L.A. NOW

Southern California -- this just in

« Previous Post | L.A. NOW Home | Next Post »

Voters oppose putting gay marriage back on the ballot, Times/USC poll finds

Latpoll A small majority of California voters supports the right of gay couples to marry, but a much larger portion of voters opposes efforts to place the issue back on the ballot next year, a new Los Angeles Times/USC poll has found.

Views on same-sex marriage were sharply polarized based on political party, with 66% of Democrats thinking it should be legal and 71% of Republicans in opposition. Nonpartisan voters were less enthusiastic than Democrats but still backed it, 59%-34%.

Overall, 51% of California voters favored marriage rights for same-sex couples and 43% were opposed. Strikingly, however, almost 60% of Californians did not want to revisit the issue in 2010, just one election cycle after it last hit the ballot. 

In November of 2008, Californians voted 52% to 48% to limit marriage rights to one man and one woman. Same-sex marriage advocates have been split over whether to push for a new vote next year or wait until 2012, when the presidential contest will draw more voters to the polls than would be expected to cast ballots in next year's midterm elections.

Supporters of gay marriage are also strategizing in other states but on Tuesday received a stinging rebuke when voters in Maine repealed a state measure that had granted marriage rights to same-sex couples.

The California findings come from a new Los Angeles Times/University of Southern California College of Letters, Arts & Sciences poll. The survey, which interviewed 1,500 registered voters from Oct. 27 through Nov. 3, was conducted for the Times and USC by two nationally prominent polling firms, the Democratic firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, and the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies. The results have a margin of error of +/-2.6 percentage points. Full results of the poll, including the status of the campaigns for governor and the U.S. Senate, will be published Sunday in the Times and on latimes.com.

The survey showed that same-sex marriage continues to reverberate differently along race and generational lines. Just over half of whites backed it, while just under half of African Americans and Latinos did.

All three groups, however, opposed having to vote on it in 2010. (Asians were questioned by the poll and included in the overall sample, but their numbers were statistically too small to isolate.) Young voters continued to be far more supportive of gay marriage rights than their elders.

Among those ages 18-29, 71% said they supported same-sex marriage; among those 65 and older, only 37% favored it. Younger voters were also one of the few groups who backed putting it on the 2010 ballot, which will be dominated by the races for governor and U.S. Senate.

The difference in views by age likely explains, in part, the changing results in California on same-sex marriage. In 2000, voters outlawed it by a margin of 61%-39%; by last November’s ballot, opposition had slipped significantly. Election results differ from poll results, of course, because not everyone polled will cast ballots.

-- Cathleen Decker

 
Comments () | Archives (78)

smart person, you are the stupid moron for trying to push the perverts on sociaty.so go suck on a lollipop.

Ignoring me will not change who I am nor what I am entitled to. Ignoring the rest of the world will only continue to lessen America as a "world leader" for she is not.

Ignoring me and my right to marry whom I love will only weaken the Country.

Ignoring will not silence me.

I don't believe this poll that shows a majority in favor of gay marriage. I believe the a majority of Californians oppose gay marriage.

Voters a concerned about the intellectual rationale for legalization. The rationale is nondiscrimination -- "you're discriminating against men who prefer sex with another man." And discrimination is bad. But we're also discriminating against men who prefer sex with multiple men, sex with children, and sex with sheep. If discrimination against one preference is wrong, what is right about discrimination against other preferences? Discrimination is discrimination. Where is the boundary line? You see where your logic leads? This is why voters are concerned.

natural laws? what is a natural law? did the "fair minded" writer actually consider scientific studies on pervasive same-sex behaviors exhibited in natural species? did the "fair minded" writer consider separation of church and state? if it is not for the state to interfere with religious ceremony, then how is it that the religious ceremony interfered with affairs of state regarding taxation, regarding visitations, regarding many other aspects of living? how is it that religious institutions can carry investments and not be taxed when said investments can and do carry political impacts.

it was perfectly "natural law" when the british chose to keep the colonies. it was perfectly "natural law" to station soldiers in a home at one time, and it was perfectly natural law to not allow any redress of grievance... interesting that the heathens at the time were the colonists. of course, we can go further with the "fair minded" men and how they wrote native americans out of nature...

"fair minded bigotry", i don't like the idea of cramming down people's throats, but you must understand a key part of the art of war by sun tsu, do NOT back people into a corner. ever. the native americans were offered an escape, and it is a shameful part in american history, but africans? no. the civil rights movements. the soldiers in vietnam and the civilian drafts? no. the protests. gay rights? no. more protests and gay pride events.

when will government and people stop being jerks and look themselves in the mirror and say, 'yes, we backed them into a corner and made their lives as difficult as possible'.

natural laws? what is a natural law? did the "fair minded" writer actually consider scientific studies on pervasive same-sex behaviors exhibited in natural species? did the "fair minded" writer consider separation of church and state? if it is not for the state to interfere with religious ceremony, then how is it that the religious ceremony interfered with affairs of state regarding taxation, regarding visitations, regarding many other aspects of living? how is it that religious institutions can carry investments and not be taxed when said investments can and do carry political impacts.

it was perfectly "natural law" when the british chose to keep the colonies. it was perfectly "natural law" to station soldiers in a home at one time, and it was perfectly natural law to not allow any redress of grievance... interesting that the heathens at the time were the colonists. of course, we can go further with the "fair minded" men and how they wrote native americans out of nature...

"fair minded bigotry", i don't like the idea of cramming down people's throats, but you must understand a key part of the art of war by sun tsu, do NOT back people into a corner. ever. the native americans were offered an escape, and it is a shameful part in american history, but africans? no. the civil rights movements. the soldiers in vietnam and the civilian drafts? no. the protests. gay rights? no. more protests and gay pride events.

when will government and people stop being jerks and look themselves in the mirror and say, 'yes, we backed them into a corner and made their lives as difficult as possible'.

I should have the right to marry whomever I wish. You are not allowed to judge me, you are not allowed to restrict me. You may not impose your will or your prejudice upon me. I am a responsible member of the community, I pay my taxes, I obey the laws. I don’t care if you don’t approve of our relationship. We love & support each other and that’s all that matters. I promise you that we won’t procreate, but we will adopt if we choose. If you don’t like it, then don’t come to our wedding. My wife & I are getting divorced so I can marry my step-son.

Gee – I just figured that if one group gets to redefine marriage to suit their needs, then everyone does (and remember, if you don’t like it, then you’re just a big ol’ hater!)

"A small majority of California voters supports the right of gay couples to marry, but a much larger portion of voters opposes efforts to place the issue back on the ballot".
LA Times, stop the double talk. By definition, "a small majority" can not be a majority because a "larger portion of voters opposes their efforts".
You cannot have it both ways. They are in the minority as attested by the approval of PROP 8.

To John D. McLaughlin:

Our founding "fathers" treated human beings as property. They owned slaves. This was obviously against the laws of nature and your god's nature but they did not care. They did not care that untold hundreds of thousands of human beings were stolen from their home land and packed like sardines into the holds of sailing ships (where an attrition rate of 50% was understood and acceptable from these godly men). Our christian forefathers then sold these slaves away from the only home they knew... with no respect to familial attachment. Children were torn from their mother's arms. Young girls were routinely raped, with the resultant mixed raced children sold off so that the decent white women did not have to see their husband's cuckold progeny.

Do not think our forefathers acted with the best interest of anyone but themselves and an economy built on the misery of slavery.

Our founding fathers treated women as their property...their chattel. Women had no rights in our forefather's time. They could not inherit. They could not vote. They were considered worthless but for one thing. So much for your god's nature. The nature of men is to cohabit with as many women as they can. If there are no women (as in a prison) then men will do so with other men. It is the nature of the beast. But because the nature of some men is to lie with another man...you say that it is against your god's nature. Well, there is a lot that is against your god's nature but do you make laws against it.

Denying anyone who wishes to enter into a marriage is wrong. Don't bring our country's forefathers into this nor try to interpret any intentions they had when writing the constitution. Their right to influence us two hundred odd years later is null and void because they did out outlaw slavery when it should have been...at the very beginning of our nation. They should have absolutely no say in whether anyone can get married or not and neither should the constitution. The constitution, congress, the White House, the senate nor the Supreme Court have no business making laws that deny rights to anyone. Period.

Ya know, I'm gay and I strongly believe in marriage but right now I have to agree with the voters who were polled. From a political viewpoint when this is on the ballot it brings out the bible thumping wing-nuts who have an effect on other races. I think for now the marriage in everything but name only (like in Washington state) is the way to go right now or through the courts. There is too much at stake right now. Democrats need to maintain their majorities to make sure legislation like impending health care reform isn't rolled back. If you don't think the Repugs won't do it the first chance they get, think again. I think gays have to be more strategic in implementing their agenda (hint: Obama's second term) even though it's painful.

Wow, for the first time in a year, I agree with California again!!

Same-sex marriage should be recognized, and it has no business being on the ballot. A-men!

To put it in the words of King Jaffe Jafur, ruler of Zamunda from that delighful Eddie Murphy flick of 1988; "Aeoleon please, the voters said no." The good people of CA have already decided, give them a break. Personally I could care less if my fellow gays want to marry, I feel it's none of my or the government's business. I would marry my b/f only on my terms, not the state's or anyone else's. What I want to see is the day when the government stays out of a private affair like marriage. That means no tax breaks for married couples or for having kids. Everyone gets taxed equally and separately.

I don't really care if gay marriage passes or not, but it should be noted that opposition to gay marriage is not strictly based on the Bible. Maine and California are not particularly religious states, but the majority of voters in both states do not support gay marriage. There are many non-Christian countries, such as atheistic China, Japan, and Vietnam, where gay marriage is prohibited.

People are opposed to gay marriage for any number of reasons, and not all are religious. Gay marriage supporters haven't won because they have yet to acknowledge this. They think that everyone who opposes them is a barely literate Christian who wears a white hood and robe. The truth is far different. If they want gay marriage to win, gay marriage supporters need to convince the diverse voters why gay marriage is a good thing instead of labeling all opponents as Neanderthal haters.

Here's ANOTHER poll LAT's:
Briton:
5,700 British hemophiliacs received tainted blood and were infected with HIV. (BBC/Encyclopedia.com)
Scotland:
Nearly 4,700 patients were affected by contaminated blood in what was described as "the greatest treatment disaster of the health service".
The Scotsman (Scotland)
Canada:
More than 3,000 Canadians have died since getting the HIV tainted blood between 1986 and 1990. (www.news-medical.net/CBC News)
In General:
Nearly 22 million people have died from this disease, including 4.3 million children. (www.hawaii.edu)
Japan:
The first HIV patient was reported in 1979, who was also a haemophilia patient and prescribed blood products by his doctor. Second example is a Japanese male artist who had lived abroard for some years. Some other example also reported in the early 1980s and these patients were haemophilia patients or had homosexual experiences. Of some 4500 haemophiliacs in Japan, an estimated 2000 contracted HIV in the 1980s... (Wikipedia)
China:
...HIV/AIDS was China's leading cause of death among infectious diseases. Nearly 7,000 people died from the disorder in the first nine months of 2008. In the PRC, the number of people affected by HIV has been estimated at between 430,000 and 1.5 million. In many rural areas of China during the 1990s, particularly in the province of Henan, tens to hundreds of thousands of farmers and peasants were infected with HIV through participation in state-run blood collection programs. (Wikipedia)
France:
French HIV-tainted blood trial;
In all, 4,400 people, many haemophiliacs or others who needed transfusions, contracted AIDS from the inadequately tested blood. (World Socialist Web Site)
Taiwan:
So far, 2,773 people have tested HIV positive in Taiwan, including 259 expatriates, with 578 HIV/AIDS deaths recorded since cases were first filed. Among the seven causes for HIV/AIDS listed by Department of Health, the transmission of the virus to hemophiliacs and other blood recipients is directly related to tainted blood supplies and related products. Up to 5 percent of HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) -- the infection which leads to AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome) -- cases worldwide are transmitted by the transfusion of contaminated blood and blood products. (The Taipei Times)
Wales (SW England):
FAILURES at the heart of Government led to thousands of patients being infected with HIV and Hepatitis C from tainted blood, an independent inquiry concluded yesterday. It is estimated 4,670 haemophiliacs – who need regular blood transfusions – became infected with hepatitis C, and 1,243 contracted HIV. Some 1,800 are thought to have died. (WalesOnline)

Reflecting back to the 80's and those [civic-minded] homosexuals like "Patient Zero" and thousands of his accomplices who donated blood, jump-starting the above carnage; can anyone (who retains a scrap of sanity) please explain why society should even entertain the notion of legitimizing and sanctioning the very behavior that has caused such reckless death and havoc. As usual, the already broken taxpayer is expected to march in politically correct goose-step and pick up the certain to escallate health care tab.

Thank goodness. Enough is enough. It is time for us to move on.

Why have government legislate marriage to begin with. I find gays disgusting but they have a right to do what they want. If I want to marry my dog, cat, etc, no government should be allowed to tell me I cant. Eliminate all tax benefits to married couples for a start.

It goes beyond hilarious, now gay people are using animal behavior as "proof" for claiming rights. When a lion takes over a pride,he immediately kills all the cubs to get the females in heat, do you think that murdering a woman's husband and children will make her fall in love with you ?
Lets say that 3% of the population is homosexual (I dont know the real number)and from that percent only 1% wants to get married, should a society allow a very vociferous 1% to dictate definition of marriage...and whats next, should a man be allowed to marry his sister because he loves her, or his pets,once the natural is out of the picture, is a free for all

If people were truly in favor of gay marriage, Prop 8 would have passed.

Stop asking us over and over at the polls if you're not going to like (or accept) the answer...!

Firstly, while I support gay marriage, I don't think it should be on the ballot again in 2010. Further, I don't think it should be on the ballot at all; people don't vote on whether equal protection under the law is to be applied to one person or another, and they don't have to go before people like BobYerUncle or Holly to show why society would benefit and get their approval. Nevermind that marriage, gay or straight, promotes stability and family cohesion in the populace, which is to society's advantage. Nevermind that families, gay or straight, adopting children is a good thing (no reputable science has shown otherwise), because until you ban divorce and compel straight fmailies to adopt every last orphan, the idea of children having a "right" to a mother and father is a feel-good fantasy.

