Maine Poll Tied on Question 1

lighthouse

Maine split on gay marriage question

From Public Policy Polling:  Raleigh, N.C. – Two weeks out from election day Maine voters are divided right down the middle when it comes to whether they will reject the state’s law allowing same sex couples to marry.

48% say they will vote to over turn the law while 48% say they will vote to keep it with only 4% of the electorate still undecided.

Opinion on the issue predictably breaks heavily along party lines. 74% of Republicans are planning to vote yes while only 25% of Democrats are. Independents may end up deciding which way it goes- presently 50% of them support rejecting the law with 44% in opposition. Older voters are strongest in their support of cutting off gay marriage. 54% are in support with 40% opposed. Senior citizens can often dominate the electorate in low turnout elections so the ultimate fate of this measure may lie in how many younger people get out to the polls and vote.

There is a strong gender gap on the issue with 53% of men but only 43% of women wanting to reject the law. It’s also interesting to note that while white voters oppose undoing the law by a thin 47-45 margin, nonwhite voters in the state support rejection by a 55-35 margin, creating the overall tie.

“The fate of Question 1 is going to be decided by which side does a better job of mobilizing their supporters to get out and vote,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling.

“Voters in the state know where they stand on the issue and now it’s just an issue of who shows up.”

PPP surveyed 1,130 likely voters from October 16th to 19th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-2.9%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.

Complete results are attached and can be found at www.publicpolicypolling.com

PDF of results here

Advertisements

19 Comments

  1. Euripides said,

    October 25, 2009 at 9:25 pm

    What irks me about this fight to preserve marriage in Maine is how many people of Maine are blind the deaf to the dangers posed by same sex marriage. Do the voters in Maine really want to legally mandate a significant and destructive change to the foundational institution of society? Do they despise the next generation so much as to leave it without the concept of core family?

  2. Ross said,

    October 26, 2009 at 1:07 pm

    Euripedes, do you despise the current generation so much as to leave them without the rights to protect their family units?

  3. beetlebabee said,

    October 26, 2009 at 2:26 pm

    I think for some people that is the case Euripides. Others I think are so wrapped up in their own desires that they just can’t see the consequences of their actions.

  4. Euripides said,

    October 26, 2009 at 3:19 pm

    Ross:

    What rights would those be? The right to define marriage to mean anything we want to to mean, as long as it fits popular opinion? The right to neuter marriage and make the family irrelevant? The right to reduce the rights of single adults who choose not to get married? The right to ignore the wishes of voters across the US in order to change the foundational unit of society? The right to deprive parents what gets taught in schools? The right to deprive children of the legal protection of a mother and a father? The right to change families into family units? The right to establish gays as a protected class, above the protections of the 14th amendment? The right to legally mandate gender neutrality in marriage? The right to ignore the 1st amendment protections of religion? The right to discriminate against anyone who disagrees with same sex marriage? The right to sue businesses and religions which don’t want to cater to same sex marriage because of personal convictions? The right to protect sexual desire, whatever its form? The right to base marriage solely on sex?

    Which rights do you mean?

  5. Smokezero said,

    October 26, 2009 at 4:18 pm

    Ross, you do pose an interesting question. I will go at it a bit differently than Euripides, but I do find it interesting specifically how you phrased the question.

    “Do you despise the current generation so much as to leave them without the rights to protect their family units?”

    Does the current generation all want a gay marriage? Are all of us college kids looking at the future and thinking “Gee, I’d really like to shack up with someone my own gender.” The current generation, as it stands now, has the “rights to protect their family.” No right to protect and establish a family has been taken away, or chipped away so far. I haven’t seen legislation in congress to take kids away from their family, divide couples they don’t like into single entities or do anything that would constitute a need for “protection.”

    In the marriage debate, little is about hate. Well, little from the traditional marriage side has been. True, there have been individuals more spiteful and venom filled than others, but the debate at its center is about what we as a culture want to do in the next move. Its a long debate, that should be held, and we need to figure it out. Win some elections, lose some others. I can’t even say this is an “eventually” stance, because as we’ve seen with Roe V. Wade, people still argue and fight over cellular tissue v. living being.

    Get ready to argue. Get ready to find out what you truly stand for. And for god sakes, stop demonizing the opposition because they disagree.

  6. Ross said,

    October 27, 2009 at 12:56 pm

    SmozeZero/Euripedes, I’m talking about the 1,100 rights that are not permitted to domestic partners that are permitted to married heterosexual couples. Hospital visitations, next of kin, tax breaks, immigration rights for foreign partners etc. The list goes on and on and these are rights that would and could improve the lives of gay people and their family units.

    So no, Smokezero, not all of the current generation has the rights to protect their family (see above)

    And that at the heart is the main divide in the marriage debate. The anti-SSMers are more concerned about the next generation of children that do not exist yet. the SSMers are more concerned with the immediate–the gay couple down the street who are being broken up because one is a New Zealand citizen and one is American

    Euripedes will spout the same silly rhetoric–if you want hospital visitation, lobby hospitals. If you want immigration, lobby immigration laws. Leave marriage out of it. In which case I say, if you have problems with school curriculum, shouldnt you be lobbying schools?

    And lastly, SmokeZero, I merely took Euripedes bloated offensive question and turned it around. You say, Smoke Zero, that the traditional marriage standpoint has no hate. And yet people like Euripedes throw around grand assumptions about how pro-SSMers “despise” the next generation. Give me a break. Despise is a strong word…maybe we are just more concerned about the current generation.

  7. Ross said,

    October 27, 2009 at 1:13 pm

    And now for Euripedes, Ill go question by question:
    The right to define marriage to mean anything we want to to mean, as long as it fits popular opinion?
    SSM is hardly popular opinion. Interracial marriage was not popular opinion when it was legalized either

    The right to neuter marriage and make the family irrelevant?
    Family is never irrelevant. But we live in a society now where there are many TYPES of families. Single parents, kids being raised by grand parents, and now homosexual parents. All types need rights to protect their families and loved ones

    The right to reduce the rights of single adults who choose not to get married?
    How does SSM reduce the rights of single adults? It doesnt

    The right to ignore the wishes of voters across the US in order to change the foundational unit of society?
    We ignored them with interracial marriage. The rights of a minority should never be voted on by a majority

    The right to deprive parents what gets taught in schools?
    If you have a problem with school curriculum, you are more than welcome to lobby schools for a change. That was your response when i brought up hospital rights for gay couples, wasnt it?

    The right to deprive children of the legal protection of a mother and a father?
    Again, the “nuclear” family is just an idea. There are far too many variations of family structure existing in the world to ensure that EVERY child has a mother and father. If anything we should be happy that children have SOME type of guiance and parenting in their life (whether its a single mom, a single grandmother, 2 dads, etc). You’re shooting for some kind of perfection that can not possibly exist in society. I’d rather have kids being raised by 2 dads than wandering the streets being raised by no one. And those 2 dads needs rights to protect their family unit

    The right to change families into family units?
    Now you’re just mincing words.

    The right to establish gays as a protected class, above the protections of the 14th amendment?
    14th amendment ensures all people have equal rights. You’re the one putting gays into a “class”. Bottom line is a man should be able to marry a man, if there is a mutual contract involved

    The right to legally mandate gender neutrality in marriage?
    Now youre just trying to fear monger.

    The right to ignore the 1st amendment protections of religion?
    Religions are not required to perform SSM if they dont want to. More fear mongering

    The right to discriminate against anyone who disagrees with same sex marriage?
    Again, fear mongering. Churches are free to choose what marriages to recognize. Public service industries, however, are not free to discriminate. As it should be. The same as they can not discriminate against an interracial couple getting married

    The right to sue businesses and religions which don’t want to cater to same sex marriage because of personal convictions?
    Religions again, are protected. Please cite a case where this has not been so, and where the SSM couple won. You can’t.

    The right to protect sexual desire, whatever its form?
    The right to base marriage solely on sex?

    I’m sure that many homosexual couples would take great offense in these statements. Im sure quite a few of them have a little something called “love” and “commitment” sprinkled into their marriages. They arent based solely on sex, but I applaud you for your baseless offensive stereotyping. Bravo.

  8. josh said,

    October 27, 2009 at 8:46 pm

    Please don’t dismiss this comment so lightly simply because it may be for or against the ‘other’ side.

    I was seriously questioning some of my previous standings on this issue because of the difference in opinions on this issue between my girlfriend and me. Together, we talked about it and decided the only issue that it all boiled down to was; whether or not homosexuality was genetic. I spent the last few months, yep months, researching both sides for genetic studies and information about homosexuality and genetics before coming to a conclusion.

    Let me say, I am appalled how people don’t research a single bit of information about this topic and can still feel as strongly as they for or against either side.

    -Homosexuals are a group of people defined by their actions. And fundamentally, I find it considerably different from a class of people defined by a characteristic such as race.

    -Society has the right to reject declare actions or behaviors they find unethical to the illegal. For example, a rapist cannot rape even if he/she wants to rape. Or similarly; a 50 year old man cannot marry a 8 year old girl. even if they both concede to it.

    -Finally, whether homosexuality is genetic. This research took a lot of analysis because I needed to analyze the methods used in each study I read to conclude the results matchedou, I assume you will as well in your own research. The human genome has been entirely mapped. No specific mendelian gene or combination of genes has been found to indicate homosexuality is inherited. Both sides presume that if homosexuality was some how uncontrolled and predetermined, it wouldn’t be a specific dna sequence you could pinpoint, but maybe rather a ‘herited’ gene. An inherited gene is the the traditional dna sequence that defines your physical attributes whereas a herited gene is a trait that is passed on through some of means (whether its through brain growth patterns or anything really). For example; blue eyes is an inherited gene and alcoholism may be a herited gene (good evidence to suggest such). The such part is whats hard to really pin point, but there are ways like a twin study. In a twin study, several people are grouped in two and studied to determine the concordinace rate (the percentage of study that both people in the pair either had or didnt have the quality). A good twin study makes groups like identical/fraternal twins, siblings close/far in age, adopted siblings close/far in age, and pairs with no relation applied to both male and female. A trait can be proven to be heritable if sets with higher genetic relations (identical twins) have a significantly higher (more than 10 times others) concordance rate than groups with lower genetic relations. From these groups you can assume the family related groups would be subject to similar environments. Therefore, the adopted siblings should be used as a control variable to represent the effects of the environment on an individual’s traits. In all studies, identical twins had the highest concordance rates (from 20%-40% depending on the study and source). The study finishes with just those facts and not about the other groups. In the studies with each groups rates published, the second and third highest concordance rates belonged to the adopted twins close/far apart in age. Yes, the control group for environmental effects! Which should mean that homosexuality can be attributed to the enviroment, and not through any heritable traits. This also makes sense for why identical twins were the highest groups; they were in similar environments. I put a lot of work researching a lot of studies. There are many other types that I could bore you with like brain development patterns. But twin studdies where one of the primary reasons why the APA, American Psychological Association, changed its classification of homosexuality as a Physiological Disorder.

    -Furthermore, good evidence suggests if homosexuality were genetic, then there would need to be separate genes (inherited/herited) to define the other sexual orientations, such as bisexuals. -In other studies not related to genetics, homosexuals have been recorded to be able to change their sexual orientation at much, much higher rates than other heritable trait groups such as alcoholics.

    If you get one thing out of reading this, it is; Research and examine it for yourself.

  9. beetlebabee said,

    October 28, 2009 at 12:30 pm

    “I’m talking about the 1,100 rights ”

    Ross, have you looked at those “rights”? I did. They’re not individual rights, but mentions of marriage in the law. Not only is it a misrepresentation to call every mention a separate “right”, but federal law has nothing to do with Question 1 in Maine, just as it had zero to do with Proposition 8 in California.

  10. beetlebabee said,

    October 28, 2009 at 12:34 pm

    “And yet people like Euripedes throw around grand assumptions about how pro-SSMers “despise” the next generation. Give me a break. Despise is a strong word…maybe we are just more concerned about the current generation.”

    I agree with your assessment here Ross. You indeed weigh your interests before the interests and wellbeing of the next generation. The problem is that adult sexual preference does not come before child rights as you wish to claim. Children have a right to a mom and a dad. They are not given a choice in the matter of who brings them up, who takes care of them or what their influences are in their formative years. They are the young, impressionable and vulnerable who the law and society have a duty to represent and protect.

    If you have a problem with your perceived rights, go and address those issues without trampling the rights of children. It’s already been proven that there are compromises that allow benefits without redefinition of marriage. If you’re after the government goodies and not the societal stamp of approval on the gay lifestyle, then why not pursue those rights by another means as some states have done?

  11. Ross said,

    October 28, 2009 at 5:06 pm

    Beetle: “They are the young, impressionable and vulnerable who the law and society have a duty to represent and protect.”

    The problem is, Beetle, not every child CAN have a mom and dad. Its just not possible. It’s a pipe dream. It’s wishful thinking. Children, however, deserve SOME type of support system–whether it’s one dad, one mom, a mom and a dad, or two moms….All of those family units are legal, and better than no parents at all. And therefore, there are rights that those parents need to protect their families.

    Just because you want every kid to have a mom and dad doesn’t mean its going to happen. Society is not perfect. But having two dads active in a child’s life is better than having no parents at all, wouldnt you agree? Or would you like to continue living in FantasyLand?

  12. beetlebabee said,

    October 28, 2009 at 7:12 pm

    “The problem is, Beetle, not every child CAN have a mom and dad. Its just not possible. It’s a pipe dream. It’s wishful thinking.”

    Do you agree that children ought to have a mom and a dad if at all possible? Because if you do, then by supporting SSM you are denying that very idea by saying that kids don’t need moms and dads and that moms and dads don’t matter. Any number, any random composition of adults, no matter how loving, cannot fully replace mothers and fathers in parental roles.

    You say it’s fantasy land, but if SSM becomes the norm, it will only increase the dysfunction. Holding up dysfunction and saying it’s equal is ludicrous. It’s not equal by merit, or by design.

  13. Ross said,

    October 28, 2009 at 7:47 pm

    I am not in fact saying that kids need a mother and a father. I have no clue, I have no idea of that is the be all end all of perfect parenting. What I AM saying is that I would rather a child be raised by a 2 dads than no one at all. I would rather a child be raised by a single mother than no one at all

    So Beetle, on that note. If a child had the choice of being raised by two dads or no one..no parental figure at all..,which situation would choose for that child? Although it may not be relevant to gay marriage, it is a fair question

  14. beetlebabee said,

    October 29, 2009 at 12:09 pm

    Straw man, Ross. Is gay adoption the only answer for finding families for kids in the foster care system? Is gay adoption even necessary? Are gay couples only willing to adopt children no one else wants? No.

    The real question is “Can gay couples provide what a mom and dad can provide?” That’s the real question, and the answer is No they can’t. They can’t provide both a mom and a dad and studies show that kids fare best when they’re in a loving stable home with their mom and dad. “Should every child have a mom and a dad if at all possible?” Absolutely yes.

    If you encourage ssm, more kids will be put in the situation of being motherless or fatherless by design….and society will be forced to say that this is an equal situation to kids with both moms and dads. It’s not equal, and society shouldn’t be constrained to declare that it is equal against the science, the evidence and just plain common sense.

  15. Ross said,

    October 29, 2009 at 3:08 pm

    Dodge, Beetle. Situations like these do happen in the world.

    Beetle: Should every child have a mom and a dad if at all possible?” Absolutely yes.

    But once again, Beetle. This is NOT possible. It’s a fantasy.

    Sooooo…

    Ill ask again, since you obviously didnt hear me the first time. Would you rather that child in question be raised by 2 dads or by no one at all? Still waiting for a straight answer.

  16. beetlebabee said,

    October 29, 2009 at 7:00 pm

    Ross, I already answered your question in several ways. I have no problem with mother figures and father figures if biological parents are not available, however two moms can never replace a dad, nor can two dads ever replace a mom. “Can gay couples provide what a mom and dad can provide?” That’s the real question, and the answer is No they can’t.

  17. Ross said,

    October 29, 2009 at 7:21 pm

    Well, in that case then all I can say is: great! I’m glad that you approve of same sex parenting. Maybe as not the best option available, but as better than the lowest alternative (no parental figure at all). Thank you sincerely for your honesty

  18. beetlebabee said,

    October 30, 2009 at 8:26 am

    actually Ross, that isn’t what I said. It was however, honest.

  19. Chairm said,

    November 3, 2009 at 5:52 pm

    Ross said:

    “we live in a society now where there are many TYPES of families. Single parents, kids being raised by grand parents, and now homosexual parents. All types need rights to protect their families and loved ones”

    Since you have emphasized type, please state the definitive features of the type of relationship you would call “marriage”.

    What makes this type different from all the other types? And, since you seem unprepared to permit society to show preference for the conjugal type of relationship, what is your argument in favor of licensing SSM and privileging it over and above all the other TYPES of families and relationships?

    Of course, you might back-up and identify SSM by the feature()s that distinguish it from the rest of the non-marriage category of “family units”. If you can’t do that, then, what is the complaint you seek to resolve by licensing SSM? Your comments thusfar strongly suggest that you would rather that society show NO preference for what it would license.

    That is, your remarks indicate that in your view there is no special reason for special status for the conjugal type of relationship, much less for the SSM type of relationship (whatever that might be and which you might clearly state).

    SSM is not a type of marriage. It is a specious substitute for marriage (i.e. S.S.M.) which SSMers demand that society setup as the replacement for the conjugal type — the union of husband and wife which provides for responsible procreation, sex integration, solidarity of motherhood and fatherhood. The SSM merger with marriage is asserted on the basis of asserting the supremacy of gay identity politics over the preferred type of family formation in our society. And yet, as seen in your comments Ross, you provided doubletalk that needs to be disentangled to be understood.

    Why your emphasis on gayness if you’d deny the conjugal type of family its special status in our laws? That emphasis is expressed as an underlying assumption of the SSM complaint and seems to be built-into your own remarks.

    For example, when you referred to “same-sex parenting” did you mean parenting by two gay men or two lesbian women, or did you mean something else? I expect you meant to emphasize sexual preference of the adults and, thus, ironically placed emphasis on sex differentiation in parenting — even as you contradicted your own emphasis by denying the societal preference for honoring the birthright of children to their moms AND dads. All of us are born equal — of a man and a woman. Such conception is NOT impossible. It is the only possibility, in fact.


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: