AFA Online Poll

Interesting that it is running 48% opposed, 44% in favor of marriage and 7% for civil unions. Should lead to interesting numbers when handed to congress. Wonder how many of the votes are by gays and how many are not. That would be an interesting corollary to go along with the current questions.

Does anybody in Congress seriously pay attention to a "poll" like this one? It's so obviously unscientific and biassed that it has zero credibility. Why not just let the AFA send Congress their membership list and say that all the people on that list oppose gay marriage? It would be just as meaningful.

you might want to visit the site in some way other than clicking through the link above. if you click above, this page shows up as your referring page on the AFA's server files. would you want THAT organisation to have that info, along with your first name, last name, and email address? vote if you like, but retain your privacy.

of course we should make our cyber voices heard

and have the balls to use our name and address's if we can, of course some can't expose themselves to the right wing nuts by using real names...and some are just pussies that don't have the balls to fight for whats right...so follow your conscience and let them hear from us.

i didn't say that people shouldn't vote in the poll.

i didn't say that people shouldn't use their real names, etc.

what i did say is that at least some of the people here (call them "pussies" if you wish, since that seems to be the extent of your vocabulary--oh wait, you know "troll," too) might want to enter the URL for the poll from their homepage or some page that is NOT this site or a site devoted to escorting. the referring site can be noted. if it is, why give your opponent ammunition? why let them say "oh it is just a bunch of whores and whoremongers who are trying to skew the results!"? it shouldn't matter what you clicked over from, but, we all know, to most of them, it does.

it isn't a matter of not being honest or not being vocal. it is merely a matter of not putting forth information that is irrelevant.

taylor, i understand that you dislike me. i also understand that you have the intellectual capacity of a river rock. but, don't let your stupidity and hatred force you into a knee-jerk reaction against everything i say. stupidity is one thing; wilful (yes, that is a recognised correct spelling) ignorance is quite another.

>you might want to visit the site in some way other than clicking >through the link above. if you click above, this page shows up as >your referring page on the AFA's server files. would you want THAT >organisation to have that info, along with your first name, last >name, and email address? vote if you like, but retain your privacy.

Actually, I noticed that the vote clicks through itself to another site on an entirely different domain name. No clue how good AFA's tracking is. But, it would be interesting to be a fly on the wall in the room if/when they discover that tons of gay sites are voting on their poll.

Yesterday evening, at least a dozen people e-mailed me to vote in the above poll. The buzz around this poll in the community is quite strong.

--EBG

>Interesting that it is running 48% opposed, 44% in favor of

>marriage and 7% for civil unions. Should lead to interesting

>numbers when handed to congress. Wonder how many of the votes

>are by gays and how many are not. That would be an

>interesting corollary to go along with the current questions.

I just voted in the poll and the numbers have shifted:

44.8% opposed to homosexual marriage and civil unions

47.95% in favor of homosexual marriage

7.87% in favor of civil unions.

Knowing the history of the AFA as I do, you can bet if this current trend continues, the AFA won't be submitting the numbers to Congress, because it doesn't support what they're trying to accomplish.

i just voted... those in favour of marriage seem to be just shy (.15%) of 50%

Come on, guys. This suggestion from Ethan is both considerate and wise. Let's be thankful for such posts.

>Come on, guys. This suggestion from Ethan is both

>considerate and wise. Let's be thankful for such posts.

Laurent:

I heartily agree. Ethan's on the mark on this one.

As of right now, it's 53.62% in favor, 38.04% opposed, and 8.33% in favor of civil unions. Neat-o.

Do more than just voting in a poll.

Click for more details: http://www.ngltf.org/news/printed.cfm?releaseID=611

Real poll shows support for marriage ban

It's been fun mocking and ruining the AFA poll - which is unscientific and meaningless - but a real poll, published in today's New York Times, shows disturbing and widespread support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage:

_____________________________

Strong Support Is Found for Ban on Gay Marriage

By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE and JANET ELDER, The New York Times

(Dec. 21) -- The latest New York Times/CBS News poll has found widespread support for an amendment to the United States Constitution to ban gay marriage. It also found unease about homosexual relations in general, making the issue a potentially divisive one for the Democrats and an opportunity for the Republicans in the 2004 election.

Support for a constitutional amendment extends across a wide swath of the public and includes a majority of people traditionally viewed as supportive of gay rights, including Democrats, women and people who live on the East Coast.

