Proposition 8, which would define marriage in California as only between a man and a woman, is still trailing, but the momentum seems with backers of the measure just days before Tuesday's election. A new Field Poll shows Proposition 8 with 44% of the vote, with 49% opposing it. In the September Field Poll, Proposition 8 trailed by 17 points.
Our sister paper, The Sacramento Bee, has this quote from pollster Mark DiCamillo:
"It's certainly closer than it was before the advertising campaign hit," said Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo. "A lot of that has to do with the campaigning on the Yes (on 8) side."
You can also read stories about the poll in the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Diego Union-Tribune.
The San Diego story has this interesting analysis of the poll numbers:
Seventy-five percent of the Republicans favor Proposition 8 while 65% of the Democrats oppose it. There is also heavy opposition, 60%, among independents and members of minor parties.
Proposition 8 is leading with a 57% "yes" vote in the Republican-leaning inland counties and trailing with a 54% "no" vote in the Democratic-leaning coastal counties.
Opposition to same-sex marriage increases with age. While 62% of voters 65 and older support Proposition 8, only 39% of voters between 18 and 34 do.
"...While 62% of voters 65 and older support Proposition 8,..."
What's it to those old fogies? I am older than 62, but my marriage is not being threatened by a NO on prop 8.
The commercials are classic Karl Rove tactics. Scare the people into voting your way.
The demographic trends are encouraging. Even if Prop. 8 passes, it looks like it could get rescinded down the road as older, intolerant voters are replaced by younger, more open minded ones. This could be homophobia's last gasp in this state.
homophobia's last gap? Not with those percentages. We old ones are not going to die off that quickly (hahaha)
I am not at all surprised by this news.
Prop 8 is NOT about gay marriage, it is a ploy to get the vote out in California to support a desperate Republican ticket which has no real standard bearer and no defined direction for the country. The Republicans probably hope to ride on the coat tails of this silly proposition to win support for its candidates.
Are polls done with smoke and mirrors?
"Proposition 8 is leading with a 57% "yes" vote in the Republican-leaning inland counties and trailing with a 54% "no" vote in the Democratic-leaning coastal counties."
What does that signify? Statistics are not my forte; obviously.
It means people in the coastal counties are generally more tolerant, liberal and less homophobic. Prop. 8 is losing in those counties. People in the inland counties (like Fresno) are generally more conservative, less tolerant and more homophobic. Prop. 8 is winning in these counties.
Whether it passes or fails depends on whether the tolerant majority on the coast is big enough to beat out the intolerant majority in the inland parts of the state. Hopefully a big turnout of Obama voters will put the matter to rest.
A coherent commentary lifted from another message board...
1) The question isn't whether there exist substantial and satisfactory reasons to oppose gay marriage (although there arguably do). Marriage is a state-sanctioned, legal arrangement that conveys certain rights and benefits (and necessarily imposes corresponding obligations). So the question is whether gay marriage is an arrangement that the state should recognize a legitimate interest in incentivizing. The government doesn't (or at least shouldn't) go around creating rights and imposing obligations absent good and legitimate reasons for doing so (and "I want it" doesn't qualify).
Historically, and accurately, the man/woman marital relationship has been recognized as promoting societal stability--primarily via raising subsequent productive and socially responsible generations, etc. These are legitimate interests of the state.
Gay marriage proponents argue in terms of their rights and their wants, as if gays who wish to marry are being deprived of something they are fundamentally entitled to. They don't (or at least far less frequently) argue in terms of how the society at large will benefit from the change in law they are advocating.
To illustrate the mindset, I have (well, had) a gay friend who was incensed that a particular faith-based adoption agency refused to adopt kids into same-sex households. She said that it was discriminatory. But she, like gay marriage advocates, missed the point entirely, because she was looking at the issue through the lens of her wants and her sense of entitlement, and not through the lens of evaluating the purpose of adoption, and carefully considering which interests should control (namely, the kids' interests). When I pointed that out, she says "studies show that kids are just as well adjusted in gay households, blah, blah, blah." And I said studies show whatever their advocates want them to show, but I don't have to look at studies, because I have it directly and repeatedly from her own mouth that gays are oppressed, gays get a raw deal, gays suffer violence at the hands of bigots, etc., and she cannot now claim that there is no difference in quality of environment in the context of adoption. (She had no response for that, other than to stop going to lunch with me).
