Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Poll: Majority of Californians Back Gay Marriage

By Ashley Surdin
For the first time in decades, more California voters approve rather than disapprove of allowing same sex couples the right to marry, according to Field Poll results released Wednesday.

The idea of allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry is now approved by 51 percent to 42 percent statewide, according to the survey of about 1,000 voters conducted this month.

The results mark the first time in 30 years and six previous polls that the majority of Californians support same-sex marriage. In 1977, for example, more than twice as many Californians -- 59 percent -- disapproved allowing such unions.

The survey also found voters leery of changing the state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Opponents of same-sex marriage are trying to create a November ballot measure allowing voters to do just that. The proposed measure is a response to the California Supreme Court's recent ruling that struck down a ban on same sex marriage.

The results of the Field Poll stand in contrast to another poll of about 800 Californians conducted by Los Angeles Times/KTLA, which found that about 42 percent strongly disapproved of the court's decision, while 54 percent of registered voters supported a proposed amendment to the state constitution.

By Web Politics Editor  |  May 28, 2008; 3:24 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Florida Voter's Lawsuit Dismissed
Next: Wheat, Silver and Nuclear Waste: McCain Takes Questions In Nevada

Comments

The best is always conforming to nature. Men marrying men and women marrying women is absolutely against biological, psychological nature so that, it never fulfill the aim of marriage. If one regime allows this unnatural act, it would be affected, in tern, so badly. A complicated and topsy-turvy and chaotic society will be roaming around in darkness soon because of this false and inhuman law and practice.
"Praise to God"

Posted by: Goodwill N.T | May 29, 2008 3:12 AM | Report abuse

The best is always conforming to nature. Men marrying men and women marrying women is absolutely against biological, psychological nature so that, it never fulfill the aim of marriage. If one regime allows this unnatural act, it would be affected, in tern, so badly. A complicated and topsy-turvy and chaotic society will be roaming around in darkness soon because of this false and inhuman law and practice.
"Praise to God"

Posted by: Goodwill N.T | May 29, 2008 3:12 AM | Report abuse

The best is always conforming to nature. Men marrying men and women marrying women is absolutely against biological, psychological nature so that, it never fulfill the aim of marriage. If one regime allows this unnatural act, it would be affected, in tern, so badly. A complicated and topsy-turvy and chaotic society will be roaming around in darkness soon because of this false and inhuman law and practice.
"Praise to God"

Posted by: Goodwill N.T | May 29, 2008 3:12 AM | Report abuse

*crickets chirping*

Typical anti-gay-marriage zealots: toss out vague blather and thinly veiled bigotry, then when you're confronted with actual logic and reason, you have nothing to say.

Posted by: Phil McCracken | May 29, 2008 2:17 AM | Report abuse

Actually, this poll is not at all uncommon based on California voter initiatives. Most of them start off with great support and the support evaporates quickly. Statistically, a proposal that starts off with less than 60% support is likely to fail. Furthermore, as more people come to understand the logic behind the ruling and the ramifications beyond the specific issue of gay marriage that this amendment would have, support is likely to drop steeply.

While the people of the State of California are not likely to be particularly happy about a ruling which says that they were out of line when they previously voted, the evidence suggests they may be willing to, after a month or so, be willing to accept the high court's grounds for its ruling.

Posted by: Colin | May 28, 2008 11:42 PM | Report abuse

Well, I obviously haven't left yet, I thought I had already posted that earlier comment, but had apparently only clicked "Preview", that's why I didn't see no's response:

"What is the specific harm? Unknown."

I see, so we don't have any idea what harm it will do. We just shouldn't let it happen "because"?

"Single parenthood is leaving millions of American children with broken lives, disadvantaged futures and poverty."

I'm dying to hear your solution to single parenthood.

"We do not need to redefine marriage to accomodate a small percentage of the population."

My personal definition of marriage is "two people making a public and legal declaration of lifetime commitment." Yours is obviously gender specific.

Interestingly, California law now supports both. And this will affect your own marriage... how exactly?

"Some accomodation should be made, but let's not pretend that this is the equivalent to or a replacement for the family."

Separate but equal, eh?

OK, now I'm REALLY gone! Check you later...

Posted by: Phil McCracken | May 28, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

no: "Gay marriage is not interracial marriage. There is no comparison between the two. The traditional family is not just a social construct, but the basic unit of a healthy society. Study after study has proven the need of children for a father and mother.

Homosexuals should not be persecuted, but heterosexual marriage is and must remain our social norm."

I'll just quote David Byrne:

"You're talking a lot
But you're not saying anything"

I'll ask YOU the question Grandpa keeps avoiding: you say "heterosexual marriage...must remain our social norm".

Why? What SPECIFIC negative things will happen to our society now that gay marriages will be performed in California?

I'm heading out for the evening, I'll check back later for (hilarious) responses.

Posted by: Phil McCracken | May 28, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

What is the specific harm? Unknown. But gay marriage is an unwarranted social experiment, at a time when our society desperately needs to return to strong traditional family values. Single parenthood is leaving millions of American children with broken lives, disadvantaged futures and poverty.

We do not need to redefine marriage to accomodate a small percentage of the population. Some accomodation should be made, but let's not pretend that this is the equivalent to or a replacement for the family.

Posted by: no | May 28, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Gay marriage is not interracial marriage. There is no comparison between the two. The traditional family is not just a social construct, but the basic unit of a healthy society. Study after study has proven the need of children for a father and mother.

Homosexuals should not be persecuted, but heterosexual marriage is and must remain our social norm.

Posted by: no | May 28, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

"CrackHead"? Really? Is that all you got?

Well, other than a long, rambling post that doesn't really say anything except "most people think it's icky so it should be illegal". Again, you do realize that most people thought inter-racial marriage was wrong, don't you? And I bet YOUR Grandpa was pissed about that, too. Probably whined about "activist judges letting black guys marry white women", right? (only with more "colorful" language, I'd wager)

The rest of your comment is just more irrelevant rambling about "hot dogs" and illegal immigrants (interspersed with misspellings, I especially like your use of the word "prey" *snicker*).

You still haven't answered my question: what is the SPECIFIC harm done to society at large? No, some people (even a majority) not liking it doesn't count as "harm".

Posted by: Phil McCracken | May 28, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

CrackHead,

Here's the specifics. Most heterosexual parents hope and prey for a few things for their kids: Don't drink and drive, be good to your neighbor but don't stick your hot dog in his hairy ass. A few unfortunate parent's prayers are not answered.

Our society puts a collective stamp of approval (and disapproval) on various activities in life in the form of licenses. To illustrate but not compare the two, drunk driving and homosexuality are acts that society as a whole disapproves of (although different on many levels). As a reward for driving drunk, we don't issue new driver's licenses to drunk driving convicts, to do so would legitimize the act of drunk driving and put the societal (and governmental) stamp of approval on the very act. Following this line of thinking, issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals would attempt to normalize the behavior, legitimize it and put the societal stamp of approval on the act. The problem is society does not approve of the act (however much you wish it would). And the votes will prove it.

Illegal aliens aren't issued drivers' licenses, to do so would legitimize the act of legal immigration. However many other benefits (to society not to mention the illegal) there may be to issue them licenses, it cannot happen because to do so would sanction the act and put the governmental stamp of approval on it. Are they bad people? No. Are they bad for society? No. Do we sanction and approve of the the act? No.

Your problem is that heterosexuals make up the overwhelming majority of the population, and the overwhelming majority of them will never approve of the act.

Posted by: Grampa | May 28, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

LOL! :-D

Soooooo, a Sampling of 1,000 People, out of a State with 10,000,000+ is supposed to mean Gay Marriage is Cool?

Don't Think so! ;~)

Did the Question include all the "Benefits" from Business and Government NORMALLY Associated with Coed Couples Raising OFFSPRING?

See, THAT is the Kicker! ;~)

Back in the Closets! WE DON'T WANT TO KNOW!

Posted by: SAINT---The | May 28, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Pedeen: "Why should immorality+ sin be rewarded? but yet polygamist in Texas are persecuted for their faith?. I hope and I pray one day God will wipe out homosexuality in human kind!! they started Aids disease and then spread it."

It's not the role of our courts to legislate morality. They legislate LAW. And in our country, it's everyone's right to equal protection under the law. No one is being rewarded, just protected from punishment because they are different.

Thankfully, our country is structured in such a way that protects people from tyranny of the majority.

