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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
This is even without Arnold's support.
1
posted on
05/23/2008 2:19:40 PM PDT
by
SmithL
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
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
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.")
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)
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)
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.)
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!)
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
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)
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.
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.)
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.)
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."
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.)
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
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.)
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!)
To: houston1
it may not even get on the ballot, a friend whos 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 couldnt be taken away by the voters by initiative. Even if it passes itll 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.)
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.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson