Loading ...Poll: Anti-gay marriage amendment may pass in California
flockwoodSupporters of gay marriage have said that a loss in California would set their efforts back a generation.
The Knights of Columbus have just released a new poll. The group, FYI, supports Proposition 8.
Marriage referendum leads 52% to 43% among likely California voters
Many “no voters” could change votes based on possible effects of 8′s failure
By the Knights of Columbus
(NEW HAVEN, CT) — A new poll of California voters shows Proposition 8, a
proposed constitutional amendment that would reserve marriage for opposite-
sex couples, has a 9 percentage point lead among likely voters, 52% to 43%.
The poll was conducted for the Knights of Columbus by the Marist College
Institute of Public Opinion between September 28 and October 5, 2008.
The survey shows that Proposition 8 has majority support among men (53%),
women (51%), whites (51%), Latinos (57%), those who are married (59%)
and those age 45 and older (59%). Those opposed include likely voters under
age 45 (54% opposed) and those who are not married (54% opposed).
The poll also shows that Proposition 8 leads in every region of California
except the Bay Area, where 58% are opposed.
52% of likely California voters believe the state Supreme Court was wrong to
have overturned the 2000 referendum in which voters approved reserving
marriage for opposite-sex couples, and 72% believe the decision should be
left to the voters.
Poll respondents were presented with several arguments and asked whether
each one would make them more or less likely to vote for Proposition 8. A
majority (58%) were more likely to favor Proposition 8 when reminded that if
it passes, same-sex couples will still be able to form civil unions in California.
More than half of those describing themselves as opponents of Proposition 8
said they were more likely to shift from opposing to favoring the referendum
because of this argument.
Approximately one third of those voting “no” on 8 – and a significant number
of undecided voters – would be more likely to vote yes if the proposition’s
failure could compromise the tax status of religious schools or if children in
public schools would be taught that marriage was a relationship “between any
two adults.”
Nearly half (49%) of likely voters believe that same-sex marriage should not
be law if legalizing it would place clergy at risk for lawsuits or threatens the
tax-exempt status of religious institutions. And 79% of all likely voters
believe that if Proposition 8 fails, clergy should not be required to perform
same-sex marriages if it violates their religious convictions.
Full details of the poll results are available upon request and will be posted at
www.kofc.org at noon EDT today.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:21 am
Let’s hope it does pass.
It would be detrimental to our constitutional democracy to see the expression of religious freedom of LGBTs, as manifested in marriages conducted by many sympathetic ministers, get trampled by the repressive desires of fundamentalists seeking to make all citizens conform to their own religious beliefs and practices.
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:55 am
I prefer to call it something else:
The “Pro-marriage as instituted by God amendment.”
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Does God have a trademark or patent on the legal contract of marriage?
Really?
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Did you really ask that question, Jose….really?
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Let me check. Um…yes.
Look, I’ll grant you LDS guys the monopoly on the “sealed for all eternity” model. However I must point out the obvious fact that marriage as a legal contract has been around for a long, long time. It’s even endorsed by non-Judeo-Christian, non-Mormon societies and also by Godless governments. It’s sought after by couples who love each other even though they worship no deity. Are those not valid marriages?
If legal marriage is inherently inseparable from religion then we got ourselves a fundamental problem with the church-state issue in our nation. Either we acknowledge that marriage can exist outside of the church or we should treat marriage like other religious activities, meaning that government protects the free exercise but otherwise stands apart as a neutral observer.
David, even setting aside the same-sex question for a moment, the only way I can interpret your comment is this way– people who profess no faith have no right to marry since that would infringe the holy trademark. I disagree; that’s clearly un-American. If this does not represent your understanding then you are most welcome to clarify. I’m happy that my church performs weddings according to its own standards. Sometimes that means turning down couples from a church service. I also welcome a mature discussion on what kinds of marriage should be allowed by the secular government and what kinds should be prohibited. If someone wants to make the case against same-sex marriage on such grounds, cool, let’s talk.
