Poll: Majority of Californians support Gay Marriage decision
In a poll that bodes ill for those who wish to ban gay marriage but great for thousands of gay couples and families accross the Golden State, a majority of Californians, for the first time ever, support the California Supreme Court’s decision that allows for gay marriage. For the first time in California, more people approve of gay marriage than disapprove.
The margin is slight, but it’s great news for gay marriage advocates, and here’s why.
I don’t know what kind of a majority it takes to ammend the California Constitution (I’ve searched and can’t find it, if anyone knows please leave a comment) but let’s assume, worst-case scenario, that it merely needs a simple majority.
For starters, according to this poll, they don’t have that majority. 51% of responders approve of the decision, and only 42% are opposed (they don’t mention where the missing people stand, perhaps undecided).
It has been suggested that the Gay marriage ammendment would help get conservatives in California to the polls, where they would vote for McCain at the same time that they voted against gay marriage. This feeds into the pipe dream that California will go red in November, which is ridiculous barring Obama eating a live puppy on TV. However it is possible that more conservatives do go to the polls in November for the ammendment.
However the opposite kind of pull might also be at work. Obama has energized young people in an amazing fashion. It’s possible that they participate in much greater numbers in the fall, and young people are much more likely to be opposed to an ammendment to ban Gay marriage (especially the ones voting for Obama). So young people could go vote for Obama, and while there vote against the ban.
Then there is the matter of the marriages that will soon start taking place. Now, depending on your outlook and the media coverage this could be a plus or a minus for the gay marriage advocates. If two guys show up in leather chaps to be married and this is covered extensively in the press, the “ick-factor” goes up and it helps the ban. But I think that isn’t happening, based on previous coverage. You will be much more likely to see pictures of long term elderly lesbian couples, or pictures of men in suits with children in tow. All smiles and flowers and tears. You’ll get to see TV host Ellen get married. They will be run as “happy stories”, which will be unlikely to motivate more undecides to get to the polls against the ban.
Finally there is the matter of activist resources. California, with it’s large population and very large colonies of GLBT communities, has very active GLBT groups. They will put their hearts, souls and most importantly bank accounts into preventing the ban from being passed. Expect Hollywood to support them. The campaign will be all-out, the importance of preventing the ban will be paramount, both because California is the most populous state in the union and in terms of the symbolic victory it would mean. Usually, those favorable of the ban would have the backing of deep-pocketed conservative groups, but this now depends on the presidential race. If things are going well for McCain, the groups will be able to contribute to the campaign in favor of the gay marriage ban, but if things get rough, conservative groups will have to divide attention, and resources, to compensate.
the thing about the "happy" stories is that Ellen is probably already in a civil union that has about the same rights as marriage. What she’ll be "happy" about is the political decision of calling it marriage.
just like others who disagree are "unhappy" about the political decision of calling it marriage.
when Gavin Newsom was handing out marriage certificates to gay couples, there were similar "happy" stories on the news. Many of the couples shown on the news who were so "happy" that they were married were actually visitors from Europe who stopped by to get married to support the political cause. of course, since their countries in Europe don’t care about a California marriage and don’t recognize gay marriage themselves (all except Spain), it was just political theater.
close to them, there were protesters who were "unhappy" with the decision.
people who don’t think this is about politics, on both sides, are mistaken.
At any rate, if this does drive up the social conservative vote in California, you can blame the California Supreme Court for causing John McCain to win California.
Same sex marriage is recognized in Netherlands, Spain and Belgium, as far as Europe is concerned. Canada also recognizes it. So far, it has not caused the end of civilization as we know it.
I’m sooooo not buying the "McCain will win California" idea. It’s farfetched, at best. The ammendment will also drive up turnout in the Gay community (and when I say "drive" I mean take it to like 80% of registered gay voters) and the combination of the ammendment and Obama will ramp up the youth vote, a group that favors gay marriage by a whopping 68% (with only 1 in 4 opposed).
Claudia,
No, Europe has just been experiencing negative population growth for a long time, in part due to different values about sex.
And in countries where gay marriage has been allowed a while, marriage is becoming much less of a meaningful thing altogether.
OTOH, gays are not in a huge civil rights struggle equal to blacks in the 60s because civil unions aren’t considered marriage.
I believe that we should work together to try to liberalize marriage rights, in fact I believe removing marriage from civil govt altogether would be an OK solution.
However, I think people who do support gay marriage tend to have a very nasty, patronizing view of those who don’t, imagining they think that the second gays get married society will fall apart.
People have a real basis for disagreeing views on this one.
And, we so far have yet to see the youth vote turning out in huge numbers.
Which has what to do with gay marriage? Uhmmm, nothing, so far as I can tell, unless you can show that gay marriage CAUSES negative population growth. So far all that statement can possibly state is that the same phenomena that has led to slower population growth has also led to the gay marriage decision, but that one is considered negative does not need to imply that the other is as well. The entry of women into the workplace has led to their greater independence AND it has led to endless issues with child-rearing.
Mostly because the flag-carriers for the contrary cause tend to use language that makes out gays as little more than animals or deeply disturbed people, or make claims that children raised by gay parents are likely to be sexually abused. People tend to feel insulted. That a normal individual doesn’t hold such extreme views, no doubt, but they are not the visible voice, the American Family Association is. I agree that taking a deep breath is neccesary when dealing with the individual, but I will never EVER respect the kinds of people who wish to demonize 10% of the population.
I’m sure that they feel they do, and in fact honestly feel that they aren’t being "prejudiced" at all. I happen to think that they are, and that this is very little different from inter-racial marriage. At the time, a majority of many well meaning people felt they had "real reasons" to be against that, too. I can see a reason for real worry about adoption by gay couples (though I do not share those concerns) since it involves involuntary non-adults, but the marriage issue is not one I "get".
I’m sooooo not buying the "McCain will win California" idea. It’s farfetched, at best.
I don’t think it can win CA for him, but what it can do is bring the state into play for the first time in years, thus forcing the Democrats to spend resources there that could have been used elsewhere.
Florida is the Sunshine State
yea, California is the Golden State
All the more embarrassing when you consider that I lived in California for over a decade. I stand corrected.
Here’s a link to the blog "Gruntled Center" for the week of September 2006. You’ll find some interesting discussions regarding some research/writing on gay marriage/civil unions in Europe. Michael should chime in here since a goodly part of the discussion centers around the Netherlands "registered partnership" law. Much in here for anyone to justify a "political position". I like this discussion because it focuses the discussion on what the government’s interest in sanctioning marriage/civil union is or may be (i.e. social consequences). So much of the discussion about gay marriage/civil union degenerates into a reflexive argument with the usual "civil rights", "homophobia", "sanctity of marriage" catch phrases. BTW, the blogger Beau Weston, is a left of center Presbyterian and he’s voting for Obama last I heard.
Chris,
We definitely should be having a conversation on reforming marriage laws. But before we go into a lot of sociological and legal analysis, we have to start from the position of asking, why are marriage laws the way they are, do they need to change, if so, why, and how.
It also shouldn’t only be about gays, but the question should also extend to things like why do we want to give benefits to people in couples, and not individually or in larger cooperatives.
Claudia, as per your comment on marriage versus adoption; one of the major distinctions between civil union laws and marriage laws in many places, is that civil unions don’t allow adoption, and marriages do.
Also I should note there are some social conservative groups who have always supported an approach where partnerships or unions could include any two people who want to cooperate economically, and not specifically two people in a gay or straight relationship
“we have to start from the position of asking, why are marriage laws the way they are”
Exactly.