Attitudes on the subject seem to be inextricably linked to how people view marriage itself. For a majority of Americans — 53 percent — marriage is largely a religious matter. Seventy-one percent of those people oppose gay marriage. Similarly, 33 percent of Americans say marriage is largely a legal matter and a majority of those people — 55 percent — say they support gay marriage.

The most positive feelings toward gay people were registered among respondents under 30, and among those who knew gay people.

The nationwide poll found that 55 percent of Americans favored an amendment to the constitution that would allow marriage only between a man and a woman, while 40 percent opposed the idea.

The findings come after the highest court in Massachusetts ruled 4 to 3 last month that same-sex marriage was permissible under the state's Constitution. That ruling followed a 6-to-3 decision in late June by the United States Supreme Court striking down antisodomy laws.

President Bush had been noncommittal about a constitutional amendment immediately after the Massachusetts ruling, with the administration worried that support for a ban on gay marriage would alienate moderate voters. But last week Mr. Bush for the first time voiced his support, saying, "I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that."

The statement signals the White House's increasing confidence that it can exploit the matter in the presidential campaign, both to energize its evangelical supporters and to discredit the eventual Democratic nominee.

Most of the Democratic candidates oppose gay marriage but favor civil unions. Howard Dean, who is leading in the polls for the Democratic nomination, signed a law when he was governor of Vermont allowing civil unions, an action that Republicans have already used to portray him as too liberal for mainstream America.

"We have found that the more people focus on it, the less they support it."

-Rev. Lou Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition

The court rulings generated extensive publicity and concern, not only about same-sex marriage but also about having the courts set social agendas that have not been approved by the legislative process.

"We have found that the more people focus on it, the less they support it," said the Rev. Lou Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, which strongly opposes gay marriage and is working actively for a constitutional ban.

The Times/CBS News poll was conducted from Dec. 10 through Dec. 13 in telephone interviews with 1,057 people. It carries a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. Responses about gay rights tend to be influenced somewhat by the wording of the questions.

This poll and other surveys show that as the courts have extended legal rights to gays this year, Americans have become increasingly uncomfortable with same-sex relations.

For decades, a majority of Americans have not approved of homosexual relations. That had begun to change, until the Supreme Court ruling in June and the Massachusetts ruling in November. A New York Times/CBS News poll conducted in July found that 54 percent of respondents said homosexual relations should be legal. Only 41 percent of the respondents in the latest poll said they should be legal.

Richard Waters, 71, a retired elementary school teacher in Little Valley, N.Y., and a Republican, said in a follow-up interview to the poll that he strongly supported a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

"I think any kind of amendment that says `You shall not' will help," Mr. Waters said. "I just don't think it's right for two men to go parading around in public or for two women to be doing the things they do. It's against God's law. That's right in the Bible that it's wrong."

Theresa Eaton, 49, a financial analyst in Corona, Calif., and also a Republican, agreed.

"There is no consensus among conservatives, libertarians and Republicans ... but to amend the Constitution for social issues is a very bad idea."

-Winnie Stachelberg, political director of the Human Rights Campaign

"I still believe that marriage should be between a man and woman," she said. "If I knew that we had a neighbor who was gay, I would not let my nieces and nephews go close by there. I don't want to accept their lifestyle. It can be acquired and it is not right."

The poll also found that by a 61-34 margin, Americans oppose gay marriage. They are slightly more accepting of civil unions to give gays some of the same legal rights as married couples, with 54 percent opposed to civil unions and 39 percent supportive.

The Massachusetts ruling also gave new impetus in Congress to sponsors of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. An amendment, which would require passage by two-thirds of the House and Senate and three-fourths of the states, would override any state court ruling or legislation.

Representative Marilyn Musgrave, Republican of Colorado, who introduced a constitutional amendment in the House in May, said on Friday that she had 106 co-sponsors. The companion measure in the Senate still has only a handful of supporters.

"Homosexual activists have known that they're not going to get their way in the legislative arena, and they shopped around for activist judges," Ms. Musgrave said. "But if the definition of marriage is to be changed, it should be done by the American people, not four judges in Massachusetts."

(see http://www.NYTimes.com for rest of the article)

RE: Real poll shows support for marriage ban

Not too hard to figure out which political party is leading this charge with this bigotry.

RE: Real poll shows support for marriage ban

>Not too hard to figure out which political party is leading

>this charge with this bigotry.

I think you missed this paragraph, which is kind of odd, given that it is the second parargraph in the article:

<<Support for a constitutional amendment extends across a wide swath of the public and includes a majority of people traditionally viewed as supportive of gay rights, including Democrats, women and people who live on the East Coast.>>

RE: Real poll shows support for marriage ban

>>Not too hard to figure out which political party is leading

>>this charge with this bigotry.

>

>I think you missed this paragraph, which is kind of odd, given

>that it is the second parargraph in the article:

>

><<Support for a constitutional amendment extends across a wide

>swath of the public and includes a majority of people

>traditionally viewed as supportive of gay rights, including

>Democrats, women and people who live on the East Coast.>>

>

>

No, I saw it. Looks like you missed this paragraph:

But last week Mr. Bush for the first time voiced his support, saying, "I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that."

RE: Real poll shows support for marriage ban

>But last week Mr. Bush for the first time voiced his support,

>saying, "I will support a constitutional amendment which would

>honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that."

Oh - so the Democrats, women and Northeasterns who are largely supporting this amendment are doing so because Bush is supporting it? That's weird - those groups don't usually follow Bush.

Aren't you capable of seeing ANTYHING in terms other than Democrat/Republican? The whole fucking point of this article is that support for this amendment is strong amongst almost EVERY demographic group, including Democrats. Indeed, the point of the article is the exact opposite of your point - it's not just Republicans supporting this, but huge numbers of Democrats, too.

As for the Bush quote - the article actually takes what he said out of context. He didn't say he "will support a constitutional amendment." He said "If necessary, I will support . . ." - meaning that, as of now, he's not prepared to say it's necessary. I hated Bush's statement on this topic, but his Christian right supporters were and are furious that he didn't unambiguously support this amendment.

But had he done so, he wouldn't have been alone - he would have been joined by scores of Democrats who support it, too.

RE: Real poll shows support for marriage ban

>

>But had he done so, he wouldn't have been alone - he would

>have been joined by scores of Democrats who support it, too.

>

Dougie:

You're even dumber than I thought........

Do you expect that a call for such a constitutional amendment will be a plank in the Democratic platform? If so, send me some of what you're smoking.

Will it be a plank in the Republican platform? Much more likely.

You might try a bit of common sense, every once and a while. It's really quite easy.

RE: Real poll shows support for marriage ban

Why do you think it would be a plank in the republican platform? Bush has not come out in favor of it and he will be the one running on the platform.

Dean is the one who is trying to appeal to the good old boys and their dogs down south where the Southern Baptists live. Sounds like a wash situation to me. Neither one would have it as part of the platform.

RE: Real poll shows support for marriage ban

>Why do you think it would be a plank in the republican

>platform? Bush has not come out in favor of it and he will be

>the one running on the platform.

Bush has come out in favor of a constitutional amendment saying marriage is between a man and a woman. What part of that don't you understand?

RE: Real poll shows support for marriage ban

bush said he'd support it, if necessary. that's not the same thing as being in favour of it. why is this a partisan issue for you people?

RE: Real poll shows support for marriage ban

>bush said he'd support it, if

>necessary. that's not the same thing as being in favour of it.

>why is this a partisan issue for you people?

Ethan, I generally consider you intelligent, though misguided. But to say that saying you'll support something is not the same as being in favor of it is ludicrous. Bush supports this, it is consistent with his pea-brained morality.

RE: Real poll shows support for marriage ban

what of the "if necessary" part?

and i still don't see why this is a partisan issue for you. do you dispute the poll numbers printed in the times?

RE: Real poll shows support for marriage ban

>what of the "if necessary" part?

>and i still don't see why this is a partisan issue for you. do

>you dispute the poll numbers printed in the times?

The "if necessary" only indicates that Bush is being careful with a "hot potato" issue, and not wanting to step too deep in the shit just yet. He has publicly stated that he supports such an amendment, so, at least in this instance,I'm willing to believe he means what he says.

I don't dispute the Times numbers, but I'd bet my left nut the Democrats would never push for such an amendment, because they know they'd drive a lot of folks to third party candidates like Nader. On the other hand, the Republicans would embrace this, because it panders to the Religious Right.

RE: Real poll shows support for marriage ban

i see... so, you attack bush for being in favour of it, even though he has never said he would "push for" it? you also attack "the Republicans" but do not attack "the Democrats" because the latter would not "push for" it, but the former would do so? by your reasoning, you have no basis to attack bush on this issue. according to the Times, more than half of "the Democrats" favour such an amendment. you give them a pass because they won't "push for" it, in your opinion. but, bush has ONLY said as much as they have: that he would be in favour of it. he has never said he'd "push for" it.