NOM BLOG

PPP Poll: Michigan Voters Oppose SSM 53%-33%

 

In 2004 Michiganders approved a constitutional marriage amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, 58%-41%.

Today, as reported by Democrat-leaning Public Policy Polling, even less support legalizing same-sex marriage: 33% (with 53% opposed).

When given the option for civil unions, there is even less support for redefining marriage (full cross-tabs here):

"Which of the following best describes your opinion on gay marriage: gay couples should be allowed to legally marry, or gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry, or there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship?"

Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry: 29%
Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not marry: 33%
There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship: 35%
Not sure: 3%

The poll respondents self-identified as 40% Democrat, 30% Republican and 30% Independent/Other.

Democrats support SSM 48%-36%. Independents oppose SSM 50%-36% and Republicans overwhelmingly oppose SSM 78%-10%.

48 Comments

  1. Adam
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    Does NOM support civil unions for same-sex couples?

  2. catholicdad
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    Why would anyone wish to support an "institution" such as civil "unions", which devalues marriage by extending its benefits to the unmarried?

  3. dn
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    So in other words, NOM's position is that gay couples be legal strangers, with no more legal standing than a random person on the subway? Just checking.

  4. Barb
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    The often overlooked fact is that anyone can make a legally binding contract (a "civil union" if you will) with any other person without government approval. I could make such a contract with my sister, mother or cat if I so desired.

    When you look to others for approval of your relationship you will never be satisfied.

  5. Lawyer
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    Actually, Barb, many of the rights that legally married couples get cannot be "contracted" for. Social security benefits and immigration rights are just two examples.

    Also, just so you know, cats lack the capacity to enter into a contract.

    But, hey, go for it anyway if that's your thang.

  6. Adam
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    Barb, if anyone can make a contract without government approval, then why can't straight couples? Why do straight couples need the government to approve of their relationships?

    The reason, which isn't overlooked, is that government marriage provides benefits that contracts or civil unions cannot. You know that, just conveniently fail to mention it.

    Either get the government out of the marriage business or make it equal.

  7. Bruce
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 11:32 am | Permalink

    "The often overlooked fact is that anyone can make a legally binding contract (a "civil union" if you will) with any other person without government approval."

    And several thousand dollars later, that same sex couple still won't have all the rights and responsibilities that are part of the cost of a marriage license. When we say we want full equality, that's pretty much what we mean.

  8. dn
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    Good points Adam and Bruce. Barb, you cannot enter into a contract with your cat, as it cannot give legal consent.

  9. Lefty
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    @Adam
    I support domestic partnerships.

  10. SC Guy
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    Glad to see u guys finally saw this poll. I posted it a couple days ago. Good news from the Midwest.

  11. Louis E.
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

    The general welfare requires that opposite-sex couples be granted preferential treatment under law,and failure to guarantee that superior status should be seen as an impeachable offense."Equality" between the one kind of relationship there is any public interest in promoting,and its opposite,should be prohibited.

  12. Al
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    @Louis - I'm highly doubtful of your sensibilities regarding the general welfare.

  13. catholicdad
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    Al- Of course you are. You have managed to persuade yourself that all of humanity has had it wrong on marriage from the beginning of recorded history until the homosexual "marriage" political operation was launched a decade or two ago. The general welfare is not served by surrendering to a radical rebellion against not only history, but indeed biology itself.

  14. catholicdad
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

    Barb's point about contracts is perfectly apt. No one is allowed to enforce an illegal contract. Marriage is not a civil union, so why should a civil union be allowed to appropriate for itself benefits legitimately reserved to married couples? The entire notion is absurd, and could appeal only to pseudo-marriage advocates employing a Trojan Horse strategy, or to mush-minded equivocators who mewlingly propose that we can buy off the assault upon our families and children with a fiction.

  15. Adam
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

    @ Louis E. That's not an argument, just a conclusion. You don't provide any reasons for why one kind of relationship is superior to another or why one deserves preferential treatment and not another.

    Let's take NOM's argument that government marriage is needed to connect chidren to their biological mothers and fathers. Even accepting that the validity of that premise (that children are raised best by their biological mothers and fathers), the argument doesn't provide support for excluding other types of families. General welfare means all people, not just the best people.

  16. Lisa
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    Adam: You mean like the ones offered in California? The ones that offer virtually all the same legal protections under the law as marriage. You know, the same civil unions that SSMers are seeking to do away with because they want the word marriage to be redefined into something else.

  17. dn
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    Or in Rhode Island where the governor tried to make it illegal for grieving gay people to collect their loved ones' remains, Lisa? Virtually equal isnt the same as equal.

  18. Adam
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    @ Lisa. Yes, exactly those. Because they do not offer virtually all the same protections. Examples include, but are not limited to, any and all federal benefits, reciprocity in other states. Like I said earlier, government should get out of the marriage business or make it equal.

  19. Barb
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    Here's what Dr. Morse has to say about so-called "marriage equality:"

    "Regular Ruth Readers have heard me say many times that “equality” is not a stand-alone concept. The term “equality” needs a referent: who is equal to whom and in what context? If you don’t specify those basic parameters, the concept of equality means exactly nothing. It is similar to saying “mine’s bigger,” without saying “what exactly of yours are we talking about?” or “bigger than what?”

    Evading this elementary problem of context is the heart of the rhetorical strategy of the advocates for so-called marriage equality. I have argued elsewhere that the “marriage equality” concept is nonsense. I’m convinced that treating same sex couples identically at law with opposite sex couples will create new forms of inequality in all the relationships that depend on or derive from marriage. Fathers of the children in lesbian relationships won’t be equal to other fathers; children of same sex couples won’t be equal to other children. And most recently, we’ve shown on this blog that biological mothers in sexual relationships with other women will not be treated equally with other mothers.

    This is why “marriage equality” is impossible. The newly redefined institution either won’t be really equal for everyone, or it won’t be marriage."

  20. catholicdad
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    The radicalism of Al's position deserves comment. "Either" redefine marriage as Al likes "or" get out of the marriage "business" entirely. Sort of like Solomon's choice. Divide the baby. Pure equality. Of course Solomon was wise enough to understand that the advocate of such "equality" was in fact an enemy of justice. As it is in Al and his co-thinkers' case. The real agenda is the destruction of marriage.

  21. Barb
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    If you purport to love someone you have an ethical obligation to take care of them. Morals would dictate that you go to some effort and expense to do that. And, yes, that would include one's pets.

    Do gay couples want to bemoan the fact that they aren't (and shouldn't be) married, or do they want to actually take care of their partner? What if one of you gets sick? Most issues can be resolved with a legally binding contract.

    Marriage as 1 man + 1 woman is a special relationship. It's not equal to a same sex relationship. Meaning, not the same. Not inherently better or worse, simply different.

  22. dn
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    Al, should gay people have the right to claim their deceased loved one's remains?

  23. dn
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    Oops, that was meant for Catholicdad not Al

  24. Louis E.
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    Being opposite-sex gives opposite-sex relationships the right to preferential treatment by the state.To allow same-sex sexual relationships to be treated as if they were of as much worth to society is harmful.Those making the choice to get involved in such relationships have to be penalized and can not claim their desire to do so,regardless of its cause,provides any justification.

  25. Barb
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    @dn: Now you're just being obstreperous. Plenty of folks provide for their pets in their wills. No, a will is not a contract and doesn't require consent. Now you have the choice to focus on minutia or actually do something productive to legally protect your partner and yourself.

  26. Adam
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    @ Barb. You keep missing the point. Contracts do not provide all the benefits that government marriage does. And you havent provided any reasons why same-sex couples should not be entitled to all the same benefits.

    I agree that 1 man, 1 woman relationships and marriages are special. But, so are same-sex relationships and marriages. Both deserve government recognition and treatment if government wants to stay in the marriage business.

    @catholicdad. The argument I am making is for government recognition and treatment of same-sex marriage. Marriage is special. If the government wants to treat it as such, it mist recognize all marriages, not just one kind.

  27. dn
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    So.... you have no example of an animal giving informed consent. Thanks for your hard work.

    Marriage is about more than wills. The GAO found 1138 federal benefits not provided to same sex couples.

    And only two years ago a state governor tried to make it illegal for gays to claim the remains of their loved ones. I notice no nommers have touched that topic yet.

  28. dn
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    Louis, sex acts have nothing to do with this. You sure are obsessed with sex acts...

  29. Barb
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    @dn: So, may I assume by your failure to address the topic that you and your partner believe it's too much trouble to protect each other by contract?

  30. Adam
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

    Barb, even if same-sex couples protect themselves by contract, it doesn't provide all the benefits that government marriage provides.

  31. catholicdad
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    Al: Government already recognizes all marriages. The pseudo-marriage objective is to redefine marriage- to destroy it by extending its privileges and benefits to those who- such as same sex couples- can never possibly constitute a marriage, even should gay cash billionaires succeed in buying a legislator or four.....

  32. catholicdad
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    dn: Family members have the right to claim remains. "Loved ones"? I mean, who decides who a "loved one" is? Seems like a rather easy issue- Montana and other states allow such dispositions to be made by the individual in advance. What a lousy excuse for a reason to redefine marriage. But thanks for playing.

  33. dn
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    Barb, it is you who is missing the point. Your side works to make it impossible for gay people to have those protections. Just like Governor Carcieri.

  34. dn
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    Catholicdad, I bring up the example because it happened. In Rhode Island. In 2009. Bringing up things that happen is hardly making up fanciful strawmen. Spare me.

    And you know how to fix your "who decides who is an appropriate loved one" strawman? Let gay people get married and give their spouses that right. Just like straight people.

  35. catholicdad
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    dn: So. Even though the solution to your dilemma exists under law in Montana and elsewhere, you insist that your real agenda is, after all, the destruction of marriage. Which had already been established earlier. But thanks for the confirmation.

  36. dn
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    So gay people should have to forecast every possible circumstance and create legal arrangements around each? Meanwhile, straight people skip down to city hall and ten dollars and 50 minutes later, they have an uncontestable legal document that covers everything? I hope you're not really a believer in such a heterosupremacist system.

  37. catholicdad
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    dn: No. Not "straight people". *Married* people. Plenty of straight relationships involve lifelong commitments. Those people are not agitating for the redefinition of marriage so they can claim their friends' remains. They know this objective can easily be accomplished through simple arrangements. It is the intention of the pseudo-marriage crowd to destroy marriage. It is our intention to defend it. Tally-ho!

  38. dn
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    Again, nobody is trying to destroy marriage.

  39. SC Guy
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    Civil unions are also horribly wrong. They may not be quite as bad as marriage but they are still wrong and are always along the same road to full-fledged SSM. Fortunately, Michigan and many other states banned civil unions as well as gay marriage when they amended their relevant state constitutions to outlaw gay unions.
    And to NOM - what is the latest on North Carolina?

  40. J. Pell Cundrason
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    You only heed to look to the states and jurisdictions that allow pseudo marriage to see destruction of real marriages. The evidence is there, no one is looking for it.

  41. Ty Benson
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    I see all these arguments for and against ssm, but no mention of marriage orgin or ordination. Prior to the 1900s government had no involvement in marriage. Marriage was through the church and is created and ordained by God and between one man and one woman. Ssm has no place in society for these reasons.

  42. skip
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

    Gay people can "skip down to city hall and ten dollars and 50 minutes later, ... have an incontestable legal document that covers everything" i.e. a contract joining a man and a woman in marriage. They just don't want that document. They want a different document that says partner 1 and partner 2 instead of man and wife that no one can contest and includes various federal benefits. The people, however, haven't given their consent for that new document, at least not in Michigan or at the federal level either. If the document is incontestable and includes government benefits in addition to private contract rights, the people ought to have a say in its creation. Meanwhile gays and straights have an equal opportunity to skip down to city hall and get exactly the same document. That is marriage equality. No one is disqualified on the basis of their orientation from getting the current document.

  43. Louis E.
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

    Adam,government has a duty to encourage the breakup of same-sex relationships,which are automatically a bad thing for those in them and those exposed to them.Making sure they are denied benefits of which their being same-sex makes them unworthy is a policy that must be maintained and enforced.It is just like discouraging alcoholics from drinking or kleptomaniacs from stealing...their calling themselves "gay people" doesn't excuse their indulging same-sex sexual attraction,nothing can!

  44. Badger
    Posted August 17, 2011 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

    Louise, I can tell you that same-sex attraction is no more or less a bad thing than opposite sex attraction. They are simplly opposite ends of the scale of human sexuality. Being straight is just a normal variant of being gay (and vice versa) just like being left handed is a normal variant of being right-handed. Neither is right or wrong, moral or immoral.

  45. Louis E.
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    Badger,your claim is absurd.There is nothing value-neutral to humanity about what sex individuals are attracted to...heterosexuality is the only kind necessary.And the "right" and "wrong" enter into the acts,not the attractions,which are either "normal" or "deficient" (the latter being same-sex).

  46. John Noe
    Posted August 18, 2011 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

    @Ty Benson

    Here is why government got involved in marriage and it was a good thing. Sadly it is the homosexual activists trying to take something good and making it into something bad.
    The government wanted to promote procreation and to help those couples who brought offspring into our society. It costs more to raise children and it was a good idea to promote procreation and to reward it.
    The marriage license and the benefits that come with it are both priviledges and not rights. SSM'ers exploit societies lack of understanding on this issue when they call it a right. The 1000+ benefits were procreation incentives offered by the government. The state's desire to promote offspring enabled the state to issue a marriage license and to consequently offer procreation benefits to it.
    This is still true today, nothing has changed. The SSM'ers cannot refute this. Nor they do really try. Instead it is call its opponents names, claim that procreation is not important, and take advantage of the ignorance of many in society who do not know the history and meaning of the marriage license.

  47. Badger
    Posted August 19, 2011 at 7:01 am | Permalink

    Louise that is not an argument. It is just a conclusion without any reasoning to back it up. Every single credible medical, psychiatric, psychological and paediatric association regard sexual orientation as an inherent characteristic of human beings and homosexuality just a normal variant of heterosexuality.

  48. Randy E King
    Posted August 19, 2011 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

    "Every single credible medical, psychiatric, psychological and paediatric association regard sexual orientation as an inherent characteristic of human beings and homosexuality just a normal variant of heterosexuality."

    Another bald face lie from the Badger; why am I not surprised?

    According to these "credible" sources you cite their official stance is "they do not know why..."

    And for your information Badger; each of the groups you noted are fighting credibility issues due to the lack of credible peer review scientific evidence used in their decision making process.