Polls on gay marriage not yet reflected in votes

(AP) NEW YORK  - Poll after poll shows public support for same-sex marriage steadily increasing in the U.S., 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.

For now, however, there remains a gap between the national polling results and the way states have voted. It's a paradox with multiple explanations, from political geography to the likelihood that some conflicted voters tell pollsters one thing and then vote differently.

"It's not that people are lying. It's an intensely emotional issue," said Amy Simon, a pollster based in Oakland, California. "People can report to you how they feel at the moment they're answering the polls, but they can change their mind."

California experienced that phenomenon in November 2008, when voters, by a 52 percent-48 percent 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.

Voters in liberal states such as Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York, where gay marriage was legalized by judges or legislators, might vote to affirm those decisions but haven't had the opportunity.

Most of the states that voted against gay marriage did so between 2004 and 2008. Since then, only Maine in 2009 and North Carolina on May 8 have rebuffed same-sex marriage in referendums, while legislatures in Washington state, Maryland, New Jersey, Hawaii, New York, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Illinois and Delaware have voted for same-sex marriage or civil unions.

In all, there are now six states with legal same-sex marriage and nine more granting gay and lesbian couples broad marriage-style rights via civil unions or domestic partnerships. Together, those 15 states account for about 35 percent of the U.S. population.

Over the past year, there's been a stream of major national polls indicating that a majority of people support same-sex marriage. According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released Wednesday, 53 percent of those questioned say gay marriage should be legal, a new high for the poll, while 39 percent, a new low, say it should be illegal.

Political consultant Frank Schubert, a leading strategist for campaigns against same-sex marriage in California and elsewhere, said such polls are misleading and he asserted that same-sex marriage would be rejected if a national referendum were held now.

"The pollsters are asking if same-sex marriage should be legal or illegal, and that phrasing is problematic because it implies some government sanction against same-sex couples," Schubert said. "People want to be sympathetic to same-sex couples, so polls that use that language aren't particularly useful."

The more useful question, Schubert said, is whether marriage should be defined as the union of a man and a woman - the gist of the constitutional amendments approved in 30 states.

"If you ask that question, you get strong majorities," Schubert said.

Mark DeCamillo, director of the Field Poll in California, agreed with Schubert that same-sex marriage probably would lose in a hypothetical national referendum now. One important factor, he said, is whether there would be more intensity among supporters or opponents.

In California, same-sex marriage has such overwhelming support today that Prop 8 almost certainly would be overturned if a new state referendum were held, DeCamillo said.

The latest Field Poll, in February, measured voter approval of gay marriage among registered California voters at 59 percent, which was the highest in 35 years of polling on the issue, while only 34 percent disapproved. In the first Field Poll on the topic, in 1977, 59 percent opposed gay marriage and 28 percent were in favor.

Nonetheless, the largest gay-rights group in the state, Equality California, remains cautious and isn't yet ready to begin a campaign to overturn Prop 8. A federal court has struck down the law, but that ruling has been appealed.

"We aren't confident that the level of support is stable enough to withstand the rigors of a referendum," said spokeswoman Rebekah Orr. "We know that people are conflicted. Their intellectual position can show up in a poll and their emotional position shows up in the voting booth."

California is among 30 states where voters have approved amendments limiting marriage to unions of one man and one woman. In Hawaii, voters passed an amendment in 1998 empowering the Legislature to ban gay marriage, which it proceeded to do. The ban remains in effect, though Hawaii lawmakers approved civil unions last year.

The other statewide vote was in Maine in 2009, when 53 percent of the voters overturned a law that would have legalized same-sex marriage.

The issue is back on Maine's ballot for Nov. 6, with voters getting another chance to approve same-sex marriage. Schubert, who is advising gay-marriage opponents in Maine, depicts it as the toughest contest for his side among the four statewide elections this fall.

In Minnesota, voters will be deciding whether to approve a gay-marriage ban similar to those in the other 30 states. In Maryland and Washington state, assuming enough valid signatures are gathered by gay marriage opponents, there will be ballot measures seeking to overturn same-sex marriage laws passed by legislators this year.

However those four referendums turn out, there's widespread belief among gay rights activists and many pollsters that support for same-sex marriage will continue to grow nationwide.

"The numbers are inexorably moving in one direction," said DeCamillo. "Older folks, who are more in opposition, are dying out and younger folks are more inclined to support it. It's not rocket science."

He said support for gay marriage is surging in California among young Latinos and Asian-Americans. Nationally, according to the recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, support has risen among blacks since President Barack Obama's endorsement of same-sex marriage on May 9.

Phyllis Watts, a consulting psychologist from Sacramento, California., has worked with several recent ballot-measure campaigns, including the failed effort to defeat Prop 8 in California and a successful drive last year to defeat an anti-abortion "personhood" measure in Mississippi.

