Likely voters oppose marriage initiative

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 7/18/8

[SmithL]

Fifty-one percent of likely voters in the state oppose Proposition 8 on the November ballot, a constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage by defining marriage as only between a man and woman, according to a Field Poll released today. The poll shows voters are divided by where they live, their age, gender and political party.

For Prop. 8:

"I see nothing wrong with gay marriage. It's only controversial to narrow-minded people. ... I think the opposition (to same-sex marriage) has to do with being close-minded about homosexuality. Or maybe people are afraid of it."

[SoldierDad]

Well, your “personal” objections are noted. Now, allow the rest of us to make up our own minds, thank you.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

It’s not defeatism. I don’t think that society will accept sexual relationships between children and adults. My point is that if it does, that’s the reality we live in, and government can’t change it.

[weegee]

Actually its the courts overturning the will of the voters that are bringing about this vote.

And what goes on in Caliphony is being exported to other states as some travel to have their marriages granted.

“States rights” don’t really exist anymore.

[isrul]

The vast majority of “society” feeds from the trough of the media. They accept what they are fed because the vast majority have no interest in carefully examining what they hear. The media, even by a libertarians standards, is dishing out poison.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

I am. My original post stated a curiosity of what the reactions of the “let the people speak” crowd would be if the people decided something they didn’t like.

[weegee]

So you are the contingent that clings to guns but not God, correct?

Obama still hates you as do his backers in SF.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

Of course. The media pushes gun control, global warming scare tactics, etc. But as we all know, you don’t have to listen to them, and most people don’t. By the way, how is swallowing what the media says without questioning it different from swalling whatever a pastor says without questioning it?

[SoldierDad]

It is defeatism when you have decided that morals are nothing important.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

I don’t cling to my guns, but I value them and my right to own them, as well as that of others. I have no intention of voting for Obama or supporting any other liberals, so I’m not sure what your point is.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

I never said they weren’t important. I just said that government cannot enforce a morality that society does not accept.

[isrul]

I'm not sure I understand the meaning of the "pastor" remark. If it has to do with Christian opposition to the move to define same sex sodomy as marriage, I would submit that every civilization has seen the aberrant nature of this practice for at least 5000 years. The peoples, the societies.

If a small group of people want to overturn this, it is up to them t prove why this is something that will make society flourish. society need not explain or defend its position. 5000 years of universal agreement has more than validated societies position.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

I was more underscoring the point that everybody gets their information and opinions from somewhere, and that somewhere is often not the media.

[InsensitiveConservative]

I’m a likely California voter and nobody asked me my opinion for this poll, and they never do. I’m told by drive-time radio that this will go down in flames. I’m thinking not, but again, nobody is asking but me but they are sure busy telling me.

[Carry_Okie]

I’m against government marriage in the first place, as well as all the various welfare you are listing.

Then you oppose the right of free association, the ability of a community to define the rules by which the members will live. That makes you a tyrant seeking to enforce a uniform amorality, simply because you do not understand the principle of federalism moderated by natural law competition among communities.

[CounterCounterCulture]

Gay marriage breeds government expenditures to cover welfare dependency, health-care expenses, therapy for destroyed families, and crime.

Exactly. Not to mention, the massive expansion of religious persecution, fines and/or imprisonment for pastors and other Christians and other people of faith who dare speak out against homosexuality or refusal to marry or rent facilities to same-sex couples, seizures of churches via eminent domain, restrictions on freedom of speech, association, and even of thought and conscience.

All in the name of "discrimination," which somehow never gets applied to the innocent preborn child sentenced to death for the crime of existing.

[CounterCounterCulture]

addendum...

and of course private schools and homeschoolers will be under even increasing scrutiny to see how the topic of homosexuality is addressed by educators.

[Coldwater Creek]

Totally unrelated, but thought that you would like to know, that John Ford has been found guilty on all charges, in his Federal Case in Nashville, today.

[beejaa]

Although I agree with you on shrinking the size of the government, we’re talking about permanently redefining marriage in ways that it has never been defined before. We’re talking about changing the entire basis of society. Marriage would no longer pertain to blood ties but revolve around adult feelings. Feelings are subject to change and blood ties are not. We’re saying that children do not necessarily need mothers and fathers. As long as they are loved (self love by adults?), they have everything they need according to this theory. Same sex marriage is radical, untested and far-reaching. Children will be taught in school (and already are in Mass.) do appreciate “diversity” in family life. The family is breaking down and we’re supposed to celebrate it.

[Uncle Hal]

I think it will pass. This poll is bogus.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

That’s nearly the complete opposite of what I believe. How on Earth is taking government OUT of the equation trampling on free association? How is wanting marriage not to be defined by government being a tyrant? How is allowing state to make their own laws violating the principle of federalism? You don’t have your head on straight at all.