Democratic Hub
About Us
Tour
FAQ
Signup
Login
  
Home
Forums
Pages
Issues
Laws
Elections
Arguments
Events
Government
U.S.
World
Welcome to our New Political Community - Take a Quick Tour of our Features including our Discussion Forums custom designed for U.S. politics. SIGN UP today to join in the discussion.
Forums > All Posts > Poll on Proposition 8, 2 years later
  • Forums
  • Categories
  • All Posts
  • Forum Rules
  • FAQ\Help
Displaying all 2 Forum Posts

You must be logged in to reply to a post.
2010-07-31 12:00 PM
Square Photo
LLBarry
Beverly, MA
Posts: 299

Public Religion Research Institute conducted a poll in both english and spanish through random phone interviews with more than 3,300 Californians over a two-week period in late June, examining the religious-based attitudes toward same-sex marriage two years after Proposition 8 was approved. 

Here's what it found:
* One in four Californians reported that their views on rights for gay and lesbian people had become more supportive over the last five years, or three times as many as the 8% who said they had become more opposed, the poll revealed.
* 29% of Californians polled said they believed Proposition 8 was bad for the state, compared with 22% who believed it was “a good thing.”
* A total of 51% of Californians said they would vote to allow homosexuals to marry if a vote similar to Proposition 8 were held tomorrow, compared with 45% who said they would vote to keep same-sex marriage illegal, the survey showed.
*twice as many black Protestants, or 27%, indicated they had become more supportive of homosexual rights, compared with 13% who indicated they had become more opposed.
*Among Latino Catholics, 31% had become more supportive of gay rights issues; 9% had become more opposed.
* Among Californians who reported hearing negative messages from their clergy, only 19% said they supported same-sex marriage, and nearly half rejected legal recognition of the relationships between gay couples.
*among Californians who heard positive messages at their places of worship, six in 10 said marriages between homosexuals should be allowed.
* An additional 22% said they supported civil unions, and only 18% opposed legal recognition of same-sex relationships

How do you think this could affect the upcoming federal district decision on the constitutionality of Proposition 8?

2010-08-09 10:33 AM

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1057
Of course as everyone knows by now, Judge Vaughn Walker struck down California's Proposition 8 with a 176 page ruling based on scientific fact.  This ruling is being appealed.  But it is interesting to read the arguments around the most contentious points, or perhaps I should say the lies and distortions put out by the Prop. 8 backers.  The SF Weekly has a compilation of these entitled, Prop. 8 Ruling: Judge Vaughn Walker's Most Scathing Language. You can read them one by one, but I'll highlight a few...

Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex.

Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage license is more than a license to have procreative sexual intercourse.

That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as "fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

California's obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to "mandate its own moral code."

Moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest," has never been a rational basis for legislation.


One of the favorite talking points of conservatives on a whole host of issues is to invoke the Constituition.  If it is not explicitly stated or allowed in the Constitution, than it is not a legitimate right. This argument is used not only against gay marriage but also taxes, health care legislation and anything conservatives are against. Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday predictably brought up the Constitution argument again while interviewing Ted Olson, the conservative lawyer who successfully argued the case against Proposition 8.  Think Progress, The Wonk Room, provides a summary of that dialogue:

Wallace asked Olson to identify the right to same-sex marriage in the constitution and wondered why “seven million Californians” “don’t get to say that marriage is between a man and a woman.” Olson replied that the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage was a fundamental right and pointed out that the constitution made no explicit mention of interracial marriage either. He stressed that under our system of government, voters can’t deprive minority groups of their constitutionally guaranteed protections and reminded Wallace that in the 1960s, “Californians voted to change their constitution to say that you could discriminate on the basis of race in the sale of your home; the United States Supreme Court struck that down.”

When Wallace pressed the point further, likening same-sex marriage to abortion and noting that “the political process in the case of same-sex marriage was working” since states had been deciding the issue on a “state-by-state basis,” Olson asked Wallace how he would like it if Fox News’ right to free speech was decided in such a manner:

OLSON: Well, would you like your right to free speech? Would you like Fox’s right to free press put up to a vote and say well, if five states approved it, let’s wait till the other 45 states do? These are fundament constitutional rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees Fox News and you, Chris Wallace, the right to speak. It’s in the constitution. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the denial of our citizens of the equal rights to equal access to justice under the law, is a violation of our fundamental rights. Yes, it’s encouraging that many states are moving towards equality on the basis of sexual orientation, and I’m very, very pleased about that. … We can’t wait for the voters to decide that that immeasurable harm, that is unconstitutional, must be eliminated.

Way to go Ted Olson.

But getting back to LL Barry's original post regarding the effect of recent opinion polls to influence Judge Walker's ruling, it doesn't matter what the opinion polls or for that matter what the majority of voters say.  A majority cannot vote away a constitutional right of a minority.  This is a profound statement, and it will be interesting to watch how the Appellate Court and Supreme Court eventually rule on this case. I would like to think that the Supreme Court will not be intimidated by outside pressures and vote 9-0 in support of Judge Walker's ruling.  But that would be politically unacceptable. Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas will more like pander to the Christian base and vote against Walker. But their challenge will be to write a minority opinion without mentioning the words, God, Bible or Christian. Ha!

Agree or disagree?
You must be logged in to reply to a post.


 
About Us
Contact Us
FAQ
Advertise
Links
Login
Sign Up
  


� Copyright 2009-2012 Democratic Hub. All Rights Reserved.
Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy


OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS - REPUBLICAN DIVORCES - REPUBLICAN INFIDELITY & AFFAIRS - REPUBLICAN SCANDALS & CONTROVERSIES