October 23rd, 2008 at 7:27 am
The main problem that I see is that most clergy today feel that same sex marriage is in direct opposition to the Bible they preach from. Therefore, if they refuse to marry a same-sex couple, then that couple sues the pastor because of the refusal, the pastor’s rights to religious freedom as an American has been abused and violated.
Another big problem is that not all states recognize same-sex marriages. So If a person marries in one state that recognizes it, and then moves to a state that does not, a lot on problems can arise.
Lastly, what about the religious schools? How do they figure in not only same-sex marriages, but also evolution? Should they be required to teach against their beliefs?
Maybe, the answer is to become united on these problems as a whole, and leave it up to majority vote.
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:21 am
Carol, there are plenty of religions that place more restrictions on church sanctioned marriages than what the law allows, yet I have never heard of a church losing a lawsuit for refusing to marry someone because of theological reasons. Have you? That would be a tremendous breach of religious freedom.
As for the case of what happens if a same sex couple is legally married in one state and then moves to another state, that sort of thing can cause problems and not just with same-sex marriages. It wasn’t too long ago that some states had laws against marrying outside of one’s race. The states will figure out how to deal with these things, and they always do. Maybe it’s a bother, but inconvenience is not a good reason to deny justice.
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:46 am
That is one of my points, Carol. There has been at least one instance in another country where a pastor was threatened with arrest because he taught that homosexuality was a sin after pro same-sex marriage laws were passed. Think that can’t happen here?
A few points for Jose:
“Does God have a trademark or patent on the legal contract of marriage?”
Who instituted the first marriage, Jose? I think a better question for you to ask is, “Does God, as its creator, have a trademark or patent on the institution of marriage?”
Other points:
“However I must point out the obvious fact that marriage as a legal contract has been around for a long, long time.”
You’re right; it’s been around since God the Father instituted it by creating Eve to be the partner and wife, yes wife, of Adam.
Point 2: “If legal marriage is inherently inseparable from religion then we got ourselves a fundamental problem with the church-state issue in our nation.”
I reject your argument on its face. Since God instituted the union between man and woman, it is inseparable from his commands, notwithstanding what different religious institutions have said or not said. And from what we’ve talked about before, I’m under the assumption that your idea of church-state problems is not the same as mine.
“…people who profess no faith have no right to marry since that would infringe the holy trademark. I disagree; that’s clearly un-American. If this does not represent your understanding then you are most welcome to clarify.”
OK, I will. I also reject that argument from the beginning. This has nothing to do with a “trademark.” It has to do with following what God has obviously taught from the beginning and protecting His teachings. It has to do with the fact that I believe God’s commandments are meant to bring eternal happiness and the rejection of such leads to the opposite in the end. I’m not so much concerned with “un-American” as I am ungodliness.
“I also welcome a mature discussion on what kinds of marriage should be allowed by the secular government and what kinds should be prohibited. If someone wants to make the case against same-sex marriage on such grounds, cool, let’s talk.”
So you get to set the “grounds” for the discussion? I agree that you can set the grounds for your participation in a discussion, but you can’t set the grounds for how I discuss it and why I see things like I do. This way of thinking is exactly the intellectual dishonesty in which most same-sex proponents engage. “I’ll discuss it, but only on my terms….” One word you use is strange also….”mature.” Who determines that “maturity,” Jose? You? My arguments don’t come from a “I hate gays” mentality. I’m not Bart. I don’t think that way. And yes, I do believe you can “hate the sin, but love the sinner” so I won’t be arguing from that point. My arguments are just as “mature” as yours my friend.
Tell me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that you want to set the standards for this argument to cut off the beliefs of others, just like you wanted to set the standard awhile ago for what is “Christian” and what is not.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:08 am
Just in case people want to see the details of my first comment above:
http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_print.php?cdate=2004-08-05
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
David, never let it be said that Albert Mohler, to whose web site you refer, ever saw a fact he couldn’t twist to use to promote his own limited views. We went around and around on this blog earlier about the Ake Green case from Sweden, a case in which a minister was charged with hate speech, then given a suspended sentence, which was itself later overturned. If that’s all ministers have to worry about, they’re home free.
