Polls on gay marriage not yet reflected in votes [Liberal Media Whining]

wjbf.com ^ | 5/28/12 (Memorial Day) | David Crary

[SoFloFreeper]

Poll after poll shows public support for same-sex marriage steadily increasing, to the point where it's now a majority viewpoint. Yet in all 32 states where gay marriage has been on the ballot, voters have rejected it.

It's possible the streak could end in November, when Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington state are likely to have closely contested gay marriage measures on their ballots.

[SoFloFreeper]

Four states going to vote on whether to celebrate sodomy. How will they go?

[SoFloFreeper]

Also from the article:

California...voters, by a 52-48 margin, approved a ban on same-sex marriage in the state constitution. A statewide Field Poll that September indicated Proposition 8 would lose decisively; an updated poll a week before the vote still showed it trailing by 5 percentage points.

California is an unusual case. It’s one of a few reliably Democratic states that have had a statewide vote rebuffing same-sex marriage. The vast majority of the referendums have been in more conservative states, which have a greater predilection for using ballot measures to set social policy. The 32 states that have rejected gay marriage at the polls make up just over 60 percent of the U.S. population.

[alloysteel]

California is kind of a special case. Time after time, ballot initiatives have been overturned in the courts, because “the people” are not a reliable barometer of judgment in these delicate matters.

Above all, the sensibilities of the perverted must be protected and preserved. Haven’t they suffered enough?

Affirmative action for the sexually disoriented.

[The people have spoken]

Is it possible that people tell pollsters what the pollsters want to hear and give their true opinion only when in the privacy of the voting booth?

[Rastus]

Probably. Probably something like this:

Pollster: “Do you support gay marriage, or are you a bigot?”

Polled: “Well, gee, I guess I support it.” And then they vote their true conviction.

[Darksheare]

“Polls on gay marriage not yet reflected in votes”

Couldn’t be due to the polls being faked/skewed/and or manipulated could it?
Noooo.. they wouldn’t do that!
/ sarc

[Machfour]

The media, all forms, onslaught to show traditional American values and particularly Christian values in a negative light and the homosexuality as a positive for years changes America. Can anyone be surprised that a nation that is so preoccupied with what the media presents is changing its attitude?

[Venturer]

Same sex marriage was proposed for Maryland last year and it was stopped by black preachers in PG county.
This year Mike Miller voted against same sex marriage because he likes to get that black vote , but the rest of our Democrat Homo lovers voted it in.

Then it went to referendum.

We have a growing Republican party in Md. and a lot of Black Democrats who don’t want Homo marriage. I think we will beat it. O’Mally isn’t so popular right now.

[Travis McGee]

Exactly.

[WashingtonSource]

Maine already voted against gay marriage once. How many times do they have to do it?

[Notary Sojac]

The public always votes against "gay" marriage when it's on the ballot by itself.

But when a socially and economically conservative candidate is on the ballot against a "gay" marriage supporter who also promises more government cheese......that's a different story entirely, especially amongst the gimmee geezers.

[LibLieSlayer]

The vast majority of States that have voted on the issue of official recognition of fagism have voted against it... only the communist states that love illegal invaders and head chopping muzzies vote for buggery.

LLS

[IronJack]

The 32 states that have rejected gay marriage at the polls make up just over 60 percent of the U.S. population.

They also represent 6 shy of the supermajority the Constitution requires to ratify an amendment. If that many states have enacted Definition of Marriage laws, I have to believe they would support a Constitutional amendment codifying the same thing. Why not introduce such an amendment and lay this abomination to rest once and for all?

[Billthedrill]

It's probably a topic for another thread, so please forgive me, but it occurs to me that this is yet another example of propagandists whose first and principal victims are themselves. There is, of course, a consensus on the matter in the boardrooms and editorial offices of the major media, where their own nearly monolithic liberalism is reflected in the usual program: opinion is swayed by a false declaration of consensus, and a plethora of carefully groomed figures that are intended to convince that people have, after all, been persuaded and that dissent is an unworthy fringe opinion whose holders may safely be demonized and against whom violence is justified.

This is a particularly crude example because in the United States we have a particularly crude propaganda organism and just enough free speech left to combat it, at least for now. The dismay with which a contrary vote is met - and voting on the matter has, in a large majority of contests, been contrary - is not simply another cynical effort to sway, I think, but a genuine conviction that the truth has been dictated by what were once called the nomenklatura in the Soviet Union and that the people are simply too stupid to understand it.

The upshot to all this is that if the propaganda organism fails, the state of which its participants feel they are the proper guide will resort to force in the form of legislative diktat that circumvents the usual checks and balances of representative government. The canceling of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a perfect example.

Because the power of propaganda, while nowhere near the overwhelming force its proponents appear to assume, still can be persuasive enough to bring into office people whose intention is to dictate, to rule. This it has done in the case of the 0bama administration in 2008, an election that was a textbook case of monolithic propaganda, and that has resulted in a weird class of progressive gnomes whose intent is not to represent, but to rule, who are going to lead the country their direction whether it wants to follow or not and curse it roundly if it is in any way refractory. That, in children, is termed a tantrum. We'd better get used to it.

[Tanniker Smith]

"Do you support marriage equality?"

"What's that?"

"It's equality in marriage."

"Oh, well, I guess so." (wife punches arm, look of "whaddaya mean 'guess so'.")

[Rastus]

Yeah, that’s the real tricksy (a little Gollum lingo) way they structure their questions to get the desired result.