A Fox News poll on the constitutionality of gay marriage
Freedomsphoenix.dom
Good morning, folks!
I thought you might be interested in this Fox News poll of the constitutionality of the California judge’s decision in the Proposition 8 case.
With already more than 316,000 votes counted, 72 percent of respondents believe the judge correctly decided that a ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional.
Who woulda thunk?
You can vote, too!
August 9, 2010 - 8:00 AM
Aren’t you going to get your hand slapped for sending people to Fox news and their non-scientific poll? I think that’s a no-no.
Little bit surprised considering the Fox News audience. I’m sure they’ll find some way of dismissing the results if they don’t go the ‘right’ direction, even though the current tally depicts the correct one.
And how did the people in California vote?
I find it very ironic that the pollsters at Fox news would support the Judges decision. Maybe there is hope after all. Never have figured out who decided that marriage must be between a woman and a man only. Such an archaic way of thinking people….get the H*** over it and mind your own business, take care of your own families, and leave government out of our private lives.
Good for Fox viewers! Although, thank God that “constitutionality” doesn’t go up for a popular vote.
Dan, did you stay up all night clicking the yes button? Looks like a left wing conspiracy to me
But I’ll take it!
#3 Against the Constitution.
I thought all right wingers considered Californians nuts anyway.
My grandfather used to say…”Be sure to vote early and often.” I’m confident that Fox News will find a way to express its perspective on the results.
I’m already getting emails from Faux news fans with a link begging me to
go and vote and claiming that those damn sneakyy libs have wormed their way in and taken over the poll! Pathetic but hilarious!
I find it very ironic that the pollsters at Fox news would support the Judges decision. Maybe there is hope after all. Never have figured out who decided that marriage must be between a woman and a man only. Such an archaic way of thinking people….get the H*** over it and mind your own business, take care of your own families, and leave government out of our private lives.
Comment by Karen — August 9, 2010 @ 9:03 am
Read the Bible and you will discover who decided that marriage must be between a man and a woman. The Biblical manner of thinking may be archaic, but if society “gets the H*** over it” then that is exactly where society will end up. Look around, it appears that is where we are heading.
The Black Panthers must have restricted conservatives’ ability to vote on the poll…yeah, that’s it!
Seriously Tom, your great, great, great grandfather probably said the same thing. And yet we’re still here. If giving people equal rights that they did not have in the Bible was the end, then Gay People will not be the only ones to blame. After all we already did so for Slaves, Women, and the Disabled, none of which had any rights in the Bible!
That has to be it, Morris.
72% of the population can’t name five amendments of the Constitution.
The Constitution has nothing to do with a man and woman getting married, two women getting maried, or a man and a goat getting married. I’ll be really thankful for the day when gay people can go do whatever the hell they want with each other without making a national issue of it.
The only issue I have with gay rights advocates (and I have nothing against gay people for the record, shout out to gay people) is that for whatever reason they feel the need to throw everything in the face of society. What’s up with that? Why can’t you keep your personal life quiet? I dig the hell out of bisexual chicks, but my wife and I are not out leading some crusade to make it socially accecptable for us to have a live in girlfriend, or demanding that books featuring an unconventional family of one dad and two moms raising a pitbull be taught in kindergarten. Why can’t folks just keep that stuff on the downlow?
And to add to Realists’ angst, I would add, why couldn’t Richard and Mildred loving keep their interracial marriage on the down low, too? It was absolutely illegal in Virginia at the time. Why did they have to make so much of a fuss?. Why couldn’t they just shut up? Why did they have to make a federal case out of it?
Oh, yeah, I forgot: the police busted into their bedroom in the middle of the night, hoping to catch them having sex (they weren’t). Nevertheless they were able to charge the interracial couple with moving to Virginia after being legally married in another jurisdiction. There were preachers who lined up back then to declare their crime an abomination clearly proscribed by the Bible.
Do you think the Lovings would get a 9-0 vote, in their favor, on the today’s Supreme Court, like they did in 1967? There is no way. Thomas, even though he’s married to a white woman, and Alito would vote against them and Scalia might.
Ken Cuccinelli would represent Virginia before the Supreme Court. He would argue that the 10th Amendment gives states the right to enact laws unenumerated by the Constitution, and he would quite correctly point out that the Constitution DOES NOT say that blacks may marry whites. Nosiree, not one word about that in there. And then he would demand that UVa turn over all records of state grant funding on biological research performed by by Richard Loving, because he did it while he was illegally married to a black woman.
The Loving would get a 6-3 decision, because Roberts wouldn’t want to be ostracized by his country club pals in DC and Kennedy would tell Scalia: “Listen, I know I’ve been siding with you a lot lately, but this is just SO WRONG there’s no way I can join your opinion.”
Imbecilic racists would rant and rave about how Thomas should have recused himself because he’s black, and they would shut up about that only when they realized he actually voted the way they wanted.
Rush Limbaugh would go on the air to blast the activist court for “making law” rather than interpreting it, and praising the three dissenting justices, and urge his listeners to take back this country for all that is sane and moral.
And then Suzie would get on this blog and proclaim him the nation’s greatest journalist and then Jack McGuire would reply, “hes no jurnolist but hes pretty great and so is Suzie.”
Dan, I disagree that your example is similar to what I’m talking about.
15
“Why can’t folks just keep that stuff on the downlow?”
Um, because keeping quiet doesn’t get them any attention. They tried that back in the 80s when their motto was “Leave us alone”. This isn’t about “marriage” and never has been. DPs already give gays equal rights in California and other states. Do you honestly think the fundraising and political arms of the gay movement will disappear should the high court put their imprimatur on this travesty?
12.Seriously Tom, your great, great, great grandfather probably said the same thing. And yet we’re still here. If giving people equal rights that they did not have in the Bible was the end, then Gay People will not be the only ones to blame. After all we already did so for Slaves, Women, and the Disabled, none of which had any rights in the Bible!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — August 9, 2010 @ 6:51 pm
And the ills our society suffers today are so much less than those my great, great, great grandfather’s society suffered? For your information, he was a Native American who witnessed his land being stolen by illegal immigrants also known as the white man. How did that work out for him? How has that worked out for us? If the white man had acclimated to the society he found when he got here, we could all be hunting and fishing all day, the Chief could take care of our squabbles, and if we got sick the medicine man would take care of us. And the white man thought he could improve on that system?
As for the Bible, you’re on your own as to whether you believe what it says or not. It says homosexuality is an abomination and that marriage is between a man and a woman. Free will says you can choose to believe or not. The person said she never knew who decided it, so I pointed her in the direction. I’m just the messenger. Now she can’t say she never knew. She has the same free will. Choose wisely.
Just because a society deems something legal doesn’t make it right. Prostitution is legal in parts of Nevada…that doesn’t make it right.
As long as you’re bending the rules of marriage, why not just throw them all out. Why stop at any limits? Who is to say a man can’t marry his sister (or brother)? Why limit it at 2 people? Why not let someone marry 8 or 25 people (even a mix of men and women included in their marriage)? Who is to say it should be limited to people? Why can’t a person marry their pet, or even an inanimate object? I mean, if you’re going to re-define it, why not just pull out all the stops and have no rules or limits? In the words of the hippies, if it feels good, do it. Who gets to decide where the lines are drawn? Why stop at that line and not push it beyond the next one? Just do away with it all together and everyone can have total freedom to do whatever they want. No rules!!!!!
Marriage is a religious matter and the government has no business sticking its nose in the private matters of individuals. Our freedoms are over regulated enough. To the government, gay marriage is a tax i$$ue. Uncle $am could care less about “morals”, etc. It all comes down to the tax law/code.
Correct. The gays wanting marriage has nothing to do with religion since most religious beliefs do not condone homosexuality. They are simply looking for some form of confirmation to legitimize what they already know isn’t right to begin with.
Sara,
I understand your position regarding marriage and religion. However, the marriage license you get is a civil, governmental document. Should the married couple decide to divorce they have to go through a civil (sometimes not very), governmental procedure. Married couples are afforded several civil, governmental recognitions and rights. My conversations, albeit not numerous, with gay couples has led me to believe it is the civil rights they are seeking.
“Read the Bible and you will discover who decided that marriage must be between a man and a woman.”
Marriage is a civil construct designed to engineer smooth distribution of property. If it were strictly “religious”, we wouldn’t be discussing it at all, because the government isn’t in the business of telling churches what they can and cannot do.
You can get married in a church all day long, and if you don’t have a license, you’re not married. So much for being a religious matter. Gays aren’t interested in forcing churches to perform ceremonies or not – many already do. They’re interested in the civil recognition of their marriage which brings them the benefits, both financial and social, straights “enjoy” when married.
Tom, since you keep bringing up what the Bible says about homosexuality, I wonder if you also follow the Bible’s laws on other matters? Do you eat pork? Because the Bible says the pig is an unclean animal. Do you shave? “You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.” I just think you can’t go around following the Bible on one matter but not others, you know?
So you subscribe to the “if you can’t follow all the rules, why try to follow any of them” theory? So you completely ignore the teachings of the Bible? Let me know how that turns out for you. No one is perfect, that was the purpose of the atonement…but to live 24/7 in direct contradiction is more than an occasional slip-up.
We are talking about the specific subject of homosexuality and I am simply pointing out what the Bible says about that specific subject. You have the free will to ignore it if you like. It is what it is.
And for your info, I don’t shave (much to my spouse’s disapproval, having a beard is one of the only freedoms I get to enjoy in marriage). I rarely eat any red meat or pork (mostly fish and chicken), but I won’t say never. That’s a preference thing, not a religious thing.
I’ve taken an informal poll of all of my married buddies and they unanimously agree there are absolutely no financial benefits to being married. If we had remained single, we could all be retired by now and play golf all day.
If the responsibilities of marriage are defined as “Freedom”, the guys all decided we’ve had all of the freedom we can take. We’re ready for solitude of captivity.
Tom, I am pointing the inconsistency with the “it’s in the Bible” argument that folks keep putting forth in their argument against homosexuality. The Bible says A LOT about what we should and should not do, and many people seem to focus on that one part to bolster their argument, while ignoring the rest of what is said.
And yes, I do ignore the Bible. I am not Christian (which is probably no surprise). I am capable of being a good and moral person without a deity telling me I have to or else. So far it’s working out pretty well.
You are a man of Christian faith, and I respect that. That’s your choice, one that I am sure you came to after much introspection and you did not come to it lightly. I did not come to my beliefs lightly either, and it would be nice if people could respect that.
I respect the fact that you have the free will to choose and the freedom in this country to choose. Each person has to make their own choices based on their own reasons and doesn’t have to justify them to anyone else. That’s between them and their maker (whoever they believe that to be). I personally hope that you come to a different conclusion on your journey of life. I refuse to live my life believing this is it and that it all happened by chance. I’ve had too many inexplicable things happen throughout my life that could not be left to chance. I’d be glad to share those with you off-line sometime.
I agree that as a society there has been a lot of picking and choosing with regard to right and wrong in the Bible. It is inconsistent and in my opinion a huge reason we as a society are suffering the ills of modern life. Divorce rates, promiscuity, injustices across the board…if people had followed the teachings of the Bible regarding sexual relations, HIV and AIDS would not exist today. Coincidence?
To me, to say, “Well, everyone ignores the divorce and adultry teachings, so why not ignore the homosexuality too” makes no sense. We should be pointing out the reasons to follow those others, not ignore the rest.
Tom, thanks for sharing. I always enjoy reading what you have to say, and you post in a respectful manner, even with those that disagree with you.
What I believe is actually kind of crazy, but it makes sense to me. I do believe in a Creator, but not necessarily one who has a hand in my everyday life. Life to me is a bit like a road map, full of different paths that will lead you in different directions. To me, the Creator made the map, but we have the free will to decide what road to choose.
I can understand what you mean about events not just occurring by chance. I’ve discussed this with my husband, as it relates to how we met. I can trace choices I made in my life 15 years ago and how if I had not made them the way I did, I would have never met him.
Tom, your glowing descriptions of marital bliss and how much better off you would be without it are interesting. I personally consider it to be one of the most important gifts our society has seen fit to bless, nurture and encourage. I do not think any other model can beat it and as I head for 31 years of wedded partnership with the man I consider to be God’s gift to me, I cannot imagine the audacity that deprives consenting adults of the same chance. I do not consider it to be re-defining marriage nor do I believe that the Biblical admonition of one abomination is more abominable than the others that have become common place and accepted without a thought. Unless of course you are unlucky enough to live in Iran where they will still stone women for adultery. Yes, it is indeed the gift of free will from God that gives us all the choice, but it is still a choice we will have to answer for in my opinion. Facing God and saying that I could neither condemn gay people for wanting the same chance at marriage that I treasure nor refuse them the opportunity will be my cross to bear and I do so freely, happily and secure in the love and forbearance of God.
#30- Lori, that pretty much mirrors my views. I also see it as a “road map” too. Let’s say you have one destination, with several different ways to get there. A “pilot” friend (who has seen the whole area clearer, because it was from a much larger perspective) suggests that you take one of the routes. Your friend knows you very well and chose the best one for you, after taking into consideration your vehicle, your likes and dislikes, and your strengths and weaknesses. You can follow their advice or not.
Let’s say you choose your own route. Something may happen along the way, and you have to ask the friend for help or advice. You’ll still get to your destination, but it will be different than the one planned for you. Also, because there are other people making their own choices too, and their “ripple” will affect your life.
I also think this. Maybe someone chooses not to befriend or get to know this “pilot”. Maybe their life could have been fuller, more joyful- maybe not. That’s their choice. To try and demean someone for not making the same CHOICE as you is wrong. To use scare tactics, so someone feels like they have to be friends with the pilot is wrong too. Do they really think their “pilot” friend wants slaves or automatons? If so, why would they want to be friends with someone like that? Why would they even invite someone like that into their lives to begin with?
I never said I’d be better off without it, but there are no financial benefits that I’ve seen. There are a lot of responsibilities with marriage and too many people go into it not taking them seriously. I’ve been with the same woman for 25 years (married 17). There is no doubt I’m a better person as a result…but I wouldn’t necessarily define those responsibilities as freedom. A buddy of mine has a teenage son and he was going off about this and that and said, “I can’t wait until I grow up, I’ll be free!!!” I replied, “Oh yeah, get a wife, kids, mortgage, car payments, a job, a boss, and responsibilities and then let me know how free you are. I can’t take anymore of this freaking freedom. You are the most free you will ever be right now.” It certainly changed his perspective on being an adult.
Tom @ 33: “There are a lot of responsibilities with marriage and too many people go into it not taking them seriously.”
I second that! I actually endorse premarital counseling. Not everyone has the big talks about kids and money that my husband and I had before marriage. Although we did not do premarital counseling, we still had the foresight to talk about what type of marriage we wanted and how we would raise our children. We still have our issues, and we have only been married 3 years (together almost 7), but we have an incredible relationship.
No marriage is not freedom, it is a responsibility to another person to be the best person you can. That requires work every day.