Landmark Poll On Same Sex Marriage

[UNHWildCats]

For the first time ever a poll shows a majority of Americans believe same sex couple should have the constitutional right to marry.

The CNN poll when asking "Do you gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid." 52% of respondents said yes while 46% said no.

The same poll also shows that 49% of Americans believe same sex couples already have that right under the current structure of the Constitution. When asked "Do you think gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid?". 49% said yes and 51% said no.


In other questions in the poll 51% oppose a constitutional amendment that would require parents to be citizens in order for children born in the US to be citizens at birth.

60% support a $26 billion medicare/education bill in Congress.

68% oppose the plan to build a mosque in the World Trade Center neighborhood.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/image ... rel11a.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[OL FU]

I think Gays and Lesbians should be able to get married.

The poll shows that most Americans need to read the constitution and take a history lesson, including many judges.

[citdog]

I think Gays and Lesbians should be able to get married.

The poll shows that most Americans need to read the constitution and take a history lesson, including many judges.

GAY

[OL FU]

I think Gays and Lesbians should be able to get married.

The poll shows that most Americans need to read the constitution and take a history lesson, including many judges.

GAY

Gayknob

Yaweh or the Highway

[citdog]

GAY

Gayknob

Yaweh or the Highway

touche


Yahweh

[OL FU]

Gayknob

Yaweh or the Highway

touche


Yahweh

Damn, my spelling sucks btw you're a smuck

[Ivytalk]

I think the "landmark" poll results may have been skewed to some extent by public knowledge of the recent court decision by Judge Walker. People's views are subconsciously influenced by what a court has decided, paticularly when it's been as well publicized as this one. Absent that decision, I doubt there would have been a pro-gay marriage majority.

[JayJ79]

I didn't think the Constitution addressed marriage at all. (but it's been a while since I've taken a Civics course).

[Bronco]

Now that it looks like public opinion has changed...nobody will mind if it's on every ballot in 2012. Once and for all let's see what every state thinks on the subject....and let the majority rule.

[UNHWildCats]

Now that it looks like public opinion has changed...nobody will mind if it's on every ballot in 2012. Once and for all let's see what every state thinks on the subject....and let the majority rule.

no. haters of any sort whether it be racists, homophobes or whatever should be allowed to deny anyone rights. What kind of outrage would there be if today we let the people of each state vote and decide if we want to let black people have equal rights, or really any group. jews? hispanics? There is too much hate to simply settle this with ballot measures.

[dbackjon]

Now that it looks like public opinion has changed...nobody will mind if it's on every ballot in 2012. Once and for all let's see what every state thinks on the subject....and let the majority rule.

As the Costa Rican Supreme Court so wisely put, civil rights are not up for public vote.

Would you have had an once and final vote on equality for blacks in 1840? Hopefully not.

Society evolves, at least most of it.

As the homophobic bigots die off, support for gay marriage is growing every year. There will always be those backassward fucks that oppose gay marriage, just like there are still white supremist douchebags today. But, every year, there numbers dwindle.

[Bronco]

That's what I thought
Ok...let's let one person in a judges robe with a political agenda and peronal bias decide it instead....for everyone

[JohnStOnge]

It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that the Constitution itself truely dictates that States must recognize homosexual unions as marriage or even that there is a "right" to marriage of any kind. The poll simply provides a testament to the power of egalitarian propaganda. It's similar to the success those who issue egalitarian propaganda have had in convincing people that homosexuality is not sick.

Yes. The Emperor's new clothes are indeed beautiful. Why, I know they are because I've been told that that's what the "enlightened" think!

[JohnStOnge]

I think the "landmark" poll results may have been skewed to some extent by public knowledge of the recent court decision by Judge Walker. People's views are subconsciously influenced by what a court has decided, paticularly when it's been as well publicized as this one. Absent that decision, I doubt there would have been a pro-gay marriage majority.

I think you are on to something. I remember reading once that prior to the Roe v. Wade decision something like 70% of the United States population did not think that there was a "right" to abortion and thought it should be illegal. But very shortly after Roe vs. Wade a majority thought the other way. Apparently a lot of people think that when the Supreme Court says the Constitution says something the Constitution really does say it.

But it's often not true. The Surpeme Court routinely basically lies about what the Constitution says. Thinknig that what the Surpeme Court says about the Constitution is reliable and/or accurate is complete folly.

[danefan]

I think the "landmark" poll results may have been skewed to some extent by public knowledge of the recent court decision by Judge Walker. People's views are subconsciously influenced by what a court has decided, paticularly when it's been as well publicized as this one. Absent that decision, I doubt there would have been a pro-gay marriage majority.

I think you are on to something. I remember reading once that prior to the Roe v. Wade decision something like 70% of the United States population did not think that there was a "right" to abortion and thought it should be illegal. But very shortly after Roe vs. Wade a majority thought the other way. Apparently a lot of people think that when the Supreme Court says the Constitution says something the Constitution really does say it.

But it's often not true. The Surpeme Court routinely basically lies about what the Constitution says. Thinknig that what the Surpeme Court says about the Constitution is reliable and/or accurate is complete folly.

Cap'n - here is a prime example of the reasoning you were looking for.

Just add in a line that says "The Liberal Supreme Court Justices do nothing more than TRAMBLE ON THE CONSTITUTION every day they step foot through the red curtain."

[UCABEAR]

For the first time ever a poll shows a majority of Americans believe same sex couple should have the constitutional right to marry.

The CNN poll when asking

Ok. Let's look at all the flaws in that part of the statement alone. CNN, a liberal news outlet asks a liberal question to its liberal viewers. Hm...I wonder why it turned out that way? Conservative viewers tend to watch FOX so I imagine the same poll would have come out vastly different if FOX had done it also. Also how can CNN say a MAJORITY of Americans believe... really? They gave this poll to nearly every American to answer? Interesting..this was the first I've ever heard of it! (I tend to NOT watch the news on either major channel due to their one-sided veiws of the world...gets stupid listening to entertainers twisting facts for viewership). Polls like this are about as worthless as a preseason poll in football.

[JohnStOnge]

Cap'n - here is a prime example of the reasoning you were looking for.

Just add in a line that says "The Liberal Supreme Court Justices do nothing more than TRAMBLE ON THE CONSTITUTION every day they step foot through the red curtain."

So, do you honestly believe that there was any point during the generation and ratification of Constitutional language that anybody involved construed it as meaning that the Federal government may compell states to recognize homosexual relationships as "marriage?" Seriously, now.

Surely you acknowledge that we are proceeding according to a doctorine by which the original understanding and/or intent of the Constitution is routinely ignored. New "Constitutional" requirements are routinely invented and true Constitutional limits are routinely violated through Judicial fiat. Surely you acknowledge that.

[danefan]

Cap'n - here is a prime example of the reasoning you were looking for.

Just add in a line that says "The Liberal Supreme Court Justices do nothing more than TRAMBLE ON THE CONSTITUTION every day they step foot through the red curtain."

So, do you honestly believe that there was any point during the generation and ratification of Constitutional language that anybody involved construed it as meaning that the Federal government may compell states to recognize homosexual relationships as "marriage?" Seriously, now.

Surely you acknowledge that we are proceeding according to a doctorine by which the original understanding and/or intent of the Constitution is ignored.

I don't agree that the intent or original understanding is ignored. Arguing that the Consitution should not apply to any marriage is one thing and that would be logical and rationale. However, that's not your argument is it JSO?

I don't think the drafters of the Constitution ever had any type of marriage ever cross their minds. Just like they didn't think about infrared helicopters looking through the roof of your house. That doesn't mean the Constitution shouldn't apply to protect the rights infringed upon in those contexts.

[JohnStOnge]

I don't agree that the intent or original understanding is ignored. Arguing that the Consitution should not apply to any marriage is one thing and that would be logical and rationale. However, that's not your argument is it JSO?

I don't think the drafters of the Constitution ever had any type of marriage ever cross their minds. Just like they didn't think about infrared helicopters looking through the roof of your house. That doesn't mean the Constitution shouldn't apply to protect the rights infringed upon in those contexts.

Actually, I have posted before that marriage is not a "right." It is a recognition. There is no "right" to have any particular relationhsip recognized as a marriage. And I think you know very well that if you could jump into a time machine and go back to any time at which Constitutional language now cited in suggesting that homosexuals have a "right" to have their relationships recognized as "marriages" was generated and suggest that you would be either laughted out of town or tarred and feathered.

And I think searching using infrared helicopters can fit pretty well into the "unreasonable search" idea. I think you could, with your time machine, go back in time and make those who drafted and/or ratified the "unreasonable search and siezure" language, describe to them what you're talking about, and have them say, "yes, if such a thing were possible, it would violate the Constitution."

In any case: Let's say something comes up that the Constitution does not address in any way that needs to be addressed. There's a process for that. It's called the Amendment process. It isn't necessary for the Judiciary to "adjust" the Constitution to fit changes in the times. And if you do it through the Amendment process, the People have input instead of having the Constitution effectively changed through a simple majority vote among 9 life term and completely unaccountable officials.

Again, there is no way "changing times" justifies the view that the Constitution requires that States recognize homosexual relationships as "marriages."

[danefan]

I don't agree that the intent or original understanding is ignored. Arguing that the Consitution should not apply to any marriage is one thing and that would be logical and rationale. However, that's not your argument is it JSO?

