Posts Tagged As: Samples Surveys and Polls

Latest marriage poll

Timothy Kincaid

March 10th, 2015

In the latest NBC/WSJ poll, US support for marriage equality reaches new heights

Q35 Do you favor or oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into same-sex marriages? (IF “FAVOR” OR “OPPOSE,” ASK:) Would you say that you strongly (favor/oppose), or just somewhat (favor/oppose)?

38 Strongly favor
21 Somewhat favor
9 Somewhat oppose
24 Strongly oppose
2 It depends
6 Not sure

And just in case the anti-gays think this means they are winning:

Marriage graph_Page_2

New marriage poll

Timothy Kincaid

March 27th, 2014

From the Christian Science Monitor

The United States is in the midst of a broad and rapid change in attitudes about gay marriage, with 55 percent now favoring full recognition of same-sex marriage and 40 percent opposed, according to a national survey released on Thursday.

The poll, conducted for a gay rights organization, found that support for same-sex marriage is highest among young adults, with 75 percent approval among those ages 18 to 29. Among that group, 58 percent said they are strongly in favor, compared with 13 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds identified as strongly opposed.

The only age group with a majority opposed to such recognition is those 65 years and older. Among that group, 55 percent said they disagree with gay marriage.

The synopsis says that it has a 3.1% margin of error, but I have not yet found a link to the poll questions, so I don’t know the extent to which I can trust the poll’s accuracy.

But while the numbers are more aggressive than other media polling, they are not way outside what we’ve seen lately.

Huge leap in GOP support for marriage

Timothy Kincaid

February 28th, 2014

The New York Times has a new poll showing that Republicans have a slight lead in popular support going into this year’s elections. But the take away from this poll is rather surprising:

Further, Republican lawmakers appear out of step with the public on a range of issues, according to the survey. On immigration, same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization and gun control, Republican lawmakers hold to the minority position. Some of these policy matters illuminate the party’s internal divisions. Half of people under age 45 who lean Republican support legalizing marijuana, and a majority of the same cohort of Republicans also backs same-sex marriage.

Over all, Republican support for same-sex marriage is on the rise. In the fall of 2012, just 24 percent of Republicans backed legalizing the unions; now 40 percent of Republicans do so.

If accurate, that would be a two-thirds increase in just two years. It would also suggest that the future of anti-gay advocacy in the United States looks dim.

A new calculation of the percent of men in America who are gay

Timothy Kincaid

December 7th, 2013

In an opinion piece titled, “How Many American Men Are Gay?”, Seth Stephens-Davidowitz seeks to answer that question. (New York Times)

At least 5 percent of American men, I estimate, are predominantly attracted to men, and millions of gay men still live, to some degree, in the closet. Gay men are half as likely as straight men to acknowledge their sexuality on social networks. More than one quarter of gay men hide their sexuality from anonymous surveys. The evidence also suggests that a large number of gay men are married to women.

Stephens-Davidowitz finds his solution by looking at meta-data from Facebook, Google, and While this may seem a less rigorous methodology than some which have been employed, there are no truly conclusive methods – or, at least, no economically feasible and non-invasive methods – for measuring the internal longings and attractions of a small percentage of the population.

While this is not by any means conclusive, his calculation adds to the growing research which suggests that greater than three percent, and less than ten percent, of men in the united states are predominantly attracted to the same sex. (I tend to favor a number closer to 4%, but it’s difficult to be certain).

Inevitably, NOM will whine

Timothy Kincaid

June 6th, 2013

If there is one thing that annoys the National Organization for (not your) Marriage more than any other, it’s the notion that they are one the losing side of history, that marriage equality is inevitable. No one wants to think of their efforts as pointless, and especially not an organization that has hefty salaries to pay.

