Poll: Half oppose constitutional ban

crosby, are you really that stupid? Can't be, but it is true. Your so called 'normal people' can get married if they want. The institution of marriage is created by law. People are entitled to the equal protection of the laws. Homosexuals are not allowed to marry. Therefore, homosexuals are not being allowed the equal protection of the laws. Simple logical chain. It is too much to expect that you could follow it though.

Umbro, it is a favorite device of the fundamentalist/religionist, whether s/he be Christian, Muslim, or of any other "faith," to impute his own values to God. The terrorists do it to justify their murderous rampages. By imputing his or her own beliefs to God, s/he magically creates a higher "authority" that in turn imparts credibility to the person citing the beliefs of said deity. It's a circle from which no unthinking person ever escapes. In other words, Umbro, man creates God in his own image, just as you have. The god of the fundamentalist invariably reflects the bigotries and hatreds and all his or her other sacrosanct values as well, and of course that can even lead to murder in the name of God, just as it has for radical Muslim fundamentalists.

"Marriage" in the days of the Bible was very different than the marriage of today. In those days, the man owned his wife. Lot offered his own daughters up for rape. And if a "husband" wanted to offer his wife to a man who was a guest in his home, he could do that. Do you really find morality in any of those treasured Biblical traditions? The "marriage" of which you speak is a relatively recent invention and bears little resemblance to the marriages in the Bible that you value so highly.

To the extent that heterosexuals are made by God, gays are made by God. They have existed in every culture, from the most primitive to the most advanced, since the dawn of the human being. God made them. Just as he made you, if he did. And yet here you are publicly declaring a creation of God to be repugnant. Shame on you.

I'd like to see a constitutional ban on Repugnant-CANTs getting married. Allowing Repugnant-CANTs to marry defiles the institution of marriage and is a threat to society, especially if they reproduce and create more deviant nay-sayer one-size-fits-all ("tax cuts") mindless blathering for yet another generation. Being a Repugnant-CANT is a lifestyle choice. We can love the sinner but hate the sin - which for Repugnant-CANTS is being selfish mean-spirited vindictive brainless wonders. Repugnant-CANTs can probably be reformed if they just repent from their stupidity and open their minds to reason. Let's "Pray Away the Repugnant-CANT." I would support any amendment that says that marriage between two Repugnant-CANTs is immoral and that their deviant lifestyle choice should not be allowed to destroy the institution of marriage. In the meantime, stop picking on gay people - it is not "special rights" that they should be allowed to marry, you pinheaded morons from the stone ages. They don't need your sanctimony, you mindless religious rightwing Repugs.

TooKatz, they have the same rights as normal people. no one has the right to get married, not even normal people. I am so sick of hearing about gay rights. Why would they get special rights. they have all the same rights as everyone else so why do they think they should have additional rights and why is anybody bothering to even talk to them about it?

Cornbread,

It was nice to read the full poll (again) but I didn't see any demogaphics!

Omegaman:

Full poll info is typically just a google search away.

Read and enjoy

http://www.elon.edu/docs/e-web/elonpoll/032309_ElonPollData.pdf

peterlyon...nice try plugging your inane conspiracy theories, as usual (so tired), but this is about real people, EQUAL RIGHTS under the constitution and the SEPARATION of church and state. I'm fully confident that marriage equality will happen in my lifetime, as it should—it's only a matter of time. Cheers all...

Suppose I don't believe God (by whatever name) forbids homosexual behavior, and that it is not an inviolate truth that one man-one woman equals marriage. Suppose I'm still a devout believer, that I still have faith, but suppose I believe the Bible is words from men, not from God Herself. Doesn't that negate the morality arguments that "aren't just for Christians," even though those arguments squarely argue fundamentalist Christian tenets (Episcopals and UCC members don't believe that, after all)? Or would that make me an infidel who will be smited?

Still wondering when the full demographics of an Elon College poll will be published with the results?

You may recall that the Sodomites were not people of faith.

You may recall that the Pharisees were people of faith.

Theocrats, ho!

Aftercancer, I have heard no one say love should be outlawed. To love another is a wonderful thing. I love my wife, my sons, my mother and others of both genders. However, what is both repugnant and morally wrong is the exercise of sexual behavior between two men or between two women. God means for us to love. But HE clealy prohibits sexual expression except in marriage between a man and woman. This is not a concept that is only for Christians, or only for those of faith. It is a truth that remains regardless of whether one accepts it or not. You may recall that the Sodomites were not people of faith.

I agree with you one hundred percent. Look at the boondoggle in California over the prop 8 vote. I know many people in California who are at least half way intelligent who mis voted thinking to vote for prop 8 meant gay marriage would be legal, when in fact they voted against it. Who cares what your neighbor is doing behind his or her own closed doors?

John_Burns, Thank you. I realize that you are complimenting me because you are completely uninformed on daily life. If you were trying to insult me, Thank you. An insult from you is a huge compliment.

Saying, "they did not support same-sex marriage" is true, but there's more in the numbers than the text lets on at first.

44% against anything, 28% for civil unions, 21% for full marriage rights. Against anything wins, right? Well, if you believe that those that support full marriage rights would also support civil unions, that's 49%, within statistical error of the 50% who oppose the constitutional amendment.

Personally, I don't see what role government has in defining what marriage is or is not. Let the state give every couple, regardless of gender, a civil union, and let the idea of who's "married" be between the couple, their church, and their God.

I think there are a lot more people out there who don't want to see the constitution messed with solely for the purpose of discrimination than you might think. I am a heterosexual married woman and I oppose any change to the constitution that would make love a crime.

peterlyon, Could you please clearify everything you said in your post, none of it made any sense at all. Thank you

You bring up the bible and free-will in support of this rediculousness. You obviuosly have no idea what refereneces the bible makes to free-will. Yes, it states that you have free-will, but it is how you use it that matters. If you chose to follow your free-will wrongly, like practicing homo-sexuality, you will forever be damned. You chose how you interpret it, though you will most likely skew it to your own warped objectives, it is up to you. However, if you are going to quote the bible, please do it correctly and not in your warped perception

Given the Democrats proclivity for % of people supporting their Ideas looks like the Ayea have it 43% is enought to suppot any Democrat proposed program so why ar they agaist this idea? $# % want it the 50 % that polled against t were probably liberals anyway who do not constitute a majority of voters but the Elon College poll was skewed because the pollsters selected liberal respondants in the proportion they thought it should be not what it actually was so the poll was not really blind. What is wrong with the stated logic above? It is the typical justification process the Democrats use to justify their socialist proposals!

The bill in question was introduced March 3, 2009. It cites our poll from May 2008, not the February one, although if they were going for splash, the February results yield a higher support number.

So no, we had nothing to do with the authoring of the bill. The authors of the bill chose to cite one of our earlier polls.

But to earlier complaints, read the wording of what H361 will place on the ballot as a referendum:

Yes or No
"Constitutional Amendment to provide that marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state."

We asked that. Elon did not. Elon asked about banning same-sex marriage. That is not what the referendum would be on.

Again, get a bill introduced legalizing same-sex marriage, and I'll be happy to poll it.

Chris, you seem to be implying that your poll wording was based on the language of the bill, but the bill cites your poll in one of the whereas clauses. So, the poll came first, no? Did Civitas write the bill and then conduct the poll?

Another of the whereas clauses was soundly debunked already:
http://blog.news-record.com/staff/offtherecord/archives/2009/03/our_courts_aren.shtml#more
Intellectually honest debates are fun and enlightening. This is not one of them.

Thank you for being Exhibit A in why we need better Civics lessons in High School.

I believe in a religion completely identical to Christianity except it's Adam and Steve in the Garden of Eden, not Adam and Eve.

Therefore, I strongly oppose this amendment that would ban gay marriage!

This is why government should never have gotten into the "marriage" business anyway. Marriage was originally a religious ceremony . At some point, government took over the "marriage" business and is now able to define it. I don't have any problem with gay or straight couples legally joining in such a way that they can take advantage of the government's perks...call them "Unions" if you want. But "marriage" has been defined as a man and a woman for centuries.

Chris,

That wasn't the wording in either version of this costly and ridiculous amendment.

This year's version uses slightly different wording that wasn't used last session, but this new language leaves interpretation open to opposite-sex polygamy. Skippy Stam and Ol' Man Forrester were too busy with the "whereas" sections to read their own bigoted bills.

When these fools can't even write their own attacks correctly, you know you've won.

Everybody over to ncleg.net to read the text of the bills.

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2009/Bills/House/PDF/H361v1.pdf

The marriage amendment, as introduced in the General Assembly would define marriage as between one man and one woman -- that's the wording, that's what we tested.

Steve, if you don't like the wording from February, compare it to last May when we asked:

"Do you support a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman?"

Yes - 71%
No - 26%
Not Sure - 3%

I don't think it gets much more straightforward than that.

When there is a bill introduced to legalize same sex marriage, we'll be more than happy to test it.

From the release:

The Elon University Poll is conducted using a stratified random sample of households with telephones in the population of interest — in this case, citizens in North Carolina.

— RTB 

Since Elon has a large gay population, their poll means nothing. Only polls taken by unbiased poll takers have any meaning at all, which is a very small amount of meaning(polls aere useless). Also, the group being polled has a lot to do with the outcome. Maybe next time they will take their poll somewhere other than the head quarters for gay rights

"North Carolina is the only state in the Southeast that does not have..."

Since it's March Madness time, how about...

"North Carolina State University is the only ACC university in the state that does not have a national basketball championship since Clay Aiken was a toddler. Should the legislature vote for NC State to receive one?"

Okay, Chris. I've questioned your questions elsewhere, so now that I have your attention:

"North Carolina is the only state in the Southeast that does not have..."

This little preamble is prejudicial in nature, designed to make the reader feel like he or she is "behind" and needs to catch up. You could finish that sentence with a wide range of topics and get the same response, regardless of the topics.

"...defining marriage as between one man and one woman?"

This wording is "positive" in nature: "Man and woman, that's a good thing."

It also doesn't say one word about same-sex marriage, or the idea that the government could/should use its power to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, or whether the government could/should legally recognize some religious ceremonies and ignore others, etc.

The next time you find yourself wondering why your results don't match someone else's, it's probably because you weren't trying to take the pulse of society, you were trying to alter it.

We need an amendment to not allow amendments like this. Or an amendment that people need to mind their own dang business.

this IS a civil rights issue. I can't wait until gay marriage is legal. It'll happen one day, hopefully sooner than later...besides, those that are against gay marriage, why? what's it to you?

An obvious civil rights issue...
It is very unfortunate that the Black voters of this nation have turned against the fight Dr. King ignited.

Separation of Church and State - NC...USA

All humans should support equality for all other humans. To each thier own. Stop all the hatred and start enjoying and living your own lives! The greatest gift your heavenly father extended to human beings is the ability to choose - free will - maybe youve heard of it?

If you believe this poll, you think Timmie Geithner is an honest man, and that Obama always tells the truth, and that Chris Dodd did not get a sweetheart mortgage, and that Ted Kennedy did not kill Mary jo Kopeckne, and that Charlie Rangle is not a tax cheat, and that Bill Clinton is faithful to Hillary, and that the N&O is part of the great right wing conspiracy.

From February 2009:

North Carolina is the only state in the Southeast that does not have a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and woman. Do you support or oppose a constitutional amendment in North Carolina defining marriage as between one man and one woman?
Support 76%
Oppose 21%
Not Sure 4%
Refused >1%

We asked similar question in May 2008 asking "Do you support a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman?"

Yes - 71%
No - 26%
Not Sure - 3%

I would support it.

What has Civitas found to be the poll results for this issue and how did they state the question for their polls?

Here's their wording:

Would you [support or oppose] an amendment to the North Carolina constitution that would prevent any same sex marriages?

Strongly oppose: 21.2 percent

Oppose: 29.2 percent

Support: 18.8 percent

Strongly support: 24.5 percent

Don't know: 4.9 percent

Refused: 1.3 percent

— RTB

Ryan,

What was the wording of their question? Finding it hard to believe that their numbers would come back that much different from ours from the multiple times we've tested it.