New poll shows support for gay marriage down after SCOTUS ruling

[GFR7]

To scare Republicans and Conservative Democrats into caving in.



Nothing in this world lasts forever, and history almost never goes according to peoples' plans. If you went back in History 2500 years and told the Persians that their great empire would be invaded from the West and conquered, you would be laughed at. If you fast forward 600 years to the height of the Roman Empire, no one would believe that the Western half of the Empire would be overrun in a few centuries. No one in the Aztec or Inca Empires, even five years before the Spanish conquest, would believe that the end of their empire was imminent. In 1942 Nazi Germany controlled half of Europe was advancing in Russia and in Africa. And three years later Hitler committed suicide in his bunker while Berlin was about to surrender. And in 1945, no Brit was expecting that most of Britain's empire would be gone in 20 years.

So, in 2015 it may look like gay marriage will be here forever, but who knows where we'll be in 2025 even.

Well, well said, my man! :BRAVO: Howe and Strauss, those formidable historians and social scientists, informed us that the historical trajectory is a saeculum, which circles back like the seasons. Summer feels like forever, until the autumn and winter of history arrive.

 

[Granite]

They shouldn't. But gays were not denied rights and protections.

Oh who are you trying to kid, anyway? And a majority's a majority, like it or not. Roe v. Wade was 7-2. Sure settled that issue once and for all...

 

[Bright Raven]

That is why you have a constitution: to prevent temporary majorities from impinging on the inalienable rights of vulnerable minorities.

When the will off the people is against the constitution, should the constitution change?

Has nothing to do with minority rights. It has to do with legislation being accomplished from the bench.

 

[Town Heretic]

It was passed by a slim majority (instead of 7-2 or 9-0) and it in my opinion would have been better left to gradually win in a majority of states. :think:

Yes, I'm sure that's what you were rooting for, a slow win.

NEW YORK (AP) -- The Supreme Court's ruling last month legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide has left Americans sharply divided, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that suggests support for gay unions may be down slightly from earlier this year.

Underscoring my personal belief that the pro or anti stance for a not inconsiderable number of Americans is an emotional and not rational conclusion.

Because there's no reason to have changed your mind if you thought the legality of the decisions was correct.

The poll also found a near-even split over whether local officials with religious objections should be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, with 47 percent saying that should be the case and 49 percent say they should be exempt.

I wonder what the split is on renting to mixed race marriages?

Overall, if there's a conflict, a majority of those questioned think religious liberties should win out over gay rights, according to the poll. While 39 percent said it's more important for the government to protect gay rights, 56 percent said protection of religious liberties should take precedence.

According to the poll, 42 percent support same-sex marriage and 40 percent oppose it. The percentage saying they favor legal same-sex marriage in their state was down slightly from the 48 percent who said so in an April poll. In January, 44 percent were in favor.

So about six percent irrationally supported it or were capable of being moved off the point by political rhetoric? Sounds about right.

Asked specifically about the Supreme Court ruling, 39 percent said they approve and 41 percent said they disapprove.

Tack on another 3% who can't apparently hold their opinion between questions...interesting.

"What the Supreme Court did is jeopardize our religious freedoms," said Michael Boehm, 61, an industrial controls engineer from the Detroit area who describes himself as a conservative-leaning independent.

"You're going to see a conflict between civil law and people who want to live their lives according to their faiths," Boehm said.

Not if you read the Court's decision, but I think that's probably where the movement rests. A great many states have enacted laws to prohibit forcing ministers to perform ceremonies that violate the tenets of their faith, by the way.

Boehm was among 59 percent of the poll respondents who said wedding-related businesses with religious objections should be allowed to refuse service to gay and lesbian couples. That compares with 52 percent in April.

I wonder how he feels about water fountains and bathrooms. :think: Seven additional percent of Americans know less about discriminatory law and practice since April? Or maybe they're feeling their way through it.

 

[GFR7]

Underscoring my personal belief that the pro or anti stance for a not inconsiderable number of Americans is an emotional and not rational conclusion.

This says it all. Nothing more need be said.

 

[Town Heretic]

Has nothing to do with minority rights. It has to do with legislation being accomplished from the bench.

No, it's about a Constitutional review of a legal restriction on the right to marry, isn't it? Wasn't that how the case came before the Court?

 

[Town Heretic]

This says it all. Nothing more need be said.

It's also one reason why we don't confer right with a show of hands, democratically.

