James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal seeks to understand why marriage polls never register the support for marriage we see in actual statewide votes, and can only find an anonymous source to help explain why -- read to the last line:
Every state where same-sex marriage has been on the ballot, it has lost--usually by considerably larger margins, but mostly in socially conservative states. Forty percent support and majority opposition seems in the right ball park.
A reader whose identity we'll conceal explains why the polls may be unreliable on this question:
With a marriage amendment on the ballot in Minnesota, we have been assaulted by the pro-gay marriage media and social-media coverage. I say assaulted because the message is not a positive argument for gay marriage, but rather a tarring as bigots of those who believe in the traditional definition of marriage. So of course polls would undercount support for the traditional view of marriage.
A person could tell a pollster that he believes in a position and risk the pollster thinking that he is bigoted, or he could toe the media line, give the pollster a fulsome answer of support for the measure and then vote his conscience privately.
I know what I do (and why not, anything more public than this email could risk my career).
26 Comments
It's hard for many to understand why a person who is anonymous would give untruthful answers on a survey. When a viewer wrote into O'Reilly saying that people claim to support ssm in polls because they don't want to be tarred as bigots, he rejected that explanation saying that survey respondents are anonymous.
But there is a term in research called a "social desirability" effect, where respondents, though anonymous, answer in a way they think will please the researcher; or in a way that is politically correct.
The social desirability effect is playing out in ssm polls.
That e-mail to Taranto nails it...and its surprising that so many pundits have been so obtuse to the effect. Probably because they don't want to hurt their pet cause and acknowledge voter fears of being smeared as a bigot or hurting a career are very real. Genderless Marriage isn't supposed to change anything . But In fact Marriage redefinition will change one thing - the legal marginalization of any opposition to the Homosexual lifestyles. Thats the whole point.
I'm not sure I buy this theory, even though it surprises me a little to be on the same side of an issue as Bill O'Reilly. Still, if a certain number of people who oppose same sex marriage somehow feel ashamed to express that view in an anonymous poll, how is that good for NOM and it's supporters?
Yeah, I'll be sure to feel sorry for people being afraid to lose their jobs over what they think of other people whole millions of people can lose their jobs for putting up a photo of their significant other.
Crocodile tears, NOM.
Thanks, DN
"A person could tell a pollster that he believes in a position and risk the pollster thinking that he is bigoted, or he could toe the media line, give the pollster a fulsome answer of support for the measure and then vote his conscience privately."
Hogwash. First, we already know that the moderate middle and liberal voter has a bad habit of sitting out elections. Many progressives even have a mindset that people will do the right thing and vote for equality while they stay home. The negative, anti voters will pack up church buses to get their "against other peoples rights" vote in.
Second, "social desirability" is already factor in, any good pollster or researcher already knows this pitfall. Since the respondent is never identified and has the right to opt out at any time, false responding for fear of being thought of as a bigot is kept to a minimum.
It is not shame, Bruce. It is fear. There are more than enough stories on this blog to make it clear how those with traditional views are treated when they express views that conflict with those of the wealthy elite.
And if pollsters can get their numbers, why can't they get their names?
Indeed: This is how public "opinion" is manipulated. The same thing happened to the Phillipinio Boxer..Its enough to simply smear an opponent.
The overt public charge of "bigot" and "hater" and "discrimination" and "Your like the racists of old" is enough to discourage and change the answers of lay people who are not involved in this debate,, This is especialy the case amoung the young.
I remeber when if you were against abortion you = "hated woman" and wanted to "take away there rights"
I remeber when if you were against affirmative action "you hated black people and were a racist"
Sure people still maintain this pap but on the whole it losses its punch after a short while..
That is why NOM and others are fighting a rear gaurg action in many ways... To keep the issue alive on a State to State basis until charges of bigotry loose their effect.
That is why the Anti-defemation front exposing those who are unfairly targeted for there views is so important. It throws the lefts tactics back in their face & helps ordinary Americans see the logical consequences of same-sex "marriage"
You mean comparing polls to reality? What a novel idea! In science that it called crosschecking theory with experiment. I like that polls are biased towards same-sex civil marriage or even civil unions, because it prompts those advocates to err. Some are even thinking they can rely on voter initiatives. Already mathematicians are using 'fudge factors' to try to reduce errors not part of the Sampling Margin of Error. The math gets difficult to follow, and applies only in some instances. Yet, anyone can make 600 calls and create their own supposedly 'scientific' poll. Mishandling of polls reduces the faith people have in ALL of them. Not good. Objective polls, considered according to their error estimation, are useful for planning. Yet, they can never take the place of elections of actual voting.
Otherwise, we wouldn't have voting, of course.
Son of Adam,
Your theory makes no sense. Can you cite a single incident of someone targeted because of their responses in an anonymous poll?
None that have been reported. But the fear is still there, and for good reason. How many celebrities have been demonized and villified for standing up for marriage? This sets a powerful example of how hostile this political environment is for the values that support the natural family.
"Indeed: This is how public "opinion" is manipulated. The same thing happened to the Phillipinio Boxer..Its enough to simply smear an opponent."
That's not true. We all know now that Granville Ampong of the Conservative Examiner included the Leviticus verse that appears to be Pacquiao's quote.
Pacquiao has denied saying this and the writer has yet to respond. Pacquiao also admits to never have read Leviticus , hmmmm.
Pacquiao is mostly in trouble with his straight fans for being a jerk.
The same old "who are you going to believe; me, or your damn lying eyes" routine from the marriage corruption supporters. You would think a sense of common decency would have set in over the years with these miscreants and they would now be showing a measure of shame for these reprehensible tactic.
"Pay no attention to that man behind the green curtain"
Bruce,
You really need to drop the "no it isn't," "So what," and "Prove it" responses in defense of your depravity; they only make you look desperate.
Bruce,
Bill O'Reilly and Fox news are completely in the tank with the SSM crowed. Opposition to SSM is a populace uprising in oppostion to these elite's; not a media driven endeavour.
Randy King
"Bill O'Reilly and Fox news are completely in the tank with the SSM crowed. Opposition to SSM is a populace uprising in oppostion to these elite's; not a media driven endeavour."
I'm glad to hear you say this..it shows you have a real grasp of what we are up against. It also demonstrates that you know most major media is helping the left frame the issue.
I would like to recruit you for an effort I am putting together of people who will speak the truth about these issues.
Bruce: Always in need of some help reasoning... 'somehow feel ashamed to express that view in an anonymous poll, how is that good for NOM and it's supporters?' Ashamed, somehow, feel. They are not. How can one be ashamed before a machine? Are you somewhat feeling a itsy bitsy ashamed when you pass a red Coke machine? It's a good strategy - answer positive for same-sex civil marriage or civil unions, and then vote the reverse. That's a great strategy, and has now worked 32 times. Wanna bring up a poll per same-sex civil marriage questions? Go ahead. Make our day.
@Ash,
You mean like how you are willing to discuss civil marriage equality here, but unwilling to discuss it on Facebook with your gay and lesbian "friends"?
@John C., no, Facebook discussions have merely lost their appeal. I love the NOM blog so much more
And even here, I have my limits. I try not to waste time with people who don't read the thread before commenting, and who repeat the same talking points that have been addressed light-years ago. It's amazing that I responded to your comment, since its connection to my first comment is rather spurious. Perhaps because your comment is more of a personal thing, and the topic of the social desirability effect was just a way for you to segue into addressing a personal matter.
I view this as a place to fellowship with fellow marriage supporters and learn. I find the SSMers obsessed with this blog quite hilarious. But, in reality, I'm not exactly desperate to discuss marriage equality (which we already have) with SSMers here or on Facebook. I can, but it's not that important to me. The Lord knows that I have done so before!
Gee Ash,
The fact that you like discussing this issue here, wouldn't have anything to do with the capricious censorship of opposing viewpoints, now would it?
Wrote a longer response but the censor's ate it.
John C., I've discussed this issue on Facebook when the page was uncensored, censored, uncensored again, and then when censoring finally resumed. I understand that to SSMers, my near year of discussing these things on Facebook is like a puff of smoke in the wind. It never happened. After all, SSMer means that someone has a Super Selective Memory.
But it doesn’t matter. If people want to believe that I love the NOM Blog and fell off the Facebook page for censoring purposes, then that is fine by me. I’m sure that you wouldn’t actually believe me if I were to answer your question with “no.” It’s a rhetorical question
All of our posts are caught in the filter at times. Marriage supporters have bemoaned this as well. I do understand that some SSMers are banned from commenting after a while, or not allowed to comment at all. But it is NOM’s blog. They have the right to moderate it as they please. It’s not a soapbox for SSMers; they don’t have to allow any of you to comment. If NOM wants to create a place where marriage supporters can communicate with each other without having the page trashed up with over 100 comments from hostile SSMers, then that’s NOM’s prerogative. Usually, most SSMers who visit are allowed to make their comments and points—most of which have been made zillions of times before.
Great Comment @22, Ash!
I've never understood why the SSA folks bother commenting here at all. Frequently they rush to provide the first comment, mostly stupid, on every new topic. They never change anyone's mind. Then they get frustrated and start the personal attacks.
Thanks, leehawks
They seem rather thirsty for attention in my opinion. It's funny...I've never seen any group of people so desperate to post on a page they disagree with. But, then again, NOM is so effective that it warrants this type of attention from its enemies.
A lot of SSMers just want to distract marriage supporters, preferably by doing what you said: jumping to make the first comment (without reading the post) and saying something stupid. This way, many marriage supporters will be inclined to fall into the trap, get off subject and try to correct the stupid comments.
Many other SSMers are hoping to demoralize us with their comments ("equality is coming"; "why fight the inevitable"; yada yada yada). But this makes them look fearful, in my opinion. It comes off more like an effort to encourage themselves.
If NOM were to leave this blog unmoderated, SSMers would post the addresses of any NOMer they could find, their work information, porn, and--like you mentioned--personal attacks and insults. The page would be unrecognizable. There would be reams of foolish comments from so many SSMers that you wouldn't be able to think. It would only result in marriage supporters not being interested in the page.
Why SSMers feel NOM trash is required to let them trash their page is beyond me. But they feel entitled to a lot of things, don't they
Correction: "Why SSMers feel NOM is required to..."
Ash, I'm pro-marriage. I'm not attacking any group or individual. I'm here because I believe marriage is a WONDERFUL thing in which, until about 15 years ago, I believed gay people could partake in. I'm in NOM's discussion boards because marriage is what I'm fighting for. It's not the "National Organization for Heterosexual Only Marriage", it's my forum too!