they did that.
I may find myself in a situation where I have to confront this question.
It is problematic for me, because for the people involved, while I don’t think they would care if I didn’t attend, the issue may be with my wife, who may care if I did or did’t attend because it is her family. If it were my side, I simply wouldn’t go and would explain why to them.
If it comes up, I may put myself in conflict with my spouse, who doesn’t feel the same way about this kind of thing that I do. I have to explore the range of options all the way from not going at all which would be my preference, or going but leaving the “ceremony” and other associated activities until it is time to leave, etc.
I cannot view myself as being part of it, sitting in the same space and countenancing it with my presence, which is what I feel that I would be doing.
I know this is the kind of conflict many of those people want (but not all, which I know for a fact) and that makes me even more angry about the entire thing.
I have long contended that many people including myself don’t care what homosexuals do in their bedroom or personal life as long as they aren’t injuring or impacting others. That is between them and God, to whom they will have to answer. But I have a serious, SERIOUS issue with the forcible attempt to normalize homosexuality and turn it into a civil rights issue and place it on an equal footing with male/female relationships, up to and including family and children.
That makes my blood boil, but sadly, I believe this is a lost issue.
Attending the wedding is supporting the sin. You can still love someone without going to their perverted wedding.
Indicates just how far America has fallen into the depths of depravity. Sad.
We are just following Europe which is really weird since we got out of dodge as soon as we could but now we are trying to emulate them. Weird.
I do not have an issue with that at all.
Because someone is a homosexual, it doesn’t mean they are sub-human, not a part of the family, not in a circle of acquaintances, etc.
Death is an encompassing part of life.
Marriage between two people of the same sex is not.
If Black churches are generally against same-sex marriages, how is this possible?
Attending is approval and compliance
actually, the question is the hurt to a loved one measured against your social conscience; which is more important...?
my niece married her partner last year: luckily, I wasn’t invited so didn’t have to make that choice. I sent a gift.
The question revolves around one’s willingness to use a loved one to make a cultural statement...
Nope. As I told my gay nephew, “You chose this life and you chose to go to NY and get “married”. We love you, he’s a nice enough guy, but we won’t celebrate your marriage and we won’t have you sleep together under our roof. Did I mention we love you?”
An evil lie of the Devil.
For me it’s like this:
It would be like my daughter getting pregnant without being married. A bad thing, but once it happens it’s my job to support her.
Why should there be a profit at all?
I’ve heard a lot of his sermons, in person, having been a Bethesda girl in the 70s. I don’t agree with every jot and tittle of what he said, mainly in regards to food (though his regimen gave me some good habits which have stayed with me). But I agree with him on every salvational issue, and the fruit of salvation.
I hate Weddings period. I look at a wedding invitation as a demand for a gift. So for the last 30 plus years I have not given any wedding gifts and could care less if I go to a wedding. I hate funerals also but they tend to be a little more interesting.
My husband would never expect to violate my conscience like that, nor I, him. Fortunately we are on the same page on this, and would neither attend nor send a gift, nor acknowledge the “union” in any way. Just as “tolerance” turned into forced acceptance, acknowledgement turns into tacit compliance.
They never tire of asking it and, as usual, they couch it in familial terms in order to skew the result and claim a shift in stance.
Why don’t they ever ask militant gays if they will attend a real wedding?
Get over it. It’s not a wedding. It’s another instance of perverting the language. Did I say perverting?
Putting lipstick on a pig does not make it beautiful, or kissable.
My son is a sodomite who changes potential, forever after targets, almost as often and he does other stuff.
I love my son, but keep my sanity by staying grounded in reality.
No, I wouldn’t go, no more than I’d hang out at a gay bar.
LOL, I know what you mean, but that sure does make you sound curmudgeonly!
(The appropriate response is "You say that like it is a bad thing!")
I would say that the homosexual lobby first turned these events into making a statement, therefore I have to stand on my conscience. If they hadn’t turned “tolerance” into acceptance and celebration, we wouldn’t be here. They already know where I stand on this issue, inviting me is trying to force me into taking a stance. Fine, I’m standing on the Bible.
Would I go to a ceremony praising 2 people who love each other...as adulterers? Not hardly. Would I go to a ceremony celebrating cheating in school? I think not.
It all seems pretty straightforward to me. If you really love someone, you do not endorse or encourage their sin and self-destructive behavior.
The issue is my wife, who I love, of many years. That is by far the largest consideration for me in any decision I make in this matter, so I can’t just “get over it”.
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.