Margin shrinks in defeat of gay marriage ban (52-44)

[Newsjock]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

A majority of California voters oppose Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriage in the state, but a new statewide poll shows that the gap has narrowed in the past month.

While Prop. 8 is losing 44 to 52 percent among likely voters in the survey by the Public Policy Institute of California, opponents of the measure had a cushion of 14 percentage points, 41 to 55 percent, in a poll by the same group last month.

... While each of the past three Public Policy Institute polls has shown Prop. 8 running behind, supporters of the measure point to other surveys giving the same-sex marriage ban a lead.

A poll by Marist College in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., conducted this month for the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic group that has put more than $1.2 million into the effort to pass the measure, showed Prop. 8 ahead 52 to 43 percent. A SurveyUSA poll done last week for a group of California TV stations had Prop. 8 with a narrow lead of 48 to 45 percent.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/22/MNJA13MEUP.DTL&tsp=1

[Newsjock]

1. More on the Obama factor (Obama +23 in California)

... Opponents of Prop. 8 could get a boost from what's expected to be a huge California vote for Obama in the presidential race. The new survey shows him with a daunting 56 to 33 percent lead over McCain in California, up 13 points in the past month.

"Support for Obama is the biggest predictor of opposition to Prop. 8, with 72 percent of Obama voters saying that they'll vote 'no' on Prop. 8," Baldassare said. "That shows how important the size of the turnout and the margin over McCain can be."

While Prop. 8 gets strong support from Republicans (70 percent), conservatives (72 percent) and evangelical Christians (71 percent), the campaign for the measure has yet to find overwhelming backing from any other groups, Baldassare said. Even among voters 55 and older, Prop. 8 leads by only 50 to 44 percent.

[DBoon]

17. and vice versa

supporters of prop 8 are hoping to energize their base to cut republican losses.

Do not for one minute think this is just about gay marriage - it is about cutting the democratic lead altogether

[Tiggeroshii]

2. Two polls released before this showed it winning by a similar margin

[CreekDog]

7. from weeks ago

this is newer and the ads opposing prop 8 have now gone up.

another thing to keep in mind: initiatives cannot win with 48% of the vote. it's over 50% or it loses and polls have generally not shown this measure to be over 50% even when yes has been leading.

[Tiggeroshii]

10. I didn't know the 50% thing.

Very nice.

[Phredicles]

3. I'd heard No was losing, so this strikes me as decent news, and

an 8-point margin with two weeks to go still sounds reasonably promising, yes?

Anyway, I just sent 50 bucks to No on 8. So I expect that to take care of it.:D

[grahamdcarter]

11. love that picture

speaking of picard here is a blog on prop 8 that quotes the good captain at the end

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=11767945&blogID=442416498&Mytoken=CC8D578F-7680-4C3A-889E6ED4DE430223183953465

[Booster]

4. If it loses, there's going to be some people I won't name who

are going to see me with a big old grin on my face. Come on, Liberals, we can do this.

[byronius]

5. That's good news.

I verbally beat the crap out of my brother-in-law about it -- he says he's voting no, but he's probably lying.

This is a hate-proposition, pure and simple. If there is a God, he condemns this, not gay marriage.

Backwards, troglodytic fools.

[justiceischeap]

6. Wonder if the poll change has anything to do w/ Palin's recent visit to CA

That's the only reason for Palin to have gone to California, to rile up the base about Prop 8. Seems maybe it worked.

[la la]

8. my husband and i....

were talking about this tonight and he mentioned that he wondered if 'certain' freeper types would vote yes on 8, if they knew that the LDS church was one of the big money groups pushing for yes on 8....seeing that there seems to be quite a bit of prejudice against Mormons from some groups.

i see far too many yes on 8 yard signs and very few no----i'm even thinking about making my own no on 8 sign- tacky as that may be! and a no on 4, as well.

[scytherius]

12. VERY good point

I live in CA too and am somewhat surprised the "no" vote hasn't hit hard on the "Mormon Church wants to tell CA what to do" thing.

[customerserviceguy]

16. There is a lot of fundie distrust of Mormons

but they've never failed to make common cause with them when it served their purposes. The biggest fundie objection to Mittens is that they don't want to give Mormon missionaries one more talking point while trying to steal their flocks door-to-door.

[diamidue]

20. My neighborhood is a mix

of fundies and Mormons. And yes, it sucks. The majority of the signs here are YES on 8 signs, and I KNOW the people in many of the homes and they are Mormons.

It wouldn't surprise me, tho, as you say, that they found a common cause with the fundies and the Catholics.

The Mormon Church is hugely controlling and I wonder if maybe Mormon Church "spies" are around to make sure that members put their pro-8 signs up - especially seeing how the Church is bankrolling the measure.

[customerserviceguy]

21. I lived in Utah for six months

and I know how tightly the Mormon church is into control of its members. I've not lived in a society where there was a fairly even mix, besides the Utah stint, the most Mormon the population has been is about 3-5%. Then, they know they have to get along with the neighbors a bit better.