Contrary to close-minded posts that I've seen below, the LAW does not come from God, but from our citizens and government. Logic, reason and human nature are where our laws come from. Faith is a personal matter and has no place in government.

Posted by: Wessia | May 28, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Pedeen: "Why should immorality+ sin be rewarded? but yet polygamist in Texas are persecuted for their faith?. I hope and I pray one day God will wipe out homosexuality in human kind!! they started Aids disease and then spread it."

It's not the role of our courts to legislate morality. They legislate LAW. And in our country, it's everyon'e right to equal protection under the law. No one is being rewarded, just protected from punishment because they are different.

Thankfully, our country is structured in such a way that protects people from tyranny of the majority.

Contrary to close-minded posts that I've seen below, the LAW does not come from God, but from our citizens and government. Logic, reason and human nature are where our laws come from. Faith is a personal matter and has no place in government.

Posted by: Wessia | May 28, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Law comes from our own hearts and minds --we don't need God or some human interpretation of an ancient scripture to teach us right and wrong.

Before reading the bible did you not know it was wrong to kill or rape? Did you not know which sex to be attracted to? If you think about it it's pretty ridiculous.

Some of the nicest most noble people I know are atheists.

Posted by: shanon | May 28, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Judges set POLICY all the time. It's called CASE LAW look into it. It's part of how this country works. Pundits only get upset about it when it produces an outcome they don't like. The righties didn't get uptight when judges picked their president.

Posted by: shanon | May 28, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Why should immorality+ sin be rewarded? but yet polygamist in Texas are persecuted for their faith?. I hope and I pray one day God will wipe out homosexuality in human kind!! they started Aids disease and then spread it.

Posted by: Pedeen | May 28, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Gramps: "The vote is a long way off, but the people will speak sooner or later. It must be tough advocating man-on-man action, but then again it's always tough staunchly arguing in favor of a loosing argument. Its like being a Raider fan; year after year beaten down and pummeled in spectacular fashion, probably shouldn't even be allowed to play in the NFL...but you go to the stadium anyway and make an ass out of yourself. But without your musings we'd have nothing to make fun of on Monday morning."

And here, folks, is a prime example of the kind of argument people make against homosexual marriage: vague ramblings which have little (if anything) to do with the subject at hand.

One last time, Gramps: Give us a SPECIFIC reason why homosexual marriage is harmful to society at large.

Posted by: Phil McCracken | May 28, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

RE: Romans 2

I just read it and there's no mention of homosexuality in my version.

And even if there was, it was written by Paul. He's perhaps my least favorite of the authors, too angry and rather a misogynist as well.

If it's not in a gospel, I don't think it's what Jesus had in mind.

Posted by: Mike | May 28, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Smirch - look it up. The vote is a long way off, but the people will speak sooner or later. It must be tough advocating man-on-man action, but then again it's always tough staunchly arguing in favor of a loosing argument. Its like being a Raider fan; year after year beaten down and pummeled in spectacular fashion, probably shouldn't even be allowed to play in the NFL...but you go to the stadium anyway and make an ass out of yourself. But without your musings we'd have nothing to make fun of on Monday morning.

Posted by: Grandpa | May 28, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Jodi in MI says: "Your religious argument is baseless considering you base your "religious" beliefs on the Bible, and NOWHERE in the bible is there commentary on the "sin" of homosexuality."

What's your Bible, a children's version? Why don't you read Romans 2 and then come back and tell me there's no condemnation of homosexuality. As always, the liberals who 'know everything' don't know a thing about the Bible.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

This poll sharply contrasts to surveys taken by the LA Times and Survey USA, both of which showed solid majorities poised to approve this amendment. The real poll that matters is in November.

Posted by: Steve | May 28, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Churches and the religious right made being homosexual a sin....If God wanted us all to be the same, why did he/she make us all so different?

Posted by: Dave Antone | May 28, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't rocket science to know its immoral, a sin for same sex to engage in any form of sexual acts!!. A man cant claim that marrying another man is okay!! dowm with homosexuality up with polygamism. I wish every man can marry as many cuties as he can economically afford.

Posted by: Pedeen | May 28, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Grandpa: "Its not about a conservative or liberal view point."

Correct.

