Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Post-ABC Poll: Views on gay marriage steady, more back civil unions

With the nation's capital poised to begin allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, opinions nationwide remain closely divided, but two-thirds of all Americans now say gay and lesbian couples should be able to have the same rights as heterosexual couples through civil unions.

In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, 47 percent say gay marriages should be legal, with 31 percent saying they feel that way "strongly." Intensity is stronger among opponents, however: overall, half say such marriages should be illegal, including 42 percent who say so strongly.

Civil unions draw broader support. Two-thirds now say they favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to form civil unions that would give them many of the same legal rights as married couples. That's an increase of 12 percentage points since a December 2007 poll that asked about civil unions for "homosexual couples."

In the new poll, support for civil unions is at 50 percent or better across party and ideological lines. Support for such arrangements is now 15 points higher than it was a few years ago among conservatives; it's up 13 points among Republicans.

Views on gay marriage are little changed since Post-ABC polling last touched on the topic, in April 2009. Then, 49 percent said they thought it should be legal, 46 percent illegal. In that poll, a wording experiment found little difference between support for legal marriages of "gay and lesbian couples and for those among "homosexual couples." (A CBS News/New York Times survey released yesterday conducted a similar experiment and found the wording did make a difference in their results.)

In the new poll, a sharp age divide remains on the question, with younger adults broadly supportive of gay marriage while most seniors oppose it. A majority of those under age 30 say they feel strongly that gay marriages should be legal, marking the first time in Post-ABC polling that figure has topped 50 percent.

Democrats and independents are far more apt to favor legal marriages than are Republicans. And support is highest in the Northeast - where most of the states that allow legal marriage are located - and the West. Those in the Midwest and South are more apt to oppose making gay marriages legal.

Full results from the new poll can be found here.

Q. Do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married?

             --- Legal ----   -- Illegal ---
             NET   Strongly   NET   Strongly
All          47       31      50       42

Democrat     60       45      39       32
Independent  50       32      48       38
Republican   27       13      69       58

Northeast    55       41      39       31
Midwest      48       28      50       39
South        37       26      61       52
West         57       34      41       34

Age 18-29    65       51      33       26
Age 30-64    47       28      51       42
Age 65+      30       20      66       57

By Jennifer Agiesta  |  February 12, 2010; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  44 The Obama Presidency , Gay marriage , Post Polls  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Post-ABC poll: financial regulations
Next: Campaign finance ruling sparks bipartisan agreement


Unfortunately, with all due respect (which isn't much I'm afraid), your poll is garbage. The other polls out there just don't show this level of support for either gay marriage, civil unions or DADT repeal.


Posted by: miyago123 | February 12, 2010 7:04 AM | Report abuse

miyago123, please provide your proof that this poll is wrong.

Posted by: bobbarnes | February 12, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Could the post go back through it's files to see if they polled the public about anti-miscengenation laws in the 60's? How about polling for any civil rights laws of the 60's? Didn't think you did. Seems your jumping on the homophobic wagon lately and I find it disturbing. Stop polling the majority about the rights of minorities. It's not news and our government doesn't work by way of polls.

Posted by: madest | February 12, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Civil unions are not marriage. Why mix 'gay marriage' in with civil unions? It becomes confusing.
For all practical purposes, civil unions are marriage - and heterosexuals can have civil unions too.
But the strident tones that gay activists have taken when pushing for gay marriage have discounted civil unions. Their choice to have that tone, their choice to reject civil unions and push for marriage. Even when they have support for civil unions. Go figure.

Posted by: KathyWi | February 12, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

so those that oppose most tend to be old southern republicans. lol, they will be dying off in droves over the next 10 years.

Posted by: johng1 | February 12, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

To miyago123: Just because you say the poll is inaccurate doesn't mean it is. In fact, this poll is almost identical to current research:

If people under 30 were the only ones voting, same-sex marriage would be legal in 40 states. It's only a matter of time until gay citizens will have equal rights in our country. So enjoy your homophobia while it lasts.