For example, in their amusingly titled blog post “The Tide Has Turned! Victory in Illinois” in response to the failure of the Illinois House of Representative to vote on equality, Brian Brown begins his declaration thusly:

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The myth of gay marriage inevitability died last night in Illinois! [emphasis in the original[]

So it must have been a bitter feeling that crept into his soul when he saw the results of a Pew Poll:

Yes, 59% of those who support NOM’s position recognize that equality is inevitable and that any money thrown in NOM’s direction could be better spent on reinforcing their own marriage (or, for that matter, on booze and hookers).

Gallup asks how many gays

Timothy Kincaid

February 18th, 2013

The Gallup Poll people have conducted a rather massive survey – 206,186 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia – asking one simple question:

Do you, personally, identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender?

Gallup then ranked the states by most to least, and news and bloggers were quick to find that ranking interesting. Which was, in itself, interesting in that it illustrated that most folks don’t understand polls and that Gallup is more than happy to play into their ignorance.

Margins of error for individual states are no greater than ±6 percentage points, and are ±3 percentage points in most states. The margin of error for the District of Columbia is ±6 percentage points.

In other words, the ranking is all in the margin of error.

But the national margin of error is much smaller, +/- 1% (95% confidence). And the overall finding is pretty close to what we’ve long calculated here at BTB: 3.5%.

And it’s not exactly news either. Gallup told us back in October that the percentage was 3.4%, along with a lot of other inside-the-margin-of-error details. And this poll appears to be an extension of the last.

But, in any case, we are finally getting a number into general circulation that is probably more accurate than the old Kinsey 10%. (Though I’m sure we would all find it interesting what was in the heads of the three to four percent which refused to answer either yes or no.)

NOM’s fantasyland poll

Timothy Kincaid

November 9th, 2012

Cue the calliope, Kellyanne Conway is back with some more charmingly imaginative polling numbers. And just as a creative mind can almost believe that the beribboned wood-carved creations bobbing up and down are a real pack of wild horses, if you dream real hard and listen to the music, Conway’s polls can almost seem just like real ones.

But even at the Happiest Place on Earth, the music stops. And the wooden horse is just a wooden horse.

And, so too, when the giddy moment of make-believe ends, Kellyanne Conway’s “polls” remain nothing but tools for frauds and manipulators to try and convince themselves and others of things that simply are not true. And so it is to Conway’s ‘the polling company, inc.’ that the National Organization for Marriage has turned for consolation over Tuesday’s losses.

In some sad delusional effort to flash bright lights and play jingly music, NOM brings us this:

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today released the results of a nationwide survey of voters conducted on Election Day that shows 60% of Americans who voted in the election favor marriage being the union of one man and one woman. The survey, conducted by respected pollster Kellyanne Conway’s firm ‘the polling company, inc.’ is consistent with a national survey they conducted this past September showing 57% of Americans then believed marriage should only be the union of one man and one woman.

“The outcome of the marriage votes in four very liberal states has caused some to speculate as to whether the American people have changed their views on marriage. This scientific poll shows that the answer to that is, ‘no’ they have not changed,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “This survey shows that 60% of voters believe marriage is one man and one woman, which is consistent with the 57% result ‘the polling company’ found in September.”

How was that poll conducted?

Conducted by the polling company, inc., the survey interviewed 800 randomly selected people who actually voted.

You may note that the familiar language about “statistically valid random sampling methodology” was not used. Instead they opted for that phrase most associated with convenience sampling. And cues one that their results have about the same reliability as one would find by “randomly selecting” people at your local mall. That is, not much.

And the question?

Do you (ROTATED) agree or disagree that “marriage is between one man and one woman”?

Well let me ask you, do YOU disagree that marriage is between one man and one woman? I don’t. I’ve been to several marriages that were between one man and one woman. I just also happen to believe that marriage is between one man and one man or one woman and one woman.

Which pretty much means that this means nothing. It’s a garbled response to a deliberately confusing question asked to people that were not selected to reflect the populace or the voters. But it’s presented as though it has meaning.

It’s kinda sad, really.

