A Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriages

Gallup News Service ^ | January 6, 2004 | David W. Moore

[RWR8189]

On a National Public Radio broadcast just before Christmas, two experienced pollsters presented conflicting evidence about the public's support for a constitutional amendment that would make gay marriages illegal. A CBS News poll, reported by Kathy Frankovic, showed Americans favoring such an amendment by a 15-point margin, while a poll by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Center, reported by Adam Clymer, found Americans opposed by a 12-point margin.

The issue has become especially salient after last November's ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which said that government attorneys had "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny lesbian and gay couples the right to marry in Massachusetts. The court gave the state legislature six months to rewrite the state's marriage laws. Because all states recognize the marriages performed in other states, the court's ruling has implications for the entire country.

So, what do Americans think about the issue? The reports by Frankovic and Clymer show a 27-point difference in the net direction of public opinion, prompting the co-host of the radio show, Robert Siegel, to question why there was such an enormous gap. The most likely cause, it appears, is the difference in question wording.

Question Wording Makes a Difference

The CBS News question asked if people would support an amendment that would allow marriage only between a man and a woman, while the Annenberg question asked if people would favor the federal government adopting an amendment that would ban gay marriage.

	Favor amendment	Oppose amendment	No opinion
	%	%	%
CBS: Would you favor or oppose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow marriage only between a man and a woman?	55	40	5
Annenberg: Do you favor or oppose the federal government adopting an amendment banning gay marriage?	40	52	8
Difference	-15	+8	+3
Note: Both polls were conducted just before Christmas, with approximately 1,000 respondents each. Annenberg is an ongoing poll, but the results apply to the same five-day period as the CBS News poll.

More than two decades ago, in a path-breaking study of questionnaire design, Howard Schuman and Stanley Presser found a similar discrepancy in findings between two questions on free speech. One question asked if the United States should allow public speeches against democracy, while the other asked if the United States should forbid speeches against democracy. Because "allowing" speeches is the same as "not forbidding" speeches, one might expect the two questions to elicit similar results. But that was not the case.

In the 1979 survey reported by Schuman and Presser, 76% of Americans said the United States should not forbid speeches against democracy, but only 52% said the United States should allow such speeches. For many Americans, to "forbid" an action apparently implies a harsher approach than to "not allow" an action. And they tend to shy away from the harsher alternative.

That finding seems relevant to the two polls reported here, although the comparison is not perfect. The word "banning" is used by Annenberg, rather than "forbidding," and banning may not have as harsh a connotation as forbid does. Still, a comparison of the Annenberg and CBS results suggest that denying an action is perceived as less desirable than only allowing another action -- similar to what Schuman and Presser found in their studies.

Gallup's Wording

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey of the public on this issue was conducted last July, with wording that appears to combine both characteristics of the Annenberg and CBS wording.

	Favor	Oppose	No opinion
CNN/USA Today/Gallup: Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thus barring marriages between gay or lesbian couples?	50%	45	5

This question does not use the word "allow," but it states the particulars of the amendment positively, saying it would define marriage in a certain way. Then it adds the denying aspect of the amendment, by saying it would bar marriages between gay and lesbian couples. To this question, the public responded more ambivalently than to either of the other questions -- with only a five-point difference in support and opposition.

The Gallup survey, however, was conducted five months before the CBS and Annenberg surveys, so the difference in results could be due to changes over time as well as differences in question wording.

Recent Gallup polling shows that Americans disapprove of gay marriages by a large margin (65% against to 31% in favor), with a majority feeling strongly against such marriages.

Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages? (Do you feel strongly or not strongly about this?)

 

Should be valid, feel strongly

Should be valid, do not feel strongly
Should not be valid, do not feel strongly	Should not be valid, feel strongly	No opinion
2003 Dec 15-16	17%	14	13	52	4
	31%		65%

But whether Americans want to add an amendment to the Constitution to ensure such marriages are not recognized is not so clear. No doubt, any vote would depend very much on how the issue is worded.

If you have questions or comments for Dr. Moore, please e-mail them to polltalk@gallup.com. Dr. Moore will respond to your inquiry personally or in future editions of PollTalk as appropriate.

[RWR8189]

I am contemplating starting a Gallup Ping List.

FReepmail me if you want to be on it, and if 2 more people inquire I will start it.

[Support Free Republic]

	Hit Me, Please! Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC Help Keep "The Duck" out of the White House!

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping List - Polls and how they twist things. But it seems that no matter how they change the words, the majority of American people still don't want "gay" marriage.

[Dan from Michigan]

Flame away, but I can't support this, even though I oppose gay marriage. Seperation of Powers and 10th amendment.

I don't support any measure in the US Constitution that limits individual freedom in any way whatsoever. I WOULD support an amendment saying that a state does not have to recognize any marriage not between a man or a woman.

I'd like to see the feds out of the marriage business completely myself, but I'd settle for 50 states banning gay marriage, and the current Defense of Marriage Act.

[Angelus Errare]

I think that gay marriage is only a smaller part of the larger problem - judicial activism. The fact that we now have to codify what had previously been accepted common sense should demonstrate just how out of control the judiciary has become. Whether it's this or some other decision, we need to rein in the activists in the judiciary who are trying to use their position as a front from which to implement favored social policies.

[Mulder]

This whole business is a monumental waste of time, and a distraction from the real issues of the day.

It's VERY difficult to change the Constitution, as we saw with the balanced budget amendment a few years back. Here you had 80% of the American people behind it, and well over 2/3rds of Congress claimed to support it. Yet it never even got close to becoming law.

[Dan from Michigan]

No arguement from me on that. Judicial Activism I think is the biggest threat to the US today.

Which is why IMO the lifetime appointments without election for the feds need to end.

[scripter]

Flame away, but I can't support this, even though I oppose gay marriage. Seperation of Powers and 10th amendment.

You might find this interesting:

Protect Marriage Without Constitutional Amendment

I'm not set for or against an amendment. There are great minds on both sides of the issue.

[Dan from Michigan]

I like that idea, especially since I think Judicial Activism is the greatest threat to this country today.

[Paleo Conservative]

I'd like to see the feds out of the marriage business completely myself,

It is possible for non-citizens to immigrate to the US either on a marriage visa or a fiance visa. Regulation of immigration is a federal power and responsibility. I do not favor extending those visas to homosexual couples. I also do not favor allowing polygamists to use those visas either. I really don't think it is possible for the federal government to not be involved in the issue of what is the definition of marriage and who can be married to each other.

You should read about the debate over the admission of Utah as a state. It was precisely the issue of polygamy that caused Congress to delay its admission. This was in part due to the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. The existing states were concerned that they would be required to recognize polygamous marriages recorded in Utah. It was not until Utah territory banned new polygamous marriages that it was allowed to become a state.

You can bury your head in the sand and claim that each state should be able to decide this issue, but the advocates of "gay marriage" are bent on using the courts to force all states recognize them. If the Supreme Court votes to force recognition of "gay marriage", it will be the Dred Scott decision of the 21st century.

[Utah Girl]

Thanks for the comments. I've read a good deal about Utah's admission to the United States. :)

[WackyKat]

If the Supreme Court votes to force recognition of "gay marriage", it will be the Dred Scott decision of the 21st century.

No, it won't

There will be no nationwide military confrontation over gay marriage.

Some screaming matches, perhaps

[scripter]

Judicial Activism is the greatest threat to this country today

It's up there and is one of the threats that make my blood boil. We definitely need to do something to stop this mob rule by such a small minority.

I just ordered Thompson's Preying in School as I like to collect information that documents the homosexual agenda. If you're interested in more, check this out (or my profile) when you have some time.

[AFA-Michigan]

Dan, one Texas-type ruling from the Supremes would wipe away 50 state bans on so-called homosexual "marriage" and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Only one authority is supposedly binding on the Supremes, that being the Constitution. Congress should also declare marriage to be outside the federal courts' jurisdiction for review.

[Grampa Dave]

Here is another burning question for Metro Sexual Howie:

[Salvation]

**I'd like to see the feds out of the marriage business completely myself, but I'd settle for 50 states banning gay marriage, and the current Defense of Marriage Act.**

But do you think the states would defend that? Some states have already condoned the civil unions of homosexuals.

Or, do we need to let God be the judge? (Hint -- it will not be a kind judgment for the homosexuals.)

[Antoninus]

FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT (H.J.Res. 56) Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

Alliance for Marriage

If they worded the polls this way, the result would be 70% to 30% in favor. If the Republicans had a brain, they would run on this platform, pick up 20 house seats and a half-dozen senate seats. Of course, they are much too wussy to beat the democruds with the gay truncheon that's been handed to them.

The minority votes are there for the taking on this issue:



MARRIAGE AMENDMENT NOW!

[inquest]

Whether it's this or some other decision, we need to rein in the activists in the judiciary who are trying to use their position as a front from which to implement favored social policies.

Impeachment bump.

[Utah Girl]

I can see both sides of the ruling issue. If the decision is federal, then some states will have to have a law that their constituents don't agree with (think abortion.) I'm pretty much for states rights, however the same sex marriage is a cultural issue, with the homosexual lobby trying to legislate it into action. And sorry to say, even though it makes me sick, I do think that one day America will have legal same sex marriages. Our culture is losing its values and is on that slippery slope to anything goes.