Posted by: obtusegoose | February 12, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Opinions change over time. If the majority of young people favor same-sex marriage, than same-sex marriage activists should wait until the old people die off and not try to force same-sex marriage down our throats. They are setting themselves up for some political backlash that could cause them serious problems.
Also, I don't think that same-sex marriage should be put under the same umbrella as civil rights because gays are being treated exactly the same as everyone else. In states where same-sex marriage is illegal no one is allowed to marry someone of the same sex. Blacks under Jim Crow laws did not have the same rights as whites. Same-sex marriage is much more like affirmative action: the law is changed in a specific way to benefit a minority identity.

Posted by: Daniel84 | February 12, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

The question is what people would say if it turned out that a 'civil' union' would not produce literally identical legal rights over against a 'marriage' and the ones polled believed the distincton was a real one. There is a lot of question about whether the two terms do or do not make a distinction without a real difference. If it could be shown that civil unions could or did not give all of the same legal rights, how would people feel then?

Posted by: Christy1947 | February 12, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Well my friends and I are Senior citizens and we agree that people should marry whom they choose. I don't understand why polls should be taken at all. Those who don't think that gays should marry......DON'T MARRY A GAY! very simple.

Posted by: calethia_hill10 | February 12, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Why not follow the French procedure: civil marriages for everyone, church weddings for those the churches are willing to accept.

Posted by: mini2 | February 12, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Please stop trying to tell us how to think about this issue. This crap has forced referendums in many states because the American people do not like being told how to feel. They are especially against activist judges legislating from the bench. This is not a constitutional issue. period....

Posted by: davispope | February 12, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Daniel... I'm afraid your homophopia transpires through pretended objectivity...

Why should gay activists wait? The whole point of activism is accelerating social change, Mr... Goes with the job!

Why gay marriage and civil rights should be under the same umbrella? It is not a question of should or should not. Marriage, gay or straight, is a civil right matter. Why? Because it affects fundamental rights like, for example, the right to live with your chosen partner, something that due to immigration laws, still depends in many cases on being married or not.
We could talk about adoption, pensions, employer given rights, and a thousand other questions... but are all the same: the basic question is equality. How can you be consider equal if the law does not let you do the same things and enjoy the same benefits. The real point is equality and gay marriage is just an element of equality.
By the way... The law is not changed to benefit a minority, the law needs to be changed because discrimination (and denying equality is discrimination) diminishes the nation and goes against the spirit of the Constitution.

Posted by: jade69 | February 12, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

I cannot understand why anyone would deny a gay couple the opportunity to marry.

Posted by: jbowen431 | February 12, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

You have the same logic as Trig Palin. Congrats.

Posted by: madest | February 12, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

We should all be against "gay marriage" and for marriage between two consenting adults, regardless of who those two adults are. You can't tell me Elizabeth Taylor's or Britney Spears' or any one of your philandering Republican politicians' marriages are any less detrimental to our oh-so-fragile society. Grow up!

Posted by: Elnok | February 12, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Marriage was instigated by society to provide support for the creation of children. Gays don;t make children. The concept of gays marrying is, and has always been, silly. The argument is, in my view, a front for the gay community's continued press for acceptance by the straight community. It is not possible to legislate acceptance -- it did not work for the blacks and will not work for the gays. Acceptance comes when individuals have a high moral standard and contribute to their society in a positive way.

Posted by: JerryB2 | February 12, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

I cannot understand why anyone would deny a gay couple the opportunity to marry; or a guy and two women to marry or a brother and sister to marry if they were really, really in love. It's their right. What kind of bigot could stand in their way?.

Posted by: twharvey1 | February 12, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

KathyWi: If you wouldn't accept the second-class status that accompanies civil unions, then don't ask gay and lesbian citizens--whether they're "activists," or, more than likely, just your neighbors, relatives, and friends--to accept it either. Put another way, if you can't picture yourself giddy and gleeful sharing the information that you've just been civil unionized, don't expect gay and lesbian folks to be any more enthusiastic about it.

