- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
AmSpecBlog
Gay Marriage "Bradley Effect"
Before Tuesday's vote on marriage in Maine, CQPolitics ran this piece exploring whether the polls were understating popular support for the "people's veto." As it turned out, they were. One of the more interesting findings: the poll (pdf) that showed the most support for marriage redefinition repeal used an automated message, not live interviewers. This raises the possibility of a "Bradley effect" for gay marriage, where people who believe marriage is between a man and a woman are reluctant to share their real views with pollsters.
Like the overall Maine result, this cuts both ways in the same-sex marriage debate. It suggests that overall public opposition to same-sex marriage may be understated in national polls, raising questions of how much the recent shifts reflect rising support or just the public's sense of what the socially acceptable position is. It also raises questions about marriage polling in places like Massachusetts and New York, where some surveys have shown plurality support for same-sex marriage (this has been true in Massaachusetts for years). Gay rights groups have nevertheless been reluctant to see the issue put on the ballot there, perhaps for good reason.
On the other hand, if voicing an opinion that less than a decade ago wasn't terribly controversial -- the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman -- is now something people are afraid to say to strangers, that doesn't bode well for traditional marriage's long-term prospects. It suggests that the bandwagon effect could work, putting opposition to same-sex marriage in the closet or reducing it to the opinion that dare not speak its name.
Comments
Leave a Comment
- When the Party Was Over
- Obama's Foreign Policy Problems, Personified
- Feeding the Beast
Steve| 11.5.09 @ 3:12PM
What this also suggests is that the issue of same-sex marriage has attained the same status as the issue of race - too toxic to be discussed by most people.
Alan Brooks| 11.5.09 @ 8:07PM
I have nothing against any sex or any marriage; it's all boring and commercialized now. Harmless. Empty.
Big Leo| 11.5.09 @ 3:31PM
I lived in Maine for many years and have many friends there. In my conversations with them, they all said that a real game breaker was the attack on Dave M. (name escapes me) a nominee for Maine teacher of the year whose job was seriously threatened by gay marriage advocates for publicly making a statement about gay marriage. That sort of behavior infuriates Mainers and showed the true face of the gay 'rights' team. It might have even decided the election.
In difficult times, we should all thank G*d for our enemies-- they are so helpful to our cause.
Joe Mustich, JP| 11.5.09 @ 3:51PM
Can I vote on your marriage?
Let's not forget that marriage is firstly a civil matter in America, and that marriage licenses are issued by and recorded in town halls not church halls, or mosques or temples.
And congrats to all the couples who came to CT to wed this summer from all across the country!
Cheers, Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA.
And to the marriage police and sexually phobic, please find something else to do with your time because life's just to short. Find love.
Can I vote on your marriage? (LOL)
Margie| 11.7.09 @ 2:28PM
"Can I vote on your marriage? (LOL)"
~No, but God will vote on all the homosexual "Marriages" you have and will perform.
Lotsa luck!
snootybaronet| 11.5.09 @ 3:56PM
The intimidation tactics of the marriage re-definers backfired. Will the re-definers seek a repeal of the secret ballot so they can unleash their intimidation tactics more effectively?
Pingback| 11.5.09 @ 4:03PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Gay Marriage "Bradley E links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.5.09 @ 4:07PM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Gay Marriage "Bradley Effect" | MyGaySpot links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jason| 11.5.09 @ 4:21PM
Thanks to everyone for trying to be civil. I am glad that everyone on this board is at least respectful. Seriously, why do people who are against gay marriage always try to take these rights away. Outside of you not agreeing with the lifestyle, it's a personal issue that has no implications on any of your lives. We don't tell you can't practice your religion, and we certainly don't tell you how to live your life. There are also protections in the law for religious freedoms, so your religion is not "forced" to recognize or even acknowledge we exist. We're not asking for any special privilleges either, only for the same privilleges that straight people have... to marry the person they love. Which is more than just the marriage document, it's the protections such as surivorship benefits, hospital visitation rights, insurance coverage on a spouses plan, etc. Try to put yourself in the shoes of a gay couple and try to see how taking these rights away would be hurtful and cause more harm to society than good. In a nutshell, all we want is to protect our own families and to live our lives to the fullest. Let us be happy, live our lives, and enjoy the same protections that should be afforded every couple.
Gina| 11.5.09 @ 5:21PM
Jason, thanks for the kind words about protection for our Religious freedoms but I don't believe you. You Liberals lie all of the time to get what you want, and once you do, all bets are off.
We don't want to see our clergy frog-marched off to jail for stating their beliefs during Sunday morning church services.
Maybe if you leftists kept your word it would be a different matter--but you don't. Sorry.
TonyRaskoon| 11.5.09 @ 6:19PM
Christianity now is in peril of having its centuries old position (I know, you think it needs to be updated) on homosexuality classified as "hate speech." The position is not taken without reason.
Homosexuality is now a huge yawn on TV when ever openly presented. A gay is as surprising as a redhead. Popular culture adores gays.
Some of us are trying to preserve marriage as a sacred place where a man and woman can live, love and procreate, raising their children in a family where a mother and father are both wild about them. When gays call their relationships marriage, it belittles marriage as an institution.
Marriage includes the possibility of conceiving children. A homosexual union does not. It may be something that warrants state recognition, but it is not marriage as understood by American Christianity. Call it what you want, but don't call it marriage.
Warren Peace| 11.6.09 @ 8:08AM
Funny. What began as a claim to privacy for homosexual relations (“what two people do behind closed doors is nobody’s business”) has now become a claim to a public recognition under the law for homosexual pairings to have the same trappings, benefits, legitimacy and name of traditional marriage..
I can remember the days when gay activists were first pressing for anti-discrimination laws to protect them in the workplace and in housing. When their opponents posited that codifying these protections would eventually lead to marriage for homosexuals, gay activists RIDICULED them. The words “alarmist”, “hair brained” and “stupid” were used against their critics. Now the notion activists branded foolish trash is supposedly enshrined in the Constitution.
As for assurances that gay marriage would have no further implications, you guys don’t have a good track record.
KS| 11.5.09 @ 9:56PM
In California the only difference between a registered domestic partnership and a marriage is the name of the relationship. The rights or protections that Jason mentioned (survivorship benefits, hospital visitation, etc.) are available to same-sex couples who register as domestic partners.
Same-sex marriage is part of a broader homosexual agenda to push same-sex marriage and homosexuality in public schools, recognize homosexual "heroes" (as in "Harvey Milk Day"), and force Catholic and Christian adoption agencies to violate their beliefs by placing children with same-sex couples. That's why it is opposed, at least by some.
Pingback| 11.5.09 @ 10:02PM
All In One Information » The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Gay Marriage "Bradley links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Michael Dooley| 11.6.09 @ 8:24AM
Like abortion, we are told gays have a “right” to marriage that hitherto no one found in the Constitution before. James Madison must have put it in some fine print somewhere on the document no one had seen in the 220 years before this day.
No one “take away” a right you never had in the first place.