"Do you want to explain to a 6-year-old why Rex and Bill are married to each other, just like mom and dad?"

'Most people fall in love with someone of the opposite gender. A small percentage of people fall in love with someone of the same gender.' That was tough.

"Its about what is right and what is wrong."

Agreed, discrimination is wrong.

"If you think 2 men having sex with each other is "okay" then you likely think that 2 men marrying each other is "okay" too."

I neither think it's "okay" or "not okay". What I do think is that it's "none of my business".

"If you believe there are no bounds to what is right and wrong..."

Who is saying that?

"At some point as a civilization we must define the bounds of rightness and wrongness."

Umm... we always have. And this ruling falls right within that: discrimination is unconstitutional, that's why the law was struck down.

"Do us a favor and leave those of us who believe in laws and the bounds of right and wrong behavior out of this battle to smirch the notion of marriage."

Besmirch, huh? :)

Tell me something, Gramps: Are you married? If so, how much less do you love your wife as a result of this ruling? How much less are you devoted to her?

Oh, not at all? SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM REALLY???

Seriously, give me a SPECIFIC reason why this is at all harmful to general society.

Posted by: Phil McCracken | May 28, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

43 percent Democrats and only 33 percent Republicans were polled.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Cindy, dear,

Your religious argument is baseless considering you base your "religious" beliefs on the Bible, and NOWHERE in the bible is there commentary on the "sin" of homosexuality. So there you are, left with your religion, your judgement and your need to feel better than other people. Stop hiding behind your Bible and just come out and admit that you are a hateful bigot. WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO JUDGE ANYONE!

Posted by: Jodi in MI | May 28, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Bob sez: "This is BS, California passed a proposition by a MAJORITY of voters 61% vs 39% and 4 Men in dark robes overturn the WILL of the People. What happened to DEMOCRACY? - you remember ,where the will of the Majority of the people make the LAW. This will be once again overturned by the Majority of Californians."

Sir, you have a stunning lack of understanding of what our country actually is: a Constitutional Republic. Just because the majority wants it doesn't mean it's constitutional.

You are aware, aren't you Bob, that when laws against inter-racial marriage were overturned, a significant majority of US citizens thought that was wrong and should be illegal?

Please do a little research into how our country functions. We are NOT a simple democracy.

Posted by: Phil McCracken | May 28, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

www.angelabacca.net

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

"Phil McCracken"

Way to be subtle about it.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Mark queries: "If there 'is no God in law' then what is the criteria for right and wrong?

Where does man's knowledge of right and wrong come from if not from God?"

From logic and reason. I don't want anyone to steal from me, assault me, rape me or kill me. Almost everyone agrees with me so we make a law, and create a system of police and courts to deal with those who break the law.

"The foundation of LAW comes from God Himself. No one else."

Amazing then that Japan, with one of the lowest levels of religious belief of any country on Earth, has such a law-abiding populace.

Posted by: Phil McCracken | May 28, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Its not about a conservative or liberal view point. Do you want to explain to a 6-year-old why Rex and Bill are married to each other, just like mom and dad? Its about what is right and what is wrong. If you think 2 men having sex with each other is "okay" then you likely think that 2 men marrying each other is "okay" too. If you believe there are no bounds to what is right and wrong, you are likely to be in favor of such an effort. At some point as a civilization we must define the bounds of rightness and wrongness. Do us a favor and leave those of us who believe in laws and the bounds of right and wrong behavior out of this battle to smirch the notion of marriage.

Posted by: Grandpa | May 28, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

This is BS, California passed a proposition by a MAJORITY of voters 61% vs 39% and 4 Men in dark robes overturn the WILL of the People. What happened to DEMOCRACY? - you remember ,where the will of the Majority of the people make the LAW. This will be once again overturned by the Majority of Californians.

Posted by: B ob | May 28, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

gb sez: "Keep mariage the same as always."

Do a little research, friend. Marriage has been many different things throughout human history, including the history of the USA.

"Mariage is different, it was defined by God."

'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion...' What's that mean? We don't base our laws on one religion or another. Try again.

Oh, and it's "marriage", with two r's.

You're welcome.

Posted by: Phil McCracken | May 28, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse


gb wrote: "Keep mariage the same as always. Mariage is different, it was defined by God."
___________

No, it wasn't. That's just your personal interpretation, which is fine, but in a free country, you can't force everybody to live according to your religious beliefs. Religion should not enter the argument about equal rights for US citizens in the 21st-century. This is not a theocracy and we do not live under the Taliban.

Posted by: Shawn | May 28, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

You can still have a legal union for gays without calling it marriage. Let it be a civil union that gives them all the same legal rights.

Keep mariage the same as always. Mariage is different, it was defined by God.

Posted by: gb | May 28, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse


Good for California.

There is not a single reasonable argument against equal rights for gay citizens in 21st-century America.

Not one. Just hatred and ignorance.

Fubar4Fun says marriage is a religious arrangement. This is not true. Marriage is a personal and legal contract between two people. It may have religious significance for some, which is great, but my brother and his wife are athiests and got married at my parents' house by a judge, so obviously it has nothing to do with religion for them. People who can't or don't want children get married all the time, so it's not about procreation, either.

The anti-gay marriage crowd seems to operate on two delusions:

1) Gay marriage will be mandatory for all.

2) It will affect anybody but gay couples.

Both of these things are just silly, so what is the problem? I have never seen people get so worked up about something that doesn't remotely affect them or their families.

Posted by: Shawn | May 28, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Bobby,

If there "is no God in law" then what is the criteria for right and wrong?

Where does man's knowledge of right and wrong come from if not from God? Is the measurement of right and wrong that we live by in civilized society from Stalin? From Oprah? From Barney?

The foundation of LAW comes from God Himself. No one else.

Posted by: Mark | May 28, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Cindi LaFontaine - I thought Jesus was about peace and love, not "destroying the Earth" because two gay people want to marry each other. If God didn't "intend" for this to happen why would he send Jesus back only after it was passed into law in California, not when gays have been around for thousands of years?

I guess us Californians are right, God really does hold us to a higher standard.

Posted by: Bill | May 28, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Reporting poll results on gay Marriage in California, WITHOUT reporting where the poll was conducted is worthless and shoddy reporting. If they did the poll in San Francisco or West Hollywood, they would get different numbers than if they did the poll in San Bernardino or Ventura.

I could go to South Gate and do a 5000 person poll about illegal immigration and tell you that 98% of Californians want laxer immigration laws too, but that wouldn't be accurate. Where's the beef, Washington Post???

Posted by: Mark | May 28, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS!

EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW

(those who believe in GOD are easily manipulated. There is no GOD in STATE LAW)

Posted by: Bobby | May 28, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Remember that before 1967, interracial marriages were illegal. It was said that this went against the church and the Bible. Gay marriage will give people rights - rights that they deserve as couples. Read about history - awful things have been done in the name of religion. Gays aren't trying to hurt anyone. How will allowing them to marry hurt you? will you suddenly change? will you become gay? No! It will be business as usual for most of us.

Posted by: Sara | May 28, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

How about an amendment separating Church and State.

Lets ban marriage as a function of a government altogether.

Government will issue civil union contracts to any two people of consenting age.

Priests can then, at their pleasure, marry men and men, women and men, men and women, or women and women (or whatever other mix there is) while didling their children behing the altar (applies only to Catholics)...well, this last part probably should not be part of the amendment.

Posted by: DP | May 28, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

First, it was obviously a joke. Second, I'd like to see the U.S. Code section you think such a joke would be a crime under.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and Just say NO to McW in 2008!

Posted by: Godlumps | May 28, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

There are serious scriptural problems with "gay" marriage...I am surprised that God has not destroyed America over the murder of 40 million baby's..do we really want to give Him reason to send His Son back to destroy the earth by giving rights to "gays" that God never intended?

Posted by: Cindi LaFontaine | May 28, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

The polls indicate the majority approve of homosexual marriage? We'll see when the majority votes in November on the state constitutional amendment to forever ban homosexual marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman ...... get used to it!

Posted by: bobbie b | May 28, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Good for California. As a straight married man, I support same sex marriage. If I get to marry the person I love, so should homosexuals.

Posted by: Godlumps | May 28, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

What's wrong with a healthy, loving relationship? Why do you care if somebody else is happy when they found their soul mate? The US culture is so selfish. Let everyone else be happy, even if you aren't.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, you are aware that attempting to prevent a segment of the populace from voting by obfuscating the real voting date is a federal crime, right?

