NOM BLOG

Some Thoughts on NY Poll Claiming Majority is Okay with SSM

 

Recently a NY1/Marist poll claimed a majority of New Yorkers support the new same-sex marriage law.

Generally speaking, people are reluctant to change an existing law when they don't think it adversely affects them directly. Using buzz words like "allow" and "legally" also drives up favorable responses, while asking if people want to "overturn" something drives up negative responses.

More importantly, however, the poll further confirms what we've suspected -- that voting to redefine marriage is going to cost GOP Senators: 43% of Republicans are less likely to vote for a state senator who voted to pass the SSM law in NY, a 19-point intensity gap over the 24% of Republicans who are more likely to vote for a state senator who voted for the law. In other words, primaries will matter.

Of course, the only poll that matters is a free and fair vote of the people, an option that was taken off the table by those who pushed for the legislature to redefine marriage unilaterally. Our Let The People Vote campaign is about actually allowing the people of New York to decide this issue. The poll we commissioned in June shows that almost 60% of New Yorkers want their chance to vote on the issue (only 26% wanted the legislature to decide the question).

The fact that those in favor of redefining marriage refuse to join this cause of letting the people vote tells us volumes about where they think New Yorkers really stand on marriage.

18 Comments

  1. SC Guy
    Posted August 22, 2011 at 10:15 am | Permalink

    Regarding New York, I maintain the same position that I held before. If the liberals were so sure that such a huge majority of New Yorkers supported SSM, why didn't they allow them to vote on it? After all, that would have been a huge setback for anti-SSM forces? It's interesting to see them manipulate like this.

  2. catholicdad
    Posted August 22, 2011 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    SC guy is right. The pseudo-marriage supporters learned their lesson the hard way in California and Maine.

    Pseudo-marriage advocates love polls because they can win polls. Pseudo-marriage supporters fear elections because they can't win elections.

  3. Barb
    Posted August 22, 2011 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    The culture war is a war of messaging. If you convince enough people that their view is in the minority they'll be less likely to stand up for it.

    Pseudo-marriage advocates have nothing but strategies. We have the truth. And now we have great presidential candidates who are standing for the truth.

    "One man with courage makes a majority." Andrew Jackson

  4. Randy E King
    Posted August 22, 2011 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    "Always be right; you justify the few and amaze the many."

    Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)

  5. Louis E.
    Posted August 22, 2011 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    SC Guy...you have to understand that we just about never have referendum votes in New York,it's not like the states that have petitions to put things on ballots.
    The one thing we can do is get a new Constitutional Convention and elect delegates who will pass an amendment to abolish SSM,which will then go to a vote.(The legislative leadership would never allow such an amendment to pass).

  6. Anselmo
    Posted August 22, 2011 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    NOM keeps calling for this issue to be put to the people when first it can not go on the ballot as New York does not have that process. The duly elected officals of the State voted and marriage equality passed just like all the other laws they passed. NOM lost and will continue to lose, I have to wonder what you will do when it is the law of the land?

  7. catholicdad
    Posted August 22, 2011 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    Anselmo: In such a highly unlikely case, we will amend our Constitution. Given the rapidly increasing oscillations and instabilities now affecting our civilization (which has been afflicted by secular humanist lunacy long enough to reach the critical stage) I predict it is much more likely that we will witness a political tsumani of unimagined proportions next year.

    The pseudo-marriage movement is about to wake the sleeping giant.

  8. Sam Jones
    Posted August 22, 2011 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

    NOM has won most battles regarding the definition of marriage. That is why SS"M" advocates had to resort to political pressure, payoffs, political cowardice, and the selling out of principles by corrupt politicians to get it passed in NY.

    http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/11b/ny_marriage/analysis.html

    It will take more time and patience to get this travesty reversed than it did in CA and ME. But it will be reversed.

    And what will SS"M" advocates do if redefining marriage loses out in SCOTUS like it did in the European Court of Human Rights and the highest court in France?

  9. David in Houston
    Posted August 22, 2011 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    I'm still trying to figure out why straight people should be able to vote on the civil rights of gay Americans? When did the public get to vote on your marriage?

    As for the so-called "redefinition" of marriage, exactly whose marriage has been redefined? Are those in opposite-sex marriages in New York no longer husband and wife, just because gay couples can also marry? Doubtful.

  10. Louis E.
    Posted August 22, 2011 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

    Anselmo,wherever SSM is enacted it therefore needs to be abolished,at any level of government and by whatever lawful process.
    David,if the uniting of males to females is not acknowledged as the core purpose of marriage,all marriages are redefined to being worthless.It is no one's "civil right" to have the unconscionable practice of same-sex sexual relationships treated as worthy of legal protection.

  11. catholicdad
    Posted August 23, 2011 at 1:02 am | Permalink

    David: There is no question of the civil rights of any person involved in the pseudo-marriage assault, other than of course the rights of the people to defend humanity's most ancient and indispensable institution against the implacable desire to destroy it on the part of a minority.

    All are equally free to marry, provided of course they can find an eligible spouse who will have them.

  12. bman
    Posted August 23, 2011 at 5:30 am | Permalink

    David in Houston: I'm still trying to figure out why straight people should be able to vote on the civil rights of gay Americans? When did the public get to vote on your marriage?

    Same sex marriage is based on immoral and maladaptive sexual conduct (men having sex with men). Neither immorality or maladaptive sexual behavior should be officially endorsed by society.

    Besides, the Supreme court has already decided that same sex marriage is a not a civil right in Baker v. Nelson.

    Additionally, the Eighth Circuit court in Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, and the California . Supreme Court in Strauss both upheld the right of the people to vote on the definition of marriage.

    A people would also have the right to define marriage within their borders, and to not legally recognize alien forms of marriage from other cultures. This right is well understood by all.

    Given its understood the people have that right, the people would also have the right to not legally recognize same sex marriage which, too, is alien to American law and history.

  13. Bryce K.
    Posted August 23, 2011 at 7:03 am | Permalink

    Wow, bman, Baker v. Nelson did not do what you say it did. So many things wrong with your post. Shame on you, NOM, et al. for your lies and misrepresentation of facts.

  14. bman
    Posted August 23, 2011 at 7:23 am | Permalink

    Bryce K: Wow, bman, Baker v. Nelson did not do what you say it did. So many things wrong with your post. Shame on you, NOM, et al. for your lies and misrepresentation of facts.

    Rather, shame on you for making what appears to be a false accusation without offering an proof.

  15. Posted August 23, 2011 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    Voting on my marriage. Well, frankly, as a Catholic protestants and secularists decided to vote that I should not be allowed to make an indissoluble marriage.

    I accept as a practical matter, that if marriage is a public, civil insittution the democratic process is how we decide these questions.

    'But yes people voted on my marriage, and every marriage.

  16. Gay agnostic
    Posted August 24, 2011 at 7:07 am | Permalink

    "Same sex marriage is based on immoral and maladaptive sexual conduct (men having sex with men). Neither immorality or maladaptive sexual behavior should be officially endorsed by society."

    Homosexuality is frowned upon solely because of the texts of holy books (Bible, Qu'ran, Torah) no possible sexular case can be made against homosexuality so therefore that argument is invalid in a secular society

  17. Badger
    Posted August 24, 2011 at 11:34 am | Permalink

    bman - society as a whole in America does not regard men having sex with men as immoral - by a large majority. Furthermore such acts are not illegal and are also constutionally protected. No mainstream medical or psychological organisation regards gay sex as maladaptive. So for all those reasons gay marriage should not be stigmatised or outlawed by the government.

  18. Louis E.
    Posted August 24, 2011 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

    No possible secular case can be made FOR homosexual activity,I have never been religious and neither have my arguments against it.God does not write books...but species evolve sexual dimorphism for a reason that a reasoning species should uniformly respect.

    Any medical or psychological organization that ceases to denounce hhomosexual sex loses all credibility on the matter.Any constitutional protection arising out of misconstrued language needs to be explicitly abolished.