Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Gap shrinking in Calif. anti-gay amendment
10.23.2008 8:14am EDT
(San Francisco, California) A monthly tracking of California voters finds a slim margin opposing a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
The new Public Policy Institute of California survey finds that the ban, known as Proposition 8, is losing among likely voters, 52 percent to 44 percent. But when the margin of error is factored in, it is almost a dead heat.The Public Policy Institute is the only survey in California that tracks voters on a monthly basis.
The October poll shows the gap between the two sides has narrowed since September, when 41 percent favored the proposition while 55 opposed it; and August, when the spread was 40 percent who said they would vote for the ban as opposed to 54 who would reject it.
On the more general question of how they feel about allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry in California, likely voters are divided, 47 percent in favor and 49 percent opposed. These attitudes are largely unchanged since 2005.
The survey also is at odds with other recent polls.
Earlier this week a poll conducted by Marist College Institute of Public Opinion for the Knights of Columbus found 52 percent of likely voters would support the amendment while 43 percent would reject it.
The Roman Catholic group has helped raise millions of dollars for the campaign in favor of the proposed amendment.
A SurveyUSA poll taken earlier this month for four TV stations across the state found that 47 percent of likely voters would support the measure with 42 percent opposing it.
Political analysts suggest the differences in the three polls is the result of the specific questions put to voters, the selection of the samples and the number of people sampled.
In 2004, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom began allowing marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples. The state took the mayor to court arguing he had overstepped his authority and the California Supreme Court agreed. As a result the more than 8,000 marriages that had been performed were declared void.
The ruling, however, did not directly address the issue of the constitutionality of the state ban on same-sex marriage and LGBT civil rights activists began a separate court action challenging the prohibition.
In May, the court court ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to wed violated the California constitution
One more time: the Marist “survey” (52 - 43 in favor) was a blatant push poll that hammered respondents with dishonest claims about churches losing their tax exemption and children being taught Gay 101 in grade school. There is no reason to count that one with legitimate polls.
The PPIC poll is encouraging, but we need to keep donating, keep volunteering, keep talking to friends & family about voting no. We have 12 days to turn these numbers into a reality.
Once again what I previously said about the Marist “poll”: This poll from 9/28-10/5 is so old it’s quaint. It’s from 2 1/2 weeks ago which is the equivalent of 2 lifetimes when we are this close to an election. It’s also before the No on 8 campaign started their two response ads which have been effective.
Also, as noted since this is a “push poll” it isn’t credible.
The last real poll from 10/17/08 released from Survey USA had No on 8 behind 48-45%. More realistic. (Their last ad “Unfair” had only been out 2 days.)
Yeah lol.
“Knowing that the legalization of gay marriage will inevitably unleash the wrath of God on our state (fire, brimstone, throngs of demons), do you support it?”
I just donated a little more, and I’m emailing friends/family in California.
Press Release – October 23, 2008
By Lianne Stokes, liannestokes@gmail.com
Grassroots online fundraising campaign against Proposition 8 by eight lesbian bloggers shatters goal less than midway through the campaign
Three days ago, eight lesbian bloggers set out to raise $8,000 in eight days to help defeat Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that seeks to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in the State of California.
What happened next exceeded their expectations.
Donations started rolling in by the thousands of dollars per day. Less than three full days into the campaign, the eight bloggers against Prop 8 reached their initial goal of $8,000. “I am still in shock at how quickly and effectively the community responded to the 8 Against 8 campaign,” said Renee Gannon of http://www.lesbiatopia.com. “The money donated and the excitement generated in three short days have far surpassed what I ever could have imagined that we would accomplish in eight days, never mind three.”
The eight bloggers intend to continue raising money for No on Prop 8 through the “8 Against 8” campaign, expressing the urgency of fighting Proposition 8. “We’re going to keep ‘8 Against 8’ going for the full eight days,” said Grace Chu of
http://www.gracethespot.com and http://www.afterellen.com. “Equality California’s No on Prop 8 campaign needs every cent they can get to defeat this atrocious ballot initiative,” she continued. “We cannot afford to lose our momentum in this crucial time leading up to the election. We’ve smashed our goal of $8,000. Now let’s keep the donations coming in to smash Proposition 8.”
Dorothy Snarker of http://dorothysurrenders.blogspot.com and http://www.afterellen.com echoed Chu’s sentiments. “Reaching our goal in three days is amazing and a testament to the generosity and passion of all of our readers,” said Snarker. “But just because we reached $8,000 doesn’t mean we should stop pushing for more. Polls show the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ votes are almost dead-even. We can’t let intolerance win because we couldn’t afford to fight hatred head-on.”
The 8 Against 8 fundraising effort continues through October 27th. Donations can be made at the following URL: http://www.8against8.com. 100% of all donations made through “8 Against 8” goes directly to Equality California’s No on Prop 8 campaign.
There’s a good story today on http://www.fivethirtyeight.com (scroll down a little bit to “Prop 8 a Toss-up”) that lists all the polls that have been conducted so far and when. The concensus is that defeating Prop 8 is ahead slightly, but it’s still close.
I too hope that Prop 8 goes down in flames. But what is to stop it from rearing its evil head again — year after year? How about the GLBT community getting more pro-active after this fiasco and coming up with something like a “Proposition 9” that simply states, as an amendment to the California Constitution, that: “Any public referendum shall be considered null and void which jeopardizes or infringes upon the Equal Rights of Californians as set forth by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution of the State of California.”
I have read that this is already implied in the State Constitution which required that the state legislature, or a constitutional convention, be convened first in order to forward (by a super majority) any amendment to the state constitution for a public vote if the amendment under consideration affects any substantial change to the basic structure of the state constitution.
The California Supreme Court has already ruled that homosexuals are a “suspect” or “protected” class of citizens under the state constitution. That ruling implies that the rights they share with heterosexuals are henceforth protected from public referenda as set forth by the California Equal Protection Clause in the California State Constitution.
In essence, it means that if laws were changed that either limited or expanded the rights of homosexuals then those changes in law, in effect, would also limit or expand the rights of heterosexuals. Proposition 8, if passed, would be in conflict with the California Equal Protection Clause as it exists today after the ruling. The California Equal Protection Clause would have to be re-written specifically to exclude homosexuals — this could only be accomplished by another state constitutional amendment which would first require a super-majority of the state legislators before being passed onto the people of California.
If passed, that would, no doubt, open the door to a challenge before the US Supreme Court, such as in Romer -v- Evans, where the court found the state of Colorado had violated the US Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection clause when it passed Amendment 2 that declared that homosexuals could not even petition their elected representative for equal rights in the state. Animus is no justification for denying equal protection, the court ruled.
////”[C]lass legislation . . . [is] obnoxious to the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . .” Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S., at 24. …We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else.” ~ US Supreme Court Justice Kennedy wrote in Romer -v- Evans as the court struck down Colorado‘s Amendment 2.///
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-1039.ZO.html
So, Californians, how about adding something positive in the nature of advancing human rights for a change to the framework of the law? If a “Prop 9“, that clarifies the limits of public referenda, is voted upon it could serve to educate people. If it passes then it would further codify the law; if it fails, then that negative outcome would be moot, but it would still serve to remind people that “a provision against overturning fundamental rights by a citizens’ initiative ” already exists in the California State Constitution, and it cannot be changed by a public referendum.
It’s worth a try to make this clearer to future courts, and especially to put a finer point on it as it pertains to unremitting assaults on human rights caused by the hateful rabble-rousers out to poison the community well by seeking power at our expense and for their own profit. Unfortunately, bigotry is still a booming business both for unethical politicians and for immoral religions groups who pervert human decency for personal gain.
What will these manipulators of group-hate do when they don’t have the GLBT community to kick around anymore? I think that scenario frightens these sociopath miscreants to no end. We should all dedicate our lives to making sure that nightmare comes true for them.
~ Bud Evans
http://rainfish2000.blogspot.com
WHY IS THE STATE ALLOWING THE CHURCH TO DECIDE ON THE CIVIL ISSUE OF MARRIGE FOR THE GAY COMMUNITY ?? DIDN T THE JUDGES DECIDE FOR YOU ALREADY -AND WASNT IT PASSED BY YOUR LEGISLATURE TWICE ONLY TO HAVE ARNIE TURN IT DOWN . HE SAID HE WOULD LEAVE IT UP TO THE COURT? SO, THE COURT DECIDES YES- AND NOW YOU HAVE TO JUMP THROUGH HOOPS FOR THE RELIGIOUS FUNDIES TO GET THEIR APPROVAL? IN REALITY I GUESS THE COURTS REALLY DONT MATTER AS LONG AS RELIGION CHALLENGES US-HAS ANYONE HAVE THE BALLS TO SAY TO THESE WINGNUTS-”GET OVER IT ” THE LAW IS LAW AND WILL STAY THAT WAY !!WHAT THE FUCK IS NEXT? YOU SHOULD BE OUTRAGED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It’s about time for us to realize the separation of church and state. The marriage contract, as licensed by the state, is just that, a contract combining two people together in a partnership, nothing more, nothing less. What happens in the church is a spiritual ceremony, under the belief system of the church, and has no place in politics. And I’m a Presbyterian…go figure…..About time there too, to deal with spiritual issues, and not the running of the country.