Secondly, by arbitrarily denying rights to a segment of population you are setting a bad precedent. Keep in mind, one day, you might end up as one being discriminated against.

Posted by: DP | May 28, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

I think Bill makes a good point.

Also, I don't think an issue like this should be left up to a vote of the people anyway. The minority's rights should not be abolished due to the tyranny of the majority. Civil rights issues should not be left up to a vote. If so, it would've taken MUCH longer for us to liberate blacks and get rid of all the Jim Crow laws. The same goes for the civil rights of homosexuals.

P.S. Just because gay people are now allowed to marry doesn't mean more young people are going to be gay. By that logic, there would be no gay people to begin with, as it has not been accepted in THIS country for about as long as it has been around.

Posted by: Jake J | May 28, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Enough is enough....

The Polls are not taking into account that us Californians speak from both corners of our mouths.

One way to appease the Whiners and the other is what we really feel like saying. Being one of those that does not like being inundated by roving groups of anti-hetero resentment, of course I am 'For' gay marriage when asked by the media.

However...

In the voting booth, I think government should remove itself from marriage altogether because it is a religious arrangement.

Posted by: Fubar4Fun | May 28, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Fooberman @ 4:21, I'm guessing you didn't read the opinion?

Posted by: Ellie | May 28, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

As a gay man who has been in a monogamous relationship with the same man for twenty years I have to say it's not the word "marriage" I want it's the rights...the right to visit my partner in the hospital (if God forbid he has to go in), the right to not have to fight to get him covered by my health benefits and the right to not have to pay extra taxes because one of us isn't a woman. Marriage? I've all ready got that in my heart and soul, I just want the rights I deserve for being committed to one man and him to me. Apparently too much to ask for in most states. Read More Scott at http://www.somelikeitscott.com

Posted by: Some Like It Scott | May 28, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Once again the vocal minority strikes again! Wake up and notice the fact that if the majority of people thought gay marriage was ok, prop 22 would not have passed. I favor a constitutional amendment banning it all together. Sorry you guys that's my opinion and you can live with it!

Posted by: Cris | May 28, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, your comment doesn't make any sense. How will gay marriage prevent procreation? What will stop heterosexuals from having children, in or out of wedlock? No one is trying to force straight people to marry people of their own sex, or deny them the right to procreate.

Posted by: Kevin | May 28, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

It's doubtful that (even) Californians are that sheep-like, that 10% or more would decide, overnight, that they were wrong and these four appointed judges got it right.

It couldn't be more clear than this, that judges are setting POLICY now. I've not read one actual citation from the state's constitution upon which this decision supposedly relies upon. It relies on nothing but the sentiments of bandwagon-minded lawyers in robes.

Posted by: Fooberman | May 28, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Ha! Well, the Field Pollsters have lost all credibility on this poll. In what locale was the poll taken? San Francisco?

Posted by: Bingo | May 28, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like there were more homosexuals surveyed this time around, with a greater penetration (no pun intended) in Hollywood and San Francisco.

Posted by: SteveM | May 28, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Do people really think that if gay marriage is allowed that everyone will marry within their sex? Come on, wake up and live in the 21st century. Why do conservatives groan and moan about keeping government out of everyday life, but are so adamant about letting the government choose who people can and cannot marry.
The hypocrisy is strong with this bunch...

Posted by: Bill | May 28, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

"But boats" (snicker)

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

To the good people of California. But boats and life preservers quick!!!

Pastor John Hagee -- knowing you will give your electoral votes to the Dems, and also doing G-d's work -- has ordered up a hurricane that will make Katrina look like a shower.

;-)

Posted by: jeffp | May 28, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Seriously, though, it is an undeniable FACT that civilization as we know it would cease to exist if there was no heterosexual procreation -- while that is among the worse-case scenarios, it's still possible -- sorry I can't stay and see how the rest of this threads takes off, but I've got a tee time I've got to leave for ...

Play nice : )

Posted by: JakeD | May 28, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Did the Field Poll only ask Catholic priests?

Posted by: JakeD | May 28, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

The only "poll" that will count is on November 4th (Democrats, remember your special day to vote is on November 5th this year ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 28, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company