Poll: CA Gay Marriage Could Be Short-Lived

The findings of a Los Angeles Times/KTLA poll suggest supporters of gay marriage should temper their celebrations in response to last week's California Supreme Court ruling and prepare for a rough and tumble fight over a ballot initiative that could place the one man, one woman definition of marriage into the state constitution.

If the Limit on Marriage initiative, which will likely appear on the November ballot, were voted on today, 54 percent of registered voters polled would support it, 35 percent would be against it, and 10 percent remain undecided, said the Los Angeles Times.

Opponents to the measure say they aren't surprised by the results. "We think that [support] will come back down as people start to learn more about the issue," said James Vaughn, director of Log Cabin Republicans of California, a group of gay and lesbian conservatives. The high number reflects a generalized backlash against the court overturning a statute passed by voters, not the true sentiment of Californians on the particular issue of gay marriage, he said.

The effect of the gay marriage issue on the presidential campaign is difficult to discern. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain all support civil unions but not gay marriage.

A groundswell of opposition to gay marriage -- even in states where the issue is not currently before voters -- could drive conservatives to the polls and have a trickle up benefit for McCain. Some have even suggested that in California, a large enough push for the ban could put the state in play at the top of the ticket, or at least make the race close in the most populous state.

On the other hand, since supporters for Obama match the profile of supporters for gay marriage -- young voters, independents, people with college degrees -- the surge for Obama could trickle down and spell doom for the initiative, said the Los Angeles Times in its report on the poll.

For Republican candidates lower on ballots, appealing to moderate voters could mean a preference for abandoning hot button social issues altogether. "Red-meat GOP issues" including gay marriage were absent from the House Republicans' 2008 "American Families Agenda" released earlier this month, reported Edward Epstein in CQPolitics.com.

The issue of how to appeal to moderates can be seen in Arizona's 8th congressional district where freshman Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords will battle challenger Tim Bee, who currently serves as president of the state senate. Bee backed placing a gay marriage amendment on Arizona's November ballot but has yet to put it up for a vote in the senate. While Bee denies he's backpedaling on the issue for political reasons, "wouldn't it be much easier for Bee if the entire issue would vanish?" asked the Tuscon Citizen.

Thanks to California, the issue won't be doing a disappearing act anytime soon.

Comments

[HollywoodBill]

It isn't just the LATimes Poll that shows a constitutional amendment would pass. On May 15th, a SurveyUSA poll showed virtually identical results of 52% passing the amendment while 34% would not. The Field Poll has yet to be heard from. Also, there are indications that polling on this issue is difficult. In 2000 when Prop 22 was being polled, all indications were that it would be a close call, roughly what it's polling today. And the results were 61.4% passage. The Bradley Effect.

Neither Obama nor McCain is going to get out of campaigning in California. Obama's stance on repealing the DOMA act could go national on him. Even if the expected answer of it being a state issue is the official reply, it isn't going to be enough. A stance is going to have to be taken.

The same sex marriage ban in itself might not hurt Obama, but he is for drivers licenses for illegals. That incendiary issue was one of the main reasons that Gray Davis was recalled. The combination might be tough to overcome.

There is a path to victory for McCain, similar to the one that was successful for Prop 187. It ain't pretty, but is just might work.

[TxWranglr]

Any candidate could completely change the effect of the California decision by refusing to discuss it in any terms other than "equality under law."

I'm continually astounded by the press (and yes, that includes the "gay media") that insist on playing into the anti-equality side by referring to this issues as "redefining marriage" instead of something like "civil equality for gay couples" or "gender neutrality" or some such.

On a related topic, I'd love to see the actual question asked of the recent CA poll respondents. I'd imagine that you'd get very different responses to (basically) the same question depending on whether you asked "do you think homosexual relationships should be sanctioned by the state?" or "do you think gay couples and straight couples should have the same opportunity for state recognition?"

[lookimasian]

KTLA/LA Times serves the southern part of california, counting the very conservative communities of Orange county and San Diego in its demographic. The vast majority of supporters of gay marriage live in the San Francisco bay area, so I wouldn't worry about this too much. A poll conducted last year showed a near 50/50 split, so the issue is a lot closer than that.

[caravan70]

I have seen several commentators observe that the 54% approval rating represents a relatively low number this early in the season, and I agree. Once voters have the chance to see the faces of the newly married couples walking out of county courthouses across the state - white, black, Asian, and every color of the rainbow - and see that they're responsible spouses and parents just like the rest of us, it's a good bet that those poll numbers will change as gay marriage becomes an established fact and it's proven not to be the threat many think it will be. I am optimistic about the chances for defeat of the Constitutional amendment. Californians have not always done the right thing (see Proposition 13), but I am confident that we will at least give this issue a hard and searching look before denying gay men and women the civil rights they deserve.

[manning120]

HuffPost's Pick

I'm a straight elderly male, married to a woman. When the idea of same-sex marriage first came up, I thought it was kooky and would never get anywhere. Then I started thinking about the reasons for and against. Opposition depends on aversion by straights to homosexual conduct, which in turn always rests on religious belief. The foundation for the opposition crumbled when laws were changed to permit homosexual conduct. The many reasons for allowing same-sex marriage include an increase in marriages; a reduction in inadvisable marriages between gays and heterosexuals; more couples in stable relationships (who could, by the way, raise and support children or be foster parents); a reduction of sexual promiscuity among gays; increased attention by gays to the ethics of marriage; and providing married gays as role models for young gays coming to terms with their own sexuality. Other countries paved the way. It's time for Americans to get on the road.

[NineteenEightyFour]

If the neanderthals and flat-earthers of the world want to continue to sign into LAW bans against two people loving each other, then they all deserve what they will get, which will be a tremendous brain-drain and artistic-drain similar to the late 90's nafta JOB-DRAIN. Europe here I come, where I can be who I want to be. Don't want humanistic laws that guarantee the right to love, freedom of expression and the pursuit? -Fine.- Then don't have them. Go and worship the money-God and ruin the earth while you're at it.

Moral of the Story : Don't make laws that are anti-human-being. The 60's happened for a reason. Peace. Love. Joy. Freedom. Are more than mere words.

They are what it's all about.