Slog
News & ArtsThursday, January 26, 2012
Homo NOM Poll Says Washington Voters Oppose Same-Sex Marriage
Posted by Dominic Holden on Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:03 PM
From the National Organization for Marriage's website:
When reminded that Washington State has a civil union law for gay couples, 57% of voters say it is not necessary to redefine marriage. 72% of voters think state lawmakers should work on other issues rather than same-sex marriage. A nearly identical number -71% of voters—believe the people should decide the marriage issue; only 9% think legislators should decide the matter.
I've called NOM to ask about the sample size, the name of the polling firm, and the list of questions they asked. So far, there's no answer. But other recent polls in the state have found same-sex marriage has the support of 47 percent of voters and 54 percent of voters.
1
Let's see, NOM... NOM... They're that totally unbiased group, right? No history of fabricating 'facts' from whole cloth or distorting truth beyond recognition?
4
I happened to be one of those polled. It was a robocall with 3 questions. Do you believe marriage should only be between one man and one woman? (yes or no) Are you a male? (yes or no)
Are you 57 or older? (yes or no) I answered NO loudly and clearly to all of them. I found it rather odd- esp. the last 2 questions.
Are you 57 or older? (yes or no) I answered NO loudly and clearly to all of them. I found it rather odd- esp. the last 2 questions.
5
I have a feeling that the people who think they should decide rather than the legislature are the same people who are quick to point out that this is a Republic, not a Democracy.
Another example of cognitive dissonance.
Another example of cognitive dissonance.
6
Civil rights should never be put to majority vote. There are just too many bigots left. Once people are dragged, kicking and screaming, into progress, usually after a few years, they realize the world has not come to an end.
Had we put school desegregation to a majority vote in 1965, it would have failed nearly everywhere. Even people who weren't openly racist would have thought there was no reason to "force the issue." You're getting the same mindset with this; sometimes the military has to lead, then the legislatures, and finally, public opinion will come around.
Had we put school desegregation to a majority vote in 1965, it would have failed nearly everywhere. Even people who weren't openly racist would have thought there was no reason to "force the issue." You're getting the same mindset with this; sometimes the military has to lead, then the legislatures, and finally, public opinion will come around.
7
If their numbers are correct, this is a perfect example of the upside of living in a representative democracy.
8
The numbers are flawed, as always. It would take mere minutes to find an average deviation but just thinking back it's probably close to 10-12pts from my experience.
Someone chart it!
Someone chart it!
9
I want to start a pro-equality group with an Orwelian sounding name to confuse the fuck out of everybody. "Washingtonians for Family Values" or some shit. We'll get all those Hutcherson-worshipping dbags to send us money and then be like "oh, yeah, our brand of Family Values means that kids with two daddies or two mommies should be able to have their parents get married."
10
>> "Civil rights should never be put to majority vote. "
No, they shouldn't, but they will, assuming we get this thing to the governor's desk soon.
The WA supreme court's 2006 ruling on DOMA basically established that marriage equality is not a constitutionally protected right for gay and lesbian couples in WA. The judicial branch failed us, so we have to deal with the legislative branch on this. And because any small group of dickwads can exploit WA's initiative process, it will go to a referendum vote of the people. The people, who are so desperately unworthy of my time or attention.
But now I have to "win their hearts and minds," however unworthy I think they are. And I have until the November ballot to do this. I suppose I shouldn't start conversations with, "see, the reason you're an idiot is because..."
Even more frustrating is that idiots are, by nature, immune to reason.
No, they shouldn't, but they will, assuming we get this thing to the governor's desk soon.
The WA supreme court's 2006 ruling on DOMA basically established that marriage equality is not a constitutionally protected right for gay and lesbian couples in WA. The judicial branch failed us, so we have to deal with the legislative branch on this. And because any small group of dickwads can exploit WA's initiative process, it will go to a referendum vote of the people. The people, who are so desperately unworthy of my time or attention.
But now I have to "win their hearts and minds," however unworthy I think they are. And I have until the November ballot to do this. I suppose I shouldn't start conversations with, "see, the reason you're an idiot is because..."
Even more frustrating is that idiots are, by nature, immune to reason.
11
Moreover, even Gary Randall had a poll out with 43% support for marriage equality 3 years ago. NOM's results are incredibly flawed given statistically normal increases in support across the board, YOY.
12
I'm actually willing to accept those numbers because of how they're framed so differently from the poll showing support. Once it's in the law books and people are asked whether or not to undo the law, it will be framed as a "taking away rights" rather than "unnecessary redefinition", and the polls still show majority support when framed like that.
13
"57% of voters say it is not necessary to redefine marriage."
Depending on how this is push-polled, I wonder how many of these 57% think that "marriage" should still be between whoever and whoever aka not just between a "man and a woman".
Depending on how this is push-polled, I wonder how many of these 57% think that "marriage" should still be between whoever and whoever aka not just between a "man and a woman".
14
Look at @4's reply: the NOM poll is apparently based primarily on the "marriage between a man and a woman" crowd and people over 55.