If people don’t believe in gay marriage as a moral matter, fine. But I don’t understand why they have to lie about it and suggest that, if gay marriage is permitted, ministers who don’t want to marry gays and lesbians will be forced to do so. Neither the California Supreme Court opinion nor any other law has ever forced a minister to marry anyone under any circumstances. Catholics regularly refuse to marry divorced people, and ministers of various faiths place conditions on marriage, like attending counseling sessions and whatnot, that the law would never require. And yet no minister is ever sued for these things. As far as I know, no minister is ever required to marry anyone under any circumstances, nor for that matter, is any other official.
The thing I think that people don’t understand about the California issue is that the actual holding of the supreme court was that the state legislature had already passed laws creating legally recognized domestic partnerships that were marriages, the court held, in every way but the name. The question was whether it was legal for the state to withhold the name. The court said no, if you’re going to give people all the attributes of marriage, you’ve got to let them have the name, too.
The bottom line is that gays and lesbians are going to live together, period. Progressive churches have no problem in performing marriages between them. I can’t imagine why that would be anyone else’s business. I thought conservatives were supposed to be for less government interference in our lives, not more. And why should government regulate whom ministers are allowed to marry in the first place? Isn’t that the government getting impermissibly involved in religion? I guess conservatives think it’s okay for government to be Big Brother when God tells them what to do. I guess God doesn’t talk to liberals.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
DD, apparently you are unaware that people in lots of cultures were getting married a long time before the people of YHWH emerged on the scene. Or did you have some other obviously unspecidied “God” in mind?
When the people of YHWH, as recounted in the Hebrew Scriptures, developed their marriage practices they were strikingly different from those the christian fundamentalists of today champion. Polygamy, incestuous marriages, forced marriages of rape victims, etc. were all part of the package that YHWH blessed.
Are you really offering an informed preference for a “Biblical” position on marriage? If so, we expect to see you mounting a campaign to make divorce, and also serial marriage, illegal–in accordance with the teachings of Jesus.
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Jose and Asinus: Man has been the deciding factor as to how to live his life without God’s intervention since creation.Man is the one who imposes laws upon society that often contradicts God’s ordinances.
On marriage Jesus said in Matthew 19:8 “In the beginning it was not so” one-man to one- woman. Adam and Eve had an arranged marriage, which they kept, else the Bible would be made a lie by Genesis 3:20 which states Eve is the mother of all living. Polygamy was instituted by Cain’s offspring.
God’s creation was so perfect down to the last DNA, that it was not until after the Exodus that laws concerning incest had to be written. Before the laws were written, Man often married a sister (even Abraham married his half-sister) as a way to keep the blood-line pure. This was also the act the daughters of Lot were trying to preserve. Preserving a pure blood line was tantamount to sacred.
The Roman Catholic church has done much to destroy many with their versions of what is a ‘sin’. Pope Gregory II in 726 said “a man who has a sick wife who cannot discharge marital function, may take a second wife, as long as he provides for the first.” They also said that it was illegal for priests to marry, and sex was a sin by a married couple unless it was for procreation. None of these you will find anywhere in Scripture, they are only examples of what man wants.
Marriage outside of the race was also imposed upon man — by man. It is not Biblical. Miriam and Aaron in Numbers 12:1 spoke against Moses for marrying an Ethiopian, and Miriam had Leprosy for several days; albeit I do not understand why she alone was punished. The only mixed marriage the Bible speaks about is found in 1 Corinthians 7:11-17 which has to do with a believer marrying an unbeliever.
Man also distorted the laws concerning adultery–to a version that a man could only commit adultery if the act was with a married woman. Ha! Jesus never confined adultery to the act alone, but attached adultery to the intent of the heart.
Bottom line gentlemen is that you may do what ever you want, or believe what ever you want in this life; ultimately though, your final destination will be decided on those actions, as well as, your thoughts.
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Sure, Carol, you can easily justify Proposition 8 by advocating theocracy. It’s just that many Christians like myself like the Constitution we have now, and we fear that putting the government in charge of religion would be dangerous.
October 24th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
AG,
You obviously missed the point. I would have trouble understanding someone who, I would guess, claims to worship God our Father, and then talks about cultures before the first culture that He created. I guess your belief in the Word only goes as far as it differs with evolutionary thought? When I talk about God instituting marriage I am speaking of Adam and Eve as the first people placed on this earth by our Father. If you believe in the same God I do, then you can’t get much earlier than that.
Also, as for your last paragraph, you obviously don’t understand the context of Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament about divorce or serial marriage.
Caleb,
I realize who Albert Mohler is. He’s the same guy that had the online debate with Orson Scott Card, the LDS author, debating the “Christianity of Mormons.” I guess I didn’t make my point on that one either. I don’t care if you made the round about Pastor Green before, and I know his sentence was suspended. The fact is, he should have never been arrested in the first place!
Also, your argument about, “The bottom line is that gays and lesbians are going to live together, period,” is weak at best, my friend. As weak as “kids are just going to have sex, let’s throw them some condoms,” or “Murderers are going to kill anyway, let’s just make is lawful…” Do you honestly think that the preponderance of immoral behavior is an excuse to declare it correct?
To all,
Why is it so hard for people who claim to be Christian (and want to argue about whether or not I am one….) to see that the Book that they claim as holy teaches marriage as sacred between a man and a woman and that homosexuality has always been declared sinful by the God they claim to worship. Has it simply become too hard for some to stand on the Lord’s side? Obviously, I could quote scripture that plainly states the sin of homosexuality, but I’m sure you’d just justify it away with some “intelligent” rhetoric, just like we’ve justified murdering children for the sake of convenience, sex outside of marriage. Heck, we might as well rename ourselves Sodom and Gomorrha, right?
I guess it’s just become to publicly embarrassing to stand up for the teachings of the Savior we claim to worship, right?
October 24th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
David, when I was a child I heard tons of sermons from otherwise “good” baptists to the effect that blacks were an inferior race, and that they were denominated as such by God. A hundred years earlier, the predecessors of many of those good christians preached (correctly) that the Bible never condemned slavery, and used this to bolster their support for it.
To me, the question is which is the horse and which is the cart. Did those people really truly believe that the bible said that God had made blacks inferior and therefore, perhaps reluctantly, support legal segregation and a second class social system for blacks, or were they merely using the bible to justify their already-formed racist beliefs? I can’t look into anyone’s heart and know, but I have to suspect that in many cases it was the latter.
During the middle ages, the church authorized many violent and horrible acts against the Jews. I once heard an academic lecture showing that virtually every form of antisemitism practiced by Hitler, including the use of the yellow star to denominate Jews, originated in the medieval church. Do we really believe today that these teachings were the result of heartfelt and prayerful study of scripture? Of course not: These were antisemitic people who used scripture to promote their agendas.
Let me put the Episcopal Church’s position on this in context. First, we don’t believe that the Bible, important as it is, is either infallible or the sole source of God’s wisdom. Second, we don’t interpret any portion of the scripture to condemn homosexual conduct as such outside the historical context of the time. Certainly in biblical times nothing that resembles modern day relationships of equality between gays and lesbians existed: The bible condemns the practices of its day, in which homosexual relationships were generally the result of either temple prostitution or the forcing of young males to have sexual relations with older males of a higher social class, a form of prostitution at best, and of sexual abuse at worst.
I realize that one can challenge that historical view, but whether or not it is correct, the Episcopal Church and most other mainline churches (such as the Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and American Baptists) do not accept the doctrine of sola scriptura, that is, that the bible is the sole source of inspiration or knowledge of God’s will. This doctrine originated during the reformation as a substitute for the papal authority that protestants rejected. I won’t repeat my oft-repeated essay on the three legged stool of Anglican theology, but I sit on it nonetheless, and focus not only on scripture but also on historic church teachings and the learning from experience and reason.
If christianity has historically been opposed to homosexuality, it has also been historically opposed to equal rights for all people (read some of Jerry Falwell’s early sermons), including women, minorities and Jews, and has often been on the wrong side of social justice issues. And it seems to be these kinds of issues that mobilize conservatives the most.
If I thought that folks who think as you do, David, had truly sat down and looked at what you consider the teachings of scripture and come to the conclusion, perhaps reluctantly, that a whole group in society should be shunned and their behavior declared immoral, for good and sufficient reasons, that would be one thing. However, talking to people on that side of the issue makes me think that most of them were predisposed to be anti-gay, just as southern whites fifty years ago were predisposed to be racist, and used scripture to justify it.
The real question, David, is not whether it’s publicly embarrassing to stand up for the teachings of the Saviour, but whether it should be even more publicly embarrassing to attribute hate teachings to that Saviour to justify our own prejudices. I’m not suggesting that you personally have done this, David, but one must ask the question about many who hold similar views.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I’m glad you took that as I meant it Caleb. Sometimes I go back and read what I write and know that some might take it as an attack. Hopefully they don’t, but I won’t ever apologize for things that I think. I figure if I can take the whole “you’re not a Christian thing” then people ought to be able to take a few jabs also, no?
I realize that there are far too many people who take their hatred for specific groups and then go to the Bible to justify it. That is not the case here. I truly feel that the Bible teaches that there are sins that need to be overcome in this world and I feel that it plainly teaches that homosexuality is one of them.
I have no hatred toward any man. I am far from perfect so how can I hate anyone? That does not take away the fact that some things are sins and only God can declare what is and what is not sin. Popularity in polls does not change this. What I do know is that the atonement of Jesus Christ covers all sin, if we choose to repent and follow Him.
I’m not dumb enough to think that all those who have same-sex tendencies need to just buck up and get married (in a heterosexual union), as if that will solve things. In fact, our late church President, Gordon B. Hinckely, had this to say on that subject.
“Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.”
Obviously, the words “solve problems” might be offensive to some, but it would be expected considering our church’s view on the subject.
Now, as to historic christianity being opposed to equal rights, I have no argument with what you wrote, but what I view as historical christianity and what you describe are two different things. You’re talking about specific religions and teachings, which is quite the opposite in many cases from what Jesus taught. Jerry Falwell is about as much a christian to me as the prophet Muhammed, to be quite honest, based on his actions, not his personal beliefs. I agree totally that much harm has been done in the name of religion, things with which the Savior would not agree, nor condone. Do you think He would have espoused the hatred of Jews that was so common in our country, and still is by some people? While he opposed the wickedness of the Jewish sanhedrin, his opposition came to their teachings and hypocrisy, not to their race, as he was of the same race himself.
I’ve stated before, ad nauseum to some I’m sure, that I do not believe in the sola scriptura view either. While you your three legged stool, I have one also: Scripture, all that God has revealed; belief in living prophets and apostles, all that God does now reveal; and the Holy Ghost, he who testifies of truth, as promised by the Savior.
I would still state that you would never find the Savior backing away from his teachings either. Sin is sin. Obviously, our views of whether or not homosexual acts are sin or not differ, although I still can’t see how someone can read the same Bible I do and not come to that conclusion. Be that as it may, I still like to read your arguments. I find them well thought out and reasoned, even if I don’t agree.
A large problem that I see in this type of debate is that too many people who you would describe as conservative cannot separate the sin from the sinner, which leads to hate of the person they see to be in the wrong. Too many people who we would describe as liberal in view of these things cannot or do not believe that the sin and sinner can be viewed as separate by others who may not condone a type of behavior, thus they feel that a conservative view is solely based on hate and not a thought out view of the subject. Be that as it may, I will state again for the record, I do not hate gays and lesbians. They are children of God. I do believe that whatever sins we commit on this earth, be they theirs’ or mine, can be remitted by the saving blood of Jesus Christ, upon the condition of true repentence.