Skip to main content

Supporters of same-sex marriage wave flags in the Castro neighborhood in San Francisco, California after the United States Supreme Court ruled on California's Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act June 26, 2013. The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday handed a significant victory to gay rights advocates by ruling that married gay men and women are eligible for federal benefits and paving the way for same-sex marriage in California.  REUTERS/Robert Galbraith  (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS SOCIETY) - RTX112CT
Half of Americans believe the Constitution's equal protection guarantee applies to marriage, a number that comes from a Washington Post/ABC News poll finding another new high in support for marriage equality:
Fifty percent say the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection gives gays the right to marry, while 41 percent say it does not.

Beyond the constitutional questions, a record-high 59 percent say they support same-sex marriage, while 34 percent are opposed, the widest margin tracked in Post-ABC polling.

That 59 percent in favor of marriage equality isn't just coming from states where equality is already the law:
In the 33 states that prohibit same-sex marriage, 53 percent of those polled support allowing it, while 40 percent oppose doing so.
Of course, as we learned Tuesday, most of the minority of people opposed to equality believe themselves to be a majority, and will probably keep believing that no matter how many polls come out hitting them upside the head with the truth. The good news is, their numbers will keep shrinking and federal judges appear very likely to keep ruling against them.

Originally posted to Laura Clawson on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 07:08 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Didn't die soon enough (still alive in 2004) (7+ / 0-)

      Bush owes winning re-election in 2004 in huge part because the vast majority of public opinion had not yet begun shifting - support for "civil unions" rather than full marriage equality was still the majority position even among relatively progressive voters.  Rove's GOP operatives capitalized on the Massachussetts Supreme Court ruling (the first upholding marriage equality on state equal protection grounds), and likely won Ohio with it (in conjunction with some possible electoral shennanigans).

      The enormity of the shift in just a decade can easily be seen by how immensely weaker a wedge issue marriage equality is (the term wasn't even in wide use a decade ago, except among hard-core GLBT activists).  At most, it provides some added increment of motivation for the hard-core social conservative portion of the GOP base to turn out, and might also help turn out a shrinking portion of the type of alleged "independent" who is nonetheless  likely to vote GOP if they bother to turn out.

      Shift the weight of public opinion forward a decade in the 2004 election, and we likely would have had President Kerry instead of Bush's second term, and Obama would still be the junior Senator from Illinois.

      •  I mean, among progressive voters, civil unions... (0+ / 0-)

        ...were still the majority position in 2004 rather than full marriage equality.  I'm not sure what the percentages were among the full electorate, but though I suspect more people supported CUs than opposed, those opposed were far more strongly motivated on the issue, and GLBT activists were rapidly shifting to pushing for ME rather than settling for CUs.  

      •  To be honest, W really screwed over (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z

        the gay community for added insurance for his own reelection, but an honest look back at the data says it was likely he would have been reelected at the time anyway.

  •  Same sex marriage becomes much less scary (10+ / 0-)

    when same sex couples actually get married. And even red state teabaggers have some gay relatives who would like to get married.

    And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

    by Pale Jenova on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 07:32:09 AM PST

    •  Problem is, (3+ / 0-)

      some of those 'baggers probably don't know that they have some gay relatives, whether or nor said gay relatives want to marry.  I think there are a lot of gay people, particularly among the over-30 crowd, who aren't out to their families and never will be.

      "Education is the key to unlock the golden door of freedom." -- G.W.Carver

      by northbronx on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 07:52:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Problem is (5+ / 0-)

        the scare tactics were just that and nothing else. Just bullshit backed up by zero facts. People tend to notice when when things 2000, 2012 and gay marriage are not the end of the world as predicted.

        The USA and the rest of the world face a dangerous enemy that not only threatens our freedom but our very existence. This enemy is deeply embedded within society and is actively working towards our annihilation. That enemy is ignorance.

        by Ex Con on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:02:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Problem is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        equern, Pale Jenova

        that it doesn't really matter to most "baggers" whether they KNOW that they have gay relatives or not. It wouldn't change their positions one way or the other for most of them.
        My own brother voted for our state's constitutional amendment banning marriage equality and then proceeded to tell me that he had done so while gleefully announcing how pleased he was. At that moment I decided that my relationship with him would be limited to polite greetings at any rare family gatherings where I might be forced to be in his presence.

      •  I know a few baggers who have gay relatives (0+ / 0-)

        who get amazingly liberal on the marriage issue. Some of them, at least. Others just get even more batshit.

