NJ voters, by a slim 49-46 percent margin, oppose a law that would allow same-sex marriages, according to a survey released today by Quinnipiac University. Democrats supported same-sex unions by 60-34 percent, independents supported it by 49-45 percent, and Republicans opposed it 69-25 percent.
The result is the opposite of a similar survey the university did in April, in which 49-43 percent were in support of same-sex marriages.
The poll comes in the wake of Montclair Township's Council's failure to unanimously endorse same-sex marriages last week.
Among voters who gave same-sex marriages the thumbs-up, 74 percent say the State Legislature should pass the measure now, so Gov. Jon Corzine can sign it.
Maurice Carroll, director of the independent Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said "If the State Legislature is going to pass it, voters say, do it while Gov. Jon Corzine - a supporter - is still in office. Governor-elect Christopher Christie has said he'd veto it."
When Governor-elect Christie selects or reappoints justices to NJ's Supreme Court, he should consider appointees' qualifications, not their views on controversial issues, voters say 54-40 percent.
It appears NJ's younger voters are more liberal. Those aged 18 to 34 years old support same-sex marriage 63-34 percent, those aged 35 to 54 years old were split 47-47 percent, while voters above 55 oppose the measure 56-37 percent.
From November 17-22, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,615 NJ voters, with a margin of error of +/- 2.4 percentage points. The Quinnipiac University Poll conducts public opinion surveys at state and national levels as a public service and for research.
What does Baristaville think?
(Picture/http://www.flickr.com/photos/doxiehaus/3018087812/)
Digg
Delicious
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Twitter
Email
Comments (30)
These polls and this ad hoc way this issue is being "debated" is sad.
I've said this many times: I wish the folks behind the marriage equity movement studied the civil rights movement. Had they, they would have learned that going State-by-State seeking rights is bound to fail AND create an inequitable and unworkable system-- which is what we have now.
Moreover, it allows OPPONENTS to organize and fight it. (So when it does get to the Supreme Court, opponents can point to many states where the citizens have had their say....)
I think of the Brown case. I think of the Loving Case) which was the anti-miscegenation case that legalized inter-racial marriage in the US.)
It's a shame we now have a Fed Law- Clinton's Defense of Marriage, which allows a State to NOT honor a contract-- Marriage License- from another State. And a President who is doing nothing to end this despite his "words."
I was slow to the cause here. And I am sorry about that.
But I cannot stand how this single issue, which mirrors those of the Civil Rights era, is being (mis)handled.
But then again, the President is against "Gay" Marriage, so what did we expect?
There are really only two positions on this subject I understand.
1) Yes, gays should be able to marry
2) I don't give a crap
The Prof's post above (and the sign in the picture the Baristas used) pretty much says it all.
Indubitably, Rob. I concur.
This New Yorker cartoon also sums it up.
marr? hahaha.
But then again, the President is against "Gay" Marriage, so what did we expect?
He's not against gay marriage. He just knows that, sadly, this is a losing issue for the democrats and he has the 2010 elections to worry about. I agree that this is a civil rights issue. The courts may also eventually decide the issue on a 14th amendment basis.
So the Rev. [sic] Walter L. Parrish thinks that "it’s really hard for many people in our community to embrace another set or a differing set of human rights... with [their own] agenda still unfinished," does he? That's very sad, for all parties concerned. No equal rights for you, until I get mine?
'Reverent' people should be at the forefront of supporting basic human rights for all.
"He's not against gay marriage."
So, when Obama says "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." It's a lie. But it's an honorable lie, you see? Not a cynical pander, It's honorable because he's got other things to worry about. And when some Republicans say the same thing word for word, it's really bad, because even though they're not lying they're not lying for all the wrong reasons.
How many Republicans say these things?
Why would you believe him, tudlow. We've clearly established that he's lying on the issue.
Because I'm a suckah, I guess. And I'll show a little patience.
That's what pandering depends upon...one every minute.
p.s. and proponents of Gay Marriage are going to learn that lesson in New Jersey. With a lame duck (nothing to lose) and a supposedly committed liberal legislature, there is absolutely not reason under the sun the marriage bill cannot be passed before Corzine is out of office.
Think it will pass?
lame duck (nothing to lose) Governor and a supposedly committed...
Mike,
Nice try.
