US Appeals Court Rules Against DOMAFollow

If it was any state other than California, your argument might hold a couple of drops of water.

And? I'm assuming you don't mean to say that over 50% of the voters in California are either gay haters or blindly follow whatever the GOP tells them to do.

So... There must be more to it than just that, right? So arguing that gays are being denied their marriage status because of those things can't be true, right? If that were it, and those groups are in the minority (which kinda has to be the case in California or there wouldn't have been a Democrat in the White House for the last like 80 years or so), then you are missing some key component of the issue. It's the component that makes this an issue. If it were just gay haters the issue would have been won by the folks pushing for expanding the marriage status. Even lumping in your assumed group of blind GOP followers, it still would have been won.


Doesn't it seem more constructive to look at that key component, figure out what it is and understand the whole issue rather than just fixating on the low hanging fruit? I mean, I'm sure it makes liberals feel great about themselves to constantly beat their chests and proclaim themselves to be more evolved, kind, compassionate, etc and their opponents a bunch of knuckledragging haters, but clearly the key constituency which keeps thwarting gay marriage efforts is *not* those things you guys keep harping on. If you actually wanted to expand marriage to include gay couples, I'd think you'd be looking at that group and figuring out why they're holding things up rather than just crying about all the gay haters in the world. One might even suspect that it's not really about gay marriage at all, but just using the issue as a political rallying cry. But that would just be crazy conspiracy talk!

I was making a joke. Not that I don't think there's some truth to it but I'm not interested in debating the point with you. I've talked about state bans recently enough that you can look it up if you care enough.

Great work typing a couple large paragraphs in response though

Some honestly think of homosexuality as an illness-they feel pity for teh gays, and while pity is very Christian of them, they hope you kindly understand that baby Jesus didn't mean for you to marry, so sorry.
Some think that it's pointless, the divorce rate is so high and plus there are bigger issues so quit your whining you horny gheys, and move on. Who cares.
Some like individual gheys, nothing against them, but just don't care to get off the couch enough to vote for that or any other issue. Sucks (ha!) for you, gheys.
It's not nearly as cut-and-dry as hate. People are very attached to certain stances, even if those stances involve apathy. For example, I shudder to think how KFC kills chickens, but I'll be damned if I can quit eating meat, so I just choose not to think about it.
What I'm saying is gay marriage is some people's inhumane chicken slaughter.

You know how I know you don't know squat about California?

It's a big state. Lots of people, lots of opinions.

There was also the issue of the Mormon church spending 20 million dollars in California to misinform the public about what Prop 8 would do. They came up with stuff like: force schools to teach kids about homosexuality in sex ed, force churches to marry homosexual couples or lose tax exempt status, and churches getting sued for promoting hate speech for speaking out against homosexuality. The first two at least, were untrue. The third had absolutely nothing to do with the Prop 8 to begin with, and has everything to do with hate speech laws.

Hate speech laws: the good kind of censorship!

Well, the lengths you're going to cry about it is certainly not that funny.

How about we talk about the lengths some people will go to avoid acknowledging a fact that disputes their position? That's some serious denial going on there. The fact is that all the polling aside, every single time "the people" have voted on extending marriage benefits to gay couples, they have rejected it. What's so strange is that despite this, people like Joph will confidently post about polls showing that the majority favors that very change.


Clearly, they don't. At least not when and where it really matters.

Yes, a majority group voting on the rights of a minority group has always worked soooo well.

The fact is that all the polling aside, every single time "the people" have voted on extending marriage benefits to gay couples, they have rejected it.

True. Fortunately, your idiot state has done a great job of making the obvious case that what "the people" vote for means @#%^ all.

You do realize that the polls are recent right? Like within the last six months or so. We've had marriage initiatives making the rounds for close to ten years now.

Aside from that, I take issue with the way you keep phrasing this. You keep saying "voting on extending marriage benefits." That hasn't been the way the measures have been phrased. There's a difference between extending marriage benefits, and changing your state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman only, which is what HAS been happening.

I suppose I'd feel worse if this hadn't all been addressed before. Horses and water, I guess.

Edited, Jun 12th 2012 9:23am by Jophiel

So was the 60% vote in NC on this issue. What's the point?



And? So what we're seeing is that while the way people actually vote on the issue when it's on the ballot hasn't changed much (or at all) over that 10 years, the way people respond to polls has. Which would seem to support my point about a disconnect between what the polls are asking and what the actual legal issues people are voting on are about. I'd even go so far as to argue that this is deliberately done so that people can make exactly the kind of point Joph (and others) make about how somehow those who vote against gay marriage must be gay-haters, or blind followers, etc.

I think the simpler and more likely explanation is that when we ask the question in a poll, we're not really asking the same question people ask themselves when they vote. The alternative, as I explained when I started this particular sub-thread, is that over 50% of voters in every single state that has held such a vote are gay-haters and/or blind GOP followers. Since that's clearly not true, it should be the first clue to look for another explanation. And while that explanation may not be as rhetorically satisfying, it's more likely to be The Truth(tm). Yay logic!