        And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

        by Pale Jenova on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 05:57:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The scary thing is being proposed to by a man. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pale Jenova

      If men can marry men, they will be asking teabaggers to marry them. That is fearsome. And women marrying women, teabaggers, find that fascinating. So now teabaggers are wallflowers at the party and no one is trying to dance with them. Nobody notices an opinionated, supercilious, whiner. Guess the teabaggers are going to have to get a new bag.

      Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

      by 88kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:22:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Was it, Jon Stewart who said (0+ / 0-)

        "The reason right wing men fear gay people is because they don't want men treating them the way they themselves treat women." ?

        And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

        by Pale Jenova on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 05:56:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  When is that argument they make going to go away ? (5+ / 0-)

    Something about ruining traditional marriage.   California has not fallen into the ocean, nor any other state.  Actually, I have yet to hear of a single "issue" caused by gay marriage, not one.


    Republicans - No solutions, just reasons why other peoples solutions will not work.

    by egarratt on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 07:34:00 AM PST

  •  I keep wondering.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jaf49, Aunt Pat, newdem1960

    ...if  Perkins, and Brown, and Porno Pete, and Barber, and the rest of the whole sad lot of them actually believe what they're saying any more or if they're so wedded to the grift that they just can't help themselves.

  •  I am always so glad... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jaf49, Aunt Pat, northbronx, BobBlueMass

    when sanity is more widespread than we might think from the loudness of those who would have it otherwise.

    We have it within our power to make the world over again ~ Thomas Paine

    by occupystephanie on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 07:38:05 AM PST

  •  The Conservative Brain Is Delusional & Paranoid (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat, puckmtl

    because information is processed by the amygdala (emotional brain) rather that the anterior cingulate cortex (logical, rational, reasoning brain) -- that's why right-wingers are such dipshits who have a total disdain for Facts and TRUTH.

  •  Perhaps, beleiving themselves to be a majority, (11+ / 0-)

    they will continue to bring forward anti-gay initiatives, which will serve to drive up Democratic vote totals in the elections.

    With the Decision Points Theater, the George W. Bush Presidential Library becomes the very first Presidential Library to feature a Fiction Section.

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 07:44:17 AM PST

  •  Another example of American ignorance. (7+ / 0-)

    50% of those polled believe that marriage equality is guaranteed by the equal protection clause of the US Constitution but then about 70% say the issue should be decided by the states.

    This shows that a significant percentage of Americans slept through American Civics 101.  If the US Constitution guarantees a right or protection then states don't have a right to deny that right or protection.  In fact it's illegal and unconstitutional for them to do so.

    No wonder the Tea Party was able to pull in so many ignorant sheep.

    •  Not sure that's ignorance (0+ / 0-)

      They might well be saying "marriage laws should be decided by the states as long as they comply with the US Constitution" (exactly the same thing the SCOTUS said in Windsor) as opposed to "marriage laws should be made by Congress". That's a perfectly reasonable position, and one that I'd agree with.

      Unfortunately when smart and educated people get crazy ideas they can come up with plausibly truthy arguments. -- Andrew F Cockburn

      by ebohlman on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:35:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  And I wonder if this would poll better (6+ / 0-)

    if the question was 'marriage equality' rather than gay marriage.  

    And in interesting news from the Denver Post this morning, a headline reads: Prominent conservatives file brief supporting gay marriage.  

    This is a brief to support marriage equality that is currently before the 10th Circuit Court which oversees the ruling striking down the Oklahoma and Utah marriage bans.  

    Among the notable Republicans signing the brief include: former Republican U.S. Sen. Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming,  former U.S. Sen. Nancy Landon Kassebaum of Kansas and former New Mexico Gov. Gary E. Johnson.

    Prominent Coloradans signing on to the brief include former state Rep. B.J. Nikkel; Richard A. Westfall, former Colorado solicitor general and former state senators Al White and Jean White.

    When was the last time anyone in DC told America the f*cking truth?

    by jaf49 on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 07:49:19 AM PST

    •  This reflects (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jaf49, Cali Scribe

      the (hopefully) growing split between the true small government conservative-libertarian wing of the GOP -- the group that I maintain has an altar to Barry Goldwater deep in the bowels of the Arizona State House -- and the Christofascist theocratic wing.  

      William F. Buckley Jr. is still rolling in his grave, but perhaps we're beginning to see a return to sanity amongst some Republicans.  I'm not really holding out much hope for a return to intellectual discourse, but maybe we'll get there in time.

      "Education is the key to unlock the golden door of freedom." -- G.W.Carver

      by northbronx on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:05:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Traditional conservatives (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        don't care about the social issue crap that the Religious Reich brings up -- I've got some in my family (including recovering Catholics) who would rather see their tax money pay for a $1000 abortion than 18+ years of welfare payments for an unwanted kid. As for marriage equality, they're okay with it as long as their tax bills don't go up.

        The GOP is in a quandary though because to come right out and say they're no longer the arbiters of morality would lose the "boots on the ground" folks who go out there and get people to the polls.

        There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

        by Cali Scribe on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 11:17:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Snarkenfreude (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat, Forest Deva

    Poor old haters ,
    I'm enjoying watching their little world fall apart .

    "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

    by indycam on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 07:50:26 AM PST

  •  Saint Patrick drove the snakes out of Ireland (2+ / 0-)

    The mayor of Boston want too drive gays out of the Saint  Patrick Day Parade,if the city issue the parade permit ,it should have a non bias clause    as part of the permit being issued to a group

    •  That's actually usually the forefront of 1st (0+ / 0-)

      Amendment Issues. If someone has a permitting authority. Is it a time/place/manner restriction or Content based.

      Regardless of the existence of Gay marriage or support (it could be Pro-Russia invading the Ukraine).

      You would get Strict Scrutiny IIRC. That's surprising, nothing really passes strict scrutiny a billion 1st amendment cases are based on Content restrictions because someone has subjective issues.

      I mean even in the ACLU v. Skokie Illinois (extremely Jewish Commmunity that didn't want Nazis marching in their town reminding them of when they were in Germany (actually to his Credit if you call it that, to his principals as an individual/attorney the ACLU was representing the party denied a permit (the Nazi party) with a Jewish attorney) which is so extreme, I believe the Village of Skokie was going to lose because they didn't like the message (and I do not blame them, but I respect the ACLU for really not picking and choosing, what wing-nuts never get).

  •  Let's get Karl Rove on the air... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skillet, RichM, LuvSet 'unskew' this right now!

  •  They are still a majority at the polls (0+ / 0-)

    until that changes, they will be right in the one place that matters for legislation in this country.

    "Harass us, because we really do pay attention. Look at who's on the ballot, and vote for the candidate you agree with the most. The next time, you get better choices." - Barney Frank

    by anonevent on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:07:11 AM PST

    •  On any given Tuesday (0+ / 0-)

      They shouldn't be.

    •  Somewhere Between 29% and 34% (0+ / 0-)

      if you inquire into extreme generally out of favor positions, you get 29-34% always siding with the Fox News position.  Is Obama a Kenyan Muslim dictator who is drunk with power?  29-34% yes.  Is Obama a crazy Christian who wears mom jeans and is way too weak as a President?  29-34% yes.

      These folks are more heavily concentrated in the red states, but even in MN, if the GOP runs the worst possible candidate in the world against the wildly popular Amy Klobuchar (who almost all of MN views as their sister/friend/niece)that person will get between 29 and 34% of the vote.  So, in most states the crazies are not a majority.  But they show up and they will vote their 29-34% no matter what.  The problem arises when the other 66% decides not to vote.

      If most people do not turn out to vote, you get a GOP legislature in MN and they try to pass an anti-gay constitutional amendment.  If people do turn out to vote, you get a Dem legislature and they pass a pro-gay marriage law.  

  •  All of us are born equal... (0+ / 0-)

    with inalienable rights.

    I ride the wild horse .

    by BelgianBastard on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:07:18 AM PST

    •  Having rights is bupkes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LuvSet, bythesea

      Being able to enforce rights is everything. That means you have to have some effective combination of public support, legislatures, administrations, and the courts that can overcome the opposition. The best case is having all four, but that comes much later, if at all.

      We have made progress on Marriage Equality in popular votes, legislative action, and the courts. Administrations can't change laws themselves, but they can do a lot with enforcement and other powers.

      Right now, Federal courts are our most promising avenue for progress, particularly in states where the public, the administration, and the legislature are still resisting the inevitable.

      Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

      by Mokurai on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:59:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't disagree with anything you wrote. (0+ / 0-)

        Still, I have to say we have rights, inherent in our being. Law or no law or lawlessness.

        Most LGBT people live in places where they have no rights. Many live in places where they face death; whether by the mob or the law.

        So, yes, saying "we are all born equal with inalienable rights" is insufficient,  but it's also true and needs to be repeated. Again and again and again.

