Leave a Comment Johan
New poll out on proposed marriage referendum in Washington State
February 22, 2012
By Adam Bink
The vote on gay marriage in Washington looks like it should be pretty close. 50% of voters say they’ll vote to uphold the law legalizing gay marriage, while 46% say they would vote to repeal it. You see the standard huge generational gap on this issue. Young voters support gay marriage 63/32, while seniors oppose it 56/39. Even if voters do repeal the law this fall, it’s pretty clear the direction things are moving in.
While Washington voters are closely divided on marriage itself, 78% support some form of legal recognition for gay couples in the form of marriage or civil unions while only 20% think they should have no rights at all. Even 59% of Republicans at least support civil unions. That may bode well if there’s a repeal vote this fall- almost all voters in the state are at least somewhat accepting of same sex relationships.
It would be a tough race, and the case is expected to be the same if a referendum qualifies for the ballot in Maryland.
Filed under: Marriage equality
Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
30 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Sagesse | February 22, 2012 at 11:48 am
@
2.
Kevin Sours | February 22, 2012 at 11:55 am
I was hoping for better numbers than that. Unless things have changed recently, polling tends to overstate support for marriage equality. My rule of thumb has been to assume that the undecided is opposition and deduct a couple of points from the support. This seems to match up better with election results than the polling numbers. 50% support is not a comfortable figure.
3.
Hoenheim | February 22, 2012 at 12:24 pm
"While Washington voters are closely divided on marriage itself, 78% support some form of legal recognition for gay couples in the form of marriage or civil unions "
And yet, Washington Referendum 71 was approved only by 53.15%. These people LIE!!!
4.
Shannon B Rumsey | February 22, 2012 at 1:07 pm
As things now stand in the Prop 8 case and the narrow ruling, would a referendum against SSM in Washington fall under that precendent?
5.
Glen | February 22, 2012 at 1:13 pm
No that number is too close for comfort. The opposition is almost always more motivated on their opposition to go to the polls if ONLY for that one question (plus they have built-in rallying machines – their churches), while often the support for marriage equality, while real, is not the 'gotta get to the polls come hell or high water to vote on this'!, so too many of those people may simply not show up to vote.
Hence… those numbers need to be made higher. Focus needs to be placed a) On getting the youth vote out to the polls in November, and b) Convincing older folks that marriage equality is right, and that it is the PRO-Marriage position to take. I believe this can certainly be done.
6.
Seth from Maryland | February 22, 2012 at 1:16 pm
http://youtu.be/ZeBLEb6oVbA
this makes me so mad, one of the New Jersey gop lawmakers in support of the marriage in , but voted no on the marriage equality bill because he wants it on the ballot, he needs to know people's rights should never up for a vote
7.
AnonyGrl | February 22, 2012 at 1:17 pm
No. A referendum would only veto the law before it went into effect, so it would not be covered by the narrow ruling which says a right cannot be given then taken away. The net result of the referendum would be that the right never was given in the first place.
If, however, the law DOES go into effect (that is, the referendum fails) and opponents decide to pursue an initiative to change the state constitution, THEN the Prop 8 ruling would apply, because it would mean that marriage equality was granted, then revoked. That is the current scope of the ruling.
The thing is, a referendum is actually an easier bet for the anti-gay crowd to accomplish, it requires fewer signatures and a smaller ballot margin. I BELIEVE they may actually be pursuing both routes right now, I am not entirely sure, but if they fail at the referendum, there is not much likelyhood that the initiative will succeed.
8.
Jamie | February 22, 2012 at 1:39 pm
It's unclear. The fact that gays and lesbians were able to marry in California is slightly different then in Washington where gays and lesbians are not yet able to marry. However, the same arguments from the 9th Circuit opinion could apply. The public is voting to remove the right of marriage from gays and lesbians (and only gays and lesbians) while simultaneously allowing them all the rights of marriage under a different name. If the public approved the domestic partnership laws, then the only reason left for stopping gays from marrying is to degrade them and make their relationships inferior to heterosexuals.
The advertising is also likely to be an issue. If the proponents of this initiative resort to their old games of preying on prejudice and making claims that kids will be taught about gays in school, it's likely not going to go over well in court, seeing as they are currently battling a court case where proponents of California's initiative are claiming that marriage is only about accidental pregnancies of heterosexuals. Proposition 8 proponents are getting a bit of a pass on their actions during the campaign, but I think the courts are going to be more and more suspicious of these things as proponents of these initiatives should know better by now.
9.
Fr. Bill | February 22, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Off topic but Gov. Abercrombie of Hawaii has said he will not defend the suit by same sex couple demanding marriage equality. Oddly "the State" whoever that might be is going to defend on behalf of the Health Commissioner Loretta Fuddy.
10.
Jamie | February 22, 2012 at 1:48 pm
I'm hopeful that this might be a different type of contest. Proponents of these ballot initiatives have previously won by using lies, innuendo, and prejudice against gay people as part of their advertising strategies. I think the public is beginning to wake up to this and it was definitely a factor in striking Proposition 8 in court (at least under Judge Walker's ruling). There is going to be more eyes on this initiative, and if voters defeat marriage equality, there will be a lawsuit, and the proponents are going to have to stand in a court and defend their ads. They look pretty silly in court when they start making claims about responsible procreation and accidental pregnancies, while their advertising makes claims about children being indoctrinated in schools and gathering storms of gay people coming to take away all the rights of heterosexuals.
If they use these scare tactics as part of their advertising, they are going to have to search down pretty low to get donors. There were a number of donors in support of California's Proposition 8, that I dare say, wouldn't do it again.
11.
Jamie | February 22, 2012 at 1:51 pm
The Attorney General's office is representing both the Governor and the Health Commissioner. Evidently different teams within the AG's office are working on the case so that they don't have a conflict of interest. I'm glad the Abercrombie's response basically agrees that the current law is discriminatory.
12.
Seth from Maryland | February 22, 2012 at 1:51 pm
so if he has chosen not to defend the law and no one has standing to defend the law , would that make marriage equality legal in Hawaii?
13.
Jamie | February 22, 2012 at 1:54 pm
The Health Commissioner is defending the statute in her official capacity. Even if she weren't, there would still need to be a trial, it's just that the defendants and the plaintiffs would agree. It doesn't seem as though there is anyone that is part of the trial that is terribly excited about defending the statute though. Even the Health Commissioner's "defense" is rather matter of fact.
14.
MJFargo | February 22, 2012 at 1:59 pm
You know, Jamie, I thought the very same thing during the Prop 8 campaign, and have come away with the belief that "the people" like to be enflamed by scare tactics. I think every lie and every misrepresentation of the facts needs to countered. We're going to have to fight and not count on "the people" to wake up to anything.
15.
Jamie | February 22, 2012 at 2:12 pm
I didn't think that at all. There were very few politicians, celebrities, or businesses that were willing to speak out against Proposition 8. At the time, the governator was pretty mum and Brown spoke lukewarmly against the proposition. Now there are very supportive politicians. We have celebrities like Brad Pitt, Miley Cirus, etc. being openly supportive. Even Clint Eastwood has spoken in support since Proposition 8 passed.
It's a different world today.
16.
Mark Mead-Brewer | February 22, 2012 at 2:20 pm
They don't necessarily lie….it's long been known that people may take a poll and say one thing but when faced with the ballot box they will vote another way….we also have a good deal of people who may complete the polling but not actually go to the polls to vote at all.
17.
Seth from Maryland | February 22, 2012 at 2:36 pm
i dont like ugly polical fight , but our campaign in Washington State, Maine and here in Maryland going to have dig up and fight dirty , we cant sit there and be nice while they punch us in the face , we got to be tough because we all know ur opponents are not going to play nice, its going to be a very hard polical fight being fought
18.
MJFargo | February 22, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Jamie,I wish I was more persuaded. The above article reflects statistics very similar to the Prop 8 campaign. Seth, the Prop 8 trial proved we don't hve to fight "ugly," the facts are on our side. We just have to get them out there and counter all the nonsense the proponents dish out.
19.
Mackenzie | February 22, 2012 at 2:40 pm
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/201…
Another court rules DOMA unconstitutional
20.
Kevin | February 22, 2012 at 3:03 pm
WTF?!?! They get 186 pages and we get 15?
21.
Jim from CA | February 22, 2012 at 3:10 pm
I wonder how the GOP enthusiasm gap will affect the results of Referendum 71 in November. This is the only positive thing I can think of that will help equality win a popular vote.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/166139/gops-enthusi…
22.
Jgb | February 22, 2012 at 3:10 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurence-watts/noh8…
Congress on the NOH8 campaign.
23.
Jamie | February 22, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Actually, I think Prop 8 proves that we do indeed have to fight on the same level as our opponents. Roses and puppy dogs don't win political elections when they are being portrayed by the opponents as thorny bushes and vicious pit bulls. We've lost elections that we should have won in California and Maine on the assumption that everyone is nice and wants to help gay people out. That's never true. People protect themselves and their families above all else. That's the way it is.
24.
Hoenheim | February 22, 2012 at 3:58 pm
"it's long been known that people may take a poll and say one thing but when faced with the ballot box they will vote another way"
But this is the definition of lying!
25.
Jamie | February 22, 2012 at 4:18 pm
Holy crap. Gays and lesbians are a suspect class and deserve heightened scrutiny. Do I hear a stay being lifted???
26.
Waxr | February 22, 2012 at 5:38 pm
The problem with support from young voters is that young voters have low turnouts at the polls.
27.
Ann S. | February 22, 2012 at 6:43 pm
§
28.
Mark Mead-Brewer | February 23, 2012 at 10:13 am
No, it is the definition of 'changing ones mind'.
In my opinion.
29.
Kevin Sours | February 23, 2012 at 1:22 pm
This gets complicated based on how one defines voters as well. The demographics that are against marriage equality are much more reliable voters than the one's that are for. There are various levels of screens that you can put on polls (everyone, registered voters, likely voters (which itself comes in different flavors) and which one you use can greatly skew your results. Unfortunately reports don't do a very good job of communicating the poll parameters or of making sure there their numbers are directly comparable.
30.
MJFargo | February 23, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Jaime, I agree that during the Prop 8 campaign we were much too cavalier about "the people" being able to discern what was hysteria and what was fact. However, during the trial–when we were given an opportunity to expose how ridiculous and empty the arguments against us really were, we didn't have to resort to "dirt" or "viciousness" or "ugliness." I would hardly call Olsen/Boies "roses and puppy dogs" in the courtroom. And my point is we have to answer the public attacks against us. And now we have not only Judge Walker's words as talking points, we now have Judge Jeffrey White's.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.