Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Poll: 54 percent back California marriage amendment
AP via SFGate ^ | 5/23/8

Posted on 05/23/2008 2:19:39 PM PDT by SmithL

San Francisco, CA (AP) -- More than half of California residents would support amending the state constitution to outlaw gay marriage, according to a new poll published Friday.

The Los Angeles Times/KTLA poll of 834 Californians, 705 of them registered voters, found that 54 percent of the voters surveyed backed a gay marriage ban proposed for the November ballot and 35 percent opposed it. The ballot initiative follows a May 15 ruling by the state Supreme Court legalizing same-sex nuptials.

But with so many months to go before the election and the court's decision only a week old, the survey results suggest the initiative supporters' edge could evaporate, said Times poll director Susan Pinkus.

"Although the amendment to reinstate the ban on same-sex marriage is winning by a small majority, this may not bode well for the measure," Pinkus said.

If the amendment qualifies for the ballot and passes in November, it would overturn the Supreme Court's decision and set the stage for further legal wrangling that would leave the validity of same-sex marriage performed between now and then in doubt.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: 2008polls; activistjudges; ca2008; caglbt; homosexualagenda; judiciary; marriageamendment; samesexmarriage; sanfranciscovalues; sodomandgomorrah; tyrannybytheminority
This is even without Arnold's support.
1 posted on 05/23/2008 2:19:40 PM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL
I read the original article in the LA Times this morning regarding this poll. It was very one sided and the author was obviously biased for this amendment to fail.
2 posted on 05/23/2008 2:22:47 PM PDT by Uncle Hal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Should read: “Poll: 54 percent of HOMOSEXUALS back California GAY marriage amendment.”


3 posted on 05/23/2008 2:26:44 PM PDT by Eurale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Hal
Pretty low number. Anything lower than 90% is a sure sign society is being sodomized by the sodomites.
4 posted on 05/23/2008 2:27:38 PM PDT by isrul (Help make every day, "Disrespect a muzzie day.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Eurale

The marriage amendment is to BAN gays from marrying


5 posted on 05/23/2008 2:27:38 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
The Los Angeles Times/KTLA poll of 834 Californians, 705 of them registered voters, found that 54 percent of the voters surveyed backed a gay marriage ban proposed for the November ballot...

In the privacy of the voting booth the number will be much higher.

6 posted on 05/23/2008 2:28:23 PM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Don't tell me. The Poll was taken in downtown San Francisco, right?
7 posted on 05/23/2008 2:32:43 PM PDT by fish hawk (Silence is often misinterpreted but never misquoted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Oh, its called “marriage ammendment” now? Let’s not mention the ‘G’ word.


8 posted on 05/23/2008 2:39:13 PM PDT by The_Republican (Ovaries of the World Unite! Rush, Laura, Ann, Greta - Time for the Ovulation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

My understanding is that petitions have been submitted but that the Amendment Measure has yet to be approved for the ballot. Does anybody know anything about when that approval is expected to be issued?


9 posted on 05/23/2008 2:44:18 PM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

In 2000 it was a 61% for the gay marriage ban so the results will probably be the same this time around for the Constitutional amendment.


10 posted on 05/23/2008 2:44:24 PM PDT by tobyhill (The media lies so much the truth is the exception)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam
Petitions were submitted by the April deadline with more than 1.1 million signatures (about twice what is required which is usually a good sign it has qualified). It's in the signature verification stage.

Last I heard, we should know whether or not it's on the November ballot by June (if not sooner). Same status with the Parental Notification Initiative on abortion. These things sure do take a long time.

11 posted on 05/23/2008 2:48:53 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Why didn’t they push for constitutional amendment in 2000 so that it’ll be safe from the court?


12 posted on 05/23/2008 2:54:19 PM PDT by paudio (Like it or not, 'conservatism' is a word with many meanings. Hence the quotes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
"Although the amendment to reinstate the ban on same-sex marriage is winning by a small majority, this may not bode well for the measure," Pinkus said.

This is nothing but LIBERAL BEDWETTING wishful thinking by MIZZ PINKO.

When you look at the numbers - 834 ADULTS, of which only 705 were even REGISTERED VOTERS, one can actually deduce that when you get down to LIKELY/ACTUAL voters the number will be Much much higher than 54%.

13 posted on 05/23/2008 2:55:31 PM PDT by commish (Freedom tastes sweetest to those who have fought to protect it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: commish
"...this may not bode well for the measure," Pinkus said.
This is nothing but LIBERAL BEDWETTING wishful thinking by MIZZ PINKO.


