Field Poll: Californians Support Same-Sex Marriage

Jim Burroway

May 28th, 2008

California Field Poll ResultsContrary to last week’s Los Angeles Times/KTLA poll, a new Field Poll released yesterday (PDF: 49KB/8 pages) shows a historic shift in California voters’ support for same-sex marriage. For the first time in history, a majority of California voters now say they support same-sex marriage and oppose a proposed anti-marriage state constitutional amendment.

The poll, taken after the California Supreme Court decision to allow same-sex marriage, asked two groups of voters differently worded questions about same sex marriage. When they were asked about “barring marriage between gay and lesbian couples,” they opposed the ban by 54 to 40 percent. When voters were asked whether they favored or opposed “having the state constitution prohibit same-sex marriage,” they opposed the ban, 51 to 43 percent. The margin of error for these two questions was +/- 5.0%. The maximum margin of error overall was 3.2%.

There were some interesting generational differences:

Age Group Percent Supporting Same-Sex Marriage
18-29 60%
30-39 58%
40-49 51%
50-64 47%
65+ 36%

And there were some religious differences as well. Born-again Christians opposed same-sex marriage by 68% to 24%. Protestants in general were opposed, 57% to 34% , and Catholics were were narrowly opposed, 48% to 45%. Voters from other religious groups favored same-sex marriage by 61% to 33%, while people with no religious affiliation supported same-sex marriage by 81% to 12%.

Daniel Gonzales

May 28th, 2008

Also expected to be on the ballot in CA this November is a 20 billion dollar high speed rail system. Nothing gets us young liberal urban elitist folk excited (and to the polls hopefully) like the dream of high speed rail transit. That same group also tends to come down overwhelmingly in favor of marriage equality. Hopefully we’ll see some synergy come November.

werdna

May 28th, 2008

Good news! If Arizona could defeat a gay marriage ban, I hope California can too.

But… bad spelling! I caught “votors” and “marraige” (twice). Hopefully all of the numbers were correct.

Timothy Kincaid

May 28th, 2008

This may be an odd way to look at this poll, but I’m excited about the polling results of those who are in the opposing groups.

According to this poll:

24% of born again Christians
11% of strongly conservative people
25% of Republicans
38% of residents of the Central Valley
45% of Catholics

all support marriage equality.

“Common knowledge” says that ALL of these folks should oppose gay marriage. That sizeable minorities within these categories support gay marriage tells us a great deal about the future of gay issues as a wedge in politics.

It’s exciting to see this poll. But considering the LA Times poll it’s hard to know what it means. I’ll cautiously celebrate but we must still work very hard to defeat this amendment.

Jason D

May 28th, 2008

Yeah, Californian’s don’t let this be like Bush vs Gore, don’t rest on your laurels and assume it’s a done deal.

I don’t know if anyone can address this, but I’ve heard rumors that even if a ban passed, it would be nullified because :

A) The Supreme Court ruling in some way nullfies or prohibits amending the CA constitution.

–and or–

B) The CA constitution cannot contradict itself. If it says “equality before the law” in one place, it can’t say “no marriage for gays” in another. Something similar to not being allowed to amend the US constitution to invalidate the Bill of Rights.

cowboy

May 28th, 2008

Affirmation (gay Mormons) has issued a press release asking the LDS Church stay out of California politics.

Not likely to happen but I wonder if Californians will take kindly to Vatican West meddling with politics in another State. Oh…that’s right, Orange County is nearly all Mormon and all the Salt Lake connections to Disneyland can’t be ignored.

At least Affirmation got a reaction in the news. The comments on ksl.com is blisteringly high and likely to melt their server.

werdna

May 28th, 2008

Amendements to the US Constitution can override existing amendments. That’s why we can drink alcohol legally again (cheers!). Is there any reason we couldn’t pass an amendment that would supercede one of the first 10? The “Bill of Rights” isn’t legally untouchable is it? It’s just politically and culturally hard to imagine changing those amendments because they are considered central to the American project.

In the case of the California constitution, an amendment would certainly supercede a judicial ruling. The recent ruling said that the state can’t offer equivalent opposite-sex marriage and same-sex domestic partnerships, so it seems possible that the result of the amendment would be that nobody at all could get married in California, or that the state couldn’t offer same-sex domestic partnerships. I’ve actually been looking for some analysis of what the legal implications of the proposed amendment might be. It’s one of those things that seems simple (just adding one line to the constitution) but the implications could be far wider (and wilder).

howller

May 28th, 2008

Werdna: “I’ve actually been looking for some analysis of what the legal implications of the proposed amendment might be.”

A good place to start would be Leonard Link

Mark

May 28th, 2008

wernda:

Actually, drinking alcohol has never been illegal for adults in this country. Prohibition just outlawed the commercial manufacture, sale and distribution of alcohol. A few counties in some states still maintain prohibition.

werdna

May 29th, 2008

howller, thants for the link, very good stuff.

Mark, yes fine, you’ve out niggled me. ;-)

My point was just (in response to Jason D’s questions) that an amendment to a constitution (US or state) will supercede any existing part of the constitution with which it conflicts. Another example would be the 14th Amendment which (among other things) rescinded the “3/5 compromise” found in the main body of the US Constitution.

Duncan

May 29th, 2008

Parts of the constitution may grant rights that are opposed to each other (such as the right to information vs the right to privacy). The principle used by the Supreme Court in the USA (and followed in most other democracies) is that a law may restrict a constitutional right only by invoking another.
But “marriage between gay and lesbian couples” surely means a gay couple marrying a lesbian couple. Shouldn’t it be “marriage between gay or lesbian partners” or “marriage for gay and lesbian couples”?

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1808: Australian Court Convicts Two Of "Most Disgusting and Abominable" Crime

Today In History, 1865: Dr. Barry's Death Reveals a Lifelong Secret

Today In History, 1985: Rock Hudson's AIDS Diagnosis Confirmed

Emphasis Mine

Born On This Day, 1844: Thomas Eakins

Born On This Day, 1879: J. Warren Kerrigan

Born On This Day, 1974: Gareth Thomas

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.