Sure. Defined for the purpose of state laws. Um... Which means that it affects the way the state interacts with those couples legally. Like with regard to benefits and whatnot. Give voters a bit of credit for understanding what such a legal change actually means. It's not like there's a marriage police running around arresting anyone who refers to themselves as married, but doesn't meet the legal requirements. It only means that the state can't consider them married.

It's strange that you'd make such a point about semantics though given that the polling questions are much much much farther off. Asking "do you support the right of same sex couples to marry", isn't asking remotely whether or not the state can consider them married. Again though, you bump into the way different people view rights. Most conservatives don't view a right as being contingent on obtaining a legal status. The "right to marry" has absolutely nothing to do with whether there exists a legal status by the same name, and whether or not the state includes my name on a list somewhere that grants me some set of benefits.

The reason the polling doesn't match the voting is exactly because they are about different things. The list of people who will answer yes to that question (including me btw), includes people who believe that everyone should have a "right" to marry, but that gay marriages and straight marriages can or even should be served with different legal statuses. So if your state has domestic partnerships or civil unions, you might answer yes to the question, but oppose simply expanding the legal requirements for marriage to include same sex couples when it comes to a vote. Similarly, some of us believe that gay couples already have the "right" to marry regardless of whether a legal status exists. Those people will poll with a "yes" answer but are almost certainly going to vote against the expansion.


It's not some great mystery why those numbers don't match. But I suppose some people just can't resist making hay out of it. Ask the correct polling questions, and you'll get very very different answers. But, as I suggested before, those who conduct the polls don't want accurate information about how people view the legal issue at hand. They want to promote the assumption that the public is moving in a given direction on the issue and anyone who opposes it is wrong-headed or something. So they contrive polling questions to ensure that the number of answers appearing to support gay marriage is as high as possible. And some people fail to see that this is what's going on and fall for it, I guess. Sadly, some of them even post on this forum!

Either you didn't read his post, or you're just wilfully disregarding it because it's Gbaji. The argument is that the polls don't matter when every government referendum has come back against recognizing SSM. And these referendums have been going on for 10 years and the most recent one wasn't even a close vote. I'm also not certain that public opinion polls are reflecting an accurate slice of Americans. If there is a poll asked on cnn.com or msnbc.com, do you think more liberals are going to respond to it or more conservatives? The same holds true for polls asked on foxnews.com or any other conservative website.

If you were to ask 100 people "Do you think same-sex couples should be allowed to get married?" and "Do you think state goverments should be forced to extend marriage benefits to same-sex couples, thereby costing themselves more money?", which question do you think is going to get more yes answers?

That is the difference between public opinion polls and referendum votes.

I realize the second question isn't how the public referendums are worded, but you're delusional if you don't think groups with strong anti-SSM sentiments aren't getting out there and telling people that that is what approving SSM is going to lead to (among other things).

Also, if the referendums have pretty much matched the opinion polls historically, how do you account for the recent vote in North Carolina? According to you, that vote should have been much closer, or maybe even gone in favor of SSM, because all of the recent opinion polls are coming back with results in favor of SSM.

Such rational things such as The Rapture, people marrying toasters, and Nazi levels of indoctrination.

It's not dishonest. The question is: Are you for this? Whether or not the person is for it out of ignorance or malice or whatever doesn't change the fact that they are for (or against) it. That's what you want to know on the surface -- how many are for or against it.

You can get into more depth down the line (Would you say you are against it due to X or Y or neither?) but anyone reputable will start by asking the most basic question.

Not really, the purpose of the poll is to get an idea of what they think now, not to influence the decision at all. As such, you really can't give them any information. If someone thinks A for whatever reasons, that doesn't change the fact that they think A.

What Joph said. I'll admit, when I read gbaji's post I got bored quickly and skimmed over most of it, because of his tendency to go on and on. Hence my short, simplified response.

NC voted against it because it's mostly a red state, and this one state voting to alter its constitution does not represent the country overall. The polls have been asking people from all over the country, therefore, they're a more accurate representation of how the country as a whole, thinks about SSM. I really don't know much about Maryland, but I do know that Maine is mostly a blue state, so I'd agree with Joph in saying that I'd be surprised to see them vote against SSM. Hell, I'm fairly confident that Oregon would vote for it as well, and when we voted on it back in 2004, it was a 35/65 split FOR redefining marriage as man and woman only.

Eh, I think Jay-Z probably had more of an impact.

Nexa

yeah, I'm sure the VOCAL support increased - but how well that translates into an actual philosophical, vote-impacting shift...well, I'm not so sure there. I would imagine it made a fair bit of difference with youth, but possibly not youth old enough to vote. It bodes well for the future though, as does just the general trending across the country. While it's easy to get disenchanted, a look at the actual history and the speed with which much of the country is shifting toward favoring equality shows pretty fast progress. These things take time - sometimes you have to wait for people to die and others to be old enough to vote. There was a right time for Loving and there's a right time for this as well...we're just not *quite* there yet...but close!

Nexa

So I've never been polled myself on whether or not I support SSM, but I would assume that the question is "Do you support SSM?" with some follow-ups depending on what your answer to that first question is.

Wouldn't it make more sense to ask "Would you vote in favor of legalizing SSM?" if you wanted to get the answer you're really looking for?

Why would you assume that if you've not seen the question?

Professional pollsters are typically well-trained to write questions to best get the information that their client wants.