[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers
Daily Email Summary


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics
Event Calendar
February 2010
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* 01 02 03 04 05 06
07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 * * * * * *
<< (add event) >>

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally

MBA Member

Blue CA Ad Network
Join Our eMail List
Email:

Photobucket

LAT Baseline Poll on Gay Marriage - Better Than It Looks

by: David Dayen

Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:35:16 AM PDT


People are probably going to fixate on the hard numbers in this latest poll on marriage equality from the LA Times, showing the constitutional amendment passing by 54-35.  However, there are a few additional items to consider.

• We all know that initiatives need to be well ahead to start before the advertising ramps up and the No side chips away at the lead.  This poll would traditionally signal an initiative in the danger zone.  However, the initial polls for Prop. 22 in 2000 were at 58%, and it rose to 61% by election day.  Opinions may be fairly hardened on this one.

• In the internals, however, there is much good news for marriage equality advocates.  

More than half of Californians said gay relationships were not morally wrong, that they would not degrade heterosexual marriages and that all that mattered was that a relationship be loving and committed, regardless of gender.

That's really, really good news.  54% say same-sex relationships are not morally wrong, and 59% say that "as long as the two love each other, it doesn't matter" what gender the two people are.  It suggests that the only hurdle is the terminology of "gay marriage," based on lingering tradition.  I think that can be cleared to a degree.

• There's more confirmation that this is generational.

Overall, the proportion of Californians who back either gay marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples has remained fairly constant over the years. But the generational schism is pronounced. Those under 45 were less likely to favor a constitutional amendment than their elders and were more supportive of the court's decision to overturn the state's current ban on gay marriage. They also disagreed more strongly than their elders with the notion that gay relationships threatened traditional marriage.

Considering that the likely Presidential nominee is poised to bring Americans under 45 to the polls in record numbers, it's certainly better to be on the side that appeals to them.

• If Arnold's opposition to the measure is publicized, which is likely, that does seem to change minds:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has vetoed two bills sanctioning gay marriage, has said that he respects the court's decision and that he will not support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Californians were split on his stance, with 45% agreeing and 46% disagreeing.

I think this is a pretty good place to be considering the circumstances.  The marriage equality movement has powerful advocates and the weight of justice and fairness on their side.  It's whether enough people have gotten used to the concept by November.  I think the poll shows that's very possible.

David Dayen :: LAT Baseline Poll on Gay Marriage - Better Than It Looks
Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
i'm unclear (0.00 / 0)
since it's a Constitutional amendment, does it need a supermajority to pass?  what percentage?

No, only 50%+1 (8.00 / 1)
Unfortunately, the only difference required for a constitutional amendment is additional signatures.

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG.

[ Parent ]
Interesting Gender Gap (0.00 / 0)
For or Against the Proposed Amendment:

Men: 43% For, 41% Against, DK 12%
Women: 58% For, 31% Against, DK 9%

This is one of the rare cases where men are statistically much more progressive than women.  


That shocked me (0.00 / 0)
I was actually really surprised by that little piece of information.

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG.

[ Parent ]
Someone should conduct... (0.00 / 0)
focus groups and get a better understanding of this phenomenon.  Eroding that gender gap will be an important part of defeating this proposition.

[ Parent ]
It's being done already (8.00 / 1)
As I understand anyway, Equality for All has already started looking at targeting and messaging.

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG.

[ Parent ]
this showed through (8.00 / 1)
at focus groups my firm conducted recently on a tangentially related project.  We did two groups of men and two with women, and when we asked their opinions of gay marriage, there were always more women dead-set against the idea, even women who were progressive on just about every other single issue.

It's strange, and I don't have any explanation for it--without doing further research, of course.


[ Parent ]
research (8.00 / 1)
EQCA has done an excellent research program around this, I think the messages they're going to develop are going to be great. More stuff like the initial Let California Ring ad, I hope.

I listened to a little conservative/mod talk radio while traveling earlier this week, and the gist seems to be some level of resignation. Even the whackos seemed to think it was going to happen eventually, they just want it to happen later rather than sooner. Wah. So irritating.

But the main message they're going with is this legalistic crap, activist judges and all that. They're going to have to play some fear cards on top of that to win, but I'm not sure they can without getting put in the bigot box. Definitely going to be an interesting fight.

I'm the project director and statewide organizer for California VoterConnect.


[ Parent ]
Field Poll on Prop 22 (8.00 / 1)
Field does us a solid and leaves their old polls online.  So, you can find their last poll on Prop 22 here.

Here's the table of support. As Dave mentioned, Prop 22 got 61% of the vote.

Table 1
Trend of voter reaction to Proposition 22, the "Limit on Marriage" initiative (among likely voters)
Yes No Undecided
Late Feb. 2000 53% 40 7
Early Feb. 2000 52% 39 9
December 1999 51% 40 9
October 1999 50% 41 9
August 1999 57% 39 4
March 1999 55% 39 6

Few initiatives get a higher YES percentage than their polls. Undecideds typically break strongly to NO, so 22 broke that pattern.  That being said, the electorate in the November election is going to be huge, especially when compared to the March 2000 election.  As BruinKid described election, if you'll recall, featured a non-competitive Dem primary, and a Republican-heavy electorate. (4.1mRs vs. 3.2mDs) Thankfully, that won't be an issue this time.

So, yeah, I'd hold off on the comparisons to Prop 22, that electorate and the Nov 2008 electorate are very different.

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG.


I think this goes to the first point (0.00 / 0)
In the first polls, showing 58% Yes, the turnout model likely didn't include a 25% Republican advantage. If I had to guess, I'd say that turnout explains most of that increased Yes %.

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG.

[ Parent ]
As someone who campaigned against Prop 22 ... (0.00 / 0)
... I cannot tell you how utterly depressing it was to have such a heavy Republican electorate on the March 2000 ballot.  It was truly an anomalous election, and the turnout patterns for November 2008 will be quite different.

June 2008, on the other hand, will be a different story.


[ Parent ]
Would the constitutional amendment ... (0.00 / 0)
... simply repeal marriage equality, or would it undo domestic partnerships as well??  Whether or not it does that will factor into our campaign strategy to defeat it.

Arizona's the only state that has ever defeated such an amendment, and they did so by zeroing in on the domestic partnership angle.  Their poster children, incidentally, were an elderly straight couple who would lose important benefits if it passed.

I wrote about this a while back: http://www.beyondchron.org/new...


only marriage (0.00 / 0)
Although courts have sometimes construed these things broadly, our courts are unlikely to do so.  Some have suggested using that as a potential argument, but the simplicity in the Act benefits them.

Here is the entire text of the proposed Amendment:

SECTION I. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act. "
SECTION 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution. to read:
Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG.


[ Parent ]
This is the same language as Prop 22 ... (0.00 / 0)
After the legislature and Governor Gray Davis passed AB 205 (domestic partners) in 2003, the right wing sued claiming that it conflicted with Prop 22.  They argued that to only recognize marriage between a man and a woman necessarily precludes domestic partnerships.  They lost in court.

[ Parent ]
hope for the future in fresno (0.00 / 0)
the kids are all right, and their parents might even be listening a little bit:

Becky Espinoza of Kerman, an agricultural town west of Fresno, said that if the amendment made the ballot, she would vote for it. But she acknowledged some ambivalence about the matter coming before voters at all.

"I just don't believe a man and a man should be married," said the 57-year-old Republican. "How can I put this -- it's just not right. I was brought up very old-fashioned."

Even within her own family, however, there are differences of opinion. A younger daughter, she said, feels "there's nothing wrong with that."

"To kids nowadays, it's like 'Oh well.' Maybe it is 'Oh well.' They see it. We didn't see it. It was one of those in-the-closet things."

that these conversations are even happening might not help with stopping this amendment (although that sort of debate back when all those couples were getting married in SF, all four kids tag teaming my parents, is part of what flipped them over to the light side on the issue), in the long term, this is how opinions change. the fact that that woman is thinking about it, questioning whether her kids are seeing something she doesn't/can't, is a bigger deal than people realize.

surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat


All is not lost (0.00 / 0)
...I was talking with my fiance (who's an attorney) and he thinks the nutjobs screwed up on this amendment.  

The CA Supreme Court interpreted marriage equality based on the equal protection clause of the CA Constitution.  In order to overturn the CS Supreme Court's interpretation of the CA Constitution, the amendment would have to alter the equal protection guarantees in Article I.  The proposed amendment makes no mention of altering this.

He also tells me there is precedent in CA law for the CA Supreme Court to rule an amendment passed by the voters to be unconstitutional.  I cannot remember what case he cited, but he knew of an instance in recent history where the Court tossed out an amendment inconsistent with their interpretation of the CA State Constitution.

I bring up this line of reasoning, because we need to fight this amendment anyway we can - at the ballot box and in the courts.    


Opps (0.00 / 0)
...hate responding to my own thread, but it looks like the nutjobs are smarter than Iwe thought.  Seems like they are modifying the right part of the CA Constitution.

[ Parent ]
There are legitimate challenges (0.00 / 0)
But the first course of business is defeating the Amendment. There is some precedent for challenging it if it does pass, but hopefully it won't get there.

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG.

[ Parent ]
Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads
Photobucket


Support Calitics:

Shop on Amazon.com

Advertisers

California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch
Powered by: SoapBlox