Why do polls show support for gay marriage, when the states keep rejecting it?

[Spoonman]

You are wrong.

Our civil rights are not subject to the 'will of the people.'

neither are constitutional rights but liberals have no problem claiming the will of the people when it suits their agenda.

now that's funny, the repubs bellow that misnomer constantly especially when it's not!

85% of the population want stricter rights infringing gun laws so they should be. remember that one? we're just lucky you found out that number was grossly overstated and you didn't have control of the house. of course the dictator you call president stated he will just bypass legislative president to force through his agenda.

 

[natstew]

"...a new study suggests that opposition to same-sex marriage may be understated in public opinion polls. Using pre-election polling data in states that have voted on same-sex marriage measures, political scientist Richard J. Powell found that pre-election surveys consistently underestimated opposition to these laws by 5 to 7 percentage points."

"Social desirability bias in polling comes in many flavors. Perhaps the most well known is the “Bradley Effect,” named after former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, a black man, who faced Republican George Deukmejian, who was white, in the 1982 California gubernatorial race. Bradley held a substantial lead in most pre-election polls, only to lose narrowly. His defeat fueled speculation that some white voters had given misleading answers to poll-takers, saying they supported Bradley or were undecided but really favored Deukmejian.

"But it wasn’t until 2007 that Harvard political scientist Daniel Hopkins confirmed the existence of the effect. He studied elections between 1989 and 2006 that pitted black and white Senate candidates against each other. He found that the black candidates polled better than their final share of the vote in contests with white candidates in elections through 1996. But the effect then vanished, for reasons that he said were unclear."

Study: Opposition to same-sex marriage may be understated in public opinion polls | Pew Research Center

National polls are skewed to get the results desired. Poll New York City, Chicago, L.S. Austin Texas, Tallahassee, San Francisco, Houston (inside the city limits), Philadelhpia, Boston, and the results will be overwhelmingly in favor of any Liberal idea.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I find it highly unlikely that a shit shoveling shyster such as yourself is capable of comprehending much beyond his own narrow field of vision.

Some of the Worlds greatest legal minds have debated over our Constitution for generations, yet a cum guzzler such as yourself pretends to be an expert.

Quite frankly Norton - Trixie must be ashamed of you

You are wrong.

Our civil rights are not subject to the 'will of the people.'

neither are constitutional rights but liberals have no problem claiming the will of the people when it suits their agenda.

just like the far right reactionaries or conservatives when it suits their strategy

 

[daws101]

neither are constitutional rights but liberals have no problem claiming the will of the people when it suits their agenda.

now that's funny, the repubs bellow that misnomer constantly especially when it's not!

85% of the population want stricter rights infringing gun laws so they should be. remember that one? we're just lucky you found out that number was grossly overstated and you didn't have control of the house. of course the dictator you call president stated he will just bypass legislative president to force through his agenda.

I'do the same thing in his place, knowing that the opposition party had, even before he was elected said openly that they would block ,hinder and oppose everything he did or tried to do...

Here is some history: six top cases of executive privilege since America was born.

George Washington

The early groundwork for an executive claim to secrecy was laid by the nation's first president, in response to the first investigation mounted by the House of Representatives. It came after the U.S. Army's defeat by American Indians in the Battle of the Wabash in 1791 in what is now Ohio. President George Washington and his aides decided not to hand over any papers or materials Congress requested, arguing that the branches of government ought to be separate. Washington eventually relented and provided Congress with copies of the documents it requested.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

President Dwight D. Eisenhower cited executive privilege, then only a concept in precedent, to prevent the Sen. Joseph McCarthy's communist-hunting committee access to transcripts between Army officials and administration officials related to the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954.
The administration argued that the executive branch needed to be able to have candid exchanges when discussing important issues.