When your best bet is to present a fantasy, a whimsical ride on a merry-go-round, you pretty much have no reality to rely on. And you know it. When you resort to candyfloss polling, it’s because you know, you know with certainty, that any real poll would show you a world much more real than you can stand seeing.

And while this kind of nonsensical fairy-tale alternate reality may be appropriate for light lifters like Brian Brown, it’s embarrassing to see educated once-thoughtful people like Robert George or Maggie Gallagher associated with this level of story telling and myth mongering.

Gallup poll asks if you’re LGBT

Timothy Kincaid

October 18th, 2012

In April 2011, Gary Gates, a demographer at UCLA’s Williams Institute who specializes in the gay community, announced:

An estimated 3.5% of adults in the United States identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual and an estimated 0.3% of adults are transgender.

While I thought his number was in the ballpark, I was decidedly unimpressed with his methods (averaging averages, adopting the lowest possible estimates, and not separating mens’ and womens’ sexuality). And I placed little reliance on his report.

However, over the summer, Gates worked with Gallup Polls to have the following question asked to over 120,000 people:

Do you, personally, identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

With a sample size so huge, they can assign 95% confidence that they have less than 1% error margin. In other words, this is really rather accurate.

The result?

Yes…………………………………. 3.4%
No…………………………………. 92.2%
don’t know/refused …….. 4.4%

There is some very interesting data that can be mined from the detail. For example, though no one has ever illustrated that there is any racial differentiation in orientation, those identifying as gay differ by race: Black 4.6%, Asian 4.3%, Hispanic 4.0%, White 3.2%. The error of margin overall is less than 1%, but the subpopulations have less statistical confidence and this difference may well be within margin. However, as ‘common wisdom’ (which is often neither) assumes that blacks are less likely than whites to identify as gay, this is a statistic worth noting.

And, of course, there’s age:

As is pretty consistent with such polls, LGBT identity drops with age. This is generally understood to reflect a greater willingness in younger respondents to so identify. And that does likely play a role.

But over time one would expect some creep in the numbers over time such that in newer polls the 30- 49 demographic was no longer a decrease from 18 – 29. Instead, I think we are seeing the same pattern now that we have seen for decades. So I’m not certain that ‘today’s new attitude of youthful acceptance’ fully explains that phenomenon, unless we assume that some go back into the closet in their 30’s.

Personally, I am beginning to suspect other factors that may play some part. Here are but a few possible other things to consider.

The most drastic shift is from the first to second demographic. This time also reflects a very common shift in relationship status from single and dating in your 20’s to married in your 30’s. It is possible that this reflects an internal perception of free and available to someone who is committed to a specific person of a specific sex (most often the opposite sex).

After 30, the demographic LGBT identification gradually decreases, but there really isn’t a comparable increase to “not-LGBT” identification. Rather, “don’t know / other” seems to take up the slack.

This could be entirely due to “the closet”, but I don’t think the closet lends itself to any identity other than “no! LGBT? no, no, I’m not that, no-sirreee, not me!” So I wonder whether this reflects something else.

It could contain elements of older same-sex attracted persons who see “lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender” to be an identity that reflects a way of life, a community, a worldview. Perhaps this is a person who thinks, “Joe and I? No, we don’t go out to bars and all our friends are straight and we just aren’t part of all that. So I’m just not sure how to answer that question.”

Another option is that as age increase, there may be a willingness to let go of some presumptions and limitations. Perhaps unexpectedly you found yourself attracted to some random stranger of the opposite sex and it threw your self-perception on its ear.

I don’t have data to support any of that speculation – and I doubt there is ready data to address it either way – but I introduce it as a few alternate possibilities to help explain the curve. I don’t know that these explanations have much validity, but I’d like us to think outside of the box a bit.

And the poll seems also to have presented some data that challenges another assumption that we have held to:

There are two dialogs that I’ve heard about the financial condition of gay individuals and families: either gays are flush with cash (when we call for more gay specific advertising) or living in poverty (when we call for increased services). I don’t think this supports either assertion, though it could serve either.

It seems that a larger percent of the less affluent identify as gay and the wealthier are less likely to do so. But this follows more or less the age breakout. Which one would expect. Generally those who are in their 20’s are likely to be making less than those in their 50’s. So I’m not sure there is much there.

However, that being said, it is true that a larger percent of the poor identify as gay than do the rich. On the other hand, 2.8% of those making over $90,000 identify as LGBT, a percentage higher than any of those who are over the age of 50.

So while that is interesting, it does not clearly support (or refute) either assertion. And all of the variables are probably within the margin of error of the subpopulations anyway.

Because we are such a small percentage of the population, and because questions about sexuality and sexual orientation can seem to either be intrusive or a threat, surveys simply cannot answer definitively the question as to our size and we are limited in the amount of trust we should place on any of this.

However, that being said, I think that we can say with confidence that at least 3.2 percent of the US population identifies as LGBT.

Is the Telegraph’s John Bingham a lying scoundrel or a blithering idiot?

Timothy Kincaid

June 8th, 2012

Bingham: liar or dunce?

John Bingham, the Social and Religious Affairs Editor on the Daily Telegraph, is either shamelessly lying in promotion of his opposition to equality in Britain or he is the biggest dunce to ever grace the pages of that newspaper. Bingham, without a moment’s hesitation repeated the “conclusions” of a “poll of homosexual people” paid for by Catholic Voices in order to bolster their claim that civil partnerships are enough and that the nation should not allow gay people equality.

The first poll of its kind in Britain also found that only a minority of gay people believe redefining marriage should be a “priority” and only half said that having the opportunity to marry was important to them personally.

By now our readers are well familiar with the difference between a poll that seeks to find out how the populace feels about a subject and a “poll” which uses loaded language, confusing questions, and a series of statements and prior questions in order to get a completely false and unrepresentative “conclusion” that can be used deceptively for public relations purposes. Clearly, Bingham is not a reader.

ComRes does not easily provide the methods used for sampling. The one item we do know is that their survey of “homosexual people” excluded “heterosexuals” and “refuse to answer” but includes the categories “gay/lesbian” and “bisexual” and “other” (ah, good old “other”). And considering that this is a candidate for (if not the very) worst example of a loaded poll that I’ve reviewed, I think it is far more likely than not that it too was rigged. [Update: it was an “online survey”, a polling method a step or two higher than “asking my friends and family”]

Here were the questions. Yes, you will laugh. Yes, you will find yourself muttering, “God, Bingham is a dunce not to see through this!”

    Does each of the following apply to you or not?

  • I am in a Civil Partnership
  • I am not in a Civil Partnership but would seriously consider it
  • I do not ever intend to be in a Civil Partnership
  • I would get married to my partner if the law permitted it

Each category allows for “applies”, “does not apply”, and “don’t know”. So a person in a Civil Partnership might answer yes or no to marriage, but the deliberately ambiguous language encourages a “doesn’t apply” response from those who strongly support marriage, but are currently partnerless.

    Does each of the following apply to you or not?

  • I am against marriage as an institution
  • I support marriage as an institution but only between a man and a woman
  • It is important to me that marriage is extended to same-sex couples
  • Insisting that Civil Partnership and marriage remain separate and distinct worsens public attitudes towards gay people

Again, it encourages those who oppose marriage as an institution to say that it is unimportant that marriage be extended to same-sex couples – a number that the Catholic Deceivers wanted to be as low as possible.

But now on to the question that qualifies this as a serious contender for “worst poll ever”. I mean even Maggie Gallagher wouldn’t put out this poll – and that’s really saying something.

    Do you agree or disagree with these statements?

  • David Cameron is only trying to extend marriage to LGBT people to make his Party look more compassionate rather than because of his convictions
  • Generally speaking the best environment for children is to be raised by their own father and mother in a loving relationship
  • Marriage is more about love between two people than it is about rearing and raising children
  • I think redefining marriage is a priority for gay people
  • True marriage equality would mean that same-sex couples could marry in places of worship as well as in civil locations
  • Faith groups should be forced to allow gay weddings in places of worship
  • There is no need to change the law on marriage because Civil Partnerships give all the same rights as marriage

How do you even answer this bullsh!t? Now do you think that “redefining marriage” is a “priority” for gay people? I don’t, so I would “disagree”. But then again I’ve never met a gay person who wanted to redefine marriage at all, though I know plenty who very much want to join the institution just as it is – except without discriminatory entrance requirements.

But absent a question that actually makes sense and reflects the views of the people being questioned, 39% “agreed”. I don’t even know what that means. But John Bingham thinks it means something so he parroted what the Catholic Deceivers fed him.

And look at the loaded “Faith groups should be forced to allow gay weddings in places of worship”. Obviously “forced” is thrown in there to make martyrs of the Catholic Deceivers. Say “no” to forcing and you don’t support marriage. Say “yes” to forcing and you hate religion and are tying to impose your will on people of faith.

But even beyond that, it’s vague and meaningless. Does that mean their places of worship? I would say, “no, Catholics should not be forced to allow gay weddings in Catholic Churches.” But that isn’t the issue in Britain. Rather, Catholics are trying to deny gay people the ability to marry in any places of worship, even those who are petitioning the government to allow them the religious freedom of conducting marriages in their own churches. So I could say “yes, Catholics should not be allowed to block gay weddings in churches that are none of their business”.

And after all of that confusion and nonsense and deception and intentionally vague wording, we come to the question that they are trying to drive: Do you agree or disagree that “There is no need to change the law on marriage because Civil Partnerships give all the same rights as marriage.”

Huh? I’m hearing double negatives so could you repeat the question?

And joy of all joys, they got 26% of respondents to say that they agreed. Yeah, mostly older and mostly rural, but hey they managed to get some positive response to that.

Which brings them to what they surely saw as the icing on the cake. Get ready to laugh. This is the question that would have led any responsible newspaper to say, “I’m sorry, we don’t print bullsh!t here.”

    Do you agree or disagree with these statements?

  • I’m glad I was raised by both a mother and a father because it means I can relate to both sexes

Really? Could they be more obvious? And what on earth does that have to do with the decision to support marriage rather than civil partnerships?

Okay, at least they didn’t follow it up with, “And why do you hate your Mum and Dad?” But to the credit of British gays, only 37% fell to the temptation to support Mum and Dad. So that question slipped out of the article somehow.

But while championing the completely bogus numbers in this completely bogus poll would have been dishonest, they went for the big lie. And having the mental competency of the average church mouse (or having not one smidgen of personal integrity), Bingham went along for the ride.

Looking at results for this ludicrous nonsense, Bingham announces

The poll suggests that support for changing the law to redefine marriage among the homosexual community could be more lukewarm than previously thought.

Or it suggests that Catholic Deceivers are a bunch or liars and you are a complete fool. I’m betting on the latter.

Another Thought on the Polling Paradox

Jim Burroway

June 1st, 2012

I want to add another thought to Timothy’s comment here about the gap between polling and vote results on marriage amendments. He raises an excellent point that a good portion of the explanation for the gap — at least as far as how the gap was written about in this particular AP article — ignores the logical fallacy of comparing today’s opinion polls to votes taken four to ten years ago.

And yet we have seen mismatches between what the polls tell us leading up to election days and what finally happens in the voting booth. Let’s take Maine in 2009 as an example. By the end of October, polling showed that those supporting or leaning to support Question 1 was at about 42 percent, while those opposing or leaning to oppose Question 1 were at 52%. But what happened on election day? Question 1 passed 53% to 47%.

The paradox does exist, but I think a lot of people are looking at it wrong. Polls asked about whether people think gay people should be allowed to marry. Because that’s the question polls ask, people are generally inclined to agree that others peoples’ marriages are other peoples’ business.

But as I said before when I expressed my concern that Maine was going to loose despite what the polls said, by the time people go to the voting booth the question isn’t whether gay people should marry or not, but whether their children should be “taught homosexuality” in the schools. That’s a completely different question from what the poll asked. As I said just five days before Maine’s vote:

Frank Schubert, who is running the Stand for Marriage Maine campaign has recognized something that is very fundamental in all politics. Former U.S. House Speaker Tip O’Niel famously said that all politics are local. Schubert recognized that politics aren’t just local, but personal. It hinges on the question, “How will this affect me?” Karen Ocamb’s brilliant analysis of the California campaign which Schubert ran, which should be mandatory reading for everyone, describes very carefully how Schubert came to this conclusion:

During the Prop 8 Case Study workshop, Schubert said he, Flint and their team spent hours “looking at where people were and what we needed to do to reach them.”

What they found was that most Californians were very tolerant of same sex relationships. Schubert said:

“They didn’t see how gay marriage effected them, per se. It wasn’t their issue. It wasn’t something they cared to think about. It wasn’t something they wanted to talk about. It was an uncomfortable subject generally for them event to get their arms around.”

If we really want to win these battles, we need to begin with an understanding of this important truth:

Nobody Cares About Same-Sex Marriage

When I said “nobody cares,” I wanted to make the point that the average voter doesn’t care personally about marriage. It is this insight that our opponents have seized on and used to win the day every time. Thirty-two times we have failed to grasp this important lesson, and thirty-two times we have lost because of it. And every time, it was because we failed to grasp the real question that was before voters. Again, as I wrote in 2009 just five days before the vote:

Stand For Marriage Maine’s “positive” feel-good approach didn’t last long. They have a new ad out: …Notice how it’s loaded with all the bad stuff that you care about – out-of-state militant activists corrupting your values, gay teachers pushing their agenda on your children, militant gay activists in your schools and even your daycare centers. “IT’S ALREADY HAPPENED HERE! DON’T BE FOOLED!”

Here’s Protect Maine Equality’s response: …In a nutshell: please help someone else.

What the Yes on 1 folks in Maine did was make it possible to support marriage equality but vote against Question 1 because the changed the question before the voters. A year later, Maine’s campaign manager Marc Mutty made a startling admission on camera that their campaign message was the equivalent of slamming people over the head with “a two-by-four with nails sticking out of it,” adding, ” it’s the only thing we’ve got — it’s the only way. That’s the way campaigns work.”

There’s a popular saying about defining insanity as doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result. As a political movement, ours has to be about the most insane of all when it comes to this particular issue. We keep coming up with messages that resonate with us, but which do not connect with the average voter. Until we recognize that nobody deeply cares about same-sex marriage — but they do care about other things which more directly affect them — then we’re going to keep on losing for a very long time.

Least logical marriage article of the week

Timothy Kincaid

June 1st, 2012

The Associated Press put out a real dud of an article this week pondering why the polls show majority support for marriage equality in the country but the votes in the states all went against us.

For now, however, there remains a gap between the national polling results and the way states have voted. It’s a paradox with multiple explanations, from political geography to the likelihood that some conflicted voters tell pollsters one thing and then vote differently.

“It’s not that people are lying. It’s an intensely emotional issue,” said Amy Simon, a pollster based in Oakland, Calif. “People can report to you how they feel at the moment they’re answering the polls, but they can change their mind.”

California experienced that phenomenon in November 2008, when voters, by a 52-48 margin, approved a ban on same-sex marriage in the state constitution.

No it didn’t. Polls leading into the Prop 8 election showed that 48% of voters opposed the proposition (i.e. “told pollsters one thing”) and 48% voted no (i.e. then DID NOT vote differently). The poll numbers of those supporting the bill along with those ‘uncertain’ reflect the number voting for Proposition 8.

And as for the “paradox”, it’s only confusing to people who don’t own a calendar. Comparing current polling numbers with votes that are up to a decade old may make for sensational writing, but it’s logically absurd.

In about May, 2011, polls began to (unexpectedly) show that a majority of Americans support marriage equality. Other than North Carolina (in which the polls were mirrored in the vote), every single one of those “way the states have voted” occurred in 2008 or before. Oh, the paradox. Oh, the gap.

And that says noting to the irrationality of comparing national polls to state elections.

It’s pretty simple. Anti-gays went first for the low-lying fruit: Southern and other anti-gay states. Then they fought hard and employed a campaign of implied threats and blatant dishonesty to win in California. But with each election it has become clear that they are reaching – or have reached – their apex and their margins of victory are growing razor thin. There’s no mystery, there’s no drama. And soon – perhaps as soon as November – there will be no further advances of their anti-gay agenda.

Incidentally, Amy Simon opted not to respond to the offer to clarify her explanation.

Another ABC Poll, yet more good marriage news

Timothy Kincaid

May 23rd, 2012

23. On another subject, do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

39% – strongly legal
14% – somewhat legal
7% – somewhat illegal
32% – strongly illegal
8% – “Oh, gee, I don’t know. Do you like my hair?”

Analysis of the full polling demographics (pdf) suggests to me that those who believe that God has ordained them to dictate to you the details of your life are not shifting on this issue. But they are rapidly losing influence over everyone else.

Christie to Republicans: put marriage on the ballot, the people will vote for it

Timothy Kincaid

February 2nd, 2012

Sometimes I am tempted to think that the prominent Republicans in this country just wish that marriage equality was already the law so that they didn’t have to talk about it or make promises to “the base”. Last year, New York Senate Majority Leader Skelos (who could have single handedly stopped the bill) put the question to the Senate after enough Republican votes were secured so that he could vote no while the bill passed. Today New Hampshire Republicans tell us that they are far too busy on fiscal matters for their supermajorities in each house to even consider repeal this year.

And now New Jersey Governor Christie has this to say about his new decision to direct Republican lawmakers to support a bill that would create a November referendum: (Bloomberg)

“The polls that I’ve seen show that if this goes to the ballot, I lose. How much more magnanimous could I be?”

There’s a whole pile of ways that can be interpreted and we can only guess as to what it means. While I think he bets on the polls being wrong, my best guess is that what he really wants to say is, “Stop asking me about that. I don’t care. Really, I couldn’t care in the slightest.”

NOM’s sad little dishonest “survey”

Timothy Kincaid

February 2nd, 2012

What do you do when all the polls are against you? What do you do when accurately reporting social attitudes demonstrates that you are outside the mainstream and that people aren’t buying your arguments anymore. What do you do to justify your continued ‘defense of the family’ when it becomes clear that ‘the family’ doesn’t want your defense?

Well, if you are the National Organization for Marriage, you make sh!t up. And what better way than to conduct your own “survey” of the attitudes of Washington voters and pass it off as meaningful. Here’s what they say about their little survey.

When reminded that Washington State has a civil union law for gay couples, 57% of voters say it is not necessary to redefine marriage. 72% of voters think state lawmakers should work on other issues rather than same-sex marriage. A nearly identical number -71% of voters—believe the people should decide the marriage issue; only 9% think legislators should decide the matter.

“If the Washington Legislature wants to change the definition of marriage, which 57% of voters oppose, NOM calls on them to give this decision to voters. Thirty-one other states have been able to vote on the definition of marriage, and Washington voters deserve the same opportunity,” Brown said. “Voters have made it clear in this survey that they alone should decide the marriage issue—not legislators. Let the people vote.”

But reading the actual survey is just funny. They tried everything they could to get desired results from this “survey” and still Washingtonians didn’t give them what they wanted. And while the survey is meaningless from a social survey standpoint, it does illustrate how dishonest NOM actually is willing to be.

First, NOM stacked the deck. Choosing an age sample that understated those under 45 and overstate those over 65 by about 3-4%. They also found a sample that is 36% conservative and 34% liberal on social issues. In Washington. And in a state that voted for Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama (with an 18 point spread), their sample is 37% leaning Democrat and 35% leaning Republican.

And then NOM played the ‘push poll’ game, setting up language to try and jostle participants into giving them an answer that they can use for political gain. It’s a very common tactic of politicians, but it is despicable and immoral when used by a group that pretends to be protecting the voters.

The first question is about whether the participant is a voter. No problem. But then it is followed by three ‘set-up’ questions designed to place the participant as an opponent to the legislature: 2) is Washington going in the right direction or wrong track, and 3) how would you rate the job performance of Gov. Gregoire and 4) the legislature. Rating categories were excellent, good, only fair, poor, other.

“Only fair” is an interesting option. Usually “fair” stands alone, as an indication of acceptable but not particularly laudable. However, by adding “only”, NOM poisons this option and takes it from “okay” and implies a failure. This intentional shading was necessary in order to push the participant into being suspicious of the legislature and governor.

And then come the marriage questions. And the first one is just laughable obvious.

5. As you probably know, since 2010 Washington has had a civil union law which gives gay couples all the legal rights of married couples. Now some people want to pass a new law, which changes the definiton of marriage, so that it is no longer between a man and a woman, but between any two people. Do you feel it is necessary or not necessary to pass now a new law which changes the definition of marriage in this way?

36% Necessary
57% Not Necessary
7% Don’t Know / No Response

Any two people. Hmmm. Like, say, siblings or parent and child or fundamentalist Mormon and his unwilling 14 year old bride, or you and the girl down the street that put out a restraining order on you. Any two people… yeah, that’s just a lie. Not a misstatement, not a convenient term for a complex issue. Nope. Just a lie.

And is it “necessary now”? Well, considering the economy and other issues of concern, having 36% say that it’s necessary now is a HUGE failure for NOM.

6. Who do you think should decide what the definition of marriage is in Washington state: should it be defined by the courts, or should it be defined by the state legislature, or should it be defined by the voters of the state?

8% Defined by the courts
9% Defined by the Legislature
71% Defined by the voters
12% Don’t know / no response

Okay. That’s probably somewhat reflective of their views.

7. If you were able to speak today with your local state legislator, would you tell him or her that passing a new which charges the definition of marriage is something you want the state legislature to work on at this time, or would you tell him or her that the state legislature should work on solving other problems?

23% Work on marriage law
72% Work on solving other problems
4% Don’t know/no response

Again, colossal fail for NOM. A quarter of Washington residents think that marriage equality is more important than anything else.

But here is the clincher. Here is the question to which everything was geared. Here is the answer that NOM has been driving for:

8. And if you were able to speak today with your local state legislator, would you tell him or her to vote for this new law which changes the definition of marriage, so that it is no longer between a man and a woman but between any two people, or to vote against this change?

42% Vote for new marriage law
49% Vote against marriage change
10% Don’t know / No Response

Having done everything they could to stack the survey population and the skew the poll to show that “the people” don’t want equality, still they couldn’t get more than half to say to vote against the bill. Having gotten participants to agree that it wasn’t necessary or more important than other matters and that it should be up to “the voters”, still 42% said to vote for the “any two people” bill.

Oh, NOM, you are a sad little group, aren’t you? Unethical, immoral, dishonest, and still losing your culture war over the hearts and minds of decent people.

Minnesota poll: anti-equality amendment close

Timothy Kincaid

January 31st, 2012

Public Policy Polling found:

Q2 Should the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?
48% Yes
44% No
8% Not sure

Q3 Which of the following best describes your opinion on gay marriage: gay couples should be allowed to legally marry, or gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry, or there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship?
37% Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry
34% Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not marry
27% There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship
2% Not sure

Q4 Do you think same-sex marriage should be legal or illegal?
43% Legal
47% Illegal
10% Not sure

This is not good news. Generally, in marriage polls the undecideds all go to the anti-gay position.

« Older Posts    

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.