From the Cornerstone Policy Research-Action:
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.
* * *
Opinion surveys have typically underestimated voter support for state marriage measures and amendments by 10-15% points.
In New Hampshire amendments to the state constitution cannot be initiated by citizen petitions. If a marriage amendment is to appear on the ballot for a direct up or down vote by the People, it will have to be approved first by supermajorities in the state's Legislative Branch.
If public opinion, as measured in opinion surveys, indicates opposition to the merger of SSM with marital status, then, that opposition needs to be heard by legislators so that voters can have the opportunity to approve or to reject the Legislative Branch's reordering of a foundational social institution.
A recent University of New Hampshire Survey Center poll contradicts the findings of the Cornerstone Policy Research-Action poll.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I would rely too heavily on either poll as the actual feelings of New Hampshire are probably somewhere more near the national average which is show a slow but gradual shift toward support for same sex marriage.
Until/unless someone can point me in the direction of some survey data, I'm gonna file this one under "when all else fails, just start making stuff up."
ReplyDeleteVast, campaigns matter and actual votes count. Opinion surveys do not pre-empt either.
ReplyDeleteCB, do as you like. I couldn't care less if SSMers spin themselves into yet another example of misreading public opinion.
The Nashua Telegraph has an interesting article that questions the validity of the CPR poll.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090510/COLUMNISTS12/305109905/-1/columnists
It was also stated in a podcast that they surveyed every single household in NH.
http://www.citizenlink.org/fnif/
However the blog Good As You has received word for many households in NH that were not actually polled.
http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2009/05/show-us-the-data.html
I can say first hand that this poll is a farce. Most of my family lives in New Hampshire and not one of them were polled. This is interesting to point out since my grandfather had 13 brothers and sisters which all had multiple children my parents age. When you go to one of our family picnics we actually have to ask who is related to us since there are hundreds of people there with guests.
ReplyDeleteMore likely this is the desperate attempt to use misinformation to try and stick a finger in the dike where equality is pouring out. Misinformation only works while it is uncaught and ends up backfiring once those who have been decieved find out about it.
The decisive result will be the tally of actual votes on the ballot question.
ReplyDeleteSSMers are free to continue to misread public opinion any which way they choose. Again.
Gary Schneeberger of Focus on the Family has admit that the CPR poll is incorrect.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2009/05/exclusive-fof-admits-nh-poll-is-bunk.html
He did not say the poll was incorrect. He said not all households responded to the poll. I doubt that it's even possible to conduct a poll in which every household is not only contacted, but actually responds. That in itself does not invalidate the poll percentages.
ReplyDeleteWhat is well known is that poll results to date in practically every state have understated the support for real marriage, by about eight points, when compared against the actual votes on referenda or amendments.
Does real and true love between two consenting adults even mean anything to most of you here on Opine? If it actually does you all should be in support of these loving couples who want to show their commitment to each other by marrying.
ReplyDeleteANY two consenting adults? Like a brother and sister, or two brothers or two sisters? And why just two? If three or more all consent, why, by your reasoning not let them marry too?
ReplyDeleteKim, of course love is important in human affairs.
ReplyDeleteWe have often heard SSMers denounce tradition as insufficient reason for this or that marriage law. Yet you are now emphasizing the relatively modern tradition of romance, right?
I don't attack tradition just because it is tradition. But I've seen enough of that sort of thing from those who seek to deinstitutionalize marriage. You may not be among them -- I'd hope not.
I think you are using 'love' as euphemism for same-sex sexual and romantic attraction, right?
Well, we have seen the commonly invoked rule that if (fill-in the blank) is not a legal requirement, then, it is not an essential of marriage.
That is used to attack the centrality of responsible procreation in marriage -- in the specific laws of marriage, as well as in traditions and customs of our culture and of our legal system.
Neither romance nor love are legal requirements. So this rule would defeat the claims made for SSM that are based on romance or love.
If the underlying purpose of emphasizing the tradition of romance is some sexual aspect that is of public significance, ,then, okay, but that then raises the obvious question.
What is the the public significance of same-sex sexual behavior?
There is nothing in the the one-sexed relationship that is comparable with the sexual aspect of the marital presumption of paternity. This sexual aspect is two-sexed, and not sex-neutral, and it makes the public relationship known as 'marriage' a sexual type of public relationship. And that presumption is part and parcel of what consenting adults commit when they say, I do. This is the defeault position in our laws, courts, and culture in general.
The marital presumption's sexual basis is what makes of marriage a public sexual type of relationship.
Now, sure, love runs through our sentimental notions of the good life and of the marital life. But we are also talking about types of relationships and of marriage as a social institution. It is not merely a private arrangement for consenting adults. Society is party to each marriage, afterall.
Marriage has a core meaning -- there are legal requirements that are definitive -- but it does not appear to be the same core meaning as that of SSM.
Indeed, the offered meaning of SSM would pretty much fit just about any of the vast range of nonmarital relationship types and kinds of living arrangemens.
How would you distinguish SSM from these other things? What is essential to SSM that if it were missing you'd know it was not SSM?