Exactly. Pure wishful thinking. If the opposition were leading 54% to 35%, they'd be saying, "Californians are overwhelmingly rejecting the marriage amendment."
14 posted on 05/23/2008 3:00:48 PM PDT by irishjuggler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Looks like the gays may be needing a blood transfusion of some sort...


15 posted on 05/23/2008 3:14:55 PM PDT by rusureitflies? (OSAMA BIN LADEN IS DEAD! There, I said it. Prove me wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam

it may not even get on the ballot, a friend who’s a lawyer in CA told me that the secretary of state could use the courts ruling to disqualify it from the ballot as being unconstitutional because of the wording of the ruling. It said something along the lines of it being a fundamental right that couldn’t be taken away by the voters by initiative. Even if it passes it’ll end up in court on that basis.


16 posted on 05/23/2008 3:19:14 PM PDT by houston1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: houston1

I also said that was a probability the day the decision came down.


17 posted on 05/23/2008 3:34:57 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
They were told the same (roughly) number in MA, but in reality it was much higher. There was no way they were going to chance allowing voters to exercise their constitutional rights!
18 posted on 05/23/2008 3:48:13 PM PDT by gidget7 (Duncan Hunter-Valley Forge Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: houston1
it may not even get on the ballot, a friend who’s a lawyer in CA told me that the secretary of state could use the courts ruling to disqualify it from the ballot as being unconstitutional because of the wording of the ruling. It said something along the lines of it being a fundamental right that couldn’t be taken away by the voters by initiative. Even if it passes it’ll end up in court on that basis.

I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like your friend is confused, or else you are. The state Supreme Court ruled that our last ban on gay marriage violated the state constitution. However, that ban was just a state law. If we pass an amendment to the state constitution, then the communists that inhabit our judiciary cannot use that as an excuse. What they definitely cannot do is forbid a constitutional amendment on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Passing an amendment, by definition, makes it constitutional.
19 posted on 05/23/2008 3:55:06 PM PDT by fr_freak (So foul a sky clears not without a storm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: isrul

Yes... I keep thinking about the utter absurdity that it’s even an issue with percentage points involved. It’s like voting whether people should really be dead to have a funeral and be buried.


20 posted on 05/23/2008 5:05:56 PM PDT by Mancolicani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
The MSM polls always understate the degree of support for marriage in this country. A measure failed in Arizona narrowly because opponents successfully scared seniors and other voters into thinking a marriage protection amendment would take away already existing rights and benefits. This time those who support marriage will be ready for them and the opposition has never argued for same sex marriage anywhere on the merits. The question is: are Californians ready for an untested social experiment that will weaken society, undermine the family, endanger the well-being of children, marginalize traditional values and redefine marriage for all of us? We're confident the answer to that question and its series of attendant consequences will be "NO." Now the marriage side has its work cut out for it because the opposition will wage a campaign based on emotion, deceit and fear. Our side has only the truth and justice. Its going to be a very long five months to reverse a very damaging act of judicial activism in America.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

21 posted on 05/23/2008 8:14:21 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paudio
The reason was it takes far fewer signatures to qualify a statute for the ballot than it does a constitutional amendment and also no one imagined four justices would take it upon themselves to redefine marriage for the rest of society as has just been done. Eight years seems a long time but the courts' values can change faster than that of society. Which is why we've come to the point its necessary to write marriage protection into the state onstitution so that no one will have any doubt its a bedrock value of our society.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

22 posted on 05/23/2008 8:19:40 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: houston1
If they do that, its time for a revolution in this country. Its time to overthrow our government. Read the Declaration Of Independence. When the rights of the people are usurped, they can alter, abolish and establish government on conditions that are best likely to serve their safety and happiness. If they usurp our rights to redress an injustice, then our form of government has already turned repressive. They've already invalidated our votes to preserve marriage. The powers that be will not want to take away our recourse to restore marriage.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

23 posted on 05/23/2008 8:26:14 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: paudio

Do you honestly think anything can be made safe from judicial dictators in the present political climate?


24 posted on 05/24/2008 4:06:04 AM PDT by Vigilanteman ((Are there any men left in Washington? Or are there only cowards? Ahmad Shah Massoud))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
In 2000 it was a 61% for the gay marriage ban so the results will probably be the same this time around for the Constitutional amendment.

That 61% was before increased radicalization of the homo-agenda in CA society, i.e. dom partnership legislation, EEOC mandates, etc. I would submit that, with this Supreme Court ruling, that number will be much higher in November because of the recent outrageous encroachment on this time-honored tradition.

25 posted on 05/24/2008 5:51:50 AM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

This is good news. But those that care about traditional marriage can’t get complacent. They must mobilize and show up in mass to support this amendment regardless of what the polls are saying.


26 posted on 05/24/2008 8:54:03 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky (Liberal Republicans are the greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson