On the heels of last week's California Supreme Court decision to allow gay marriage, the Los Angeles Times conducted a poll. Today's paper (Fri. 5/23/08) blares the headline at the top of the front page, "Californians barely reject gay marriage" (print edition headline). "Barely"? Here are the poll's two main questions:
Q: Do you approve or disapprove of the California Supreme Court's decision last week to allow same-sex marriage in California?Strongly disapprove: 42% and Somewhat disapprove: 10%
Strongly approve: 29% and Somewhat approve: 12%Q: A proposed amendment to the state Constitution that may appear on the November ballot would reverse the court's decision and state that marriage is only between a man and a woman. If the election were held today, would you vote for or against the amendment?
For: 54% ... Against: 35%
So voters "barely" reject gay marriage? Seems pretty cut-and-dry to me that Californians aren't too hip to last week's ruling. If these were election numbers, the results would be pretty decisive.
What's going on?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Horrible!
May 23, 2008 - 11:23 ET by MeanderingThat is a disgusting use of journalism. "Barely"? Are you kidding me? Its a landslide. Here in Wisconsin we had such a question on our ballot not long ago and the media here made it seem that it was going to be close or that those that apposed the amendment had more voters, but in reality it was overwhelmingly approved by the people of WI. Just report it straight down the middle, that’s all we ask. The sad thing is they won’t.
Trust me, if the Democratic
May 23, 2008 - 11:23 ET by motherbeltTrust me, if the Democratic candidate were to win the Presidency with 52% it would be called a "mandate." 54% would be considered a "landslide."
I'm very surprised they
May 23, 2008 - 11:46 ET by TruthMongerI'm very surprised they used the word rejected...
NB must be getting to them pretty badly for a concession like this...
Link problems?
May 23, 2008 - 11:55 ET by MeanderingI tried the link, but got an error, is the link correct? I'm surprised too that they would use the word reject.
Barely is a relative term...
May 23, 2008 - 11:27 ET by orlandocajunI'm guessing that when the matter comes to a vote (which it will undoubetly will) it will barely pass at 65% - 35%. This is one that I'm looking forward to.
It will be so close!
May 23, 2008 - 11:34 ET by MeanderingIt will be so close!
Just barely squeaking by on that 19 point margin
May 23, 2008 - 11:33 ET by Dee Bunkthese people are a joke.
Barely support
May 23, 2008 - 14:12 ET by merlin61They are using the fuzzy math that they teach in
schools nowadays.
So what happens to teh
May 23, 2008 - 11:42 ET by Dan The Man 2So what happens to teh people who were married under the abonimation court ruling if the ammendment passes? And can the ammendment be ruled by a court as unconstitutional?
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
"...can the amendment be
May 23, 2008 - 11:49 ET by mattm"...can the amendment be ruled by a court as unconstitutional?"
Since an amendment actually changes the constitution, whereas a court ruling is merely an interpretation of existing constitutional language, I would guess that an amendment would only be negated by another amendment.
I was wondering the same things Dan
May 23, 2008 - 11:56 ET by Dee BunkIt would be a joke to declare the amendment unconstitutional because it's part of the constitution if it's an amendment but that doesn't mean they won't do it.
If they don't do that then they will just "interpret" the amendment to say that Gay Marriage is allowed no matter how explicitly it forbids it.
We will be in for the same type of thing with our SCOTUS after Obama appoints a few judges. The current Constitution or any future amendments will have little relevance to their rulings unless it's sections that agree with what law they are trying to make.
While it shouldn't be
May 23, 2008 - 17:07 ET by CortillaenWhile it shouldn't be possible to declare an amendment unconstitutional due to the whole amendments-are-part-of-the-constitution thing (it amounts to saying, "The constitution is unconstitutional!"), there's no doubt in my mind they would undermine it as soon as someone brought suit. Be it law or amendment, the SCOTUS has taken upon itself to edit everything via "interpretation". Somehow, that power has to be revoked and the SCOTUS's usurpation of power in this country ended. Their job is to determine whether laws are against the strict letter of the Constitution and whether a given act violates law or right, not to determine the law's scope. If the law is unspecific, the legislature should be called to clarify it. The courts have no business changing the scope or effect of any law or amendment, and it's long since time they get back to their rightful place.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
It can happend and it has
May 23, 2008 - 12:12 ET by ThermistoclesIt can happend and it has with other states.
Check out http://en.wikipedia....
I lived in Colorado when the ammendment passed. The state courts tried to stop it and then it went to the supreme court. It wasn't specifically about homo-marriage, but it essentially was cut from the same cloth and had the same PC lobby to deal with. The media tried to spin its large acceptance by claiming it was worded in a way to trick folks into believing it said the opposite. We also got the "undereducated - conservative - haters" spiel.
The contempt for the will of the people, the arrogance and the blatant political use of the court still leaves a sour taste in my mouth!
Who is the audience?
May 23, 2008 - 12:16 ET by KC MulvilleIf they can portray the results as moving in the direction of accepting gay marriage, then they can invoke the liberal "It'll happen inevitably anyway, so stop fighting it" clause.
Make no mistake, that poll wasn't meant for adults. It was meant to appeal to the next generation. The newspaper wants to soften up the next generation so that they'll accept the behavior that their parents consider unacceptable. Notice that they offer no reasons, or even bother with trying to win the mind. They don't care about the mind. They are simply trying to manipulate the heart of the next generation, to redefine compassion as not passing judgment on what others do.
I the numbers are that
May 23, 2008 - 12:31 ET by RESTLESS 1I the numbers are that decisive in Cali, imagine what they are in Red State America. Kinda surprising, but San Francisco may not have participated in this poll due to a severe case of hemp disease. ;>)
L.A.T / N.Y.T...LIE LIE LIE
May 23, 2008 - 12:31 ET by American TaxpayerIt is wonderful that the L.A.T is taking lessons from N.Y.T. Please keep lying to your readers just like N.Y.T, they still do not understand that circulation is down because credibility is down. If people want to lied to they will purchase the National Enquirer at least it is entertaining. I can hardly wait for the cut backs at L.A.T as your revene dries up. It will truley be funny as hell to see you in the unemplyment line, I will be one of many laughing at your stupidity.
Are they working under the
May 23, 2008 - 13:02 ET by Hero SquadAre they working under the assumption that the 11% who didn't choose any of those options are in favor of the ruling by expressing a lack of disapproval?
I'd say that's a rather broad assumption. It'd also be a broad assumption that those people would bother to come out to vote on a referendum. That most likely puts a final vote count at about 60%-40%.
That's not even barely "barely."
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will