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.
RSS
Nope...can't say i do.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
...and yet you continue? Again, if you want to believe that, fine, but to me it sounds like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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
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.
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.