[GeneralCobra]

9. I oppose it but what right do I have?

I don't agree with gay marriage. I don't agree with a lot of things. My question is how will this affect me? It won't. So what right have I to oppose someone elses views on this subject? Marriage is a choice. Just like religion. Am I going to tell you what religion you should believe? Nope.

[cboy4]

13. Well if you can't even answer the question how it will

affect you, and you're right, it won't, then why would you not "agree with gay marriage"?

Aren't you contradicting yourself?

The answer is, yes, of course you are.

[Piewhacket]

15. It won't affect a heterosexual's right to marry or status.

Its about the right of gay couples to marry in California and to enjoy the same rights
as hetro couples.

In Brown vs Board of Education, the US Supreme Court said that separate schools for
black children violated their right to equal protection under the law because, no matter
how "equal" the State tried to make the school systems, under our system of laws
"separate" (apartheid) could never be truly or legally "equal".

California has been struggling for years to create an apartheid "domestic partner" system for same
sex couples. They presently enjoy, for example, (nearly as possible)full family law rights, including
community property rights, adoption rights... and That's no trivial matter. Yet differences remain,
however small they might be made. The argument being that differences are small, with some remaining
big ones due to Federal law which is beyond California's authority to correct.
Thus, so it is argued, "separate" is "close enough".

The guy arguing that, btw, was CA Atty Gen, democrat and former Governor Jerry Brown, who must have gagged
to utter that argument, since there is no way he personally thought it valid. But it was the best argument
available on "his side", so he made it.

In a historic decision the CA supreme court, Chief Justice George, a conservative republican in the majority,
ruled that that the "separate" system couldn't be "equal" enough to satisfy California's constitutional guarantee
of the equal protection of law for everyone. The court explained the state could call ALL "marriage" or
ALL "civil unions", but what it couldn't do is create a aparteid class of people.. not so long as equal
protection of law stood in California.

Prop 8 would overturn that decision by creating an exception to equal protection clause. Shades of Animal Farm,
where all animals were equal (but some were more equal than others). Prop 8 is a despicable and reprehensible
measure aimed at low information wedge issue voters. It asks the majority, who are not affected either way,
to restrict the rights of a minority who have just had their rights declared valid by the states highest court.

Such is California politics, an initiative hellhole, especially when measures are being driven by repuke money
from out of state, which is often enough. A few exceptions, but most CA initiatives deserve a NO vote.

In sum, in case you hadn't figured it out, I support a NO VOTE ON CA Prop 8, and encourage all Californians to join me on Nov4
in casting 8 down. After long delay equal protection of law finally had its day in court. The ruling was historic,
courageous, and correct. It should stand. No on 8.

[xxqqqzme]

18. I generally vote 'NO' on all

propositions out of principle. I think it is a lazy way to legislate. If you think a pregnant teen should have parental consent to terminate a pregnancy then go to the legislature to AMEND the state Constitution. They're elected 'by the people' to do the right thing.

I'd like to see a proposition amending the state Constitution eliminating initiatives especially ones introduced and funded by out of state money or at least something imposing a time limit. This is the third consecutive general election the parental consent prop has been on the ballot. Once a prop is defeated, it should not be allowed on the ballot for 5 years. The RW publicans pushed the school vouchers down our throats throughout the 90s elections even though it was defeated each time.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

27. If you do not support our right to marry, you are not welcome here. Period.

NT!

[Piewhacket]

28. My reply was appropriate for your posted question.

People here in DU are sometimes a might touchy about their issues. They have
been sorely abused for very long and can quickly get into an ugly mood.
I trust that tempers will eventually cool.

I have carefully read your initial post. I speak here to you and others.
The fact that you personally oppose gay marriage does not mean that you
don't belong here in DU. Many people,including many here, hold
traditional personal views on marriage. That does not mean that
they are prepared to impose those personal views on others by denying
them fundamental legal rights. That is what is at stake, as you correctly
point out in your post.

As I will more fully explain, the gay marriage laws are not about personal beliefs,
they are about individual civil rights. The rights of OTHER people to not be
discriminated against in law, to not be denied fundamental civil rights held
by the majority, without there being some compelling reason for that denial.

Despite our own personal preferences, democrats are generally prepared
to accept and embrace that all persons do and should have equal rights under
the law. If you are inclined to agree, if you believe that others should have rights
as you do, then stay awhile, for there might be more here in DU that you agree with.

The institution of marriage, whatever its religious roots, has been made a part
of the secular institutions of the State. The Church may do as it will, but marriage
is no longer in its authority. The State, and only the State, has the authority to
license a marriage. The State authorizes certain people, including clergy, to officiate
at a "wedding" ceremony. The marriage is official not when the bride and groom are pronounced
man and wife by the clergyman, but when the proper documents are signed and submitted to the
proper public official. I speak truly. Trust me, I'm Piewhacet of DU, a soothsayer.

