64% Support Traditional Marriage as New Hampshire Waits on Governor Lynch’s Veto

“Governor Lynch: Traditional Marriage is Best”

See this survey out of New Hampshire from Cornerstone Policy Research:

NH PUBLIC: 64% SUPPORT MARRIAGE TO ONLY BE
ONE-MAN, ONE-WOMAN

Over the last two days, CPR-Action surveyed EVERY HOUSEHOLD IN NH – that’s right, 432,398 households – and asked a simple question:

Do you agree that marriage between one man and one woman should be the only legal definition of marriage in NH?

The results?  64% of the New Hampshire public said “YES”.  Republicans, Democrats, and Independents have sent a clear message: do not re-define marriage in New Hampshire!
Advertisements

43 Comments

  1. conservative09 said,

    May 7, 2009 at 4:26 pm

    That’s a surprise!

  2. beetlebabee said,

    May 7, 2009 at 5:00 pm

    Opine Editorials has a great piece up about how the media is rushing us into believing that same-sex marriage is inevitable and that people are changing their minds in droves, when it just isn’t so.

    Fauxmentum

    Jessica Garrison and Maura Dolan of the Los Angeles Times have another update on the march of the marriage neutering advocates, with a mention of what seems like a likely 2010 campaign in California.

    As recently as a few months ago, some gay activists feared 2010 would be too soon. But the fact that same-sex marriage is now legal in five states, with New York, New Jersey and New Hampshire poised to follow, has changed the political climate, they say.

    Yes, enough of those California voters who voted to affirm marriage are going to magically change their votes because there is marriage neutering in some other states. Evidently, these people haven’t heard the question, “If a kid down the street jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?” And, when we’re talking about voters, the neutering crowd is asking them to jump off a bridge because someone else pushed that other kid off the bridge. Yeah, that makes sense.

    “There is no doubt we are witnessing an enormous and unprecedented sea change in both public opinion and momentum on the issue of marriage equality,” said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

    These people clearly are among those who think they create reality through saying something enough – you know, like those people who think if they say they’re going to get a huge luxury yacht enough times, it will magically come into their lives? At least, they are acting that way. Maybe they don’t really believe their own hype. See Opine for the rest

  3. Jason said,

    May 7, 2009 at 5:28 pm

    Thanks for posting our ad – we need everyone to understand how money, politics, and (the likes of) Tim Gill are taking away our democracy.

  4. beetlebabee said,

    May 7, 2009 at 6:17 pm

    Jason, Thanks for fighting the good fight over there in the Northeast! You guys are doing quite the job! I hope Governor Lynch finds his backbone and does the right thing for the people of New Hampshire. If not, there’s got to be accountability. Tim Gill can’t fight the masses if we’re aware of what he’s doing. It takes just a little from many to counter his efforts.

  5. morsec0de said,

    May 7, 2009 at 8:21 pm

    Strange how neither you nor the site you link to have links to any of the data of this survey you claim was taken.

  6. Euripides said,

    May 7, 2009 at 9:10 pm

    morsecode:
    The link is right there in the text of the post. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you couldn’t find it, rather than thinking you were nitpicking just to be contrary.

  7. Chino Blanco said,

    May 7, 2009 at 9:35 pm

    It would be less confusing if the link directed here: http://www.cpraction.org/

    But the post has the link pointed here: http://www.nhcornerstone.org/

    And there’s nothing at that site about the survey, unless you know to click through to the CPR site.

    But then, even after clicking through to the CPR site, good luck finding any actual survey data.

  8. morsec0de said,

    May 8, 2009 at 3:58 am

    “But then, even after clicking through to the CPR site, good luck finding any actual survey data.”

    Agreed. Saying “we took a survey, and here are the results” is not survey data. If there’s an actual link to that? I’d be interested to see it, if it exists.

  9. James R. said,

    May 8, 2009 at 9:27 am

    Great news! I hope they put it to good use!

  10. KingM said,

    May 8, 2009 at 12:19 pm

    Greetings from neighboring Vermont and congratulations New Hampshire, for…oh, wait a minute. Wrong blog. ;)

    I’m afraid you’re on the wrong side of history on this one. Over the last two hundred years, we’ve become all about giving equal rights to everyone, and those who have been on the reactionary side have been defeated again and again and again.

    New Hampshire will flip and so will Minnesota and Ohio and California and eventually only South Carolina, and Utah, and Arkansas will stand together. And then, in the end, gays will have equal rights even there. And you know what? My wife and I will still be happily married and no gays will come to force us to get divorced or take our children to turn them gay.

  11. beetlebabee said,

    May 8, 2009 at 12:45 pm

    KingM,

    I admire you for acquiring a crystal ball with scifi definition, however, your flippant take on the integral importance of marriage only betrays your bias. Why don’t we let the people speak and be heard for themselves?

  12. wc said,

    May 8, 2009 at 12:47 pm

    Whether CPR Action actually did anything beyond making (*things) up out of whole cloth, it is absurd on its face to claim that over 400,000 households were surveyed in two days. That is a howler.

    Claiming that your conclusions are EXTRA VALID AND, LIKE, TOTALLY TRUE because of a SUPER GIGANTOR SAMPLE SIZE (or in this case, an actual census no less!) is a pretty obvious tip-off that your so-called “data” is going to be something even Fred Phelps wouldn’t put on a poster.

    (*moderator edit)

  13. beetlebabee said,

    May 8, 2009 at 3:51 pm

    WC, have you never heard of a robo-poll? It’s the quickest, fastest way to take a snapshot of large groups of people at any given time. You may not like the results of the survey, but there they are. Rather than taking a sample and trying to extrapolate from there, just ask the people themselves how they feel about neutering marriage.

  14. Euripides said,

    May 8, 2009 at 4:34 pm

    The simple fact is that most Americans really don’t want same sex marriage. The statists pushing for same sex marriage have always needed to manipulate one branch of the government or another to get same sex marriage “legalized.” (Only in quotes since marriage is between a man and a woman, no law can really redefine marriage, only neuter it.) There are 30 state constitutions testifying to the popularity of keeping marriage as an institution between a man and a woman.

  15. Chairm said,

    May 8, 2009 at 7:21 pm

    Forty-five states have either a constitutional marriage amendment and/or an express state Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

    Even Massachusetts still has a marriage statute that unambiguously establishes that marriage is between a man and a woman.

    Iowa, too.

    When votes are in on marriage amendments and measures, the pollsters are usually shown to have underestimated support for marriage as the union of husband and wife. Off by about 10-15%.

  16. Op Ed. said,

    May 9, 2009 at 4:57 am

    KingM: I’m afraid you’re on the wrong side of history on this one. Over the last two hundred years, we’ve become all about giving equal rights to everyone

    What can be more equal than the integration of one man and one woman? You clearly don’t understand history if you think segregation has gained ground “over the last two hundred years.” People would no more think a union excluding women is equal to the ideal of marriage than would think a school excluding blacks is equal to the ideal of education.

  17. beetlebabee said,

    May 9, 2009 at 7:54 am

    ““People would no more think a union excluding women is equal to the ideal of marriage than would think a school excluding blacks is equal to the ideal of education.”

    Op Ed, that was an enlightening comment! Go Opine!

  18. Frisco said,

    May 9, 2009 at 6:38 pm

    Hypothetically, will marriage conservatives still support the voice of the people if a poll shows an overwhelming majority support gay marriage? Or will we just have to move on to polling the children and see if they want to support gay marriage or not? Maybe we can move on to the legislature and eventually activist judges that they hate oh so much.

  19. KingM said,

    May 10, 2009 at 3:58 am

    I’m sure there was a time when the majority of Americans thought interracial marriage was a bad idea too. That position eroded with time.

    It’s instructive to look how polls have changed over the last decade. Support of legalizing gay marriage is increasing at about 2% per year across the country. Some states have farther to go than others, obviously, the the trend is clear.

    Speaking personally, ten years ago I would have come down against gay marriage. I then passed to a state of indifference, and now, seeing how important this is for gay friends, I have changed my mind. So have millions of other people.

    In any event, for those who rely on the polls to say that Americans don’t want it, if there were a state where the majority of residents thought it should be legal, do you think gays should have the right to marry in that state?

  20. Op Ed. said,

    May 10, 2009 at 5:38 am

    KingM: I’m sure there was a time when the majority of Americans thought interracial marriage was a bad idea too. That position eroded with time.

    And if we go even further back, there was a time when that position had a positive “trend.” “Trend” over some selected period of time does not make something inevitable any more than it makes something right. The ash heap of history is filled with ideas someone at some point tried to pass off as inevitable.

    I would have come down against gay marriage. I then passed to a state of indifference, and now, seeing how important this is for gay friends, I have changed my mind.

    “Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
    As to be hated needs but to be seen;
    Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
    We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”
    – Alexander Pope, Essay on Man, Epistle ii

    if there were a state where the majority of residents thought it should be legal, do you think gays should have the right to marry in that state?

    Want to know what makes that question hypothetical?

  21. KingM said,

    May 10, 2009 at 8:36 am

    [i]”Want to know what makes that question hypothetical?”[/i]

    Sure. What? A recent poll showed that 55% of Vermonters were in favor of allowing same sex marriages. And, as I pointed out, the traditional marriage crowd is losing support at about 2% per year.

    Does Vermont have the right to marry gay couples?

  22. Sarah & Tim said,

    May 10, 2009 at 9:15 am

    The thing that is so unconstitutional about all this is that no one is being given the opportunity to vote and voice their own opinions about gay marriage. Isn’t that what democracy is all about? It’s not the government’s call.

  23. Frisco said,

    May 10, 2009 at 9:29 am

    A poll in 2009 in New Jersey found that 49% of the population supported gay marriage, while only 43% did not. Time for marriage here too, then?

  24. KingM said,

    May 10, 2009 at 9:40 am

    Looks like 54% support it in New Hampshire, too, up from 35% just three years ago. I’m afraid you guys are fighting a rearguard action, at least in large swaths of the country. I’m sure it will be a few years before it goes forward in the deep south or Utah, but not too long, I suspect. Ten years, twenty, tops.

    And most of us plain ol’ heterosexual couples will still be married. The world won’t come to an end.

  25. Chairm said,

    May 10, 2009 at 10:26 am

    An opinion survey is a snapshot of a response to a particular question or set of questions.

    But opinion surveys have underestimated voter support for marriage amendments and marrige initiatives — by about 10-15%.

    Such a direct vote is based on an up or down decision on one option. There are no “Don’t Know” or “Undecided” votes. And no middle option such as “civil union”. But most surveys on this subject include all three as options for respondents. SSMers, and pro-SSM newsmedia, will tend to inflate opposition to pro-marriage ballot questions.

    They did it in every state where a campaign was held on such a vote. Marriage has won in each state where such a vote has been held. And not held in states where such a vote would have been defeated but where the judiciary intervened to force a merger of nonmarriage (SSM) with marriage.

    Large swaths are in favor of “gay marriage”? Hardly.

    But there is always the option to ratify a federal marriage amendment which will gain support as the identity politics of the SSM campaign reveals itself as the core reason for the push for the SSM-merger. Touch DOMA and we’ll see the momentum shift very clearly away from even so-called compromises like “civil union”.

  26. Chairm said,

    May 10, 2009 at 10:28 am

    Oh, and of course, there are reasons that we have single-issue votes and campaigns on those single issue ballot questions. Campaigns do matter. Actually votes do count.

    Opinion surveys do not pre-empt democracy and republican constitutional government. Unlike, of course, the pro-SSM side’s courtcentric approach.

  27. KingM said,

    May 10, 2009 at 10:31 am

    Chairm,

    Sounds like a lot of speculation to me. In any event, does this mean that you consider recent legislative action in New England as being legitimate, since it’s not “courtcentric?”

  28. Op Ed. said,

    May 10, 2009 at 2:57 pm

    KingM: Looks like 54% support it in New Hampshire, too, up from 35% just three years ago.

    They said the same thing in California… right up until the people actually voted on it. There’s a reason activists for neutering marriage killed the vote in Massachusetts and it’s not because they thought they were on the winning side of history.

    Sounds like a lot of speculation to me.

    Which is all you have until there is an actual vote, which you don’t have, and which my side pursues while your side struggles to avoid.

    …does this mean that you consider recent legislative action in New England as being legitimate, since it’s not “courtcentric?

    Were Jim Crow laws legitimate because they were enacted by legislatures? Were those, too, “inevitable” because they at one point were spreading in one segment of the nation?

  29. Chairm said,

    May 10, 2009 at 5:12 pm

    KingM, were you not explicitly speculating earlier?

    My point is that your side has speculated, and failed, very, very, very often.

    Even opinion surveys that SSMers have spun in their favor have not accurately foretold what you now claim current surveys inevitably portend for the future.

    Your crowing about predicted majorities puts you against those in CA, for example, who complained that majorities are tyrannical.

    Be more specific, which legislative action in New England did not follow pro-SSM court action?

    Right. And then we can return to the opinon surveys which have routinely under-estimated the support for the man-woman basis of marriage.

  30. dave said,

    May 10, 2009 at 5:28 pm

    A friend of mine is friends of the founders of the website The Purple Pamphlet, which uses academic research to make students, professors, and other individuals aware of the misguided views about homosexuality being promoted by the homosexual agenda. I just thought it might have some good scientific content that can support and defend marriage, so I’m throwing it out here for others to see.

    http://www.thepurplepamphlet.com/purple/home.cfm

    Here is their about page, “Early fall semester 2004, an ad in the Weber State University (WSU) student paper, The Signpost, by an organization known as Evergreen International–an organization dedicated to providing information and support to individuals overcoming unwanted same-sex attractions. Some students opposing the ad began an editorial debate, slandering religionists and conservatives that support sexual re-orientation. Some students with pro-traditional views responded, only to be accused of being hateful and close-minded. To challenge the claims that pro-traditional values students had discriminated against gays and pro-gay movement students, a study was conducted using 32 editorials on homosexuality between the years 2001 and 2005. The results were shocking! Pro-gay movement students were 11.8 times more likely to verbally attack pro-traditional values students than the converse. Furthermore, pro-traditional values students were 4 times as likely to make statements of understanding or sympathy toward their opponents. Pro-gay movement students were also found to be 5 times more likely to write editorials that initiated controversial debate. In addition to these findings, students reported harassment and discrimination from WSU professors for supporting traditional values.”

  31. Chino Blanco said,

    May 10, 2009 at 5:53 pm

    I, for one, am glad to see NOM taking a stand against the influx of out-of-state money pouring into New Hampshire over this issue.

  32. Chino Blanco said,

    May 10, 2009 at 7:23 pm

    I expect CPR’s “survey” results will get a thorough debunking soon enough, here’s one early effort:

    http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2009/05/show-us-the-data.html

    Does anyone here know enough about this survey to defend it?

  33. Chino Blanco said,

    May 11, 2009 at 3:36 am

    Sorry, me again.

    If this local NH reporter has got his story right, this is just embarrassingly bad push-polling:

    http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090510/COLUMNISTS12/305109905/-1/columnists


    Excerpt from the link:

    Upon request, Cornerstone Executive Director Kevin Smith supplied the summary of the poll that included the wording of the queries.

    In the interest of no-spin, here’s how the first question went that gay marriage opponents said led to 64 percent agreement.

    “This survey concerns a new law the state Legislature just passed that will affect marriage in New Hampshire. Do you agree that marriage between only one man and one woman should be legal in New Hampshire?” the question asked.

    Uhh, shouldn’t the answer to that particular question poll closer to 100%? I mean, is there anybody in NH who doesn’t think straight marriage should be legal? Crikey.

  34. beetlebabee said,

    May 11, 2009 at 6:40 am

    It seems to me that you’re splitting hairs here CB, the poll information, including the wording, has been out since last week. How many times did you read that question over the last week knowing exactly what they meant? Even your own site in trying to debunk it had no problem with the wording of the question. It’s only parsing the words now that you find it ambiguous?

    Voters in New Hampshire are very aware of the same-sex marriage debate. I doubt they’d be rewinding the question and twisting it into something else before responding.

    And the fact that it was automated gives more credence to the numbers since voting on this issue traditionally gives marriage a 10-15% bump live polling doesn’t reflect. It’s the PC factor. People are afraid to respond honestly where they feel they might be judged by a pollster.

    Add the PC factor bump into the equation and polls by those for and against the issue align fairly closely.

  35. morsec0de said,

    May 11, 2009 at 7:10 am

    “It seems to me that you’re splitting hairs here CB, the poll information, including the wording, has been out since last week.”

    You’re being dishonest. That interpretation of the poll information is grossly inaccurate based on the question asked.

    It was a dishonest poll. And it seems hilarious to me how an organization that claims to be upholding the moral high-ground would use such immoral tactics to try and achieve its ends.

  36. beetlebabee said,

    May 11, 2009 at 7:19 am

    Morse? You don’t believe the poll question has been out since last week? It’s in the original post quoting directly from their site. That wording has been here open for scrutiny all along. Only now you have a problem with it? How many times did you read it as you and Chino Blanco were looking for some way you could possibly debunk it?

    I think it’s kind of funny actually.

  37. Chino Blanco said,

    May 11, 2009 at 7:19 am

    Actually, it was only today that I noticed the two different versions of the question:

    Per your post and CPR’s own website: “Do you agree that marriage between one man and one woman should be the only legal definition of marriage in NH?”

    Per folks in NH who heard the question, and according to a column in the Nashua Telegraph: “Do you agree that marriage between only one man and one woman should be legal in New Hampshire?”

    I’m not parsing, I’m simply comparing two different questions, and wondering which one was the question that actually got asked.

    If I’m missing something obvious here, please enlighten me, but they sure read like two completely different questions to me. Can anyone confirm the language that was actually used to conduct the poll?

    Because if I were asked the second version, I’d answer yes without hesitation.

  38. morsec0de said,

    May 11, 2009 at 7:27 am

    “Only now you have a problem with it?”

    Nope. I didn’t see the question before. If I missed it, and they in fact had the wording before, then I missed it. I’m not perfect.

    Nice of you to completely avoid the issues I brought up, though. Which highly suggest you have nothing to contribute.

  39. KingM said,

    May 11, 2009 at 8:19 am

    As a Vermonter, I wonder why nobody wants to answer my question vis a vis gay marriage in Vermont. Our elected legislature recently voted overwhelmingly to legalize same sex marriage. Is this, or is this not legitimate?

  40. beetlebabee said,

    May 11, 2009 at 8:25 am

    An interesting discrepancy to be sure. I’m not sure what the answer is. Whatever the difference, I doubt it was intentional on either the part of Cornerstone or the reporter.

  41. rubyeliot said,

    May 11, 2009 at 8:46 am

    kingm,

    in vermont, the people asked for a referendum and were flatly refused.

    i’m not from vermont, but i’m not sure that what the legislature did represented the people, or gave them a fair shot at really expressing their opinion.

    i’m skeptical of poll data in general. in california, the polls showed prop 8 down up until the night of the election. but it won.

  42. Chairm said,

    May 11, 2009 at 2:21 pm

    Surveys that ask people if they are in favor of “gay marriage” will get a different result than asking people if they favor “banning gay marriage”.

    Surveys should ask about the question that would appear on the ballot.

    The CPR’s question is very close to the text of marriage amendments and measures of other states.

    It also directly reflects the marriage statute. That is, it is the mirror of the following:

    Section 457:1-2

    No man shall marry […] any other man.

    No woman shall marry […] any other woman.

    To wit — and as per the CPR question —

    Marriage between one man and one woman is the only legal definition of marriage in New Hampshire law.

    Asking those surveyed if they agree this is as it should be is asking if the statute should remain as is.

    A question that directly asked if the marriage law should be changed would be more precise to the issue that will be decided on a ballot question.

    New Hampshire has civil union status, remember, and that option won’t be on the ballot but it remains in the statutes. So if a question was about “banning gay marriage” it would be a blatant push poll.

  43. Chairm said,

    May 11, 2009 at 2:28 pm

    KingM, it is legitimate in a procedural sense.

    But it was illegitimate in the important sense that the arguments that were put forth in favor of the change in the law are as weak and ridiculous as those put forth wherever SSM has been imposed or enacted.

    Marriage is not owned by the Government. SSM arugmentation presuposes that Government not only creates but owns the social institution which is foundational to civil society. Civil society creates and owns Government, not the other way around.

    If elected representatives wish to legislate directly against the wishes of the People, they ought to submit their proposal to a direct vote and defend their proposal in a single-issue campaign that focuses on the conflict between the consent of the governed and the weak excuses of those in control of the levers of government.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: