Skip to main content

Same sex marriage supporters Lance Namihara (L), Calvin Marquez (C) and Aleeciya Parker rally at the Hawaii State Capital as the State Legislature convenes for the third and final vote on allowing same sex marriage to be legal in the state of Hawaii in Ho
Marriage equality has the support of 56 percent of Americans surveyed in a new Washington Post/ABC News poll, and 50 percent agree with all the federal judges who have said it's a constitutionally protected right. Those strong results for a right that just a few years ago was far from majority support are striking—and what's more:
In states that ban same-sex marriage, opinions tilt narrowly in support, 50 percent to 44 percent opposed. Opinions in these states are even more closely divided on whether or not it is a constitutional right, with 45 percent saying it is protected and 48 percent saying it is not. That includes the handful of states where federal court decisions against gay marriage bans are pending appeal. In states where gay marriage is allowed, 64 percent support it and 56 percent see it as a right.
That's a significant gap between marriage equality states and others, but it's not a chasm. Some states are moving more quickly than others, but this is not some kind of culture war divide in which marriage equality opponents can claim that red-state beliefs are being ignored or discounted. And, of course, as courts decide for marriage equality, people in the states that don't now allow it are going to see that the world doesn't end and their own marriages don't crumble as a result. We're a long way from the day no one opposes marriage equality (according to polling, more than 10 percent of Americans still oppose interracial marriage, for heaven's sake), but we're rapidly moving past the point where bigots can whine about being a majority oppressed by judicial tyranny.

Originally posted to Laura Clawson on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:13 AM PDT.

Also republished by Kossacks for Marriage Equality and 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

  •  this moved as quick as the polling (12+ / 0-)

    on interracial marriage if not quicker (there's a curious 18 point jump in support in the early 90s).


    Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. uid 52583 lol

    by terrypinder on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 08:45:48 AM PDT

  •  It will not be too long until being against (6+ / 0-)

    marriage equality will be a really fringe position, and one almost totally confined to parts of the former Confederacy and places with large Mormon populations.


    by commonmass on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:04:15 AM PDT

    •  And all it will take is a "divine revelation" (4+ / 0-)

      and the Mormons will come around, once the Mormon leadership realizes that affluent gay couples have a lot of money for tithing.

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

      by Cali Scribe on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:14:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Happy in SC (0+ / 0-)

      Remember, we're not a monlithic block here, in the former confederacy.

      I read this news and feel a great sense of happiness for my 13 yo daughter, who came out in February.  She has (and knows she has) my and my wife's full support and love.  I'm hopeful that the world she grows up in will be one where a comment like this would be like saying "the sun came up in the east today".

      Amazing how fast its all moving now!  :)

      The question, O me! so sad, recurring–What good amid these O me, O life? Answer. That you are here–that life exists and identity, That the powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse. - Whitman

      by 350Energy on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 02:26:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's sad that the Mayor of Houston had to go to (9+ / 0-)

    California to marry her partner; change is coming to Texas but it is really slow.

  •  But, but, my traditional marriage is . . . (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cali Scribe, commonmass, 1toughlady

    Actually, my wife and I are doing quite fine.  Never mind Pat Robertson.

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

    by egarratt on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:10:04 AM PDT

  •  Assholes Like Texas teabagger Gov. Rick Perry Are (6+ / 0-)

    still spouting the worn out bullshit that gay marriage destroys traditional marriage when it has been established that heterosexuals destroy their own marriages.

    Hatred, bigotry, and mean-spirittedness along with homophobia are the only obstacles to marriage equality.

  •  We should also remember that, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, Silencio, Cali Scribe

    at the time Loving v. Virginia was decided, support for inter-racial marriage was at about 1/3, with majority opposition.

    •  That's about where support for (0+ / 0-)

      same-sex couples marrying was 10 years, after the first decision allowing it. Support for mixed-race couples didn't hit 50% until more that 25 years after the final decision allowing it.

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

      by ebohlman on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 01:06:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  When the Iowa Supreme Court ruled (5+ / 0-)

    in favor of Marriage Equality in 2009, Nate Silver built a fairly simple linear model that predicted, based in part on the religious divisions in the states, that public opinion would tip even in Mississippi and Alabama by 2024. It should be no surprise to anyone except maybe NOM and the poll unskewers that we are progressing faster than that now.

    It has been fifty years since the novel and movie Advise and Consent and the Stonewall Riots brought LGBT rights, as we call them now, into public consciousness. That is typical for progress on social issues in the last two centuries, other than the slavery and White Supremacy problems in the US.

    We must see whether we can speed that process up a bit in future, with the aid of the Internet. We are approaching a much bigger tipping point, as young people fall away from the Religious Right and from the various other Republican factions by the millions, in aggregate, each year. When next Democrats take the House, we will have an opportunity for a new Voting Rights Act, which has been drafted, outlawing the various methods of voter suppression, outlawing partisan gerrymandering, and creating a new SCOTUS-proof preclearance list to block any other shenanigans in future. It will not be very long before we can have a reliably sane majority on the Supreme Court.

    All the rest that the public favors, often by large majorities, follows, including public funding of election campaigns, sane economics, even guns; and then we can have a discussion of even more Progressive measures without constant obfuscation and obstruction from the increasing irrelevant and impotent Republicans. Just like the Federalist implosion of 1815 that led to 18 years of one-party rule.

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

    by Mokurai on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:17:43 AM PDT

    •  I'm still amazed how fast (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      roycej, 1toughlady

      things are moving -- when the subject was first discussed a decade ago (and there were people on this site who thought it was too soon), I thought we'd never see nationwide marriage equality in my lifetime. Now, unless I get hit by a bus or something, I could witness history in the next two years. There are enough cases in the judicial pipeline that SCOTUS can't punt like they did with Prop. 8 and the standing issue. I fully believe that SCOTUS is going to take a case (or several cases) for the 2015 judicial calendar, which should keep it from becoming a political football in 2016.

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

      by Cali Scribe on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:34:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for this, Laura (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, Silencio, Cali Scribe

    BTW, any idea on when the several pending Circuit Court opinions are likely to be issued?

  •  Happy Pride To All ! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cali Scribe, 350Energy

    Please try to attend a Gay Pride Parade or a Pride Festival or  Gay Film Festival or , well .......... something ! Or go to a gay bar if that's the best you can do. But please ........ don't let Gay Pride Month (June) go by without doing something for our community. Better yet, come out to someone, if you can. If you feel you can do it safely. A lot of people say they don't actually KNOW a gay person. I say, "Well, now you do".

    "Love Is Why We're Here"

    by Paniolo Joe on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:44:15 AM PDT

    •  Mr. Scribe wants to go up to SF (0+ / 0-)

      the night before the Pride Parade for the Dyke March (or whatever they're calling it these days). I'll have to see if we have time -- we're moving in a couple of months and have a shitload of stuff to do.

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

      by Cali Scribe on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 09:49:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Only countries with a majority of fundamentalists, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cali Scribe, TheUnknown285

    like Saudi Arabia, for example, can get away with placing who marries whom above important policies. This is led by the GOP, which, of course, stays relevant through the support of fundamentalists. Their voters have not yet caught on to their tactics and there is nothing to indicate they ever will.

  •  It's becoming BORING - that terrifies them. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Silencio, 350Energy

    In June 2008, I happily witnessed the first 18 same-sex marriages in Oakland, CA with lots of other folks. ("Prop 8? Ha! It doesn't stand a chance now!")

    It was a glorious array of people and families that was a neo-con's nightmare made real. Not just the same-sex aspect; old couples, young, every mix of races and colors you can imagine, little kids in their best clothes to watch their parents tie the knot, an ancient husband-wife couple beaming as their middle-aged daughter wed at last, Jewish wedding songs and neon ostrich-feather fans, laughter and tears.

    But the best part was that after the first 8 or 9 ceremonies? The whole thing became...routine. Dull as any other office work, to everyone except the two people it affected. Next! Same words, yap yap yap, by the authority given me by the state of  California...

    And even then - even with 8 waiting in the wings to steal this joy away for years - I knew that that would be the great eventual death-knell for the opposition. Hard to scare your kids about Gay Marriage heralding the end of civilization when your main visual isn't two strapping nearly-naked leathermen humping on a float but two middle-aged men or women in sweaters and suits signing a form. "Adam and Steve!" "Yeah, whatever Dad. Is Modern Family on yet?"

    “[Sir Arthur Conan Doyle] created Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson - which proves he was way ahead of his time on gay marriage.” - Bill Maher

    by gardnerhill on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 10:00:13 AM PDT

  •  STOP ALREADY (0+ / 0-)

    ""Half of the American public believes gay marriage is a constitutional right.""



    Believing, Feeling, Thinking!!!!

    these CAN NOT be proven in a COURT of LAW


    by Scotus marriage is a fundamental right
    this is not enumerated in the Constitution
    so IT'S protection

    STARTS in the 9th
    ""The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people""

    and is echoed in W.V. v. Barnette

     (cited twice by C.J. Roberts and once by Scalia for a unanimous court)

    also cited in
     N.M. Texas, Utah, Michigan, And Idaho's rulings

      “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights
     was to withdraw certain subjects

     from the vicissitudes of political controversy,

     to place them beyond the reach of majorities
     and officials,
    One's right to life, liberty,
     and property, to free speech,
     a free press, freedom of worship and assembly,

    and other fundamental rights

    may not be submitted to vote;

     they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

    we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization......
    When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.

     Thus a precedent by this court

     Destroyed the Defense of Marriage Act before Congress acted with an irrational fear.

    Now ask Art 1 sec 8 cl 18,

     Art 1 sec 9 Cl 3,
     Art 4 full faith and credit,
     Art 6 made in Pursuance,
    The first's ban on religion,
     the 14's equal protection,

    and as to the states,
     MARRIAGE is a CONTRACT. 1771
     Encyclopedia Britannica.

    Art 1 sec 10 no State .... impair the obligation of such

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site