That they got 43% support from that specific demographic pool is big.
Otherwise the poll is a sham and lacking cross tabs and methodologies it should be exposed as such.
That they got 43% support from that specific demographic pool is big.
Otherwise the poll is a sham and lacking cross tabs and methodologies it should be exposed as such.
15
We have a civil union law for gay couples? No, we have a domestic partnership law, the most romantic of them all.
18
If civil rights were allowed to be decided by a popular vote, we would still have slavery, segregation, no voting allowed for women, etc... People who are not oppressed never see the need to allow oppressed people to have equality.
This is going to be a very rocky year.
This is going to be a very rocky year.
19
I wonder what would happen if you phoned reliable voters by landline - translation, really old white people ... would they be the same as the people who are going to end up voting in a max turnout no holds barred election, or would they ... be different?
Statistics can be used for lots of things, like justifying unjustifiable CEO pay and bonus payments.
Statistics can be used for lots of things, like justifying unjustifiable CEO pay and bonus payments.
21
You know, if they're not willing to make their methodology known - something any reliable organization would do immediately upon publishing the poll - then their research smells worse than my kid's diaper genie. After a few days of poopy diapers, I can assure you there is no worse smell on earth.
22
I was called by them yesterday. The three questions:
1) Am I a registered voter? Yes.
2) Do I believe marriage should only be between one man and one woman? No.
3) Am I over 50? No.
They must have been performing several variations of the same survey to get the results they got.
1) Am I a registered voter? Yes.
2) Do I believe marriage should only be between one man and one woman? No.
3) Am I over 50? No.
They must have been performing several variations of the same survey to get the results they got.
23
@9 - I've always wondered why only the conservative and evangelical groups takes the scary, you-can't-possibly-be-against-us-LOOK-AT-WHAT-WE-CALL-OURSELVES! sounding names (because they're shameless?). Activist pushing for marriage and civil rights equality should be calling themselves "Families First" or some such thing.
@4 and @22 - Interesting language in those questions; them choosing "one man" over "a man" is definitely baiting for a certain reaction.
@4 and @22 - Interesting language in those questions; them choosing "one man" over "a man" is definitely baiting for a certain reaction.
24
@23- the language they chose IS intentional. They are making it clear that their position is strictly traditional marriage and clarifying it as "one" man and "one" woman to make sure that no one includes plural marriage in there either. That's to weed out the terrorists (cuz you know all Muslims practice polygamy) and fundamentalist LDS.
25
A friend of my received one of the NOM survey calls. If you answer that you even remotely suggestion you support gay marriage they hang up on you.
26
Given the number of random people giving the same account the poll's targeted demographics are easy to find:
1) Registered voters
2) That believe in "one man/one woman = marriage" and/or
3) Are 50 years or older
I think they thought they'd get a reasonable sample out of this but most equality supporters in WA State already know the arguments by now, especially after R-71. They know the language. Many would hang up after the "one man/one woman" line. It's strongly skewed.
NOM doesn't build campaigns on truth and I would hope that, regardless of the mantra of "be nice" The Stranger has put forward that reporters would take a little time to call them out in public. It would get them the bad publicity they've seemed to duck for so long and yet have earned. Like when they ignored disclosure laws in several states, for one. Or misrepresent articles (like saying the child whose gender was secret was raised by lesbians -- nope, straight couple).
If Washington United for Marriage needs any more proof for rebuttal on NOM's honesty, it's in this thread and pretty easy to find elsewhere if you ask around. :)
1) Registered voters
2) That believe in "one man/one woman = marriage" and/or
3) Are 50 years or older
I think they thought they'd get a reasonable sample out of this but most equality supporters in WA State already know the arguments by now, especially after R-71. They know the language. Many would hang up after the "one man/one woman" line. It's strongly skewed.
NOM doesn't build campaigns on truth and I would hope that, regardless of the mantra of "be nice" The Stranger has put forward that reporters would take a little time to call them out in public. It would get them the bad publicity they've seemed to duck for so long and yet have earned. Like when they ignored disclosure laws in several states, for one. Or misrepresent articles (like saying the child whose gender was secret was raised by lesbians -- nope, straight couple).
If Washington United for Marriage needs any more proof for rebuttal on NOM's honesty, it's in this thread and pretty easy to find elsewhere if you ask around. :)
27
I answered "No" to the eligible to vote question, and the survey continued - usually that is the break off point - so I suspect there is something wrong with their voice recognition (there was no background noise, and I spoke clearly) and that none of their results are valid, FWIW.
28
They're all a lot of hoo-ha, polls.
I couldn't care less how many people think same-sex marriage is OK. The majority doesn't have the right to limit the rights of any minority and this issue will likely be decided by the State legislature before year's end anyway.
I couldn't care less how many people think same-sex marriage is OK. The majority doesn't have the right to limit the rights of any minority and this issue will likely be decided by the State legislature before year's end anyway.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (28) RSS