 

[Bright Raven]

No, it's about a Constitutional review of a legal restriction on the right to marry, isn't it? Wasn't that how the case came before the Court?

No sir. With all due respect, this is legislation from the bench. It all started with prop 8 in California. Believe me I know. I watched the will of the people overturned and upheld by a liberal court. That is legislation.

 

[Lexington'96]

Well, well said, my man! :BRAVO: Howe and Strauss, those formidable historians and social scientists, informed us that the historical trajectory is a saeculum, which circles back like the seasons. Summer feels like forever, until the autumn and winter of history arrive.

Another comparable historical example is Prohibition. It was a Constitutional Amendment, which is harder to repeal than a Supreme Court decision. But it was over less than 15 years after it started.

Oh who are you trying to kid, anyway? And a majority's a majority, like it or not. Roe v. Wade was 7-2. Sure settled that issue once and for all...

Dred Scott v Sandford was also 7-2, but that was overturned only 9 years later.

I wonder what the split is on renting to mixed race marriages?

Like I didn't see that one coming.

 

[GFR7]

It's also one reason why we don't confer right with a show of hands, democratically.

Justice Kennedy's so-called reasoning was a disgrace. Jurisprudence was put to shame.

 

[GFR7]

Another comparable historical example is Prohibition. It was a Constitutional Amendment, which is harder to repeal than a Supreme Court decision. But it was over less than 15 years after it started.



Dred Scott v Sandford was also 7-2, but that was overturned only 9 years later.

Excellent points :thumb:

 

[Granite]

Do you guys not realize how the system actually, uh...works?

 

[quip]

Sometimes I wonder about myself. I must be very lacking in intellect compared to some who have sooooo much time to judge others?

The opposite is more likely the case. Those lacking... seek outward security.

 

[GFR7]

Do you guys not realize how the system actually, uh...works?

Yeah, I think we understand how things work, better than you think.

 

[Granite]

Yeah, I think we understand how things work, better than you think.

Well you don't really seem to. We don't live in a democracy where a show of hands settles things. Tyranny of the 51% and all that. We've got three branches for a reason.

 

[GFR7]

Well you don't really seem to. We don't live in a democracy where a show of hands settles things. Tyranny of the 51% and all that. We've got three branches for a reason.

I understand this fully. Had gays argued for their individual rights to privacy and liberty, and to be left alone, I would have supported them fully.

I see too well what they have done and why - and I am speaking here only of the famous advocates (Signorile, Savage, Sullivan).

When something like this occurs - which is historically very unusual - it's apex will also be its reversal.

I worked with gay advocates and journalists for many years.
I know what I'm talking about.

 

[Town Heretic]

Justice Kennedy's so-called reasoning was a disgrace. Jurisprudence was put to shame.

Obviously not, given the opinion was joined by a majority of the Court, all of whom are skilled practitioners in and scholars of the law.

Here's a notion, when you don't like something just put it in those terms. Note that there is a line of thinking within the Court that agrees with your inclination. Because that's not unreasonable where your characterization rationally must be.

 

[Granite]

I understand this fully. Had gays argued for their individual rights to privacy and liberty, and to be left alone, I would have supported them fully.

I see too well what they have done and why - and I am speaking here only of the famous advocates (Signorile, Savage, Sullivan).

When something like this occurs - which is historically very unusual - it's apex will also be its reversal.

I worked with gay advocates and journalists for many years.
I know what I'm talking about.

They did, you didn't, and spare me the Parades They're Flaunting It crap. You got a real serious issue when it comes to gay people and gay marriage. You're not fooling anyone here.

 

[GFR7]

Obviously not, given the opinion was joined by a majority of the Court, all of whom are skilled practitioners in and scholars of the law.

Here's a notion, when you don't like something just put it in those terms. Note that there is a line of thinking within the Court that agrees with your inclination. Because that's not unreasonable where your characterization rationally must be.

The dissenters are also skilled practicioners and scholars of law.

And many others condemned Kennedy's sentimentality; they called it for what it was, and did not say, "I personally feel" (which is taboo in philosophy. You say, this IS.)

 

[GFR7]

They did, you didn't, and spare me the Parades They're Flaunting It crap. You got a real serious issue when it comes to gay people and gay marriage. You're not fooling anyone here.

No, I don't. I don't care what anyone thinks of me here; Unlike gays, I don't need "recognition" to know I have value. I have confidence in my powers of reason. They've earned me many a distinction and carried me this far.