Posted by: danfromnva1 | February 12, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse


Are you serious? Why are you offended by "the gay community's continued press for acceptance by the straight community?" And if marriage is nothing more than a support network for the creation of children, then should 65-year old straight couples be allowed to marry (and achieve whatever benefits are associated with marriage)? Not too many children will be created by such marriages.

Posted by: Azdave56 | February 12, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

The civil rights of a minority should not be left to the whim of a majority. This goes for public polls and public polling places.

I don't care whether or not 50+1% of the electorate feels that gays shouldn't get married (or should). Gay couples are being discriminated against, and its time to stop this discrimination, regardless of what the majority preference is.

Posted by: lmjs63 | February 12, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Gay marriage or legal unions are oxymorons
and no basis for existing. For the human race to embrace such falsehoods would mean
the extinction of the human race within
one hundred years. It takes male and female to keep the human race or any species to survive and thrive. Anything
less than that is a kiss of death.

Posted by: drush1 | February 12, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

ummm...I don't think anyone is talking about gay marriages only. I'm sure straight people will still be able to get married.

Posted by: Azdave56 | February 12, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Oh yeah, civil unions all the way because history has shown that separate but equal has worked out SO WELL... Oh wait. It hasn't.

And JerryB2, welcome to the 21st Century! We don't have fertility tests and legal binding procreation requirements for marriage. And, you'll find lots of gay men and lesbians with high moral standards making a difference every day. We volunteer to help our communities, we take care of our families and friends, and contribute to society by following laws and paying taxes. Funny thing that we want the same legal rights and opportunities that our heterosexual counterparts have.

Posted by: redgrifn | February 12, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Being gay should not even be compared to civil rights. Race and gender are not a choice (it is what you are born with). I am so sick of the attitudes that everyone has to agree with the homosexual lifestyle (decision) or they are awful people. Marriage is outlined from the bible and our country is founded on Christian principles. Lets remember that is an important distinction to make about marriage. Marriage was always intended by God to be one man and one woman.

Posted by: tchenn | February 12, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

To JerryB2:

Marriage has never been about procreation. Human beings have been having children for all of human history with or without the "benefit" of marriage. Marriage came into being around the time of agriculture when ownership of land, wives, and children perpetuated accumulated wealth. If you read your bible you will see, especially in the old testament,(see the story of Abraham) where many men had wives AND concubines. The children of WIVES could inherit. All other children were bastards and not able to legally inherit anything.

The whole issue of fidelity in marriage likewise came into being to make sure that the heir to one's property was indeed a child of the MAN. Only women were required to be chaste. This notion extended from biblical times up to the modern age and still exists in a much diluted form today. (Will John Edwards' "love child" have the same rights as the children from his marriage?)

SO...marriage is about property rights and inheritance - a legal issue. Gay men and women who make commitments to each other should have the same legal rights of property and inheritance that the rest of society should have. Plain & simple.

Posted by: Kurious2no | February 12, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

to tchenn:

First you have proven the point: gay people DO NOT CHOOSE to be gay therefore it IS a civil rights issue. Second, read the bible - marriage is about property rights. Third: This is NOT a christian country and never has been. Read the writings of the founding fathers. Sheesh!

Posted by: Kurious2no | February 12, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

tchenn, you're not a bad person just because your religion teaches you that homosexuality is morally wrong, but you are prejudiced. our country is founded upon liberty, including religious freedom, and equal opportunity. the fact that you think gay marriage is contrary to your religion should have no bearing on our civil society or the rights of law-abiding and taxpaying gay couples who seek no more than the same rights that straight couples have. the supreme court said long ago that marriage is a civil right. religion has been the motivating force for treating women as property in marriage and anti-miscegenation laws. you suggest that gays are different, but you're just a reincarnation of the past in a new suit. it's unfortunate that you are offended by people calling you a bigot, but there's a simple way to get over it: stop using your religion as justification to deny other people rights that you have. fear not, God will sort it out in the afterlife.

Posted by: dcresident11 | February 12, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Gays want straights to accept them even though they are different in their sexual desires, but show no acceptance of those with different points of view. The gays actions against the Boy Scouts have convinced me never, ever to vote with them.

Posted by: rtatlow | February 12, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Jerry B2, Blacks are not accepted? What color is our President? You seem to think that gays are immoral just because we are gay. I think not. I am 75, gay , and have been with my partner for 36 terrific years. In regard to children, gays are adopting children in greater numbers every year. We are especially adopting children that no one else will take. It is interesting to note that the incidence of homosexuality among children raised by gay couples is the same as those raised by straight couples. So you see Jerry B2 we do have children, and lesbians even produce their own. Rather than B2 jerry why don't you try growing up?

Posted by: jimnbo | February 12, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Why do people still insist that this country is a theocracy? It is not and no matter how many times you repeat that it is a christian nation, you are still incorrect. We have the right to worship OR not.

Posted by: calethia_hill10 | February 12, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Once and for all: marriage is between a man and a woman. Saying that it is homophobic not to accept homosexuality is ridiculous. The only reason Gays don't want to accept the wording "civil union" is that they would not be able to destroy the minds of the young into thinking that their lifestyle is the same as heterosexuals and is acceptable. I believe they should have every "monetary right and social right that other Americans have but that is all. And I am tired of that old argument about civil rights. White people are always white, black people are always black. Gays (whatever their color) choose their lifestyle and we as Americans have the right to say what we are for or against.

Posted by: imanihon | February 12, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

What's the big deal. Let the States decide - it's only a matter of time when everyone is on the same page. It comes down to legal issues that protect the rights of people who choose to live together under a contract. Leave it at that. All those laws are in place; simplify people - put your energy into more humane issues.

Posted by: yankeei | February 12, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

I could go either way on this. I recognize that homosexuals can love one another the same as anyone else, and feel deprived if denied a means of expressing that love through a formal bond. On the other hand, I am unwilling to throw out societal norms that predate recorded history. There are some anthropological fallacies in the previous comments. Marriage DOES predate property rights, and exists today in cultures in which nearly everything is community property. Survival of progeny through family protection essentially necessitates marriage.

And this is a very cold and hard fact: Minorities receive only what the majority is willing to grant. So my completely unsolicited advice to gay activists is to be nice to the rest of us. Time is on your side if you stop asserting demands for rights that don't yet exist.

Posted by: gterrill | February 12, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

The United States of America allows the majority to interfere with the rights of minorities all the time (e.g. children, smokers, the mentally ill, etc.). The alternative is that a minority dictate public policy, which is the definition of tyranny. Advocates of same-sex marriage like claiming that if we let the majority rule, we would never have passed civil rights legislation. That's just plain wrong. Perhaps the civil rights movement would have looked differently or taken a little longer, but it is my firm belief that the majority of Americans would have been willing to support racial equality with or without Supreme Court intervention. President Obama is evidence of that.

Posted by: Daniel84 | February 12, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

The Vermont Civil Union law was a model in that it recognized that participants had mutual responsibilities as in a 'traditional' marriage, including health care and debt considerations. Mutual rights, such as employer health care insurance, had been carefully negotiated among government agencies and private employers within the state before the law was passed. The most inexcusable imposition on gay couples had been giving distant blood relations preference over same-gender partners in ownership of a house in which both partners had lived in and contributed to, after the death of the partner whose name appeared on the deed.
Conversely, at the federal level, allowing spousal Social Security benefits based on Civil Unions laws which may differ greatly among individual states is not rational, and I believe would never pass Congress because it would open the floodgates of Article IV Section 1 (which has ben a consideration of the gay community).

Posted by: stassen | February 12, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse


The Bible clearly teaches that marriage is very concerned with proceation. The evidence starts off with the "Multiply and replenish the earth" commandment, continues with Sarah giving Abraham a concubine (Hagar) in order to give him children (Sarah felt it was her responsibility to make sure Abraham had a child, even though Abraham's chief servant could have inherited his property), continues further with the Jacob's wives' obsession with bearing children (you'll note that Jacob's children borne by concubines also inherited property), and on and on. Portions of the Mosaic law make it clear that it spouses have the responsibility of bearing children, even to the point of a woman being able to be impregnated by a man's brother if the man died before bearing her children.

Posted by: Daniel84 | February 12, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Yes Daniel, Sarah gave her Egyptian maid (her property) to her husband. Obviously your god couldn't work out a miracle for poor Sarah until later. And what did Sarah do with this gift to her husband? She abused her and Haggar ran away. You have a very weird god.

BTW, to others, agriculture preceded "recorded history" by about 10,000 years. Time enough to workout property laws.

Many of you base your argument on the "fact" that gays choose to be so. Would anyone in this country choose to be so reviled? The only choice here is whether to be who one is or pretend to be like the majority. So since gender and race are not choices, being gay is in the same category.

It is amazing that in a country that clearly believes in separation of church and state, religious law is cited as the reason civil law should not be changed.

Activists don't "wait" for change because without them it wouldn't happen. Why should any American have to wait for the rights that are due them as any American? President Obama would NOT be in office if it weren't for the "activists" who demand that we treat ALL people equally as the Declaration of Independence states. And he is very aware of this.

Posted by: Kurious2no | February 12, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Daniel, when you use your Bible as an excuse to hurt other Americans, you only serve to make more people hate your book. There is massive proof of the collapse of religious participation in America. Most often, the reason given is the homophobia of the churches. I believe your book says, "So as ye sew, so shall ye reap." It's too bad you're concentrating on the parts you think convenience your hatred for LGBT Americans and ignore what beauty is in the Bible, because the proof is in that your tactic has backfired.

Posted by: CarrotCakeMan | February 12, 2010 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Husbands and wives are married. Husbands and husbands, as well as wives and wives cannot be married. Civil unions is the only logical and intellectually honest way to deal with this nonsense.

The male/male and the female/female relationship can only be perpetuated because of male/female unions, whteher they are married or not. If you prefer that lifestyle, or if you are genetically wired for that relationship, I have no problem with it, but it flies in the face of the idea of marriage. Sign a contract, form a union and get on with life. Worry about real problems.

Posted by: buggerianpaisley1 | February 12, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

FYI Separation of church and state is to keep the State out of religion. If my religion believes marriage is between a man and a woman, which it does, then I have every right to believe and fight for it and vote on prop 8 and any other vote. And since I am taught to love everyone, Why would I want them to enter into a relationship that I believe is destructive. Which is the opposite of creative. As we know, gay couples cannot create. How that translates to hate is only a tactic to point the finger back and say that we who support traditional marriage are in the wrong When in fact it is love for our fellow man that is the cause of our actions.

Posted by: fitzsw | February 13, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

One argument made for legalizing marriage for homosexuals is that being married confers many benefits. Yet a very significant number of heterosexual couples are not getting married, instead they are just living together, "shacking up" as we used to say. Which makes one wonder therefore if homosexuals are put at a great disadvantage by being denied the right to marry. Also, for those of us who read say a book like Jane Eyre, describing the love between Jane and Lord Rochester, imagine that cast as a story about two homosexuals, that ought to tell us something.

Posted by: Prx7Y | February 13, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

the next time you run your poll consider asking:

(1) do you think that the proposal of civil unions is really just another form of discrimination against homosexuals?

(2)do you think the proposal of civil unions is just another way of saying seperate but equal?

(3) do think that homosexuals would get exactly the same equal protection thru civil unions that they would get thru marriage?

Posted by: feetxxxl1 | February 13, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

CarrotCakeMan gives the perfect description about why this issue has become such an important focus of discussion instead of more threatening issues in the world.

He writes, “There is massive proof of the collapse of religious participation in America,” and on that he’s right. That “massive collapse” is the reason behind the moral collapse that this country is going through.

EVERYTHING that’s good, man quickly corrupts. A law that’s created to help the poor quickly becomes clogged with pork. Religion that’s supposed to celebrate the amazing life of the Son of God quickly became corrupted into a ‘business organization’ whose history is filled with actions diametrically opposed to the teachings Jesus gave while on earth. Men, who deemed themselves all knowing of God, betrayed Jesus himself. And now, the “Good Book” is being used by man to mandate or repudiate the morality of others.