So it is that regardless of historic origins, marriage (in California) is a civil and secular institution.
Our laws, good and bad, tangle it deeply into the fabric of society, tangle it thick with law.
In earlier times only a man and a woman could become entangled in its legal benefits and burdens.
Gay persons could only participate by marrying someone of opposite sex.

More recently the SECULAR injustice of this has been recognized in California, and steps
were taken to provide equality under the law, but opposing forces compelled the result to
be less that equal, the result was the creation of "apartheid", a second class status afforded
to domestic partners.

I have already discussed how our CA Courts viewed this effort. They have said that the right to marry is
a fundamental right under our law, and that same sex partners should have the same rights under law
as opposite sex partners. If "marriage' is not to be that institution then perhaps the word "marriage"
needs to be returned to the Church, and afforded NO legal status, and the institution of "civil union"
substituted. That was seriously suggested in the Court opinion, incidentally, I'm not making that up.

Given this legitimate and legally recognized equal protection problem in our secular society, the question
arises whether there is some extraordinary extra-legal justification that no one has yet thought of for
overturning the court and brutishly trampling the rights of the minority. Is there any serious argument
which to be offered for doing that? Have the advocates for Prop 8 offered anything besides misinformation,
fear-mongering, and bigotry? That, I think, is indeed the state of it.

Yet our Court has now spoken, the issue of equal protection in CA decided. In the end of analysis
we must conclude that in this case, whatever our personal choices might be, the sacrifice of equal protection
of law is far too great a price to pay for the privilege (tyranny) of imposing those fundamentally
personal choices onto others.

So say I, and I believe that is the prevailing Democratic Party view. Thank you for your question.

NO ON CA Prop 8.

[Zhade]

30. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The poster is not welcome here.

Per Skinner's own words:

"1. We expect all of our members to support equal rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation. That includes the right to marry."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1324374

[fascisthunter]

32. um... bigots are not welcome here

thank you

[Piewhacket]

33. if so, then everyone should leave....

every person is a bigot of some kind, and a few here are showing off their
own brand of bigotry. Please keep in mind that it is not so much what we THINK,
but what we DO that counts.

And that sometimes we have to talk to each other about what we THINK in order
to help us decide what is the right thing to DO.

From my posts it should be clear that I fully support the civil rights
and equal protection of law of all persons, and that includes a strong
position in support of same sex marriage. I am proud that my party,
the Democratic Party, has taken a supporting position in their platform.

Yet I am not gay, I am a Democrat in a desperate struggle to help save our country.
Civil rights are critical to that struggle. So while I support gay rights,
I am not in it, or here, only for that.
DU must be more than one issue, or it will not serve me, nor will I serve it.

Now lets review the OP comments (all of you who responded).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3559519&mesg_id=3559564

That was not opposition to equal rights. It was not even opposition to
gay marriage. Understood in context it was a personal advisory that
despite a personal preference the OP did not feel he should support prop 8.

The view is not deep thinking, but it isn't stupid thinking, and he achieves
the correct result. That makes him a SUPPORTER of GAY RIGHTS.
His post does not violate forum rules. Yet he was personally attacked and provoked.
IMPROPERLY. IN VIOLATION OF FORUM RULES AND DIGNITY. FOR SHAME!

Some of you might consider that a person who would so attack a supporter,
well perhaps doesn't deserve supporters. Ya thinking about that too?

I'm also concerned you dorks lost that vote, AND PERHAPS HIS FRIENDS, and the vote on 8
is going to be VERY CLOSE. If 8 passes I just might be pissed enough to come back
here and rip a few new ones. I know how, so folks need to clean up their act.

(rant off)
thank you.

[fascisthunter]

31. why... what does it matter to your own marriage

is your marriage dependent on others? If it is, your marriage won't last anyways. In other words, mind your own business, and if gay marriage is an obsession with you, get help for yourself.

[LeftyMom]

14. I was at the Catholic-run thrift shop today, and my cashier was wearing a No on 4&8 button and an

Obama button. :D The former said "Protect freedom! No on 4&8!"

So really, if they can't even count on Catholic support- which doesn't really surprise me, Catholic laity tends to be socially liberal and pretty skeptical of the right (because they know the right is anti-Catholic too) all they can really count on is the Mormons, and they're not all that big a voting bloc. And the random right-wing anti-VaticanII Catholics, but there really aren't all that many of them compared to the regular sort.

Meanwhile, the evangelicals seem strangely quiet.

[EFerrari]

19. You're right about that. Where are they? n/t

[barack the house]

22. Ellen needs to make an ad really. She could put it right.

[Zhade]

23. VOTE NO ON PROP H8TE!

NT!

[Mz Pip]

25. Just as long as it loses

It's really a bad thing to do with our State Constitution. The Constitution should never be about denying rights to anyone. Ever.

[mirror wall]

29. If you look at the graph...

...it appears that Jesus is intervening to deny THE GAYZ their rights:



See? It looks like a Jesus fish!

Seriously, though, I hope this goes down in flames (and that homosexual people are allowed to keep exercising their human rights to legally recognized marriages). It's disgusting that it's even close.