The Christian Post claims that a new poll shows that "57 percent of New York voters oppose gay marriage."
They claim that 57% want heterosexual marriage only, while 32% support equality, and 11% don't know what they believe. Paragraphs later they tell readers that the "poll was commissioned by National Organization for (sic) Marriage." This is the secretive, highly funded anti-gay group, run by Maggie Gallagher.
But, earlier this year, the New York Daily News reported a Quinnipiac University poll found that 56% of voters supported marriage equality. Earlier this month the same poll was conducted again and found support had edged up slightly to 58%. This is slightly higher than the national average. Gallup, in May, found that 53% of all Americans support marriage equality. CNN, in April, found 51% support it. An ABC/Washington Post poll March also found 53% support.
So, why is it when respected, professional polling outfits ask about marriage equality they get a much higher ratio of support, than when NOM commissions a conservative, Republican outfit to do it?
One key variable is whom you poll. If you conduct a bogus poll you will make sure to poll people most likely to take your own position, while avoiding demographics that take the opposite view. That is precisely the strategy used by NOM. Their own polling numbers prove it.
The clearest indicator of support for equality of rights for gay couples is age. Older people are against it; younger people are for it. The younger a person is, the more likely it is that he or she supports equality. In New York, according to 2010 census data, individuals between the ages of 18 and 39, comprise around 34.1% of the population. In the NOM "poll" only 7% were under the age of 40. That is quite astounding. For every five people in this age group that should have been surveyed, they managed to survey only one.
Of course, if they intentionally skewed their survey away from younger voters, that means they would disproportionately survey older voters. According to NOM's own data, that is precisely what they did. They say that 15% of the people surveyed were 40-49. That is actually pretty close to this group's representation in the general New York population, 14.7%.
NOM skews the results by over surveying people over the age of 50. The overwhelming majority of people surveyed in the NOM "poll," 69% of them, were over the age of 50. And 38% were over the age of 60. Less than one-third of all New Yorkers are over the age of 50, 32.6% according to the census. This age group, instead of making up a representative one-third of people polled, was more than two-thirds of the NOM poll.
While NOM surveyed only one person under the age of 40, for every five they ought to have done, they surveyed older people at more than twice the numbers required for accurate sampling.
If NOM claimed their poll showed that most older New Yorkers were opposed to marriage equality, it would be a legitimate claim. But what Christian Post and other Christian websites are peddling is blatantly dishonest.
Every poll that I know of has shown that people over the age of 50 are most likely to oppose marriage equality. Honest polls try to weight their responses to get proportionate representation regarding race, gender and ages. There are strong correlations to positions on issues and where people fall in these general groupings. For instance; Women tend to be more supportive of marriage rights than are men; younger individuals are much more supportive than older. NOM got their numbers by weighting the sampling toward people who were most likely to oppose same-sex marriage.
They skewed this a second way as well. The less religious are more supportive of marriage equality than are the more religious. But NOM managed to survey a group where 43% of them went to church four times or more per month. This is above the national average for church attendance, according to surveys done by Gallup. So are New Yorkers much more religious than Americans in general, as the NOM survey suggests? No! Gallup found, "Church attendance is below average in California, New York and Florida...." Gallup says that the percentage of New Yorkers who go to church "weekly" or "almost weekly" is 33%. NOM had a survey with 43% going weekly or more than weekly. You almost get the impression that they did the survey at the church doorstep.
Let's look at some other ways NOM fudged on their poll. According to Gallup, 30.6% of all voters in New York describe themselves as conservatives. According to the NOM survey 52% of the people they surveyed were conservatives in economic terms, and 40% described themselves as conservative on social issues. By either definition, NOM over-represented conservatives.
It should be clear that NOM got the numbers they did because they conducted a less-than-legitimate poll. They polled older people in disproportionate numbers. They surveyed people who were, on average, much more religious than the typical New Yorker. And they disproportionately polled conservatives. Here is how an honest headline from NOM would read: "Poll finds that older, religious conservatives oppose marriage equality."
That wouldn't get much attention; everyone already knows that. Instead, NOM, and their friends in the Christian Right, tout the survey as representative of New York as a whole, which is, to put it mildly, deceptive. I fear that the commandment, "thou shalt not lie," is not taken very seriously in the Christian Right, at least when it comes to their culture war.
James Peron: Gay Marriage Poll Touted by Mormons Seems Dubious
Rev. Winnie Varghese: Full Marriage Equality in New York: A Clergy Perspective
Adrian Margaret Brune: In a Better World
Pressure on Obama as NY considers gay marriage OK
Super Bowl Star Claims Gay Marriage Will Lead to “Anarchy”
Senator Jim Alesi - http://www.facebook.com/jimalesi
Senator Mark Grisanti - http://www.facebook.com/SenatorGrisanti
Senator Roy McDonald - http://www.facebook.com/standwithroy
Senator Steve Saland - http://www.facebook.com/pages/Senator-Steve-Saland/79851684092
Outstanding. I applaud the work and your willingness to provide a more accurate context to NOM's result.
We know that, polls can potentially capture attitudes while not necessarily predicting outcome. A voter may be willing to appear more aligned with popular thinking during the polling process then their actual vote suggests.
What puzzles me about a group like NOM, is their agenda neatly masked by branding and nomenclature. If the National Organization for Marriage works to "protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it," why then does it name only one enemy?
Surely they'd agree that infidelity, domestic violence and divorce pose equal if not, greater threats to marriage than the gays do. Yet there's no evidence or playbook to address such issues. Nope, they only got one play: Stop Gay Marriage -- and they raise a lot of money, and have been very successful at doing so.
ALL organizations (including political parties), should be subject to the Federal Trade Commission, and accountable to the same standards and practices of truth, evidential support, moral, ethical, and legal implications we use to protect against deceptive and coercive claims. If Captain Crunch has to tell me the truth, then so does Brian Brown.
Among other benefits, this could prevent agenda-based-organizations from using a name that doesn't accurately reflect its purpose.
In this case, the National Organization Fighting Against Gays or N.O.F.A.G's for short.
As San Francisco and the blue state majority of California nurse their election euphoria hangover, let's point out the obvious about the passage of Prop. 8:
Gavin Newsom screwed it up.
Voters are the ones who make the decision but no one person handed the Yes on 8 campaign a more persuasive and compelling sound bite than our own mayor. Even if there were other flaws in the anti-8 operation, he was unquestionably the poster child for the pro-8 push, whether you like it or not.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?entry_id=32366#ixzz1QCNjs5eF
"Civil marriage" is a marriage which conforms to the laws and regulations set by the governing body which licenses the marriage. It is not a marriage ceremony ordained by any god, because the state provides for a "legal merging" of identities and properties by operation of law. In most states, a civil marriage is only legal between a man and a woman, but there is no particularly valid reason for creating a legal civil marriage between people of the same gender. The law can simply be changed to reflect an egalitarian view.
Churches can perform or refuse to perform a same-gender marriage as dictated by their particular theologies. The Establishment Clause of the Constitution prevents the government from interfering in those rites (the same clause that provides for separation of church and state).
But to be considered "married", whether in or out of church, you always need the blessing of the state -- which is a creation of man, and not of God.
The exact same thing happened during the repeal of DADT. The Family Research Council had conducted their own "Scientific" survey. They surveyed 1000 of their own constituents, 70.58% of which were over the age of 50. Now, how is this "Scientific"??? How does this reflect the 15000 opinions of active service men and women, whose mean age is 25??
Ah, Hate Groups, like birds, flock together.
That is not a slanted poll. It is a verifiable statistic.
Or you can look at Congress. Over 86% of Senators and over 85% of house members voted for the same definition. So Congress is a hate group.
A wedding is a ceremony or rite of two persons exchanging vows publicly declaring their love and devotion to each other. It is often times performed in a religious setting and officiated over by a religious leader that "declares" the couple married in the eyes of God. The mere exchange of vows/wedding does not make the couple married in the eyes of the law.
Simply having a wedding ceremony does not make you married in the eyes of the state or the law. You must have a marriage license to be married. A ceremony/wedding is not a requirement to get a marriage license. Since a marriage license is issued by a government agency they can not require you to have a religious ceremony in order to get a marriage license. It's called separation of church and state.
Thus, whether one God or any and all gods "approve" or not - it doesn't matter. A marriage license is a civil (government) right and not a religious thing at all.
If marriage is a legal contract, what are they agreeing to? Is there any consideration, like a one dollar bill?
Is it, you will love me and have sex with only me and support me in time of hardship? Is it enforceable, except in Hollywood?
Does it have anything to do with ensuring the children as a product of procreation, if any will be guaranteed care?
One that modifies polls or one that ignores 30 out of 30 election results and claims the voters want the opposite of the results of EVERY ONE of those votes?
Two males in a relationship have NEVER produced a family. Two people of opposite sexes in a relationship often, but not always, produce children.
As well as keep your so called religous beliefs to yourselves, especially when you as so called christians only want to preach hate and lies!
'Do not throw stones', Tend to your own families issues including divorce, spousal/child abuse, teaching your children to hate and be dis-respectful to all others....I could go on and on and on...
GLBT people have all been created by GOD!
IT IS NOT A CHOICE!
GOD makes everyone unique and wonderful in all sorts of ways.
GOD does not make mistakes!
GOD loves and cares for EVERY human being, regardless of any faith, sex, sexual orientation etc.
Now can you be a reflection of the GOD who made you, and follow the same path that GOD does?
I hope so for everyone's sake, because GLBT ppl, are a fact of life just like white ppl, black ppl, red/brown ppl, intelligent ppl, sinners, saints, hookers, and angels!
Think before you condemn anyone!
God is always watching and listening, and judgement day comes sooner than any of us think.
Will you be ready to meet your GOD?
If the idea is to breed, then why one wife? Having several wives would further breeding even more efficiently. One man, many women is a better formula for breeding.
Marriage in the past was often a business arrangement. Some of the first marriages in the American colonies were women to men they never met. They were sold to the highest bidder. Wives were sold in England as well. That is "traditional," in the sense that it was practiced in the past, but we got rid of it. Marriage in Rome was about politics. Men married women for political reasons not for love and were then free to have sex outside that marriage with others, men or women.
At some points in history the only purpose of marriage was to produce field workers (children), but that was only in some cultures not others. And in those times and places the "marriage" was only considered to exist when the woman did get pregnant.
The "traditional" view the Right wants to protect is relatively modern and not traditional at all. But that view placed love at the center of the relationship and the contract between two loving people. There is NO reason to exclude gay couples.
Other cultures and times had/have arrainged marriages, where the bride and groom had never met and often with vast age differences.
Christianity didn't even consider marriage a "sacrament" until at least the 8th century.
{as an aside the HBO series The Borgias has a lot about marriage for political reasons. And it is fun}