Public opinion continues to shift in favor of same-sex marriage, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, which also finds initial signs that President Barack Obama’s support for the idea may have changed a few minds.
Overall, 53 percent of Americans say gay marriage should be legal, hitting a high mark in support while showing a dramatic turnaround from just six years ago. Thirty-nine percent, a new low, say it should be illegal.
The poll also finds that 59 percent of African Americans say they support same-sex marriage, up from an average of 41 percent in polls leading up to Obama’s announcement of his new position on the matter. Though statistically significant, it is a tentative result because of the relatively small sample of black voters in the poll.
The poll comes two weeks after Obama unexpectedly endorsed same-sex marriage after a year and a half of “evolving” on the subject. Gay rights groups predicted the president’s announcement would have a far-reaching impact on public opinion, in part because Obama described how he came to his own decision, referring to his gay friends and the influence of his young daughters, Sasha and Malia.
“By speaking in very personal terms about his own journey, the president has helped to build a larger and stronger majority in support of full equality for committed gay and lesbian couples,” said Fred Sainz, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group that supports Obama’s reelection.
Seventy-one percent of Americans have a friend, family member or acquaintance who is gay, according to the Post-ABC survey, compared with 63 percent in 2010 and 59 percent in 1998.
The poll offers some insight into how same-sex marriage might affect voters’ decisions at the ballot box this fall. But the issue remains a significant wild card for the president as he seeks to overcome skepticism about his handling of the economy.
The president’s announcement may prove to be a wash: Most Americans say Obama’s stance on gay marriage will not play a big role in their vote for president. And the number of voters who say it makes them more apt to support Obama’s bid for re-election is roughly the same as the number who say they are now more likely to oppose a second term for him.
Frank Schubert, national political director for the National Organization for Marriage, a prominent group opposed to same-sex marriage, called into question the accuracy of the poll, noting that polls frequently have overestimated support for same-sex unions in advance of votes on state ballot measures.
In all 30 states where voters have been asked to approve or reject same-sex marriage, they have rejected it. In places where it is legal — six states and the District of Columbia — it was made so by an act of the state legislature or the courts.
Americans divide about evenly — 49 to 46 percent — on whether gay-marriage laws should be made at the state or federal level. Most backers of same-sex marriage support a federal approach, while opponents prefer letting states decide. That is a stark shift from 2004, when a CBS News/New York Times poll found widespread support for federal authority over gay marriage among its opponents, not its supporters.
Schubert was deeply skeptical that support for same-sex marriage was increasing among African Americans.
“There is not a chance in God’s green earth that African Americans support same-sex marriage,” he said, drawing from his experience organizing anti-same-sex marriage campaigns in California, Iowa, Maine and North Carolina. The president’s endorsement has likely “created a lot of angst and conflict in that community, but his opinion of same-sex marriage is not going to be changing the opinion of African Americans in a significant way.”
Polling director Jon Cohen and polling manager Peyton M. Craighill contributed to this report.
Yikes, the hate groups, like NOM, are in full damage control mode! Someone tell me, why is it so important to them to stop gay and lesbian citizens from having full legal rights? Why would anyone hate a minority group so much as to actually want to deny them full legal equality? It’s incomprehensible to me.
Why did they make more then having one wife against the law?? is that not the same exact thing, the people that support having 4 wives are also a minority in this country, but everyone has no problem slamming them, I guess its a money thing. Where is the Equal Protection under the 14th AMD, for these people.
No, SSM and Polygamy are not the same exact things. Polygamy is not exactly an equal partnership. It is almost always a man who wants multiple wives. Have you ever heard of many women who have multiple husbands? Some Polygamists are also known for selecting their wives while the women are still underage. Marriage Equality is about two loving, committed adults who deserve the right to marry. It is like comparing apples to oranges. Both should be argued and decided separately.
I’m not sure why people keep using other scenarios as a reason why we shouldn’t get married.
As lawyers, Biden and Obama should both know that they have neither a legal nor factual reasons to support gay marriage. So they’re either being dishonest, incompetent, or both. Because if this wasn’t the case, they wouldn’t be “comfortable” with gay marriage or “evolving” on the issue. Rather they’d be resolutely against gay marriage as the plurality (if not a majority) in this country rightfully are.
