Wash Post Poll: Only 37% support Civil Unions for homosexuals

[zoidberg]

Seems like a pretty big step backwards on the issue of basic rights for homosexuals. You can talk about gay marriage all you want, but when only 37% of Americans now support Civil Unions, it's going to be quite an uphill battle to convince people to allow any type of legal recognition for same-sex couples. So what's the best way to convince the public that homosexuals are deserving of the same rights of heterosexuals? There seems to be a backlash from court imposed decrees. If you are in charge of changing public opinion on this issue, what do you do?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55394-2003Aug13.html
"The poll also found, however, that public acceptance of same-sex civil unions is falling. Fewer than four in 10 -- 37 percent -- of all Americans say they would support a law allowing gay men and lesbians to form civil unions that would provide some of the rights and legal protections of marriage.

That is a precipitous, 12-point drop in support found in a Gallup Organization survey that posed the question in identical terms in May, before the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas law against sodomy and Justice Antonin Scalia argued in his dissent that the court was on a slippery slope toward legalizing gay marriage.

Other surveys have found, however, that some opponents of same-sex unions would tolerate extending marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples. A recent survey by the Human Rights Campaign found that 33 percent supported granting civil marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples "as long as churches do not have to recognize or perform these marriages." An additional 17 percent would accept extending those rights to gay couples but "do not support it." Nearly half, 47 percent, said they were opposed."

[VermontDem2004]

1. Despite what the poll says

I think it is 50-50. I know ALOT of people, more people that even took that poll, so they are into that type of lifestyle, but they don't care what they do, even have friends who are gay.

[qb]

2. Tyranny of the majority

This is why we don't have a "pure" democracy where everything is decided by a majority vote.

[varun]

3. Court

is where most of civil rights have come from. Even now, majority of South Carolinians oppose mixed marriages (interracial) ...imagine if we followed the majority opinion in that state!

:think:

[liberalmuse]

4. We do the right thing

no matter what 63% of the country believes. That same number was probably against giving blacks civil rights, but they were wrong. It is wrong to deny consenting adults the legal right to marry, and to the cheaper health insurance benefits they'd receive because of their union.

[zoidberg]

6. So what's the point of having a democracy?

If we can just do the 'right' thing regardless of what the majority thinks. Blacks were given Civil Rights because 1)the Constitution protects blacks and we finally got a Supreme Court to get it right and 2)the Civil Rights Movement was able to sway enough people to pass the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. So we can either add a gay-rights protection ammendment to the Constitution or we can convince the majority of people that gays should be able to marry. I would support the first, but I think the second is much more obtainable.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. How Do We Do It

The civil rights legisaltion of the 60's occurred becauce there was a consensus in the land that racial discrimination in all it's manifestations was wrong.

It doesn't appear this consensus exists yet for gays.

[VermontDem2004]

9. There was a civil rights 10 point program that Harry Truman

tried to get passed (very similar to the 1964 one) was created not because of a consensus in the land, no because, the US just defeated a man who slaughtered people based on their religion, and he felt it wasn't right that after doing that, people of different colors were being lynched, couldn't get jobs, and so on. But, he done many things that helped African Americans.

[Stuckinthebush]

5. While I question these results....

Let's assume that only 34-40% of Americans believe that homosexual couples should have the same rights as married couples.

The glass is half full side of this is that 1/3 to 4 out of 10 Americans have no doubt in their minds that rights should be extended to all people in America. This is good news to me. Ten years ago, I would say that the number would have been in the teens.

Of course, it is distressing that so few believe this, but let's think about a couple of reasons for these results. We can assume that about 1/3 of the public will be against civil unions no matter what. These are the die-hard Republicans and legalistic religionists. Forget about them. All we can hope for this group is that they don't do too much damage to their children and eventually will die out over a generation. So, around 1/3 are probably "swing" voters on this issue. They are probably exhibiting fatigue at hearing all about the issue and just want it to go away. There has been a steady drum beat of opposition to "gay marriage" in the news, and this has probably set in nicely in the minds of this swing group.

Secondly, this poll was generated through random sampling. I've been wanting to start a thread on polling theory, but haven't gotten around to it yet, but the basic fact of the matter is that random sampling for poll results does not generate a representative sample. Every pollster knows this, however, there is nothing that can be done about it. So, assuming that people with progressive leanings (individuals who are less likely to answer a land line for polling purposes, i.e. - younger voters, students, and professionals) are less likely to be polled, then the margin of error is increased. Remember, polling like all social science research depends on a representative sample of the population that one is measuring.

So, if I am a candidate who believes strongly in this issue, I would stick to my guns on it and frame the debate as an issue of equal rights under the law. Do not get into the "family values/morality" debate because it is irrelevant from an equal rights standpoint. I am sure that a majority of voters would have been against equal rights for non-whites in the fifties and sixties, but that did not negate the need to do something about inequality.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Polls Aren't Infallible

but they are based on inferential statistics.

If you have the proper controls in place they can give you a pretty good idea of what people are thinking at any given time.

Heck, if inferential statistics are good enough for geneticists in mapping DNA it's should be good enough to use to find out how people think

[Stuckinthebush]

12. Exactly

However, inferential methods have a major assumption, that the sample is a true random representation of the population. When you poll, the only feasible way to get results is to use telephone numbers. Once connected, there are ways to randomize who you talk to, however, the initial method of getting the sample is seriously flawed. This is well known in the industry, but there is little that can be done to solve it. In inferential statistics, if one of your assumptions is violated, there are consequences to interpretation of results.

Technically, polling methods are not inferential but descriptive, however the underlying sampling theory applies.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. We Agree

It's even more difficult for pollsters now with answering machines, voice mail, caller id, et cetera.

It's a miracle they can accumulate the information they do.

[VoteClark]

7. Gays and Blacks never gained a right from Politicans

They gain them from the courts.

Like in vermont, and the US Supreme Court, and Massachusetts will soon.

No, you can't rely on the general population to support ground breaking rights.

If the majority supportered equal rights of people, we would not need a court system or a US Constitution. That is why it is there. The rights of the majority don't need protection, it is the rights of the hated, disliked, and otherwise ignored and misunderstood that need to be protected, not by the majority, but more or less, from the majority.

:kick:
J4Clark

[zoidberg]

11. That simply doesn't reflect reality

The 13th, 14th, 15th and 24th Ammendments were all passed by 'politicians'. The Voting Rights Act of 1964 and The Voting Rights Act of 1965 were passed by politicians. Affirmative Action by governments isn't mandated by the courts, it's enacted by politicians. Local councils throughout the country have enacted gay rights legislation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. There Is Alot of Truth

but don't forget the South didn't vote on the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.

and The Civil Rights legislation of the 60's passed because there was a consensus in the land that blacks deserved the full right rights of citizenship.

and many municipalities have pro gay ordinances because the folks in these municipalities want them.

I support extending full rights to gays. Discriminating against gays is as stupid as discriminating against people who use their left hand to write but we need to build a consensus first.

[zoidberg]

18. I agree with you 100%

But how do we get the same consensus on homosexual rights that existed during the 1960s for black rights? I've run around in some pretty conservative circles, but I haven't met that many people who truly hate gay people. I think the average American can be convinced that gay people deserve full rights. But I have no idea how to convince them.

[markus]

13. That was before the public was well informed on the issue

by the coffee pot loud mouths who get their information from Rush, O'Rielly, Hannity, et al.

I mean, if I knew that it meant pederasts could adopt children and people could marry their sheep, wouldn't you be against it?

As long as that 1/3 somebody above writes off controls the debate we're screwed.

[sangha]

16. This is very misleading PROPOGANDA

The lede is says most people oppose "civil unions for homosexuals", implying that most people oppose laws like the one in VT that created civil unions for homosexuals in that state. However, if you read the article, what's really being discussed is whether the various religions should allow civil unions. IOW, it's about "gay marriage" and not "civil unions".

Civil unions are not a religious institution, they are a civil one. When someone speaks about religious "civil unions", they are talking about "gay marriage", which is why this misleading poll found so much opposition. The article hints at the truth when it quotes from some of the opponents, who say that they do not object if the govt recognizes civil unions, but they do object to their church doing so.

[zoidberg]

19. Perhaps you didn't read the article carefully

The quote I posted specifically refers to non-religious civil unions. If you look at the actual question (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data081303.htm), you can see for yourself.

36. Would you favor or oppose a law that would allow homosexual couples to legally form civil unions, giving them some of the legal rights of married couples?

[sangha]

20. Thanks, but

I guess I should have been clearer. The overriding theme of this poll is about whether or not religions should offer civil unions for homosexuals. Research has shown that the subject and sequencing of the previous questions can affect people's responses. The questions about religion are meant to amplify people resistance to "gay marriage" and weaken their support for "civil unions".

[buddhamama]

17. you can dismiss the issue all you want

but i am not backing down. and i don't give a leap what the "majority" of repsondents say do,etc,etc.
the 'anti-marriage' people are afraid.
the drop is due to the SCOTUS ruling. it scared the sh*t out of a lot of 'anti-marriage' folks. the full language of that ruling opened the door for civil unions. included in the ruling language were the words love and rights, in regards to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

it is discrimination. plain and simple.

i support Human Rights--not in limited circumstances. i am not a hypocrit. the continued denial of civil unions/marriage for GBLT folks is inhumane.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. I Agree

The dreaded backlash or blowback.

But a consensus will be built.

[Touchdown]

22. Perhaps it's the Incessant use of the word "homoSEXual".

Why type a 10 letter word when 3 letters do just fine?

Homosexual is a clinical, and sterile term. It was coined by psyho-analysts who have used aversion, shock, and lobotomy "therapies" for more than a century in order to cure gays.

Religious nutbags always use the word homosexual (never gay, if it is used it's always quoted, as if it doesn't really exist) because it's also a loaded term. The "sex" part of it is salacious enough for the prudish in all and makes it easier to cast judgement calls. It is ,in my opinion, a dehumanizing and stand-offish term, and wish people would stop using it.

It's also important to note that the gay rights groups aren't the ones who have turned up the heat on this subject, it's been the anti-gay forces whose been screaming about this issue, keeping it in the limelight. Every presidential election, the gay bashing/baiting comes out, and this one is being framed as a debate, in order to hide who's behind the rhetoric. Yet, who controls the terms of the debate here? The ones who put in the Constitutional Amendment, and are trying to push it through by rallying public support. How can gay rights groups effectively counter, much less control the terms of this debate when even the bigger, and much more powerful Democrats can't get equal treatment in the major media? Who's always on the gay side of TV debates? Andrew Sullivan, Bruce Bawer, Camille Paglia, and a host of other Bush-Moonie sell outs. Never gays on the liberal side. When's the last time you saw an interview with Michaelangelo Signorelli?

It's no secret that gay rights lobbies have wanted codifications of our unions for 35-40 years, so why the big thing now? Presidential wedge issues. When the subject of gay anything comes up, it's always debated on the right's terms, and only when the right is ready to debate it. Otherwise, what gays are for gets ignored until the right needs some more donations to their ministries. Conservatives control the debates, and it's important to know who's pulling the strings here.

If conservatives can frame the debate, control the questions, and have more voice than those that are pro-gay, then of course they can influence public opinion on the subject, especially if the word homosexual is bandied about nauseously.

[Bandit]

23. but when only 37% of Americans now support Civil Unions,

I think this is an improvement. You make it sound like the numbers are down when I think just the opposite is true. Now more than a third of Americans believe in Civil Unions. I think we're headed in the right direction. Granted we have a ways to go but progress is being made.