2) "Harm" is necessarily a subjective determination. Many consider harm to include injury to the moral fiber of the community...and religious persons necessarily define morality according to the tenets of their faith. Since homosexuality is proscribed as sinful and harmful by most religions, it is fairly predictable that the state sanctioning of gay marriage would be opposed by religious persons on the grounds that it would cause harm to the community. Your definition of harm may differ, but it carries no more weight than theirs.
Now I don't really have an opinion about whether gay marriage would be harmful, but I know I've heard about a million arguments in my life about how this or that conduct is such a little thing, or how showing this or that on television is only slightly more than what is already allowed, and therefore is essentially harmless. And those arguments have pretty much always prevailed. So it's been death by a thousand cuts, with the result being that our society doesn't look anything like it did even 20 years ago in terms of what conduct is tolerated and what our kids are exposed to daily on even basic television, etc. So when conservatives or religious persons scream bloody murder at some apparently small and insignificant matter that is certainly "harmless," it is that avalanche of very harmful (in their opinion) change that they are opposing.
3) Most religious groups do oppose adultery, and many states (particularly southern states) had laws against adultery on the books for most of their history. Those were overturned by 9 people in Washington, however, so the battle has moved on. Again, I'm not saying that I support such a law, but I do think communities should be free to determine for themselves what is harmful (they, after all, have to live with the outcomes of those determinations...the Supreme Court doesn't).
The other thread about prop 8, "resorting to extortion" had 127 posts which added up to 35 pages of hardcopy, which upon recap. shall afford me a close look at the posts. Of special interest to me are the proponents of prop 8. If passed, would prohibit same-sex marriage in California. Those proponents fall into two categories; generally.
Those devout Christians who wrestle with their conscience, wanting to keep faith with their religion, and wanting to be fair to their homosexual fellow citizens, whom they believe to be sinners. I respect them to the utmost.
And there are the self-appointed super-Christians, each outdoing the other in bigotry and intolerance; all in the name of GOD. Some of their Bible thumping was an outright insult to the intelligence of the bloggers. And their language was not exactly belles-lettres, more often than not.
I am ambivalent about heaven and hell. But some of the posts made me hope that there is a hell. So whatever the outcome of prop 8, all in all it was a good fight. The Lawson vote has been cast in favor of our good neighbors whose sexual preference is different to ours, but by whatever name...love is love.
Even if you're against Prop 8, one might almost wish that it passes. This needs to be elevated to the US supreme court. If it passes it will be taken to the US supreme court (hopefully), if it does not pass, then we will see this issue come up in every large election until it does pass.
My thinking is this, and keep in mind I am not homosexual, so I have no real vested interest in Prop 8...we, as a country, have an abysmal track record when it comes to civil rights. We have been dealing with civil rights issues since the days of slavery abolitionists. And although we have come a long way, we still have a long way to go. There is still a "glass ceiling", equal pay for equal work issues, racial profiling, and more subtle forms of discrimination based on gender, race, religion, etc.
I have come to believe that attempting to enshrine discrimination in our state constitution is vile and disgusting. It's a step backwards in the fight for civil rights. I will never understand why people think that a private matter between two people whom they don't even know will affect them in any way.
Getting back to elevating this to the US supreme court...I think that this was really addressed in the 14th amendment to the US constitution...Section 1: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Applying this part of the amendment the US supreme court in 1954 ruled in Brown v the Board of Education that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal", which came to be applied as "separate but equal is inherently unequal", thereby overturning Jim Crow.
Now we the proponents of Prop 8 are trying to institute a new "separate but equal", a new Jim Crow. They argue that civil unions should be "good enough" for homosexuals, but a civil union is not a marriage, otherwise it would be called a marriage. Separate but equal. If Prop 8 passes and it gets elevated to the US supreme court, I believe that it must be overturned on the 14th amendment and the Brown v Board ruling. Separate but equal is inherently unequal and it's against the law. As we know, the US constitution trumps any state's constitution. Pass or fail, we won't stop hearing about the subject of Prop 8 until the US supreme court makes a ruling on the subject. No state will settle this matter. It will take the federal courts and a constitutional decision.
RC,
Good one! I think most proponents of Prop 8 fit into that analysis. Not bigots or haters, but tired of the slow erosion of our society, falsely linked to "rights." That's MY interpretation of your post.
...Ooopsie! I said I was done with this debate. (But so did Isabell [sorry, ma'am, I only used one L in spelling your name before; you know how touchy the name thing is with some of these people : ) ] BTW, you're only an old fogy if you think you are, Isabell; you've got too much verve to fall in that category!)
I did say that I was going to recap. that 127 post prop. 8 thread, and make a study of the posts.
One l, two lls, it matters none.
"BTW, you're only an old fogy if you think you are, Isabell; you've got too much verve to fall in that category!)" I don't get it. If it was meant to be an insult, it was wasted. Who is BTW?
And votewise, the Lawsons had stopped voicing an opinion on the proposition itself.
"Who is BTW" Ms. Lawson I am surprised that you don't know the meaning of that powerful shorthand. I am not surprised at your paranoia. As usual, that you sense someone is having fun at your expense is obvious. Take a deep breath and I'll educate you later if no-one else does.
Ms. Lawson of the Lawsons et al.
The answer is no one.
Isabell - BTW is shorthand used when "texting". It means 'by the way'. I wasn't sure myself until I asked my kid. I don't like the texting shorthand. Some of it is obtuse and kids are getting to be lazy spellers. My kid has been on the honor since kindergarten and now in junior high his spelling skills have taken a nosedive. The same thing happened to my generation after the advent of automatic spell check and correction on the computer.
I have never seen a more inaccurate application and interpretation of the 14th Amendment in my life. It applies to life, liberty, and property. Do you know what that means? Life: if I take away your life I suffer major consequences. Liberty: if I infringe on the liberties afforded you I suffer the consequences. Property: you have the right to gain whatever asset you think necessary; if I do anything to your property contrary to what you would have done to it I suffer the consequences.
African-Americans were denied all three of these despite the "seperate but equal" rights. Punishments were not given equally for the same crime committed by all races. Different races received different pay. Slaves were forced to live in poorer living conditions than their "owners".
This is an issue of Constitutional importance. First Ammendment rights have been infringed because the "gay community" wants their way. Look at the churches and adoption agencies, both excellent organizations, that have suffered unjust rulings in courts because of their "moral views". You can't tell me that this won't affect, and continue to not affect, California in any way, shape or form.
I am only 24 years old, but I am also disgusted with the way our society has been shaped. It has almost become an anything-goes society. America has slowly mis-shapen the Constitution to mean that you can do whatever the heck you want because it's a free country.
What a horrible country this would be if everyone conceptualized this country as being devoid of law. I am absolutely sickened by the amount of ideas that are accepted. One of them is pornography. That is one of the lead causes of the destruction of many, many relationships. It destroys rational thought. Irrational thought can and has destroyed societies. Voting no will only lead to more rediculous acceptance of irrational and destructive behavior.
How did I bring myself to dignify yourselves with an intelligent response? Because I have more forbearance than even you can muster, in any person, how ever many of you there are at once.
RE: Matt McIntyre
Thank You! Kim Tinksley being gracious enough to tell me what BTW means, I can now understand your post. Perhaps I am loosing out on things not knowing modern abbreviations, just as I may loose out by categorically refusing to talk to a tape on the telephone. It is a bit complicated
"I Think Therefore I am" (Descartes circa 1637) The phone tape does not think, and therefore is not, and I do not talk to what is not. I said it was complicated. hahaha!
Forebearance:
Good Natured - I'd say O.K.
Patient - Mostly
Tolerant - Not so much
Which definition were you using?
This has to be the dumbest initiative ever.
A measure that also banned civil unions I could at least understand, if not support. But this is millions of dollars of mean-spirited idiocy over a mere word, with ZERO practical consequences.
For a little salt in the wound, consider the near 100% certainty that whatever "we" decide, it'll happen all over again in 2 or 4 years.