And typical of how Libs insist on saying what Obama "really means..."
CANDIDATE Obama- who was not looking to the 2010 elections said this:
"As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples - whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage."
And this:
"I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."
Spin it all you like, he does not support Gay Marriage.
And what happened to overturning the Defense of Marriage Act? And "Don't Ask Don't Tell"?
Nothing.
This guys IS NOT supportive of gay issues because on the 3 most important ones, he's silent or doesn't support them.
Also, he can't blame Bush for this one.
No, it probably won't and it's a dismal thing.
I also heard yesterday that crimes against sexual orientation have risen 11% in 2008.
I suppose activism, some progress on gay equality and media attention have provoked the ire of the bigots.
Re: Obama, I think time will tell and he still has some time. He hasn't even finished his first year.
Those statistics are self-reported.
Not every agency reports every year. The FBI itself says:
"Overall, the 2008 numbers are up slightly—7,783 incidents and 9,691 victims (including individuals, businesses, and institutions) were reported to us by our law enforcement partners across the country. But a note here: our Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program doesn’t report trends in hate crime stats—yearly increases or decreases often occur because the number of agencies who report to us varies from year to year."
Also see this.
Hopefully we can prevent your "suckah-ness" on this issue.
tudlow,
If Obama doesn't BELIEVE in same sex marriage, why does he need more time?
Isn't he the guy who borrowed Gov. Patrick's claim: "Just Words?"
Seriously, you can HOPE that there is some CHANGE in his thinking. But his words have been consistent.
And his actions are louder than ever.
So, when do we get our first gay president and his first husband?
(or first gay president and her first lady?)
1861
ROC, I know, I know. Don't take my self deprecating sarcasm as an indication that I don't critically read reports or stories on Huffington or the Drudge Report. The data is not statistically sound and prevents one from drawing a conclusion that crimes against gays is on the rise. But the voting trends in this country unequivocally show that the country opposes gay marriage.
I always get this feeling that you see yourself as a beacon of reason that is lighting the way for all of the liberal fools. Do you go to bed each night and think, "Mission Accomplished! All those Baristanet readers were enlightened yet again by my brilliance!"
Prof, it's disappointing to me that Obama doesn't (or at least states he doesn't) believe in gay marriage. It's the whole God thing in this country. Whatev. But, I still think DOMA could be overturned (see below).
I'm sure you and ROC think I'm a fool for not believing it's a bunch of BS. But time will tell.
Yes, and it's time to start cooking. No kale chips, though.
Have a Happy Thanksgiving.
"Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said that President Obama “has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) couples from being granted equal rights and benefits," she said. "However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system."
crimes against gays is
I mean crimes against gays are. Subject-verb agreement--very important.
Leave it to ROC to split hairs. Let me rephrase:
First OPENLY gay president with very VISIBLE significant other of the SAME sex.
" But the voting trends in this country unequivocally show that the country opposes gay marriage."
So obviously you though (since you already knew the stats were bogus) that you'd cite them anyway as evidence of bigotry on the rise. Thus fitting your preconceived notion that bigots are voting against and bashing gays.
I get it.
Sort of like a climate scientist at East Anglia University - decide the conclusion and work backwards with the data...
So obviously you thought...
My God, as if you are objective when it comes to climate science. Your libertarian bent precludes any possibility of you fairly evaluating the data.
Being a libertarian means you can't fairly evaluate scientific data?
I disagree.
But I will say it's hard for anyone to "fairly evaluate" data if it's cooked up and deleted as was done at East Anglia. (one of the leading research centers upon which a good deal of IPCC's conclusions rest).
But it's ok, the truth eventually outs. There will be hearings in the UK and probably here.
No, not in general but most certainly when it comes to global warming or climate change or whatever you want to call it.
It's a common sentiment.
Yes, I trust the scientific process, too. There does exist a scientific consensus on the matter that is supported by a mountain of evidence. If the consensus is wrong because of bias, however, the truth will come out; science is self-correcting.
But I will say it's hard for anyone to "fairly evaluate" data if it's cooked up and deleted as was done at East Anglia. (one of the leading research centers upon which a good deal of IPCC's conclusions rest).
And how did the East Anglia emails skew the MIT study released in May that said unless we reduce greenhouse emissions now, the warming will be worse than originally thought?