Tag Archives: gay marriage

Polling: more Americans support gay marriage than oppose

In the poll, 53% of American adults said they think same sex marriage should be legal, compared to 44% who said it should not be. ABC found support for same sex marriage up six points from just one year ago, when 47% of Americans told the network it should be legal, while 50% said it should remain illegal.

Support for same sex marriage has been trending up for years. In 2004, just over six in ten Americans opposed gay marriage, while about one-third supported it, according to the CNN poll.

From Talking Points Memo.

Also tagged | Leave a comment

Elizabeth Hasselbeck is ok with gay marriage

Frustrating, and often very dumb, The View conservative Elizabeth Hasselbeck supports gay marriage. Which is nice. Meanwhile, Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality is PISSED.

I can deal with the “queer” activists, whose fanatical dedication to rationalizing their own sin problem is what you’d expect from a movement that “proudly” rejects normalcy and shakes its collective fist at God and His natural, created order. What confounds me are the “conserv-a-libs” (Ryan Sorba calls them “liberal-tarians”) – who so readily ditch five millennia of biblically-informed truth for the latest sexual/social fad.

Via The Daily Dish.

Also tagged , , | Leave a comment

Prop 8 still kicking and screaming

Bummer. The stay on the Prop 8 has been extended. So no gay marriages for a while. But here’s the thing as I read the gloating on NRO:

Look, we all know gay marriage will become legal nationwide at some point. Right? We all know that, right? What with polling and demographics and all that, it’s obvious that as the sticks in the mud die off, the votes will be overwhelmingly in gay marriage’s favor.

So why do you have to be dicks, conservatives? Why?

Via Gawker.

Also tagged , | Leave a comment

Take that, Proposition 8, one of the worst of all propositions

As I’m sure you know, a federal judge has found the horrible Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional as well as horrible. Which is really just another step to the Supreme Court, but the ruling is still pretty thrilling. Because the judge didn’t play softly with this. He makes as compelling a case as you can imagine that a ban on gay marriage makes no sense unless you just hate gay people.

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

To put this even more starkly, Marc Ambinder lists these facts that are demonstrated by this ruling:

1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.

2. California, like every other state, doesn’t require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.

3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.

4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender.

5. Same-sex love and intimacy “are well-documented in human history.”

6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being.

7. Prop 8 proponents’ “assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence.”

8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor than it can be changed.

9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population.

10. “Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union.”

11. “Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals.”

12. “Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.
The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships.”

13. “Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the
stability of opposite-sex marriages.”

(Via Andrew Sullivan)

For a little of what they call “balance”, you might also want to check out some conservative, anti-gay-people voices, like NRO’s Kathryn Jean Lopez, who provides this interview with anti-gay-marriage activist Brian Brown. Brown is disappointed, unsurprised, and completely clueless as he whines about his rights being violated and how the proponents of gay marriage are ignoring human nature (!). He also defends his fellow activists for bringing their children to hot-button (and often hot-tempered) rallies. His argument is that his family should be with him because he’s doing this for his family… so let’s hope that none of his children are unfortunate enough to have to come out to this man.

Oh but back on the sunny side of the street, Gizmodo gives us a list of tech companies that have fought Prop 8.

Also tagged , , | Leave a comment

Hawaii’s republican governor cocks everything up for everyone

Governor Linda Lingle of Hawaii — who I remember listening to at the RNC, making the absurd argument that Sarah Palin had the necessary experience to be President and Barack Obama was dumb because he was a community organizer — has vetoed a law passed by Hawaii’s legislature that would create civil unions for homosexuals. Her reasoning is that it shouldn’t be up to the legislature and her to create civil unions; it should be put to a direct vote. Which is bullshit for many reasons, including that if she’s actually right that this issue should be put to the people, then it’s equally true that she’s doing the Court’s job by making the call about who should make the call.

She has every right veto the law, but she should own up to why she’s doing it and not hide behind imagined procedure.

Meanwhile, here’s an apt explanation from a judge for why this is definitely not an issue for direct vote:

“It’s beyond problematic,” said Steven Levinson, a retired associate justice of the state Supreme Court, whose daughter is a lesbian. “By definition, civil rights can’t be defined by the majority. That’s why we have a Bill of Rights, both at the federal and the state level. By their very nature, individual liberties are intended to be counter-majoritarian.”

Some day soon, even the population at large will roundly affirm everyone’s right to marry, and the Linda Lingles of the world will not be remembered kindly.

Also tagged , , | 1 Comment

Against the ideal

Mike Huckabee on gay marriage:

You don’t go ahead and accommodate every behavioral pattern that is against the ideal,” he said of same-sex marriage. “That would be like saying, well, there are a lot of people who like to use drugs, so let’s go ahead and accommodate those who want who use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, so we should accommodate them.

Yes, Mike. Because the reason all those things are illegal is that they’re “against the ideal”.
Via Andrew Sullivan

Also tagged | Leave a comment