She believes a statewide vote in favor of same-sex marriage is likely to come soon. But she suggests that any particular poll should be viewed with caution.

"People are in a fluid state around same-sex marriage. They really can feel one way one day and another way another day," she said. "I don't think the polls are able to track, with a level of nuance, what's actually occurring inside people's hearts."

[saturn05]

Why is this even an issue...oh yeh...religion. Same-sex couples deserve all of the same rights as heterosexual couples. Why not? There is no logical reason to deny marriage tot hem. Remember, I said logical. Forget the bible. It has no bearing on politics, or at least it shouldn't. In this case, ignorance is not bliss and the uneducated, ill-informed and hateful people should not be able to vote.

[rightontarget]

@Bad_Ranger

According to Webster online:

(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a
marriage

Please pay particular attention to (2) as shown. "marriage" is NOT specifically (1). No matter how many folks want to believe there is only ONE definition or type of "marriage".

[cntrygirl3]

Here in NC the way the question was asked was all important, and for whatever reason the actual wording of the amendment did not appear on the ballot. The rhetoric couched this as a vote against this amendment was "a vote against God". A huge number of ministers preached this repeatedly during the campaign. The for faction also had a tremendous amount of money from outside the state to use in advertising. And this was a primary with no really hotly contested state wide races. Even the republican most responsible for putting it on the ballot said it would be repealed in 10 years or less. So why? as nearly as I can tell it is the republican agenda to slap down a progressive moderate electorate while they are in power and if they are lucky turn us into just another ignorant (massive cuts in education) backward southern state that will keep them in power. The people who lost on this cannot give up on it. We have not heard the last of equality in NC.

[olyboy]

Polling results are influenced by the way the questions are presented and the samples selected. Polling by individuals or groups that are trying to influence the broader population are designed for a specific result. A better polling method is secret ballot on a yes or no question. That's what an election is. Suggesting that people lie to polsters is just another way of expressing a bias. "I didn't get my way so someone must have lied." Childish.

[AttyFAM]

Here's a little reading for you on people lying to pollsters, from the 2008 election:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/08/lying_voters_may_skew_poll_res.html

And here is a recent report of an analysis of lying to pollsters during the 2008 campaign:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/victory_lab/2011/12/_likely_voters_lie_why_private_campaign_polls_get_such_different_results_from_public_media_polls_.html

[AttyFAM]

Unfortunately, people lie. "Oh, I would never discriminate against anyone because of the color of his skin." There is not a person in America who would not say that. Yet race discrimination is rampant. So, I suspect, a lot of people, knowing that the acceptable answer is to say they favor gay marriage, answer the stranger asking the question over the phone that way. Then at the ballot box, in secret, give voice to their bigotry. Such people, you know who you are, are hypocrites.

Progress is being made for the civil rights of gay people, and faster than expected. But the apparent progress has to be discounted for the liars. One should recall that before the 1950s, you could not get a divorce in America without showing adultery or intolerable cruelty. Then Nevada enacted no-fault divorce. There was an uproar across the country. But slowly the situation turned. Courts in other states held that under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, their states had to recognize the divorce as valid. Reno was a boom town. Soon, the legislatures of the other states began to provide for divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown. And so America changed, slowly at first, then faster and faster.

The same thing happened in the 80s with common law marriage. In Marvin vs. Marvin (Lee Marvin, the actor) the California Court of Appeals held that division of property applied to two people who had lived together as man and wife for many years even though they had never married. Slowly at first, then swiftly, that principle spread to the courts of the other states of the union.

The fact that 32 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit gay marriage means nothing other than that the bigots (conscious or unconscious) came to the ballot in force. In the end, even these states will have to bow to the Full Faith and Credit Clause and recognize marriages performed in other states. The final death knell to these discriminatory provisions in constitutions will come when the federal courts strike down those provisions as violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Eventually, citizens of those 32 states will look back with shame on their constitutions, wondering how they could have been so bigoted as to enact hateful laws like that.

[Manslick]

Polls are the fodder of entertainment driven 'news'.

[xmissile]

One theory is that most of those who support gay rights are moderates who hold that belief in principle but do not have enough conviction to show up at the polls. One thing I will say about the conversative movement is that its constituents come out to the polls en masse predictably and with regularity. Centrists and left-leaning folk seem to show up when things reach a critical mass.

[vsmit]

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 25:44-46 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

"True" christians believe in the word of god, not subject to the interpretations of man or "evolving" understanding of the human condition. ALL chapters of Leviticus, not just those they pick and choose to believe.

[tjsilver12]

Sorry CBS but the majority of America does not support it.

[daffy64]

And you know this...how?

[GGGP1856]

Recent polls showing a majority of Americans favoring of gay marriage can be explained by one of Mark Twain's quotes: "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes."

Indeed, for years advocates for same-sex marriage have cast their cause as a civil rights struggle, claiming no difference between denying rights in accordance with race and doing the same in accordance with sexual orientation. They've also downplayed or outright denied the serious health risks associated with same-sex behavior and how they closely parallel those related to smoking. Further, these falsehoods and denials have circulated for years with the aid of an enthusiastic and compliant media, while the facts have not.

Despite its head start, this trend is most definitely reversible. For as the abortion debate shows and as the one on same-sex marriage will show, the truth eventually catches up with the lie and will do so ever more quickly because of the electronic media to which we now have access.

To illustrate this concept, I'll begin with an analogy For decades, the tobacco companies successfully hid or downplayed the serious health risks associated with smoking for the sake of a selfish agenda, which was to make money no matter the disease and damage it would cause. Finally, after years of speaking out and presenting the science, proving the serious health risks of smoking, the facts finally won out and curtailed smoking advertisements, persuaded millions to stop smoking, and made the tobacco companies financially liable for their misdeeds.

There was a lesson to be learned. It was to put facts above politics and selfish agendas. Not doing so only results in bad laws that benefit a minority at the expense of the majority.

Good laws do the exact opposite, while maintaining the individual rights and liberties of all people. Allowing same-sex behavior between consenting adults without any form of government recognition does this, despite what proponents of same-sex marriage would have us believe. For almost all the same reasons, this approach is appropriate for same-sex behavior just like it was for smoking. Referring to the essay, entitled "The Case for Limiting Government Recognition to Traditional Relationships," where research (from respected, mainstream, and apolitical sources) supporting the following statements can be found (1), I offer the following facts:

1. Smoking and same-sex behavior are engaged in by choice - even if the urge leading to the behavior seems strong or uncontrollable.

2. The urge for every human behavior, including smoking and same-sex activity, is due to a complex mix of genetic, biologic, and cultural/cognitive factors, which vary in predominance among individuals. In fact, the Japanese found that the propensity to smoke is up to 56% genetic. In comparison, the British and Swedes found that the propensity for homosexuality is up to 39% genetic. Yet we encourage programs to lessen or eliminate smoking addiction but do not do the same for those that have shown an ability to diminish or reverse homosexuality.

3. Smoking and same-sex activity are very unhealthy. Smoking is subject to an elevated risk of cancer, emphysema, and bronchitis. Same-sex behavior is subject to a high risk (several times higher than heterosexuals on a per person basis) of HIV/AIDS, at least four types of cancer, hepatitis, gastrointestinal illnesses, certain STDs (especially syphillis), human papilloma virus, and serious bodily damage.

4. As the habits develop, smoking and same-sex behavior tend to occur with increasing frequency. For the former, it's chain smoking; for the latter, it's several tens to even hundreds of partners over one's lifetime, something which marriage decreases but in no way eliminates, since the vast majority of homosexual relationships, whether married or not, are non-monogamous and 1 1/2 to 2.7 times more likely to divorce than heterosexuals.

5. For many, smoking can be a form of self-medication to reduce feelings of stress or anxiety. Coincidentally, homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to experience emotional and/or mental illnesses at rates that do not differ between societies that are highly accepting of homosexuality (Netherlands) and those that are less so (United States).

So given these very strong parallels, how is it that society has gone to great lengths to cease activities (such as advertising) that encourage smoking but won't (in some areas) do so the same for those (such as advocating or allowing same-sex marriage) that encourage same-sex behavior? It's because too many people have bought the lie without knowing the facts.

(1) - http://marriage-onemanandonewoman.blogspot.com/2011/07/case-for-limiting-government.html

(2) - "Genetic basis of tobacco smoking: strong association of a specific major histocompatibility complex haplotype on chromosome 6 with smoking behavior."

[daffy64]

Smoking and human love are comparable?

[caeric]

Actually, smoking and religion have much more in common, as they are both *choices*.

Being attracted to a person of the same gender, on the other hand, is an innate characteristic that is not a choice.

As with smoking, religion can be very harmful to many people, both those who blindly believe without rational thought and those who are harmed by the "believers".

I suppose I could really go through each of your points. For example, number 5. For many, religion can be a form of self-deception, a method to reduce feelings of fear, confusion about the world, or anxiety about one's existence. Coincidentally, the religious are more likely than those who are not to cause, directly or indirectly, physical and/or emotional trauma to those they view as not 'following the correct path'. They often mistake the harm they cause their targets as a weakness or illness on the part of the target rather than a result of their own tyranny.

I *could* do this for each point, but there is no reason for another extreme wall of information simply to rebut your misinformation.

[satin_lingerie]

Although a majority are cool about Gay people being allowed to marry this is not a key issue for the campaign.