• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Polls show growing California support for gay marriage

disneydude

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Poll shows growing California support for gay marriage - Yahoo! News

Fifty-four percent opposed the amendment when presented with the issue generally, a figure that dropped to 51 percent when respondents were told they might have the chance to vote on a specific measure in November. Support for the amendment stood at 40 percent and 43 percent.


I think it will be a lot closer than that...however...this represents hope that Californians will reject discrimination in the fall.
 
Last edited:
Who cares? California Supreme Court already declared that they don't give a damn what the people think.
 
Gipper said:
Who cares? California Supreme Court already declared that they don't give a damn what the people think.
Click to expand...

This IS what the people think......You are basing your knee-jerkism on an initiative that was almost 10 years old. Times change....whether you like it or not.
 
Yeah, a poll is "what people think" more than a voting referendum.

Spoken like a true "ZOMG GORE WUN DA WITE HOUZE" Democrat.
 
Gipper said:
Yeah, a poll is "what people think" more than a voting referendum.

Spoken like a true "ZOMG GORE WUN DA WITE HOUZE" Democrat.
Click to expand...

Well.....I guess we'll see come fall.....but at this point, things don't look good for people seeking to have discrimination codified into the California Constitution.
 
Dont these polls miss out a quite large amount of people who dont care ethier way?
 
disneydude said:
This IS what the people think......You are basing your knee-jerkism on an initiative that was almost 10 years old. Times change....whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm misreading what you wrote, but are you saying that because the law was 10 years old that it needed looking at again? And if so, what do you base that opinion on? I know you're a lawyer or something like that, so I'm honestly and intellectually curious...
 
There was a poll a week ago that said 54% of the people were against gay marriage so I would not count my chickens if I were you Liberals....This latet poll was probably taken in the Peoples Republic of San Francisco..........;)

Someone said in another thread that since it was a states issue it would not go to the SCOTUS on appeal........

I heard differently on the news the other day............stay tuned..........
 
reaganburch said:
Perhaps I'm misreading what you wrote, but are you saying that because the law was 10 years old that it needed looking at again? And if so, what do you base that opinion on? I know you're a lawyer or something like that, so I'm honestly and intellectually curious...
Click to expand...

Not exactly. I was responding to the post that the California Supreme Court is "going against the will of the people". My response is that the "will of the people" changes over time. What may have been the "will of the people" 10 years ago, may not be the will of the people today. In fact, based on several polls in California over the last few weeks, it appears that it very likely is NOT the "Will of the people".

However, "the will of the people" is really not relevant in any event when you are talking about Constitutional issues. The Constitution was set up in order to protect certain fundamental rights and privileges against a "popular vote". In other words, "to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of a majority".
 
Not exactly. I was responding to the post that the California Supreme Court is "going against the will of the people". My response is that the "will of the people" changes over time. What may have been the "will of the people" 10 years ago, may not be the will of the people today. In fact, based on several polls in California over the last few weeks, it appears that it very likely is NOT the "Will of the people".

However, "the will of the people" is really not relevant in any event when you are talking about Constitutional issues. The Constitution was set up in order to protect certain fundamental rights and privileges against a "popular vote". In other words, "to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of a majority".
Click to expand...

Polls don't determine the will of the people. Referenda do.

If they want gay marriage, bring it before the powers that be. Until then, you can have all the polls you want and it won't add up to piss.
 
disneydude said:
Not exactly. I was responding to the post that the California Supreme Court is "going against the will of the people". My response is that the "will of the people" changes over time. What may have been the "will of the people" 10 years ago, may not be the will of the people today. In fact, based on several polls in California over the last few weeks, it appears that it very likely is NOT the "Will of the people".

However, "the will of the people" is really not relevant in any event when you are talking about Constitutional issues. The Constitution was set up in order to protect certain fundamental rights and privileges against a "popular vote". In other words, "to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of a majority".
Click to expand...

And the Constitution can be changed and that is what this referendum in November will do.........On another thought I think this referendum will help McCain in November because it sure helped Bush in 2004......In every state that had a constitutional amendment to band gay marriage, 11 to be exact, Bush won............
 
Gipper said:
Polls don't determine the will of the people. Referenda do.

If they want gay marriage, bring it before the powers that be. Until then, you can have all the polls you want and it won't add up to piss.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting that the California State Legislature (the representatives of the people) twice passed Gay Marriage bills only to have them vetoed by the Republican Governor....who incidentally said the matter should be determined BY THE COURT.
 
disneydude said:
You are forgetting that the California State Legislature (the representatives of the people) twice passed Gay Marriage bills only to have them vetoed by the Republican Governor....who incidentally said the matter should be determined BY THE COURT.
Click to expand...


And your forgetting that 61% of the people of California voted against gay marriage and they will do it again in November overturning the position of the activist judges............
 
You know, nobody asked me for my opinion on this issue, but I'm giving it anyway... :mrgreen:

I have yet to hear a reasonable argument AGAINST gay marriage and I'm a Republican... not neo-con, but Republican...

Sanctity of marriage and all that stuff? That doesn't really impress upon me. I would really like to hear a legitimate, reasonable, intelligent argument against gay marriage...

I just can't see the harm of, off the top of my head, homosexuals and their significant others getting married. Whenever I see articles in the paper about these states giving gay marriage the ok, it doesn't even phase me...

My views on homosexuality has evolved over the years of my life. I used to be a semi-homophobe who believed that homosexuality was 100% choice. Now, as I've grown up and become less of a jerk ass(less being the operative word from what people tell me), I believe that it's probably a little bit of both choice & the way a person was born.

People are people and as long as what makes them happy doesn't negatively affect other people, and gay marriage doesn't, then why the hell not? I guess that's pretty libertarian, huh?
 
reaganburch said:
You know, nobody asked me for my opinion on this issue, but I'm giving it anyway... :mrgreen:
I have yet to hear a reasonable argument AGAINST gay marriage...
Click to expand...
Have you heard one against a marriage between 3 or more people?
 
Navy Pride said:
And your forgetting that 61% of the people of California voted against gay marriage and they will do it again in November overturning the position of the activist judges............
Click to expand...

You mean those Republican appointed conservative justices?
I guess the radical right is expanding the definition of their talking point "Activist Judges" to pretty much mean anybody who comes down with an opinion they disagree with....but that pretty much has always been the case now....hasn't it.
 
reaganburch said:
You know, nobody asked me for my opinion on this issue, but I'm giving it anyway... :mrgreen:

I have yet to hear a reasonable argument AGAINST gay marriage and I'm a Republican... not neo-con, but Republican...

Sanctity of marriage and all that stuff? That doesn't really impress upon me. I would really like to hear a legitimate, reasonable, intelligent argument against gay marriage...

I just can't see the harm of, off the top of my head, homosexuals and their significant others getting married. Whenever I see articles in the paper about these states giving gay marriage the ok, it doesn't even phase me...

My views on homosexuality has evolved over the years of my life. I used to be a semi-homophobe who believed that homosexuality was 100% choice. Now, as I've grown up and become less of a jerk ass(less being the operative word from what people tell me), I believe that it's probably a little bit of both choice & the way a person was born.

People are people and as long as what makes them happy doesn't negatively affect other people, and gay marriage doesn't, then why the hell not? I guess that's pretty libertarian, huh?
Click to expand...

With all due respect you need to take the time and go back and read the whole threads............There are numerous valid reasons for banning gay marriage......
 
disneydude said:
You mean those Republican appointed conservative justices?
I guess the radical right is expanding the definition of their talking point "Activist Judges" to pretty much mean anybody who comes down with an opinion they disagree with....but that pretty much has always been the case now....hasn't it.
Click to expand...

Yeah that is who mean..........I have said that over and over again.......How many times are you going to ask me the same question?

I remind you that one of the biggest Liberals on the SCOTUS David Soutar is a Republican appointed by Bush 1 so what is your point?:confused:
 
Goobieman said:
Have you heard one against a marriage between 3 or more people?
Click to expand...

Yes, I have heard good legitimate arguments AGAINST polygamy...

Look, I respect both you & NP, but I don't buy the slippery slope argument. I can't imagine this country getting anywhere near 10% approval for incestual marriage or polygamy much less the approval for gay marriage... I might be wrong and if I am, I'll admit it...

But, this isn't a hot-button issue with me. It's more of a what's-the-big-deal type issue with me.
 
disneydude said:
You mean those Republican appointed conservative justices?
I guess the radical right is expanding the definition of their talking point "Activist Judges" to pretty much mean anybody who comes down with an opinion they disagree with....but that pretty much has always been the case now....hasn't it.
Click to expand...

Well, DD, to be fair, that happens on both sides... the right doesn't have a patent on calling judges of the opposite political persuasion "activist"... I remember Democrats calling Chief Justice Roberts 'activist' during his confirmation hearings...
 
It's all a lawyer/judge conspiracy to add more clients to the divorce courts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom