Poll: 54 percent back California marriage amendment

AP via SFGate ^ | 5/23/8

[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.

[SmithL]

This is even without Arnold's support.

[Uncle Hal]

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.

[Eurale]

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

[isrul]

Pretty low number. Anything lower than 90% is a sure sign society is being sodomized by the sodomites.

[pissant]

The marriage amendment is to BAN gays from marrying

[facedown]

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.

[fish hawk]

Don't tell me. The Poll was taken in downtown San Francisco, right?

[The_Republican]

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

[rogue yam]

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?

[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.

[CounterCounterCulture]

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.

[paudio]

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

[commish]

"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%.

[irishjuggler]

"...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."

[rusureitflies?]

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

[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.

[Old Professer]

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

[gidget7]

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!

[fr_freak]

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.

[Mancolicani]

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.