Richard Nixon

The most famous invocation of executive privilege -- and the reason its assertion by modern presidents is typically followed by intense scrutiny -- occurred under President Richard Nixon in 1973 and 1974, during his attempt to shield Oval Office recordings from a congressional investigation into the Watergate scandal.

The standoff made its way to the Supreme Court, which, in an 8-0 decision, established the president's legal right to executive privilege, but ruled that the importance of the Watergate investigation outweighed Nixon's claim.

Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan invoked executive privilege three times during his tenure as President, and is often credited with ushering in a new era of government secrecy by limiting Freedom of Information Act requests and imposing severe punishments on whistleblowers.

However, during the Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan waived executive privilege, making his documents, diaries and entire staff available for congressional scrutiny.

Bill Clinton

President Bill Clinton claimed executive privilege a record 14 times, most notably during the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, when Clinton tried to block investigators from asking his aides to testify. A Federal judge struck down Clinton's claim, ruling that administration aides could be called to testify before Congress.

Clinton came under scrutiny for what many saw as a misuse of executive privilege to protect him and his aides form embarrassment when no national security or other public interest was at stake.

George W. Bush

George W. Bush administration[edit]

The Bush administration invoked executive privilege on six occasions.

President George W. Bush first asserted executive privilege to deny disclosure of sought details regarding former Attorney General Janet Reno,[2] the scandal involving Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) misuse of organized-crime informants James J. Bulger and Stephen Flemmi in Boston, and Justice Department deliberations about President Bill Clinton's fundraising tactics, in December 2001.[9]

Bush invoked executive privilege "in substance" in refusing to disclose the details of Vice President Dick Cheney's meetings with energy executives, which was not appealed by the GAO. In a separate Supreme Court decision in 2004, however, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted "Executive privilege is an extraordinary assertion of power 'not to be lightly invoked.' United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7 (1953).

Further, on June 28, 2007, Bush invoked executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas requesting documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor,[10] citing that:


The reason for these distinctions rests upon a bedrock presidential prerogative: for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch.

On July 9, 2007, Bush again invoked executive privilege to block a congressional subpoena requiring the testimonies of Taylor and Miers. Furthermore, White House Counsel Fred F. Fielding refused to comply with a deadline set by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain its privilege claim, prove that the president personally invoked it, and provide logs of which documents were being withheld. On July 25, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee voted to cite Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten for contempt of Congress.[11][12]

On July 13, less than a week after claiming executive privilege for Miers and Taylor, Counsel Fielding effectively claimed the privilege once again, this time in relation to documents related to the 2004 death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman. In a letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Fielding claimed certain papers relating to discussion of the friendly-fire shooting “implicate Executive Branch confidentiality interests” and would therefore not be turned over to the committee.[13]

On August 1, 2007, Bush invoked the privilege for the fourth time in little over a month, this time rejecting a subpoena for Karl Rove. The subpoena would have required the President's Senior Advisor to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a probe over fired federal prosecutors. In a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, Fielding claimed that "Mr. Rove, as an immediate presidential advisor, is immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters that arose during his tenure and that relate to his official duties in that capacity...."[14]

Leahy claimed that President Bush was not involved with the employment terminations of U.S. attorneys. Furthermore, he asserted that the president's executive privilege claims protecting Josh Bolten, and Karl Rove are illegal. The Senator demanded that Bolten, Rove, Sara Taylor, and J. Scott Jennings comply "immediately" with their subpoenas, presumably to await a further review of these matters. This development paved the way for a Senate panel vote on whether to advance the citations to the full Senate. "It is obvious that the reasons given for these firings were contrived as part of a cover up and that the stonewalling by the White House is part and parcel of that same effort", Leahy concluded about these incidents.[15][16][17][18]

As of July 17, 2008, Rove still claimed executive privilege to avoid a congressional subpoena. Rove's lawyer wrote that his client is "constitutionally immune from compelled congressional testimony."[19]

 

[Plasmaball]

neither are constitutional rights but liberals have no problem claiming the will of the people when it suits their agenda.

now that's funny, the repubs bellow that misnomer constantly especially when it's not!

85% of the population want stricter rights infringing gun laws so they should be. remember that one? we're just lucky you found out that number was grossly overstated and you didn't have control of the house. of course the dictator you call president stated he will just bypass legislative president to force through his agenda.

and if such a law passed ( which it has in certain places) it will be challenged and struct down like it should be. It also depends on the context of such a law as well though. Background checks are not an infringement

 

[thanatos144]

Even those of us in a sewer understand our Constitution

I find it highly unlikely that a shit shoveling shyster such as yourself is capable of comprehending much beyond his own narrow field of vision.

Some of the Worlds greatest legal minds have debated over our Constitution for generations, yet a cum guzzler such as yourself pretends to be an expert.

Quite frankly Norton - Trixie must be ashamed of you

You are wrong.

Our civil rights are not subject to the 'will of the people.'

except there is no unequal protection under the law.

 

[Plasmaball]

I find it highly unlikely that a shit shoveling shyster such as yourself is capable of comprehending much beyond his own narrow field of vision.

Some of the Worlds greatest legal minds have debated over our Constitution for generations, yet a cum guzzler such as yourself pretends to be an expert.

Quite frankly Norton - Trixie must be ashamed of you

You are wrong.

Our civil rights are not subject to the 'will of the people.'

except there is no unequal protection under the law.

holy shit you are motherfucking stupid. Te 14th comes to mind right away, and thats ignoring every piece of case law, including last years SCOTUS ruling on the gay lady who couldnt get the same benefits when her partner died.

go roll a boulder over your face, and spare us anymore of your stupidity.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I find it highly unlikely that a shit shoveling shyster such as yourself is capable of comprehending much beyond his own narrow field of vision.

Some of the Worlds greatest legal minds have debated over our Constitution for generations, yet a cum guzzler such as yourself pretends to be an expert.

Quite frankly Norton - Trixie must be ashamed of you

You are wrong.

Our civil rights are not subject to the 'will of the people.'

except there is no unequal protection under the law.

Reread what you posted, Than, please.

 

[Kondor3]

In the long run, this isn't about 'marriage equality'...

It's about legitimizing and mainstreaming homosexuality...

Those who already understand this oppose it...

Those who do not yet understand it will eventually come to that understanding...

Mostly after they've had children of their own...

And contemplate grandchildren...

And reach the conclusion that they don't want that degenerate shit around their kids, either...

And come to the sad conclusion that Mom and Dad were right about such depravity, after all...

 

[Seawytch]

In the long run, this isn't about 'marriage equality'...



It's about legitimizing and mainstreaming homosexuality...



Those who already understand this oppose it...



Those who do not yet understand it will eventually come to that understanding...



Mostly after they've had children of their own...



And contemplate grandchildren...



And reach the conclusion that they don't want that degenerate shit around their kids, either...



And come to the sad conclusion that Mom and Dad were right about such depravity, after all...

No, it's really about marriage equality...and bigotry like yours is the minority.

 

[AceRothstein]

In the long run, this isn't about 'marriage equality'...

It's about legitimizing and mainstreaming homosexuality...

Those who already understand this oppose it...

Those who do not yet understand it will eventually come to that understanding...

Mostly after they've had children of their own...

And contemplate grandchildren...

And reach the conclusion that they don't want that degenerate shit around their kids, either...

And come to the sad conclusion that Mom and Dad were right about such depravity, after all...

Nope, most people don't find anything wrong with homosexuality at all.

 

[thanatos144]

You are wrong.

Our civil rights are not subject to the 'will of the people.'

except there is no unequal protection under the law.

holy shit you are motherfucking stupid. Te 14th comes to mind right away, and thats ignoring every piece of case law, including last years SCOTUS ruling on the gay lady who couldnt get the same benefits when her partner died.

go roll a boulder over your face, and spare us anymore of your stupidity.

I am sorry do you mean if I wanted to in my state of Florida I could marry a man where as a homosexual cannot? Fact is you dishonest ignorant piece of shit the law applies do ALL PEOPLE.

 

[thanatos144]

In the long run, this isn't about 'marriage equality'...

It's about legitimizing and mainstreaming homosexuality...

Those who already understand this oppose it...

Those who do not yet understand it will eventually come to that understanding...

Mostly after they've had children of their own...

And contemplate grandchildren...

And reach the conclusion that they don't want that degenerate shit around their kids, either...

And come to the sad conclusion that Mom and Dad were right about such depravity, after all...

Nope, most people don't find anything wrong with homosexuality at all.

No most people tolerate it....That isnt the same as finding nothing wrong with it.

 

[Howey]

It's about legitimizing and mainstreaming homosexuality...

I know....


Isn't that just plain fucking great!!!!!!

 

[Plasmaball]

except there is no unequal protection under the law.

holy shit you are motherfucking stupid. Te 14th comes to mind right away, and thats ignoring every piece of case law, including last years SCOTUS ruling on the gay lady who couldnt get the same benefits when her partner died.

go roll a boulder over your face, and spare us anymore of your stupidity.

I am sorry do you mean if I wanted to in my state of Florida I could marry a man where as a homosexual cannot? Fact is you dishonest ignorant piece of shit the law applies do ALL PEOPLE.

i just dont........ugh what a waste of life you are.
Everyone is supposed to be equal under the law. Gay marriage amendments violate that law.
Deal with it

 

[thanatos144]

holy shit you are motherfucking stupid. Te 14th comes to mind right away, and thats ignoring every piece of case law, including last years SCOTUS ruling on the gay lady who couldnt get the same benefits when her partner died.

go roll a boulder over your face, and spare us anymore of your stupidity.

I am sorry do you mean if I wanted to in my state of Florida I could marry a man where as a homosexual cannot? Fact is you dishonest ignorant piece of shit the law applies do ALL PEOPLE.

i just dont........ugh what a waste of life you are.
Everyone is supposed to be equal under the law. Gay marriage amendments violate that law.
Deal with it

LOL look at you getting tongue tied when the truth is told. You are such a dishonest hack.

 

[Spoonman]

You are wrong.

Our civil rights are not subject to the 'will of the people.'

neither are constitutional rights but liberals have no problem claiming the will of the people when it suits their agenda.

just like the far right reactionaries or conservatives when it suits their strategy

I don't reacall republicans trying to change the constitution

well except for things like giving blacks rights and freedoms and stuff like that

 

[thanatos144]

neither are constitutional rights but liberals have no problem claiming the will of the people when it suits their agenda.

just like the far right reactionaries or conservatives when it suits their strategy

I don't reacall republicans trying to change the constitution

Don't mind fakey....He isn't a republican he just plays one on message boards and badly at that.

 

[Plasmaball]

I am sorry do you mean if I wanted to in my state of Florida I could marry a man where as a homosexual cannot? Fact is you dishonest ignorant piece of shit the law applies do ALL PEOPLE.

i just dont........ugh what a waste of life you are.
Everyone is supposed to be equal under the law. Gay marriage amendments violate that law.
Deal with it

LOL look at you getting tongue tied when the truth is told. You are such a dishonest hack.

the day you ever speak the truth.thank you for not being able to refute my point.

 

[Plasmaball]

neither are constitutional rights but liberals have no problem claiming the will of the people when it suits their agenda.

just like the far right reactionaries or conservatives when it suits their strategy

I don't reacall republicans trying to change the constitution

well except for things like giving blacks rights and freedoms and stuff like that

well besides Bush pushing for an amendment on banning gay marriage, but yes you are totally right!

fuck you for being this stupid.

edit: and this doesnt even include the 20 or so states that did change their constitution banning gay marriage.