Slim majority back gay marriage, Post-ABC poll says

[Gio]

A slim majority of Americans now support gay marriage, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The results underscore the nation’s increasingly tolerant views about homosexuals, and parallel a string of recent legal and legislative victories for gay rights advocates.

Five years ago, at 36 percent, support for gay marriage barely topped a third of all Americans. Now, 53 percent say gay marriage should be legal, marking the first time in Post-ABC polling that a majority has said so.

Slim majority back gay marriage, Post-ABC poll says - The Washington Post

About time this country grew up and respected the civil rights of everyone.

[bonehead]

First of all, no one ever polls me on such questions so I am not convinced any slim majority approves marriages other than one man and one woman. Secondly, Everyone's rights are respected. For the most part ANY man can marry ANY woman. If two men or two woman want to hang together thats fine. I am not going to let them call it a marriage though.

[Porsche917LH]

First of all, no one ever polls me on such questions so I am not convinced any slim majority approves marriages other than one man and one woman. Secondly, Everyone's rights are respected. For the most part ANY man can marry ANY woman. If two men or two woman want to hang together thats fine. I am not going to let them call it a marriage though.

And you are going to do what? Burn them at the stake? We are out of the dark ages. Religious reasons? I can respect that. Otherwise I wish people would stop perpetuating ignorance and hate.

[bonehead]

Ignorance and hate? Don't think so. What you are using is a defense mechanism against those who don't agree with your agenda. As stated before I have no problems with 2 guys or two girls shacking up. I simply will not allow them to officially use the work marriage to explain their situation. If you want an alternate lifestyle then you are going to have to come up with an alternate word to describe your living situation. Marriage is already taken.

[zraver]

Ignorance and hate? Don't think so. What you are using is a defense mechanism against those who don't agree with your agenda. As stated before I have no problems with 2 guys or two girls shacking up. I simply will not allow them to officially use the work marriage to explain their situation. If you want an alternate lifestyle then you are going to have to come up with an alternate word to describe your living situation. Marriage is already taken.

Will not allow......

Civil marriage is nothing more than a closed two person contract. Any opposition to allowing otherwise competent adults to freely engage in contracts runs counter to the whole concept of liberty. If two guys or two girls get married, it doesn't affect me. However giving the government the power to determine morality does. If our society prized individual liberty over power maybe my wife could openly use the only drug that helps her pain. Or maybe one of my kids will end up gay, with 5 kids/step kids the odds are good one might and I won't be forced in the future to console a victim of discrimination like I have had to do with freinds.

The reason the tide is turning in favor of gay marriage, is an increasing number of Americans find oppostion to it lacks any rational basis. One of the few things Obama has gotten right, if way to late in the game is the decision to no longer defend DOMA which flew in the face of the Constitution.

When it comes to gay marriage, those who support DOMA and pushed for acts to ban recogntion of otherwise legal marriages from other states are explicitly on the wrong side of the Constitution.

Art 4 sec 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

[Julie]

Very good post Z. :)

[USSWisconsin]

Perhaps people will begin to using qualifiers when describing a marriage, like hetero marriage?

[Bigfella]

Perhaps people will begin to using qualifiers when describing a marriage, like hetero marriage?

They may well do, though I suspect that in time this will dissappear as it becomes 'normal'. I can recall my grandparents occasionally remarking on mixed race marriages. I haven't heard anyone remark on it much for decades - people get used to new things.

If I were a betting man I would say that in the next 10 years the number of nations where national or state governments permit gay marriage will dramatically increase. It will probably plateau for a while thereafter, but in Western societies it is getting harder to maintain the argument for banning it without falling back on religion.

[zraver]

They may well do, though I suspect that in time this will dissappear as it becomes 'normal'. I can recall my grandparents occasionally remarking on mixed race marriages. I haven't heard anyone remark on it much for decades - people get used to new things.

If I were a betting man I would say that in the next 10 years the number of nations where national or state governments permit gay marriage will dramatically increase. It will probably plateau for a while thereafter, but in Western societies it is getting harder to maintain the argument for banning it without falling back on religion.

we just had a skinhead make a please deal for firebombing a mixed race couple.....

Julie,

Thanks.

wis,

more likely traditonal pr civil marriage with the implied civil= lack of God's blessing via a church.

I am going to laugh my ass off if gay unions have a lower divoirce rate than right wing Christians. In which case hetero-marriage will be slang for divorce attorney employment security.

[Julie]

I am going to laugh my ass off if gay unions have a lower divoirce rate than right wing Christians.

Interesting....haven't thought of that.

[Bigfella]

we just had a skinhead make a please deal for firebombing a mixed race couple.....

Z,

My grandparents weren't skinheads, just ordinary folk whose opinions on race were very much in keeping with those typical of their generation. That was the sort of person I was making the point about. Hardcore haters will continue to hate.

I am going to laugh my ass off if gay unions have a lower divoirce rate than right wing Christians. In which case hetero-marriage will be slang for divorce attorney employment security.

I'm betting divorce rates won't differ dramatically from stats for heteros. Perhaps homsexual coupls can put a bumper sticker on their SUVs that says 'I'm not perfect, just gay' ;).

[bonehead]

Will not allow......

Civil marriage is nothing more than a closed two person contract. Any opposition to allowing otherwise competent adults to freely engage in contracts runs counter to the whole concept of liberty. If two guys or two girls get married, it doesn't affect me. However giving the government the power to determine morality does. If our society prized individual liberty over power maybe my wife could openly use the only drug that helps her pain. Or maybe one of my kids will end up gay, with 5 kids/step kids the odds are good one might and I won't be forced in the future to console a victim of discrimination like I have had to do with freinds.

The reason the tide is turning in favor of gay marriage, is an increasing number of Americans find oppostion to it lacks any rational basis. One of the few things Obama has gotten right, if way to late in the game is the decision to no longer defend DOMA which flew in the face of the Constitution.

When it comes to gay marriage, those who support DOMA and pushed for acts to ban recogntion of otherwise legal marriages from other states are explicitly on the wrong side of the Constitution.

Art 4 sec 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Sorry zraver, just not buying any of this. Any support of gay marriage in the constitution is perceived, not real. Morality does not even have to come into play. There is absolutely nothing right about homosexuality anyway you look at it, especially when being objective/rational. I, and millions of others, see a marriage as far more than a "contract" so you lost your point right there.

[Julie]

Then what is your concept or definition of marriage?

[Tarek Morgen]

You make some pretty claims, but fail to underscore them with any arguements.

Why is "support of gay marriage in the constitution is perceived" and not real?

Why is there " absolutely nothing right about homosexuality anyway you look at it, especially when being objective/rational."

"I, and millions of others, see a marriage as far more than a "contract" so you lost your point right there." That means, at best, that you (and millions of others) disagree with Zravers statement, but that is all. Group A beliving that group B is wrong does not make it a fact, it just means that group a believes that B is wrong. You still need to proof it or at least show some arguements in your favour. Something you have so far failed to deliver.

[crooks]

Tick tock. Time running out for gay-bashers, particularly when you look at the figures for people under 30, ie the ones that are coming down the line, and for whom sexuality matters about as much as eye colour (in part because young gay people are now ok with coming out early, and putting a face on homosexuality). They're your neighbours, co-workers, friends, sons and daughters - and they are entitled to happiness, or at least the opportunity, on the same level as everyone else.

I look forward to the day when the world looks back and laughs that we ever had this debate, but it's still great to see that there's serious momentum, arguably unstoppable, behind that which so many brave people have fought for for so long. Equality of love.