More Than 7 in 10 Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage

[Anti Federalist]

More Than 7 in 10 Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-sex-marriage/

KATHERINE HAMILTON 6 Jun 2023

More than 70 percent of Americans say same-sex marriage should be legal, up from 27 percent in 1996 and matching last year’s percentage, a new Gallup News poll found.

“When Gallup first polled about same-sex marriage in 1996, barely a quarter of the public (27 percent) supported legalizing such unions. It would take another 15 years, until 2011, for support to reach the majority level,” according to the poll report. “Then in 2015, just one month before the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision, public support for legalizing gay marriage cracked the 60 percent level. In 2021, it reached the 70 percent mark for the first time and has been there each of the past three years.”

Gallup has found an increase across all major subgroups over time in support for same-sex marriage. The report specified that majorities of all but two key subgroups — Republicans (49 percent) and weekly church goers (41 percent) — say gay marriages should be legally recognized.

Republican support for same-sex marriage has waffled around 50 percent since 2020 and reached slim majorities in 2021 and 2022. As for weekly church goers, Gallup News found that they are also more supportive of same-sex marriage than they have been in the past, but their level of support has remained steady since 2018.

Unsurprisingly, adults ages 18 to 29 (89 percent), Democrats (84 percent), and infrequent churchgoers (83 percent) are most likely to support legal same-sex marriage.

“Among many groups — including older adults, Protestants and residents of the South — perspectives on gay marriage have gone from majority opposition to majority support over the course of Gallup’s trend spanning more than a quarter of a century,” according to the poll report. “But two groups remain holdouts on the issue, with Republicans evenly divided on the legality of same-sex unions and weekly churchgoers maintaining their position against it.”

The survey was conducted from May 1-24 with 1,011 adults living in the U.S. The margin of sampling error is ±4 percent at the 95 percent confidence level.

[Working Poor]

I don't care about same sex marriage at all that does not mean I support it. I think a lot of people are in that boat. I am sick of lgbtqrst being in my face all the time.

[Anti Federalist]

And that is where the Marxist mind $#@! started, 30 years ago.





Those are not married couples.

Those are queeer roommates with a co-masturbation agreement.

Those are not marriages.

But they forced us under penalty of law to make believe that they were.

And now, for all intents and purposes, they are.

The Marxist left is about three quarters of the way towards doing the same thing with trans queeers now.

They have just started the next phase, pedophilia and snuff.

That's not the world I want for my children and grandchildren.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't care about same sex marriage at all that does not mean I support it. I think a lot of people are in that boat. I am sick of lgbtqrst being in my face all the time.

You have to care about it and reject it.

See post 3.

We were all duped.

This was never about "please, just leave us in peace to love and marry who we want in our own homes".

This has always been a carefully planned and brilliantly brutal exercise in Marxist political will and domination: an exercise to shred not only the fabric of a nation and society but to utterly shred the minds of it's citizens as well.

They forced us to first accept the absurd.

They are now finishing the effort of forcing us to accept the insane.

Shortly, starting now, they will begin to force us to accept the abominable.

I'm convinced the malaise and deaths of so many young people, across all segments of society, are rooted in this.

Call it: sniffing gloom.

They see and sense and smell the stench of corruption all around, and our weak capitulation to it, and give up all hope and the very desire to live.

[jkr]

Why?

[Working Poor]

You have to care about it and reject it.

See post 3.

We were all duped.

This was never about "please, just leave us in peace to love and marry who we want in our own homes".

This has always been a carefully planned and brilliantly brutal exercise in Marxist political will and domination: an exercise to shred not only the fabric of a nation and society but to utterly shred the minds of it's citizens as well.

They forced us to first accept the absurd.

They are now finishing the effort of forcing us to accept the insane.

Shortly, starting now, they will begin to force us to accept the abominable.

I'm convinced the malaise and deaths of so many young people, across all segments of society, are rooted in this.

Call it: sniffing gloom.

They see and sense and smell the stench of corruption all around, and our weak capitulation to it, and give up all hope and the very desire to live.

I know what it is about. I have seen this stuff coming for years every since a gay couple lived next door to me when I was 5 years old in 1960

[PAF]

Those surveys are biased and don't seem to include the specifics of why. If you ask people WHY they support it, (like I have on occasion) answers like "they can do what they want", "it's none of my business what they do", or "tax breaks".


2022 Tax Brackets for married couples filing jointly:

37% for incomes over $628,300
35% for incomes over $418,850
32% for incomes over $329,850
24% for incomes over $172,750
22% for incomes over $81,050
12% for incomes over $19,900
10% for incomes over $19,050


Once you change the questions, watch how fast the responses change:

1. If you have children, and something were to happen to you and your spouse, and your children were forced to live in another home, would you want A) male and female, B) male and male, C) female and female, D) trans and lgbtq.

2. If/when you watch adult content for your own entertainment, do you prefer A) male and female, B) male and male, C) female and female, D) trans and lgbtq.

[Anti Federalist]

Why?

To infect an entire populace with a mind virus that will ultimately destroy them.

[tod evans]

I'll call BS on 70%

Maybe 70% of their audience who were surveyed but not the regular folks.

[Anti Federalist]

I know what it is about. I have seen this stuff coming for years every since a gay couple lived next door to me when I was 5 years old in 1960

Didn't mean to "jump" on you.

[acptulsa]

2022 Tax Brackets for married couples filing jointly:

37% for incomes over $628,300
35% for incomes over $418,850
32% for incomes over $329,850
24% for incomes over $172,750
22% for incomes over $81,050
12% for incomes over $19,900
10% for incomes over $19,050

The IRS is one driving factor. The medical industrial complex is another. How many workplace insurance plans cover spouses, but not "partners"?

[PAF]

The IRS is one driving factor. The medical industrial complex is another. How many workplace insurance plans cover spouses, but not "partners"?

True that. And for those who do cover "partners", the plan rates are crazy expensive, which coerces them to marry. Time to review the WEF Signatory list again to see how many more are on board with this.

[RJB]

Marriage is definitely one of the 4 olds that they despise.

[unknown]

Bull$#@!.

[oyarde]

I wouldnt say yes if someone asked me if i support someone else's marriage . I used to be kind of dont ask dont tell on the gays. I've lost my patience.

[Brian4Liberty]

The IRS is one driving factor. The medical industrial complex is another. How many workplace insurance plans cover spouses, but not "partners"?

Aka government (and their corporate partners). Government should not be in the business of marriage at all.

[Brian4Liberty]

You have to care about it and reject it.

See post 3.

We were all duped.

This was never about "please, just leave us in peace to love and marry who we want in our own homes".

This has always been a carefully planned and brilliantly brutal exercise in Marxist political will and domination: an exercise to shred not only the fabric of a nation and society but to utterly shred the minds of it's citizens as well.
...

It as both, as usual. Plenty of useful idiots and those who are duped, along with a very organized Marxist core.

People are now finally waking up to the Marxist plans behind all of the division and hate, disguised as “love” and “acceptance”, that is sown by the left leadership (and their rent seeking friends and hustlers).

[PAF]

It as both, as usual. Plenty of useful idiots and those who are duped, along with a very organized Marxist core.

People are now finally waking up to the Marxist plans behind all of the division and hate, disguised as “love” and “acceptance”, that is sown by the left leadership (and their rent seeking friends and hustlers).

BUT, only if/when it suits their own ideology. Try telling those same folks that marriage "licenses" should not be government issued at all, and see if they themselves will forgo the "tax-savings" bracket.

Waking, woke... they still love government.

[acptulsa]

BUT, only if/when it suits their own ideology. Try telling those same folks that marriage "licenses" should not be government issued at all, and see if they themselves will forgo the "tax-savings" bracket.

Waking, woke... they still love government.

But without government, who will bleed y--er, I mean make you take a blood test to ensure you don't infect the person you've been boinking for six months?

[Anti Federalist]

But without government, who will bleed y--er, I mean make you take a blood test to ensure you don't infect the person you've been boinking for six months?

Boinking?

These $#@!ing retards don't know how to use their genitals to piss, let alone get laid.

This whole uptight $#@!-show we're living in would benefit from a "right jolly rogering".

I know I sure as hell would.

[Sonny Tufts]

Government should not be in the business of marriage at all.

