A new SurveyUSA poll gives a great deal of hope to pro-marriage advocates in Minnesota:
An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution on the ballot defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Will you vote FOR the amendment? Against the amendment? Or not vote on the measure?Vote For: 52%
Vote Against: 37%
Not Vote: 5%
Not Sure: 6%
The crosstabs are also encouraging:
Men support the Amendment: 53%-37%
Women support: 52%-36%
Age 18-34 support: 50%-44%
Independents support: 48%-42%
Twin Cities supports: 49%-40%
Join the fight at MinnesotaForMarriage.
20 Comments
Even the 18-34 group is looking pretty good.
Go Minnesota!
The more informed voters are the less likely they are to support marriage redefinition.
The brilliant Marriage Minute video series has gone a long way to educate voters what's at stake.
Go Minnesota...win this by double digits!
I don't know how this pollster's results lean, but generally the results in favor of ss"m" are grossly overestimated. So these result are even better than they appear for marriage in MN.
Maine, Minnesota, Washinton & Maryland are all up for amendments...
Am I missing any others?
Whoa! Looks like we could quite possibly see results similar to N.C. with the amendment passing by a 20+ point margin. Hmmm...perhaps corporate sponsorship of ssm is backfiring? Sure doesn't seem to be helping. Oh well, never mind, it's just as the Lamestream Media assures us with their unbiased propagandist material: the majority of Americans are for ssm. Yeah, right.
>>Even the 18-34 group is looking pretty good.
Yes, isn't that interesting? So much for the argument that ssm support will have the majority vote once the older generation dies out. Another one going down in the annals of the "SSM MythBusters!".
Good news!
@Fitz, those are all the places voting on marriage this year. But only one (Minnesota) is getting a marriage amendment.
Maryland and Washington are reversing ssm laws passed by their legislatures.
Maine is voting on whether to enact ssm because some pro-ssm groups petitioned for another vote after losing in 2009.
Lookin good
@ Barb
"The more informed voters are the less likely they are to support marriage redefinition."
I don't see why this is true. The more informed voters are, the more they would see that the arguments against marriage equality are nothing but smoke. Opponents of marriage equality typically use the following strategy: point to something that same-sex couples can't do (i.e., procreate), and then assert that it is rational to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying on that basis.
The problem, of course, is that opponents want to impose a NON-existent requirement for marriage on same-sex couples, which is utterly arbitrary. Then they want to pretend that that requirement is satisfied by all opposite-sex couples.
Spencer -
I don't understand how one can belittle procreation as if the creation of children is akin to putting money in an arcade machine and a baby pops out.
On second thought, since this is the issue that distinguishes heterosexual couples, that makes heterosexual couples invaluable to society and calls attention to the corresponding lack of value to society of homosexual couples, I guess it really is not surprising that homosexualists would try and minimalize this all-important, biological miracle involving the creation of new human beings consisting of the genetic material of two other human beings.
Only a man and a woman can create a baby; only male-female couples can perpetuate human existence. This is hugely important to society, as is the uniting, through marriage, of moms and dads with the offspring that they create and thereby establishing independent economic units.
Of course, not all heterosexual couples can procreate, but these are exceptions to the rule and in most cases are viewed as tragedies to a married couple, forced to resort to adoption or other artificial means of reproduction. Sorry, Spencer, procreation is really, really important. Really.
@ Overcame,
"I don't understand how one can belittle procreation"
I don't understand how what I said can be so egregiously misrepresented; my comment had absolutely nothing to do with the value of procreation. Here is my core objection:
The problem, of course, is that opponents want to impose a NON-existent requirement for marriage on same-sex couples, which is utterly arbitrary. Then they want to pretend that that requirement is satisfied by all opposite-sex couples.
Stated another way, the so-called "procreation requirement" is really a NON-requirement, because it has never been imposed as a requisite for marriage. And yet, NOMers wish to impose that NON-requirement on same-sex couples. Please explain why this isn't utterly arbitrary (and possibly malicious).
@ Overcame,
I posted a response but it didn't go through. In short, you are (1) egregiously misrepresenting what I said (in fact, making things up), and (2) ignoring my core objection.
Moreover, should you ever wonder why people would think you're homophobic or believe that gays are second-class citizens, consider what you said again: "that makes heterosexual couples invaluable to society and calls attention to the corresponding lack of value to society of homosexual couples." Yes, heterosexual couples are "invaluable to society" but not homosexual couples lack value.
@ Overcame
My previous responses still aren't showing up. In short, you are (a) egregiously misrepresenting what I said, and (b) ignoring my core objection.
Spencer -
My comments spoke to value of hetero vs homo couples not singles. It has nothing to do with sexual preference of the parties, it has to do with the complementary nature of the parties (or not) and the procreative nature of the parties (or not). I'd have the same objection to a person who wanted to marry their dog; but no one would say I hate dogs as a result.
As for devaluing procreation, here's what you said: "Opponents of marriage equality typically use the following strategy: point to something that same-sex couples can't do (i.e., procreate), and then assert that it is rational to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying on that basis."
The implication here is that true marriage supporters identify any old difference between hetero and homo couples, procreation being just one of many differences, chosen just because it establishes a difference, not because it is of any importance. And it is that implied lack of importance which would support your claim that reliance upon that difference would be irrational. It belittles procreation; it refers to it as a mere inconsequential difference.
No one claims that procreation is a requirement for marriage; the only requirement for marriage - the only requirement there ever has been in the history of civilization - is that the parties being married must be a man and a woman. That fact is based in the complementary and procreative nature of man and woman, but procreation is not required.
If you had any respect for the complementary and procreative nature of man and woman, you would not find the man-woman requirement for marriage arbitrary or malicious. Facts are facts: a couple that has procreative capacity has the ability to bear children and perpetuate the society. A couple that can never bear children cannot perpetuate society, not can that couple form a union between parents and their offspring. The couple incapable of perpetuating society is less valuable to society.
The only government interest in marriage is uniting children to their mother and father. The gov provides incentives for mothers and fathers to stay married in order to provide a stable environment in which to raise strong children who will become good citizens in the future. This family unit is the building block of society.
There are many kinds of relationships, but only one has the potential to create children. I do understand that by necessity the opposition must belittle this important aspect of marriage.
@ Overcame,
It appears you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand, you say the ability to procreate is not a requirement for marriage, but then say the male-female standard is justified by the "procreative nature" of the relationship. What do you mean by "procreative nature" if not "ability to procreate?"
As I pointed out before, there is no "ability to procreate" requirement for a marriage license -- it is a non-existent requirement. And we don't prohibit people from entering into legal contracts -- and civil marriage is a legal contract -- simply because they can't meet NON-requirements. So why should the right for same-sex couples to marry turn on whether or not they can meet a non-existent requirement, one that many opposite-sex couples are unable to satisfy? The question answers itself.
"The implication here is that true marriage supporters identify any old difference between hetero and homo couples, procreation being just one of many differences, chosen just because it establishes a difference, not because it is of any importance. And it is that implied lack of importance which would support your claim that reliance upon that difference would be irrational. It belittles procreation; it refers to it as a mere inconsequential difference."
I made no value judgment on procreation when I pointed out the typical argumentative strategy of SSM opponents, which consists of two steps: 1) identify something that same-sex couples can't do (i.e., procreate), and 2) assert that that it is rational to exclude them from marrying on the basis of that inability. There is no "implication" in what I wrote that procreation doesn't have great value.
My problem (just to repeat) is with (1), since it's inherently arbitrary (and possibly malicious) to exclude same-sex couples from marriage simply because they cannot satisfy a non-existent requirement. The non-requirement here is the "ability to procreate," which many opposite-sex couples cannot meet as well.
@Spencer,
SCOTUS (The Supreme Court of the United States) is the one that declared procreation to be a rational basis to limit marriage to one man one woman pairings. Opponents to marriage corruption have only repeated this well know fact that was first established in 1853 as a rational for not recognizing group marriages; then again in 1971 when SCOTUS reiterated this same rational basis as it relates to same-gender marriage.
Based on the SCOTUS ruling on the ACA it appears highly unlikely that SCOTUS will reverse one-hundred-and-sixty years of well established guiding precedence just so sexual deviant can remake this nation in their image.
Look at it this way; you may have won the battle, but you lost the war before it ever started.
The Emperor has no clothes.
Spencer -
"Procreative nature" means having the complementary anatomy that can lead to the creation of children.
You see, Spencer, marriage is about uniting moms and dads with their offspring; that's not an arbitrary concern, it's of paramount importance to our society. It assures that children have their moms and dads to raise them, and it assures that parents take responsibility for the children whom they created. It also creates independent economic units - united with other extended families - that form the foundation of society and independence from government.
Because of the importance of procreation and its implications for society, marriage is for those who ostensibly have the ability to procreate. In the event that they actually do procreate, the child created will be united with its parents through marriage. Homosexual couples can never procreate, therefore, this safety net for children is irrelevant to them, thus they don't qualify for marriage.
Why should homosexuals get married? To assure that the children that they are incapable of ever having will be united with the parents who created them? It's farcical. And, as far as children adopted by homosexual couples, those children have already been denied one or more of their parents, so the purpose of marriage in uniting parents to their children has already bee thwarted in that scenario.
There is an existing legal requirement which same sex couples cannot meet - the couple must be male and female.
You can object to the requirement of course, but you can't say marriage is denied to same sex couples due to a non-requirement.
As for procreation not being a requirement, that much is true, but it does not make your case.
Its still the public purpose of marriage to manage procreation by members of the opposite sex in an orderly way.
By analogy, the public purpose of a car registration is to manage the use of public roads by cars. Yet, no single car is required to go on a public road to be registered!
Since cars are not required to drive on the road to register, does that mean its equally valid to register a boat for road use too?
After all, why can't a boat register for road use if a car does not have to use the road to register?
Its because the public purpose is to manage what cars do even though it does not require that cars do it.
Likewise, the public purpose of marriage is to manage procreation, which is what only men and women do, and same sex couples don't.