Sunday, November 08, 2009 Last Update:11:25 am ET

Society|Thu, Aug. 28 2008 09:00 AM EDT

Poll: California Voters Oppose Ban on Gay 'Marriage,' Split on Attitude

By Judy Lin|Associated Press Writer

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A majority of California voters oppose a ballot initiative to ban gay "marriage," though they are evenly split on the practice itself, according to a poll released Wednesday.

The ballot question essentially will ask voters to prohibit the practice of same-sex "marriage," which was approved this year by the California Supreme Court.

The discrepancy between voters' general attitudes against gay "marriage" and their position on banning it could be explained by a hesitancy to remove a constitutional right, said Mark Baldassare, president and chief executive of the Public Policy Institute of California, which conducted the poll.

A majority of likely voters, 54 percent, oppose ending gay "marriage," compared with 40 percent who support it, the poll said. The result is similar to the findings of a Field Poll in July, which found that 51 percent of likely California voters opposed ending gay "marriage," while 42 percent said they supported it.

But when it comes to general attitudes about gay "marriage," voters in the Public Policy Institute poll are evenly split, at 47 percent for and against — as they have been for the past three years.

"It's early in the campaign season, and in the end the vote on this measure ... could be hard to predict," Baldassare said. "Overall views on gay marriage have not budged."

The Public Policy Institute began asking voters how they feel about gay "marriage" in 2000, the year voters approved an initiative to ban same-sex "marriage" but did not enshrine it in the Constitution. That year, the poll found 55 percent opposed to gay "marriage" and 38 percent in favor.

In May, the state Supreme Court ruled the 2000 initiative unconstitutional, opening the door to same-sex weddings throughout the state.

The new poll indicates that those opposed to gay "marriage" will have to mobilize voters if they are to be successful in November, Baldassare said.

"The burden is always on the yes side to convince people there is good reason to vote for the measure," he said.

The institute surveyed 2,001 California residents, including 1,047 likely voters, in English and Spanish from Aug. 12 to 19. The poll has a margin of sampling of error of 2 percentage points for all residents and 3 percentage points for likely voters.

Associated Press writer Lisa Leff in San Francisco contributed to this report.

Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
  • Sun Sep 28, 2008 5:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Nope...can't say i do.

  • Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, no Jonah not Noah was the prophet who was swallowed by a great fish and lived to tell the story, but I suppose you don't believe that either?

  • Sun Sep 28, 2008 9:22 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I do, but both served a purpose which was people witnessed it and saw the power of God. Noah living to 1,000 years old does not serve a point other than to tell a "fish this big" story.

  • Sat Sep 27, 2008 11:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, Jesus was dead and placed in the grave and they had no ability to bring Him back to life, His friend Lazarus was in the grave for 4 days and Christ brought him back to life. Both Christ and Lazarus without the help of medical science or technology rose from the dead. Do you personally believe that these really took place?

  • Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Jesus was the Son of God! He died at a normal age, and we bring people back to life all the time (through de-fibs, of course.) At what point, regardless of what you blame on sin, do your bones simply begin to become brittle and your skin sags too much for you to move anymore? I'd say around 100, your body is just about toast.

  • Sat Sep 27, 2008 8:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, what do you believe are true happenings in the Bible, since you seem to believe a majority of the accounts in the Book of Genesis are simply stories, do you believe that not only did Christ died on the cross for us but that He physically rose from the dead? If so, tell me which is more hard to believe that Jesus physically rose from the dead or people lived to be hundreds of years old as recorded in the Old Testament?

  • Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ...and yet you continue? Again, if you want to believe that, fine, but to me it sounds like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

  • Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, I would encourage to read Genesis 5 where it gives some of the ages of humans prior to Noah's Flood. Plus, after the flood the life expectancy started to decrease dramatically because prior to the flood there was a vapor canopy that gave all the earth a very tropical climate but as a result of the Flood that canopy was lifted and we began the various climates we have now which many believe has had a negative effect on our life expectancy.

  • Sat Sep 27, 2008 4:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Are you for real? It was possible to live to be almost 1,000 years old?!? Regardless of how pure you eat, how much you exercise, your body still ages. If you believe in that, fine, but to me you have just lost your credibility.

  • Sat Sep 27, 2008 11:14 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, sin has consequences and some of the consequences of sin have had an enormous impact on all of creation. Noah lived at a time where those consequences were still relatively minimal, so it was very feasible for people to live that long. But for the past several thousand years not only have those consequences become more traumatic, but add to that the greed and selfishness of all mankind and it increases the consequences of sin even more. But for a moment imagine a perfect world with no sin and all creation living not only in harmony with one another but wholeheartedly loving and obeying God. No pollution, no war, no greed, no exploitation, no disease, and most importantly no physical death. That is how God created the world originally, but thanks to sin that world no longer exists and we in our day and age reap few if any of the positive consequences of God's original creation as opposed to Noah's generation who apparently still benefitted from those consequences. Granted with the help of medical science our health is improving, but chances are will never be as good as it was in Noah's day.

  • Sat Sep 27, 2008 8:51 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    OK, you officially just lost me. God did not create our bodies (or we didn't evolve) to live that old, regardless of how well we eat or if we had the world's best medicine. Those are both STORIES and you are choosing those to be taken literally. I really don't get why you can't take them figuratively and look at the messages behind them (i.e. total faith in God, God's role in our lives)

  • Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, 100 years ago very few if any people would believe that one day we would land on the moon, but we did and were mere human beings in comparison to God, so why do we think that God can't create the world as we know it in six literal 24 hour days, but yes there are many things recorded in God's Word that are hard to believe and that is where faith comes in and believing God at His word. By the way Noah was 950 years old when he died.

  • Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    OK believer, so I don't understand how you're going to take that God made this entire world into existence in 6 days or that Noah lived for 120 years then survived a flood and boat ride with all those animals? That to me seems harder to believe than that God has always existed and always will

  • Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, yes you can, but with regards to Noah building the Ark remember it took him 120 years to build it, so he could indeed built it just as God instructed him to and as the Bible records he did. Plus, please don't think I am saying that everything in the Bible should be taken literally because there are definitely some parts that should not, but I believe with all my heart that the Bible is literally the Word of God.

  • Fri Sep 26, 2008 7:52 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    If you read it to be factual, yes. If you read it as a story in which God's role is placed in creation, that's fine. I believe his role in creation was in evolution and making that kick into play. Noah's Ark is a whole different story...could you imagine a ship with 2 of every animal built by 1 man in enough time to withstand a great flood? Must have been some carpenter! I think you can believe the Bible without taking everything literally.

  • Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, I should have noted that there were some major geographic changes as a result of the worldwide flood that occurred in Noah's time.

  • Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, no because God's Word is clear that He created the world as we know it in literally six 24 hour days.

  • Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:08 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Right, but the same could be said for evolution as well!

  • Thu Sep 25, 2008 8:25 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, by human logic, yes, but by God's logic it makes perfect sense.

  • Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:26 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    But on the flip side, the creation story leaves many holes for logic.

  • Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, it was never my intention to convince you to believe the creation account as recorded in God's Word since only God's Holy Spirit can do that. But to believe in evolution leaves many unanswered questions with regards to God's plan and relationship for and with mankind.

  • Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Sorry, you just haven't sold me that the creation story was real. There are too many holes in the logic to make it real, whereas Darwin was way closer and I think there is a clear place of God's work in evolution.

  • Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, yes God can and as recorded in the Bible has changed His mind, but we can never assume that unless we have solid biblical substantiation to support that. But also realize that some of these so-called changes of God's mind were driven by the impact of and the consequences of sin.

  • Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:26 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So God can change his mind on issues...allowing them at one point, banning them at another?

  • Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, not since God told Moses to forbid the practice of close relatives marrying each other through the Levitical Laws.

  • Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So then the Bible condones incest?

  • Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, but I do Abraham married his half sister, Genesis 20:12. Sarai was his sister by his father but not by his mother. And we read no where that Isaac was born with any birth defects.

  • Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You have NO scriptural basis to back up any of that, so you're making yourself sound even more rediculous.

  • Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:46 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, genetically Adam and Eve were perfect and likely would have produced genetically perfect children who could indeed marry each other without fear of birth defects in their children. Because of sin the genetic make-up of mankind began to degenerate which meant close relatives could no longer marry for fear they would produce children with birth defects. That is why Cain could marry his sister and why God told Moses to outlaw it and that is where and when the term and practice of incest is acknowledged as a forbidden practice.

  • Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:34 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ...from the beginning of this discussion you said God allowed incest to happen for the case of Adam and Eve's children so they could replicate. If they were truly human, they would have produced children with birth defects, or God would have created multiple people at once so they wouldn't have incestuous relationships. The creation story simply has too many holes to be anything more than it was meant to be: An attempt to introduce the idea that God has been around for all time and that he created us. Again, I do believe he created us, but I believe he willed evolution and it happened over millions of years.

  • Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, I was talking to what you stated was the reason for forbidding incest was due to the high probability of giving birth to deformed babies. Because from the beginning of our discussion that is why God told Moses to forbid this practice.

  • Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Say that last part again? You "shared" that incest was only if the siblings are married, and attempted to make it that Cain and Abel were temporarily allowed to knock up their sisters without any repercussions. Your argument is quite lacking.

  • Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:59 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, and from the beginning of this discussion your view of why incest is forbidden was what I shared all along.

  • Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:57 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, close but no cigar, yes God can change His mind, but without biblical support as you have for the issue of incest you are in essence playing God to declare He's changed His mind about an issue that has no biblical teaching to support that change.

  • Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Nope, not at all actually...you do not need to be married to have an incestuous relationship...incest became illegal because it was shown to cause birth defects, not because someone arbitrarily decided brothers shouldn't marry their sisters. Therefore, if you truly believe God made it OK for Cain to have sex with a sister then decided it would no longer be OK, then you prove God changes his mind, and perhaps he thought it was wrong to have gay sex but has since changed his mind. You really can't have it both ways and say "Well that's just the Bible saying it!" because that makes no sense!

  • Fri Sep 19, 2008 2:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, I believe you may have shortened the definition a wee bit, let's hear the whole definition. Because you either left out words like "to marry legally" or it was referring to sex with a child/adolescent and a closely related adult.

  • Fri Sep 19, 2008 1:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Funny, my websters also defines it as "intercourse between closely related persons." I'd say mother-son or brother-sister would be closely related!

  • Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, please cite what you use as a source document to define incest, I used Webster's Dictionary?

  • Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:27 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Incest is incest whether you're married or not. I don't know why you're making excuses, it makes the story sound even less believable.

  • Fri Sep 19, 2008 8:57 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, incest, sexual intercourse between persons to closely related to marry legally. When Cain and Abraham married it was not illegal for them to marry, so it was not incest.

  • Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ...its still incest, now you're making this story even more unbelievable just so you won't have to question your faith.

  • Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, but you fail to keep in mind that many things that God declares sin are not so much a sin because of the act as much as because of the consequences. Once again with regards to close relatives marrying and have sexual intimacy with one another is a good example. Abraham married his half sister and not until about 400 years later did God give Moses the law forbiding this practice. In the case of Cain and Abel they could have married their sisters with God's approval and without producing deformed offspring.

  • Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:38 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So they slept with their sisters instead of their mother? Thats still incest.

  • Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:38 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, how about they married their sisters as opposed to having sex with their mother since the Bible does not necessarily record the names of all Adam and Eve's children. And the primary reason we aren't to marry siblings or close relatives is due to the birth defect problems that occur in their children.

  • Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    If Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel, at some point, Cain or Abel would have had to have sex with Eve (their mother) in order to reproduce.

  • Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, incestuous?

  • Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Who knows, but just because we don't have the answers to those questions doesn't mean we should discount science for a story about God snapping his fingers, making things, then saying "hey, that was cool!" I really think that story makes everything simplistic, not to mention incestuous.

  • Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, that's possible but at what point does man become created in the image of God which is referred to in both the Old and New Testament? And with evolution when does man become man? I mean which link between ape and man as we are today would be considered man in the image of God?

  • Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    God couldn't have just chosen to give people free will as their minds evolved?

  • Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike2685, here's what I see as the problem I have with not taking the creation story as presented in the Bible literally. If death and destruction are the result of sin as the Bible teaches they are then where does sin enter the equation if evolution is true? If Adam and Eve are fictional characters then are Cain and Abel as well and who else or what other stories in the Bible are either fictional characters or myths? And when do we get to the place in the Bible when God finally starts telling the truth? Plus, when God looks out on His creation and saw that it was ALL very good, is that just a story and if not then God lied since death and destruction were already a part of our world. And let's face it neither those who support evolution or theistic evolution or those who support creationism can at this point in time prove beyond the shadow of a doubt how life originated. So for me personally believing in creationism as presented in the Bible not only has serious scientific implications, but serious spiritual implications as well. Needless to say I'm not expecting you to answer all my concerns, but I just wanted to share part of the reason I choose to accept creationism and not evolution or theistic evolution.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links