        I ride the wild horse .

        by BelgianBastard on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 03:17:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Having rights is rhetorically important (0+ / 0-)

          when you are arguing for ways to enforce those rights. So we really agree. They are just two different aspects of the problem, each of which does not apply in the opposite context.

          Thus the Declaration of Independence, which was propaganda in the best sense, but has no legal force, and the Bill of Rights, which we can actually go to court over.

          Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

          by Mokurai on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:40:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  And why would support be growing? Because (0+ / 0-)

    nobody cares. There is nothing I would rather NOT be aware of more than my neighbor's bedroom.

    Well maybe a close second. I so don't want to tag along with them during their DRs appointments. There's another thing I can do without.

    Oh and while you are at it, they could KEEP their guns and not leave them out for the kids or just anyone -- and not send freedom cleaning and dropping bullets flying just because.

    Basically the 3 most important things to the nosy GOP are the three things I least want to find out and feel are best handled by the rugged individual.

    Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

    by 88kathy on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 08:16:33 AM PST

  •  Equal protection (0+ / 0-)

    I wonder if 50% of Americans even know what the equal protection clause IS.

  •  It "just keeps growing" because more and more (0+ / 0-)

    people are asking themselves the question, "Why not?" and can't come up with a good answer.

  •  Can we get the breakdown for the 33 states? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I looked at the links in the Diary and the polling data provided in the stories without finding those details.

    My question is really which states have laws against Marriage Equality but populations that have tipped the other way? I know that Mississippi and Alabama are vying to be the last, but it would help to know which are actually likely targets.

    The last time I saw data on this was in 2009, after the Iowa Supreme Court decision, when Nate Silver took the available polls and demographic data as the basis for a model that predicted tipping dates for every state. The model indicated that it would all be over by 2024.

    Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

    by Mokurai on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:21:36 AM PST

    •  Nate has updated his model (0+ / 0-)

      to display "accelerated" v. linear etc.  I suggest you give it another viewing to see those.  It would be nice to see a full breakdown since some Southern states a still quite anti, while other states with bans have come to have above majority support.

      •  Links? Ah, here we go. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        March 26, 2013
        How Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage Is Changing, and What It Means

        refers to

        June 29, 2011
        The Future of Same-Sex Marriage Ballot Measures

        Reality has been turning out rather differently in detail from all such projections, as anybody with a grasp of the most elementary statistics would expect. But progress overall is following the predicted trend. The models and the reality agree that passing the national tipping point has reversed the trend from losing almost everywhere it came to a vote, to winning in many places.

        Progress seems to be accelerating in the last year. Scalia's dissent in the DOMA case, complaining that the logic of the majority must inevitably result in full Marriage Equality, is now being cited with relish in a number of cases striking down state bans. We now have decisions in three Circuits in favor of Marriage Equality, all stayed pending appeal, and more cases on the way in about twenty other state and Federal courts.

        Mille grazie, Nino.

        Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

        by Mokurai on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 06:39:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  on track for overwhelming majority (0+ / 0-)

    48-yr-old gay man here feeling a little stunned - yes, I'm married, and yes, it feels right - but watching the positives inch up - seemingly unrelentingly - is, well, hard to reconcile with the world up to now. It gets better, indeed.

    A friend here in California is raising two boys with his husband and he just posted on Facebook about the frustrations he's experiencing with the bullying one of the boys is experiencing - being called gay and pushed around by classmates. There's a "zero tolerance" policy for bullying, but without enforcement that's merely a nice (& misleading) sentiment.

    Gay people have been shut out civil society by law. Soon (?) that will no longer be the case. Our problems will not be solved. But it's weirdly refreshing to think we will have more or less the same problems as everyone else - which, of course, is plenty.

  •  Odd statistic (0+ / 0-)

    Is it just me? But I find it odd that the nation itself would be in favor of gay marriage by 59% but states that already have it is only 53%?

    You would think those statistics would be reversed, the idea being that in those states where it is legal, the number supporting it would be HIGHER than the national average.

    At least at face value then, there are a LOT (6% of US) of Americans who live in non-gay-marriage states that want it.

    Any data on which states they might be?

    What separates us, divides us, and diminishes the human spirit.

    by equern on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 01:41:25 PM PST

    •  Sorry! Read report wrong! (0+ / 0-)

      That's what I get for reading quickly during lunch. :-)

      What separates us, divides us, and diminishes the human spirit.

      by equern on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 01:42:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site