Sometimes it's necessary for the law to determine who someone's spouse is. For example, if someone dies without a will who gets his property? Most states have statutes that say the decedent's spouse and/or children get it. It's no answer to say the decedent should have had a will, because people die every day without one. So unless the property should go to whoever seizes it first some law has to determine who the legal recipient is.

Other statutes say that a surviving spouse has a claim for damages if a third party wrongfully kills his or her spouse (no such claim was recognized at common law). Many other laws (e.g. filing joint tax returns) have reference to spouses.

The legal issue is whether the government can refuse to legally recognize same-sex couples as spouses while granting such recognition to opposite-sex couples. So far no one has been able to give a cogent reason why it should be able to do so.

The hand-wringing arguments posted so far are about as compelling as those given to support anti-miscegenation laws ("God decreed the separation of the races!" "Allowing interracial marriage will corrupt the blood and lead to a mongrel breed of citizens.” "The offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate.” "Interracial marriages are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good.” "Interracial marriage would lead to the father living with his daughter, the son with the mother, and the Turk or Mohammedan, with his numerous wives, establishing his harem at the doors of the capitol.”) In case anyone thinks these are made-up claims, they are actually paraphrases of real ones. See https://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/wp-...2/johnson1.pdf at pages 280-282.

[AngryCanadian]

According to the poll only 70% democrats support Same Sex Marriage.

[69360]

Support is a strong word. Tolerate or don't care either way is probably better. I don't care what adults do. The far left crossed a large red line for me when it came to drugs and surgery on kids.

[Brian4Liberty]

Sometimes it's necessary for the law to determine who someone's spouse is. For example, if someone dies without a will who gets his property? Most states have statutes that say the decedent's spouse and/or children get it. It's no answer to say the decedent should have had a will, because people die every day without one. So unless the property should go to whoever seizes it first some law has to determine who the legal recipient is.

Other statutes say that a surviving spouse has a claim for damages if a third party wrongfully kills his or her spouse (no such claim was recognized at common law). Many other laws (e.g. filing joint tax returns) have reference to spouses.

The legal issue is whether the government can refuse to legally recognize same-sex couples as spouses while granting such recognition to opposite-sex couples. So far no one has been able to give a cogent reason why it should be able to do so.
...

God forbid the courts use a little common sense. Who was the spouse? Is it even disputed? Don't a lot of people know, who can be witnesses? Did they live in the same house? Same with kids.

Your basic argument is that government has created uses for something it created in the first place. Circular logic that defies the basic rule that government always expands itself.

[Sonny Tufts]

God forbid the courts use a little common sense. Who was the spouse? Is it even disputed? Don't a lot of people know, who can be witnesses? Did they live in the same house? Same with kids.

Many states got rid of the concept of a common law marriage (which in states that still recognize it is proved by the couple's living together and holding themselves out as husband and wife) because of problems of proof. Mere cohabitation was never enough, nor was having kids. Those states preferred something more objective, like having the couple obtain a marriage license that is signed by someone authorized to conduct a civil marriage and that is filed of record. That way you don't need to find witnesses.

In any event, the government (via its court system) will still be "in the business of marriage" if it is ever called upon to determine who someone's spouse is.

[Anti Federalist]

The legal issue is whether the government can refuse to legally recognize same-sex couples as spouses while granting such recognition to opposite-sex couples. So far no one has been able to give a cogent reason why it should be able to do so.

The hand-wringing arguments posted so far are about as compelling as those given to support anti-miscegenation laws ("God decreed the separation of the races!" "Allowing interracial marriage will corrupt the blood and lead to a mongrel breed of citizens.” "The offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate.” "Interracial marriages are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good.” "Interracial marriage would lead to the father living with his daughter, the son with the mother, and the Turk or Mohammedan, with his numerous wives, establishing his harem at the doors of the capitol.”) In case anyone thinks these are made-up claims, they are actually paraphrases of real ones. See https://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/wp-...2/johnson1.pdf at pages 280-282.

Because two men living together in a romantic relationship is not a marriage.

It is a roommate agreement with co-masturbation features.

Just like a transqueeer is not a woman. And no amount of drugs, surgeries, make up and hormones will ever make him one.

A man and woman living together who have committed themselves to each other unto death, for the primary purposes of raising children to be productive members of a society and maintain a stable home and household, is a marriage.

The "race" argument is a red herring.

There is no such thing as race.

Hommo sapiens are all of one race.

Any male-female pair, from anywhere two places on planet earth, assuming youth and good overall health, can reproduce and bear a fully functioning and fertile child, ethnic traits playing no role whatsoever in that.

Two hommosexuals cannot, therefore they cannot be "married".

To say otherwise was a Marxist plot, and we all fell for it, including myself.

[Snowball]

and what percentage will serve the Antichrist?

stay tuned.

[Anti Federalist]

and what percentage will serve the Antichrist?

stay tuned.

Most.

[Occam's Banana]

Many states got rid of the concept of a common law marriage (which in states that still recognize it is proved by the couple's living together and holding themselves out as husband and wife) because of problems of proof. Mere cohabitation was never enough, nor was having kids. Those states preferred something more objective, like having the couple obtain a marriage license that is signed by someone authorized to conduct a civil marriage and that is filed of record. That way you don't need to find witnesses.

In any event, the government (via its court system) will still be "in the business of marriage" if it is ever called upon to determine who someone's spouse is.

If the fact that government courts might sometimes need to resolve the question of whether someone is or was "married" in order to dispose of some particular matter is sufficient to establish that government is (or should be) "in the business of marriage", then there is literally nothing that government is not (or should not be) "in the business" of, since a definition of any given thing might sometimes need to be addressed in a government court in order to dispose of some particular matter. Thus, if the aforementioned fact warrants the claim that the government is "in the business of marriage", then that claim is capable of meaning pretty much anything at all (or it is essentially meaningless, which amounts to the same thing).

Most marriages have always been in some way explicit, as well as documented and/or witnessed, etc., according to customary sensibilities, traditions, etc. [1] (and this does not for that reason make them any less "objective" than politician-defined marriages). They are perfectly capable of being and remaining so without any need for politicians and bureaucrats to usurp the issue by arrogating to themselves sole (or even any) authority to define or "regularize" the issue for the sake of their own convenience (and power) [2].

If there are those who (due to a lack of such explicitness, documentation, witnesses, etc.) find themselves unable to adequately establish their status as "spouses" to the satisfaction of some court, then that is their problem, not the court's (or, by extension, the government's). Let such people stand as a cautionary example for others, and as an incentive to avoid such problems in case of later disputes (that is, after all, exactly why marriage customs involving documentation, witnessing, etc. came to be adopted in the first place - not because some politicians thought it was a clever new idea no one had come up with before).



[1] Such customs, traditions, etc. may (and almost certainly will) vary from time, place and/or culture to time, place and/or culture. For example, San Franciscans might well have different standards for what constitutes (or suffices to establish) a marriage than Peorians do - and that is just as it ought to be. Let the cosmopolitan be cosmopolitan and let the provincial be provincial. There are virtues and faults to be found in either, and outside of initiations of force or acts of aggression [3], neither should be permitted to dictate to the other what it must value (or disvalue).

[2] For example, I am sure it is quite convenient to the state for there to be some state-appointed (or state-approved) persons who are exclusively "authorized to conduct a civil marriage" to the exclusion of all others (especially in order for the state to collect, compile, and control information about private citizens - or to wield greater power over whom is permitted to marry whom, as in the case of anti-miscegenation or anti-gay-marriage policies). I'm just not seeing why it is necessary (as distinct from convenient) in order to be able to adequately establish whether someone is or was married (which is quite able to be done without the involvement of superfluous, specially-authorized bureaucrats).

[3] And even in the matter of "initiations of force or acts of aggression", there will at the very least still be cultural and jurisprudential differences on the margins (e.g., over what are and are not "fighting words"). Libertarians qua libertarians do not and can not have a "theory of everything", and neither do or can the feds (try as they might to the contrary) - and that includes things like "marriage".

[Anti Federalist]

Very good parents, good job.

Now then, do that again tomorrow, and the next day, and the day after that and next week and next month and next year.

Because the people grooming and poisoning and destroying your children do not work only one day or month out of the year.


https://twitter.com/EpochTimes/statu...92833818746882