Poll: One in four less likely to back Obama over same-sex marriage
CBS
CBS News Poll analysis by the CBS News Polling Unit: Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto.
(CBS News) One in four registered voters say they are less likely to vote for President Obama in November because he expressed support same-sex marriage, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll.
While 25 percent say the president's support for same-sex marriage makes them less likely to support his reelection, 16 percent say his position makes them more likely to support him. Fifty-eight percent say the announcement will not affect how they vote.
Republicans were most likely to say the announcement made them less likely to support the president, with 43 percent making that assertion. Even before he came out in support of same-sex marriage, Mr. Obama had little support from Republican voters. In the new survey, conducted from May 11-13, only five percent of Republicans said they would vote for the president in November.
More worrisome for the president is the percentage of Democrats and independents who say the decision will sway their views. And that figure, while smaller, is not insignificant.
Among Democrats, twelve percent say Mr. Obama's position makes them less likely to back him, while 29 percent say they are now more likely to do so. And 22 percent of independents say they are now less likely to vote for the president, while 14 percent say they are more likely to vote for him.
Twenty-three percent of registered voters, including 11 percent of Democrats and 20 percent of independents, say presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney's opposition to same-sex marriage makes them more likely to vote for him. Seventeen percent say it makes them less likely to support him, a figure that includes 20 percent of independents but just two percent of Republicans.
The survey found that 38 percent of Americans overall believe same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. Twenty-four percent said such couples should have the right to civil unions, while 33 percent said same-sex couples should have no legal recognition.
Poll: Most Americans support same-sex unions
Asked if they had to decide if same-sex marriage should be legal, 51 percent said no, including 81 percent of Republicans, 25 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of independents. Forty-two percent said yes, including 13 percent of Republicans, 63 percent of Democrats and 43 percent of independents.
Fifty-percent of Americans (including 70 percent of Republicans) say they favor an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow marriage only between a man and a woman, something presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney supports. Forty-six percent, including the president, oppose such an amendment.
Though 50 percent of Americans said they favor a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, 57 percent said laws regarding whether same-sex marriage is legal or not should be determined by individual states, including 63 percent of Republicans. Thirty-two percent - including 43 percent of Democrats - said it should be determined by the federal government.
Sixty-nine percent of respondents say they have a work colleague, close friend, or relative who is gay or lesbian. Fifty-nine percent say they have a gay or lesbian friend or family member who is married or in a committed same-sex relationship.
Most Americans believe that the president came out in support of same-sex marriage for political reasons. Sixty-seven percent overall said his decision was grounded in politics, including 86 percent of Republicans and 70 percent of independents. Only 24 percent overall said he made the decision because he thought it was the right thing to do.
Poll: Romney has slight edge over Obama
Read the complete poll (PDF)
This poll was conducted by telephone on May 11-13, 2012 among 615 adults nationwide, including 562 registered voters, who were first interviewed for a CBS News/New York Times Poll conducted April 13-17, 2012. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus four percentage points. The margin of error for the sample of registered voters is four percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.
Popular in Politics
- Michelle Obama decries "slander" that educated blacks are "trying to act white" Play Video
- Va. GOP candidate: Planned Parenthood "more lethal" for blacks than KKK 695 Comments
- Top Obama officials knew about IRS probe, says WH
- Immigration bill would require fingerprinting at 30 airports
- IRS scandal highlights leadership vacancies
- Republicans continue beating Benghazi drum 479 Comments
- Adviser on White House scandals: "Partisan fishing expeditions" won't distract Obama
- Both parties vow to "get to the bottom" of IRS scandal 280 Comments
It's sad that homosexuality can be such a blaring influence on our population. We already have enough negative influences with criminal acts, drug and alcohol addictions and abuse, other sexual deviancy, and other abuses without this becoming a common-place and legal act. It's very sad.
We don't need the UN and now our own government promoting the world-wide reduction of our populations via abortion, birth control, homosexuality and other "alternative" sexualities, healthcare and vaccinations, and our diets. Why doesn't it instead promote a profound reverence for life and for the procreative powers responsible for bringing that life into the world. Why not further restrict and define marriage, and require all procreative relationships to take place within the bounds of marriage? Why not demand more harsh penalties on parents who neglect their parental responsibilities?
We have more people in the US with HIV/AIDS than
Western Europe 721,200
Mexico 220,000
Canada 68,000
Japan 8,100
Australia 20,000
Iraq 500
Iran 92000
Israel 7500
Guatamala 62,000
...combined!
We have far more people with HIV/AIDS than Russia and China, and we rival some of the larger African countries - and they're impoverished nations! Male-on-male sexual contact accounts for 53% of all HIV/AIDS cases in the US - and homosexuals only make up 2% of the population? Even if homosexuals represented 10%, AIDS rates would still be insanely high in comparison to the heterosexual population. These are researchable numbers from the CIA Fact Book and Homosexual Healthcare sites. And let's not even get into the other STDs.
Everybody screws up and makes mistakes in life (homosexuals certainly aren't unique in that respect) - that doesn't mean that the mistakes or faults now have to become considered good or that they need to be embraced.
Homosexuality is an unhealthy and risky practice that costs tax payers over $16b in annually for healthcare and other expenses; it does not bring life into the world nor does it reverence procreation; it tears apart families of people who decide that their sexual exploration is more important than their marriage and the well-being of their children; it sets a bad example to children; and it results in a life expectancy that is 20 years shorter than that of the main population.
Why would anyone want those effects for anyone they know? Why would anyone want to endorse that? And some people are foolish enough to fall for it under the guise of "diversity", and "civil rights". With all of the other problems found within the current societally recognized marriages, why would you want to add even more damage to it instead of fixing it? It's a farce.
Reference: Treaty of Tripoly, 1797
No matter how many quotes or letters, real or fake, in or out of context, purportedly written by our nation's founders, that you would use to bolster your fantasy that this nation was created to be a Christian nation, the one hurdle, nay, the insurmountable barrier that you cannot, nor ever shall, dismiss is the elegantly simple fact that the 2nd Constitutional President, and both houses of the 5th Congress, unanimously, passed into LAW the very unambiguous statement that it was not.
So suck it.
Same sex marriage wouldn't hurt anyone, nor would it affect your own lives in any way shape or form. Crap like this makes me almost ashamed to be an American.
Stop trying to restrict the equal treatment of others and stop trying to dictate how they live their own lives.
43 12 22 equals 77 divide 3 equals 29 (not 25).
See how bad Washington is if it has to put out stats that no-one believes?
It's hard to imagine this drop in the polls is due to anything but Obama coming out for same sex marriage. Good job Joe Biden. With people like you and Hillary Rosen, Obama doesn't need enemies.
I used to watch MSNBC every night but the last few weeks it seems like same sex marriage is the most important issue in America. I literally can't take it anymore. Oh I'm not against same sex marriage although I really feel that making a big distinction between that and civil unions is ridiculous. It's just that I can see most of America doesn't want same sex marriage and forcing it down their throats will only make them vote Republican.
It's hard to for me to believe it but gays are bigger morons than the tea party.
It's because they are clueless about running government or a country. The same-sex marriage issue is a non-issue. Someday when America becomes a real country, we will respect everyone.
President Obama, 2012!!!!!!!! (eight exclamation points, eight years in office)
I am a Christian,do not agree with same-sex marriage; but cannot support Mitt Romney.There may be frustration with the president on some things,but I do think that he has the average person's best interests at heart. Much of what Romney would do is unknown.He hasn't spelled it out to the country in any serious interviews, such as on "Face The Nation", nor other Sunday morning network shows, that are designed to be informative to voters.What is known is troubling.He has made statements suggesting that he would adopt many of the ideas of Congressman Paul Ryan, that would be very detrimental to most Americans-so much so that Catholic bishops have twice denounced them for the negative impact that they would have on the country-particularly those who are disadvantaged.Analyses of Mitt Romney's tax plan found that it disproportionately benefits those in the upper tax brackets.There seems to be, in general ,a disconnect from how some of his policies would adversely effect the average person.This is evidenced by his opposition to the auto industry bailout ( that has been estimated to have saved about a million jobs in that industry, and related fields); and his take on solving the housing crisis-which was to let the industry "bottom-out", foreclosing on troubled mortgages, and renting those properties.
One also has to wonder what kind of president Mitt Romney would be because he has signed an anti-tax pledge to Grover Norquist,a GOP power-broker with strong ties to lobbyists on"K"Street; committing himself to not raise ANY taxes under ANY circumstances-wars, national disasters or crises, budget shortfalls, etc.Most of the members of the GOP in Congress have signed this same pledge, and this is the main reason why our Congress is dysfunctional.What can possibly get done if we have someone in the White House who will only make the gridlock worse?It would amount to Grover Norquist being the invisible, but actual president.[Norquist has stated, to paraphrase, that he doesn't need anyone who will think about legislation, just someone to sign the bills that he , and those that he represents,want into law.In other words he just needs puppets or robots in the White House and Congress].This is antithetical to democracy.Romney has also spoken of military adventurism-possibly striking Iran,being pushed into action in Syria ( which some of those who advise him advocate); and overall aggression in foreign policy, at a time that we are already hurting economically at home.
I would also suggest CBS News for a less liberally biased source to learn more about him, and FOX news (now that the Primaries are over) for very fair information about him.
I have heard Mitt talk plenty about his tax plans (much more than Obama has). He will cut marginal tax rates for every tax bracket, and will close loop holes and exceptions to the tax rules. For wealthy people who are currently in the top tax bracket, but who can use the loop holes to get out of them, they will end up paying more with the loopholes closed. The only people who end up with lower taxes are the poor who don't know how to take advantages of loopholes. Mitt Romney himself would end up paying more taxes under his proposal. The "disproportionate cuts to benefits" argument is a false argument.
The auto bailouts resulted in the government selling off Chrysler to a foreign company (Fiat), and then favored only companies with large workers unions. The other companies were left to die. A CBS News report revealed that "not only had 2011 seen China become the largest purchaser of GM vehicles, surpassing even USA purchases, but also that 99 percent of the GM vehicles purchased in China were manufactured in China."
If Obama had originally followed the advice of Mitt Romney and let them file bankruptcy, more jobs in the US would have been saved. Eventually Obama came out and had to admit this. Bankruptcy doesn't mean "go broke" like a lot of people think - it means to put their creditors on hold while the company restructures and gets back into a condition to repay the money they owe. "Generally, a debtor declares bankruptcy to obtain relief from debt, and this is accomplished either through a discharge of the debt or through a restructuring of the debt. Generally, when a debtor files a voluntary petition, his or her bankruptcy case commences." (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy)
As far as military action, the value of the dollar is tied to oil. Iran wants to block or own a pipeline that neighboring countries want to use to get oil to the coast. In order to do that, they will go to war and take over that land and will enforce their reign via new short-range nuclear missiles that they're working on right now. Iran would then take control over a huge portion of world oil production, and would use the power to oppress those countries via high taxes and telling them who or who not to sell to. The US needs to block Iran from oppressing nations via controlling their oil.