Top of the Ticket

Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm

« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »

Californians say no more gay marriage votes: Times/USC poll

Gaymarriageap

A majority of California voters opposes putting the issue of gay marriage back on the ballot for another referendum.

According to a just-released survey by the new polling team of The Times and the University of Southern California, a small majority of Californians favors the right of gay couples to marry.

But a far larger proportion of the 1,500 registered voters in the new poll opposes putting the issue back on another statewide ballot next year. This week Maine became the 31st state where voters, in effect, defeated the idea of gay marriage in a statewide vote.

Not surprisingly, same-sex-marriage views were sharply polarized by political party; 66% of Democrats thought it should be legal and 71% of Republicans opposed it. Nonpartisan voters were less enthusiastic than Democrats but still backed it, 59% to 34%.

Overall, the smallest majority of 51% of California voters favored marriage rights for same-sex couples and 43% opposed them, according to the survey, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points.

However, a surprisingly large number of Californians -- almost 60% -- were certain that they did not want the issue revisited in 2010, just one election cycle after it last hit the ballot.

-- Andrew Malcolm

No margin of error here. One-hundred percent of those clicking here get Twitter alerts of each new Ticket item. Or follow us  @latimestot  And we're also available over on Facebook regardless of gender.

Photo: Associated Press
 
Comments () | Archives (26)

The comments to this entry are closed.

You can not make square circles.

Who granted the voters power and control over our private lives?

I've got news for you religious zealots, and you are the ones responsible for putting the issue up for a vote, we're about to destroy proposition 8 in our federal court challenge, and we're going to laugh all the way City Hall while we do it.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial begins on 1-11-2010 @ 8:30 AM!

Mormon inc., Catholic enterprise, and Evangelical Mega franchise has blood all over their disgusting hands, and we're going to prove it!

How convenient for those those who already have the right to marry the one they love.

Marriage licenses issued by the state are not a private matter. They are issued on behalf of the people of a state. If you want to share a life with someone, nobody is stopping you. But if you ask us for a marriage license, we have a right to say "no". And we have said no. Many times in many places. Over and over.
One need not be religious nor disapprove of homosexual behavior to see that the state does not have the same interest in a brideless of groomless pairing as it does with marriage. Click my name for some more. There are legitimate reasons to support the bride+groom requirement.

Well, isn't that a shame. Because it's gonna be on the ballot every two years until the voters decide to act right, and then every two years after that courtesy of the Cali supreme court decision upholding prop. 8 and the voters' right to vote on minority rights.

Some people who support same-sex marriage do not want the vote to happen in 2010 either. They feel it is to soon, and prefer to bring it back to the ballot by 2012. By that time same-sex marriage will have been legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire for 4 years and in Massachusetts for 9 years with absolutely no harm done to different-sex marriage.

Both Maine and California votes have been within a few percentage points of each other. Unless the younger generation starts to become more conservative, which is rarely the case, it's only a matter of time.

As uaual, polls always say majority are for gay "marriage". With the score being 31-0 in those opposing gay "marriage", you think maybe its time to start believing the only poll that can be trusted is the voting booth?

Gay families face many difficulties when they don't have the protections of marriage. So, unfortunately for Californians, this issue cannot go away until gay and lesbian people are treated equally under the law. If it takes numerous ballot initiatives, so be it. After all, we're fighting for our lives.

The idea that marriage includes a relationship between two people of the same sex is revolutionary. While homosexuality has been around forever, this idea of marriage is quite new. This is where the analogy to inter-racial marriages falls apart. Inter-racials marriages have been recognized forever in almost all cultures, with only a relatively few exceptions, such as in some states of the old confederacy.

It is a mistake to assume that any traditional-minded person who is uncomfortable with such a revolutionary change is a homo-phobe or bigot. Some of them are just traditional-minded, which can be a good thing. It will take time for most people to adjust to this new idea.


Gays should fight to obtain civil unions -- laws that great them all of the rights of marriage without the name. Substance is more important than form.

After a few decades of successful and non-controversial civil unions between gays, the concept of gay marriage will prevail, just like a ripe fruit falls into a basket.

But trying to force the issue, without waiting for a change in general opinion, may lead to a counter-productive backlash, as has often occured in history, which will delay this development.

Society does not change overnight. Slow, steady change lasts the longest.

By the way, all of the ranting and raving against religion and against marriage are extremely counterproductive. In particular, the idea that the laws cannot reflect general moral judgments that stem from the religious beliefs of the majority is patently goofy. They always have and always will.

The word marriage comes from the biblical union of man and women. Instead of sending the message you are trying to go against the majority of the countries faith in a greater God, why not push for a business partnership?
If the vote was for a business partnership i would not personally have an issue with that in itself. I do however have an issue with it being called a marriage since every religion does not support same sex period. what you do in your personal lives are your sins to deal with just as the many i have to deal with but infringing of religious beliefs is not the way to go. Call it a partnership and move on with your lives.

What make the homosexual community so sure future teens will come through for homosexual "marriage"? Every radical since the beginning of man tried using children to push their radical ideaology against public opinion. All have failed and this effort will as well. It has been proven that when young adults get pass the 'rebellious' stage(everyone as a teen goes through this natural process of exerting their independance)they tend to take on more of their parents ideology. If homosexual couples could breed children, they would a have better understanding of a child's ever changing adolescent phase and not remain so optimistic that these so called future young adults will vote for homosexual 'marriage'.

Ken wrote: "There are legitimate reasons to support the bride+groom requirement"
____________

As a "requirement", no. There are also legitimate reasons to support pairings other than bride-groom, but you simply choose to dismiss them.

Mark wrote: "why not push for a business partnership?"
____________

Because, YOU IGNORANT JERK, it's not a business partnership -- I have been committed to my spouse for 23 years now. We are now legally married, so suck on that.

Mike wrote: "you are trying to go against the majority of the countries faith in a greater God"
___________

Screw your religion -- You're no different than the terrorist Taliban we're fighting right now. Your god doesn't have any authority at city hall, and your religion doesn't belong there either.

No surprise - most voters just want gays to dry up and blow away.
Not gonna happen.
The only way it is ever going to get off the ballot is for gays to get equal rights.
Until then, as the saying goes - get used to it.

Oh, pity. They'll just have to suck it up and make another mark on their ballots, I guess, cause it'll be there every two years until it passes. (It'll probably be on there a couple more times after that, too... but once it's passed, it's passed forever.) It's delightful knowing how this will all play out in the end. Even the awful anti-gay crowd knows they're just postponing the inevitable. Now we just watch it unfold...

I wonder if this poll was conducted at a church or other religious gathering place. It seems rather odd that so little information is given about the nature of the poll and how the research was conducted by the "new team."

The 1,500 "registered voters" hardly represent the voters in California. It would be interesting to see the raw data used by the "new polling team" of the Times and USC. It would be more interesting to know who is on that "new" team.

(That's why there's a link there to be clicked for more info. We often include links to get more info elsewhere.)

This headline is misleading if the story is accurate and should be changed immediately. The story reads that a majority don't want a vote in 2010, but the headline says simply that no more votes are wanted. I don't this to be put for a vote again in 2010. I would rather it go to a vote when we can win.

Why do people need this piece of paper that costs money and is pointless to folks who really intend to stay together?

because it's showboating and couples stay married 10 years these days.

SO what the heck is a "small majority"? I would think the bigger story in California is that finally the majority of Californians agree that same-sex marriage is right for those who want it and hurts noone else.

You gays are laughable... Like Hitler and Stalin you use the courts to press your idiotic agenda on us people who voted against you..

"Who granted the voters power and control over our private lives?"
The Constitution of the United States..... buddy

Marriage is ordained by God to be between a Man and a Woman. Hence Adam and Eve.

Like couples can not procreate.

It is THAT simple.

Some posters have commented that:

"Well, isn't that a shame. Because it's gonna be on the ballot every two years until the voters decide to act right, and then every two years after that courtesy of the Cali supreme court decision upholding prop. 8 and the voters' right to vote on minority rights. "

So let me get this straight, your going to shove your ideas down our throats? Because you...think you can?

Some have called me a "religious zealots"...Hello, see above, and how does God make me a "religious zealots" since it is HE who ordained marriage to be between a Man and a Woman?

We, the people, have said NO twice. Which part of NO do you not understand?

I can't fathom anything more mentally unbalanced and stomach churning than the above photo...except maybe for crimes of pedophilia or sex with animals. Where were the parents of these self-titled "gays" when they were children? Didn't they provide them with the most basic of logic training child tools, the Peg-In-The-Proper-Hole toy? Apparently logic and reason need not apply in their caverns of spiritual darkness.
I do offer a solution for these who choose this abhorrent, sex-crazed behavior; Isn't there some large isolated island where they could be deported, set up their own nation, laws, marry whatever creature that fits, run around naked or wearing rainbow colored feathers and do, god only knows..., whatever the hell filthy thing they want?

A close friend of mine died today. I guess one thing I took from it is that life is short and we all die someday. I hope those who spent the bulk of their lives making sure gay people's time spent on earth as miserable as possible are happy with what they achieved. When it comes time for me, I will die knowing that I put more happiness into the world than took out of it.

Why do ignorant Americans insist on having their ignorant opinions being heard, as if their opinions are Fact? That is all your statement is, is your opinion. The fact of the matter is, Homosexuality and Heterosexuality are classifications of Sexual Orientation. Your beliefs that these are just lifestyles and/or chosen behaviors, is just that, a belief. Non that hold a pot to piss in.

"Marriage licenses issued by the state are not a private matter" "But if you ask us for a marriage license, we have a right to say "no"."

Where in the Constitution does it say you have that Right? The US Constitution that I have seen, gives us Equal Rights under the Law, did you miss that?


Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

About the Columnist
A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Andrew Malcolm has served on the L.A. Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four. Read more.
President Obama
Republican Politics
Democratic Politics


Categories


Archives
 



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: