If you're referring to the FMA, all the surveys I've seen indicated an unwillingness to amend the Constitution that correspond roughly to today's actual vote. It doesn't necessarily mean acceptance of gay marriage, there will be some tests this fall of that.
The Massachusetts ruling demolished the reasoning that marriage is based on what the majority wants.
Did the MA SJC turn things on their head? Perhaps, I really believed that it surprised even the gay rights people. If it had not occurred, we would not have seen the rouge marriage licenses in SF, Portland, New Paltz, etc. Those incidents may well have been overreaching by the gay rights side. It seemed to me that their strategy was to get civil union or domestic partnership in as many places as possible, then use a "separate but unequal" argument in the courts. Gay marriage advocates are quite full of themselves right now, and anything they can use as a "victory" will keep them giddy. I think Senator Frist's vote just provided such an opportunity.
A majority of Americans abhor same-sex unions, yet the courts found their opinion moot.
Of course, it depends on where you ask the question, but most surveys I've seen are about 30% in favor of full gay marriage, 40% dead set against anything, and a mushy middle of about 30% either in favor of civil unions, or not really caring about the issue. That 30% is what both of the other sides are fighting over, and by no means is the 40% going to win them all over, in the long run.
What matters is the soundness of their argument presented in court.
It would take a LOT to convince a Utah appeals court of the application of Lawrence vs. Texas to the condition of polygamy. Every Mormon I've ever known has been paranoid about discussing it, they're sick and tired of all the jokes. Surely, LDS-approved appeals justices in Utah will strike this "reasoning" down. This lawyer picked too hard a target. He might have had better luck in Maine!
That is why polygamists opposed it.
The polygamists are a tiny fringe group that really does want to radically redefine marriage in America, and they will cling to anything that they see gives them legitimacy. Find me a so-called "Biblical" polygamist who really thinks that Leviticus and Paul are all wet on homosexuality, and I'll find you the biggest hypocrite in the country!
Your numbers are simply ridiculous. Over 50 % of Massachusetts residents oppose homosexual marriage. Nothing mushy about it. The next most liberal state in the union, Hawaii, overwhelmingly passed an amendement banning same. You can't simply pick numbers out of the air and represent them as given from the mount.
You said any judge who would overturn anti-polygamy laws should be removed. Why aren't you calling for impeachment for the judges who turned the law on its head in Massachusetts?
Don't you see that, just as the MA court turned the law on its head, any other judge could do the same with regards to polygamy? Unless these revisionist judges are removed, they will be free to make any similar ruling.
Since impeachment doesn't appear to be happening, we must explicitly take marriage-defining power out of the court's hands. THAT is the point of the marriage amendment!
most surveys I've seen are about 30% in favor of full gay marriage
"Will of the majority," indeed!
It would take a LOT to convince a Utah appeals court of the application of Lawrence vs. Texas to the condition of polygamy
The lower courts don't matter. Once the case reaches the Supreme Court, polygamy laws will have to be overturned, consistent with Lawrence--unless the court wants to rescind that recent decision, which they will not do, or admit its contradiction. Justice Scalia's dissent in Lawrence said as much.
The polygamists are a tiny fringe group that really does want to radically redefine marriage in America
Look at what you are saying. Polygamy has been practiced historically, biblically, and is currently widely practiced throughout the world. Gay marriage never has. Even the gay-friendly Greeks never created same-sex marriage.
I agree polygamy redefines marriage, but not so radically as homosexual marriage, which has never existed prior to modern times. If you are against radically redefining marriage, you would be on the side of those of us who want to keep it between only one man and one woman.
And the notion that polygamy shouldn't be legalized because it's "only a tiny fringe" isn't a valid argument--and, meaning no offense, betrays a naive approach on your part to the issue.