Comments on: Pew Research: for first time, majority of Americans do not oppose same-sex marraige

By: BIll

BIll — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:26:35 +0000

I still don’t understand why fundamental rights are subject to majority approval.

But only for gay citizens.

By: Theo

Theo — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 03:37:03 +0000

One other thought: the universal pattern has been that the states that have enacted SSM or civil unions experience an accelerated increase in support. Even NOM admits that VT legislatively adopted SSM b/c it was “conditioned” by its experience with civil unions.

This outcome in VT and all of the other states that have SSM or CUs, is fatal to NOMs claims that family breakdown, religious repression and homosexual indoctrination of school kids would result from acceptance of SSM. If any of those things had come to pass even to a modest degree, support levels would have gone down, not increased faster than average.

Now that we have gone from just 1 lonely state with civil unions in 2000 to 5 states and the capital with SSM and 4 more with full civil unions, perhaps we will see that accelerated acceptance spread across states, as the concept of SSM becomes demystified and the dire predictions fail to come about. It will be interesting to test this hypothesis in future polls, especially if we are able to add RI, IL, and MN to the SSM/CU list this year or next.

@ Stefan:

I hope that you are right about the potential for a shift in NY. If our candidate in Buffalo wins the general, we will be only 4 votes short, assuming that everyone else votes the way they did last year and assuming we get a Dem Lt. Governor who could break a tie in our favor. If a few GOP votes shift, that will be enough, although I will believe it when I see it.

By: justsearching

justsearching — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 19:22:41 +0000

“It can no longer be assumed that the party will hold together much longer…” Oh goody, Tim is projecting that the Republican Party will fall to pieces. I want one as a memento to show future generations. :D

By: cd

cd — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 18:42:30 +0000

What the poll says imho is that conservatives are realizing and slowly admitting to themselves that their position is emotionally held and its substance is bullshit.

I disagree with Theo. Most Republican state legislators have majority Republican districts, and majorities of registered Republicans who vote in primaries adamantly oppose gay marriage legalization. Those legislators are probably not worried about their chances in General elections- the vote that puts them over the 50% mark in those is generally (perhaps invariably) anti-taxation or anti-regulation. It’s the Republican primary where they’ll likely pay with their career in politics for being in favor of gay marriage in 2010.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:34:32 +0000

Sorry, Titus, I thought I had linked. It’s there now

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 06:03:26 +0000

“then it can no longer be assumed that the party will hold together much longer in ideological opposition to decency.”

It will become a State’s Rights issue and will be played as such just like in the 1960s. The Republicans in Massachusetts are running a pro-gay/openly-gay ticket for governor this year. Same-sex marriage is settled law in this state.

It’s going to be a tough road, esp considering Obama is not that into us, but the future is here and Mass is a model of how the politics play out.

By: Stefan

Stefan — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 04:49:33 +0000

Theo, just thought I’d mention a few things:

-California Republicans are actually quite conservative (the rest of the state other then no more then 50 or so miles inland of the coast and portions of the Nevada boarder are pretty red areas). Only 1 member of the entire legislature voted yes to Harvey Milk Day and only 2 voted in favor of the Religious Freedom in Marriage Ceremonies Bill).

-No Republicans voted for gay marriage in New York because of the recent Scozzfava incident. When it comes up again there are expected to be a few that will vote in support (I’ve read an article which lists about 6-12 Republican Senators that are considered moveable on the issue).

-In New Jersey it was because Chris Christie bullied several of the undecided Senators on both sides to vote no.

By: Titus

Titus — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 04:04:15 +0000

Do you have a link?

By: T.J.

T.J. — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 02:15:28 +0000

The other encouraging thing we know from social psychology is that people commonly do not like to feel like they are part of a minority out-group and when significance in society is determined in part by not alienating oneself too far from the mainstream, the groups with the lower support will start to be moved by social pressure to conform as they will be painted and perceived as increasily irrelevant and intolerant if they do not. As a former evangelical who was always trying to “influence society for Christ” this will become unacceptable to the movers and shakers in that movement and there will be increasing calls for tolerance to homosexual beliefs. They will be treated as a matter of “personal belief and conscience” much like they treat gambling or drinking alcohol. They will realize if they don’t “discover” another way of interpreting the Bible on that issue, they will go the way of the fundamentalists and lose the younger generations which, even in evangelical circles, are much more indifferent to this whole issue than their parents. In other words, modernize and stay relevant, or be pertinacious and fall into social obscurity. Like my good friend says with this…it’s just a matter of time.

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 01:41:08 +0000

The percentage increases seem to be greater than a margin of error for a Pew poll, also. It might be possible for the independent 09 poll to have been a low-end sample and the 10 poll to be a high-end sample, especially given the drop between 08 and 10. Still, this bears out what Nate Silver has been saying about increasing support.