No, these perfectly good reasons for society to accept gay families shouldn't be necessary. The government isn't supposed to run by or like the Bible, where someone decreed something and that's that. Neither the people nor any branch of government gets to decide certain people must "go home, and enjoy the rights and freedoms [they] have." Nothing is so final in our system, and inequality has never stood when it's been enacted. It's only a matter of time, but I'll see the opposition in 2010, 2012, however many times it takes to fix the damage Prop 8 did to our constitution.

"If people were truly in favor of gay marriage, Prop 8 would have passed.
Stop asking us over and over at the polls if you're not going to like (or accept) the answer...!"

Prop 8 DID pass. Pay attention.
And it wasn't the gays who asked for your vote on their marriages. In both 2000 and 2008 it was the gay marriage foes who brought up the initiatives.

But do you think, in 2012 after Prop 8 is reversed and the state votes to legalize gay marriage (as voting and polling trends indicate), that those foes are going to accept that answer? Highly doubtful.

Deport ALL homosexuals to their own island where they can act out whatever sickness they enjoy. Children will be saved from recruitment molestation, marriage remains intact for man/woman couples. Problem solved. Goodbye, good riddance twisto's!
PS: This is NOT a religious comment. 'Nuf said?

Dear John,

While it may not be your experience, most heterosexuals actively pursue sexual intimacy for reasons that have nothing to do with reproduction. Many couples find sexual relations to be valuable for purposes of bonding and pleasure even when they have no intention of making a baby. You'd be shocked at the number of intimate acts between opposite-sex partners that have no reproductive function--and the participants like it that way!

Your assumption that you understand that rich meaning of sexuality--and that its only value lies in reproduction--conflicts with the experience of every happy heterosexual couple I've ever met. Further, any married straight couple can tell you that sexuality is only one aspect of a loving relationship. Likewise, loving gay relationships are multi-faceted and your fixation on the sexual element of them says more about you than it does about them. Until you are willing to apply your "natural law" argument to include heterosexuals engaging in reproductively frivolous acts, you should refrain from using it to condemn homosexuals. Thomas Jefferson didn't like hypocrites.

Gay people, same-sex couples and their children exist today and will continue to be part of our society. No amount of government coercion or ballot-box moralizing can change that. Society has an obvious interest in promoting the stability of gay relationships in the same way it supports heterosexuals toward the goal of responsibility and productivity.

How ironic that so many who claim to believe in "freedom" and "limited government" suddenly espouse neither when it comes to equality for gay citizens. But, the news that a majority can now be found to support the right of 5% of the population to live as equals is very encouraging news for those of us who actually believe in those values.

Noone is afraid of the gay community!! If there was so much hate towards Gay people there would be no Elton Johns, Ellen Degeneres and the dozens of gay men and women that have abundant success in this country.
The gay community wants to change the definition of marriage to advance there agenda. And the people of california have spoken. They don't AGREE. Period!! This has absolutely nothing to do with hate. The Gay community are the ones spinning this as a Hate Issue. NOT Christians! So lets stop pointing the finger at Christians. How come no one is talking about the fact that the Gay community INSULTED the black community by comparing there sexual orientation as equal to being black? That's part of why they lost Prop 8. They're stretching to advance there agenda and stuck there foot in there mouth with the "Gay is the New Black".

So what the poll tells us is that the people don't like that their fellow Californians are being discriminated against but they are just too apathetic to vote to correct it. Typical of California and shows why this state is so screwed up!

How many times do the MAJORITY of voters have to say that the institution of marriage is between one man and one woman? It seems that supporters of the gay agenda feel that if they throw enough money at it people will feel that it is right.
As for the hate crimes bill and Christianity, Christians do not hate Gays. If you believe that the Bible is the word of God, you can not condone the behavior of the Gay lifestyle because God is very specific about His feelings about it. God gives every man the ability to choose to follow Him, or not to follow Him. Please do not make the mistake of believing that because politicians and activists say that it is wrong to oppose homosexuality, that Christians will re write the word of God.

 
« | 1 2 3 4 | »

Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video

About L.A. Now
L.A. Now is the Los Angeles Times’ breaking news section for Southern California. It is produced by more than 80 reporters and editors in The Times’ Metro section, reporting from the paper’s downtown Los Angeles headquarters as well as bureaus in Costa Mesa, Long Beach, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, Ventura and West Los Angeles.
Have a story tip for L.A. Now?
Please send to newstips@latimes.com
Can I call someone with news?
Yes. The city desk number is (213) 237-7847.

Categories




Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: