Gary Langer, director of polling for ABC News, said George W. Bush won the 2004 presidential election for two reasons: 9/11 and women voters.
Posted on 06/05/2006 9:54:35 PM PDT by Sunsong
An ABC News poll finds that most Americans oppose gay marriage but markedly fewer — especially those outside George W. Bush's core supporters — would amend the U.S. Constitution to ban it.
Opponents, however, are far more likely to call it a make-or-break issue in their vote for Congress — a finding that explains Bush's renewed push for a gay marriage ban.
Among all Americans, 58 percent say gay marriage should be illegal, but fewer, 42 percent, say it rises to the level of amending the U.S. Constitution. Among conservative Republicans and evangelical white Protestants, though, opposition to gay marriage soars more than 85 percent, and two-thirds support a constitutional amendment to ban it, a sharp contrast to views in the political center, as well as on the left. The intensity of these views adds to the political calculation: People who "strongly" oppose gay marriage — 51 percent of the public — outnumber strong supporters by 2-1. And those strong opponents are nearly three times as likely as other Americans to say they would vote only for a candidate who shares their view on the issue.
Similarly, among people who support a gay marriage amendment, 63 percent say they could vote only for a candidate who agrees with them; among those who oppose an amendment, just 24 percent say the same...
Fifty-one percent in this poll say that instead of a constitutional amendment, states should make their own laws on gay marriage; this too is down slightly, from 56 percent in spring 2005 and back near its 2004 levels...
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
...and after seeing the results of this survey they will run a marathon of back-to-back episodes of "Will and Grace" on one of their cable channels.
I agree with that. I don't like messing with the Constitution. The more you change it, the more it will be changed. Eventually it will become worthless.
we'll have to do it state by state
The hearing was held in January.
Where are Catholics on the issue, did the pollsters skip over them? Surely the largest Christian group in the US is as much opposed to same sex marriage as evangelical protestants are.
State laws and amendments won't stop the homo lobby and it's sympathetic federal judges from shoving homo marriage in our faces, only a Constitutional amendment can do that. An amendment becomes an integral part of the Constitution once it's ratified and the Constitution itself can't be ruled unconstitutional, not even by an arrogant lefty judge.
I agree with that. I don't like messing with the Constitution. The more you change it, the more it will be changed. Eventually it will become worthless.
When liberal activist Judges have already destroyed the constitution and the commander in chief cannot fight a war without treason at home, what makes the constitution seem like it has not been destroyed?
It is time to start putting American Values BACK INTO the Constitution when anti-Americans take them out. Sick perversion of marriage is as bad as treason against the President, and the Liberal agenda goes on. Let them change the Constitution?
What happens when a Federal Judge overthrows the will of the people in a State? It becomes a Federal issue. There is more important issues: Like another hearing on Katrina? We can do more than one thing at a time. It is time we tried to solve this issue.
I'm getting dizzy from all this spin.
I keep hearing how the Constitution shouldn't be amended. Of course it shouldn't < /sarc >. Constitutional change is supposed to come from the Legislative Branch as activist judges consult foreign law to arrive at new interpretations of the Constitution.
So much for the living breathing document. Meanwhile the State of Texas' constitution has hundreds of Amendments.
Just wait'll Congress gets around to a protection of life amendment...
Won't work.
We amended the GA constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman by 76% of the total vote. Then a judge in Atlanta threw it out because she says it wasn't passed according to the state constitution's rules for amending. The state Assembly will go through the process again and correct what she says was done improperly, but sure as my feet smell like roses she or another judge will throw it out again for some other made-up reason.
That same kind of thing or some other tactic will eventually happen in every state that has banned homo marriage. The only thing the perversion lobby's pet judges and federal courts can't throw out is a properly passed and ratified amendment to the US Constitution.
Put this Catholic in the "biggot" collumn.
My fear w/ this amendment is that it will lose so big that it sets us back.
Gary Langer, director of polling for ABC News, said George W. Bush won the 2004 presidential election for two reasons: 9/11 and women voters.
Gary Langer, director of polling for ABC News, one of the sponsors of the poll, said a major flaw in the question is that "moral values" is not the same sort of specific issue that taxes and Iraq are.
"Health care is an issue, terrorism is an issue; moral values is much more of a personal characteristic. It is very broadly defined," Langer said.
Langer and others said "moral values" became a sort of "catchall" for Bush's voters that could include everything from gay marriage to vulgarity on television.
http://tinyurl.com/er3xz
www.bias.com
Sober and Sensible Polls?
Since the beginning of Monicagate, the networks have used their pollsters to reinforce how popular Bill Clinton is and how most people don’t care about perjury concerning his "private life." But on August 12, five days before Clinton’s grand jury date, ABC News polling analyst Gary Langer rejoiced in the results on ABCNews.com:
"As the Monica Lewinsky affair spins toward its rendezvous with destiny, it’s worth celebrating what has been perhaps the biggest surprise of the scandal: the sober and sensible way average Americans have responded to the whole brouhaha....Pundits hate this kind of thing; Those who declared him dead have had to reconfigure their best lines to accommodate — drat! — actual public opinion."
Langer explained: "It turns out that most Americans have responded to the Lewinsky affair with more of a head scratch than a knee jerk. Their message on this score has been steady: Clinton’s personal behavior, however unsavory it’s alleged to be, is indeed personal."
As the President’s admission drew nearer, Langer endorsed the White House spin that a strong economy negates sex, lies, and perjury: "Lewinsky’s a far juicier story, but when it comes to evaluating presidential performance, average Americans check their wallets. The lowest unemployment in a generation, trivial inflation, growing personal income: What’s a stained dress in the face of these? So far, not much."
http://tinyurl.com/gszma
Quite a few years ago when I was voting in a small town in Northern CA, I voted on some "gay rights" something or other, walked out of the polling place, and realized I had actually voted "FOR" the gay rights whatever it was. There were not only double negatives, but triple, quadruple, and probably more than that negatives. So I went back in and they let me vote again. The second time I pored over it, mentally crossing out every double negative, so I could figure out the dang thing.
After I walked out the second time I realized I screwed it up again.
Liberals ask questions and word stuff purposely to obfuscate, confuse, and indoctrinate. And I WANTED to vote against whatever the "gay rights" proposal was.
Just in case you don't have enough articles about "gay" marriage in your grip.
"There were not only double negatives, but triple, quadruple, and probably more than that negatives."
Yeah we had something like that many years ago on a gay issue. The way they worded it a "no" vote was really voting for it.
Ah...the contortions they must have gone through to write that headline.
That's because they can only win by cheating, as usual. They need to confuse people in order to get what they want. They can't tell the truth or they would always lose.
I'm still kicking myself for voting what I think was the wrong way. Now that I remember it, I think I went back AGAIN and told the old lady I need to fix it for a third time. And I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I'm far from illiterate!
That's because this is an issue the RINOs hope will catch on to take our eye off the ball on illegal immigration.
According to federalism, such a matter is best left to the states. I'm sure some legal "scholar" will figure out some legal trickery to justify this under the thrice-damned Interstate Commerce Clause.
We're fighting a war against Islamic terrorism, we're losing our property rights to eminent domain, are we're being invaded by Mexican criminal aliens who demand their "right" to vote in OUR elections, and El Presidente Jorge is pushing for this?!?
And to think that I was a partisan stalwart in 2000 and 2004, getting right in the Leftists' smug little faces and threatening to stomp them with my boots to defend the President... I feel betrayed.
Isn't it already?
10th Amendment - killed by FDR and his cabal of Socialists.
5th Amendment - done for by eminent domain decision and DUI "exceptions".
4th Amendment - done.
2nd Amendment - pretty much gutted.
1st Amendment - McCain-Feingold, anyone?
It has been said that fascism will come to America in the form of the Cross wrapped in the American flag. Looks like we're already here.
It is time to start putting American Values BACK INTO the Constitution when anti-Americans take them out. Sick perversion of marriage is as bad as treason against the President, and the Liberal agenda goes on. Let them change the Constitution?
I agree and so do the majority, it's a showdown of the good vs the evil and I prefer to believe that the majority is good.
This issue strengthens the Democrats claim to being the party of Death.They would like to see traditional marriage slowly die.
They'll support an amendment when the full faith and credit clause is used to shove gay marriage down the nation's throat.
That construction alone is proof that you haven't the foggiest clue. One cannot commit an act of treason against the president.
Cobra64 must already think it is worthless... this is what it says:
Article. V.The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,...
How can passing an Amendment be un-constitutional???
I don't have a clue what you are talking about. No one said passing an amendment was un-constitutional.
An ABC News poll finds...
WHY this poll published now??? Why posted on FR now???
ROTFLMAO
- Reality finds this non-issue being debated in the Senate... Who determines issues, the politically impotent OR the politically empowered? Harry Reid & Nancy Pelosi would agree with the enraged minority that sits on the sidelines whining incessantly about this "non-issue" -a few of which post such nonsense on FR, the vast majority of which post such nonsense on DU...
Thank you for advice. I am sad not to have the foggiest clue. So if the Commander-in-Chief gives a lawful order for the troops to obey, but they disobey the order and give aid and comfort to the enemy, maybe this is free speech, you say? Please help me as I do not have the intelligence to understand how this world works, having very simple Conservative mind. I thought the President was Commander-in-Chief of Army. Sorry.
I do not understand how Amendment is unconstitutional? I Am not a constitution scholar.
If sick perversion of marriage does not belong in America, it must say so in the law. If the law cannot be passed without Amendment, then the Amendment is needed.
I am not very refined thinking about these things. I do belive in the law and the Constitution.
Disobeying a lawful order is insubordination, not treason. You have your terms all mixed up. As for the original point, it was against your notion that treason could be committed against the president. It cannot. Treason can only be levied against the United States, not it's leader.
So these differences are important to you somehow?
Thank you for helpful reply but I read it two times and it still is no help.
Are you saying that a man can be a traitor but not commit treason? or that a man can commit treason but is not a traitor?
This is too hard for me! LOL! Are you a lawyer? Do you work for ACLU? LOL Just Kidding.
I would almost bet that if you had said yes, they could have construed it as a victory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.