In November, California voters will decide whether to modify their constitution to ban and invalidate thousands of same-sex marriages. Poll data on the health of the amendment is hardly conclusive.
Supporters of the amendment point to an L.A. Times/KTLA poll of 834 people which found that 54% of Californians support the referendum and 35% oppose it. Slightly more than half of the sample group are registered voters.
But a Field Poll of 1,052 registered voters found opposite results--with only 40% of Californians supporting the referendum, and 54% opposing it.
So which poll is accurate?
The Field Poll was conducted by an organization with more experience conducting statewide polls, it has the advantage of a larger sample size, it's limited to registered voters, and it was conducted over a longer period of time. This would seem to point to its credibility, though it can be more credible than the L.A. Times/KTLA poll and still be less accurate.
But then there's the matter of referendum margins. Conventional wisdom says that for referenda, unlike for political candidates, the ideal polling threshold is 60%--since undecided voters tend to lean in the direction of not revising things. According to that standard, the referendum is doing badly even in the L.A. Times/KTLA poll.
And then there's Arizona. In 2006, Arizonians voted against a proposed constitutional amendment functionally identical to California's. Now, we should recognize that Arizona, unlike California, didn't actually have any same-sex marriages to invalidate--it was a purely hypothetical amendment. But Arizona is home to Republican senators John McCain and Jon Kyl (both of whom supported the Arizona referendum), while California is home to Democratic senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein (both of whom oppose the California referendum). Is it really likely that California would shift so far outside of its normal statewide voting patterns in approving a constitutional referendum that was too conservative for Arizona?
Time will tell. But if I were a California homophobe, I wouldn't bring out the good china just yet.
Related: Explaining the 2008 California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling
Supporters of the amendment point to an L.A. Times/KTLA poll of 834 people which found that 54% of Californians support the referendum and 35% oppose it. Slightly more than half of the sample group are registered voters.
But a Field Poll of 1,052 registered voters found opposite results--with only 40% of Californians supporting the referendum, and 54% opposing it.
So which poll is accurate?
The Field Poll was conducted by an organization with more experience conducting statewide polls, it has the advantage of a larger sample size, it's limited to registered voters, and it was conducted over a longer period of time. This would seem to point to its credibility, though it can be more credible than the L.A. Times/KTLA poll and still be less accurate.
But then there's the matter of referendum margins. Conventional wisdom says that for referenda, unlike for political candidates, the ideal polling threshold is 60%--since undecided voters tend to lean in the direction of not revising things. According to that standard, the referendum is doing badly even in the L.A. Times/KTLA poll.
And then there's Arizona. In 2006, Arizonians voted against a proposed constitutional amendment functionally identical to California's. Now, we should recognize that Arizona, unlike California, didn't actually have any same-sex marriages to invalidate--it was a purely hypothetical amendment. But Arizona is home to Republican senators John McCain and Jon Kyl (both of whom supported the Arizona referendum), while California is home to Democratic senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein (both of whom oppose the California referendum). Is it really likely that California would shift so far outside of its normal statewide voting patterns in approving a constitutional referendum that was too conservative for Arizona?
Time will tell. But if I were a California homophobe, I wouldn't bring out the good china just yet.
Related: Explaining the 2008 California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling
Comments
Homophobes and fine china? More like homophobes, and paper plates. Let’s hope they fail, miserably!
Please move California into the 21st century and stop the ban on gay marriage.
I wish it weren’t too late for my state.
Signed : Straight, middle aged man from Alabama who is pro gay rights! (We are not all bigots here!)
I’m afraid you’ve missed the issue. It’s not an Anti-gay initiative. Homosexuals will still be loved and accepted with the approval of the amendment. It’s a pro-family initiative. It’s not about being conservative or liberal, its about protecting society. Every child has a right to grow in a home with a loving father and mother. Overwhelming scientific research proves that the presence of both parental genders is ideal in raising healthy children. These children are the future of California, and they should have rights too.
Without the ban, these children will be raised by married, stable same-sex couples. With the ban, these children will be raised by unmarried, slightly less stable same-sex couples. Are you really saying the latter is better?
This is what I love about the internet. Dopes can just make stuff up and it gets published. Paul, please cite us to the “overwhelming” research that “proves” children raised by opposite sex couples are measurably better off than children raised by same sex couples. Hint: your imagination doesn’t count.
The amendment taking away the right of same-sex couples to marry and its supporters are the very essence of bigotry as Paul demonstrates with his baseless, biased statement that children are better off with heterosexuals than homosexuals.
The Arizona amendment sought to restrict civil unions as well. Arizona would have voted yes, had it just focused on marriage. California’s marriage amendment would not restrict civil unions, just define marriage as one man and one woman.
Marriage has and always will be God’s plan for his creation. He performed the first wedding of Adam & Eve, and no court will ever change God’s plan. This initiative is to protect what God has ordained, not the will of reprobate people who ignore God’s law. As long as God is God, marriage will always be a man and a woman as he ordained. Gays and Lesbians; Your Arms to SHORT to BOX with God.
John, we don’t really know how Arizona would have voted if the amendment only included marriage because that amendment was never put forward to the voters, but you’ve made a valid point. That is a significant difference between the California and Arizona scenarios.
But as someone who knows many same-sex couples, some living in California, I sincerely hope that the outcomes of the two referenda will not be different.
Phil, I don’t know of any same-sex couple that’s trying to “box with God”; I assume there must be a few who would characterize it that way because there are nuts in every demographic, but I haven’t met them. Mainly, people love each other and want to get married. Period. That’s all there is to it. And I think that in a world where 3,000 children die of malaria every day, even the most conservative ideal of God would have bigger fish to fry than whether same-sex couples in California will be able to have marriage rights. Reread the story of the poor man and Lazarus and it’s clear that by any reasonable biblical standard, the United States would be screwed no matter how homophobic its laws were. If there’s a hell below, as Curtis Mayfield so eloquently put it, then we’re all gonna go.
“In over 150 statewide proposition contests measured by the Field Poll since 1978, in just three cases was a proposition that started out behind in the poll’s initial measure ultimately approved by the voters.”
from the book:
Governing California
ed Gerald C. Lubenow
seems like safe territory, but make sure to vote the theocratic morons back to Kansas.
Phil:
So let me see if I get this right: God married Adam and Eve. Then they had children who, I guess, had babies with each other? I guess marriage between brothers and sisters was OK the first time around? Scriptural fundamentalism can get you into some interesting stuff, can’t it?
Gays should have the right to be as miserable as any other couple. I’m against the word “Marriage” but in favor of the concept that gives the same rights and responsibilities as a man and woman who are legally committed to each other. For all the ultra religious, I know there is a verse about Judgment being left to GOD!
I think it’s interesting to read the comments on this blog that are shear ignorance and hate, and absolute stupidity. I remember when bi-racial marriages were condemned, and we sadly showed just as much fear and hate, or inter-dominational It’s not about whether gays and lesbians will still be loved and tolerated, it’s about them loving each other. Heterosexuals have done enough to make their own families dysfunctional, yet we don’t have that right…ya, what a laugh.
Very well said, Tom Head. Phil Jackson, You obviuosly know nothing about God. If you did, you would know that he loves us all equally and your judgmental comments are nothing of “God”. It clearly says, “thou shall not judge”. Just hang on tight to your bible and leave people be.
When two people get married, it is because they love each other.
They want to be together in a bond that makes them one with each other forever.
It is a wonderful thing to have such a bond.
It is special.
It is love.
When a man and a woman get married, no one blinks an eye.
If two men or two women do the same, then many people do not approve.
They claim that it is not right or that it soils the real meaning of marriage.
What is the real meaning of marriage?
The answer to that question is in line one of this article.
It is because they love each other.
Does it matter if the couple is gay or straight?
Should it matter?
No!
After all, why should it.
Gays want their equal rights and among those equal rights is the right to be married.
I agree with wanting equal rights.
We are all people which means we are all the same.
It does not matter if someone is gay, white, black, a man, a woman, tall, short, young, old or whatever.
We all want our equal rights.
That is our right.
However, we need to go beyond equal rights when it comes to gay marriage.
Society needs to understand that any marriage is not about the right to be married.
It is about wanting to be married as a loving couple.
Love is not something that should be decided on by voters.
It is not a court issue either.
It should not be an issue at all.
Marriage is between two people in love.
It is not between two people, the voters, the courts and anyone else who has an opinion.
Gay marriage does not bring down the meaning of marriage.
It makes the true meaning of marriage even better.
That is what love does.
It makes things better.
Society has come a long way in the last fifty years in terms of equality, but we still have a long way to go.
It is a shame that love is something that needs to be fought for.
I am not gay, but I am the same as you as you are to me.
May love conquer all.
George Vreeland Hill