is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Two weeks ago, a similar poll found voters deadlocked at 48%.
Analysis: "The measure's fate could be determined by the age composition of the electorate on Tuesday. Senior citizens support it by a 59-40 margin while voters under 30 oppose it 51-48. Last year exit polls showed more voters under 30 turning out for the Presidential election than ones over 65 but we expect seniors to turn out at a much higher rate than younger voters this year, as is often the case in off year elections. If the electorate ends up being younger than we anticipate the fight could be even closer."
smkovalinsky
New York, New York, United States
caj1
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Roy C
Vancouver, Washington, United States
Jordan Yerman
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Spydermonkey
huntsville, Alabama, United States
albertacowpoke
Canada
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (20)
at 06:42 on November 2nd, 2009
It.s a shame that this issue still has to come up against majority rules. Sometimes the rights of minorities have to be protected.
- reply
T clements (not verified)at 07:20 on November 3rd, 2009
Now you want to take voting away (majority rule)? Go find a king in another country that supports your views you will be much more satisfied with your life...
- reply
EB (not verified)at 14:19 on November 3rd, 2009
When segregation was legal and voting by African Americans was illegal, a VAST majority of US citizens supported both at the time they were overturned. But, I'm sure nobody today is stupid enough to think that those were bad ideas, right?Sometimes the majority is wrong. It was in these two cases, as it in this one.
at 08:11 on November 3rd, 2009
That's the problem of democracy rule
- reply
jacob Aduda (not verified)at 21:15 on November 2nd, 2009
I wonder what happenned to the christian America. Its shameful people want to legalize sin and argue as if its the truth. Barrack Im told is s smoker yet he pretends to be a christian. Christianity is not won like a garment, its a way of life.
- reply
Daniel Lee (not verified)at 02:28 on November 3rd, 2009
"Christian" America never existed. Need I remind you that the Puritans came to our shores to ESCAPE government sponsored religious affiliations? And, many of the founders of our country were Deists. Thomas Paine was an outspoken anti-Christian, who called the bible a "forgery" that insults God. We are FREE to worship as we please. If you don't like gay marriage, nobody is forcing you to marry a same sex partner, are they? Remember "freedoms?" I guess in your limited view of the world, freedom only applies to YOU? Take your god out of my government. In France ALL marriages are a legal contract, and a couple may NOT have a legally recognized wedding in a place of worship. They must go to city hall to be legally married. That's TRUE separation of church and state. Believe in Santa for all I care, but don't IMPOSE that belief on me. I won't allow it...
at 03:26 on November 3rd, 2009
Well, Daniel Lee, you managed to get maybe half of that about half right. Nice job.
Interesting that the US, where you can get married in a civil OR religious ceremony, has the freedom (funny thing isn't it?) to choose.
France, held up as your champion of freedom, must bow to the secular only.
You might consider the possibility, that by refusing a place for those with deeply held religious beliefs, you are imposing your beliefs. You say, in essence, believe what you want, but my secular beliefs must be the rule.
You may also want to remember that it isn't "your" government. Last i checked, it used the word "we".
- reply
Bitsey (not verified)at 12:23 on November 3rd, 2009
I think Daniel Lee's point is that we who equally share this government have not only freedom of religion but also freedom from religion. Again, if your religion or any other philosophical thinking of yours dictates your opposition to gay marriage, then by all means, don't marry someone of the same sex as yourself. No one is depriving you of the opportunity to disagree with gay marriage and no one will ever force you into one. On the other hand, historically, gay people have been deprived the same opportunity as the rest of us....to marry the person that they love. Who are the rest of us to tell someone else who they can and can't love and share a legally sanctioned life with; one with all the rights and responsibilities that the rest of enjoy. I'm a heterosexual 62 year old married women who cannot wait to see the ignorance of my generation and that before mine, die out!
- reply
Bitsey (not verified)at 11:57 on November 3rd, 2009
I could not have said this better. Thank you!
- reply
Bitsey (not verified)at 11:58 on November 3rd, 2009
Daniel Lee, I could not have said this better. Thank you!
- reply
Bitsey (not verified)at 12:02 on November 3rd, 2009
Bottom line....if you don't want to marry someone of the same sex....don't. How does any one citizen have the right to deny the most basic of rights to another citizen. Is there a hierarchy of citizenry....some have rights...some don't. And you call that Democracy?
- reply
Anthony Keller (not verified)at 15:37 on November 3rd, 2009
Speaking of Sin, the only reference to marriage by Jesus is divorce, so there's LOTS of sinning going on in the heterosexual world. I would suggest you ponder those statistics before you start telling others what is sinful unless you plan to get a referendum on the ballot to outlaw divorce.
- reply
Stephen Ocean (not verified)at 06:28 on November 3rd, 2009
Gay marriage would only be the beginning of a movement to foster everything gay. Wheaties would be told they had to put two men on their cereal box (sic).... I support the equal benefits for same sex couples, but there will always be an intrinsic difference in the union of two people of the same sex versus a man and a woman. Civil unions will accomplish what gays seek.
- reply
JamesP (not verified)at 08:07 on November 3rd, 2009
Jacob Ajuda, were you always an idiot or do you take pills to maintain stupiidity?
at 08:14 on November 3rd, 2009
Please attack the message and not the messenger if you do just that it shows you lack the ability to debate the message?
- reply
Kiley (not verified)at 13:50 on November 3rd, 2009
That's right, you'd better watch your wheaties boxes. I mean...really? Advertisers pander to gay audiences if they feel it's advantageous; they'll do that with or without legalized gay marriage. I agree with your support of civil unions and genuinely appreciate that support, and you're right - there is an intrinsic difference between a same sex and a heterosexual couple - one is a same sex couple and the other is a heterosexual couple. Same sex couples simply want the same rights without second class status.
- reply
Stephen Ocean (not verified)at 16:25 on November 3rd, 2009
You fail to state the obvious about the DIFFERENCE between a same sex and a heterosexual couple. Once you (and others) admit it is fact, then your argument fails; and you can't have that!
- reply
EB (not verified)at 14:22 on November 3rd, 2009
When the government started granting tax benefits to married couples and started having to approve marriages to be legally married according to law, marriage was taken out of the church arena and put in a public one. Those who want gay people to marry don't want to change both definitions, only the government one. Let the church continue to define marriage as what it always has been, but since the government uses the term marriage to grant benefits couples, it has to be redefined to include all couples.
- reply
Robin Brann (not verified)at 09:27 on November 3rd, 2009
I would like to share.InterpretationShare Yesterday at 12:02pm | Edit Note | DeleteMy interpretation,I have as many of you know and many will know soon, walked many paths in my lifetime. I am a woman who speaks from my heart. It is not something I can honestly say belongs only to me it comes from me. I am saddened by some of the things I am reading and hearing these days.I have faith that the wrong will be righted and all will get what they need.My fear is not propelling or cementing me. My sadness is what propels me to speak. Sadness for myself ,my partner, my children, my grandchildren, my brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews, friends and neighbors.My sadness comes from the statements from the harshness and lack of caring in some of the voices I am hearing. Yes on question one?Question 1 is about human rights. Question one, in a perfect world would not have to be asked.Of course all people should be allowed the same freedoms and choices. All people , black , white, red, women, men, children, and yes even homosexuals. People all people.With whom we fall in love and how we choose to honor that love should not be decided by the masses or the churches or the politicians. Should it? Is love and honor and eternity not a God given right? Is choice and freewill no longer a God given right?Do you know what you do when you speak of teaching homosexual relationships in schools? Do you know that one out of eight people in this world today are , now, in this moment gay or lesbian? Do you know how many of these people have children in schools today? Do you know when you speak about the ugliness of the parents, and grandparents and aunts , uncles and neighbors of these children do you know the pain you are inflicting on them? ("The Bible calls debt a curse and children a blessing. But our culture applies for curses and rejects blessings." Doug Phillips)Can you tell me when you speak of teaching homosexual relationships in school, what exactly are you saying and meaning. It seems like a foreign language to me the statement makes no sense. How would anyone respond to it? Teach homosexual relationships verses what heterosexual relationships? How do they differ is my question. I can say from first hand experience I have been in a few relationships and all of them I would have to say look the same to me. The relationship not the people. But we are not voting about people are we? We are voting about taking a right of a human being away we are voting about rights.I have been a parent in the school system for 30 years,I still am, the only relationship teaching I have seen or witnessed in anyway has been in Home Ec class. Voting has taken that class away over the years seems not to be enough funds for that anymore in most places. Along with, industrial arts, music, and art class to name a few. How would we teach relationships if we did teach them? Would we teach them according to what? The bible, and who would be the interpreter of the bibles teachings of relationships? Blacks, Chinese, Possibly Indians, Evangelists, Catholics, Witches, Pentecostal,Women, Men,child? Which person would interpret it in the right way? Does anyone know?I only hope that through this all we keep our hearts ahead of our words. As I believe in our hearts is where the answer to all things lie.Not in our words or in our beliefs or interpretations.Question one has provided the vehicle for my voice. Question one has provided the vehicle for many people to speak.www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1056763840&v=feed&story_fbid=168408095753&ref=mfwww.youtube.com/watch?v=9HEjQATlC6gdictionary.reference.com/browse/interpretation"YES ON QUESTION ONE MEANS THAT WE ARE FOR TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE/AND AGAINST "SAME SEX MARRIAGE" VOTE YES ON QUESTION 1 !!! The world,our children, and God are watching us !!! And waiting for the right choice...." Chris Albeewww.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1030756786&v=feed&story_fbid=323936235499#/profile.php?id=1056763840&v=feed&story_fbid=168408095753&ref=mfThere are different translations but here are three (from biblegateway.com) and a link to the site that gives you the opportunity to look into the original Greek word (I always do this to get the full meaning of what the scripture is truly saying). :)Genesis 2 - kjvs.scripturetext.com/genesis/2.htmMark 10 - kjvs.scripturetext.com/mark/10.htm________________*New International Version*"Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man." Genesis 2:22"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one." Mark 10:6-8________________*American Standard Version*"and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." Genesis 2:22"But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh: so that they are no more two, but one flesh." Mark 10:6-8________________*King James Version*"And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." Genesis 2:22"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh." Mark 10:6-8"Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it ... Read More will be given to him. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does." James 1:2-8Vote No on Question #1Sincerely,Robin Brann
- reply
tamalpais1 (not verified)at 17:11 on November 3rd, 2009
When the Dali Lama was asked about homosexuality he responded that he felt it was harmless. So there is alot of religious freedom for gay people who are Tibetan Buddhists. For them it is no big deal. And it is legal to be a Tibetan Buddhist in the good olde USA. We have freedom of religion. Likewise Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa supports the work of the LGBT community to free themselves from what he calls the American system of apartheid in which there is one set of laws for LGBTs and one for everyone else. See link: www.afrol.com/articles/13584 Plus there are many religions that foster inclusion of LGBT people and marry them. UU's for example and many others. So the idea that support for LGBT people and religion don't go together or can't go together is a really a narrow view of what kind of freedom is available in the real world.