The fundamental basis for rightfully opposing gay marriage is in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which gay activists ironically (and wrongly) cite as a reason for its legal recognition:
14th Amendment – U.S. Constitution “Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
In saying that same-sex couples should have the same rights and privileges as heterosexual ones, proponents of same-sex marriage (SSM), cite the 14th Amendment as justification. I agree that the 14th Amendment is applicable to this argument but not as justification for SSM. Rather, the 14th Amendment is a powerful argument against bestowing homosexual couples such rights and privileges. The reason has to do with the phrases, “…without due process of law…” and the “…equal protection of the laws.” The whole purpose of law is to govern human behavior for the benefit of the individual and society. Thus, law prohibits, limits, or encourages different behaviors, based on their merits or lack of them. Merits, in turn, are based on objective facts – not feelings without facts. For example, facts prove that some behaviors furnish positive benefits to individuals and society, and should, therefore, be encouraged with financial and legal benefits. Examples in this first category would include going to college, starting a business, buying a home, giving to charities, and entering into marriage. Other behaviors have the potential for harm but banning them would cause an undue burden on personal liberty. So, we limit these behaviors to consenting adults. Examples in this second category would be smoking, drinking, gambling, and human sexual relations outside marriage. Finally, some behaviors are so egregious that we prohibit them. Examples in this third category would be the taking of life or property.
So law isn’t based solely on what people want. It’s also based on the people or their representatives objectively reviewing facts to indicate why a law is justified or not. This is the “…due process of law…” mentioned in the 14th Amendment. In accordance with this process, the facts (science) show that homosexual behavior (not the urge for this behavior, which is the driving force for the behavior) falls within the second category of human behavior. It does so because homosexual behavior is associated with serious bodily damage, disease, instability of commitment, and infidelity (1).
For these reasons, government recognition of SSM is wrong, because it mischaracterizes same-sex behavior. SSM does so by erroneously placing same-sex behavior in the first behavioral category – one that’s beneficial to the individual and society and, therefore, one that’s deserving of encouragement through the rights and privileges mentioned above. Clearly, in accordance with the facts, society shouldn’t encourage same-sex behavior, especially since its origin is partially external (like ones peer group, family, and society). Consequently SSM will encourage those who wouldn’t otherwise engage in homosexual behavior to do so. For every other external factor, like this one, we’ve recognized their ability to influence problematic behaviors and have, therefore, taken measures to limit them. For instance with smoking, which is subject to peer and societal influences, we’ve stopped advertising that might encourage it. Yet for another unhealthy behavior – same-sex behavior, which is also subject to peer and societal influences, some want to do the exact opposite and encourage it with government recognition of SSM. This view is not only contradictory but it’s also blatantly hypocritical and without merit of any kind. Indeed, with respect to SSM, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is clear. We cannot say that one unhealthy behavior (smoking) deserves no encouragement, while another unhealthy behavior (same-sex behavior) does. Hence, for this reason and all the others mentioned above, an intellectually-honest and clear-thinking person has only one decision to make. That decision is to oppose SSM.
(1) – A summary of peer-reviewed scientific research concerning the scientific and legal basis for opposing gay marriage:
http:\marriage-onemanandonewoman.blogspot.com
The references for this essay are listed at the end. All of them originate from major universities and research organizations (such as UCLA, the Centers for Disease Control, the University of London, the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, and ohters) that neither oppose gay rights or gay marriage.
Ugh..nonsense.
My partner and I are an interracial couple. Since the president’s interview, we have received calls from several of my partner’s African Amercian family. All have been calls of support and questions of whether we will marry or not, and these are people that wouldn’t have thought twice about considering Marriage Equality. I’m glad his announcement had an impact. Many donating constituents, in the gay community, had been pressuring Obama for a clear and concise announcement. Despite the timing, and however politically motivated, it was the right decision. This is about civil marriage, just that simple. I hope people consider the affect their decision will have on another person’s life this November.
Another liberal Washington Post article inserted in the BDN, where news in the area must be scarce; and, the numbers are interesting–pulled out of thin air but trying to make it sound so true. Just the fact that Obama “came out” of his 16 year flip-flopping closet should give common sense voters a reason not to vote for homosexual and lesbian marriages.