I don't think the drafters of the Constitution ever had any type of marriage ever cross their minds. Just like they didn't think about infrared helicopters looking through the roof of your house. That doesn't mean the Constitution shouldn't apply to protect the rights infringed upon in those contexts.

Actually, I have posted before that marriage is not a "right." It is a recognition. There is no "right" to have any particular relationhsip recognized as a marriage. And I think you know very well that if you could jump into a time machine and go back to any time at which Constitutional language now cited in suggesting that homosexuals have a "right" to have their relationships recognized as "marriages" was generated and suggest that you would be either laughted out of town or tarred and feathered.

And I think searching using infrared helicopters can fit pretty well into the "unreasonable search" idea. I think you could, with your time machine, go back in time and make those who drafted and/or ratified the "unreasonable search and siezure" language, describe to them what you're talking about, and have them say, "yes, if such a thing were possible, it would violate the Constitution."

In any case: Let's say something comes up that the Constitution does not address in any way that needs to be addressed. There's a process for that. It's called the Amendment process. It isn't necessary for the Judiciary to "adjust" the Constitution to fit changes in the times. And if you do it through the Amendment process, the People have input instead of having the Constitution effectively changed through a simple majority vote among 9 life term and completely unaccountable officials.

Again, there is no way "changing times" justifies the view that the Constitution requires that States recognize homosexual relationships as "marriages."

What would they say about laws preventing interracial marriage?

How about laws preventing private sexual conduct?

How about laws against the sale of condoms?

How about laws preventing all forms of adult entertainment?

How about laws preventing blacks from attending white public schools?

[BlueHen86]

That's what I thought
Ok...let's let one person in a judges robe with a political agenda and peronal bias decide it instead....for everyone

As long as it is the same one guy who single handedly enacted all of the civil rights legislation.

[BlueHen86]

For the first time ever a poll shows a majority of Americans believe same sex couple should have the constitutional right to marry.

The CNN poll when asking

Ok. Let's look at all the flaws in that part of the statement alone. CNN, a liberal news outlet asks a liberal question to its liberal viewers. Hm...I wonder why it turned out that way? Conservative viewers tend to watch FOX so I imagine the same poll would have come out vastly different if FOX had done it also. Also how can CNN say a MAJORITY of Americans believe... really? They gave this poll to nearly every American to answer? Interesting..this was the first I've ever heard of it! (I tend to NOT watch the news on either major channel due to their one-sided veiws of the world...gets stupid listening to entertainers twisting facts for viewership). Polls like this are about as worthless as a preseason poll in football.

I have no idea if this poll is valid or not, but polls can have a lot of value. Politicians occasionally use poll results when deciding on policy.

Also, the preseason FBS poll means a lot. If your team isn't ranked in the Top 10 there is a good chance that it has no shot at a National Championship.

[OL FU]

I think you are on to something. I remember reading once that prior to the Roe v. Wade decision something like 70% of the United States population did not think that there was a "right" to abortion and thought it should be illegal. But very shortly after Roe vs. Wade a majority thought the other way. Apparently a lot of people think that when the Supreme Court says the Constitution says something the Constitution really does say it.

But it's often not true. The Surpeme Court routinely basically lies about what the Constitution says. Thinknig that what the Surpeme Court says about the Constitution is reliable and/or accurate is complete folly.

Cap'n - here is a prime example of the reasoning you were looking for.

Just add in a line that says "The Liberal Supreme Court Justices do nothing more than TRAMBLE ON THE CONSTITUTION every day they step foot through the red curtain."

I am absolutely certain that when the civil war amendments were passed all of the legislators that pass it and the states that subsequently approved were certain they had just provided a consitutional right for gays to marry. The evidence is not arguable

The fact that a justice has now applied those amendments based upon that judges own moral value is what is wrong with the courts. It doesn't matter whether I agree with their political conclusion which I do, the issue should be decided in the political arena not by judges.

[danefan]

Cap'n - here is a prime example of the reasoning you were looking for.

Just add in a line that says "The Liberal Supreme Court Justices do nothing more than TRAMBLE ON THE CONSTITUTION every day they step foot through the red curtain."

I am absolutely certain that when the civil war amendments were passed all of the legislators that pass it and the states that subsequently approved were certain they had just provided a consitutional right for gays to marry. The evidence is not arguable

The fact that a justice has now applied those amendments based upon that judges own moral value is what is wrong with the courts. It doesn't matter whether I agree with their political conclusion which I do, the issue should be decided in the political arena not by judges.

I'll let you reply to this next question and leave it at that because we're going down the same path again, which I promised myself I wouldn't.

Can you say with absolute certainty that if the people who passed the civil war amendments lived in today's society they wouldn't have wanted equal marriage rights (or at least equal benefits)?

[native]

....Can you say with absolute certainty that if the people who passed the civil war amendments lived in today's society they wouldn't have wanted equal marriage rights (or at least equal benefits)?