Plurality of Americans Support Gay Marriage

[Frodo]

Poll: Plurality supports gay marriage

By JAMES HOHMANN | 12/9/12 10:21 AM EST

A plurality of Americans supports gay marriage.

A new POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Poll found 40 percent of those surveyed said that same-sex couples should be able to be legally married. Thirty percent thought same-sex couples should be able to enter into civil unions but not be allowed to get married. And 24 percent said they should not be allowed to have any type of legal union.

The poll of 1,000 likely voters was conducted Dec. 2-6, just before the U.S. Supreme Court’s Friday announcement that the justices will consider two same-sex marriage cases. The full poll results will be released Monday.

One in five surveyed admitted to changing their view on same-sex marriage in the last few years, as President Barack Obama said he did earlier this year.

Nearly half, 48 percent, approved of Obama’s handling of the gay marriage issue. Seventy-one percent of Democrats approve, and 65 percent of Republicans disapproved. Independents approved the president’s handling by a 16-percentage-point margin, 50 percent to 34 percent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/poll-plurality-supports-gay-marriage-84803.html#ixzz2Ec2sHLom

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It polls better when the pollster doesn't muddy the waters with this civil union nonsense. It's polled over 50% in some polls. In any case, it's far more popular than interracial marriage was when the Supreme court ruled on Loving v. Virginia.

[Blue3]

Yeah, I saw it with 53% a year or two ago, and score over 50% a few other times too. This poll probably underrepresented.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It polls better when the pollster doesn't muddy the waters with this civil union nonsense. It's polled over 50% in some polls. In any case, it's far more popular than interracial marriage was when the Supreme court ruled on Loving v. Virginia.

Either post a link to poll showing that in 1967 the legality of interracial was unpopular or kindly never bring this meme up again.  It irks me, because I strongly doubt that it is true.  At the time of Loving, two-thirds of the states had legal interracial marriage, as opposed to the few that currently have legal same-sex marriage.

[Lief 🗽]

Seventy-three per cent of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage back then.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/most-americans-approve-interracial-marriages.aspx

[Phony Moderate]

What caused the big change in opinion between 94 and 97? A 16-point rise in support during that period, compared to a 12-point rise between 78 and 94.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Seventy-three per cent of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage back then.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/most-americans-approve-interracial-marriages.aspx

That's not the question I asked for.

Did they disapprove of it being legal or not?

There are quite a few people these days who approve of gay marriage being legal, but disapprove of gay marriage.

For that matter do you think that only 77% of Americans in 2007 approved of interracial marriage being legal?

Or that a majority of Washingtonians approve of using pot recreationally, the recent referendum results on its legality notwithstanding?

[Wiz in Wis]

Seventy-three per cent of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage back then.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/most-americans-approve-interracial-marriages.aspx

That's not the question I asked for.

Did they disapprove of it being legal or not?

There are quite a few people these days who approve of gay marriage being legal, but disapprove of gay marriage.

For that matter do you think that only 77% of Americans in 2007 approved of interracial marriage being legal?

Or that a majority of Washingtonians approve of using pot recreationally, the recent referendum results on its legality notwithstanding?

A: It's a good proxy... I doubt that there are 27% of people who disapprove of something personally, but think it should be legal. You're grasping at straws here

B: Yes, I think it's quite likely that only 77% of people in 2007 think that interracial marriage should be legal, at least when it's a poll question and not a referendum.

C: Yes, I think the majority of Washingtonians probably do approve of using pot recreationally... but they might not want to look like a druggie, so they might not answer that one honestly. In fact, I'm amazed that full 23% of people were willing to say they didn't approve of interracial marriage in 2007... it probably means more people disapprove, but some didn't answer honestly because of social desirability bias.

[Benj]

Seventy-three per cent of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage back then.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/most-americans-approve-interracial-marriages.aspx

That's not the question I asked for.

Did they disapprove of it being legal or not?

There are quite a few people these days who approve of gay marriage being legal, but disapprove of gay marriage.

You might think there would be, but there aren't. Compare such polls to the referendum results and you will find that approval of same-sex marriage and voting in favor of its legalization exactly track one another. There are almost no people who oppose same-sex marriage but would vote to legalize it (though some may claim so in polls before a referendum).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. There's a reason why the referendum to remove segregation from the Alabama constitution failed in 2004.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Different issue entirely, and it's clearly treated differently by the public.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. There's a reason why the referendum to remove segregation from the Alabama constitution failed in 2004.

Yes, it's called the knee-jerk Republican antipathy to taxes.  As far as segregation was concerned, the referendum was symbolic, but the way that referendum tried to remove it from the convoluted Alabama constitution, it potentially set up a constitutional obligation to provide education that would lead to court imposed taxes to pay for it.  [Alabama really needs to hold a Constitutional Convention to write a new Constitution from scratch.]

While racism played a part in the defeat of the 2004 amendment, it wasn't by itself sufficient as can be seen by the approval of a 2000 referendum to remove the Alabama constitution's ban on interracial marriage.  Or do you think Alabama became markedly more racist between 2000 and 2004?

[Benj]

Yes, it's called the knee-jerk Republican antipathy to taxes.  As far as segregation was concerned, the referendum was symbolic, but the way that referendum tried to remove it from the convoluted Alabama constitution, it potentially set up a constitutional obligation to provide education that would lead to court imposed taxes to pay for it.  [Alabama really needs to hold a Constitutional Convention to write a new Constitution from scratch.]

While racism played a part in the defeat of the 2004 amendment, it wasn't by itself sufficient as can be seen by the approval of a 2000 referendum to remove the Alabama constitution's ban on interracial marriage.  Or do you think Alabama became markedly more racist between 2000 and 2004?

Forgot about the 2000 referendum. Considering the results of the 2000 referendum, though, I don't see how this proves your point at all. If 41% of Alabama thought interracial marriage should be illegal in 2000, surely around 20% of the country felt that way. That seems like an underestimate if anything when compared to 41% in Alabama.

[Brittain33]

The 1994 approve number looks wrong.

As far as the rapid change... I'd hypothesize there's a tipping point where an opinion becomes socially unacceptable and a lot of people who casually held it switch over to the new normal. I expect we'll see that with SSM now that it's acquiring majority support in some states. People who thought their view was the default, will now scramble to adjust. I can't remember anything from the period that would make it an issue. (the only related issue I can remember is the Simpson trial, and we won't go there.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, it's called the knee-jerk Republican antipathy to taxes.  As far as segregation was concerned, the referendum was symbolic, but the way that referendum tried to remove it from the convoluted Alabama constitution, it potentially set up a constitutional obligation to provide education that would lead to court imposed taxes to pay for it.  [Alabama really needs to hold a Constitutional Convention to write a new Constitution from scratch.]

While racism played a part in the defeat of the 2004 amendment, it wasn't by itself sufficient as can be seen by the approval of a 2000 referendum to remove the Alabama constitution's ban on interracial marriage.  Or do you think Alabama became markedly more racist between 2000 and 2004?

Forgot about the 2000 referendum. Considering the results of the 2000 referendum, though, I don't see how this proves your point at all. If 41% of Alabama thought interracial marriage should be illegal in 2000, surely around 20% of the country felt that way. That seems like an underestimate if anything when compared to 41% in Alabama.

While most of the no vote was almost certainly due to racist reasons, not all of it was.  There's always a chunk of the vote on these sorts of referenda that always votes no, no matter the question.  In one way that's a good thing, as it helps keep constitutions subject to simple majority votes on amendments from ping-ponging back and forth, but of course its also a bad thing when that affects a measure you want to see passed.

Also, since it was a purely symbolic vote anyway, there likely were some idiots who voted no for other reasons, such as wishing the issue had simply been left for dead, and/or they treated it as a referendum on whichever politician was pushing this issue, rather than the issue itself.  Sort of like how the GOP was all in favor of the individual mandate until Obama started pushing the idea.

Of course, it is possible that my viewpoint is skewed by my libertarian streak.  There are any number of things I personally disapprove of that I would not wish to see be made illegal.  That's why I want to see polling data on the actual question of 'should it be illegal' rather than inferences made from the different question of 'do you approve'.

[Ogre Mage]

What caused the big change in opinion between 94 and 97? A 16-point rise in support during that period, compared to a 12-point rise between 78 and 94.

One possibility -- the mid 1990s was the first time same-sex marriage emerged as a national issue.  Once that became the new front in the culture wars, opposition to interracial marriage began to look increasingly archaic.

[Alcon]

That's not the question I asked for.

Did they disapprove of it being legal or not?

There are quite a few people these days who approve of gay marriage being legal, but disapprove of gay marriage.

For that matter do you think that only 77% of Americans in 2007 approved of interracial marriage being legal?

Or that a majority of Washingtonians approve of using pot recreationally, the recent referendum results on its legality notwithstanding?

I'm not saying that such people don't exist, but for interracial marriage's legality to have had majority support, then it would have to have had hugely higher crossover than gay marriage has ever had.  The number of people who believe that homosexuality is morally wrong actually trails disapproval of gay marriage, depending on the question.  I wish we had solid polling too, but inferring that most people opposed interracial marriage based on 77%-17% moral disapproval isn't remotely unreasonable.

I think the pot analogy is obviously much weaker than the gay marriage analogy, and if gay marriage only had 17% of people calling it morally acceptable, it will be failing miserably.  That's not to say it's impossible interracial marriage had majority support...it just seems extremely unlikely.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm going to have to disagree with you then Alcon.  Even if people disapproved of a black man marrying a white woman, it was still something they could recognize as a marriage between a man and a woman and did not require a redefinition of marriage.  To a large extent, I think that with same-sex marriage those who disapprove of it, but think they should be able to have a relationship with the same legal rights tend to gravitate to the civil union option in the current debates.  There was no such option under discussion with interracial marriage, so I expect a fair chunk of those went with legal interracial marriage as the better of what they saw as two bad choices.  (Indeed, the idea of sanctioning non-marriage cohabitation would have been scandalous back then.)