In our sheltered existence (compared to the other countries of the world) we’ve become a society that is interested in “what’s in it for me?” In our headlong quest to amass a fortune, we’ve lost our moral compass. When’s the last time we paid a fair price for a fair job? We existed for more than two hundred years before people began to feel offended because someone used the name “God,” or were offended because someone hung “Christmas” lights on their homes, or were offended because someone let their kids dress up and go trick-or-treating on Halloween, or were offended because their kids pledged allegiance to the country that gives them the freedom to be offended by the things someone else does.

So here’s the thing. I have a lot of gay friends I have I don’t know one of them who believes in religion. One these friends was honest enough to admit this, “Just as teenagers turn away from their parents when their parents say no, I turned away from religion because it says no. I can’t believe and still have this lifestyle.”

I’m responsible for my actions and how I treat others. It’s NOT for me to control other people’s lives. I don’t go around telling everyone how happy I am about being straight, and I don’t want or care to know how happy or unhappy people are for being gay…and yet gay people insist they have a microphone.

Life has a definite end point and it’s a lot shorter than we all think - Thank God! We are each responsible and accountable for what WE do and who we are during our time – not for anyone else. As CarrotCakeMan says, "So as ye sew, so shall ye reap."

Posted by: TheOracle2 | February 13, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

My partner and I were married. By a rabbi. In a very mainstream Jewish temple. In the South. Before our friends, family and before God. We have our ketubah (religious marriage contract) framed and hanging on a wall in our bedroom. We are married religiously. We have been in a committed, monogamous relationship for many years.

Now we seek to have the same rights and responsibilities under civil law as any married couple does. Our lives are intrinsically intertwined. We share a home, a mortgage, car payments, bills, medical and financial and legal decisions. It is nonsensical for the state to treat us as legal strangers when everything about our lives speaks to our committed relationship. Our relationship isn't just similar to that of heterosexual couples--it is identical.

I grew up assuming I would be heterosexual (everyone did back then) and would marry someone of the opposite sex (everyone did back then). As I grew and began to realize I was "different", it became increasingly clear to me that society had no template for people like me other than shunning.

Times have changed. While the concept of "Equal Protection" under the law has pretty much been with us from the beginning of this great country, the concept of who fell under its protection has changed dramatically.

So has our understanding of biology, psychology, and such basic notions of how a fair and just society includes those who are different in its institutions, including marriage.

I am no radical. My relationship is noteworthy not for the gender of the two of us but rather for its stability and commitment and for its....normalcy.

To paraphrase, it is the very model of a very moral marriage. ;-)

And it is simply time that the law catch up both with our religious institution and the reality of our lives.


Posted by: ricklinguist | February 13, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Any educated Christian would know that. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

(Change *** to www)

Thats why Jesus never mentions it as well. There is nothing immoral, wrong, or sinful about being gay. Jesus, however, clearly states he HATES hypocrites. If you preach goodness, then promote hate and twist the words of the Bible, you are a hypocrite, and will be judged and sent to hell. Homosexuals will not go to hell, hypocrites will.

This is very similar to the religious bigots of the past, where they took Bible passages to condone slavery, keep women down, and used Bible passages to claim blacks as curses who should be enslaved by the white man. People used God to claim that blacks marrying whites was unnatural, and not of God's will.

Posted by: shadow_man | February 13, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

For those of you claiming homosexuality is a "lifestyle", that is a false and ignorant statement. Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

(Change *** to www)
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ,2933,155990,00.html

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organisations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."

Posted by: shadow_man | February 13, 2010 10:43 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, this issue is a niche tempest in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. This is an internal social issue better left for calmer times. Greece, Ireland, Iceland, Spain & other Euro socialist countries are imploding with likely devastating consequences for the entire West. Do you really think this is the time for arguments over "semantics"? I think not.

Be realistic. We are at War and will be for a long time. Consider, whether one likes it or not, the Terrorists are hell bent on returning us to dust whether we are straight or gay. Does anyone think they did a survey before they destroyed the Trade Towers?

Remember, there are No Gays in Iran - so said Ahmedinejad. We can only speculate on the thousands of unmarked graves dotting the desert countryside of Iran.

Can't you begin to understand why The People are so angry with Washington?

Some cities have 17% and 22% unemployment. The State of Michigan has 15%, Nevada almost as high. These are CRISIS NUMBERS. It's also a fair assumption that many Gays are unemployed.

Let's get on to the business of proactively preventing the collapse of this Country. Certainly, the most complex and terribying issue we have faced since the Missiles of October.

In the meantime, one might want to brush up on Mandarin.

Posted by: nanda1 | February 14, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

I do not have a problem with same sex persons having a civil contractual agreement with one another, that provides such things as powers of attorney and joint property rights along with survivor rights to property and bank accounts. However there can be no such thing as same sex marriage. Marriage is limited to the possibility that the two individuals have the ability to procreate provided both individuals are fertile. There must be the production of an egg naturally in one and the ability to deposit sperm into the other in a natural way for Marriage to exist. When I majored in biology that called for one female and one male. There must also be the sharing of love for it to succeed.

Posted by: chellisjr | February 14, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

"I do not have a problem with same sex persons having a civil contractual agreement with one another, that provides such things as powers of attorney and joint property rights along with survivor rights to property and bank accounts. However there can be no such thing as same sex marriage. "
Posted by: chellisjr | February 14, 2010 2:25 PM

I am pleased that you are "willing" to allow my partner of many years and me to have some of the rights you take for granted. I do have to wonder which rights that you take for granted for you and your spouse you would NOT be "willing" to grant same-sex couples. And why. It's not really an abstract question in my life. There really are concrete, specific legal issues that arise for couples that shouldn't depend on gender but which, because of the inequities in the law, do.

As for there not being such a thing as same-sex marriage, I can assure you that there is.

My partner were married by a rabbi in a very mainstream Jewish temple. We have a religious marriage contract, framed, hanging in our bedroom. So while you have a view of marriage that restricts it based on gender, not everyone does.

And, as I am sure you are aware, same-sex marriage contracts are recognized as legally-binding in a number of U.S. states and a number of countries. So, with respect, there really is such as thing as same-sex marriage, though I prefer to call it what it really is: marriage.


Posted by: ricklinguist | February 14, 2010 11:03 PM | Report abuse

I'm from the South and I'm not an old southern republican, I want be dying off in 10 years and I oppose gay marriage. I live in a community with educated God worshiping families and we just hoppen to agree that two men and two women marrying is not what God intended. Something tells me this poll is only polling those whereas the outcome is already predicted or they just made it up.

Posted by: mogran | February 15, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

nanda1: Then tell the Republicans and conservatives to stop making a big deal out of the issue. Your side are the ones who brought up referendums costing millions. Your side are the ones who keep trying to bring up bigotry bills. It's your side making all the commotion about people's civil rights.

chellisjr: The problem with your logic is that procreation is not a requirement of marriage. Otherwise straight couples who don't have kids, can't have kids, and older couples would also be banned from marrying. Also, the notion that gays and lesbians can't have kids is false. If need be, they can have kids via artificial insemination, surrogency, etc. And if you try to make the claim that it's "unnatural", then let me ask you these questions. Do you drive a car, fly an airplane, or use a computer? Those are also "unnatural" things. People are meant to walk, humans are not meant to fly, and we communicate with our mouths, yet you still do it right? The procreation argument simply fails on so many levels.

Posted by: shadow_man | February 16, 2010 3:13 AM | Report abuse

mogran: Homosexuality is not a sin in the Bible unless you take the verses out of context. I suggest you read these links that prove homosexuality is not a sin.

(Change *** to www)

Also, let me point to you a quote that was used from many years ago:

"connections and alliances so unnatural, that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law"

Sound familiar? It’s the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878.

Where have we heard these arguments before?

Posted by: shadow_man | February 16, 2010 3:20 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company