Gallup: Gay Marriage Support Hurts Obama With Independents

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Barack, Gay Marriage, Obama, Polls

How bummed am I to see these Gallup numbers? Quite a bit.

No, strike that. Quite a lot.

Seriously Democrats? Seriously Independents?

Yes, seriously.

My guess is that these Dems and Indies are mostly older and southern and they will slowly be replaced by folks who really don’t care who you love and who you want to spend your life with.

Still, getting those 30+ constitutional amendments overturned is going to be a quite a long haul.

Paging SCOTUS…


This entry was posted on Saturday, May 12th, 2012 and is filed under Barack, Gay Marriage, Obama, Polls. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

No Responses to “Gallup: Gay Marriage Support Hurts Obama With Independents”

  1. Tillyosu Says:

    Still, getting those 30+ constitutional amendments overturned is going to be a quite a long haul.

    Paging SCOTUS…

    I love it. “This democracy stuff is so hard…” I think the gay marriage issue will get to the Supreme Court, and I think they will uphold the state amendments. I cannot think of a single constitutional ground for overturning them.

    Looks like teh gays are going to have to actually, you know, convince people that their cause is right. Oh also, those young people you’re hoping will replace all those nasty, old bigots might like, change their views once they grow up. Most of us do.

  2. cranky critter Says:

    Oh also, those young people you’re hoping will replace all those nasty, old bigots might like, change their views once they grow up. Most of us do.

    Sure, they might. But on this issue, polls show no such trend. Instead, polls show an evolution towards more support even among older demographic groups. With every year that passes, every age group shows itself to be less and less troubled by gay, and by gay marriage.

    Look it up. Read it, and as they say, weep. The trend couldn’t be more clear. The handwriting is on the wall. We KNOW who is getting swept into the dustbin of history.

  3. Tully Says:

    LOL. “You kids get offa my lawn!” Yes indeed, people’s attitudes tend more conservative as they get older. Especially if they have both children and assets.

    I can think of constitutional arguments for overturning the DOMA laws, but I doubt that a majority of the court would agree with those arguments at this point in time. Doesn’t mean I would agree with the reasoning behind those grounds myself, but I can think of them.

    Acceptance of gays and civil unions has steadily increased among the general public over the last couple of decades, and continues to do so. Same-sex marriage or some-other-named 90+% equivalent is inevitable, barring a massive retro-shift in the culture which appears highly unlikely. Frankly, activists trying to convince the public that they were right about their cause for same-sex marriage NOW was THE single biggest driver in spurring the antis to get the DOMA laws & amendments passed. Activists are so often their own worst enemies, simply by manufacturing the backlash.

    Of course, “settling” such hot-button issues by adopting one side’s position into law no more silences radical activists on either side than curing polio put the March of Dimes out of business.

  4. Tillyosu Says:

    As is usual Tully, I think, is right. After writing that post I can think of a few constitutional arguments that can be made for gay marriage…though none with much merit. But let me clarify: you said you could think of a few arguments for overturning DOMA. So could I. DOMA does not require that the states recognize gay marriage. It just let’s them define it themselves. But the “mandate” idea that Justin mentioned in his post kind of caught my eye. I understood it to mean that every state would be required to recognize gay marriage. I know of no provision in the Constitution that would permit that.

    For the record, I’m not in favor of gay marriage. Not because I hate gays, or because I read Leviticus before I go to bed at night, but because I think that the traditional definition of marriage is a fundamental (and most basic) block of societal construction. And because I believe it opens the door to a very dangerous slippery slope. What is the difference between gay marriage equality and polygamous marriage equality? What comes after that? What social arrangements between consenting adults can legally be defined as marriage?

    In the end, homosexuals do not desire “marriage”. I think most Republicans and yes, even evangelicals, would be in favor of extending “married” rights to homosexuals (i.e. hospital visitation, property survivorship, testimonial immunity). Homosexuals can even gather all of their friends and family in front of a member of the clergy (if they can find one) and dedicate their commitment to one another in public and in the face of God. They can, for all intents and purposes, be married. But that’s not what they want. They crave societal acceptance of their lifestyle. And, to date, society has rejected that lifestyle as legitimate in some 30 odd states. Should we really desire an unelected judiciary to foist it upon us? Homosexuals must make their case in the court of public opinion.

    BTW, I’m sure many will comment that the prohibition against same sex marriage is the equivalent to the prohibition against interracial marriage. But consider the difference. Interracial marriage was about differing rights based on immutable characteristics. And many will also claim that homosexuality is ummutable in the same way that race is immutable.

    But how do we explain the fact that every pedophile alive will also claim that their attraction is immutable? Conservatives don’t make this argument because they want to imply that homosexuals are the moral equivalent of pedophiles. They do it because they want to get to the root of homosexual claims that they are immune from differentiation.

    This is not to say that pedophiles have the same claim to marriage that homosexuals do, but that the basis on which homosexuals claim it is flawed.

    I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts…

  5. Jacob Says:

    Tilly:

    In the end, homosexuals do not desire “marriage”

    Incorrect

    They can, for all intents and purposes, be married.

    Incorrect

    They crave societal acceptance of their lifestyle.

    Probably, but irrelevant to the issue of marriage.

    Interracial marriage was about differing rights based on immutable characteristics.

    No, interracial marriage was about differing rights based on race, not “immutable characteristics”.

    And many will also claim that homosexuality is ummutable in the same way that race is immutable.

    I believe this is the opinion of most in the scientific community, but it’s irrelevant to the issue of marriage.

    But how do we explain the fact that every pedophile alive will also claim that their attraction is immutable?

    Why do we have to? Oh! So you can slip around the back and make this argument while saying you’re not making it?

    Conservatives don’t make this argument because they want to imply that homosexuals are the moral equivalent of pedophiles.

    Yeah. You just did. Again, though, it’s irrelevant to the issue of marriage.

    We can have a discussion about same-sex marriage and we can have a discussion about “immutable characteristics” and pedophilia. But we can’t pretend that the latter has anything to do with the former because it doesn’t.

  6. mdgeorge Says:

    Tillyosu: I’m actually willing to grant that pedophiles may have the same level of immutability for their attractions as do homosexuals. However, victims of pedophiles do not. Pedophiles hurt people. Consenting adult homosexuals do not.

  7. Dean Esmay Says:

    I wouldn’t read all that much into the 10% of Democrats and 23% of Independents who said this made them less likely to vote for Obama. Here are several reasons for such people to take that stance, any one of which may describe any such individual:

    1) Old line traditionalist Democrat as you describe. That’s one such personal.
    2) Black voters, who are well known to be overwhelmingly Democratic but also overwhelmingly socially conservative, and some of them disappointed in Obama.
    3) People who say they’re independents but really aren’t, because they already lean Republican.
    4) People who already don’t like Obama and are just kind of kneejerking on this.
    5) Gay and gay-friendly people who view Obama’s move at this time as completely lacking substance and coming at a time that is convenient for his fundraising but not actually likely to change a damned thing.

    Some of the above will be people who don’t even bother to vote, or will lodge a protest vote of some sort.

    My point is, don’t lump them all into one group.

    Odds are that you’re right where the historical trends are on this, I’m just saying, the picture probably is more complex than you suggest here.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: